headers
Axel Boldt | 1 Jun 2003 06:01
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Re: Fair use

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller@...> wrote:

> > First, use the extensive public domain archives
> 
> Pictures are public domain if they
> 1) have been created before 1923
> 2) are produced by the US government.

...or have been placed in the public domain by the copyright owner.
Check out for example the excellent collection of portrait photographs
donated to the Library of Congress.

> > Next, once our foundation has
> > money, we can try to acquire the copyright of selected important
> > images we need and cannot get in any other way.
> 
> The problem with that approach is that we need an exclusive
> world-wide license, since we need to allow unlimited redistribution 
> and modification.

*non-exclusive*

> This is *very* expensive for most professional photographs, and
> impossible for many.

So instead you suggest to simply take them for free, hoping that fair
use applies?

I think Brion's suggestion of simply linking to the external site
containing the photograph is a win-win-win-win proposal:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 38 comments |
headers
Erik Moeller | 1 Jun 2003 07:02
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: Fair use

Axel-
> Check out for example the excellent collection of portrait photographs
> donated to the Library of Congress.

Which one specifically?

>>> Next, once our foundation has
>>> money, we can try to acquire the copyright of selected important
>>> images we need and cannot get in any other way.
>>
>> The problem with that approach is that we need an exclusive
>> world-wide license, since we need to allow unlimited redistribution
>> and modification.

> *non-exclusive*

Actually, what we need is probably a transfer of the copyright to us, or  
at the very least a contract that allows unlimited sublicensing. Remember,  
we want to allow forks, commercial re-use etc. This is what is so  
expensive, because it deviates from normal company licensing policies,  
where you are allowed to use a work *in your product*, but certainly not  
to give others the right to create and distribute derivative works.

>> This is *very* expensive for most professional photographs, and
>> impossible for many.

> So instead you suggest to simply take them for free, hoping that fair
> use applies?

My, what nice rhetoric. Next you are going to accuse me of "stealing" ;-).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 37 comments |
headers
Marco Krohn | 1 Jun 2003 13:21
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: Fair use

On Sunday 01 June 2003 07:02, Erik Moeller wrote:

Erik,

[external linking of "fair use" images]
> Alas, it also has several problems:
>
> - When the website is down, the image is no longer available. Broken links
> often go unnoticed for longer periods of time because we have no way to
> systematically check them.
> - The image is no longer embedded in the proper context. It becomes
> difficult to associate image content with image text.
> - The reader is taken away from the Wikipedia navigational structure to a
> non-HTML image page. This is bad user interface design.
>
> So the win/win/win/win situation becomes a win/win/win/win/lose/lose/lose
> situation, at which point I think it more convenient to refer to it as a
> suboptimal solution.

I am more interested in the consequences of adding "fair use" images to the 
articles. As Axel pointed out we will violate the GFDL by embedding "fair 
use" images in our articles. This means that we have to change the license 
(at least for these articles) or even worse have to rewrite the whole article 
because such a license change is unlikely to be compatible with GFDL. Another 
thing is that we should remove the "free" from wikipedia.

Erik, I haven't seen a comment from you about this so far, but I would be very 
interested how you want to solve these problems.

best regards,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 32 comments |
headers
Erik Moeller | 1 Jun 2003 13:39
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: Fair use

Marco-
> Erik, I haven't seen a comment from you about this so far, but I would be
> very interested how you want to solve these problems.

See my response to Brion:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004200.html

Specifically note that textual quotes are already a form of fair use, and  
more closely linked to the actual article text than images. You don't want  
to forbid us to quote Martin Luther King, do you?

Regards,

Erik
Permalink | Reply | 28 comments |
headers
Marco Krohn | 1 Jun 2003 14:01
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: Fair use

On Sunday 01 June 2003 13:39, Erik Moeller wrote:

> > Erik, I haven't seen a comment from you about this so far, but I would be
> > very interested how you want to solve these problems.
>
> See my response to Brion:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2003-May/004200.html

thanks, I missed that.

> Specifically note that textual quotes are already a form of fair use, and
> more closely linked to the actual article text than images. You don't want
> to forbid us to quote Martin Luther King, do you?

While I agree that quotes are neccessary I have my doubts if this is compliant 
with GFDL. Actually I believe they violate the GFDL and we should think about 
this rather sooner than later.

