[WikiEN-l] [WikiEn-l] Image tagging followup

[Stan Shebs]

Guettarda wrote:

>On 3/10/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark Wagner wrote:
>>
>>
>>Here's a thought - "fair use" images need to go through a review process
>>*before* uploading, sort of like featured articles. If the "fair use image
>>candidate" gets through the process, then it can be recorded and we don't
>>have to fight about it anymore.
>>
>
>
>I have reservations about this.  Fair use is a grey area legally - it's a
>permissible violation of copyright.  If we had a formal review process,
>might that not make the project more liable if we get it wrong?  In
>addition, if we make fair use more difficult, then we are likely to get
>people tagging images with free tags.  If they are tagged as fair use, a lot
>of obvious violations show up.  On the other hand, if it's mis-tagged as
>{{GFDL}}, we'd really have to go to the source.
>
I'm not sure that review changes liability, it can be pointed to as a
good-faith effort to do things correctly. All the empirical evidence
so far is that we're much more picky about fair use than just about
everybody else online, after all nobody seems to be shutting down the
giant celebrity galleries from which many of our images are copied.
WP's angst about fair use is internally generated.

On mistagging, that's a good point. We see that on commons daily, where
people upload a movie poster and tag it GFDL, as if it wasn't going to
be a blindingly obvious copyvio. I suppose the disincentive would be
the certain knowledge of severe sanctions if one is caught,

>
>I would rather make it a requirement that the uploader list a source or the
>name of the copyright holder.  Lots of images don't have a source clearly
>marked, and don't have information about the copyright holder.  How can we
>even hope to verify licensing if we don't know who holds the copyright (or
>at worst, where it came from)
>
But then what's to keep someone from lying about the source any less than
about license?

Stan