[Foundation-l] a new free image!

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The draft in and of itself does not approve Fair use. What it does is to 
allow a community to have an exemption for the strict rules if the law 
of the US and the relevant countries allow for it. This is however very 
much not something that is favoured; this is clear in the restrictions 
that surround exempted material. My statement about NC and ND is really 
simple. Material that is NC and ND will not be allowed. Fair use 
material may be allowed. When material is allowed under the EDP as Fair 
use, it may have a NC or a ND license; this is incidental and actually 
not relevant.
Thanks,
    Gerard

PS Great to hear what you do with these collections .. I am glad to hear 
about this :)

teun spaans schreef:
> I will probably respond to the rest later, as your statement about NC and ND
> raises som questions. As you have understood, I oppose the intended draft if
> it allows fair use but disapproves other notions.
>
> But for the moment I'd like to say that I agree 100% with your remark about
> referring to the mention of museums ion the metadata.
>
> As you may or may not know, my main pix are in the area of biology, and I
> got permission of two academic botanical gardens and a nursery to photograph
> their collections on the condition that I mention their location on upload.
> A condition I gladly fullfill, as I am grateful for the chance they offer
> me.
>
>
>
> On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hoi,
>> You read the draft incorrectly; NC and ND are on its own not permitted
>> in an EDP. This has been explicitly confirmed by Kat Walsh. So be clear
>> about it; only the argument "Fair use" allows something with a NC or ND
>> license to be kept in our projects. This is not negotionable.
>>
>> I am not a fan of Fair use, I am not a fan of the overly restrictive
>> ways that we are embarking on either. There is no way in which we can
>> have a logo of a company without creating a legalistic mess where the
>> license says that you can change it and the trademark says that you
>> cannot is horrible to me. The fact that we do not acknowledge museums
>> for looking after our cultural heritage by referring to them in the Meta
>> data, the fact that we do not do this because it is Public Domain, is
>> another missed opportunity to do the right thing.
>>
>> The notion that with this doctrine we have established how we have to
>> deal with digital material once and for all is a notion that I do not
>> subscribe to.
>>
>> You want to remind me on how this thread started; in the Dutch community
>> we are working on getting much more pictures of those famous in the
>> Netherlands by making it a project. This one picture of a former
>> basketball player is imho an isolated incident. When people have the
>> time and the inclination, this is something that can be done elsewhere
>> as well. I want to remind you in turn that I responded to a remark made
>> in this thread. This is what you do in threads.
>>
>> When you wonder how much effort was put in getting Free material.. we
>> can use more people in the (Dutch) committee for free material ..
>>
>> Thanks,
>>     GerardM
>>
>>
>> teun spaans schreef:
>>     
>>> Gerard,
>>>
>>> May I kindly remind you how this thread started.
>>>
>>> This thread started with a beautiful story of how the lack of a photo
>>> prompted a professional photographer to donate photos. Personally I
>>>       
>> think
>>     
>>> this would never happened if there had been an image under the fair use
>>> provision. The lack of a picture makes people run, if there is a picture
>>>       
>> no
>>     
>>> one gets out of his chair to say: He, there is a match tonight, I'm
>>>       
>> gonna
>>     
>>> take some pix.
>>>
>>> I know many fair use advocates think the opposite. On this list I read
>>>       
>> "the
>>     
>>> availability of a fair use image won't stop
>>> someone from adding a free alternative" and "We should also recall that
>>>       
>> the
>>     
>>> readers, would like to see an image until there "
>>>
>>> When we spoke with each other in the past you never supported the usage
>>>       
>> of
>>     
>>> "fair use". Somehow your statements on this list, when I read them, even
>>> where they seem to say the opposite, seem to suggest that you have
>>>       
>> changed
>>     
>>> your point of view.
>>> For example, when Muhammed suggests "the availability of a fair use
>>>       
>> image
>>     
>>> won't stop someone from adding a free alternative", I think: he's right
>>>       
>> it
>>     
>>> is not forbidden to add a free picture. But no longer any one will stand
>>>       
>> up
>>     
>>> and say: it is a shame that we dont have a photo, There is a mact /
>>>       
>> concert
>>     
>>> / interview tonight, I am going there and snap some pix! So effectually,
>>> having a fair use image does hurt the collecting of free content. Then
>>>       
>> you
>>     
>>> come and suggest that there is no need to cripple images for fair use
>>>       
>> (an
>>     
>>> doubtful statement, see below). Even when you add "If anything we should
>>>       
>> not
>>     
>>> have "Fair use" material.", your previous statement seems to support
>>> Muhammeds plead for fair use.
>>>
