So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the concept of fair use does not exist.
The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content. (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.) This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial images undermine that goal.
Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse to use copyrighted material". As such, it does not protect you from a legal action and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.
Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki. I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------ Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07
On 1/14/07, rfrangi@libero.it rfrangi@libero.it wrote:
Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the >concept of fair use does not exist.
If you match the rate which en deletes "fair use" material deleting NC material I doubt there will be many complaints.
Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when >they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way.
I can think of a couple ways to do it. Only one requires a software change (commons would have a fit mind).
I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence
Ever read it?
, fair use is a trick,
No it is an affirmative defense under US law.
I would hate to see Wikipedia bend its content to the laws of countries with dubious jurisdiction.
I'm also saddened to see certain language Wikipedias (like Italian) adopt policies that cater to the laws of countries where the language is predominant. If a citizen can't publish or view something because of local laws, it's the citizen's responsibility not to do so, not Wikipedia's. Fair use is no exception in my mind.
This wouldn't even be an argument here if the issue were nudity. Having nudity on Wikipedia represents a big problem for redistribution in certain countries, but no one is posting to foundation-l that Wikipedia should disallow such content when useful and necessary.
Regarding internationalism, one country that inarguably has legal authority over Wikipedia is the United States, simply because of where Wikipedia is hosted and where the Foundation has its offices. It's not anti-international to recognize this fact.
Gatto Nero wrote:
, fair use is a trick,
No it is an affirmative defense under US law.
That's the matter. We *don't* live all in USA. And Wikipedia is not an USA products. We should think internationally.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/14/07, David Strauss david@fourkitchens.com wrote:
I would hate to see Wikipedia bend its content to the laws of countries with dubious jurisdiction.
I'm also saddened to see certain language Wikipedias (like Italian) adopt policies that cater to the laws of countries where the language is predominant. If a citizen can't publish or view something because of local laws, it's the citizen's responsibility not to do so, not Wikipedia's.
Er takeing this position to it's logical conclusion there are rather a lot of people around who whom it would be legal to call for the assination of the US president. Throw in the various countries with ah slightly non standard age of consent laws and you have a problem
Fair use is no exception in my mind.
Do you want to try this line of argument on the RIAA when they come asking why wikipedia is hosting all this 50 year old music?
This wouldn't even be an argument here if the issue were nudity. Having nudity on Wikipedia represents a big problem for redistribution in certain countries, but no one is posting to foundation-l that Wikipedia should disallow such content when useful and necessary.
In the context wikipedia uses it is generaly isn't a problem.
Regarding internationalism, one country that inarguably has legal authority over Wikipedia is the United States, simply because of where Wikipedia is hosted and where the Foundation has its offices. It's not anti-international to recognize this fact.
No but it is anti-international to use large amounts of non free content. About 300K items last I looked.
rfrangi@libero.it schreef:
So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the concept of fair use does not exist.
The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content. (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.) This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial images undermine that goal.
Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse to use copyrighted material". As such, it does not protect you from a legal action and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.
Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki. I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.
Roberto (Snowdog)
Hoi, It is true that people are not forced to do much at all. It is however plain that it is the users themselves who are liable under their law for what they do. It is also quite plain that it is exactly the people who include non free material that will prevent the material to be used in other formats like print. This last reason is why it is so harmful to our aim when people only think Internet.
NC is not a license. Non commercial is an option that you can pick as part of a Creative Commons license. Saying that "fair use" is just a trick is a misrepresentation as well, it is legal under some laws and not under others. When the Italian law does not allow "fair use" and you upload a picture and mark it as "fair use", it is you who can be successfully sued.
Thanks, GerardM
It doesn't matter what you consider a "trick." Fair use and licenses are both legal concepts with equal importance.
A country banning fair use is tantamount to censorship because it bans essential forms of parody, criticism, and discussion. Those are essential freedoms -- historically and philosophically. In the same way that Wikipedia doesn't censor itself for China, it shouldn't stop exercising fair use just because some countries don't allow it.
As for non-commercial images, show me *one* you can't replace with a free alternative. Non-commercial images are generally a convenience.
And if you find an image that is non-commercial and has no alternative for discussing a topic in an article, you now have the possibility of fair use, anyway.
rfrangi@libero.it wrote:
So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the concept of fair use does not exist.
The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content. (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.) This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial images undermine that goal.
Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse to use copyrighted material". As such, it does not protect you from a legal action and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.
Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki. I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.
Roberto (Snowdog)
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Perhaps we should require fair use justification for non-commercial media. Of course, this would be a per-Wikipedia issue, not a Foundation one.
Requiring fair-use justification for non-commercial images forces one of two outcomes: 1) The non-commercial image is revealed to be non-essential or replaceable with a free image. The non-commercial image is replaced with something free. 2) The non-commercial image is justified as essential, and people can redistribute the Wikipedia article (and its media) under fair use, non-commercial use, or both.
David Strauss wrote:
It doesn't matter what you consider a "trick." Fair use and licenses are both legal concepts with equal importance.
A country banning fair use is tantamount to censorship because it bans essential forms of parody, criticism, and discussion. Those are essential freedoms -- historically and philosophically. In the same way that Wikipedia doesn't censor itself for China, it shouldn't stop exercising fair use just because some countries don't allow it.
As for non-commercial images, show me *one* you can't replace with a free alternative. Non-commercial images are generally a convenience.
And if you find an image that is non-commercial and has no alternative for discussing a topic in an article, you now have the possibility of fair use, anyway.
rfrangi@libero.it wrote:
So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the concept of fair use does not exist.
The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content. (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.) This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial images undermine that goal.
Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse to use copyrighted material". As such, it does not protect you from a legal action and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.
Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki. I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.
Roberto (Snowdog)
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom http://click.libero.it/infostrada14gen07
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
rfrangi@libero.it wrote:
So, I'm against using non-commercial images unless we're using them under fair use because we don't have a substitute.
If we use a fair-use image, a commercial organization can at least take whole Wikipedia pages and re-use them. On the contrary, non-commercial images must be removed if they don't meet fair-use criteria.
Fair use images have to be removed as well if you reuse the contents in places where the concept of fair use does not exist.
Not necessarily. It depends on the origin of the image. If the image is owned by an American of an American subject he should not get greater protection in Italy than he does in his own country.
The key here is that we're producing a free-content *encyclopedia* on Wikipedia, not a free library of the media used to create the content. (Wikimedia Commons *is* a project creating a free library of media.) This means the final goal is free-content articles. Non-commercial images undermine that goal.
Fair use undermine that goal as well. Fair use is not a license, is "an excuse to use copyrighted material". As such, it does not protect you from a legal action and in the end a judge will decide if an image is used "fairly" or not.
Fair use is neither a licence nor an excuse; it is an exception to copyright. Nothing protects anyone from a legal action by a determined complainer, not even being excessively cautions in applying the law. If a judge decides that it was not used fairly, then it was not fair use. This does not negate the idea of fair use; it just means that the claim was factually incorrect.
Beside that, please understand that you can't force a community to abandon NC's, when they consider fair use as being worse than NC. No way. As long as fair use will be allowed on en.wiki, NC's will be allowed on it.wiki. I wish both will not be accepted, but NC is a licence, fair use is a trick, so for what concerns me, if the latter stays, the former will stay as well.
Fair use is not a "trick" One should not depend on the other.
Ec
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org