[Wikipedia-l] Difference between "quoting" and "using" in Fair Use (re ko)

[Yongho Kim]

I am [[es/ko/en:User:Yonghokim]] and I am having a copyright law
interpretation debate (it's a rather silly one) with [[en/ko:User:WonYong]]
at the korean language wikipedia.

In the course of it, I argued that Fair Use is about using the image (e.g.
the Fair Use image or text can be used independent of other textual
context). He then argued that Fair Use is only about "quoting". I need some
advice on this - I am looking for a counterproof that the general academic
practice of quoting up to 5% of a source is NOT what Fair Use stands for.
Something like a portion in the US Copyright Law that mentions academic
quotations.

-------------------

In case my above dispute-solving-approach is mistaken, I'll introduce the
context as I understand it.

WonYong is making the following claims:

1) Uploading images in ko is not using it, we are merely uploading them to
"quote them" in Wikipedia documents.

2) Therefore South Korean Copyright Law regarding academic and media
"quotation" applies to these images - we can use anything as long as it
abides by SK CRL Chapter 6 (Limitations to Intellectual Property Rights),
Art. 25. Said clause states:

제25조 (공표된 저작물의 인용) 공표된 저작물은 보도·비평·교육·연구등을 위하여는 정당한 범위안에서 공정한 관행에 합치되게 이를 인용할
수 있다.

My translation: Art. 25 (Citation/Quotation of copyrighted work accessible
to the public) Copyrighted work accessible to the public can be quoted for
media, criticism, education, and research, within a justified range and in
pursuance to fair custom. http://tinyurl.com/a7frg

My understanding is that under Fair Use you can make copies of a copyrighted
work. For instance, you can photocopy a work of art and distribute it in
class for discussion. SKCRL 25 would not allow this. SKCRL is merely
spelling out the fact that you can quote verbatim up to 5% of a source when
writing a scholarly paper.

3) When I pointed out this to him, he told me that I "misunderstood Fair
Use" and that Fair Use is pretty much the same thing as SKCRL 25. Americans
are doing it, we have the samel law, why can't we do it?

4) Of course then there is the issue of Mr. WonYong thinking that the Korean
Language Wikipedia should abide by South Korean Law. I've had serious NPOV
disputes with him over this - suffice to say that he introduced the idea of
a "South Korea-specific NPOV". I'll post on this on a separate email.

There is some previous discussion that spilled into the English Language
Village Pump at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Lawfully citing
copyrighted images]] ( http://tinyurl.com/7v2pa ) If any of you read korean
and want to check out the current situation, just come to our Village Pump
(사랑방) - there's at least 7 subheadings created by WonYong that pretty much
argue variants of the same thing.

Yongho