On 9/24/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. We
should repeal the prohibition against "with permission only"
and "non-commercial use only" images.
Both of those have legal issues within wikimedia never mind re users.
No they don't.
Hard to say. Raw deletion numbers would be a few 100K
but we have no
idea how many extra free images have turned up since.
It tends to produce novel content.
So do you or do you not have actual evidence? I want to see the
number of non-free images being replaced with free ones vs the number
of non-free images being deleted and never replaced.
This restriction doesn't produce any more novel content than would
have been produced without it.
(Proof by assertion is great, isn't it?)
If you want to promote the creation of free content or the finding of
free images, go right ahead. I'll gladly help. Just stop deleting
the non-free content in the meantime.
Tends to produce bigger images. Compare
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Edna_Parker.JPG
With the average stolen AP image.
One down, a few 100K to go?
Given that conventional encyclopedia tended not to be
too pic heavy
I'm not so worried.
There's a great attitude. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica didn't
have an article on Linux, so why should we?
it's not
benefiting our
users, and it's not benefiting our downstream users.
That various produces of static CD versions would beg to differ,
Please provide concrete evidence of an actual problem. Not just "it
might theoretically cause problems for some downstream users". Lots
of things might cause problems for downstream users. Good thing we
don't cripple the project for their benefit.
That is already the case as far is allowed within US
law.
Our current rules are much more strict than US law, since fair use is
not a license; it's a shaky, undefined legal defense. Relying
entirely on fair use without even asking permission is very dangerous
from a legal standpoint.
It would be infinitely safer and more rational to ask copyright
holders for permission to use their images, like every other normal
publication. If we're lucky (or persuasive), they might even agree to
freely license them.
Most of our policies are setup to sidestep as much as
possible that
very question.
Why?
On 9/24/07, Nick <heligolandwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Just thinking about it, how long does it take to track
down a photo of a
celebrity on Flickr and ask the photographer for him to relicence one or two
images under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licences on Flickr ?
If said photographer is willing to release that image for
redistribution, modification, and resale by anyone...
Small "if".
On 9/24/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What we appear to have is an argument between two
camps as to whether
we are producing a FREE encyclopaedia, or a free ENCYCLOPAEDIA.
Is someone advocating for a non-free encyclopedia?
Using non-free images in our articles does not make the encyclopedia
any less free. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not a free image
repository.
On 9/24/07, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Erm, "non-free content". *blush*
Which includes images, sound clips, videos, and text excerpts and
quotations. Images are just the most common type.