What would Richard Stallman say?

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: [Wikipedia-l] China WP access...

Let's separate user and talkpage...

Daniel Mayer

20 Feb 2004 20 Feb '04

3:54 a.m.

Jimbo wrote:

...

... If that means less images for now, then it means less images for now. It also means that we have a very strong incentive to develop free alternatives.

No it means that many things will *never* have images. For example, Dolly the Sheep is dead. The only images of her are either from the news media or from the Roslin Institute. Therefore I used the images from the Roslin Institute. The license on those images states that they can be freely used in a noncommercial setting so long as credit is given. I have done that. What we need is the ability to mark those image pages so that commercial downstream users can easily exclude them. I really like the GNU philosophy, but the GNU license is a means to an end. That end is, at least for me, to create the best encyclopedia on the planet. And to do that we need to use some noncommercial grant, special permission, and liberal fair use doctrine images. So IMO, we should officially discourage the use of these hindered images by encouraging freer alternatives, but we should not ban them. We should mark them so that non-Wikimedia and/or commercial downstream users can easily exclude their display in their versions of our articles. Text is a different matter since there is no easy way to exclude hindered text for downstream users. So "fair use" in that regard must be limited to what a commercial user could do (relatively short and clearly marked and attributed quotations). -- mav __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

Show replies by date

Tomasz Wegrzanowski

20 Feb 20 Feb

4:16 a.m.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:54:55PM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:

...

Jimbo wrote:

... If that means less images for now, then it means less images for now. It also means that we have a very strong incentive to develop free alternatives.

Fair use is one thing but this has gone way too far. Image deleted. And you lied when submitting that it is a free image. You should at least feel ashamed of what you have done.

Yann Forget

4:23 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Le Thursday 19 February 2004 23:16, Tomasz Wegrzanowski a écrit :

...

Fair use is one thing but this has gone way too far. Image deleted.

This seems alright as fair use to me. And you take bold decisions without asking others if they agree. Not very nice.

...

And you lied when submitting that it is a free image. You should at least feel ashamed of what you have done.

And this moral judgement should not appear here. Yann - -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikipedia.org/ | Encyclopédie libre http://www.forget-me.net/pro/ | Formations et services Linux

...PGP SIGNATURE...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFANTdPm4KYjQo0y9oRAp/oAJ9id/S8n3fKUyoerXzr5/0sqi7Y9ACdGs8C bH07sekBJqoudUTGcs38jHg= =ydl9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Caroline Ford

4:31 a.m.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

...

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:54:55PM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:

Jimbo wrote:

... If that means less images for now, then it means less images for now. It also means that we have a very strong incentive to develop free alternatives.

Fair use is one thing but this has gone way too far. Image deleted. And you lied when submitting that it is a free image. You should at least feel ashamed of what you have done. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

And you should be ashamed by abusing sysop rights by deleting an image without discussion. There is clearly no consensus to delete images we have permission to use. I don't understand why you think this is worse than fair use - this image is used entirely legally, unlike a lot of "fair use" images. It would also probably be illegal for a UK contributor to upload it under American fair use law. I notice that it was quickly restored, and messages left on your talk page asking you to desist. Caroline / Secretlondon

Anthere

6 a.m.

Caroline Ford a écrit:

...

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 01:54:55PM -0800, Daniel Mayer wrote:

Jimbo wrote:

... If that means less images for now, then it means less images for now. It also means that we have a very strong incentive to develop free alternatives.

I must have missed a step one day. I thought image deletion was permanent. No ? I am always a train late :-)

Tomasz Wegrzanowski

6:20 a.m.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:31:51PM +0000, Caroline Ford wrote:

...

And you should be ashamed by abusing sysop rights by deleting an image without discussion.

I'm going to use sysops powers as much as I see fit in copyright and vandalism related matters.

...

There is clearly no consensus to delete images we have permission to use.

But we obviously don't. I can't legally print it with the article and sell it, so it's not acceptable.

