Axel-
Quite useful, thanks.
> Actually, what we need is probably a transfer of
the copyright to us,
> or at the very least a contract that allows unlimited sublicensing.
No, the precise thing we need is that the copyright
holder releases the
picture under GFDL.
Also fine, but again, expensive, because it deviates from usual licensing
policies.
> See where this kind of mentality is taking us?
Copyright
> paranoia.
Speaking of rhethoric: inventing a term with a
negative connotation for
a position you don't like does not advance your argument.
It's called memetic engineering, and it works, as the adoption of the term
by others shows. :-)
> I would think that someone opposed to
intellectual property
> would embrace the idea that we should defend and make use of our
> rights, instead of bowing to the pressure from copyright holders.
Yes, you might think that, and you would be wrong. In
the end you end
up with a Wikipedia that is such a mess copyright-wise that the goal
"freely redistributable" becomes a farce; just another encyclopedia,
without really advancing the global situation of "intellectual
property".
I don't see the slippery slope, sorry. We can all agree on trying to find
the right balance. A "fair use is not allowed" stance is neither balanced
nor logical. I have not seen your response to my analysis that conluded
that quotations are more problematic than images. Do you want to get rid
of those, too? Why single out images?
> - fair use should be kept at a minimum,
In practice, this means: "first ask for GFDL or
public domain; if they
refuse, ask for special licensing; if they refuse, you most likely can
use it anyway."
There are no automatisms. Wikipedia is built by people. And people like
you will make sure that fair use will remain the exception.
Regards,
Erik