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

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Alex R. wrote:

> 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 change isn't primarily the location where the file is stored, it's how
we use it. What Martin's suggesting is rather then embedding it within our
articles (which may need some form of GFDL compatiblity) we just link to
it instead.

> 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.

The issue has been discussed a number of times, but at the time, GFDL was
(and to some extent still is) the only major free content licence in
general use. There was no other (standard) licence which would have been
widely acceptable to wikipedians.

The other alternative that has been suggested from time to time is to
request that authors assign their copyright to wikipedia, although until
recently (when the wikimedia foundation was started) this wasn't possible.

> 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).

Yes, I think at the least what we need to do is to make some form of
contigency plan for changing licence (considering for instance issues like 
"if we could only change the licence agreed to by the top 200 contributors
what percentage of wikipedia articles would have to be dropped").

> 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). 

I don't think you realize how "fair use" images are being used, there are
some articles which if sold commercially would almost certainly violate
fair use.

(The unofficial "guide book" "Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to
Who's Who and What's What" was found to violate fair-use doctrine and they
used less material than many wikipedia articles do)

> 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.

You miss my point, GNU FDL compatibility would mean that anyone would be
allowed to alter the image how they want and essentially use it as they
want. Obviously "fair use" won't cover blatantly derivative work like
that.

Imran
-- 
http://bits.bris.ac.uk/imran