Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/7/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
But then you have to demonstrate the "harm."
Pretty easy, we have had plenty of examples of folks who didn't bother to upload an image because we "already had one" in the form a fair use image. It's happened to me personally, and it's not news. That alone makes a pretty good example of harm becuase I don't think anyone would argue that it's not better to have free images instead of non-free ones.
But "better" doesn't necessarily mean "less harmful," which is the point. The question is "does having fair use images harm the project," and there's not a lot of evidence that it does, since we thankfully allow fair use.
So the FUC would have us ask the question "Does excluding this material preclude us from being a good encyclopedia?". Here the building is visable and photographable by all, so we must answer "No" even if we accept the notion that we can't be a good encyclopedia without a picture of this building. As a result, we can conclude that including the image is a net-harm from the perspective of furthering the goals of the project.
The "conclusion" is the continuing problem. Can the building be photographed? Yes. Is an existing unfree image of the building "harmful" while we wait for the free image to come about? The logical answer is that it is not, but that's where the diversion is coming into play, and the possible future in which the policy is based off of isn't doing much to clarify it.
-Jeff