On 9/2/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Nice attempt to overrule Jimbos edict against
'with permissions'
images.
Overrule it? No way. It's just that I find it a little silly that we
can just change "with permission" images to "fair use" and pretend
that changes much. In practice, we're still using it with permission,
as much as we pretend not to care about being given that permission.
I'm not sure whether labeling it "with permission" or "fair use"
is
more helpful to re-users in figuring out what they can use or not.
This loophole has been in existence since day-one of the edict --
Jimbo himself explicitly left "fair use" as the way around the
non-commercial/with-permissions problem. But in the end, Wikipedia is
still using said images non-commercially and with-permission, no
matter how sternly it says, "Honestly, we'd be using it even if we
weren't completely within the terms of this license."
Please don't encourage a regression to a
point where we permit images
that others couldn't claim fair use for simply because people will
give us permission to display them on their website.
Regression? This is the status quo, as far as I can see.
A significant number of people will be willing to release
images for free if asked.
Perhaps in this case the owner could release an internet
resolution image with the presumption that someone who
wanted to print it would want much higher resolution and
would still pay for this.
And of course he may lose no income from internet
images anyway in practice.