[Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)

effe iets anders effeietsanders at gmail.com
Sun Jan 28 19:50:50 UTC 2007

I think all it takes is one person writing the foundation that they are
breaching their copyright, as they do not follow the GFDL-license, under
which the person has given his/her texts free? And if Wikipedia is not
following GFDL, GFDL doesnt apply to those articles either i guess. In
thery, IANAL, it might even be that the foundation has to remove all that
persons contributions? :S


2007/1/28, Jeffrey V. Merkey <jmerkey op wolfmountaingroup.com>:
> All it takes is one lawsuit from someone who is upset at the images
> being used, and the money from
> the last fund drive could get used up in legal fees pretty durn fast. If
> someone object to images
> being used, then TAKE THEM OFF THE SITE, Fair use argments are not. I
> recall my interactions
> on en.wikipedia with people using copyrighted materials and some of the
> debates I had there.
> Bottom line, these anonymus editors are not the people who will get
> nailed. The foundation will
> be the ones who get served and Brad will have to hire a law firm to
> defend the Foundation. It's
> pretty simple -- if someone who owns th images does not want them used,
> then do not use them.
> There are a lot more torts than just copyright infringement they could
> pull out of the bag and use. They could claim
> unfari competition, tortious interference, and a whole host of other
> torts they may win with. It's cheaper, easier,
> and honorable to simply take down the images and tell the offended party
> it is being done as a courtesty. This makes
> it appear the foundation is acting in good faith.
> Jeff
> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
> >I've somehow found myself embroiled in the middle of a fair-use fight on
> >en.wikipedia, but an interesting viewpoint has expressed itself that I'm
> >curious with the "powers that be" and other experienced Wikimedia users
> >might find a bit interesting, at least in terms of where a significant
> >faction of Wikipedia users want to go.
> >
> >The philosophy is essentially that fair use images are permitted on
> >Wikipedia, even if you are not going to be legally permitted to use them
> >if you copy them and try to re-publish the Wikipedia article.  I guess
> >this same philosophy also applies to the whole issue of NC images and
> >their inclusion in Wikimedia projects, but in this case the issue is
> >mainly centered on fair use applications of image content.
> >
> >In reading through the Wikipedia Fair Use guideline talk page
> >(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AFair_use), I noticed a
> >recurring theme to justify many fair use images based around two
> >significant points of the fair-use doctrine as described in USC 92
> >section 107:
> >
> >* Educational fair use  - Wikipedia is part of an "educational
> >institution" and the images are used as a form of instruction.
> >* Non-commercial entity - Because the WMF is a 503 (c) 3 non-profit
> >organization, and because all of the editor/contributors to Wikipedia
> >are unpaid volunteers, Wikipedia can claim non-commercial usage of fair
> >use content.
> >
> >My counter argument is that neither of these justifications are valid
> >for inclusion into Wikipedia.  The educational exception is a major
> >stretch and I just don't see how it really applies in the case of
> >Wikipedia, particularly with some common-law cases that have
> >significantly reduced the scope of educational fair use.  In the case of
> >the non-commercial entity, I would argue that the GFDL is the trump card
> >here, as reproducing Wikipedia (and almost all Wikimedia) content must
> >be done under the terms of the GFDL, which explictly permits commercial
> >reproduction.
> >
> >The response to this is that it doesn't matter if the GFDL applies.
> > They just want to include fair use images, even if the GFDL doesn't
> >permit their reproduction.  This is essentially a "buyer beware"
> >attitudue where you, as the end-user, are required to explicitly go
> >through the licensing terms of all images you download together with an
> >article and remove those images if you decide to pass the article on to
> >a 3rd party.  The inclusion of an image on Wikipedia has no connection
> >to the GFDL, but only if it is legal (even if barely) for it to be
> >displayed on a website run by the WMF.
> >
> >I had a hard time understanding this philosohpy, but a fairly vocal
> >group insists that this is where fair use policy on Wikipedia ought to
> >be going.
> >
> >I should note that I got into this whole mess because I was involved
> >with a group that was trying to write a Wikibook about M.C. Escher, and
> >I tried to point out that they couldn't reproduce the Escher artwork
> >unless they somehow were able to obtain a license that could be used
> >under the GFDL.  The response was that the images were being used on
> >Wikipedia, so why not Wikibooks?  The Escher reproductions are claiming
> >fair use, but I think it has gone way too far on Wikipedia, as I believe
> >these to be merely a copyright violation.
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l op lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list