[Foundation-l] Fair use images

[Gerard Meijssen]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 3/10/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>   
>> I'm suggesting that this be the policy, of course.  That ND images
>> only be used in situations where there is no free alternative, i.e.
>> the situations where fair use is supposed to be limited to right now.
>>     
>
> Not where their can be no free alternative but where we haven't found one yet.
> Fair use isn't a license to liberally violate copyright, "We don't
> have one yet" isn't a valid excuse to claim fair use. Or, more
> clearly, it is necessary but not sufficient.
>
>   
>> I never suggested replacing free images with non-free ones.
>>     
>
> You want to make it possible for people who think they are helping
> Wikipedia to submit unfree content where free content is possible.
>
>   
>>> 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.
>>>       
>> Count me as a first, then.
>>     
>
> And what content do you hold the copyright to that we currently use as
> fair use... You claim that you only want us to use BY-ND where we use
> fair use, so show me an example.
>
> The goal of Wikipedia is to create a free content encyclopedia. By
> deciding that you will only release your content under an unfree
> license you are deciding not to help Wikipedia with its goals, at
> least in the area of illustrations.  That okay, you are not obligated
> morally or legally to help.   But don't lobby us to change the rules
> so that you can claim, dishonestly, to be helping with our project.
>
> We've grant our contributors attribution, we allow them to use the
> GFDL and enforce it (strictly enforced the GFDL is annoying enough for
> many common commercial uses that it's easy to get people interested in
> commercial use to agree to an outside license),  .... and now you also
> want us to allow you to submit content which no one down stream can
> alter and damage your precious artistic vision. Give me a break, we
> can go without your onerous requirements.
>
> If we ever swallow a stupid pill and permit you to upload ND works
> simply because we haven't found a more free image yet, I promise
> replace every last one with a free image, even if I have to travel the
> world to do it, just to piss you off.
Hoi,
This sounds very much doctrinal. It sounds like "them and us" and "they 
are wrong and we will not talk because it is not negotionable". Freedom 
is served by informing properly. Freedom is served by telling the whole 
story. People are liberated by giving them NPOV information. When it is 
not possible to have your "free" pictures or whatever EVER, stop 
preaching, stop rediculing, engage brain function... We liberate by 
telling it straight; the honest truth and nothing but the NPOV truth.

There are many examples where it is REASONABLE and to be expected that 
no changes to material is made. Logos are a great example. You are 
talking in terms of conflict. You are not talking in terms of our aim. 
Informing people by providing content that is Free for everybody to use. 
Content that is as Free as it is possible to have it. It is unreasonable 
to expect that when laws make for content that can *only *be had in a ND 
way not to make an exception because of dogma. Mind you I am talking 
about information where the information cannot be had in any other way. 
Information like logos.

Thanks,
    GerardM