Yann Forget a écrit:
Hi,
Then, for the end user, what is the difference with fair use?
if the end user is the one reading wikipedia, there is *no* difference.
If the end user is one who want to reuse the content in particular in a commercial project, it is likely that it will make little difference as well. If the image is properly labeled, it is his choice to take a risk in using a fair use image (for commercial reasons...), and his choice to contact the copyright owner of a "under permission" picture. And likely he won't have the permission.
However, if the end user is one wanting to use the image for a personal website, or an educational website, I would rather recommand him not to his the fair use image. However, we may strongly suggest him to contact the copyright owner, to obtain permission to reuse the image. I guess that in case of personal websites, and educational ones, the permission will probably be granted quite easily, and the user will take benefit of this image use. In many websites, some pictures are displayed under copyright, but it is mentionned that with a link to the original picture, or mention of the original author, and just by asking, one may get the permission. I did that a couple of times (for wikipedia as well, for content), and I finally got the full freedom to use the content quite easily.
In short, it is not perfect, but ihmo, with permission is sometimes better than no pictures at all. It requires more work from the end user, but if they really want it, it is better than no image at all.
You should look at the small argument I had with Rinaldum about this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia:Pages_soup%E7onn%E9es_de_copyright
:-) I had a lot of pleasure reading that :-) I somehow agree with both of you on some points.
Because, if I am glad to offer my images under gfdl as a recognised author, I do not agree that my images are now registered as under copyright by Anthony DiPierro, with my name gone, perhaps for him to make money over my work.
Now that's very bad. we should take this case (and others of the same kind) seriously.
Taking it seriously should mean taking position all together as a group. Not just answering people it is their problem.
I agree with that. What do we do now? Yann
Well, I talked about it with Anthony. And his comments were doubled.
First, he said he was willing to try to import history of articles, history of image upload. But some people say he won't do that. If he is really willing and able to do that, that settles the case.
He also said that that since I was only a pseudonyme, and a very minor editor, I had no say whatsoever, and there was no reason I be given any credit for the work I gave to Wikipedia. The credit of my work, be it in articles I wrote nearly alone or with other minor editors, or be it in pictures I took hours to get right, and that are entirely my work alone, was to be offered to the five main editors of Wikipedia, as a unique document.
I guess I have the choice between admitting my work as a photographer and as an editor was in reality entirely done by Maverick, Brion, André, Brian and Anthony himself.
Or I have to take care of protecting a little credit for the 2 years of hard work I offered to Wikipedia project myself. I would not feel so insulted I think if I were sometimes praised about what I do as an editor :-) But no praise, job credit given to other people, and perhaps even my images under Anthony copyright now, I find a little hard to swallow. So I could 1) pay an american lawyer or 2) try to see how I can get the website down myself or 3) behave like a vandal in his place.
Admitely, I like option 2, but option 3 might be fun :-)
Still, Anthony admitted that he did not care getting sued, since that would bring him fame.
Seriously, (do not hit me :-)), we should finally do this french association asap, so we can at least try to protect the french wikipedia before it is too late.