[WikiEN-l] Non-free images, there has to be a better way

Wed Jul 6 22:36:56 UTC 2005

> I agree, which is why I find the current policy somewhat nonsensical
> -- i.e. , "free use except for commercial use" requires no more or
> less diligence by the end-user than "fair use" licensing.

Exactly. If anything those are simpler for
the downstream user to handle. If an image
has a non-commercial license then she knows
immediately whether she can use it or not.
If an image is used on Wikipedia under fair
use then it may be more difficult for her
to find out if she can use it.

And for some reason people seem to emphasize
the plight of those downstream users who want
to copy all of Wikipedia's content at once.
For those people it will indeed be quite a
chore to wade through every image to check
their license. This will be true unless we
adopt a much more stringent licensing policy,
in which disallowing fair use would be the
first step.

But I argue that this kind of downstream usage
isn't necessarily that important. If someone
eventually publishes Wikipedia's content in
print it will probably be Wikipedia itself
and online mirrors are mostly useless.

What seems to me to be more useful downstream
use is for people to take a relatively small
collection of pages and work them into something
a bit more coherent and useful.

Let's say I wanted to publish a handbook on
[[Norse mythology]] on the web or in print.
I could start with the Wikipedia articles and
pictures on the subject. Then I would work them
to better suit my needs. If any relevant pictures
had dodgy licenses I would look into them
individually. If Wikipedia had a specific
permission to use some images I would try to
obtain the same permission for my handbook.
I would probably want to avoid any "fair use"
images.

(As it happens almost all of our images on this
subject are in the public domain - though some
of the photographs of old paintings rely on
the U.S. specific Bridgeman ruling.)

> What, 10,000-20,000 pieces of copyrighted content that we
> use in defiance of their copyright holders, paying not a cent, hiding
> behind the defensive, feeble, and unreliable "fair use" clause in a
> nation where every congressman is preaching Big Media's jeremiad about
> copyright infringement destroying the economy? Sounds to me like the
> makings of one heck of a class-action suit...

I think that various "giants" may want to attack us
at some point. The only reason they have not done so
already may be that they fear that the publicity and
possible sympathy Wikipedia could gain from such an
attack might offset the damage the lawsuit could do.

Every day blatant copyright violations are being added
to Wikipedia. Many of them are caught immediately but
I fear that a lot is still slipping through. Add shady
"fair use" to this and almost anyone who wanted could
probably conjure up some sort of case against us.

"Geyr nú garmr mjök..."

Regards,
Haukur