[Foundation-l] Fair use images

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 3/9/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/9/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Absolutely.  Fair use should be abandoned in favor of allowing
> > CC-BY-ND.  I just found out that CC-BY-ND allows "the right to make
> > such modifications as are technically necessary to exercise the rights
> > in other media and formats", so use of such a license is much better
> > than relying on fair use.
>
> I don't agree at all.  Our goal is to make a free content
> encyclopedia. When we speak of free we mean freedom and not cost.  ND
> content is not free.
>
Neither is "fair use content", of course.

> By allowing ND images we would be in a position of three
> possibilities: no image, a free image, or an ND image which is 'free
> enough' to post on our website but fails our goal of producing free
> content. If we allow ND images it will specifically be at the expense
> of free images. A downstream users who can't accept unfree content
> will be in a worse position if we were to make that decision.
>
No, you misunderstand.  ND images would only be allowed in situations
where fair use images are currently allowed.

> > Of course the major disadvantage is that people have to be convinced
> > to release their image under the license.  But right now it's not even
> > an option.
>
> Who are you expecting to convince?   The impact on the real commercial
> value of the work between GFDL and a ND license is minimal. ND
> licenses primarily appeal to the vanity of artists who are not
> sufficiently satisfied by mere attribution.
>
Well, we disagree here.  I think there's a huge difference between ND
and GFDL.  There's only one way to find out for sure, though, and
that's to give it a try.  Allow ND in places where fair use is already
allowed, and see if you get any takers.

> The lack of ND images has, no doubt, cost us some images on the short
> term... but we could equally say that our failure to illegally copy
> current edition Britannica articles has also cost us some level of
> coverage.  Fundamentally if someone isn't interested in creating a
> *free* encyclopedia then they aren't interested in helping us.   Yes,
> we'll sometimes include the copyrighted works of others... but with
> fair use we can do that whether they like it or not.
>
> It isn't acceptable to give up freedom to gain a little more quality content.
>
I just don't see what freedom is being given up.  An image which *is*
licensed under CC-ND is more free than an image which is not.

> The loss of natural freedom in the embodiment of ideas has been a huge
> burden on our civilization, at least since computing put publication
> in the hands of almost every person. This burden will continue until
> we unify to remove it; It will continue until we create enough free
> content that the artificial social and economic imposition created by
> copyright is longer an impediment to the flow of knowledge to the
> people who want and need it most.
>
> This isn't going to happen quickly, but it can't happen at all if we
> compromise unnecessarily.
>
> We can afford to wait:
>   Wikipedia is forever.

Hey, if your answer is to remove all non-free images completely from
Wikipedia, you have no objection from me.  My suggestion was merely to
replace one set of non-free images with another set of non-free images
which were more free.

Anthony