http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#test
This is a nice summary of the "4 factor" fair use test.
Here's my interpretation of how we would argue for fair use in the
case of a photograph of a still-copyrighted artwork, like a painting
or sculpture in a museum.
1. What is the character of the use?
Our use is nonprofit and educational. Because the photo of the artwork would
naturally be accompanied by an article about the artwork, our use is criticism
and commentary. Notice that even commercial use can be o.k., if the use is
generally educational, commentary, criticism.
2. What is the nature of the work to be used?
In general, this factor will not help us. The nature of the work is
'imaginative'. I'm not sure if a work of art in a museum is
considered 'published' from this perspective or not.
3. How much of the work will you use?
Here we are in very good shape. A small web image of a statue or a
painting is a relatively small use. A recent U.S. Appeals court
decision (Arriba) said that search engines can use thumbnails of web
photos that are copyrighted, for example, in Google's image search.
This is similar. A small web image is not a full and complete reproduction
of the work.
4. If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on
the market for the original or for permissions?
This seems to lean heavily in our favor. It seems unlikely that our
use would detract from the market for the original or for permission
for real reproductions (posters and the like), so long as our images
are kept small. If we offered massive and extremely accurate digital
files which would permit the end user to print a nice poster, this
would weigh against us.
But a small web image is not going to damage the market for posters.
--Jimbo
The old software knew that 99.9% of the time humans don't _really_ mean
it when they put a comma, period, or other such item of punctuation
immediately after a URL, but that these are rather intended as, well,
punctuation.
The new phase III software trusts us more; URLs that are followed
immediately by punctuation (period, comma, paren, semicolon, etc) now
include this punctuation in the hyperlink, which leads to a lot of
broken external links where URLs are put casually into text,
particularly on talk pages.
Bug or feature? You decide!
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ wikipedia-Bugs-584804 ] URL followed by punctuation->broken link
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:34:59 -0700
From: noreply(a)sourceforge.net
To: noreply(a)sourceforge.net
Bugs item #584804, was opened at 2002-07-22 02:04
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=411192&aid=584804&group_i…
Category: Page rendering
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Brion Vibber (vibber)
Assigned to: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker)
Summary: URL followed by punctuation->broken link
Initial Comment:
If a URL is put directly into article text, and is
followed immediately by a punctuation character, that
character is in many common cases misparsed as part of
the URL. This usually results in a 404 or other
page-not-found error when a user clicks on the link.
Example:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBoxhttp://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox"
both render and parse correctly, and the link is
clickable. The quote mark is not parsed as part of the
link.
But:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox.
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox,
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox:
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox;
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox!
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox?http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/SandBox)
all include an extra character on the end, resulting in
failure when the link is followed. This is contrary to
the functionality of software phase I and II, and will
break a lot of links to external sites, particularly in
talk pages but also in some articles. (Note that the
question-mark link here in fact works by happy
coincidence, but is still incorrectly included in the
URL where it really oughtn't to be.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker)
Date: 2002-07-22 10:16
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=3076
This was brought up before, and I rejected it, because things
like commas and periods are perfectly legal URL characters;
it would be wrong to not to parse them as such. But I'm
willing to be swayed by consensus here--if the community
really thinks we /should/ do it "wrong" and leave out
punctuation in certain contexts, I'll do that. But it will have to
be defined precisely and agreed upon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Brion Vibber (vibber)
Date: 2002-07-22 10:34
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=446709
Yes, those are all valid characters in URLs. However,
they're all _very_ rare at the _end_ of URLs, yet very
common as punctuation in English text. Some people will
deliberately leave a space after a URL before using
punctuation on the assumption that some stupid piece of
software is going to try to make a link that includes the
punctuation, but this is A) ugly and B) not done often
enough that we ought to rely on it.
People _do_ put punctuation immediately at the end of links,
and they seem to expect that the software will _not_ give
them a 404 error because of it... especially the software
has been handling the case correctly for as long as they've
used it.
Not taking this fact into account violates the principle of
least surprise and breaks far more links than it corrects
(if any). On the rare occasion that a URL actually ends in
one of the above characters, we have the [URL URL] syntax.
