Karl Eichwalder wrote:
> Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
>Sure, but they are responsible for actions they are doing. It is okay
>to take pictures of public buildings with logo for big companies
>attached. Readers are allowed to modify those pictures--but they are
>surely not allowed to cut out the logo and use it at will.
>
Use of the logo is really a trademark issue, not copyright. GFDL allows
people to modify, but it doesn't mean they can create modifications that
are illegal for other reasons.
--Michael Snow
"Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> schrieb:
> Is this what we really want and require?
The GNU/FDL requires copying author and version information.
The latter I don't worry about personally, to me it's enough
to say "this is a Wikipedia article from such-and-such date".
Wikipedia is willing to use a backlink instead of the first,
but we cannot stop and should not want to stop mirrors who
solve this requirement differently.
Andre Engels
Anthony wrote:
>I'm in the process of adding the full page histories to the
>McFly page. I'm also going to add a ===References===
>section pointing to the wikipedia article. I've downloaded
>the huge (16 gigs uncompressed) history file. This should
>be finished by the end of the week. Hope this alleviates
>everyone's concerns.
Wow - thanks Anthony. When this gets done I will have to publicly apologize for
saying that you were trolling.
--mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>
>>What about for instance book covers? They are definitely not
>>something you can usually have under a free licence. But fair use
>>probably applies (since the cover isn't the book itself).
>>
>>
>
>What would the "fair use" status of a book cover be in Great Britian?
>In Australia?
>
>I'm asking because I don't know, but I think it's relevant to the
>decision here.
>
May I suggest that we ask ourselves a different kind of question. All
the countries in question are parties to the Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, including the US. It has much
wider acceptance, and only a few countries have not signed on. No issues
with a US-centric fair use doctrine.
Article 10 of the Berne Convention states, "It shall be permissible to
make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made
available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with
fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the
purpose...." This can be a basis for any of us, even outside the US, to
quote text when necessary. Perhaps we could also consider images in this
context. For example, many artists and photographers have collected
works published. Can we say that selecting one picture from such a book,
to illustrate the article on that artist, is a quotation? Can we "quote"
a brief sound file from a CD? Does anyone know if Amazon.com is relying
on this kind of approach, or do they secure permission from every artist
to offer 30-second samples of five songs, as a condition for listing the
merchandise?
>Fair use is an important doctrine, and one that we should defend and
>push for as a natural right. If fair use is legitimate, and would be
>legitimate for virtually every conceivable re-user (i.e. barring some
>silly hypothetical) we should feel comfortable relying on it if it's
>valuable and, as in this case, there is no conceivable alternative.
>
I agree that fair use is helpful, and we should push for wider
acceptance of it in the international arena. If that time comes, I am
confident that Wikipedians will quickly take advantage of the
opportunity to quickly add many images that are newly available.
--Michael Snow
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
>Well, I've got the page histories imported (not the
>actual text, but the author "names" and dates).
Thank you. :) OK - here it goes. I am sorry I depicted your actions before as
trolling.
>As for the ===References=== section, that's
>somewhat temporary. Right now I only link to Wikipedia
>in general rather than the original article.
IMO direct links to each article would be overkill - you already have the
author info and the diffs. The link to wikipedia.org takes care of the
disclaimer. And the mention of Wikipedia is appreciated.
>I still haven't figured out mediawiki enough to get it
>the way I want it through that, and I haven't gotten to
>writing a perl script to go through the whole db yet.
Which reminds me - it would be great to have a command like {{pagename}} output
the page name of the MediaWiki page it is on. Then linking to every Wikipedia
article directly would be super easy for you (if you still want to do that) so
long as {{pagename}} replaced spaces with underscores. This would also be very
useful for MediaWiki messages (such as the copyright infringement notice).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/{{pagename}} is all you would need to have on
every page.
-- mav
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
Andre Engels wrote:
>Having said that, I think requiring that the image must be usable for
>anyone might be overdoing it. I would say, the article including the image
>should be usable for anyone. That is, having the image with a text equal
>to or derived from the Wikipedia text should be ok, just taking the image
>alone out need not be.