Stan Shebs

6:40 a.m.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

...

There is clearly no consensus to delete images we have permission to use.

But we obviously don't. I can't legally print it with the article and sell it, so it's not acceptable.

What makes you so sure about that? Are you a copyright expert, or have you gotten a statement to that effect from a copyright expert? Stan

Tomasz Wegrzanowski

6:49 a.m.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 04:40:54PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:

...

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

There is clearly no consensus to delete images we have permission to use.

But we obviously don't. I can't legally print it with the article and sell it, so it's not acceptable.

What makes you so sure about that? Are you a copyright expert, or have you gotten a statement to that effect from a copyright expert?

Maveric149 (Photo of [[Dolly the sheep]] owned by [[Roslin Institute]] obtained from http://www.roslin.ac.uk/library/ . This image "...may be used free of charge by education, public sector or non-profit making groups Is there anything unclear about that ? It's not even a "fair use" stuff, it's plain breaking copyright laws.

Arwel Parry

7:08 a.m.

In message <20040220004904.GA11707(a)wroclaw.taw.pl.eu.org>rg>, Tomasz Wegrzanowski <taw-iA+eEnwkJgzk1uMJSBkQmQ(a)public.gmane.org> writes

...

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 04:40:54PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

There is clearly no consensus to delete images we have permission to use.

But we obviously don't. I can't legally print it with the article and sell it, so it's not acceptable.

What makes you so sure about that? Are you a copyright expert, or have you gotten a statement to that effect from a copyright expert?

There's nothing unclear about it. When did we start making a profit? Therefore we are adequately covered at the moment. Your behaviour on [[Dolly the sheep]] tonight has been an abuse of your sysop powers. en: has perfectly adequate procedures to handle suspected copyright violations -- use them, do not resort to vigilantism. -- Arwel Parry http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

Delirium

11:08 a.m.

Stan Shebs wrote:

...

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

There is clearly no consensus to delete images we have permission to use.

But we obviously don't. I can't legally print it with the article and sell it, so it's not acceptable.

What makes you so sure about that? Are you a copyright expert, or have you gotten a statement to that effect from a copyright expert?

I'm not a lawyer, but that interpretation seems consistent with the "do fair use images violate the GFDL?" discussion. Fair use images, it appears, do not in fact violate the GFDL, because they're a special case of conditionally-public-domain material, so the GFDL doesn't apply, because copyright law does not apply. But with special-permission images, copyright law *does* apply. And the GFDL explicitly prohibits editing a GFDL work by inserting non-GFDL'd components. There is the aggregation defense that has been alluded to, but I think inserting an image in-line in an article is clearly making it part of the article as one work, not merely distributing it on the same medium. If all the images were on separate pages (as in an appendix, perhaps), then that'd be another matter. So, in my non-legal opinion, I don't think we can legally include special-permission images in GFDL'd articles, as doing so is a violation of the GFDL's "all edits must also be GFDL'd" requirement. (Again, fair use and public domain images excepted.) -Mark

Tomasz Wegrzanowski

11:33 a.m.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 09:08:34PM -0800, Delirium wrote:

...

Stan Shebs wrote:

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

There is clearly no consensus to delete images we have permission to use.

But we obviously don't. I can't legally print it with the article and sell it, so it's not acceptable.

What makes you so sure about that? Are you a copyright expert, or have you gotten a statement to that effect from a copyright expert?

The point of fair use is that '''certain use''' is fair, not arbitrary use - and the copyright still applies. And this effectively restricts what can be legally done with a work created using both GFDL and fair use material, and thus breaks the GFDL. So we need to separate nonfree content somewhere else, and then we can claim it's mere aggregation.

Delirium

11:32 a.m.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

...

