[Foundation-l] Fair use images

[W. Guy Finley]

On 3/9/06 11:08 AM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> W. Guy Finley wrote:
> 
>> I think the first step is that any unlicensed image being uploaded as fair
>> use and does not have a source and fair use rationale should be speedied.  I
>> bet that's more than half of them right there.  The process of tagging them
>> as no source and then waiting a week is just way too long and too
>> susceptible to error.  It's the UPLOADER'S duty to make sure he/she is
>> meeting license requirements, if they aren't met the image should go.  It
>> shouldn't be the duty of the reviewer to prove it and that's usually the
>> perception.
>> 
> When you consider that some of these have already been here for a long
> time without attracting attention, one more week is obviously a very
> short time to wait.  It avoids the error of creating unnecessary
> confusion.  Nobody's challenging the uploader's duty, or passing that
> duty on to the reviewer; your unique perception does not make it so.
> There's no reason to panic about this.
> 
> Ec


Peruse IFD or CP lately Ray?  Have fun wading through it.  Nobody is
panicking, I think those who are trying to police images are getting worn
out.  After all, you make so many friends doing it.

To many editors "fair use" is "it's cool and I want to use it, that's fair"
and so they steal it and use it.  You put the blatant copyvio image up for
IFD and the uploader objects, no one else votes (because IFD is already full
of scores of copyvio images already, who wants to go and review them all
every day to vote on IFD) and the thing gets kept.

Even better, there are many editors who think that citing a website that is
a repository of copyvio and unlicensed images qualifies as the image's
source, it does not.

Asserting "fair use" of an image is a nuanced legal concept that many
editors cannot grasp so I feel something is needed to help rectify the
situation.

--Guy  (User:Wgfinley)