Florence wrote:

> * Legal issues (saturday morning). Planning of the most urgent things to > deal with, in particular but not restricted to, trademarks, licence > inforcing, domain names, privacy policy...

I would like to suggest that it would be nice if the board could also formulate an advice to the projects concerning the use of non-commercial images? That has been endlessly debated on many projects (esp. the Dutch Wikipedia) and any kind of advice would be immensly helpful.

Dear David, knowing the Dutch language Wikipedia-community, I think almost everybody will agree with me that it is no "easy" community. some communitymembers are now trying to approve a non-free license on the Dutch language Wikipedia, the CC-NC. This license is imcompatible with the GNU FDL, and I think that it is, due to GFDL, not allowed to use it on Wikipedia on articles. It is not something to have an opinion about really, it is or it isn't allowed by GFDL. You can at most have another view on the license. I think it is very very important that the Foundation makes it clear for once and for ever what licenses are acceptable on the Wikimedia projects. It is very hard to explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of fair use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.

In the Dutch language community we have actually not a single expert on the area of copyright and licenses. I doubt lot of other communities have. (With an expert I mean someone who has studied law and is specialized in that aera) So at the end people like you and me have to make this kind of fundamental choises about licenses, even though we do not know what exactly we are talking about, we are just guessing. (just assuming you are not one of those experts, by coincidense) A lot of small communities are struggling with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help those communities, to help especially the Dutch language wikipedia-community in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal advice with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would require in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from above, although I am usually no big fan of that. So I second heartely Hay's request, please bring some light in the darkness, and let the blind people see again.

explain to people why one project thinks the use of NC (not to speak of fair use) is allowed, and why other projects state it isnt. It's not even a question of local law, it is about what is allowed by the GFDL license.

with this, and I think it would be very wise of the Foundtaioin to help those communities, to help especially the Dutch language wikipedia-community in this, as we have already enough to fight over, by getting a legal advice with an expert, and make a choise in result of that. An advice would require in my opinion a same amount of efford, so I really urge to "rules" from above, although I am usually no big fan of that.

You're right abut that, but we do we have a similar page on the Dutch Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Beleid_voor_gebruik_van_media (literally translated: Policies on the use of media) It's basically just a short introduction to the most important rules (every image on Wikipedia should be allowed to distribute, copy, modify, even for commercial purposes) and a few 'Frequently Asked Questions'. I might translate this someday to English, it might be a nice addition to Commons:Licensing.

We have far too few active Dutch translators on Commons. Actually none, considering the fact that I do not much translation stuff.

No projects allow NC, do they? English Wikipedia hasn't allowed them for some time.

Brianna Laugher wrote: The Italian language wikipedia allows a plethora of licenses for images, included NC, copyrighted with permission (we ask the copyright owner to mail OTRS for this) and some cases of fairuse as allowed by the Italian law. We do also allow PD images with are not allowed on commons.

It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for commons. This is the situation, we don't want to remove all the images that are into the databases becous often a picture is essenctial to understand or to describe a particular concept. Senpai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week the commons. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I studied deep and deep the italian legislation about copyright (i work in a legal office) and our law it's really hard to pass. The civil law have a completely different "modus operandi" by the common law. Other thing... in en.wiki u use fair use... but fair use it's not "free" and it's not usable in every country.

The English Wikipedia is actually a bad example, when it comes to copyright, exactly because of the fair use. If you want an example, see how the Polish or German Wikipedias deal with copyright. No fair use, no non-commercial images, strictly free content.

On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com> wrote: less than 1000 of each less

That isn't quite the case.