BUT, you cannot argue that because we already have potential unsolved problems 
with the GFDL we are free to violate the GFDL more than that.

In my humble opinion we should think about how we can solve the problems we 
already have with the quotes and not make our situation worse by allowing 
"fair use" images which clearly violate the GFDL.

best regards,
  Marco

--

-- 
Marco Krohn
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 27 comments |
headers
Jimmy Wales | 1 Jun 2003 14:44

Re: Re: Fair use

Marco Krohn wrote, quoting Axel Boldt:
> "Illustrating an article by adding a photo creates a derivative
> work, therefore the whole has to be put under GFDL, therefore it cannot
> be fair use material (or anything besides public domain or GFDL)."

This is not valid reasoning.  If accurate, then we can't even quote
from copyrighted sources, not even one sentence of quotation, because
all such use is done under a "fair use" doctrine.

Suppose we have an article about a book by Noam Chomsky.  We wish to
explain the thesis of the book, and toward that end, we quote a
relevant sentence from the book.  This is perfectly valid, and it is
fair use.

What is the situation in German law?  You seem to be arguing that
there is no such thing as fair use in German law, but that strikes me
as virtually impossible.  Can you give the details?

By the way, I agree with those who say that (a) strictly speaking,
German law is not of primary interest to us, but also with those who
say that (b) if we can make sure that the encyclopedia is
redistributable in Germany, too, that's a good thing, if it doesn't
cost much in terms of content.

--Jimbo
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Jimmy Wales | 1 Jun 2003 14:48

Re: Re: Fair use

Erik Moeller wrote:
> Sure. Fair use is a rare exception to the rule that we should not use  
> copyrighted materials.

And it is one which we should approach with great caution.  I would be
in favor of never relying on "fair use" at all, except that it would
be silly and close to impossible to do so, particularly since ordinary
quotes from copyrighted texts are "fair use".  Shall we have a rule
that we can't quote a few words from a copyrighted text?  Absurd, I
think.

Even so, caution is warranted, because re-users might not be in the
same position vis a vis fair use as we are.  And we should be
sensitive to that.

--Jimbo
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jimmy Wales | 1 Jun 2003 14:51

Re: Re: Fair use

Marco Krohn wrote:
> I am more interested in the consequences of adding "fair use" images to the 
> articles. As Axel pointed out we will violate the GFDL by embedding "fair 
> use" images in our articles.

I don't think it is at all obvious that adding "fair use" content to
an article makes it incompatible with the GFDL.  If so, then we have a
major problem with respect to even quoting copyrighted books.

Alex has said this, and you have echoed it, but I'd like to see a full
analysis of it before we rely on it or accept it as true.

If it *is* true that nothing GFDL can contain any "fair use" content
at all, then we will have to not quote from books or newspapers.  But
I think that's absurd, and I think that the GFDL is not incompatible
with ordinary fair use.

--Jimbo
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Erik Moeller | 1 Jun 2003 15:05
Picon
Picon

Re: Re: Fair use

Marco-
> In my humble opinion we should think about how we can solve the problems we
> already have with the quotes and not make our situation worse by allowing
> "fair use" images which clearly violate the GFDL.

Let's be clear on one point: On en:, we are *already* allowing fair use of  
images. You would like to see this status *changed*. The legal case for  
doing so is no stronger than the case for prohibiting fair use of quotes  
or sounds (of which there are plenty). In fact, I will now demonstrate  
that it is weaker; that we need to worry more about quotes than about   
images.

The FDL was developed primarily for books and other printed works. As  
such, it does not contain any reference to "linking" of any kind. The  
relevant sections to our discussion are the following:

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

5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS

You may combine the Document with other documents released under this  
License, under the terms defined in section 4 above for modified versions,  
provided that you include in the combination all of the Invariant Sections  
of all of the original documents, unmodified, and list them all as  
Invariant Sections of your combined work in its license notice, and that  
you preserve all their Warranty Disclaimers.

....

7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 26 comments |
headers
Tomasz Wegrzanowski | 1 Jun 2003 15:42
Picon

Re: Re: Fair use

On Sun, Jun 01, 2003 at 03:05:00PM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Let's be clear on one point: On en:, we are *already* allowing fair use of  
> images.

No we're not !!!
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |

Gmane