I agree with Imran that fair use materials in a GFDL document are a problem. In essence we tell our readers "we grant you the right to do what you want with these materials, just follow the GFDL", but we are in no position to make such an announcement: we don't own the copyright to the fair use materials nor have we received permission from the copyright holder. Our readers *cannot* do what they want with them.
Like Cunctator says, invariant sections don't provide a way out.
Short of dropping fair use materials altogether, we could clearly label the fair use status of images on the image description page, maybe even saying "This image is *not* under GFDL, it was copied from ... under the fair-use doctrine." And our [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] should then contain a notice that for the license of images, the description page ought to be checked.
In essence, the image then becomes a separate document from the rest of the article, with a separate license. It may not be completely clean and is not very pretty, but I think it's the only thing we can do.
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Axel Boldt wrote:
I agree with Imran that fair use materials in a GFDL document are a problem. In essence we tell our readers "we grant you the right to do what you want with these materials, just follow the GFDL", but we are in no position to make such an announcement: we don't own the copyright to the fair use materials nor have we received permission from the copyright holder. Our readers *cannot* do what they want with them.
Like Cunctator says, invariant sections don't provide a way out.
There must be _something_ wrong with this analysis. If correct, then we can't even quote sources. We can't quote a single line from any book. That's obviously absurd, so there must be something wrong with it.
I think the way out of this puzzle is to look more closely at the doctrine of fair use. There are 4 factors that go into determining whether a particular use is 'fair use':
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
See: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/rice.html
We can not be assured that licensees will do well #1. But the other 3 will generally apply in the same way to all licensees. For the sorts of things we are thinking of including, it is difficult to see how any licensee would find them problematic.
I will write to Richard Stallman to ask about this. I'm sure the FSF lawyers thought of all this, and if there was a significant problem, they would have provided for it in the license somehow.
--Jimbo
On 10/31/02 11:37 AM, "Jimmy Wales" jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
I agree with Imran that fair use materials in a GFDL document are a problem. In essence we tell our readers "we grant you the right to do what you want with these materials, just follow the GFDL", but we are in no position to make such an announcement: we don't own the copyright to the fair use materials nor have we received permission from the copyright holder. Our readers *cannot* do what they want with them.
Like Cunctator says, invariant sections don't provide a way out.
There must be _something_ wrong with this analysis. If correct, then we can't even quote sources. We can't quote a single line from any book. That's obviously absurd, so there must be something wrong with it.
That is indeed the direction copyright law is going. That's the basic concept of DRM--that all uses of copyrighted material will be monitored and "properly" licensed. The legal argument is that the only reason that's not the way the current system works is because there isn't a good mechanism for licensing any bit of copyrighted material.
It's scary, but the trend *is* toward having to license even single lines from books.
Our only useful argument is to say that something that brief is uncopyrightable.
As to Axel's suggestion:
In essence, the image then becomes a separate document from the rest of the article, with a separate license. It may not be completely clean and is not very pretty, but I think it's the only thing we can do.
That looks like a violation of the GFDL. It's a clearcut violation of the spirit of the GFDL, and may also be an explicit violation. The Document is expected to be self-contained.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
In essence, the image then becomes a separate document from the rest of the article, with a separate license. It may not be completely clean and is not very pretty, but I think it's the only thing we can do.
That looks like a violation of the GFDL. It's a clearcut violation of the spirit of the GFDL, and may also be an explicit violation. The Document is expected to be self-contained.
I was trying to allude to that fact with "not completely clean"; you put it a bit blunter than I would have liked :-)
Axel
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
On 31 Oct 2002, at 8:37, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
I agree with Imran that fair use materials in a GFDL document are a problem. In essence we tell our readers "we grant you the right to do what you want with these materials, just follow the GFDL", but we are in no position to make such an announcement: we don't own the copyright to the fair use materials nor have we received permission from the copyright holder. Our readers *cannot* do what they want with them.
Like Cunctator says, invariant sections don't provide a way out.
There must be _something_ wrong with this analysis. If correct, then we can't even quote sources. We can't quote a single line from any book. That's obviously absurd, so there must be something wrong with it.
IIRC. Copyright doesn't extend to short phrases or single sentences.
I will write to Richard Stallman to ask about this. I'm sure the FSF lawyers thought of all this, and if there was a significant problem, they would have provided for it in the license somehow.
Not necessarily, the GNU FDL was designed for software documentation not for the kind of articles we're developing. So "fair use" material may not have been considered.
Imran
Imran Ghory wrote in part:
IIRC. Copyright doesn't extend to short phrases or single sentences.
I think that it's the *relative* size that matters.
Ashleigh Brilliant is the writer of Pot-Shots, a syndicated newspaper column/cartoon consisting of brand new pithy saying that he invents for the purpose. He's successfully defended his copyrights against the makers of posters and greeting cards, even though no individual Pot-Shot has more than 17 words. (According to the forewords of his books, his court cases were even groundbreaking.)
-- Toby
Short of dropping fair use materials altogether, we could clearly label the fair use status of images on the image description page, maybe even saying "This image is *not* under GFDL, it was copied from ... under the fair-use doctrine." And our [[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] should then contain a notice that for the license of images, the description page ought to be checked.
[[Wikipedia:Copyrights]] would also need to have a notice that whenever we quote Dr. X in our biography of Churchill, that the quotation is also not covered under the GFDL. I certainly hope that it never has to come to that!
-- Toby
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org