[WikiEN-l] What is the fundamental goal of the project?

[Ray Saintonge]

geni wrote:

>On 1/28/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Quotations are not free content, and cannot be licensed under the GFDL.
>>Should we remove all quotations from Wikipedia?  Should we delete Wikiquote?
>>    
>>
>There are many free quotations.
>
Quotations are the most fundamental application of fair use.  If we are 
unable to use direct quotations, and must paraphrase the ideas the risks 
of inacurracy are too high.

>>This movement to destroy all fair use content is incredibly misguided.
>>    
>>
>And doesn't exist outside your head.
>
You have to admit that there are some people around here who have 
extreme views about this. :-)

>>Just
>>looking through the file names of some of our fair use and permission-only
>>images, I'm appalled that anyone who shares in the ideals of this project
>>would want to prohibit them.
>>
>>Image:Armeniangenocide-streets.jpg
>>    
>>
>PD pictures exist. More will exist in the coming decades.
>
In reviewing the copyrights for such a picture it's important to 
remember exactly when the Armenian genocide took place.

>Image:1938 Jews arrested during Kristallnacht line up for roll call at
>Buchenwald.jpg
>  
>
>Talk to Danny.
>
>The fair use claim for rather a lot of those images is highly questionable
>
>(Non-iconic news photos used in the article about the event? I'd hate
>to try and defend that one)
>
We can safely assume that the picture was actually taken in 1938, but do 
we know who took it?  There's a strong probability that the picture is 
already in the public domain, and if research establishes that we don't 
need fair use.

>>The whole concept behind fair use is the protection of free speech in the
>>face of information-imprisoning copyright laws.
>>    
>>
>Not exactly and in any case there are other ways of doing it.
>
Not exactly, but in a different way.  Copyright does not imprision 
information because information is not copyrightable; only the way in 
which the information is expressed is copyrightable.  Patent 
applications include details on just what is to be protected.  If, for 
whatever reason, something is not protected the question of fair use is 
moot.  What often happens is that some people who claim fair use do so 
without any idea about the real copyright status of the item in 
question.  Doing that is a lot easier than doing the research to 
determine the real copyright status.

>>The whole concept behind
>>"free as in free speech" content is to produce information that can't ever
>>be locked up by copyright law.  I can't fathom why anyone would think that
>>one concept is noble and the other evil.
>>    
>>
>Look at your examples. Half have "fair use" cases so weak it's
>embarrassing. I'm yet to see any case law for emotional impact being a
>valid argument supporting fair use
>
Allowing fair use depends on the material fitting the legal definitions, 
or at least having a legal rationale of some sort.  Although I am 
philosophically closer to the permissive end about using fair use 
material, I fully agree that "emotional impact" is not such a legal 
rationale.