Yongho Kim wrote:

In the course of it, I argued that Fair Use is about using the image (e.g. the Fair Use image or text can be used independent of other textual context). He then argued that Fair Use is only about "quoting". I need some advice on this - I am looking for a counterproof that the general academic practice of quoting up to 5% of a source is NOT what Fair Use stands for. Something like a portion in the US Copyright Law that mentions academic quotations.

While it is fair to say that fair use of an image and related text should be considered separately we are still talking about the same law. Fair use is as applicable to images as to text. Each situation must be considered separately on its own merits.

In case my above dispute-solving-approach is mistaken, I'll introduce the context as I understand it.

WonYong is making the following claims:

1. Uploading images in ko is not using it, we are merely uploading them to

"quote them" in Wikipedia documents.

Uploading a whole image in full resolution when it is itself the subject of the copyright is very probably NOT fair use. Uploading the same image when it is a part of a much bigger work that includes many pictures MAY be fair use. Similarly uploading a very low resolution picture as a thumbnail MAY be a fair use "quote" of the picture.

2. Therefore South Korean Copyright Law regarding academic and media

"quotation" applies to these images - we can use anything as long as it abides by SK CRL Chapter 6 (Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights), Art. 25. Said clause states:

제25조 (공표된 저작물의 인용) 공표된 저작물은 보도·비평·교육·연구등을 위하여는 정당한 범위안에서 공정한 관행에 합치되게 이를 인용할 수 있다.

My translation: Art. 25 (Citation/Quotation of copyrighted work accessible to the public) Copyrighted work accessible to the public can be quoted for media, criticism, education, and research, within a justified range and in pursuance to fair custom. http://tinyurl.com/a7frg

My understanding is that under Fair Use you can make copies of a copyrighted work. For instance, you can photocopy a work of art and distribute it in class for discussion. SKCRL 25 would not allow this. SKCRL is merely spelling out the fact that you can quote verbatim up to 5% of a source when writing a scholarly paper.

What the above citation describes as "fair custom" in ROK law is consistent with "fair use" in the United States, "fair practice" in the Berne Convention, and "fair dealing" in the laws of many countries. One point that is unusual about United States law on this is its attempt to describe what that means in greater detail. In countries which use a law as short as the quoted one there is much room for argument over just what "education" and "research" really mean. In some countries a photocopy for distribution in class would be perfectly acceptable as fair use. The 5% rule that you mention is not in your citation at all. Such a rule may reflect a practice followed by Korean courts to make the work of judges easier. I have heard of a similar 10% rule that is sometimes used in England.

3. When I pointed out this to him, he told me that I "misunderstood Fair

Use" and that Fair Use is pretty much the same thing as SKCRL 25. Americans are doing it, we have the samel law, why can't we do it?

It pretty much IS the same thing, but American law is interpreted by American courts and Korean law is interpreted by Korean laws. Also, as I said above, American law goes into more detail.

4. Of course then there is the issue of Mr. WonYong thinking that the Korean

Language Wikipedia should abide by South Korean Law. I've had serious NPOV disputes with him over this - suffice to say that he introduced the idea of a "South Korea-specific NPOV". I'll post on this on a separate email.

It is a Wikipedia for the Korean *language*, not the South Korean *nation*. Of course North Korea is the only other country where the same language is official, but it's hard to take its laws into account when the people there have little or no access to the internet.. If we assume that some distant day their Wikipedia access is made available what then happen if the two countries had different laws on this? A more practical issue is the laws that apply to overseas ethnic Koreans who continue to read and write the language. They are still bound by the laws of the country where they live. There is no such thing as a nation-specific NPOV; there is just NPOV.

Ec