I'm forwarding this bug report to wikipedia-l for a group vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=411192&aid=584804&group_i…
FYI, I did ask the Catholic Encyclopedia web editor for permission when
the same issue came up probably about a year ago. I didn't get a reply,
if I recall correctly. It's worth trying again, but I doubt they have a
nice view the prospect of the encyclopedia's content being included in
Wikipedia.
If we feel we don't have one, it would be good to get a definitive view on
such issues, when they arise, from a lawyer, and then just proceed
regardless of what New Advent says (or fail to say).
Larry
Wow, I don't remember that one. It could have its use, but sometimes even complete nuts make the occasional sensible edit.
kq
You Wrote:
>correct me if I'm worng, but I seem to recall a feature
>in the UseMod software where one could revert all changes
>done by one user or IP. it would seem quite usefull in this
>case.
>
>regards,
>WojPob
>
Neil Harris wrote:
>(Name of issue here) is a [[controversial issue]], with widely differing
>points of view... &c.
"'''Evolution''' is a [[controversial issue]],
with widely differing points of view."
"The '''theory of relativity''' is a [[controversial issue]],
with widely differing points of view."
"The '''heliocentric model of the solar system''' is a [[controversial issue]],
with widely differing points of view."
I think that an honest admission, in '' like disambiguation page notices,
that the article is not *yet* NPOV is preferable.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
Mav wrote:
>I see no need to block users like Zoe or Jheijmans or Enchanter etc. from
>editing the Main Page, copyediting and condensing policy pages (which is
>/badly/ needed for some of them BTW) or administratively moving articles.
>These users and many others have more than enough experience with our
>policies, naming conventions and such to be trusted to do semi-sensitive
>work
>like that. Heck, Zoe and Jheijmans already meet the requirements for being
>sysops; they are trusted members of the community, and they contribute to
>policy discussion (although trusted, I don't remember Enchanter
>contributing
>to this list on a regular basis -- I may be wrong...).
You are absolutely right that I have never written to the list (though I
have been reading your every word...). So hi to everyone!
Personally I think the current situation where most users are blocked from
editing the policy pages is OK. For important policy pages like, say, NPOV
or naming conventions, I don't think anyone (including administrators)
should be making changes without discussing them first, either here on the
list or the talk page. By having only a limited number of administrators
able to make the change, we make it more likely that policy changes and
other changes will be discussed properly before being implemented.
If a non-administrator has a suggestion for a new or revised section on,
say, a naming convention, they can post their suggestion on the talk page.
When people have had time to make any comments an admin can then make the
change in the subject page. Where more substantial editing is needed, we
could create a page like, say, "Proposed draft of neutral point of view" for
people to work on before making the change to the official page.
It would be nice if the article moving feature were available to all users
though. I don't know much about how it currently works, but in theory it
should be possible to implement it so that there is no danger of it deleting
any articles or history. In that case it would be safe for anyone to use, as
any mistakes could be reversed.
Tim (the Enchanter)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Brion VIBBER wrote:
>Crop final punctuation from links: Brion, Tony
Tut, tut, shouldn't misspell your supporters' names, Brian ^_^.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
Someone calling himself "Jerrydon" has again uploaded a picture of some scene
at a ball field, and this time added the comment "foto van een oefenwedstrijd
van NEC". I cannot identify the game, and it's not used on any of the pedias,
so I'm deleting it again. What does the comment mean?
phma
Pierre Abbat wrote:
>Road Runner addresses are generally dynamic, though people who leave their
>computers on all the time get the same address for months. You may want to
>complain to abuse(a)rr.com and ask them to lart the vandal. This one appears to
>be in Albany, New York.
I'm not really comfortable writing to abuse addresses myself
and speaking for the community or appearing to.
I guess that I'll unblock the dynamic RR address
when maveric149 unblocks the similar one that he did.
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>
Tarquin wrote:
>Yes, but the width of the browser window itself should be much less:
>http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?TenWordLine
That explains why I like to read Wikipedia with my browser at half screen.
I always rationalised that it was so I could look at another article
(or web site) while editing, but there's more to it than that.
You are absolutely right!
-- Toby Bartels
<toby+wikipedia-l(a)math.ucr.edu>