Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>>Well, you've had disagreements with at least two so far.
>>Though of course, lawyers frequently disagree with each
>>other, too. It's sort of an occupational requirement.
>>
>>
>Actually I agreed with and helped to defend most of Alex's positions -
>including most of his views on using fair use materials in Wikipedia. Our only
>major disagreement was the last one (which turned out to be a misunderstanding
>
Many disagreements are really misunderstandings. Ours was to some extent
as well. It doesn't mean that we will always disagree any more than you
and Alex would. Points of agreement generate less discussion--if I had
agreed with you initially, I wouldn't have piped up at all. Anyway,
disagreement is not the same as disrespect, and you have treated me
respectfully throughout this discussion. I hope you would say the same
of me.
>>We would have to make sure we mention the source
>>and the name of the author.
>>
>>
>Exactly! We have WAY too many images that don't have this type of information.
>IMO, we should stop all uploads and launch a tagging effort. Once that is fully
>underway a form should be added to the upload page that would force uploaders
>to enter text into author, source, and license fields. I consider the current
>situation to be untenable and dangerous to the long term viability to the
>project.
>
Now this, I agree with almost totally. I'm not sure it's necessary to
actually stop uploads completely--that feels really drastic, and perhaps
we could develop the upload form first and then go back and tag the old
images that predate the form.
>To even have a chance of being considered fair, the use *must* give author
>info, no?
>
The way I read the Berne Convention, yes. Fair use law in the US doesn't
necessarily require attribution, because US copyright law historically
has shown less concern for the "moral rights" of authors.
>>I think this can pretty much resolve the issue for text, and
>>an argument can be made to apply it to images and sounds
>>as well.
>>
>>
>Yep. That is my IANAL interpretation. Has this been tested for non-text
>content?
>
I'm not aware if relying on Article 10 has even been tested in the
courts for text. As a practical matter, copyright holders often
calculate that it's not worth the effort to go after this kind of use.
The use may well be considered legitimate, and it tends to be on a
low-level scale anyway.
--Michael Snow