On 7/19/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/18/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
WikipediaEditor Durin wrote:
On 7/18/07, quiddity blanketfort@gmail.com wrote:
(I don't know the background or details of this issue, but...)
/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_July_18#Image:Einstein_tongue.jpg
this is making my brain hurt.
That's a pretty easy call really.
Fair use should be limited as much as possible in order to maintain the encyclopedic integrity while staying focused on our mission. The Einstein article already has substantial images of the man. The image can only be fair use within our criteria if the image is
of
major significance to the article. Currently, the article just
speaks
to Einstein's ability to stick out his tongue. That's hardly
sufficient.
There's claims the image is iconic (I grant it is) and culturally relevant (I grant it might be). Ok, so write about that...then the image becomes of use. Without that, the image is worthless to the article and is purely decorative.
"Fair use" seems to be the cry for anyone who can't be bothered to
look
more deeply into a situation. This is a 1951 photograph! Where was
it
first published? Who owns the copyright? Was it properly renewed? .Given that some have attached the "iconic" description, has anyone
with
a connection to the article ever filed a copyright action about the picture? In the absence of such a legal actions perhaps the
copyright
has been effectively abandoned. The answers to these questions may
very
well lead to a determination that the image is already in the public domain. If that's the case fair use is not relevant.
With older photographs especially it would be nice if people did a little homework before diverting the debate into a fair use
discussion.
It would be a far greater benefit to the encyclopedia if works
treated
as unfree by virtue of uncertainty were established as free.
- In copyright issues, we should err on the side that keeps us safest
legally; 2. I see no copyright problem here - the iconic nature of the image
gives us
a free pass, generally, in fair use, as many publications have used
this
picture with less context than we provide; 3. Because we are a free encyclopaedia we hold ourselves to a higher standard than other publications and demand that non-free content's
usage be
justified in some way by significantly improving our coverage; 4. By having nothing more than a relevant caption, it is difficult to
argue
that having this non-free picture significantly improves [[Albert Einstein]]; 5. This is a perfect illustration of why we should stop quibbling
about "is
it fair use under American law?" and start asking "is this non-free
content
necessary for the encyclopaedia?"
1.the safest course is not to have free use images at all, and the decision was already made not to do that. 2. agreed. 3. There is no reason why a free encyclopedia should be less free than other publications--the highest standard is to respect & honor the law by using the rights it provides. Fair use is not a favor, but a right. To the extent we are noncommercial & educational we have greater fair use rights than many other entities. 4. This is iconic as illustrating Einstein's general irreverent attitude and so a caption could be immediately written to say that 5. this is a perfect example of how we can find the best use of available content.
Re 1, are you suggesting that if we don't know whether an image is copyrighted or copylefted, we should assume it's copylefted, as Ray seems to have suggested?
Re 3, we are not talking about the legality of our usage. We are talking about the consistency of this usage with our status as a *free* *encyclopaedia*. We are an encyclopaedia, not a gallery or quotation database; we are supposed to be as free as possible so our work can be redistributed around the world with minimal difficulty, necessitating that we attempt to minimise the usage of content not explicitly licensed for the uses we and our downstream users might need. We do not need redundant unfree material cluttering our encyclopaedia.
Re 4, then we should do that instead of quibbling about this. The reason Durin and others probably haven't done that is because they want to discuss the broader issues of our status as a free encyclopaedia, freely reusable by anyone around the world.
Johnleemk