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

[Todd Allen]

Rich Holton wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> Wily D wrote:
>>     
>>> On 9/27/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> On 9/27/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> We do not tolerate unfree text to any significant extent. We do
>>>>> tolerate a level of unfree media. Thus we put free media behind other
>>>>> content.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> This is simply not true; we have significant (important informational
>>>> content, useful) quotations from other works sprinkled liberally
>>>> throughout the Encyclopedia.
>>>>
>>>> And this is a good thing.
>>>>
>>>> And this is entirely and unquestionably (by any reasonable person)
>>>> legal under fair use
>>>>         
>>> Indeed, the whole reason fair use (or for example, in my jurisdiction
>>> fair dealing) exists is because governments recognise we cannot do
>>> things like write encyclopaedias or newspapers without invoking the
>>> principle of fair use.
>>>
>>> That's probably worth repeating.
>>>
>>> We cannot hope to write an encyclopaedia without invoking the
>>> principles of fair use, or fair dealings.  Doesn't mean we need to
>>> invoke it to the maximum extent provided for by law, but without any
>>> at all, we cannot hope to write an encyclopaedia.
>>>       
>> Certainly.  And one reason why this debating topic never seems to end is 
>> that we have people who take extreme views on both ends of the 
>> spectrum.  On the one hand we have those whose only excuse for a fair 
>> use rationale is that they like the picture, and on the other hand those 
>> whose free site purism verges on paranoia.  The mantra of fair use from 
>> those who know nothing else about copyright gets tiresome.
>>
>> The answer should be somewhere in the middle, and somehow we should also 
>> make accommodation for the fact that "free" is also a verb, and that it 
>> implies the need to make an effort to make something free even if it 
>> isn't free now.  As long as we keep mucking about arguing about 
>> inconsequential specifics we'll never take Wikipedia to the next level.
>>
>> Somehow we have ended up accepting responsibility for what everybody 
>> else does with Wikipedia material.  We have no real control over how 
>> others use Wikipedia material.  We have no real control over what sites 
>> that we link to include; those sites must accept responsibility for what 
>> happens there.  It is not up to us to go into great detail about whether 
>> theirs is an infringing site.  If they get forced to take down the 
>> material the link will simply not work anymore.
>>
>> We should be looking for ways to legally expand our holdings, not 
>> restrict them.
>>
>> Ec
>>
>>     
>
> Ray,
>
> I agree with everything you say. But which are the "inconsequential 
> specifics"?
>
> Is using a fair use image of a very public living person a good thing, 
> or is it better to remove that image so that there is more incentive for 
> someone to obtain a free image? Or is this question an "inconsequential 
> specific"?
>
> I'm asking, because I really don't know. I know what my opinion is on 
> that specific question, and it seems to be the current practice to 
> reject fair use images in those cases.
>
> It seems to me that *ideally* at least, we should come to some sort of 
> consensus on the question, so there isn't this continual battling.
>
> -Rich Holton
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>   
With a "very public" living person, the image is clearly replaceable
(snap a picture, or ask the holders of the hundreds of images of said
celebrity on Flickr for a release, at least one will likely be amenable,
or one may already be CC-BY or CC-BY-SA). So the answer is clear enough
there.

As to the rest, it's unfortunate that the Foundation's resolution was so
damnably vague. They argue for "minimal" use. Well, that should have
always been the case, though it took a bit of a boot in the ass from
them to get us actually moving toward that.

In my opinion, "minimal" means "the image is so essential to the article
that the article cannot get its point across without it." Does that
apply to [[Guernica]] or [[Kim Phuc]]? Absolutely. Does it apply to a
movie for which a screenshot is included to show its unique filming
style? It 100% does. Does it apply to the iconic logos of [[Nike]] and
[[Coca-Cola]]? Of course. To every corporate logo, most of which do not
have that iconic status? Nope. Does it apply to every CD in the world?
Well, now we're into the area of decoration. For most CDs, seeing the
cover art is not important or essential to understanding it. But that's
what we run into. What we really need in this area is clearer direction
from the Foundation, not nice-sounding but essentially meaningless terms.

-------------- 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/20070930/c5a00a67/attachment.pgp