I think it would be slightly confusing having more then one template for fair use. It would probably be better to have a blank space in the template where you can enter your claims for fair use.
On 8/3/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
His response is spot-on as far as I can tell, but it is important to see what he is saying. In a charitable interpretation, he is responding correctly to Smoddy's argument that promotional materials and logos are de facto "fair use" under U.S. copyright law. This is not true and our blanket statement template should be modified (as should all of them) to explicitly justify under which conditions it can be asserted as "fair use" -- not every use would necessarily be "fair". "Fair use" does not apply in a blanket way and should be spoken of in such a way -- Smoddy's language was imprecise and did not reflect a thorough understanding of the law (probably not his fault -- most of the "fair use" templates are VERY misleading!).
A proper response would be, "We think our use of this falls under the 'fair use' clause because 1. the ownership of the logo is clearly attributed and the resolution of the file provided is low, 2. we are using it for an educational purpose on a non-profit encyclopedia, and it enhances this effort significantly, 3. no uncopyrighted alternative exists. We believe that a judge would agree with us that such usage is 'fair' were it to be litigated."
Our Nationalist friend has not given us any reasons for why he would think the above claims would *not* qualify as fair, so it is hard to know why he thinks that.
The templates are misleading and should be changed -- they make "fair use" look like a free ticket, and they are from the standpoint of what the *content* itself is rather than its *use* (i.e., they say things like "posters are considered fair use" -- completely the wrong way to think about it). I've been working on some proposals along these lines which I'll link to on here at some point.
FF
On 8/3/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Well, Jimbo, if you want to stand up for fair use it appears that now's your chance. :)
There seem to be around 6000 images that link to the {{logo}} template.
Regards, Haukur
I (smoddy -- this is my second email address) sent an email to User:Crosstar about fair use on a logo at [[Nationalist Movement]] and [[Crosstar]]. I received this email back in response (my original email is at the bottom).
I am forwarding the email here as I am not subscribed to the legal mailing list.
Are there any suggestions as to the course to take?
Sam/smoddy
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: crosstar nationalist@nationalist.org Date: Aug 3, 2005 4:06 AM Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail -- fair use To: Smoddy sam.korn@gmail.com
Dear Mr. Smoddy:
Your assessment is incorrect and far from "clear."
"Fair Use" is considered on a case-by-case basis and, even after expensive and protracted litigation, outcomes may vary. Suffice it to say, we cannot render legal-advice to you, which must come from your own, independent legal-counsel. I can tell you that in approximately thirty-seven cases involving infringement of our trademarks and violation of our copyrights, however, we have won every one.
The US Copyright Office advises that:
"The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
The courts tend to lean toward protecting intellectual-property rights, as well they should, insofar such rights are protected by the United States Constitution.
Anyone who wishes his own intellectual-property rights to be respected (and that should include all of us) should respect such rights of others. Penalties for violation are severe and increased if repeated. In the Hale case, the fine was $200,000.00, plus $450,000.00 attorney fees, alone. Punitive damages may also be assessed, where conduct is wilfull, reckless or wanton, if, for instance, the offender persists, after having been placed on notice.
In this instance, the copyright/trademark owner has not given permission for its images to be used and will vigorously defend its rights in court, if need be.
The Copyright Office further explains that:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided...." http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
It is the choice of the copyright/trademark owner whether or not to license use of its intellectual-property and, insofar as the owner does not approve of your project and wishes to avoid any misrepresentation of itself or any implied endorsement of your project, as well as to prevent any confusion in the mind of the public, permission is denied.
There are numerous other objections, but the foregoing should suffice for purposes of your question. Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
Richard Barrett Attorney The Nationalist Movement
At 12:11 PM 8/2/2005, you wrote:
May I ask that you explain why we are not allowed to display this image? Under US law, it is allowed for reference materials (and other such documents) to be shown for informational reasons about the topic. This is clearly true in this case.
I am sending you an email in the hope that you will reply.
Cheers, and best wishes
Sam/smoddy
-- Try http://en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia! _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l