On 13/01/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: Keeping aside the "fair use text quotations" (what the??), are you sure you're speaking for everyone when you say "we" there? Somehow I feel certain I'm not the only one who would like to get rid of fair use on en.wp, and envisages a happy English Wikipedia future without this crutch. cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 1/13/07, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com> wrote: You see, this exactly the very reason why on it.wikipedia non free licenses are allowed, i.e. because there are things that cannot be illustrated with free images because the copyright on these images is all they're worth to their owner. Fair use is one (legitimate, IMHO) way of going round this, asking for permission to use the same thing is another, where you have the added bonus that the copyright owner has agreed so she cannot sue you for copyright violation. Unfortunately, not all legislations allow fair use in the same way (newspapers have a wider access to "diritto di cronaca" - right to tell, which is quite similar to fair use to me). For example, if an article discusses the controversy between Apple's I agree, but this does not make those images free. Marco aka Cruccone _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I think snowdog made an excellent point in this discussion. NC is more free as Fair Use. So a direct consequence would be that NC should be allowed on Wikipedia. Even educational use only is more free. So if we choose for fair use in the long run, we have to be fair ourselves, and accept those as well. (To be clear: I am totally against allowing either NC, either educational-only either fair use). It just might very well be that the GFDL is worthless then, and when people are talking about throwing out our principles, what is more our principle then free licences?

On 1/12/07, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco(a)gmail.com> wrote: less than 1000 of each less That isn't quite the case. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

This is the situation, we don't want to remove all the images that are into the databases becous often a picture is essenctial to understand or to describe a particular concept.

It's the only way to have some images in the italian articles. We have a lot of restrictive legislations and we can't use the fair use. For example, we can go in a museum and take some pictures of a painting but, we can't publish into wikipedia without the permission of the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali"; some days ago the "sovraintendenza ai beni culturali" of florance have threated us for the photos of some painting and ohter kind of arts taked into the florence's museums; perhaps will be a problem also for commons.

For other thing... i qoute Snowdog, if u want a free wikipedia, REALLY free... ok u have to abandon the fair use, and we will abandon all not free images.

senpai wrote: Commons is a different project, and there is some sense to their stricter rules. Unless I misunderstand something "PD-Italy" means that it is in the public domain in Italy. (Has Italy accepted for copyrights to last for life + 70 years, like the rest of the EU, or is it still life + 50?) If it is in the public domain in Italy I don't see why you can't just upload it directly to it:wp instead of putting it into commons. If Italian law does not allow you to photograph a painting by Botticelli in the museum in Florence this has nothing to do with copyright, but is something else. I think that many people will not accept that because they see it as some kind of blackmail. What the Italian language project does, and what the English project does have nothing to do with each other. In Mexico copyrights last for 100 years after a person's death. Keeping everyone back because one country has such a longer term makes no sense. Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The problem is, that, some people here in ML, said that we can't use not free images. A picture that is PD only in the italian territory is, for some persons that have writed here, not free. The only thing that is important to me is the equity by the different language projects. If en.wiki can use the fair use images (that are not free) we must can use the "authorized" images and the CC-NC. Senpai ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge(a)telus.net> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board meeting in Rotterdam later this week _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified. Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* for fair-use media?

David Strauss wrote: To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC tag because fair use is helpless to me. I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)? Marco

ND=No Derivatives. (and not: no deviations) This means no derivative is allowed. For example, you can not combine the image with another. Most press photos are ND: they can be freely distributed, but not altered. What you suggest is to accept a large category of images which can be used as the illustration of an article, and which seemingly can be distributed freely, but for which the copyright holder keep the claim to full copyright, and which can not be combined, modified at the borders to suit to a particular layout, where it is not allowed to take a cut of it and use that, and so on. Freedom will be much more restricted than you at first imagine. teun On 1/15/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > "Fair use" is a construct that exists under the US-American law. It does > not exist in exactly the same way under another law. In the Netherlands > for instance there is the more restrictive "citaatrecht". When you > compare "fair use" with "non commercial", you are comparing two things > things that cannot be compared as they are so different. > > The argument that "NC" is the freest that you can get makes no > difference really. It puts a restriction to the distribution to our > content. Distribution of our content is what we aim to do. > > To me the argument would be different for "ND" or no deviations. This is > a restriction that does not prevent distribution of our content. The > purists will argue that it restricts what you can do with it. That is > true, however what they ignore is that there is content where it is not > possible to have it made to us available. Trademarked logos for instance > cannot be made available under anything but a ND restriction and > probably some other restrictions as well, doing otherwise would destroy > the rights of the trademark holder. At this moment logos are published > under "fair use" or something like this. > > Personally I do think that the dogmatic way in which this issue is > ignored is ridiculous. I know of several organisations including the WMF > itself that would be helped with a license that would recognise this and > that would be acceptable on Commons. > > Thanks, > GerardM > > > Marco Chiesa schreef: > >> David Strauss wrote: >> >> >> >>> While I think fair use media is more integral to the English Wikipedia's >>> content than you do, I agree with your reasoning. Whether or not we >>> allow fair use, non-commercial media is unjustified. >>> >>> Can everyone here agree that non-commercial media is not a *substitute* >>> for fair-use media? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a >> copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the >> justification that there's not much else you can do. Now, what is the >> problem if, in order to illustrate the same thing, you use a NC media >> because that's the freest you can get. You're using a NC material that >> you think it qualifies as fair use. You put a fair use tag, I put a NC >> tag because fair use is helpless to me. >> >> I agree that if you can have a free media for something, then you >> shouldn't use a non-free one. And I can understand the idea that if you >> need to illustrate something for which no free media is available, you >> may consider using a non-free one using a fair use justification. What >> is the problem if THAT media for which you claim fair use has a licence >> which is not free enough (i.e. a NC tag)? >> >> Marco

