[WikiEN-l] RE: Fair use

Mon Sep 12 21:45:10 UTC 2005

> Where exactly have you been trying to form this policy by working
> through the issues? So far all I've you do is rewrite [[Wikipedia:Fair
> use]], which was on the whole a good thing. (I thought there were a
> few problems with it...)

Indeed, that was a major area, and there does appear to be some progress
there.  As you're aware, I've also edited a couple of of the tag
templates, and the Wikiproject page.  There has also been some
discussion on the speedy deletion page.

> I could be wrong, but it seems like you've nominated a whole single
> image for deletion along these lines in the last two weeks. If you
> think an image is a copyright infringement -- and doesn't qualify for
> fair use -- why not tag it as such and mark it for deletion?

At present I am more interested in policy matters.  I do not believe
that I can accomplish anything meaningful by my own extensive use of
and involvement in an existing copyvio image process that (a) is far
more work for the listing admin than the uploader, (b) takes weeks to
reach resolution in uncontroversial cases, and (c) has an excessive
inclusion bias for copyvio images with a fair use claim.  I'm willing
to review images, and list them for deletion, but not until the policy
issues are properly addressed.  I have had too much Wikistress in the
past trying to work to implement things that lacked definition.

> You added your name to [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fair use]], which has
> been quite active in rewriting fair use tags (and deleting problematic
> ones), and is on the cusp of having a workable system for users to
> label suspicious/disputed/approved fair use claims.
> 
> If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please do. There are a
> number of people who are trying to draw up guidelines and feasible
> plans. I'm not trying to sound snarky, but you're clearly aware of our
> project, so I'm taking your complaining to the list as being some sort
> of indication that you don't think it is in alignment with your goals
> or thinking.

At present, the project isn't soundly grounded in legal advice.  I'm not
an attorney so I can't fix that.  However I do disagree with the other
WikiProject members in several important areas.  I believe this is a
matter better resolved by competent counsel rather than by compromise
and consensus.  That is why I have brought it here.

I believe, for example, that we do not accomplish anything meaningful by
using low-resolution images and sound clips; consenus appears to be that
resolution limits are important.  I don't think that discussing or
voting on this will help us because it is better settled by sound legal
advice.  I don't think it is in the best interests of the project to
have a bunch of laypeople (non-lawyers) dream up fair use policy. 

> After some time assessing things, I think a great deal of our fair use
> images are just fine. The vast majority of them are things like box
> art and movie posters and are low-res, used appropriately in articles,
> have no "free" replacements available, and don't deny anybody future
> profitability.

I am unconvinced of this.  Other than the OCILLA safe harbor provisions,
I don't think we have a uniformly strong claim.  Many of the articles
don't have any meaningful critical content, instead merely serving to
identify the game or movie or book as the case may be and provide
noncritical directory information (credits, year of publication, and so
on).  I don't know what the case law has to say on that.

I don't believe that our fair use claim is in any way strengthened by
the absence of "free" replacements for copyrighted materials.

I believe that publicity photos require no fair use rationale for the
reasons I have stated on the appropriate policy page.

I believe that the non-commercial nature of the project should not be a
guiding factor in our choice of fair use policy, because of the need to
preserve re-use rights for mirrors.

You see it differently, and I understand that, and in most cases I
understand your reasoning.  Again, compromise and consensus are a poor
substitite for counsel in this case, which is why I'm not striving for
compromise and consensus.

> At the moment we've been mostly concentrating on
> sorting these sorts of things out so that it's easy to see get to the
> more problematic cases. These things take time, of course, and the
> efforts of volunteers -- hence a coordinating project.

The categorization efforts are indeed helpful.  It is the policy that
concerns me.  