>>> You suggest that it is not necessary to crop high quality images for
>>>       
>> fair
>>     
>>> use. The assumption that cropping images improves legal chances for fair
>>>       
>> use
>>     
>>> application is however very widespread. It also was one of the factors
>>>       
>> in
>>     
>>> Kelly v. Arriba-Soft, 03 C.D.O.S. 5888 (9th Cir. 2003).
>>>
>>> The defenders of fair use should realize that we talk about a rather
>>>       
>> vast
>>     
>>> amount of images.
>>> Some numbers:
>>> Template:albumcovers:     >55.000
>>> Template:film-screenshot: >15.000
>>> Template:Tv-screenshot:  > 30.000
>>> Now these images will be hard to replace, but I really wonder how many
>>> attempts have been made to make them free.
>>> Others, such as those of famous people, and many of the 15.000 pics in
>>> "template:fair use in" fall in this category, could potentially be
>>>       
>> replaced
>>     
>>> by free pictures is someone simply steps out of his chair and starts
>>>       
>> taking
>>     
>>> pictures.
>>>
>>> Gerad, I think you did not understand what I wrote about NC and ND. The
>>> current draft as I read it, places little restrictions on exemptions.
>>>       
>> This
>>     
>>> may lead to all kinds of unintended exemptions.
>>>
>>> I know that in your heart, Gerard, you support the creation of free
>>>       
>> content.
>>     
>>> I wish you health and happiness,
>>> teun spaans
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/24/07, GerardM < gerard.meijssen at gmail.com > wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Teun.
>>>> May I kindly remind you that we are discussing on this list how to deal
>>>> with
>>>> all types of issues. Personally I have never ever uploaded "Fair use"
>>>> material. It is however done on some of our projects. When material is
>>>> used
>>>> with a justification of being "Fair use", there is imho no reason to
>>>> cripple
>>>> such material. This was suggested in the previous post.
>>>>
>>>> You were wrong in how you reacted to what I wrote about NC and ND the
>>>> other
>>>> day, you again assume things that are not in line with what I wrote. It
>>>>         
>> is
>>     
>>>> good to remember that "Fair use" is permitted to a project under a
>>>> Exemption
>>>> Doctrine Policy if they so choose. It is therefore relevant to discuss
>>>>         
>> how
>>     
>>>> this is to be implemented if at all. This is what I did.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>      GerardM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/24/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Gerard,
>>>>>
>>>>> may I kindly remind you that our aim is to make and collect free
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> content?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Fair use is not free.
>>>>>
>>>>> And your remark about crippling content looks false: i checked a few
>>>>>           
>> of
>>     
>>>>> the
>>>>> old versions, and these didnt have a photograph. Not even a fair use
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> one.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> teun spaans
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>> When you have a good quality picture that you want to use under Fair
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> use,
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> you use it as a good quality picture. Why cripple our content when
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>> there
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> no need ? If anything we should not have "Fair use" material.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>      GerardM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/07, Mohamed Magdy <mohamed.m.k at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Well, good work!..but as others said, this isn't the proper way to
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> get
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> rid of fair use images..the availability of a fair use image won't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> stop
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> someone from adding a free alternative, fair use images shouldn't be
>>>>>>> added in a high resolution..right? so when someone sees the image
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> with
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> low quality and s/he has another free one, s/he will replace it with
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> the
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> free image, provided that you place a message on free use images
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> saying
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> 'this image isn't free, if you can help.replace it...'...on the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> other
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>>> end, I think with the increasing popularity, people will just add
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> their
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> images(to say: hey, i took that image you see on [[Cat]]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>> article!)...
>>>>