[WikiEN-l] "Fair use" abuse on user pages

Fri Sep 23 16:37:21 UTC 2005

On 9/23/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Maybe it's just me, but when someone is completely oblivious with regard
> to copyright law, how are they going to find out which tag to use if they
> need to read the tag to find out if it fits? Now we've got the automated
> license selector in the upload process, we should have some easy way for
> noobs to determine which one to choose. If the previous system was confusing
> and rarely used, it should've been rewritten to make things easier (as much
> as it's possible with law-related text) and its use should be encouraged
> more. Not having an easy to understand quick read about licenses is the
> excuse people use to upload loads of abusive fair use claimed images. Having
> such a system return makes excuses impossible.

Well, the paradox about the fair use tags is that they are sorted by
*media* but fair use is about *use*. So, in an ideal world, with ideal
tags, if one knows the media, one can use the correct tag, which
itself will be self-descriptive about the use.

An example: Hapless, well-intentioned user notices that book covers
seem to be allowed on Wikipedia, and uploads an image of a cover of a
book. They look at WP:ICT (or just copy from another bookcover
description), and see there is a template for {{bookcover}}, which
they use.

If they read the template, they will see that it says, "Book covers
are thought to be fair use on Wikipedia when they are low-resolution
and illustrate the book in question or are used for critical
commentary on the cover itself, and anything else may be copyright
infringement" or something along those lines. The reader says, "Oh no,
my cover was high res!" and goes back and changes it. Or they say,
"Oh, I guess I can't use this book cover just to illustrate the object
depicted on the cover!" or something along these lines, which affects
their use. Or, another, equally hapless but well-intentioned user sees
this image and the tag, and says, "Hey, I don't think this image is
being used correctly, because the image is being used in such-and-such
a way" and flags it as a questionable instance of the fair use claim
(simple methods to flag things for review by less hapless users are
being developed).

Anyway, that was my original idea. The goal is to make it so that both
the *selection* of the tag and the *applicability* of the tag should
be easy for someone without a clue about copyright law. And they don't
even need to become educated in the law one bit to properly tag images
or spot poorly used images. Such is my hope and theory. I'm really not
in favor of putting "fair use" at all as an option on the auto-license
selector -- if you're new enough to not be able to navigate WP:ICT and
make sense of it, you shouldn't be uploading copyrighted material yet,
period. In my opinion.

The problem with the original flowchart was that it was focused on the
wider question of "fair use" as a legal question. It ended up with a
"score" of how "fair use" something was which was opaque and had no
equivalent in the legal world.

I'm more in favor of a list of simple proclamations. Such as:

1. If it can be remade "freely", do so instead. You can request
graphics to be drawn [[here]] and photographs [[here]].
2. If it is a significantly higher resolution than would be needed to
illustrate it in a Wikipedia article, downsize it. [[Here]]'s an
explanation of how to do this.
3. If the image from a source which makes its money solely from
selling images, you probably shouldn't use it.
4. If reproducing the image on Wikipedia could in any reasonable way
seriously impact negatively the future sales of the copyrighted
product it is from or depicts, don't use it. A large part of whether
something is "fair use" is whether it has a negative effect on the
potential market of an image.
... etc.

No jumping around. The goal would be to make something even more
specific than the usual "criteria for deletion", but for copyrighted
images in particular. That way relatively hapless users could say,
"Hey, this isn't allowed under our fair use policy, because it
violates rule number 4". Disputes over the content and validity of the
rules would be of course up for consensus but hopefully would be
largely decided by people with some basic knowledge of "fair use" law.

I apologize for the long and overly theoretical e-mails... seminars
are back in session, so I spend most of my days obfuscating and trying
to appear overly intellectual. It's a hard habit to break. ;-)

FF