[WikiEN-l] Non-free images, there has to be a better way

[Stan Shebs]

Fastfission wrote:

>
> What, 10,000-20,000 pieces of copyrighted content that we
>use in defiance of their copyright holders, paying not a cent, hiding
>behind the defensive, feeble, and unreliable "fair use" clause in a
>nation where every congressman is preaching Big Media's jeremiad about
>copyright infringement destroying the economy? Sounds to me like the
>makings of one heck of a class-action suit...
>
On the other hand, I would estimate 90% of those images are also
effectively serving as free advertising for their respective
copyright holders. Companies pay all kinds of money to get their
logos displayed on the front pages of websites with far fewer eyeballs
and much less reputation; band managers and book agents don't want
their client's WP articles to be the only ones without attractive
visuals, and rising stars don't want paparazzi-style candid
shot to be the first thing that WP readers see about them.

So I'm not too worried about class-action suits - while there are a
lot of stupid people in the world, I think that corporations can
develop enough collective IQ to realize that WP's use of images
is going to be more beneficial than harmful.

Even so, we still want to move towards scrubbing out fair-use
images - after contacting the copyright holders, and suggesting
that if they want their articles to continue having illustrations,
or if they don't want to be represented by a blurry amateur
snapshot, they need to contribute some free images. When WP is a
top-ten website, freeing up a few images will seem well worth it.

Stan