Re: quote & GFDL (was: Re: are images GFDL'd?)

From: "Imran Ghory" <imran-1QrBkHT6hxtn/[email protected]>
To: <martin-MAOR6hOrJ+i8qtKVGud/[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikilegal-l] quote & GFDL (was: Re: are images GFDL'd?)


> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Martin Harper wrote:
> > One possible workaround would be to have an entirely separate server at
(perhaps)
> > fairuse.wikipedia.org. Then, for fair use images, rather than embedding
them in the
> > document, we would add links to the image hosted at
fairuse.wikipedia.org, under
> > "external links". Would this be a way to get a benefit from fair use
images without
> > compromising on being open content?
>
> Can't see any porblem with that.
>
> Imran

I really wonder where this is going. Fair use is not copyright infringement.
If you
copy something that is fair use from a different part of the server I don't
see how this
changes anything.

The reality is that most corporations will not use GFDL stuff created on
Wikipedia
because they do not have the proper assurances of authorship. How can
someone
prove they authored it when a lot of the stuff is anonymous and could have
been
copied from some offline text?  Nothing anyone will say or do on this list
or on
any meta page will convince these IP robber barons that we have something
valuable
here that can be exploited.

This is the real problem with GFDL as implimented on Wikipedia (and it
astounds me
why no one has taken any of my prior suggestions seriously regarding
changing the
agreement between contributors and Wikipedia because, this, and not the GFDL
is the
problem).

Something could have been written (or could be written) into the user
agreement that
would allow for dual licensing. No one ever thought about it. Everyone
argues about
what is wrong with the GFDL, no one ever thought that there is nothing
stopping them
from opening up Wikipedia from Day One with a dual licensing scheme. Why? I
don't know, it is pretty obvious now that this is the way to go.

Of course it could be implemented now, but the problem is that it would take
a while
to cover all prior contributions (assuming prior contributors will
eventually come back
and make at least one more edit someday).

Really all this worrying about fair use problems is putting the cart before
the horse
as I have suggested (as well as prior Wikipedian jurists such as Isis and
NetEsq).
The problem is not really with fair use, everyone is entitled to fair use
and anyone
who is really reusing the wikipedia content will _very likely_ also be able
to benefit
from fair use (and this is not the point for the 100% sure chorus to chirp
up, please).
The only way I can see fair use not applying is if they take a fair use
image and try
to make it into a t-shirt for sale and even then I think most fair use
images might
even pass that test if they are modified in some way to make them artistic
originals.

Really you should be focusing on the problems of minors, of liability from
wrongful
acts of editors, of violation of various laws (such as insider trading tips
that someone
might post on Wikipedia), personality and privacy rights concerns. I have
tried too
many times to bring up these topics, no one cares much about them, but for
some
reason when you mention FAIR USE everyone starts jumping. Is that fair? no.

Alex R. (en:user:alex756, fr:utilisateur:alexei756)