[Foundation-l] Fair use images

[Ray Saintonge]

W. Guy Finley wrote:

>On 3/13/06 1:56 AM, "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>>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.
>>    
>>
>Nope, I agree totally but that's the procedure now.  When I deviated from
>that I endured an assault from several editors and even an admin for
>deleting images "out of process".
>
Sigh! :-(

>>>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.
>>    
>>
>Totally agree again -- it's a tough issue even for lawyers.  I was thinking
>the best solution is to come up with a Fair Use review panel, made up of a
>lawyer or two if we can get one, a couple of well respected editors and
>maybe even someone to represent the Foundation since it's protecting the
>Foundation from exposure to liability that is the heart of all of this.
>This panel would regularly review Fair Use policy and disputes in an effort
>to maintain a coherent position on them.  Just my initial thought on it.
>
Such a panel would be an interesting  idea..  Having a lawyer sitting 
regularly on such a body might be a bit much to ask; he may find the 
workload offputting, especially in the early stages of such a 
committee.  Advising the committee could be a more realistic role.  Some 
of the issues that come up before such a committee are likely to be 
repetitious. 

There is an important maxim in law that justice must not only be done 
but must also be seen to be done.  A peremptory deletion of an obvious 
copyvio fulfills the first part of that, but not the second.  Voting 
turns this sort of process into a farce.  Perhaps those voters can be 
said to form a jury of sorts, but in a regular jury system juries are 
asked to make determinations of fact, not of law.  For justice to be 
seen to be done the defending editor needs to feel that he is not at the 
mercy of any single individual making a unilateral interpretation and 
enforcement of the rules.  He needs to be given the opportunity to 
respond within a reasonable time, and to feel that his response will be 
given serious and fair consideration.

If the nuances are tough for lawyers, I can't see how voters who may 
never have read any copyright statue can fare any better.

Ec