Sascha Noyes wrote:
I see two factions here. The "no fair use"
faction, and the group
that wants to allow fair use. As far as I can tell, the "no fair
use" insists on getting rid of every single fair use image, which
would include the examples that I and others have named. (My Lai
massacre, Tinament Square, etc.) The pro-fair use group seems to
want to offer a compromise: Only use fair use images for
circumstances where GFDL images are impossible.
But is anyone really arguing for absolutely no fair use in any
circumstances? I don't think that's a defensible position for at
least these reasons:
1. Even quotes from books are done under 'fair use' and no one is
suggesting (I hope) that we can't even quote from books. But if we
can quote from a book we can also "quote" from a movie (by using a
single still from a longer work, for example) or other work.
The conditions under which we can and should do so are murky, due to
the vagaries of copyright law and our interest in complying usefully
with the laws of many nations at the same time, without compromising
our integrity of course.
But "never under any circumstances" doesn't strike me as a remotely
plausible position.
2. The "hardliners" (of whom I count myself one) are hardliners in
part because of a certain set of views on copyright. These views
ought to lead us to want to _expand_ the doctrine of fair use.
Therefore, we *want* fair use, we want to rely on it, we want to use
our position of influence to break down the myth that just because
something is copyright, it's entirely untouchable.
--Jimbo