[WikiEN-l] Fair use redux; the second coming of hell; Are we a free content or aren't we?

[John Lee]

On 7/20/07, WikipediaEditor Durin <wikidurin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/19/07, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On the other hand, I'm not too convinced in the majority of cases. Some
> > album/book/movie covers and corporate logos, where the images or logos
> > themselves are widely discussed, iconic, or controversial, may work that
> > way. But I'm not convinced that most use of such things is anything more
> > than decorative. In those cases, they don't add significantly to
> > encyclopedic value, but do detract from the free-content mission. In
> > those cases, we shouldn't be using them. In 99%* of album articles, for
> > example, there barely even is an article. "X is an album by YZ which
> > contained the following tracks:". I don't know that there's any
> > educational value in such an article at all, and I certainly doubt that
> > there's any more with an image of the album cover.
>
>
> This gets to one of the core disputes on the subject; is fair use for
> purposes of identification alone sufficient to meet our requirements
> for the inclusion of non-free content?
>
> People who advocate for fair use inclusion say yes, because it is
> legal. Of course this misses the point of what we are supposed to
> be fundamentally, but even when this is raised they fail to see an
> issue. Thus, any encroachment on the ability to use fair use for
> identification without critical commentary is harshly criticized,
> reverted, and argued over.

Hence the need to effect a paradigm change of dealing with free and non-free
content, as opposed to free and fair use content, because fair use is an
American legal concept; non-free content is a concept applicable around the
world, and cuts to the thrust of what we are discussing.

Johnleemk