Tokerboy has uploaded a bunch of record album covers, without permission of the various copyright holders. I don't have the time or the sysop privileges to delete them, so can someone else. Cheers
They should have the same "fair use" status as Isis's videotape box covers: as long as they're just being used to illustrate articles about the albums, they're fine.
lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Tokerboy has uploaded a bunch of record album covers, without permission of the various copyright holders. I don't have the time or the sysop privileges to delete them, so can someone else. Cheers
They should have the same "fair use" status as Isis's videotape box covers: as long as they're just being used to illustrate articles about the albums, they're fine.
I agree with this, particularly if they are of a size suitable for illustration, and not suitable for full-scale "pirated" reproduction.
Fair use can be tricky in some cases, but this one seems pretty straightforward to me.
--Jimbo
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Tokerboy has uploaded a bunch of record album covers, without permission of the various copyright holders. I don't have the time or the sysop privileges to delete them, so can someone else. Cheers
They should have the same "fair use" status as Isis's videotape box covers: as long as they're just being used to illustrate articles about the albums, they're fine.
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
Imran
Comments? I think Imran has a point.
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 lcrocker@nupedia.com wrote:
Tokerboy has uploaded a bunch of record album covers, without permission of the various copyright holders. I don't have the time or the sysop privileges to delete them, so can someone else. Cheers
They should have the same "fair use" status as Isis's videotape box covers: as long as they're just being used to illustrate articles about the albums, they're fine.
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
Imran
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Comments? I think Imran has a point.
How about adding a column img_license to the image table and requiring the user to specify a license during upload:
* Public domain image * Copyrighted, used with permission * Fair use * FDL * FDL-compatible license (could be listed individually, if we have such a list)
That way, we can keep track of the licenses in use and remove all images under a specific license if problems with that license arise. We can also add a standard text to pages containing images that are not FDL or PD ("The following images on this page are not licensed under the FDL and may therefore only be distributed, but not modified: foo, bar"). This is much better than manually adding a copyright notice to each and every image, trying to keep track of which images are PD and which are not etc.
This might make things a little more complicated for image uploaders, but we already have a copyright checkbox anyway, so I don't see why we shouldn't use a dropdown instead to gather meaningful information.
Regards,
Erik
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 08:30, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Comments? I think Imran has a point.
Imran Ghory wrote:
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
I am not an IP lawyer, but I've made a careful study of these issues in general and the GFDL specifically, and I've interviewed IP lawyers. Point #1 is the main consideration, and point #3 is the one that people can argue circles around, unless we have any IP lawyers who have dealt with current fair use/DMCA issues.
1. I'm extremely uncomfortable about contaminating the Wikipedia feed with content that can't be used by downstream licensees. If we didn't use any GFDL content ourselves, then we wouldn't be limited by the GFDL conditions, but we do (or at least would like to be able to).
Whatever the case, it's certainly not in the spirit of the GFDL to include non-free (the RMS def.) images.
This is the main consideration.
2. I certainly think that it's crazy to imagine a legal setup in which image use as we do would be forbidden, but we live in a crazy world, with DRM around the corner.
3. Finally, "fair use" is, unfortunately, a defense (Good Faith Fair Use Defense, Section 504(c)(2) http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/504.html). If someone challenges the use of their images, we would have to prove "fair use" in court, after the injunction. The fair use defense is sadly weak.
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
See #4, #7
See also http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm#rules
Note that Wikipedia does not fall under the University of Texas's recommended "safe" fair use examples. See also the section below:
1) publishers clearly believe fair use has time limits;
2) courts seem increasingly willing to let the fourth factor of the fair use analysis trump all the other factors so that where there is a market for permissions, "fair use is negated." This was the position articulated by the majority in the recent MDS decision.
etc. Fair use is not a safe defense.
Imran Ghory wrote:
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
What!? how could this possibly be? Why would the GNU FDL be stricter than ordinary copyright law? If I quote a line from a biography of Winston Churchill in my own FDL biography, why must that be invariant? This doesn't make any sense to me.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
What!? how could this possibly be? Why would the GNU FDL be stricter than ordinary copyright law? If I quote a line from a biography of Winston Churchill in my own FDL biography, why must that be invariant? This doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, now I'm confused about this myself.
--Jimbo
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
What!? how could this possibly be? Why would the GNU FDL be stricter than ordinary copyright law?
To ensure freedom to redistribute.
