[WikiEN-l] Re: Google Earth copyright (now that you bring it up)

Tue Jan 24 02:35:52 UTC 2006

On 1/23/06, Fastfission <fastfission at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/21/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> >
> > IOW, if a visual depiction of the character isn't legal, then isn't
> > the entire article, which is a textual depiction of the character,
> > illegal?
> >
> > There's just gotta be some kind of visual depiction of Darth Vader
> > which is legal for distribution in an encyclopedia by anyone anywhere
> > under any terms, at least with regard to copyright law (for all I know
> > discussion of Darth Vader is banned in China
> > or something, so I'm explicitly excepting something like that).
> >
>
> I think it is worth pointing out that copyright law (and trademark law)
> affects text and images (and other forms of media) differently. It is very
> easy to make a copyright-safe version of a textual account; it is very hard
> in most cases to make copyright-safe versions of images or visual-based
> media unless they are themselves based on "basic facts" (i.e. a diagram of
> some physical principle).
>
I don't know that it has to be "basic facts", but certainly when we're
talking about images in an encyclopedia we're talking about
communicating facts.

If a picture really is worth a thousand words, and that's probably not
a bad order of magnitude for the purposes of this statement, then it'd
take about as much work to make a "copyright-safe" version of the same
"size" text or image, at least given the same level of communication
skills in each medium.  Maybe that isn't fair, though, as most people
communicate more effectively with words than with pictures.

> The only way I know of to make "free" versions of copyrighted things would
> be as knock-offs. But that not only wouldn't help our purposes at all, but
> it would itself skate far closer to legal action than a "fair use" claim
> probably would. But that's just a speculation.
>
> FF

Doesn't a [[clean room design]] allow you to make "free" versions of
copyrighted things?  If a textual description of a photograph is
non-infringing, and you give that textual description to a sketch
artist (who's never seen the original), then isn't the sketch likewise
non-infringing?

Maybe the answer is that it's just not possible to come up with a
decent copyright-free textual description of a fictional character
from a copyrighted work.  Will that destroy the quest for a great free
encyclopedia?  Maybe not.  How good is the Britannica article on
[[Darth Vader]]?  Answering my own question and two more as a bonus,
no results in Britannica Online, no results in encyclopedia.com, and
"No results were found for your search in Encarta."  That doesn't mean
Wikipedia can't include an article about Darth Vader, but is a
detailed description, in text *or* image form, really necessary for an
encyclopedia?

I could go either way there.  I guess knowing what Darth Vader looks
like helps me understand all the spoofs.  But at the same time, I'd
just as well thumb my nose at Lucas and not buy in to his dirty
licenses.  C'mon, let's all sing the Free Software Song and substitute
knowledge for software.

When we have enough free [knowledge]
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll throw out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.

Join us now and share the [knowledge];
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.

Copyright 1993 Richard Stallman
Verbatim redistribution permitted
if this notice is preserved.

Heh, sorry, I'm in a weird mood tonight.  But seriously, screw Lucas. 
If he doesn't want to give us a free photo of Darth Vader, we don't
need to produce a free encyclopedia article about him (Darth Vader,
that is).

Anthony