From: Stevertigo utilitymuffinresearch2@yahoo.com
--- "Alex R." alex756@nyc.rr.com wrote:
However, that does not solve the problem that each fair use must be specifically described, i.e. when one uploads an image it is available to use on many encyclopedia pages, what is needed is information _about_each_use_
Each use?? IANAL -- but I know when man's "law" starts contradicting God's Law.. Reason, reasonability, etc. No wonder you guys are turned off to "fair use" -- its almost untenable with that standard.
If there was (years from now) an image.wikipedia.org, that *centralized* dealing with images across all wikis, it would be easier to deal with images as a whole -- upon input. But you're saying this ideality would still not satisfy fair use--that each use of those images must be justified?
Wow. ~S~
----- I see two possibilities
Either we decide it is enough to indicate the image is copyrighted on the description page, but might fit with fair use doctrine. Then, we see the article pages to which the image is linked. in these articles, we mention ''in hidden text'' the fact the use might be said "fair use".
Pb is that the user will not necessarily look at the source, so will miss the info
Or the image description mention it is cp, but might be fair use, and try to describe which use are possible
As for the central database, it would make sense perhaps, that it contains only gfdl and public domain images. not cp ones, that would remain on local wikipedias. This would favor use of free images.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: "Anthere" anthere6@yahoo.com
Pb is that the user will not necessarily look at the source, so will miss the info
I think any user who is a downstream licencee will be lookiing for any due dilligence that they can rely upon or verify independently. This is important as we cannot forsee all future fair use scenarios. A downstream licensee will have to check this out, already WP states that all text is released under the GFDL. Someone can verify the edits and the collaborative authoring process for the text by looking into the page histories and analyzing all the contributions on a page (yes this is why IMO the IBM/MIT research project can be important to the future of the GFDL) and they will be able to make a decision about the authorship of texts. For images it will be more a question of public domain or trying to understand the relationship between their use of the GFDL materials vs. the Wikipedia use and see if their use is also a "fair use". If not, they either delete the image, or they ask permission (something that even we can do). If they are going to make money using GFDL materials I do not see any contradiction with that and our use of fair use materials here on Wikipedia. If it is a photo, for a biography, well, then can hire an artist to make a sketch of the person depicted if they cannot get permission. At least they have an image to work from. For people who might want to create their own native encyclopedia, their use is probably fair use as well. Why worry so much about that? There is no reason to get hysterical about it here. Wikipedias are non-commercial (different from non-profit) and educational. The amount of material that the photo represents is relatively minor and with the small size of the thumbnails used, how can anyone suggest that the image is anything more than providing some basic information, i.e. what a person looks like or what a whale looks like. No one is going to sue Wikipedia for that (and even then there is the DCMA OCILLA sec. 512 procedure anyone can follow).
Alex756
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org