[WikiEN-l] Re: Fair use images on user pages and enforcement

Thu Jan 19 14:54:54 UTC 2006

On 19 Jan 2006, at 14:33, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:

>> Short quotes of text also tend to be the kind of fair dealing  
>> which is
>> broadly accepted by all countries and is essentially  
>> indistinguishable
>> from "not copyrighted".
>
> Perhaps. Certainly no-one will object that a particular article  
> contains,
> say, a short quote from a particular Bible translation. But when  
> you pile
> up articles like that in an organized way you essentially enable  
> people to
> read the whole translation. Start here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_1:1
>
> Read the KJV translation of the verse. Then click on next verse and  
> the
> read the KJV translation of that. Proceed until you run out of verses.
>
> I understand that the copyright of the KJV is enforced in Britain.  
> Would
> this series of articles be in violation of British law? Mostly an  
> academic
> question, I think, but you get my point. It's probably no  
> coincidence that
> the translations chosen for this Bible verse project are (almost
> everywhere) in the public domain.

Yes, using the KJV is a big problem. Its a rather strange anomoly of  
British
law. Importing the KJV is illegal. I would discourage them from using  
it.

> - - -
>
> A few months back we established here on the mailing list that our  
> use of
> this featured picture:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg
>
> is in violation of British law. In fact a great many images where  
> we rely
> on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. could not be legally used in a
> Wikipedia published outside of the United States of America.

Jimbo has said that he would like to be sued so that something like
Bridgeman can be tried in the UK. I would expect it to be ok.

> A Wikipedia which restricted itself to content which is free to use by
> everyone in every jurisdiction would have to let go of a lot of good
> stuff. It would be a very painful sacrifice and I doubt it would be  
> worth
> it.

Thats not necessary - so long as stuff is tagged so that anyone say  
making
printed copies in a particular jurisdiction can remove stuff.

Justinc