[Foundation-l] Exemption Doctrine Policy

Wed Aug 8 05:30:27 UTC 2007

Kat Walsh wrote:
> On 8/8/07, Luna <lunasantin at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On 8/7/07, cohesion <cohesion at sleepyhead.org> wrote:
>>     
>>> From a discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Non-free use rationale
>>> guideline#What are we really accomplishing here?]], is it the
>>> foundations view that the wording of the policy requires a *written*
>>> rationale for any non-free content, or only that a rationale exists
>>> for its use (possibly in the abstract)?
>>>
>>> Usually we had assumed it required a written one, but the phrase
>>> "...should go through a discussion process where it is determined
>>> whether such a rationale exists..." makes it seem as though perhaps
>>> the intention is to mean a rationale in the abstract.
>>>
>>>       
>> "Media used under EDPs are subject to deletion if they lack an applicable
>> rationale..."
>>
>> "...existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion
>> process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists..."
>>
>> Those seem to be the relevant bits, at first glance. I could be mistaken,
>> but I don't see anything there that requires the rationale be in writing. My
>> current understanding is that en.wikipedia policy adds this requirement
>> explicitly.
>>
>> But, I'm not in a position to speak for the foundation in any capacity, just
>> a nosy list member. ;)
>>     
>
> Yep. The rationale doesn't actually need to be stated explicitly, and
> boilerplate is perfectly fine if it is actually used correctly and
> applies to the particular media in the particular situation. There
> just needs to *be* a solid rationale within the licensing policy for
> using non-free media. If it's not absolutely clear that a rationale
> exists, it's best to err on the side of writing it down, and if
> en.wikipedia wants to demand an explicit rationale, then it's free to
> set policy that way.
>
> (Note that I haven't consulted the rest of the board -- as those who
> are not currently in planes are probably really tired -- but I have no
> reason to think any would disagree.)
>
> -Kat
>
>   
While we're at it here, a clarification on what constitutes "minimal"
use wouldn't be a terribly bad idea either. It seems the ideas on that
range from "Pretty much anywhere we could legally get away with it" to
"Only in a very few cases". There seems to be especial heat over
album/book/movie covers, movie and game screenshots, etc., and whether
those should be allowed in all such articles or only where they're
specifically discussed in the article or actually illustrate article
text, rather than simply just to "be there".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20070807/7f3a6641/attachment-0001.pgp