"Caroline Ford" <caroline(a)secretlondon.me.uk> schrieb:
> Sean Barrett wrote:
>
> >>Well, let me make that suggestion then. I would like to remove all
> >>pictures for which:
> >>1. no author or source is known, and
> >>2. there is no good reason to believe they are public domain
> >>
> >>From my own sample, which unfortunately did not get posted on the list
> >>yet (I sent it from another email address, and it is waiting moderator
> >>approval because it is from a non-subscribed address), I think that
> >>this might include as many as 20% of our current images.
> >>
> >
> >If so, then I'm wrong and will immediately change my position. If 20%
> >of our images are from questionable sources, we are in a bad position
> >and need to correct it quickly. Given the large number of images that
> >have no provenance information, perhaps we should rearrange the
> >image-upload process to require uploaders to click through a "where
> >did you get this image" page before they enter the file name. Of
> >course that won't force anyone to enter anything, but it will make it
> >more obvious that they should.
> >
> I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>
> However: the figures have a bias as we have been tagging our own images.
> I have uploaded 193 images, Morwen has uploaded 1224 (a thousand of
> which are her GFDL maps). When I was tagging yesterday's image upload
> log over 50% had no info.
>
> I hope this helps.
Here are my results (the original email is still waited to be accepted).
My sample were the first 100 images (alphabetically) of which the name
starts with E, removing images that were different format copies of one
already in the set, and removing all but one images from two series.
Of these 100:
GNU/FDL: 18 images (6 photographs by uploader, 4 drawings by uploader, 8
drawings obviously by uploader though not so tagged)
Public domain: 37 images (19 US government, 3 clearly US government though
not so tagged, 8 public domain because of age, 4 public domain because of
age though not so tagged, 1 mentioned as 'free of copyright' with source,
2 no copyright mention, but source site mentions, which says its material
is PD unless explicitly stated differently)
==making 55 images clearly without problem==
Fair use: 4 images (only images counted which were explicitly tagged as
'fair use')
Non-commercial: 2 images
Specific permission for Wikipedia: 2 images
Possibly free of copyright: 9 images (1 logo, 2 coats of arms, 4 flags, 1
Go position, 1 very basic outline-style map)
Uncategorizable: 1 sound file (work played is out of copyright, but nothing
was stated about the probable copyright on the recording itself)
==making 18 images with possible problems==
Untagged, but possibly ok: 6 images (1 might be an unmarked own photo, 2
an unmarked own drawing, 2 likely to be from NASA, 1 possible not
copyrightable)
Untagged, no reason to believe ok for any reason other than fair use: 21
images
==making 27 untagged images, obvious own drawings not included==
Andre Engels
"Caroline Ford" <caroline(a)secretlondon.me.uk> schrieb:
> I would say it was greater than 20% from the tagging work we've been doing.
>
> Copyrighted 43
> Fair use 186
> GFDL 1714
> Noncommerical 26
> Public Domain 369
> Unverified 273
>
> Total images tagged so far: 2611 (approx total images 40,000)
> Percentage unverified (images with no info): 10.4%
>
> However: the figures have a bias as we have been tagging our own images.
> I have uploaded 193 images, Morwen has uploaded 1224 (a thousand of
> which are her GFDL maps). When I was tagging yesterday's image upload
> log over 50% had no info.
It was definitely more than 20% untagged. My own number was 25-30% untagged,
but I had _not_ included the following in the untagged percentage:
* Drawings which clearly seemed to have been made 'for the occasion' and
thus would be own work
* Material that was clearly older than 1900
* Flags, logos and weapons
After this, I had rounded down the number even further to allow for images
that were not tagged, but for which the origin was clear fromt the image
itself (my sample included for example two magazine covers).
Andre Engels
Michael Snow wrote:
>My criticism was primarily out of concern
>that people might read your statement as
>reflecting the actual state of the law,
Well IANAL but I do often agree with them and their reasoning.
>especially coming from such a widely
>respected source.
I wish everybody would just take my statements at face value and not add
special significance (good or bad) to what I say just because I said it. It
would make life much easier - especially when I happen to be wrong.
>My point is that Wikipedia's copyright, when it
>incorporates fair use materials, is limited to uses
>that qualify as fair under copyright law. This does
>not affect our ability to protect the copyright in
>Wikipedia content. However, it does severely
>limit our ability to license other people to use
>that content.
Not if their use would also be considered fair.
>When we use material under
>fair use, the GFDL does nothing to force downstream
>users to stick to the same use. In fact, the GFDL
>clearly allows them to make many other uses of
>the material, quite a few of which are highly unlikely
>to qualify as fair uses.
