[Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)
saintonge at telus.net
Fri Feb 2 01:10:26 UTC 2007
Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>>>I am being told that the one and only way that these images are going to
>>>possibly be removed from Wikipedia is through a WP:OFFICE action. I
>>>think that is one of the most ridiculous sentiments ever made. For
>>>example, see the "disclaimer" that was thrown onto this image:
>>I looked at that "disclaimer", and found it excessively
>>confrontational. I was tempted to at least edit off the rough edges,
>>but though it better not to meddle with what you are trying to do.. I
>>saw no mention of WP:OFFICE.
>The point I was trying to make here is that the only option that our
>"desgnated agent" could do here (aka Brad, if he were contacted by the
>Escher Foundation to remove this content) is to invoke WP:OFFICE and
>have the content removed.
I see WP:OFFICE as something that can be used when the problem is
inherently fixable. It is not the best place for permanent deletions.
Being willing to take the material down on request is only a first step,
and only a temporary one at that. It doesn't stop another person at
some time in the future when Brad no longer has that role from starting
the whole process all over again. A temporary take down and WP:OFFICE
(or similar) action should show good faith, but if something is to be
more permanent it should be followed by a formal OCILA takedown order.
To facilitate this we can send them blank forms that are even filled in
to whatever extent we can do that. When they are completed and returned
they are made public, and can serve as a basis for shooting the
resurrection of such material on sight. The only options that anyone
who wants the images back up would have would be to start a formal
put-back process at his own expense, or wait until the copyright expires.
If this problem is ever going to resolve itself we need to inject a
little formality into the process. Neither deleting all potentially
infringing material out of paranoia, nor the unbridled addition of
material as a dare to come and get us can be very helpful. We should
prefer receiving takedown orders; without implying that any such act
would be broadly seen as somehow hostile.
>I see no reason that such a disclaimer needs
>to be here in this first place, and am arguing that this is strongly
>suggesting that perhaps even having this image on Wikipedia is illegal.
Properly worded it should not suggest that we know the material is
illegal. With apparently orphaned material it may just be a technique
for trying to determine if there is anyone out there who does own the
copyright. If it stays up like that for three years with no reply at
all it may very well establish that the copyright has been abandoned.
At the same time we will be able to produce the historical record of how
the image was treated by us.
>I'm sure that somebody thought to add the disclaimer as a form of CYA
>(cover your assetts), but if you are in doubt in the first place
>wouldn't it simply be better to remove the image completely?
Not necessarily, maybe the image really is an orphan.
More information about the foundation-l