[Foundation-l] Clearing up Wikimedia's media licensing policies (some important points)

[Kat Walsh]

As much as it generally annoys me when people quote a whole message
just to say "me too", me too. I really like the way this is put.

-Kat

On 2/8/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> I'll use this message to try to clarify a few points.
>
> The idea of "special permission" for Wikipedia is inherently harmful
> and utterly antithetical to our mission. The Wikimedia Foundation is
> _not_ just running a bunch of cool websites, it's trying to help
> people spread free culture across the planet. In its impediment of the
> spread of free culture, "special permission" is much more noxious than
> even the least free Creative Commons license. If we want to reach
> those who need free educational content the most, collaboration with
> organizations (and companies or local entrepreneurs) is imperative.
> Special permission content is utterly useless in this context. It is a
> waste of our time.
>
> Fair use is somewhat different in that many third party uses,
> especially educational ones, will be permissible as well. Beyond that,
> fair use and similar exemptions are a good way to describe a set of
> content which we, pragmatically, will accept, but which we can
> communicate clearly as being philosophically incompatible with our
> core mission. The important point is that there is a clear division
> into two spheres:
>  * fair use / fair dealing and similar exemptions
>  * free content
>
> These two spheres are very different. Files under fair use exemption
> are essentially on constant parole. They cannot be put in Commons.
> They will be wiped out when orphaned. They require an article context.
> They may not be put in galleries. They can and should be replaced
> whenever possible with freely licensed ones. They need a rationale.
> And in many cases, we will immediately remove them if there is the
> slightest problem with them.
>
> Free content, on the other hand, is free in every sense of the word.
> It can be used throughout our projects, and we encourage its creation
> wherever possible. We systematically do everything we can to liberate
> as much useful content as possible.
>
> Allowing files under special permission, NC, ND, or any other non-free
> license, erodes this wall of separation. This is not hypothetical; it
> has happened wherever such licenses have begun to proliferate. They
> were used without care, without distinction. Non-free and free were
> treated the same. This then reduces the incentive for our community
> members to use free licenses. It confuses the public. It advertises
> bad licensing choices.
>
> A genuine free culture movement depends on establishing and following
> a standard of freedom: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition - without
> such a standard, what you end up with is something like Creative
> Commons. Not a movement, just a hodgepodge of licenses. Creative
> Commons is about giving choices to authors within a legal framework.
> Wikimedia is about building free culture.
>
> This is to me the key point of an official licensing policy:
> hardcoding the distinction between free and non-free, and clearly
> emphasizing one over the other. We can talk, if need be, about putting
> some things explicitly in the non-free sphere if a legal system leaves
> us no other option. But I'd prefer to always make that decision
> implicitly if at all possible, to never mention that a fair use image
> is also ND or NC, because these licenses, "Creative Commons" or not,
> are in fact an enclosure of the commons. They are anti-commons; they
> relate to free content like shareware and freeware relate to open
> source software. They should not be advertised.


-- 
Wikimedia needs you: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
* *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *  * *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | (G)AIM:Mindspillage
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone