On 13/10/2007, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/24/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. We
should repeal the prohibition against "with permission only"
and "non-commercial use only" images.
Both of those have legal issues within wikimedia never mind re users.
No they don't.
Define precisely non-commercial does with permission allow for
resizing or moving to projects other than the one it was uploaded
onto.
Hard to say.
Raw deletion numbers would be a few 100K but we have no
idea how many extra free images have turned up since.
It tends to produce novel content.
So do you or do you not have actual evidence? I want to see the
number of non-free images being replaced with free ones vs the number
of non-free images being deleted and never replaced.
You are free to compile them.
This restriction doesn't produce any more novel
content than would
have been produced without it.
(Proof by assertion is great, isn't it?)
My assertions are based on my experience from spending large amounts
of time dealing with en's images.
Still random example see [[Henry Allingham]]
Note free image does not appear until after non free has been vaporised
If you want to promote the creation of free content or
the finding of
free images, go right ahead. I'll gladly help. Just stop deleting
the non-free content in the meantime.
Find enough free content and it will cease to be an issue.
Tends to
produce bigger images. Compare
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Edna_Parker.JPG
With the average stolen AP image.
One down, a few 100K to go?
Eh I'm young I can wait.
Given that conventional encyclopedia tended not
to be too pic heavy
I'm not so worried.
There's a great attitude. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica didn't
have an article on Linux, so why should we?
I was considering the context of more modern works.
it's not benefiting our
users, and it's not benefiting our downstream users.
That various produces of static CD versions would beg to differ,
Please provide concrete evidence of an actual problem. Not just "it
might theoretically cause problems for some downstream users". Lots
of things might cause problems for downstream users. Good thing we
don't cripple the project for their benefit.
SOS children
That is
already the case as far is allowed within US law.
Our current rules are much more strict than US law, since fair use is
not a license; it's a shaky, undefined legal defense. Relying
entirely on fair use without even asking permission is very dangerous
from a legal standpoint.
Asking permission has no impact on fair use.
It would be infinitely safer and more rational to ask
copyright
holders for permission to use their images, like every other normal
publication. If we're lucky (or persuasive), they might even agree to
freely license them.
Not if they can get away with less free options.
Most of our
policies are setup to sidestep as much as possible that
very question.
Why?
Because if I were to say that per Rogers v. Koons your fair use case
is probably invalid:
a) rather a lot of people won't know what I'm talking about
b)Someone will claim I'm illegally giving legal advice
There are far more effective ways of keeping fair use under control.
On 9/24/07, Nick <heligolandwp(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
Just thinking about it, how long does it take to
track down a photo of a
celebrity on Flickr and ask the photographer for him to relicence one or two
images under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licences on Flickr ?
If said photographer is willing to release that image for
redistribution, modification, and resale by anyone...
Small "if".
For a fair number yes.
On 9/24/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What we appear to have is an argument between two
camps as to whether
we are producing a FREE encyclopaedia, or a free ENCYCLOPAEDIA.
Is someone advocating for a non-free encyclopedia?
Using non-free images in our articles does not make the encyclopedia
any less free. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, not a free image
repository.
Are you now trying to claim that images are not part of the encyclopedia?
--
geni