[Foundation-l] Copyright on Wikisource

[GerardM]

Hoi,
When we allow ND and possibly other specific licenses in those
circumstances where we allow some "fair use" on the English Wikipedia
we have several important improvements;
* The person or organisation that is entitled to license did the licensing
* The content can be used by all projects and not just the en:wikipedia

With our current practices organisations like Kennisnet would like to
see their logo with the Wikipedia article, they cannot allow us to
have it on Commons because it is a logo and it part of their trade
mark and consequently it restrict its usage. Kennisnet is not alone in
this. We need a license that allows for this. So far I only hear
arguments that we do not really want ND or fair use. And I largely
agree. But I do not hear anything what helps us solve the situation.
The ideology is first and foremost about creating encyclopedias in
many languages. Our ideology is in bringing the best information to
the people of this world in their language. It is important that this
information is free. But the freedoms associated with our content are
not all equally important. When particular data or images is ND, or
where the use is by necessity limiting the freedom associated with it
but allows for the legal distribution commercially it is in line with
what the Wikimedia Foundation stands for.

What are the arguments that speak in favour of "fair use" and are
against targeted use of ND and other specific licenses that allow for
the legal use that "fair use" denies us. What are these arguments but
dogma. Dogma that has precious little to do with what the WMF stands
for, believes in?

Thanks,
    GerardM


On 3/15/06, Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> GerardM:
> > There is nothing fair about having content under "fair use" while it
> > cannot be had under a ND license and have it legally available for
> > other projects. In a previous threat about fair use people decided
> > that they do not want to hear about this.. That is an en:POV and it
> > makes for a parochical POV not the POV that does justice to the needs
> > of other projects ...
>
> Fair use should only be used when there is absolutely no chance that we
> will get the content under a free license. I disagree with using a photo
> of a living celebrity under "fair use", for example; I'd much rather see
> "Wikimedia celebrity hunts" organized, as long as we make it clear that
> we're talking about taking photos. ;-) It might also be worth
> investigating how much it would cost to purchase the right to publish
> photos that interest us under a free license.
>
> The advocates of allowing ND seem to be in favor of putting it on the
> same level as our free content licenses. This is a dangerous path to
> follow, as it disincentivizes the use of less restrictive licenses.
> Available statistics from Flickr and Creative Commons show that, when
> given the choice, users are inclined to disallow derivative works or
> commercial use, simply because they do not understand the complexity of
> license incompatibility, and the illusion of additional control over a
> work is not without appeal. Therefore it makes sense for the project to
> clearly focus on a narrow definition of "free content".
>
> On the other hand, if we allow ND in "very rare special circumstances",
> we will find that they are likely to be the same under which we would
> allow fair use, and there's no need for the special exception.
>
> I agree with you that we should avoid a situation where the English
> Wikipedia is allowed exceptionally broad fair use privileges, whereas
> other projects are exceptionally restrictive. Harmonization is key.
>
> Erik
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>