[Foundation-l] Fair Use (again)

[Ray Saintonge]

Robert Scott Horning wrote:

>One of the problems with fair use for images is that they don't normally 
>follow the traditions and practices of fair-use textual quotations. 
> This is also why the doctrines divirge so much from one country to the 
>next for these items.
>
>Still, I would like to point out that while fair-use doctrine may only 
>be an American concept (largely), similar concepts do exist in virtually 
>all other countries, even if to a significantly lesser extent.  There 
>may be some images that are not strictly available for any purpose under 
>the GFDL, but may under certain circumstances be legitimately used in 
>GFDL'd content.  Trying to draw the line between what is acceptable 
>content and stuff that simply needs to be deleted is where the problem 
>comes in.  Erring on the side of caution and exclude fair-use content 
>altogether may be one solution on some projects where fair use content 
>isn't so critical.
>
That's sensible.  It's just not as simple as some people like to believe.

>What I find amazing is the philosophy of some en.wikipedia users that 
>are now pushing to allow content on Wikipedia even if it invalidates the 
>GFDL when it is included in a Wikipedia article.  It is this expansion 
>of the range of images being permitted that surprises me, where the only 
>limit to allowed content is only what is strictly legal in the USA, and 
>trying to take fair use to the ultimate limits in U.S. Common Law and 
>asserting educational and non-profit justifications for its inclusion.
>
I've always been clear in saying that I strongly support fair use, but 
there are times when I wish we did not constantly have to watch our 
backs out of concern for what some of our more idiotic colleagues are doing.

>I believe there is some middle ground that can be found between this 
>free-for-all philosohpy and complete exclusion of fair use that would be 
>easy to understand, work in nearly every country with significant 
>numbers of Wikimedia users, and be simple enough to see a policy that is 
>just a couple of paragraphs long about the topic.  Perhaps I'm overly 
>optimistic here.
>
The middle ground, whereever it may be, is a good place.  Keeping it to 
two paragraphs probably is optimistic. :-)

Ec