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

[Todd Allen]

Bryan Derksen wrote:
> James Farrar wrote:
>   
>> On 22/07/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> On 7/22/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On 22/07/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> "It" is a free encyclopedia. Overuse of fair use is not part of this.
>>>>>           
>>>> How much use is "overuse"?
>>>>         
>>> Use where a free alternative is possible
>>> Use where the media is not the subject of the article or the subject
>>> of a section of the article (section being defined as at least 2-3
>>> sentences).
>>>
>>> The first is required to meet our it must not be replaceable
>>> requirement and the second for the significance requirement. Meet
>>> those two and the rest of our EDP is unlikely to be an issue.
>>>       
>> So the answer to my question is "one use". Good luck.
>>     
>
> Actually, those conditions seem pretty reasonable and in tune with
> existing policy to me. But it allows album covers, book covers, all
> manner of screenshot, exactly the sorts of things that have recently
> become subjects of contention. So I'm not sure where the conflict lies here.
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>   
The point of contention is, the current policy is highly problematic in
terms of being "the -free- encyclopedia." That doesn't just mean "free
of charge", it means "free as in freedom"-as in, if I see an image used
on Wikipedia, there should be a very good chance I can, if I comply with
the GFDL, copy, reuse, or modify it as I see fit.

Right now, that's not the case. There are a tremendous number of unfree
images in use on the "free" encyclopedia. In a few cases, unfree images
may be so necessary, critical, and irreplaceable that we should use
them. But many of us, including me, don't believe "a few cases" is
equivalent to "all album, book, movie, or corporation articles". Most of
those can be written perfectly adequately with solely free content (in
this case, text) and the use of the image is decorative. If people want
to use free images for marginal, decorative, replaceable purposes, I
don't care that much. But we shouldn't use unfree images to do that, and
right now, we are.

Replaceable? How are album covers and corporate logos replaceable, you
ask? Easy! We discuss the album/corporation/etc. using text only (which
is free). Remember, the free replacement need not be as good as the
unfree image to qualify the unfree image as replaceable. It need only be
adequate. For logos, covers, and the like, in almost all cases, text is
an -adequate- replacement.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070722/bc0a862e/attachment-0001.pgp