Which uses? If they change the article in a substantial way, then they will
have to make an assessment on whether or not those changes changed the fair use
status of the content we marked as fair use. We do not need to be overly
concerned by the *possible* violation of the law by third parties.
Saying 'all content is available under terms of the GNU FDL' affects the
copyright status of a fair use thumbnail the same way as it affect the
copyright status of a fair use quote: not at all.
If the article we give them is legal for them to use as-is, then that is all we
should be concerned about. Thus the need to tag images based on their status
and to provide different database dumps.
>Ultimately, the GFDL and fair use are incompatible.
No they are not - not any more than any other set of license terms. It doesn't
matter what license terms you have on a work - if you strip away everything but
the fair use content then the use is no longer fair (whatever the license). The
fact that the GNU FDL is involved is irrelevant.
Otherwise we could not even have small quotes from copyrighted works. That is
an absurd notion, IMO.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote
>
>>Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107
>>of the Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside
>>the concept of copyright. It is a defense that may be
>>claimed if the user is accused of copyright infringement.
>>
>>
>
>I was talking about the *use* of fair use materials. It can therefore be used
>more freely - the generic definition, not legal one, of 'public domain'
>
It seems that you're talking about fair use more as an abstract idea. I
have no problem with that, it was just difficult to recognize when the
terms being used also have well-established legal significance, and much
of the discussion has revolved around legal ramifications. My criticism
was primarily out of concern that people might read your statement as
reflecting the actual state of the law, especially coming from such a
widely respected source. If considered in those terms, I felt it was
dangerously misleading.
> (Alex
>and I got into a fight over this very issue).
>
I noticed that.
> Fair use let's people use small
>parts of content owned by others in their own works. The copyright on the
>larger work does not affect the copyright of the fair use selection. Therefore
>the fair use work exists outside the framework of whatever copyright terms the
>larger work is under. Is that clear? I think we failed to communicate on that
>point.
>
It does make it more comprehensible to me. If I understand correctly,
you're talking about whether Wikipedia articles have their own
copyright, even if they incorporate other copyrighted materials under
fair use. They do, and if Alex was suggesting that they don't, I
consider that a purely theoretical argument with no practical significance.
My point is that Wikipedia's copyright, when it incorporates fair use
materials, is limited to uses that qualify as fair under copyright law.
This does not affect our ability to protect the copyright in Wikipedia
content. However, it does severely limit our ability to license other
people to use that content. When we use material under fair use, the
GFDL does nothing to force downstream users to stick to the same use. In
fact, the GFDL clearly allows them to make many other uses of the
material, quite a few of which are highly unlikely to qualify as fair
uses. Ultimately, the GFDL and fair use are incompatible.
I hope that explains where I'm coming from. We probably have been
talking past each other to some extent, and I apologize for any
miscommunication.
--Michael Snow
Peter Jaros wrote:
>How *does* one go about distributing a press release?
Submit the story to as many press outlets in your language as you think are
appropriate (starting as early as Monday - but do make sure your version of the
press release is ready first). Use the talk page of your version of the press
release to coordinate this.
>Is this info on the site somewhere?
Nope - not yet at least.
--mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
> There are people who want to use Wikipedia only online. Lots of them.
> And they may not care much about non-free images. But there are also
> people who want to use Wikipedia's content offline - in books, magazines,
> CDs, etc. Some may even want to print portions of the Wikipedia and sell them.
>
> The problem is - these people can't legally do it if the Wikipedia contains
> such images.
>
> These people wouldn't be able to use your fork.
They would be able to use my fork as long as their use of my fork's
Fair Use material also is Fair Use. Take the Stalin photo. Despite
that in all certainity someone owns that photo's copyright that has
not stopped hundres of book publisher to use it. I therefore don't
understand why they wouldn't be able to use my fork.
> Are you able to see the issue now ?
Let see. The issue seem to be that in theory, someone can be sued for
using Wikipedia material. In reality, that risk seem to be so
infinitely small that all publishers are prepared to take that risk.
BL
> > I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> > (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> > Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> > stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> > them.
>
> Not obeying stupid laws doesn't get them changed; it bankrupts the
> violator from court costs and penalties.
>
> > Be reasonable.
>
> It's easy to be "reasonable" when it's someone else you are driving
> into bankruptcy on your whim.
>
> And not realizing that flagrant violations of the law will not result
> in widespread freedom, but rather the complete disappearance of
> Wikipedia is not reasonable, it is ... well, to use your word: stupid.
Your argument fails on that noone has yet figured out whether
including Fair Use content in Wikipedia is illegal or not.
