On Fri, 30 May 2003, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
(Brion Vibber
<vibber(a)aludra.usc.edu>)u>):
I'm all in favor of putting them on a separate server with a separate
database and *not* embedding those images inline into articles, but
allowing explicitly external links to those images which users would have
to follow knowingly.
nonfree.wikipedia.org, anyone?
That's certainly an option to which I wouldn't object if it came to
that. I still think it's a bit paranoid,
You *will* submit to CopyrightParanoia... you *will* join the collective!
:D
but at least it would retain our ability to collect
and describe
useful information even if it did hamper its display a bit.
Great. As an intermediate step, how about we go ahead and add a
license-compatibility field or two to the image table and upload form (and
at some point go looking through old images to mark the ones known to be
PD or GFDL).
Then if we do decide we need to, we can slurp them out separately later or
change their display style.
What I think I'd like to see instead of the blanket "the copyright holder
has agreed to X" checkbox -- which encourages sloppiness -- is to have the
following:
( ) I, the uploader, created this file and own the copyright.
( ) I got this file from somewhere else:
[URL_or_citation_of_source___________]
and
( ) This file is public domain (has fallen out of copyright, was never
copyrighted, or has been explicitly put in PD by the author)
( ) This file is licensed under GFDL
( ) Copyright owner gives permission to reproduce for
non-commercial/educational purposes only
NOTE: [concerns over distribution, prefer free files]
( ) This file is used under 'fair use' claims without permission of the
copyright holder. NOTE: [concerns over distribution, prefer free
files]
Source is something that people are _supposed_ to put in the description,
but it often doesn't get done. If we can reject uploads that don't have a
source listed, this should encourage better documentation. (A true
paranoic would require this of all text edits too, but people at least
_seem_ to be less inclined to plagiarize text, and other people are a lot
less tolerant of it when it's found, so I think our current procedures are
sufficient for a good-faith effort in text-land.)
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)