Re: are images GFDL'd?

Martin wrote:
> My feeling is that all images should be either GFDL, or fair use
> *where fair use will also apply to all our downstream
> redistributors*, and in that latter case the justification for fair
> use should be clearly marked on the image description page.

I agree with this completely, although if our software did a better
job of allowing us to track exact licensing information, I'd also be
inclined to allow a limited set of deviations from this in the case of
other free licenses.  I don't think it'd be a good idea to let people
use any old homegrown license, but I can envision that we might
approve one of several appropriate and reasonably compatible licenses.

> My position is that adding an image where this is not the case
> potentially infringes the copyright of all prior contributors to a
> page, as well as severely impeding our overall goal of being an
> *open content* encyclopedia.

I'm not 100% sure how it infringes the copyright of all prior
contributors to the page, there are some thorny questions there that I
don't really understand all that well.  But I do agree that non-free
images that are also not just _blatantly_ fair use for just about any
expected re-use is not consistent with our overall philosophy of GNU
freedom.

user_Jamesday wrote:
> 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.

Yes, fair use does always depend on the particular use, but that
doesn't mean that it's impractical or impossible for us to follow a
standard of near certainty that re-use is going to be fine for most
redistributors.  It's always possible to construct a set of facts
where someone's proposed reuse won't be valid, of course.

But as I see it, we really have only 3 options -- "No fair use at
all" may mean we can't even quote works for the purpose of critical
commentary.  That's absurd.  "As long as it's fair for the nonprofit
educational use of our own website, we include it."  Not absurd, but
not supportive of our goals for redistribution.

So we really have to be in the middle somewhere -- we allow fair use,
but we're very conservative about it.

Right now, on the website, I think that we've been much too liberal.
I don't think there's anything (other than transient whatnot that
might appear in the editing process) on our website which is _itself_
an infringement, because I think fair use applies pretty easly to
*our* use.  But I am concerned that others who might reuse our content
might not have it so easy.

> 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.

I think that's a very eloquent statement of the situation!  Yes,
I agree 100%.

--Jimbo