Otherwise someone could take a GNU FDL document add sections to it, and claim that the additions were taken under "fair use" from another document, now if someone else comes along who wants to modify the additions they wouldn't be able to as the new "fair use" sections wouldn't be governed by GNU FDL.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
What!? how could this possibly be? Why would the GNU FDL be stricter than ordinary copyright law?
To ensure freedom to redistribute.
Otherwise someone could take a GNU FDL document add sections to it, and claim that the additions were taken under "fair use" from another document, now if someone else comes along who wants to modify the additions they wouldn't be able to as the new "fair use" sections wouldn't be governed by GNU FDL.
This is starting to not make sense..How can having something more restrictive possibly enhance freedom to redistribute?
The sections added to the GNU FDL document have nothing to do with "fair use"; they are original work. The original work including the way that the "fair use" material is integrated with it is subject to a new copyright. Then, each time that another Wikipedian comes along and edits that material, that editing too is the subject of a new copyright.
If one of our readers uses "fair use" material from Wikipedia or uses our GNU FDL material on a "fair use" basis, then it is his new fair use claim that is the basis for him to be judged.
There is nothing in fair use that requires use with variations. IIRC the courts have allowed changes for parody as fair use.
Eclecticology
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
What!? how could this possibly be? Why would the GNU FDL be stricter than ordinary copyright law?
To ensure freedom to redistribute.
Otherwise someone could take a GNU FDL document add sections to it, and claim that the additions were taken under "fair use" from another document, now if someone else comes along who wants to modify the additions they wouldn't be able to as the new "fair use" sections wouldn't be governed by GNU FDL.
This is starting to not make sense..How can having something more restrictive possibly enhance freedom to redistribute?
A simpler example: GPL, GPL is more restrictive than public domain but enhances freedom to redistribute.
The sections added to the GNU FDL document have nothing to do with "fair use"; they are original work.
You misunderstand, I wsa trying to give an example which the "fair use" doctrine could be used to exploit the GNU FDL. I could write a document on my computer and then incorporate parts of that document as "fair use" into the GNU FDL articles, no-one else would then be able to modify those sections as they wouldn't be licenced under the GNU FDL.
Imran
The sections added to the GNU FDL document have nothing to do with "fair use"; they are original work.
You misunderstand, I wsa trying to give an example which the "fair use" doctrine could be used to exploit the GNU FDL. I could write a document on my computer and then incorporate parts of that document as "fair use" into the GNU FDL articles, no-one else would then be able to modify those sections as they wouldn't be licenced under the GNU FDL.
Let me see if I'm misunderstanding this correctly! Are you suggesting that you could take an extract from your own previously unpublished original work and claim that the extract was subject to "fair use" rules? IMHO it seems that fair use doesn't apply because you already have the permission of the original author. Who could you (as author and copyright owner) possibly sue for copyright violation? The simple act of putting the material on Wikipedia is what would trigger the application of GNU FDL. Your reasoning would make it impossible for anybody to edit anything at all on Wikipedia, and that seems contrary to the basic intent of the project.
Rclecticology
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The sections added to the GNU FDL document have nothing to do with "fair use"; they are original work.
You misunderstand, I wsa trying to give an example which the "fair use" doctrine could be used to exploit the GNU FDL. I could write a document on my computer and then incorporate parts of that document as "fair use" into the GNU FDL articles, no-one else would then be able to modify those sections as they wouldn't be licenced under the GNU FDL.
Let me see if I'm misunderstanding this correctly! Are you suggesting that you could take an extract from your own previously unpublished original work and claim that the extract was subject to "fair use" rules? IMHO it seems that fair use doesn't apply because you already have the permission of the original author.
Just assume for arguments sake that you had a seperate legal entity who entered it into the article. For instance a dummy organization. The rest of the arguement is sound.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The sections added to the GNU FDL document have nothing to do with "fair use"; they are original work.
You misunderstand, I wsa trying to give an example which the "fair use" doctrine could be used to exploit the GNU FDL. I could write a document on my computer and then incorporate parts of that document as "fair use" into the GNU FDL articles, no-one else would then be able to modify those sections as they wouldn't be licenced under the GNU FDL.
Let me see if I'm misunderstanding this correctly! Are you suggesting that you could take an extract from your own previously unpublished original work and claim that the extract was subject to "fair use" rules? IMHO it seems that fair use doesn't apply because you already have the permission of the original author.