The whole argument seems to be based on the assertion that someone
someday will copy Wikipedia content that includes copyrighted Fair Use
material (i.e. a photo of Stalin). Put that content in a context in
which it is no longer Fair Use. Then whoever owns the copyright, who of
some reason has not already sued all other companies who has
distributed content in which that photo of Stalin appears, will sue
the downstream user. Who in turn will claim that they relied on WP's
promise that all content is GFDL. Then the court will decide that WP
not only has to remove all fair use images but also that they have to
pay lots of money to the suer. IANAL...
BL
Ok, I'll admit. I have no intentions whatsoever to make a fork at this
time. But what is to say that someone else wouldn't make a fork that
becomes a real competitor to Wikipedia?
It wouldn't be the first time disagreement over copyright has
splintered an "open source" project.
The English Wikipedia might sail safe because duplicating the
productivity and massive size of it is hard. But what about the
smaller languages? In a way that has already happened to the Swedish
Wikipedia. One of the reasons why susning.nu has more than double the
amount of articles that the Swedish WP has is because of their
different licensing.
I'd love to respect Wikipedia's rules. But right now, I don't think
anyone can claim that the rules aren't extremely diffuse. Does WP
allow fair use images? The answers: Yes, No, Maybe, Sometimes.
Maybe if Jimmy Wales does not want any non-GFDL compliant images it is
time for him to put his foot down?
Very hard.
BL
> I think a little courtesy would go a long way. If you have a fork you can
> make different rules especially with respect to images but please respect
> Wikipedia's rules too.
>
> Fred
>
> >> Well, I don't really see it as so much of a race. Sure, we'd like
> >> people to turn to us for information, but as I see it we're just going
> >> to so completely dominate everyone with our information that there
> >> really is no competition. Already most people I know IRL turn to
> >
> > How about I fork Wikipedia. And while you suckas scramble to try to
> > get permission from the probably dead photographer who took the Che
> > Guevara-face photo MY fork has more pictures than playboy. Would your
> > friends still prefer Wikipedia??
> >
> > I want the images. Those who took the images WANT us to use them
> > (provided we reference them). Readers want the images. Mirrors of
> > Wikipedia want the images. The copyright laws are stupid. GFDL is
> > stupid. And the right way to get stupid laws changed is not to obey
> > them.
> >
> > Be reasonable.
Michael Snow wrote:
>Sorry, but if we start conceding that in effect, we are
>combining an article with an image into a single document
>under GFDL, downstream users have to be able to use the
>image alone. We are licensing them to modify the document,
>and potential modification includes stripping out all the text
>and just leaving the image. We cannot restrict downstream
>modification--that's essential to copyleft.
Sorry but fair use exists outside the concept of copyright and thus a fair use
but otherwise non-FDL image in an article can no more become copyrighted under
the GNU FDL than a quote in the same article can (fair use is essentially a
grant into a type of public domain for limited uses). In short, no license can
affect whether or not something is fair to use since it is the *use*, not the
license terms, that determine fairness.
Fair use heavily depends on *use* - illustrating an article would be fine in
many cases (same as using a quote in the text of the article), but once you
strip the article away then the use has changed and the photo (and quote in the
case of text) could not be used in many cases since its use would no longer be
fair.
We just need to tag images used under the various types of fair use. Stuff that
would be fair use for non-commercial and commercial downstream users should
have one tag and stuff that would be fair use for non-commercial use but not
downstream commercial users should have a different tag.
We could then make things easy for commercial downstream users by offering a
different download dump. IMO, that should be of the printable versions of
articles - which would automatically not display images marked with the second,
more restrictive, fair use tag (nor would the images be in the dump). Printable
versions of articles also already have the GNU copyright info and link-back to
the Wikipedia article.
Also remember this (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use )
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
Everybody should also read
[[Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corporation
In that case the Court ruled that the displaying of thumbnails by a search
engine was fair use. This, even though the use was commercial and really wasn't
educational (at least not nearly as educational as using an image to illustrate
an article). It was also substantial in regards the amount of work used (but
not substantial in relation to the quality of images served - since they were
only thumbnails).
So there may be only a handfull of fair use images that we use that would not
also be fair use for commercial downstream users (assuming they use the images
the way we do - to illustrate articles).
--mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
"Sean Barrett" <sean(a)epoptic.org> schrieb:
> > If we have to completely gut our encyclopedia by removing a
> > large percentage of its images....
>
> I hardly think removing even "a large percentage" of our images
> constitutes "gutting" our encyclopedia. And even if it did, no one is
> suggesting removing "a large percentage," just a handful of "fair use"
> borderline cases.
Well, let me make that suggestion then. I would like to remove all
pictures for which:
1. no author or source is known, and
2. there is no good reason to believe they are public domain
>From my own sample, which unfortunately did not get posted on the list
yet (I sent it from another email address, and it is waiting moderator
approval because it is from a non-subscribed address), I think that
this might include as many as 20% of our current images.
Andre Engels