>
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.
--Michael Snow
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I find it quite bizarre that the GNU advocates are acting in the same
>
> bullyish members as the RIAA is about "copyright violations". There
> lies no salvation in extremism.
>
When it comes to bullying, perhaps we should also reconsider our hasty,
and sometimes hostile, response to Anthony and McFly about GFDL and
copyright violations.
--Michael Snow
(My mistake, forgot to fix the subject line on that last one.)
Erik Moeller wrote:
> I find it quite bizarre that the GNU advocates are acting in the same
>
>bullyish members as the RIAA is about "copyright violations". There lies
>no salvation in extremism.
>
When it comes to bullying, perhaps we should also reconsider our hasty,
and sometimes hostile, response to Anthony and McFly about GFDL and
copyright violations.
--Michael Snow
Richard Stallman wrote:
> (Jimmy Wales wrote: We are faced with an issue of convenience versus
> freedom when we talk
>
>about licensing images. Because we are a nonprofit charitable
>organization with an educational mission, we can easily get non-free
>licenses to use images.)
>
>This is easily done, but doesn't achieve the goal of building a free
>encyclopedia. There is no help for it; to make a free encyclopedia,
>one must stick to materials that are free.
>
I totally agree.
>(Jimbo again: Because we are a nonprofit charitable
>organization with an educational mission, we can make heavy use of the
>doctrine of "fair use" in the US.)
>
>When applicable, this may be a good solution.
>
>(Clause 7 of the license permits us to combine
>independent works, even proprietary works, and this clearly includes
>aggregating images and articles stored on the same server.)
>
>This is permitted in the sense that it won't violate the GFDL.
>
No disrespect intended, but as far as I know, RMS is not a lawyer. By
promoting the concept of copyleft, he has certainly had a significant
effect on law, but he did have the help of a lawyer, Eben Moglen, to
write the licenses. I would not use this as a legal interpretation. For
one thing, I think RMS would concede he's not an expert in the details
of international copyright law, though he may have learned more about it
than most. Also, may I point out that in software and programming, his
real area of expertise, fair use is a much less significant concept than
for us. So I don't think we should count on RMS to tell us when it's
"applicable" that fair use is "a good solution", especially with the
non-US implications.
RMS is a good person to ask about the spirit of GFDL, and that is
important. To keep that spirit, as he says, we should use free images if
we want to make a free encyclopedia.
--Michael Snow
Brion Vibber wrote:
> What I'm envisioning is an associated site to which non-PD non-GFDL
> but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia could be
> uploaded and linked _from there_ to Wikipedia article names. The page
> display on *.wikipedia.org could see when there's an associated page
> and include a more or less prominent link to the photo/media page.
> (For those familiar with Ward's Wiki, this would be similar to how
> SisterSites links work.)
>
> To summarize:
> * images which can only be justified as "fair use" (for some uses, in
> the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, embedded in
> Wikipedia articles, or included in basic Wikipedia page/media dumps
> * but those images could be made available through Wikimedia's sites
> (for acceptably fair use, in the US) and hyperlinked to Wikipedia
> articles (not inline)
> * redistributors who determined the images were ok could still take them
> * redistributors who might not be able to use them don't have to mess
> with it
>
> Would this be acceptable from legal, moral, and other standpoints?
From a legal standpoint, a separate site might be okay. To be safe, I
would avoid anything that allows non-GFDL images to be printed or
downloaded together with GFDL text.
It probably satisfies most moral concerns, but some purists might still
say we're being intellectually inconsistent by promoting free content
and using non-free images in any form.
From a practical standpoint, shouldn't our energies be focused more on
finding images that qualify as free content, rather than keeping images
we can't use right now? Also, I doubt the site would get used much at
all. Many users would continue with the default of uploading directly,
even if we decide to segregate fair use images elsewhere.
Why not just tell people that if they have non-GFDL images, use an
external link? We already have quite a few of these for paintings and
other museum-type content. A lot of the pictures are from the Internet
anyway, and there are other places to host stuff besides Wikipedia.
--Michael Snow