[WikiEN-l] Fair use issues; we need serious help

[George Herbert]

On 7/12/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/07, WikipediaEditor Durin <wikidurin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/12/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > On 7/12/07, WikipediaEditor Durin <wikidurin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I guarantee you that no consensus will evolve.
> > >
> > > Probably not. But a lack of consensus should not paralyze a project.
> > > If a supermajority favors particular policies, that may be an
> > > acceptable outcome.
> > >
> > > Really, if these issues cannot be resolved, that is more symptomatic
> > > for the lack of maturity of decision making processes in the English
> > > Wikipedia than it is for a need for a more specific policy.
> >
> > Removing other people's work, or in the least tagging it for deletion
> > has created droves of people who are quite opposed to the principles
> > on which we are founded. They are not interested in free content.
> > They are focused on adding fair use content, and trying to make it
> > stick...usually by making strenuous arguments that it is legal under
> > fair use law.
> >
> > Is the option of opening a consensus targetting forum for these
> > issues open and not yet tried? Yes. But, maybe pessimistic,
> > I doubt it will achieve the effect we want; using fair use minimally.
> > I frankly a bit scared of the possibility that consensus may evolve
> > to liberally allow fair use.
> >
> > A number of us have stated before that consensus to liberally
> > allow fair use can not and will not trump Foundation resolutions.
> > We just need more clarification.
>
>
> I should think it would be obvious to anyone who has been in a few of these
> debates about our non-free content policies that if a consensus evolves at
> all, it will be definitely one that favours very liberal inclusion of
> non-free content, simply because legally we can. There are also some who
> don't see any conflict between our free nature and the inclusion of non-free
> content that identifies certain things without any discussion.
>
> Johnleemk

It would help if the people spearheading non-free image use cleanup
campaigns weren't deletionists on the issue.

By that, I mean that they took a look at things, and for example where
something was properly labeled an album cover when it was uploaded but
didn't have a current Betacommandbot-compliant Fair Use in [[article]]
section, the cleanup people added the required rationale rather than
deleting the image.  If there are licensing questions or issues,
uploaders be actually told about it and invited to fix things first.

Just today, I've had these two issues bite me.

I have no problem with truly infringing stuff going away.  Making
stuff go away because you can, when it is legal under policy but isn't
labeled properly yet, doesn't earn you brownie points with me.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com