I fear that we wikipedia people loosing time by only clarify what pictures are
possible to use pictures with a "fair use" right, this could be IMHO
restricted by the next lawsuit.
I'm realy alarmed what's going on here in Europe (EU) to avoid a parlamental
discussion and bring "measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of
intellectual property rights", as fast as possible, into law.
First I thougt it would be a danger for creating software, but now after
joining wikipedia, I start to understand, that this new laws are an enemy for
creativity, progress, intellect, art, technologie, science and wealth for our
societies (Or should I say society in singular - Old Europeans, New
Europeans, Americans - there is mutch more connectionals than our Zeitgeist
and medias observe).
It is wrong to think that more restrictive EU-laws will not effect US-laws:
last hundred years copyright has only been enhanced, and mostly with the
argument that other countries do this, too and it would be necessary to
change the law for getting justive and fair chances for the national economic
(But IMHO only for big firms with own layers). So in this point we all do sit
in the same boat, too - not only by all loving to create a free encyclopedia.
To read what the industrie lobby wants, see:
"16 February 2004
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property
"(13) It is necessary to define the scope of this Directive as widely as
possible in order to encompass all the intellectual property rights covered
by Community provisions in this field and/or by the national law of the
Member State concerned. Nevertheless, that requirement does not affect the
possibility, on the part of those Member States which so wish, to extend, for
internal purposes, the provisions of this Directive to include acts involving
unfair competition, including parasitic copies, or similar activities."
What "intellectual property" is, will be defined as weak as posible: it is not
defined at all!
This is a modern story of "Sisyphus": during roling the stone of free
knowledge, we (most of us) do not see, that the mountain of laws become
higher and our way more stony - or our steps is a moving stairway and it is
already moving down. ;(
Before thinking about lincense and "fair use" of pictures, we should consider
what are the difference between picutes, text and software. There was special
reasons for creating another GNU licence, the GNU-FDL, because text and
software are not the same.
-How can we ensure, that the information of the picture will stick to the
picture and make it more believable that this picture is not manipulated?
-How can be one digital signature used for the picture and the information?
-Aren`t there reasons for creating a GNU-Free_Picture/Grafic_Licence?
-Has there already been discussions about his?
-Where can I found archievs of them?
Am Freitag, 20. Februar 2004 14:42 schrieb Richard Stallman:
Because we are a nonprofit
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.
What now hasn`t a lawsuit yet does not mean, it will be a right for "fair use"
in the future. There are US-lobbiees like Bob Goodlattee, or I shoud say
lobby of international corporations, which urge the EU to bring more rigorous
laws for software patents and as weak as possible for "intellectual property
not if the problem is how to make a better free
*g* When it would be our collective aim a better free encyclopedia,
there is a
way to document pictures much better than today. For example compare these
IMHO a picture is more than a visuable information!
When the Wikipedia use "fair used" historical pictures to be more believable,
than would I like to disagree that the picture itself without additional
information would satisfy this.
What, When, Who, Where, Why, How.... all this informations should stick to the
picture. An wikipedia-quality-audit can help to declare all this informations
- but how can we ensure that every user outside of the wikipedia serve this
And finaly, when we get an email from a museum with the authorisation to use
one picture of one work of art to use this with the terms of the GNU-FDL - is
this documentation enough? (Like your mail, it could be faked by someone). Or
should we aspire to get a signed, stamped paper GNU-FDL from a museum when we
can suspect a conflict with picture agencies like Corbi$ (The one which claim
the copy right for the "Mona Lisa")?
What action should we (Wikipedia) take in case of the imminent danger
"degradation" of the European intellectual property rights (=expanding the
right holders power)?
Thank you for your statment to use ony free pictures to build a free
encyclopedia, de.wikipedia has already an agreement to do so. ;)
Greetings from Aachen (Europe),
Every 141 second is a new wikipedia article, in one of the 30 languages
(wikipedias with > 1000 articles), started in the spirit of GNU
(ok, in some languages the wikipedia consider the GNU spirit also in the case
of pictures *g*).
So a freedom-loving mind, a libertine, does not need an accolade by an
anachronous monarchy - great minds get tribute by the growing popularity and
power of their ideas. ;)
Salve = Latin/Italien: "Be greeted", hi