Marco wrote:
No, you lose much more. You can not easily combine the content of two "free" encyclopedias and get something that is "free". You can not copy images from the English Wikipedia to the German Wikipedia anymore because the "fair use" right works not this way in Germany.
What? Since when has the German Wikipedia moved to a German-based server?
Well, I know for a fact that it hasn't so German law has no bearing on the legality of having "fair user" (per US law) images on the German Wikipedia.
However, those people who are subject to German law may be legally barred from uploading such images. But there are plenty of German-speaking Wikipedians living outside of Germany to do this.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 11:49:12AM -0700, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Marco wrote:
No, you lose much more. You can not easily combine the content of two "free" encyclopedias and get something that is "free". You can not copy images from the English Wikipedia to the German Wikipedia anymore because the "fair use" right works not this way in Germany.
What? Since when has the German Wikipedia moved to a German-based server?
Well, I know for a fact that it hasn't so German law has no bearing on the legality of having "fair user" (per US law) images on the German Wikipedia.
However, those people who are subject to German law may be legally barred from uploading such images. But there are plenty of German-speaking Wikipedians living outside of Germany to do this.
There would be a problem if they wanted to distribute Wikipedia in Germany, as a mirror, on CDs, printed etc. We really don't want to lose such right just to have 0.1% more images.
On Friday 30 May 2003 20:49, Daniel Mayer wrote:
Marco wrote:
No, you lose much more. You can not easily combine the content of two "free" encyclopedias and get something that is "free". You can not copy images from the English Wikipedia to the German Wikipedia anymore because the "fair use" right works not this way in Germany.
What? Since when has the German Wikipedia moved to a German-based server?
Well, I know for a fact that it hasn't so German law has no bearing on the legality of having "fair user" (per US law) images on the German Wikipedia.
However, those people who are subject to German law may be legally barred from uploading such images. But there are plenty of German-speaking Wikipedians living outside of Germany to do this.
O.k. you can circumvent this, but I wouldn't even be allowed to tell someone outside of Germany to do this for me.
But this is not my main point. I say that by allowing "fair use" pictures we violate the GFDL and our content is not "free" anymore. Citing Axel Boldt:
"Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."
We are not allowed to derive from "Fair use" images and even the intuitive rule:
"free" article + "free" article = "free" article
is not true anymore (because the new free article might contain that many images that the result is not covered by "Fair use" anymore).
Therefore we are violating the GFDL and/or we give up the important idea of a "free" encyclopedia. In my humble opinion a few images simply are not worth this. At least I thought that the "free" in "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is an important and fundamental principal.
best regards, Marco
Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
"Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."
This is not valid reasoning. If accurate, then we can't even quote from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.
Suppose we have an article about a book by Noam Chomsky. We wish to explain the thesis of the book, and toward that end, we quote a relevant sentence from the book. This is perfectly valid, and it is fair use.
What is the situation in German law? You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as fair use in German law, but that strikes me as virtually impossible. Can you give the details?
By the way, I agree with those who say that (a) strictly speaking, German law is not of primary interest to us, but also with those who say that (b) if we can make sure that the encyclopedia is redistributable in Germany, too, that's a good thing, if it doesn't cost much in terms of content.
--Jimbo
On Sunday 01 June 2003 14:44, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
"Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."
This is not valid reasoning. If accurate, then we can't even quote from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.
Sorry, but what has the reasoning to do with the consequences? Only because the results are bad for us does not mean that the reasoning is not valid. (Apologizes if I misunderstood you, but I don't see an argument for your statement that "this is not valid reasoning", please note that I am non-native speaker).
Suppose we have an article about a book by Noam Chomsky. We wish to explain the thesis of the book, and toward that end, we quote a relevant sentence from the book. This is perfectly valid, and it is fair use.
Please, nobody doubts that this is "fair use". But others and I doubt that the result is compatible with the GFDL, in fact it is my opinion that the result violates the GFDL because we start mixing GFDL content with "fair use" content, and the latter has a lot more restrictions than GFDL.
What is the situation in German law?
I think we shouldn't discuss what the situation is in other countries. IMHO this is irrelevant. The only question it comes down to is:
Is adding "fair use" content to the GFDL Wikipedia compatible with GFDL or not.
It is my understanding that GFDL is not compatible with "fair use". I'll write an email to the gnu organization now and ask for help with interpretation.
best regards, Marco
Marco Krohn schrieb:
On Sunday 01 June 2003 14:44, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
"Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL).
Suppose we have an article about a book by Noam Chomsky. We wish to explain the thesis of the book, and toward that end, we quote a relevant sentence from the book. This is perfectly valid, and it is fair use.
Please, nobody doubts that this is "fair use". But others and I doubt that the result is compatible with the GFDL, in fact it is my opinion that the result violates the GFDL because we start mixing GFDL content with "fair use" content, and the latter has a lot more restrictions than GFDL.
Someone can cite Noam Chomsky in a Book, print '(c) Encyclopedia Britannica' on it, sell it, and of course he doesn't own the copyright for the citation. Why should it be different with GFDL? It is self-evident, that a copyright disclaimer applies only to that part of the work, that is copyrightable.
WeißNix
On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 05:44:47AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
"Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."
This is not valid reasoning. If accurate, then we can't even quote from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.
Suppose we have an article about a book by Noam Chomsky. We wish to explain the thesis of the book, and toward that end, we quote a relevant sentence from the book. This is perfectly valid, and it is fair use.
What is the situation in German law? You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as fair use in German law, but that strikes me as virtually impossible. Can you give the details?
By the way, I agree with those who say that (a) strictly speaking, German law is not of primary interest to us, but also with those who say that (b) if we can make sure that the encyclopedia is redistributable in Germany, too, that's a good thing, if it doesn't cost much in terms of content.
At least in Polish law, such quotation wouldn't be subject of copyright law at all. On the other hand, using somebody else's ilustrations without authorization is plain illegal (there is some procedure that allows you to use them and send them some standard fee whether they like it or not, but it doesn't apply in all cases). There are some (mostly explicitely listed, plus some general principles about others) cases where you can simply take somebody else's photos (or other stuff) and use them, but I don't think they're going to be compatible between coutries. Most of them are about non-commercial usage, so they don't apply to Wikipedia anyway.
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
At least in Polish law, such quotation wouldn't be subject of copyright law at all. On the other hand, using somebody else's ilustrations without authorization is plain illegal (there is some procedure that allows you to use them and send them some standard fee whether they like it or not, but it doesn't apply in all cases).
This is also the case in Norway.
-- Daniel
--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
"Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."
This is not valid reasoning. If accurate, then we can't even quote from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.
You only point out an undesirable consequence of my reasoning, but not why it is invalid.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
What is the situation in German law? You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as fair use in German law, but that strikes me as virtually impossible. Can you give the details?
I don't know about German law, but in the Dutch law the equivalence of fair use only holds for quoting in "an announcement, review, polemic or scientific treatise" (modulo inaccuracies of translation).
Andre Engels
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org