Just assume for arguments sake that you had a seperate legal entity who entered it into the article. For instance a dummy organization. The rest of the arguement is sound.
For it to be sound you and the dummy organization would need to be dealing at arm's length, and not acting collusively. Eclecticology
Imran Ghory wrote:
A simpler example: GPL, GPL is more restrictive than public domain but enhances freedom to redistribute.
We're now talking past each other. Of course the public licenses are more restrictive than public domain. But they're not more restrictive than ordinary copyrights. Making fair use invariant *is*.
-- Toby
Imran Ghory wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
My understanding of the GNU FDL is that we can't incorporate "fair use" material unless we implictly declare those sections as "Invariant Sections".
What!? how could this possibly be? Why would the GNU FDL be stricter than ordinary copyright law?
Otherwise someone could take a GNU FDL document add sections to it, and claim that the additions were taken under "fair use" from another document, now if someone else comes along who wants to modify the additions they wouldn't be able to as the new "fair use" sections wouldn't be governed by GNU FDL.
What's that got to do with invariant sections? What you're describing is modifying an FDL document to make a derivative work. The GNU FDL requires that derivative works be released under the FDL. Therefore, the new "fair use" sections would be part of a document released under the FDL. They don't need to be invariant sections in order for this to work; OTC, if they're included as invariant sections, then they can*not* be modified.
-- Toby
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
The GNU FDL requires that derivative works be released under the FDL. Therefore, the new "fair use" sections would be part of a document released under the FDL.
That's the whole problem we can't release "fair use" material under the GNU FDL as we're not legally capable of allowing people to modify the "fair use" material. The only way to satisfy the legal requirements is for us (a) to declare all "fair use" material as invariant section or (b) not use any "fair use" material.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
The GNU FDL requires that derivative works be released under the FDL. Therefore, the new "fair use" sections would be part of a document released under the FDL.
That's the whole problem we can't release "fair use" material under the GNU FDL as we're not legally capable of allowing people to modify the "fair use" material. The only way to satisfy the legal requirements is for us (a) to declare all "fair use" material as invariant section or (b) not use any "fair use" material.
We don't have to allow them to modify the fair use material, they can modify it anyway! One can *ordinarily* modify fair use, just as I modified Dr. X's statement when I wrote about Churchill. (And one classic example of fair use, parody, is all about modification.)
-- Toby
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Toby Bartels wrote:
Imran Ghory wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
The GNU FDL requires that derivative works be released under the FDL. Therefore, the new "fair use" sections would be part of a document released under the FDL.
That's the whole problem we can't release "fair use" material under the GNU FDL as we're not legally capable of allowing people to modify the "fair use" material. The only way to satisfy the legal requirements is for us (a) to declare all "fair use" material as invariant section or (b) not use any "fair use" material.
We don't have to allow them to modify the fair use material, they can modify it anyway! One can *ordinarily* modify fair use, just as I modified Dr. X's statement when I wrote about Churchill.
Example: (ignoring tm issues)
Take for instance a box cover of some disney movie involving Mickey Mouse, if the box cover was under GNU FDL people could modify the picture and use it for whatever they want, however if instead it was under "fair use" regulation it could be used solely for purposes relating to that movie. Thus "fair use" is non-compatible with the GNU FDL.
However seeing as this arguement doesn't seem to be going anywhere I think we should request a decision on the issue from the FSF.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
We don't have to allow them to modify the fair use material, they can modify it anyway! One can *ordinarily* modify fair use, just as I modified Dr. X's statement when I wrote about Churchill.
Take for instance a box cover of some disney movie involving Mickey Mouse, if the box cover was under GNU FDL people could modify the picture and use it for whatever they want, however if instead it was under "fair use" regulation it could be used solely for purposes relating to that movie. Thus "fair use" is non-compatible with the GNU FDL.
I guess that modification isn't really the issue here then, since they could just as badly take the picture unmodified and then use it for unfair purposes in a different context. I guess that the GFDL lets them use our document as they see fit, but they're still responsible for following other laws, such as respecting trademarks and copyrights of other documents. Should it work to point out when we're making fair use of things, so that they will realise that they can't keep just the picture and throw away the rest of the encyclopaedia -- not because of our copyright (with is free under the GFDL), but because of the original?
However seeing as this argument doesn't seem to be going anywhere I think we should request a decision on the issue from the FSF.
That's fair. How do we go about doing that? Just find RMS's email address on their website?
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org