[Foundation-l] precisions about the recent WMF "fair use" decision

Delirium delirium at hackish.org
Fri Feb 9 01:05:14 UTC 2007

Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> To me, reproductions of 2D art, 
> especially when it is the entire artwork that is reproduced even in 
> reduced resolution, essentially reproduced the entire artwork.  The only 
> legitimate "fair-use" example I have seen for this that has been 
> accepted in U.S. common law is for a thumbnail gallery, such as is done 
> on google images.  And even then it is to provide a link to content that 
> appears elsewhere that is legal to use.  Usage of this kind of content 
> in a Wikipedia article just doesn't seem to fit the same sort of 
> criteria, and requires multiple clicks to get to the "original" image 
> and information about the actual copyright owner of the photo.

Reproducing artwork and other cultural artifacts for scholarly 
commentary is pretty well established, and is done literally thousands 
of times per year in academic journals.  Heck, a recent journal article 
I read [http://gamestudies.org/0601/articles/montfort] even reproduced 
the entire source code of the 1977 Atari game _Combat_ as part of its 
commentary.  It's not as if this is some sort of amazing new use that 
we're the first to discover.


More information about the foundation-l mailing list