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

[Zoney]

On 7/7/05, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
> Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
> > This argument is getting a bit tired. Do you have an
> > [[IBM 360]] in your backyard?
> 
> Someone appparently does:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IBM360-65-1.corestore.jpg
> 
> GNU FDL.
> 
> So you see, giving up too easily is a bad idea.
> 
> > It is a simple matter for downstream users
> > not to include images tagged used-with-permission.
> > Wikipedia articles very rarely rely on the images
> > in their main text.
> 
> Yes, but the point is: if we have a non-free image, it "scratches the
> itch" and reduces the incentive for someone to be heroic and find a way
> to get us a free image.  So if we have tons of non-free or fair-use
> images that people can't reuse, we have a nicer website, but we make the
> resource less nice for people who want to reuse it.
> 
> > And, sadly, it seems that Jimbo's fatwah against UWP has
> > increased the number of far-fetched rationalizations for
> > fair use on Wikipedia.
> 
> I consider this quite unfortunate.  I think that our use of fair-use
> should be restricted solely to pictures of absolute historical
> importance for which there is no possibility of a free alternative.  But
> this is not a decree because this is an ongoing process of evolution at
> this point.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fair_use_images
> 
> A quick scan of these reveals a number of highly dubious images which we
> could either (a) do without or (b) replace with a freely licensed
> alternative easily enough.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1987_Cadillac_Seville.JPG
> 
> I should imagine that if we desperately need a boring photo of a 1987
> Cadillac Seville, one can be located on the streets easily enough.
> 

Once again, Wikipedia had a "fair use" image on the front page
yesterday, accompanying the London bombing news. It was snitched from
some news site. Two points:

a) Fair use? We're using a news broadcaster's photos for our *news
coverage* without permission? Hah! Yeah right that's fair use!

b) Are people at Wikipedia serious about a free encyclopedia for all
that can be used in many situations (not just Wikipedia.org) by anyone
following GFDL reqs? Cause the fair use *defence* is useless in many
places, or at the least, more restricted than in the US.

I would suggest there's a clear anti-copyright agenda* at play in
allowing "fair use" images to continue to be used at Wikipedia. Yes it
would be nice to be able to use whatever images are relevant for our
encyclopaedia articles. But we can't - and should stop pretending
otherwise.

At the moment, yes people are harsh on untagged images. But mostly if
the image is relevant - and someone tags it fair use - it stays. That
doesn't mean it *is* fair use, or that the fair use defence is any
good outside the US.

Wise up and face reality.

Zoney

*I lean somewhat towards this myself - but Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased.

-- 
~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...