On Thursday 19 February 2004 12:48 pm, Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Sascha Noyes wrote:
Obviously we could just throw them out.
That'd be exceptionally stupid,
though. Why is taking away relevant material from our readers good? In my
other email I've stated that the "maximum reusability" argument fails if
we package our material carefully. The only other argument I see is that
we somehow want to be "pure", and free from fair use images. In my
valuation, giving our readers relevant material that is nearly impossible
to give under the gfdl counts for more than gfdl "purity".
There is another argument, besides the moral one (which Jimbo presents in a
kinder formulation than you do, new readers should refer to it):
Using non-free images reduces in an article the incentive to get free
images for that article.
Yes, and I have stated in another email in the same thread my support for a
scheme which would only allow fair use images for historical events (ie.
where it is near impossible to get a gfdl image).
I agree with you that we shouldn't use a fair-use image for hard to get hold
of images such as some exotic animal or plant. Only depictions we could only
include if we were to convince the author to license it under the gfdl. (eg.
historical events, or if some copyright-retaining government takes pictures
of water on mars, etc.)
Best,
Sascha Noyes
--
Encryption key available from
http://www.pantropy.net/snoyes.asc