Sascha Noyes wrote:
I see two factions here. The "no fair use" faction, and the group that wants to allow fair use. As far as I can tell, the "no fair use" insists on getting rid of every single fair use image, which would include the examples that I and others have named. (My Lai massacre, Tinament Square, etc.) The pro-fair use group seems to want to offer a compromise: Only use fair use images for circumstances where GFDL images are impossible.
But is anyone really arguing for absolutely no fair use in any circumstances? I don't think that's a defensible position for at least these reasons:
1. Even quotes from books are done under 'fair use' and no one is suggesting (I hope) that we can't even quote from books. But if we can quote from a book we can also "quote" from a movie (by using a single still from a longer work, for example) or other work.
The conditions under which we can and should do so are murky, due to the vagaries of copyright law and our interest in complying usefully with the laws of many nations at the same time, without compromising our integrity of course.
But "never under any circumstances" doesn't strike me as a remotely plausible position.
2. The "hardliners" (of whom I count myself one) are hardliners in part because of a certain set of views on copyright. These views ought to lead us to want to _expand_ the doctrine of fair use. Therefore, we *want* fair use, we want to rely on it, we want to use our position of influence to break down the myth that just because something is copyright, it's entirely untouchable.
--Jimbo