[WikiEN-l] Image use (was "the document vs. everything vs. the text")

Fri Aug 13 13:34:16 UTC 2004

CB low

> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 07:08:12 -0700
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales at wikia.com>
>
> Jens Ropers wrote:
>> IMHO we would severely hamstring ourselves if we didn't allow this.
>
> I don't think so.  There might be some extreme cases in which we might
> desperately need something that is unavailable under a free license
> and also unavailable under a conservative interpretation of 'fair
> use/fair dealing', but it is very hard to think of examples.
>
> One very big issue is that if we permit ourselves to use content
> under a proprietary license, we do two very bad things:
>
> 1.  We dilute our standing as a shining example of what freedom can
> bring.  We lose the ability to speak publicly and say: "Look, the
> claim that proprietary copyright is necessary for the production of
> quality content is not true; we have proven it."  Instead, we have to
> point to our work and say "Well, some of it is free, but some of it is
> proprietary, and we really needed the proprietary stuff to make it
> work."
>
> 2.  We remove the incentive for free alternatives to develop.  Imagine
> if I went to a major stock photo house and obtained, as a charitable
> contribution, licenses for wikipedia-only use of photos of major
> landmarks around the world.  Then why should anyone bother to go out
> and take a photo of the Leaning Tower of Pisa with Wikipedia in mind?
>
>> There are some very important images out there that /should/ be
>> included in the Wikipedia -- and we may just (given our "limited" 
>> legal
>> resources) be unable to ever get them under "free" licenses.
>
> I concede that there may well be *a few* rare cases where this is
> absolutely necessary for scholarly integrity.  We should make careful
> judgments about those exceptions, on a case-by-case basis.
>
> What we should *not* do is get lax about using non-free content as a
> crutch because it is easier or more convenient.
>
> --Jimbo

I can actually see where you're coming from and I would even largely 
agree.
However, with respect to the [[Image:TrangBang.jpg]] I emailed AP about 
-- are you ok/is there agreement that this would be one of the "few 
rare cases"?
I would strongly plead that it is. My email was this:

> 	From: 	  ropers at ropersonline.com
> 	Subject: 	electronic reproduction permission request -- Nick Ut's 
> "naked girl running from napalm attack" photograph of Kim Phuc Phan 
> Thi
> 	Date: 	8 August 2004 16:25:15 GMT+02:00
> 	To: 	  apdigital at ap.org
(content omitted here)

I previously cc'd this mailing list on that email.

Thanks and regards,

- Jens [[User:Ropers|Ropers]]