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

[Ray Saintonge]

Rich Holton wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>   
>> Wily D wrote:
>>     
>>> On 9/27/07, George Herbert wrote:
>>>       
>>>> On 9/27/07, geni 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.
>>     
> Ray,
>
> I agree with everything you say. But which are the "inconsequential 
> specifics"?
>   
A reasonable question.  If we consider publicity shots of celebrities, 
we could come to an agreement that these are proper fair use (or not), 
or otherwise establish a general principle about them.  However, if we 
are dealing with a specific celebrity the results of the discussion are 
likely to only affect that celebrity, and as such will be 
inconsequential to what happens anywhere else.  The real question in 
relation to a specific celebrity should be, "Why should our treatment of 
this celebrity picture deviate from general policy?"  It would be 
illogical to extrapolate a specific decision into general policy.
> 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"?
>   
That's not at all what I had in mind with "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.
Personally, I have no objection in general to using fair use images, as 
long as they really are fair use.  I don't even think that "living 
person" is the proper criterion.  Copyright is more about the 
photographer than the person being photographed.  There are bigger 
problems with just figuring out who owns the copyright.  A musician 
performs on stage, and throughout the performance the flash-bulbs keep 
popping.  Some of these get on line, others are officially published, 
and still others remain undeveloped in somebody's camera.  By the time 
we get the photo it's probably already gone through several hands, and 
nobody can properly source it. 

Publicity shots are meant to be widely distributed.  Yet there is a 
strategic difference between a company giving direct permission (GFDL or 
any other) and quietly letting people use the same material.  Granting 
permission means losing control.  By simply not complaining about 
somebody's use the company retains the option of suing even when it has 
absolutely no intention to do so.

Publishers and other copyright owners need to accept more responsibility 
for the protection of their own rights.  If we give them the quick 
benefit of the doubt they'll take it, but I'm afraid that we have the 
presumptions all turned around.  The basic presumption that a picture is 
copyrighted reinforces the current way that the system works.  The more 
we restrict usage, the more restrictions will be applied.  If we use 
pictures with uncertain copyright status, and we state our uncertainties 
in the image file, we should be equally prepared to take them down when 
the owner properly identifies himself.  If the owner fails to do this 
for an extended period of time he needs to accept the consequences of 
his inaction.

It makes no sense to analyse these situations in terms of the legal 
costs of a potential suit.  Those costs are easily offset by the low 
probability of such a suit.  It would be only the most foolhardy of 
copyright holders who would want to proceed directly to court when he 
spots an infringement of his rights ... particularly when we make a 
statement that we are willing to accommodate the desires of the owner to 
have the legally offending material removed.

This may all seem a little radical, but unless we take some proactive 
steps things won't progress.  I don't even think that "fair use" is the 
proper stand in many of these cases.  It is more important that 
something apparently unfree be made free through perfectly legal means.

Ec