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

[Stan Shebs]

Fastfission wrote:

>On 7/6/05, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>You really think so? Most of those that I've seen don't even have
>their ultimate source listed. They say things like, "Taken from such
>and such website," where such and such website is usually violating
>copyright. They don't say things like, "If you're interested in a
>larger picture of this, contact Getty Images" or something like that.
>  
>
I mostly look at articles, not the image category, so maybe that skews
my impression.

One important thing that distinguishes us from, say, p2p outfits, is intent.
Our goal is not to enable people to share a top 40 song with 1,000 of their
"closest friends", wink wink nudge nudge, but to make a reputable reference
work. I wouldn't fault Disney, for instance, for objecting to a Mickey Mouse
image illustrating a slamfest entitled [[The evil deeds of the evil 
Disney corporate
thugs]], but we don't (usually) have that kind of article. Another thing 
we do
is to have extensive discussion (like this thread) of what is and is not 
OK, and
the discussion is a matter of public record. If it ever got to the point 
of a judge
scrutinizing our policies and practices, I think we would be found to be 
taking
more care about all this than the average volunteer organization or private
website (as you observe, there are many copyright-violating websites in the
world).

So as to cull out the unnecessary fair use images, I think we should be 
making
passes over those, and not be shy about deleting ones that offer nothing 
over
free versions. Ideally, every fair use image's description page will have a
special justification for its existence, something that we can defend to any
skeptics.

> But anyway. I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not a copyright lawyer. I
>might -- if nobody objects -- make a few informal e-mails to some
>academics who I do consider bonafide experts in this subject and ask
>them their thoughts on these questions, which I'll happily relay to
>the list. But I won't do that immediately, so if someone has any
>objections, please let me know (I should note, I will make no gestures
>that I represent WP in any way).
>  
>
We should be completely open and upfront about this, no reason to
sneak around. For my part, I've been researching postage stamp
copyrights, which seem to be complicated, and yet in practice, every
stamp dealer in the world publishes thousands of copyrighted
images every year, and nobody seems to mind. Curious, eh?

Stan