Daniel Mayer wrote:

Michael Snow wrote

...

Totally wrong. The entire basis for fair use is Section 107 of the Copyright Act. Fair use has no existence outside the concept of copyright. It is a defense that may be claimed if the user is accused of copyright infringement.

I was talking about the *use* of fair use materials. It can therefore be used more freely - the generic definition, not legal one, of 'public domain'

It seems that you're talking about fair use more as an abstract idea. I have no problem with that, it was just difficult to recognize when the terms being used also have well-established legal significance, and much of the discussion has revolved around legal ramifications. My criticism was primarily out of concern that people might read your statement as reflecting the actual state of the law, especially coming from such a widely respected source. If considered in those terms, I felt it was dangerously misleading.

(Alex and I got into a fight over this very issue).

I noticed that.

Fair use let's people use small parts of content owned by others in their own works. The copyright on the larger work does not affect the copyright of the fair use selection. Therefore the fair use work exists outside the framework of whatever copyright terms the larger work is under. Is that clear? I think we failed to communicate on that point.

It does make it more comprehensible to me. If I understand correctly, you're talking about whether Wikipedia articles have their own copyright, even if they incorporate other copyrighted materials under fair use. They do, and if Alex was suggesting that they don't, I consider that a purely theoretical argument with no practical significance.

My point is that Wikipedia's copyright, when it incorporates fair use materials, is limited to uses that qualify as fair under copyright law. This does not affect our ability to protect the copyright in Wikipedia content. However, it does severely limit our ability to license other people to use that content. When we use material under fair use, the GFDL does nothing to force downstream users to stick to the same use. In fact, the GFDL clearly allows them to make many other uses of the material, quite a few of which are highly unlikely to qualify as fair uses. Ultimately, the GFDL and fair use are incompatible.

I hope that explains where I'm coming from. We probably have been talking past each other to some extent, and I apologize for any miscommunication.

--Michael Snow