[Foundation-l] Fair use being badly abused on en.wikipedia

[Todd Allen]

On Jan 10, 2008 7:35 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 7:37 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is an awful lot of material we use and justify by saying "well,
> > we couldn't use anything else" - we should be very wary of believing
> > this to be a justification that we *need* it.
>
> I agree with this sentiment entirely. Just because an image is
> irreplacable does not mean it has intrinsic value. For instance, the
> cover image of a book or CD or DVD is hardly "important". That is,
> unless there is something special and unique about that particular
> cover that makes it worthy of pointing out especially.
>
> On en.wikibooks, the biggest hurdle we have is in the software
> guidebooks for proprietart software packages. For instance, it's
> difficult to teach Adobe Photoshop without including some screenshots
> of the interface. (we have a book on GIMP too, before anybody
> complains). Fair use should be invoked when the image is essential to
> the book or article. If it is not essential, then it is mere
> decoration, and fair use seems like a bit of a gamble to employ on
> decorations.
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

That's a point I've tried to make myself, and hope to figure out how
to effectively state. -One- possible instance of "replaceable" is "a
free image could be taken or created", but this is not by any means
the only one. "The article would be alright without the image
whatsoever" is another very common instance. Text is free content. If
text can adequately make the point, the image is replaceable. If the
(logo/CD or book cover/film screenshot) is not iconic and in and of
itself the subject of substantial commentary, it's decoration and the
article would be fine with it gone.

So long as we continue to allow nonfree content, especially in the
massive amounts it's currently allowed in (at least on en.wp, mileage
may vary elsewhere), we really should remove "free" from "the free
encyclopedia", or at least make clear that this refers to "gratis"
rather than "libre". Genuine libre projects have a certain percentage
of nonfree material they allow to still be considered libre. That
percentage is zero.

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.