This was the argument I had initially advanced (on meta:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?), but I no longer am convinced it's true. Fair use seems to be a very oddly-constructed case in which it's difficult to tell *exactly* what applies, but it appears to be the case that copyright law simply doesn't apply at all to fair use situations. Since the GFDL relies on copyright law, it thus can't really have anything to say about fair use. For example, short quotations of literature are fair use. Presumably the GFDL does not intend to prohibit any GFDL'd works from including short quotations from literature? Since afaik fair use is fair use, if that's permitted, then fair use images generally must also be permitted. I do agree that some fair use images violate the spirit of the GFDL, and should be discouraged. For example, if something is only barely fair use for us, and only because we're a non-profit organization with an educational mission, that has the effect of making the document non-free for all practical purposes, unless the images are stripped out, while the entire point of the GFDL was to make the document free for all purposes. But things like short quotations from literature, or very famous news photographs, and so on, that would be fair use for most of our users, seem like they should be okay. -Mark

Brion Vibber

11:34 a.m.

New subject: nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: What would Richard Stallman say?)

On Feb 19, 2004, at 21:08, Delirium wrote:

...

There is the aggregation defense that has been alluded to, but I think inserting an image in-line in an article is clearly making it part of the article as one work, not merely distributing it on the same medium. If all the images were on separate pages (as in an appendix, perhaps), then that'd be another matter.

On that note, a question for the folks who aren't willing to give up "fair use images": would an 'appendix' system be acceptable to you? What I'm envisioning is an associated site to which non-PD non-GFDL but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia could be uploaded and linked _from there_ to Wikipedia article names. The page display on *.wikipedia.org could see when there's an associated page and include a more or less prominent link to the photo/media page. (For those familiar with Ward's Wiki, this would be similar to how SisterSites links work.) To summarize: * images which can only be justified as "fair use" (for some uses, in the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, embedded in Wikipedia articles, or included in basic Wikipedia page/media dumps * but those images could be made available through Wikimedia's sites (for acceptably fair use, in the US) and hyperlinked to Wikipedia articles (not inline) * redistributors who determined the images were ok could still take them * redistributors who might not be able to use them don't have to mess with it Would this be acceptable from legal, moral, and other standpoints? -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Optim

1:46 p.m.

New subject: nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: What would Richard Stallman say?)

if I understood well, you suggest having a database of fair use images which can be hyperlinked from Wikipedia articles but they will never be inline. If I understood correctly then I agree! According to my moral standards this is ok. However I cannot talk about the law because IANAL. --Optim --- Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote:

...

On Feb 19, 2004, at 21:08, Delirium wrote:

There is the aggregation defense that has

been alluded to, but I think

inserting an image in-line in an article is

clearly making it part of

the article as one work, not merely

distributing it on the same

medium. If all the images were on separate

pages (as in an appendix,

perhaps), then that'd be another matter.

but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia

...

could be uploaded and linked _from there_ to Wikipedia article names. The page display on *.wikipedia.org could see when there's an associated page and include a more or less prominent link to the photo/media page. (For those familiar with Ward's Wiki, this would be similar to how SisterSites links work.) To summarize: * images which can only be justified as "fair use" (for some uses, in the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, embedded in Wikipedia articles, or included in basic Wikipedia page/media dumps * but those images could be made available through Wikimedia's sites (for acceptably fair use, in the US) and hyperlinked to Wikipedia articles (not inline) * redistributors who determined the images were ok could still take them * redistributors who might not be able to use them don't have to mess with it Would this be acceptable from legal, moral, and other standpoints? -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

...

ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature

x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig

...

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

...

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools

Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen

1:52 p.m.

New subject: nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: What would Richard Stallman say?)

IMO, something like this is acceptable - but I would also like to see the images wrapped with a notice of some kind (a small table?), so visitors know immediately that they are not inherently part of the article. And also to produce an incentive for Wikipedia authors to find free alternatives when it's possible. -- Daniel On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Optim wrote:

...

