[Foundation-l] Fair use images

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.

And I went into an extensive explination of why fair use is a
reasonable exception, but you ignored it.

> > 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.

Explain how this would work?
So would we only allow images while, while being ND, we could also
claim fair use?
Guess what: We already permit that on enwiki.

If that isn't what you mean, how can you claim that they would only be
allowed where where fair use images are allowed?

[snip]
> > 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.

I never argued that there isn't a huge difference, in fact I argued
that ND is intolerable.
There is a difference, and it's not a good difference.  We already
allow ND content to be used as fair use.

> > 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.

Of all the outragious bullshit...  Sure, an image under CC-ND is more
free than a random unlicensed work.  It would not be more free than
the free images they would replace if we permitted them.

The only people I've ever encountered that had interest in by-nd were
photographers I found on forums and nagged to come submit works to
wikipedia. By being only willing to release their work under an unfree
license it is clear that they are not interested in helping us.

> 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.

You are either misrepresenting your position (that it really is to
only perform a 1:1 replacement), or your argument is pointless because
we already permit it  (If a work is fair use we don't care about its
license terms, you can upload BY-NC-ND stuff all day as fair use on
enwiki).