[Foundation-l] Fair use images
michael_irwin at verizon.net
michael_irwin at verizon.net
Sun Mar 12 08:50:51 UTC 2006
Gregory Maxwell 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.
>
>We can broadly split media we would like to include in Wikipedia into
>two classes: Illustrations and other media and used to explain or
>decorate our articles, and excerpts of works which we have included in
>order to discuss the works.
>
>In the first case, barring certain silly corner cases, it is always
>possible to have a free version because a Wikipedia contributor could
>create one.
>
>In the second case, a replacement is simply not possible because the
>replacement wouldn't be the work we were discussing. So, our ability
>to obtain a free copy is entirely at the whim of the copyright holder,
>and in some cases it may even be very difficult for us to contact the
>copyright holder.
>
>Fair use law (and similar constructs in some other countries) exists
>specifically for the second case. The goal of fair use is to prevent
>copyright from completely stifling criticism and intellectual
>discussion.
>
>It is likely that in the case of 'fair use' the content would remain
>fair use for a large majority of the downstream uses for content on
>Wikipedia. Furthermore, the decision to include fair use is almost
>always a choice between the fair use image and no image at all. Our
>choice with fair use content is to allow it, where it is easy for
>downstream users to remove, or have nothing at all. A downstream user
>who can't accept unfree content is in the same position either way.
>Nothing is lost by allowing clear and legitimate fair use, and our
>goal of being an encyclopedia is enhanced in a way which is pretty
>much not possible without fair use.
>
>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.
>
>
>
>>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
I have to study the creative license more carefully before I fully
understand the argument underway above but I currently tend to agree
with Gregory Maxwell in spades for Wikiversity. That debate is
curently starting to intensify as Wikibooks community gets more adamant
about mandating universeral standards for our temporary prototyping
space that looks downright restrictive of potential learning processes
and materials.
We may need to allow Wikivsersity to stratify and use redundant data
under different licenses to keep confusion to a minimum among students
and non legal specialists. Obviously we will need to implement some
grid technologies so the exponential curves accelerated by assistance
from Wikipedia's obvious existence and success (nothing shuts up a
naysayer like an existing freight train roaring through the station
every few minutes in the background .... our train can never get started
leavi .... SWOOSH!
I have limited time and energy at moment but if the argument becomes
pandemic we can check some archives for dire predictions early in
Wikipedia's uncertain future when large numbers of regular contributors
often despaired of ever attracting sufficient non trollish newcomers to
keep the database useful enough to attract the labor to polish it up.
So far, so good. You wikipedians did a helluva job prototyping my
future free engineer projects for me. I thank you one and all, and yes,
even good cop godling and bad copy screecher.
Could we have some public feedback regarding en.wikiversity.org now or
shall we recruit a gullible software developer to acquire enough trusted
status to add our namespace? Pesonally I suspect we can have
en.wikiversity.org link operational within 12-14 months, just in time
for some serious ribbon cutting on crude course outlines interesting to
active students worldwide.
MFinney (fire school developer at Wikiversity) has suggested and I may
eventually agree that we may need to join the formal committee process
now being established. I personally will not participate in the
committee as a formal member as I can identify no rational delegation of
sovereignty under any ideology I am capable currently of integrating my
view of the universe as self evidently the allmighty.
Since only the senior projects seem of concern to anyone at the
foundation or the board level, I would like to note that an abandonment
of the fire school would likely greatly slow and reduce the available
technical expertise applicable to improving and keeping Wikipedia's fire
related terms, discusssions, etc. etc. accurate and useful to the
general public.
lazyquasar
More information about the foundation-l
mailing list