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

Thu Jan 26 01:51:09 UTC 2006

On 1/24/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay at bigpond.com> wrote:
> > I really don't see what encyclopedic knowledge a photo of a
> > burning wing adds to the [[Tenerife disaster]] article.  The
> > computer generated image of the impact, on the other hand,
> > that's somewhat informational.
>
> Both are useful. The CG image shows how the accident happened in a way that
> no photograph can, simply because there was no camera present at an
> appropriate vantage point and the visibility was very poor.
>
> The photograph of the burning wing illustrates the conditions at the crash
> scene. I don't think anyone who has ever travelled on an airliner can look
> at that photograph and not get a sense of how horrific the crash must have
> been, in a way that is going to be difficult to convey in text alone.
>
Well, it's certainly possible, because when I saw the image I was
wholly unimpressed.  OK, a wing is burning.  That's what I would have
imagined anyway if you told me "a plane crashed".  I stand by my
opinion that I don't think there is any encyclopedic knowledge added
by that picture.  I think the article would be as good with the image
as without it.  Better, in fact, because the article wouldn't be more
free.

If horrifying people really is that important, I'm sure it'd be
possible to create a good re-enactment, complete with a simulation of
the burning and carnage and all that fun stuff.  Yes, it'd take a lot
of time and effort.  Frankly, I don't think it'd be worth it in this
case.  But I take that to mean that it's not worth it to just use
someone else's work either.

> > Of course, the computer generated image was apparently ripped
> > off some website, even though it's perfectly possible for a
> > Wikipedia to generate it herself.
> >
> > "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of
> > works of art for critical commentary on the work in question,
> > the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the
> > school to which the artist belongs on the English-language
> > Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the
> > non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under
> > United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on
> > Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement."
> >
> > Which of those three uses is [[Image:Tenerife collision.jpg]]
> > being used under?
>
> Obviously none of them, and I will not defend the uploader for picking that
> usage, except to say that they have only been editing for a few months and
> could perhaps use guidance more than criticism.
>
> However, thanks for spotting it, and perhaps you or some other
> public-spirited editor could take appropriate action?
>
What is the appropriate action?  Should I remove the image from the
article?  Do you want to bet someone adds it back if I do?

It's not worth my time, especially as it's only one image of many.  In
fact, the other image is equally bad (moreso, I'd argue, because it's
less educational).

"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of newspaper
pages to illustrate either the publication of the article or issue in
question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself
or written in the image description above, on the English-language
Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit
Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States
copyright law." ([[Image:Tenerife Disaster Collision aftermath 27
March 1977.png]]).

These tags have become almost useless, because it is quite common that
they describe things completely unrelated to the image in question. 
This image is not being used to illustrate the publication of the
article or issue in question.  There's no reason it should be in
Wikipedia.  When someone writes a really good, but proprietary,
explanation of a new scientific theory, you don't just copy it into
Wikipedia, even as a placeholder until someone writes a free
replacement.  There's no reason it should be done with images either.

My point, in case you don't see what I'm getting at, is that it's not
about this image.  It's about whatever flaw there is in the system
that allows these images to sit there for months with completely
inappropriate tags.  I'm not actually sure what it is that caused this
flaw, nor am I sure how to fix it.  It's not *just* the fact that it's
a wiki and that wikis sometimes contain glaring mistakes.  If I had
mentioned a glaring flaw in an article it'd be fixed by now.  It's
gotta be something else.  I'd love to hear your suggestions, or even
if you just think there isn't such a flaw in the first place.  (Maybe
it's the fact that this is considered meta-data.  People argue over
policies by modifying the tag, all the while not paying attention to
the fact that they're causing the tag to be completely misleading.)

> Do you have any useful views on the question I asked about thumbnailing?
>
Not really, but I'll give it my best anyway:

"I wonder at what point an image is so downgraded by thumbnailing as to be
exempt from any challenge to fair use."

> Is there some acceptable percentage, or do we just have to hope that a court
> will say that 5% or 10% or whatever is degraded enough that we can use it?
>
> Peter (Skyring)

No, there's no acceptable percentage.  Fair use in the United States
is extremely subjective.  It doesn't just matter how much you're
using, but who you are, how you're using it, how good your lawyer is,
what kind of mood the judge is in, etc.

In fact, I'd say a large part of the advantage of a free encyclopedia
is supposed to be that it removes such questions from having to be
worried about.

Anthony