[Foundation-l] a new free image!

GerardM gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Thu Mar 1 07:03:01 UTC 2007

You must have been living under a rock to have missed the concept of a
doctrine by the board that will disallow many licenses and practices. NC and
ND will be explicitly prohibited. Fair use will only be possible when a
community accepts an EDP or Exemption Doctrine Program. The EDP will even
need to be ratified by legal council ..

Images without information about copyright or license (Public Domain does
not have a license) will be disallowed.


On 3/1/07, Anthony <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 2/28/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This reminds me of an idea I had that might not be feasible. Make a
> > commons-like project for fair use pictures that all wikipedias can use
> and
> > disable local uploads at all wikipedias. That way, only absolutely must
> fair
> > use pictures will be accepted (logos, stamps, pictures of historical
> events
> > that are unreplaceable, etc.) and there won't be fair use pictures of
> living
> > people and of other things for which fair use isn't a must. That way you
> > won't have all the inconsistencies with, for example, Spanish Wikipedia
> > users asking why en can use fair use pictures of, say, music albums
> while
> > they can't because they have local uploading disabled and only upload to
> > commons. This way you'd also get people who are knowledgeable in the
> area of
> > fair use and policies regarding fair use on wikipedia taking care of
> > pictures rather than different people having different views on
> different
> > projects. This way you'd also have one central fair use policy that is
> > consistent amongst all the projects which will take care of the whining
> as I
> > mentioned above and will also make sure that fair use that isn't really
> a
> > must isn't in use on other projects (from my personal experience, this
> is
> > what is going on on the Hebrew Wikipedia which currently has, IMHO, the
> most
> > lax fair use policies out of any other project). Of course the problem
> is
> > that you'd have to find people willing to monitor such a project, which
> you
> > might not find as readily available as people for a project such as
> commons
> > that deals with free content and there's also the hassle of starting up
> a
> > new project (which some may deem unnecessary).
> >
> > -Yonatan
> >
> The much bigger problem is getting the key members of the various
> projects to agree on a standard definition of what is and what isn't
> acceptable.  I don't see that happening any time soon, unless some
> decision is made at the board level forcing the various projects to
> adopt a certain standard.
> IIRC, the board was opposed to making such a decision the last time it
> was polled on such an idea.  But I could be mistaken there.
> An argument against even having a standard definition is that the
> different language encyclopedias have very different communities of
> users when it comes to what is legal and what isn't legal for them to
> distribute without permission (in some cases there is an argument that
> certain users wouldn't even be able to legally *contribute* to certain
> articles).  Once you've entered the realm of using unlicensed images
> created in the last century or so you've taken the position that it's
> OK to create an encyclopedia which some portion of your user-base
> cannot legally distribute (and possibly contribute to).  This is
> acceptable, I think, but it relies on balancing the benefits and
> drawbacks., and these benefits and drawbacks vary from community to
> community.  The English Wikipedia for example has a much greater
> proportion of users who are able to use certain images than the French
> Wikipedia, for example.
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list