On 11/16/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is all still only one of the four factors in fair use. If we use a fair use image our obligation to the downstream user is to let him know that we are invoking fair use. That forwarns him of possible problems. A for-profit downstream user has a responsibility to do his own due dilligence. It would be completely irresponsible for him to say in court that he used because Wikipedia said it was fair use.
I think you're missing my point, which is that the "possible problems" warning is basically something which says, "If you use this file in any way which is not educational/not-for-profit/encyclopedic, you might be committing a copyright violation." It's a very strong limitation on re-use. And it only applies in the USA, but that's another question alltogether.
*We're* not imposing that restriction, of course. It's built into the law, which favors our sort of usage over most others. However, if we use a considerable amount of content under that clause, we end up creating not an encyclopedic built on free content, but one based on educational-only content, even if it is not any particular license which says that. It is a de-facto limitation. The use of "fair use" media will mean that we are never truly creating a truly "free" encyclopedia -- we're creating one that will have to be filtered through carefully if is ported to for-profit contexts.
My argument isn't one about people getting sued in court -- it's one about people not being able ot use our content. It's about someone looking at it and saying, "Gee, I guess I can't use this photograph, since I'm not using it in an educational context." Which was a usage situation which I thought was more restrictive than we wanted to impose (even if we are imposing it implicitly rather than explicitly).
FF