Re: Re: Are images GFDL'd?

James,

Sure, "fair use for all downstream redistributors" is a considerably stronger test than 
"fair use for Wikipedia", as fair use is heavily dependant on the particular cases. I 
was thinking of very brief quotes from famous people, excerpts from press releases 
and open letters, and so forth. Perhaps I should rephrase slightly, though, and say 
"fair use for all non-theoretical downstream redistributors".

What matters to me is that I and others donated my text to Wikipedia under the 
understanding that it was an *open content* encyclopedia. If Wikipedians 
deliberately use content that has been licensed to Wikipedia only, or under very 
liberal interpretations of fair use, then they are taking that open content and 
rendering it closed content. That's immoral. It's also potentially in violation of my 
copyright.

Yes, stuff may slip through the net, and yes redistributors have to do due diligence. 
However, the ideal we should be aiming for is that after performing due diligence, 
they discover that Wikipedia is copiable under the terms of the GFDL. Further, if 
redistributors find during due diligence that there is content which they cannot 
redistribute, then they should be able to list it on [[wikipedia:potential copyright 
infringements]], and we should delete it.

I do agree with you on the importance of information - we have no dispute there. 
Images should always give their source on the image description page, their 
copyright status, etc. If the creator is willing to license their image under broader 
terms (public domain, etc) then by all means let us also record that. This helps our 
redistributors do due diligence, and it helps us judge whether an image is in fact 
open content. So I'm sure we can work together to encourage better use of image 
description pages for this purpose.

You assert that Wikipedia *needs* fair use images and images licensed solely to 
Wikipedia, if it is to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. Well, our aim is to be a 
comprehensive encyclopedia. Our aim is also to be an open content encyclopedia, 
and we should not sacrifice our open content status to try to get a short cut to 
comprehensiveness. That applies to both text and images. If that means we need to 
resort to artist's impressions, or having the Wikimedia foundation buy GFDL-based 
licenses, then that's what we have to do.

-Martin