Re: Are images GFDL'd?

Martin,

There is no image or other work which is certain to be fair use for all downstream redistributors. It's a legally impractical (maybe impossible) construct. Fair use always depends on the particular use.

Something like a press release or open letter has extremely broad fair uses. Really, very, very broad, likely broader than GFDL most of the time for most users. But I can still come up with uses which would be infringing for some constructed downstream user - the easy infringement candidates are things like competitors using it in search engine bait or similar, to decrease the awareness of and replace the original product.

What matters to me, and likely to lawyers and reusers, is not that something is fair use here or not. What I need to know is its exact origin, including date, claimed licensing and where it's used. Those are the factors I must use if I'm to form an opinion on whether a particular use is fair or infringing. They are also the factors I need to decide whether I (as a reuser) can safely use a work, regardless of what I (as someone who's familiar with copyright law and a contributor here) may write I think the acceptable uses are in [[Wikipedia:possible copyright infringements]].

Similarly, it doesn't matter to me whether Wikipedia has an image with an "English Wikpedia online version only licence which prohibits additional redistribution". What I need to know is who gave the license, how easy is it for me to get one if I want it and having enough information so I can decide that even though that license is narrow, the scope of fair use is large enough to include my intended use.

When I'm a potential reuser, I simly cannot trust what the Wikipedia asserts about the rights to use an image. I'd be the one paying the bill if I got it wrong, not the Wikipedia. This applies to the print Wikipedia as well, by the way - there's no CDA or DMCA to protect the print Wikipedia from the incorrect statements of uploaders - it's strict liability, we get it wrong in print, we pay. We can try to make uploaders liable for our bills but the print Wikipedia would be in court with the uploader, if the copyright holder even bothered with the uploader. If the print Wikipedia does more than cover costs, it may also be a commercial use (fundraising).

An uploader checking the GFDL box doesn't help much. What I need to know is that the uploader claims to be the original creator AND that the image is released under the GFDL. And a dozen other licenses if the uploader wants to make my life easier, by letting me use my current license

What can help me is some way to say "show me only the images which the Wikipedia in some way asserts are of classes X, Y, Z", where X, Y and Z are something like:

o originally created or derived work by uploader or with explicit permission from creator, released under GFDL.

o original etc, released under any of a dozen other licenses, the more the better, because mine might be one of them.

o public domain (with reason in description page!).

o asserted to be fair use for non-commercial non-competitive uses.

o asserted to be fair use for commercial non-competitive uses.

And so on, covering a wide range of possible believed to be OK licenses. Then I can select the licesnse types I'm willing to trust. I STILL have to do due diligence on every image but the filtering has helped me to narrow down the range and I can tell the Wikipedia that I think it got one wrong and ask that it be corrected to help others in the future.

On the question of whether we need fair use and licensed images, the answer is yes, because we want to be a comprehensive encyclopedia and there are images and text which are only available to us under licenses or fair use or under assertions that a work with claimed copyright is actually public domain. We strongly prefer other ways and can ask that people try to find replacements but we still have producing a comprehensive encyclopedia as a goal.