[WikiEN-l] There are no pictures in Wikipedia any more

[David Goodman]

Surely we are capable of having a version available that filters out
all images that have a fair use tag rather than a GFDL or PD free
tag--not a separate fork, but a separate display, and a similar filter
for a download, if someone wishes to prepare a derivative. with fair
use images.

And  in any case people who want to reuse our content are supposed to
be intelligent about it.  For image copyright, our obligation is to
provide a correct indication of the copyright status of each image,
and sufficient clear information to guide them in using it. It is not
our obligation to prevent them from violating local copyright
regulations, any more than it is our object to prevent hem from
violating local obscenity regulations.

I share the feeling that as much content as possible in the world in
general ought to be "libre" in the full sense of the word. But this
does not mean that we refuse to use other legal content in order to
encourage libre. Rather, we ought to use all legal content in order to
encourage the use of the existing exceptions to exclusive copyright
that fair use provides in the US, so that people in general will
realize the advantages of liberal fair use provisions where they do
not exist as a first step.

It also builds a more complete encyclopedia. At enWP, we are not
trying to accomplish all the goals of the Foundation in general--we
are trying to build an english-language  encyclopedia. Other parts of
the foundation mission are accomplished in other ways.


On 9/26/07, William Pietri <william at scissor.com> wrote:
> Rich Holton wrote:
> > Your question could just as easily be "What group or groups of people
> > are prevented from learning from Wikipedia when blatant copyright
> > violations are included?" Many authors would not care, and can always
> > issue a take-down notice if they do.
> >
>
> Again, you haven't answered my question. This time you responded with a
> straw man. I don't think any serious participant is proposing we accept
> blatant copyright violations. I'm sure not.
>
> If you can't name the group of people currently unable to benefit from
> Wikipedia content because it contains non-GFDL images, could you please
> just say so?
>
> > We are also here to encourage the use of free licenses in the process of
> > building a free encyclopedia.
> >
>
> I accept that you're here for that. I just don't think most people are,
> and from the limited amount I've seen so far, it seems like people with
> that agenda are trying to force other people to comply with their
> desires by making the encyclopedia worse.
>
> Personally, I don't have any problem with the agenda of promoting
> GNU-style freedom. Wikipedia aside, I've contributed to GPL projects and
> will continue to do so. I'm a fan of and contributor to various
> free-culture efforts. Free licenses are great. But not so great that
> it's worth harming Wikipedia articles.
>
> And now that I think about it, I'm not sure that this current approach
> is really doing much to encourage people to get excited about free
> licenses. The people who were very excited about them are pleased, I'm
> sure. But from the comments I've seen, it doesn't sound like the image
> deletions are making anybody say, "Wow, now I see why GNU-style freedom
> is so great!"
>
> > The Mission Statement of the Wikimedia Foundation
> > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mission_statement) states:
> >
> > The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people
> > around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free
> > license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
> > globally.
> >
> > When we allow people to use non-free images where a free option exists,
> > we are "preventing" them from using Wikipedia in the way that the
> > mission of the foundation explicitly states is a goal. We are not
> > educating our editors in the use of free materials.
> >
>
> Again, this seems consistent with my view that the GFDL is a mechanism
> to achieve an end, not an end in itself. Even if promoting the GFDL
> license were a major goal, it would still be a goal, like the goal of
> collecting all of human knowledge. I'm not seeing the case for harming
> the primary goal (development and distribution of educational content)
> in pursuit of a temporary boost to another goal.
>
> > I am not educated in all the legal issues, but I understand that "fair
> > use" images creates more legal issues than free licensed images,
> > especially when you go to distributing to those who do not have access
> > to the internet. Is distributing to non-internet connected users not
> > also part of our goal?
> >
>
> Well, you're getting closer to naming some actual real-world harm. Can
> you name people who have not received Wikipedia content because somebody
> was unable to filter out the images tagged as "fair use" while making an
> offline distribution?
>
> And yes, I understand the theoretical issue. I'm just saying that I've
> not heard of any real-world impact to balance against the real-world
> impact of making articles worse.
>
>
> William
>
>
> --
> William Pietri <william at scissor.com>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.