[Foundation-l] Fair use being badly abused on en.wikipedia

Sat Jan 12 15:17:57 UTC 2008

On Jan 11, 2008 4:02 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 12:17 PM, Todd Allen <toddmallen at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 10, 2008 7:35 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jan 10, 2008 7:37 PM, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There is an awful lot of material we use and justify by saying "well,
> > > > we couldn't use anything else" - we should be very wary of believing
> > > > this to be a justification that we *need* it.
> > >
> > > I agree with this sentiment entirely. Just because an image is
> > > irreplacable does not mean it has intrinsic value. For instance, the
> > > cover image of a book or CD or DVD is hardly "important". That is,
> > > unless there is something special and unique about that particular
> > > cover that makes it worthy of pointing out especially.
> > >
> > > On en.wikibooks, the biggest hurdle we have is in the software
> > > guidebooks for proprietart software packages. For instance, it's
> > > difficult to teach Adobe Photoshop without including some screenshots
> > > of the interface. (we have a book on GIMP too, before anybody
> > > complains). Fair use should be invoked when the image is essential to
> > > the book or article. If it is not essential, then it is mere
> > > decoration, and fair use seems like a bit of a gamble to employ on
> > > decorations.
> > >
> > > --Andrew Whitworth
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > That's a point I've tried to make myself, and hope to figure out how
> > to effectively state. -One- possible instance of "replaceable" is "a
> > free image could be taken or created", but this is not by any means
> > the only one. "The article would be alright without the image
> > whatsoever" is another very common instance. Text is free content. If
> > text can adequately make the point, the image is replaceable. If the
> > (logo/CD or book cover/film screenshot) is not iconic and in and of
> > itself the subject of substantial commentary, it's decoration and the
> > article would be fine with it gone.
> >
> > So long as we continue to allow nonfree content, especially in the
> > massive amounts it's currently allowed in (at least on en.wp, mileage
> > may vary elsewhere), we really should remove "free" from "the free
> > encyclopedia", or at least make clear that this refers to "gratis"
> > rather than "libre". Genuine libre projects have a certain percentage
> > of nonfree material they allow to still be considered libre. That
> > percentage is zero.
>
> I've said this before, and appear to have to say it again.
>
> This encyclopedia's value lies not in our creation effort or the
> Foundation's existence - we're a service, and we're providing that
> service to normal people out in the world who want to look information
> up.
>
> Normal people overwhelmingly positively react much better to visual
> information and visual / text pairings rather than bland text.  In
> magazines and newspapers, articles with pictures are read and
> comprehended much more than pure text articles.  Images in other
> encyclopedias are a major "selling point".
>
> Images are not just fluff or decoration.  They are an integral part of
> making the encyclopedia something that our Customers like to read and
> will remember and value.
>
> I believe in the power of text - I've written loads of pictureless
> prose over the years in many venues.  But I also know what people
> respond to, when you're talking about "general public", both from my
> own ancedotal encounters and from reading studies on learning
> comprehension (I used to work for a computer training company whose
> founder had a doctorate in education psychology...).   Images work.
>
> The last few arguments in this thread fall into a false dichotomy -
> you're trying to ignore or depreciate the value of images in making
> educational content reader-friendly and reader-attractive, in order to
> bolster your arguments in the "how free is free?" debate.  This is a
> horrible oversight and renders your stated position untenable.
>
> You all are fine with and encourage the use of open content images.
> For the same reasons that those image content are valuable to the
> readers, fair use image content is also valuable to the readers.
>
> The issue of "how free is free?" is a legitimate one.  I feel for our
> downstream mirrors - they are clearly much more exposed to liability
> than we are, though I suspect that US fair use would still largely
> apply to them as it would to any other educational / reference content
> focused site.  And we ourselves are potentially exposed to liability
> for true violations of the image policies that stand now, which we all
> know do happen regularly and sometimes are not spotted and corrected
> for some time (if at all, to date, in some cases).  I am all for the
> proliferation of true free content (GFDL, CC, public domain, whatever)
> and I've spent a moderate fraction of my total Wikipedia time on
> creating various free content illustrations and a handful of photos.
>
> But this is not and can not be a debate about whether images belong on
> Wikipedia and are valuable here.  That is and should remain a closed
> case, with a strong affirmative "yes" answer.  It is not to me an
> acceptable debating tactic in the fair use policy discussions.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

And yet nothing we can do will make our content such that it's
completely free.  Authors retain moral rights - and derivative uses
encounter problems like libel, hate-speech and so forth.  Anyone who
does anything other than a straight copy is going to have to be
responsible, and is not going to have complete freedom.  Legally
impossible - you can't release your moral rights, and we can't make
people who modify and reprint immune from libel laws.

Realistically, what percentage of downstream reusers legal liability
comes from invalid fair use?  Is it even 1%?  I'd be surprised if it
wasn't almost entirely a) libel, and b) copyright violations in text,
in that order.

But it remains, that we cannot grant downstream reusers infinite
freedom to modify and reuse as they wish, no matter what we do.

WilyD

Realistically, today, what's percentage of a downstream reusers