[Wikipedia-l] Fair use (Alex, Brion et Tarquin)

[Alex T.]

From: "Brion Vibber" <brion at pobox.com>

> And remember, folks, *no picture* is much better than a picture we can't
> redistribute. If you didn't make it with your own hands or scan it from
> a piece of paper older than 1924, and it doesn't have a "public domain"
> or "GNU Free Documentation License" note on it, think twice.

Good advice (is prior to January 1, 1923 or January 1, 1924?)

> Don't waste everyone's time copying something that turns up in 3 seconds
> searching images.google.com; creating original works is better.

There may be the _rare_ occasion when an image is so publically
well known (i.e. a famous photo of something that is very _news_
worthy) that practically any informational use may be covered
by fair use, but that will be _very rare_. Most fair uses will not
be 100% compatible with the GNU FDL.

> >  But when I go on w.es.kissinger, I see an
> > image...which is not an internal image, but rather an
> > external link to another web site (but is displayed in
> > wikipedia frame as well).

> It was disabled on the English wikipedia, as that's where abuses were
> occuring (quite frequently). In any case I would _discourage_ such
> linking. And there have been enough crazy court decisions over 'deep
> linking' and such that I wouldn't rely on "it's just a link to another
> site, we're not _copying it_" for an image embedded into a web page.
> (IANAL)

This is a good point. Even if you don't keep a copy, it is still being
copied
automatically when it is being displayed on the Wikipedia page. Someone
does not have to click on it to go to another web page. Therefore some
jury or judge can easily make a legal finding that the deep link is a copy
on Wikipedia (never know what judges or juries will do until the law
becomes well settled).

Alex756 (IAAL, but it's NALO [not a legal opinion]!)