The point of ND is that it does not allow to change material in such a way that they do not accurately reflect what was originally there. When for editorial reasons a picture is changed, typically there does not need to be a problem. One reason why I would insist on ND is to prevent the barbarism of people changing the colours in art.

In theory, we require that material used under fair-use has full source and copyright details. It would seems sensible to interpret this to cover including a reference to any non-free license or conditions, of whatever form, if there is one.

On 17/01/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Any fair use image without these needs to be marked for immediate attention and then deletion if not remedied. "Fair use" is fair use in a given context (hence the {{fairusein}} template). I'm a great fan of fair use images on en:wp when used properly - quoting images is as important to being able to discuss things at all as quoting text is - but as far as I can tell, really quite a lot of the allegedly "fair use" images on en:wp should be taken out and shot.

I'm fine with book and album covers in an article substantially dealing with the book or album or its cover specifically - that's clearly fair use. It's when e.g. it's a general illustration on an artist article that it's pushing it.

On 1/17/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Why? If you want to view images as quotes then their use only makes sense when the article talks about the images.

On 17/01/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: No, that's an illustration of the thing actually being talked about that can't really be substituted (the way a picture of a living person can). My favourite example is [[Xenu]]. I think the BBC and South Park screencaps could be lived without, but the book covers, Sea Org logo and snippet of Hubbard's handwriting are entirely relevant fair use in an educational article about Xenu.

I took a look at the xenu article and dont see any reason for including the bbc screen shot. Likewise, the artcile remains perfectly understandable without the book covers and handwriting. Hence, there is no need to include these fair use images, and make the article undistributable in large parts of the world.

So the question is: what do we pursue: the dream of a free content, or a compromise which add some chrome/culture but inhibits the free spreading of knowledge?

teun spaans wrote: I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair use. What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've provided one that they could have kept in. But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none. -Mark

teun spaans wrote: I'm not sure it really inhibits the free spread of knowledge in that case, since a reuser who prefers not to or can't rely on fair use can always distribute the same article with the fair-use pictures removed---this can even be done automatically since we tag them as fair use. What *would* inhibit free knowledge in this case is if we used a fair-use picture where a free one was available, since in that case we'd be forcing this kind of user to remove a picture when we could've provided one that they could have kept in. But if it's a choice between providing no picture at all, and providing a picture that some large subset of users (but not all) can use while the rest can automatically remove it, I don't see why it *hurts* free knowledge to provide the optional image rather than none.

David Strauss wrote: To be honest, I agree only to a certain point. Fair use means using a copyrighted media without asking the permission to the owner, with the justification that there's not much else you can do.

2007/1/15, David Strauss <david(a)fourkitchens.com>om>: It's not a substitute, but I don't think it's worse. Fair use means that the picture can be used by Wikipedia on a specific page in a specific way because we don't need permission. Non-commercial means that Wikipedia can use it, as well as anyone using Wikipedia non-commercially, however they please because we have permission. I'm not happy with the second, but it surely is closer to what we want than the first.