On Feb 19, 2004, at 21:08, Delirium wrote:

There is the aggregation defense that has

been alluded to, but I think

inserting an image in-line in an article is

clearly making it part of

the article as one work, not merely

distributing it on the same

medium. If all the images were on separate

pages (as in an appendix,

perhaps), then that'd be another matter.

but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia

ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature

x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Andrew Lih

2:22 p.m.

New subject: nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: What would RichardStallman say?)

This is reminiscent of the issue with restrictions on high/low encryption in web browsers, where you had to download a separate 128-bit crypto module vs. the standard 56-bit that the US would allow to "export." Perhaps a solution along those lines might be necessary. Then the individual downloaders/distributors would take responsibility of determining which "image pack" to go with, thereby putting the onus not on Wikimedia, but on others. Not a great thought, but just a thought. -Andrew

...

-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:52 PM To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: [Wikipedia-l] What would RichardStallman say?) IMO, something like this is acceptable - but I would also like to see the images wrapped with a notice of some kind (a small table?), so visitors know immediately that they are not inherently part of the article. And also to produce an incentive for Wikipedia authors to find free alternatives when it's possible. -- Daniel On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Optim wrote:

On Feb 19, 2004, at 21:08, Delirium wrote:

There is the aggregation defense that has

been alluded to, but I think

inserting an image in-line in an article is

clearly making it part of

the article as one work, not merely

distributing it on the same

medium. If all the images were on separate

pages (as in an appendix,

perhaps), then that'd be another matter.

but-probably-ok-under-fair-use-for-a-non-profit-encyclopedia

ATTACHMENT part 1.2 application/pgp-signature

x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wik> ipedia-l

erik_moeller＠gmx.de

8:38 p.m.

New subject: nonfree.wikipedia.org (was Re: What would Richard Stallman say?)

Brion-

...

To summarize: * images which can only be justified as "fair use" (for some uses, in the US only) would not be uploaded to Wikipedia itself, embedded in Wikipedia articles,

That's unacceptable. The whole point of fair use images is to illustrate articles. Links are not illustrations. This issue has the potential to split the community and both sides would do well to seek some middle ground. That middle ground has been clearly defined. Use fair use when nothing else is available, clearly flag images. I find it quite bizarre that the GNU advocates are acting in the same bullyish members as the RIAA is about "copyright violations". There lies no salvation in extremism. Regards, Erik

Delirium

11:26 a.m.

Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:

...

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:31:51PM +0000, Caroline Ford wrote:

And you should be ashamed by abusing sysop rights by deleting an image without discussion.

I'm going to use sysops powers as much as I see fit in copyright and vandalism related matters.

As far as copyright-related matters go, please use [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]] instead of instant deletion. This is our established mechanism for even apparently-obvious copyright violations (like copying/pasting from websites), and seems to work fairly well. The idea is that we get several opinions, and give the original user a chance to say "hey guys I'm the author and I GFDL it" on the occasions when we mistakenly assume something is a copyright violation. -Mark

Jimmy Wales

9:24 p.m.

Daniel Mayer wrote:

...

1. We could have an illustration. 2. We could explain to the Roslin Institute who we are (though, as our fame grows, they will know who we are anyway in a year or two) and ask that just *one* image be released under a free license. (I would recommend Creative Commons attribution share alike, because it is easy to read and understand, and more directly applicable to images than the FDL.) 3. We could contact the news media, who generally love us, and ask for a single photo from their archives. (To date, I have not had a single interview with any reporter who didn't gush over our project and take a few minutes after the interview telling me some little anecdote about how our work has positively impacted there life in at least some small way. Earlier this week, a reporter told me that Wikipedia helped him pass his citizenship test.) --Jimbo

7393

days inactive

7394

days old

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

18 comments

14 participants

tags (0)

participants (14)

Andrew Lih
Anthere
Arwel Parry
Brion Vibber
Caroline Ford
Daniel Mayer
Delirium
erik_moeller＠gmx.de
Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen
Jimmy Wales
Optim
Stan Shebs
Tomasz Wegrzanowski
Yann Forget