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

Fri Jul 8 17:17:25 UTC 2005

Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>  
>
>>It probably
>>makes sense if we are to have a separate article for each Disney
>>character that each such article would have one necessarily free use
>>image of the character.
>>    
>>
>Did you mean to type "fair use" here?
>
Yes, thanks for spotting my error.

>I am happy to contribute a photo of Mickey Mouse which I took myself
>while visiting Disney World in Florida.  While there might (conceivably,
>but doubtfully) be some complex issues related to copyright in the
>character, I think this is a very very "clean" fair use as compared to,
>for example taking a scan of a drawing directly from Disney or (worse)
>simply downloading an image from a Disney website.
>
>It will be quite a bit easier, if we are pressed (unlikely), to defend a
>photo of a Disney character taken by a Wikipedian, than it is to defend
>a jpeg hoisted from a website.  Easier legally, I am not sure, I defer
>to the judgment of lawyers on that point (and I doubt if they really
>know since the amount of fair use case law which covers this point is
>not so large to my best knowledge).  
>
Hmmm!  Mickey Mouse is a cartoon character, and his historical 
importance is as a cartoon character.  So I would ask is a picture of 
someone dressed in a Mickey Mouse suit really a picture of Mickey Mouse? 
;-)

>But easier from a public relations point of view, no doubt.
>
>And we are big and important enough now that the PR point of view is
>totally relevant.
>
Good PR depends even more on intuitive good business sense and 
judgement.  In a strictly legal sense there was nothing wrong in what 
Bill Clinton did with Monica, but the PR was somewhat less than glorious.

>>The straw that breaks the camel's back does not function in isolation.
>>    
>>
>Very good observation.
>
>It is my position, speaking generally, that we ought to crack down quite
>a bit on "fair use", not because there are any legal problems with what
>we are doing now, but because it makes it harder for people to reuse in
>jurisdictions with bad fair use provisions, and because an excessive
>reliance on fair use tempts us to be lazy about creating freely licensed
>alternatives.
>
Continuing with the Mickey Mouse example, Walt Disney and Mickey Mouse 
were US citizens working in the US so US copyright law would apply in 
determining if there was infringement.  Foreign law that gives longer 
protection could not be used to extend copyrights beyond what they had 
in their home country.

I agree about the encouragement to laziness.  When there is a rule about 
anything it can be a tempting excuse to shut off the thinking apparatus.

Ec