[Foundation-l] Fair use images

[Ray Saintonge]

W. Guy Finley wrote:

>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.
>>    
>>
>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.  
>
I absolutely agree that those individuals do not understand what fair 
use is. 

>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.
>
Why should it be a voting matter?  My argument was to provide adequate 
time for uploaders to respond, not to make a presumption that their 
efforts  are correct.  If within that adequate time they can do not 
bettter than a lame "It's cool" kind of argument they shouldn't depend 
on a vote to save them.

>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.
>
Agreed.

>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.
>
The nuances are not always easy to grasp, and there is no consistency in 
legal interpretations by the courts.  I'm very much in favour of using 
fair use material, but it must be real fair use.

Ec