[Foundation-l] a new free image!

Mon Feb 26 13:51:53 UTC 2007

I still havent read any good argument for allowing fair use, except that the
english wiki is using it en masse. Which sounds like a very strange
argument, it is like saying: it is forbidden to spit, but as everyone spits,
we allow it. If everyone would be indulging in PAs on the english wiki,
would we allow them too?

On 2/26/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> There is no room to get NC and ND as an exemption.
>
> You can disagree all you like, the basics of the draft are not up for
> discussion. There is room in the draft within very narrow confines to opt
> for a different implementation. Fair use is only possible as part of the
> an
> EDP. It is up to a project to want to opt for an EDP. This EDP will have
> to
> pass the legal requirements mentioned. An EDP will be denied when it does
> not comply with what is essential in the resolution.
>
> I expect that when the resolution or the EDP is not complied with, the
> Foundation will reserve the right to enforce this requirement that all
> projects have to comply with.
>
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
>
> On 2/26/07, teun spaans <teun.spaans at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gerard,
> >
> > the draft says that communities may create excemption rules. Fair use
> may
> > be
> > an excemption. According to Kats statement, ND and NC do not qualify as
> > such. This is a draft, and drafts may be discussed. Please try to
> > understand
> > that some people disagree with this draft.
> >
> > i wish you health and happiness,
> > teun spaans
> >
> > On 2/26/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 15.000pics
> > 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!)...
> > > >>>>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>