Mailing List Archive

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 19:10, Jason Richey wrote:
> This discussion is making my head spin... Let me see if I can get the
> basics in order for myself (please, let me know if I don't have it
> right):
>
> * Everyone basically agrees that the text (not including quotes, which
> I don't intend to discuss here) of Wikipedia is okay, even if the
> text refers to an image that is fair use.

yes.

> * Everyone agrees that The en Wikipedia has some images that we are
> legally allowed to use (on the website) under fair use assuming that
> we don't claim they are GFDL.

legally to use wrt "fair use": yes.
But illegal to use because we are mixing GFDL and non-free content which is
forbidden by GFDL. Note: Erik does not agree with this interpretation of
GFDL.

> * Most everyone agrees that there is little chance that we can get the
> copyright holders of every image to switch to a GFDL license. This
> said, some people say that we can't distribute the images with the
> GFDL products, as it would violate the license.

yes.

> * Most everyone has decided what they think, and will argue his/her
> opinion until the cows come home (and then some).

yes ;-)

> If I understand correctly, the problem is most evident when we
> consider printed formats (like grandma's encyclopedia). I don't think
> that anyone has argued that we can distribute fair use images if we go
> to a printed (combined) work. So, fair use images should not be in a
> printed version.

well, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all IMHO, but you are right with
saying that a printed version is not allowed using "fair use" images.

best regards,
Marco

--
Marco Krohn
Theoretical Physics
University of Hannover

Hmm... I hadn't considerred webserving as distribution... This may
explain why I have been so confused by the discussion as a whole.

Jason

Marco Krohn wrote:

> > * Everyone agrees that The en Wikipedia has some images that we are
> > legally allowed to use (on the website) under fair use assuming that
> > we don't claim they are GFDL.
>
> legally to use wrt "fair use": yes.
> But illegal to use because we are mixing GFDL and non-free content which is
> forbidden by GFDL. Note: Erik does not agree with this interpretation of
> GFDL.
> --
> Marco Krohn
> Theoretical Physics
> University of Hannover
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l@wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

--
"Jason C. Richey" <jasonr@bomis.com>

--- Jason Richey <jasonr@bomis.com> wrote:

> This said, it seems reasonable to say that articles that *NEED* an
> image should have GFDL images only. Articles that benefit from
> images
> should use GFDL images or shouldn't talk about the images (don't say
> "image below" or the like) as fair use images will not appear in a
> printed version.

I don't think any article *NEEDS* a picture; any such article should be
rewritten to be usable by blind users and other text-mode browsers. Of
course, many articles *BENEFIT* immensely from a picture. In the few
cases where no suitable GFDL or public domain picture can be located,
linking to a site containing a non-free picture seems to be sufficient.


Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:10:21AM -0700, Jason Richey wrote:
> This discussion is making my head spin... Let me see if I can get the
> basics in order for myself (please, let me know if I don't have it
> right):
>
> * Everyone basically agrees that the text (not including quotes, which
> I don't intend to discuss here) of Wikipedia is okay, even if the
> text refers to an image that is fair use.
>
> * Everyone agrees that The en Wikipedia has some images that we are
> legally allowed to use (on the website) under fair use assuming that
> we don't claim they are GFDL.

no, it's not legal because of gfdl.
i'm also not sure if most of these celebrity photos are really under
fair use at all

Marco Krohn wrote:
> well, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all IMHO, but you are right with
> saying that a printed version is not allowed using "fair use" images.

A printed version could easily use "fair use" images and could still
be distributed under the GNU FDL. All that would be needed would be a
prominent explanation in the book that it is an aggregation of
independent works, under paragraph 7, and an indication by each image
of what it's status is.

--Jimbo

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales@bomis.com> wrote:
> Marco Krohn wrote:
> > well, they shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all IMHO, but you are right
> > with saying that a printed version is not allowed using "fair use"
> > images.
>
> A printed version could easily use "fair use" images and could still
> be distributed under the GNU FDL. All that would be needed would
> be a prominent explanation in the book that it is an aggregation of
> independent works, under paragraph 7, and an indication by each image
> of what it's status is.

But something doesn't become an "aggregation" just because the author
says so; it's a matter of law. If it's a derivative work, then it's not
an aggregation, per paragraph 7 GFDL. Now "derivative work" is a
technical term defined in 17 U.S.C. sec. 101 and probably further in
case law. The question then is whether illustrating text with a photo
creates a derivative work of the text. I'm not a lawyer and I don't
want to play one on TV, so I'll shut up.

Axel

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com