Mailing List Archive

Foundation's position on non-free images
There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:

1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
(there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
copyyrighted).

2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
[[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
own policies about non-copyleft media content?

3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use? (Eg. under the
Hungarian law, logos or book covers probably cannot be used without
proper permission, which is often impossible to obtain - the copyright
holder cannot be contacted, or doesn't understand a problem, or just
doesn't care. On the other hand, it's obvious that no one will sue
Wikipedia for advertising him or his product, especially when that
advertising would be legal in most countries.)

Tgr
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
Tisza Gergo" wrote:

>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
>
>1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
>the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
>where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
>important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
>(there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
>copyyrighted).
>
This is an issue that has been debated on the Wikimedia Commons for some
time now. And the prevailing concensus: None.

We just sort of muddle through this, although Commons does try very hard
to make sure that all of the content is cross compatable to all of the
Wikimedia projects and in as many places as it can be useful. This is
why fair-use is not allowed on Commons, for example. See below.

>
>2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
>[[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
>own policies about non-copyleft media content?
>
Fair use policies are something that has been decided on a case by case
basis. en.wikipedia seems to have some good discussions about the issue,
although (since I wrote it) I like the policies on
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks%3AFair_use_policy and they have
stood up to some considerable review. This policy was actually based off
of the Italian Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines rather than en.wikipedia.
Some Wikimedia projects including some language version of Wikipedia
don't allow fair-use precisely because of the issues involved.

See also http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiuto%3ACopyright_immagini

I would recommend against allowing fair-use unless there are specific
requirements and needs oriented toward such images, such as perhaps
logos and similar items.

>
>3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
>are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use? (Eg. under the
>Hungarian law, logos or book covers probably cannot be used without
>proper permission, which is often impossible to obtain - the copyright
>holder cannot be contacted, or doesn't understand a problem, or just
>doesn't care. On the other hand, it's obvious that no one will sue
>Wikipedia for advertising him or his product, especially when that
>advertising would be legal in most countries.)
>
>Tgr
>
>
I wouldn't necessarily count out a lawsuit just because it seems as
though it is free advertising. It is important to try and stay within
the bounds of the law and not presume that nobody will care. Besides,
there is so much free content available now through Commons that it
generally isn't an issue. As for worrying about Hungarian law affecting
you, if you are a Hungarian citizen you can still be a target for a
lawsuit under Hungarian law just for making the edits and creating the
content. In that case worrying about how local laws will affect you can
still be a concern and something for you to consider. And just because
the Foundation has an official privacy policy, an official legal request
can be used to try and find out who edited an article and try to find
their identity through ISPs and others. You are libel for the content
you contribute, including copyright infringements.

--
Robert Scott Horning


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
Tisza Gergo wrote:
> There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
> image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
> position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
> issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:

The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official Foundation
policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around 1
year ago, the answers where different from one person to another, and
then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were using
these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked simple
question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to constantly
break Polish Law?

>
> 1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> (there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> copyyrighted).

On Polish Wikipedia it was decided that due to:
a) vast majority of contributors live in Poland
b) we don't want to give an impression that Polish Wikipedia ignores
Polish law

we have to strictly follow Polish law.

In fact, no matter where the servers are placed, when you contribute to
any webpage from Polish territory, you have to follow Polish law. You
are making copyright violation by sending from Polish territory pictures
or text - no matter where is it going to be published. So, the question
is where you are - not where is the server.

In Poland something similar to fair use is allowed, but using it in any
encyclopedia requires:
a) only educational purposes (Wikipedia can be used for non-educational,
even strictly commercial purposes)
b) documented attempt to obtain the copyright's owner permission

Therefore, technically, fair use in Wikipedia circumstances is rather
useless if you want to follow Polish law, and therefore we have decided
not to allow any fair use materials.

--
Tomasz "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedysta:Polimerek
http://www.poli.toya.net.pl/
http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/pl/TomaszGanicz.html
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
Good question.

Two resolutions were proposed on this matter by some contributors.

Let me copy them below, as well as the outcome.

-----------
Resolution:NDNC
Proposed by : contributor, copied by Anthere

Motion to vote: Angela 05:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Motion Seconded: Anthere

The Wikimedia Foundation aims to promote free and collaborative content
Non-commercial and non-derivative licenses are not compatible with the
notion of free content supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and the
Free Software Foundation, as defined at freecontentdefinition.org

In order to clarify this situation, the Board resolves that:
Content under "non-derivative" or "non-commercial" licenses is not
sufficiently free to allow use on Wikimedia projects. Content dual
licensed under one of these with a free license continues to be acceptable.

Outcome: The resolution dropped was dropped at a meeting 5 aug 2006. The
conclusion was essentially that the board should not get involved in
that (not a policy) but that recommandations would be suitable. It was
concluded that Jimbo would blog about it.

----------

Resolution:Fair Use
Proposed by : an editor, copied by Anthere


Given that fair-use content has been widely tolerated for historical
reasons on the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
Given that fair-use content is, by essence, non-free
Given that the Wikimedia Foundation objectives are to promote free
material in the whole world, not only in the United States of America
where the fair-use can apply
Outcome of the resolution: Given that free content is now widely
available for all the Wikimedia's Foundation projects through Wikimedia
Commons
The board resolves :
â–ª That starting from today (insert date), no fair use content shall be
added to the Wikimedia Foundation's projects
â–ª and that the existing fair-use content shall not be deleted until
replaced by free content

Outcome: the resolution was inactive for two months with no motion to
vote. It was consequently dropped.


--------------

I think this resumes pretty well the position of the Foundation on the
issue :-)

I will actually say it more plainly.
I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".

Ant


----------Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:
> Tisza Gergo wrote:
>
>>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
>>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
>>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
>>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
>
>
> The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official Foundation
> policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around 1
> year ago, the answers where different from one person to another, and
> then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were using
> these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked simple
> question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to constantly
> break Polish Law?
>
>
>>1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
>>the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
>>where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
>>important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
>>(there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
>>copyyrighted).
>
>
> On Polish Wikipedia it was decided that due to:
> a) vast majority of contributors live in Poland
> b) we don't want to give an impression that Polish Wikipedia ignores
> Polish law
>
> we have to strictly follow Polish law.
>
> In fact, no matter where the servers are placed, when you contribute to
> any webpage from Polish territory, you have to follow Polish law. You
> are making copyright violation by sending from Polish territory pictures
> or text - no matter where is it going to be published. So, the question
> is where you are - not where is the server.
>
> In Poland something similar to fair use is allowed, but using it in any
> encyclopedia requires:
> a) only educational purposes (Wikipedia can be used for non-educational,
> even strictly commercial purposes)
> b) documented attempt to obtain the copyright's owner permission
>
> Therefore, technically, fair use in Wikipedia circumstances is rather
> useless if you want to follow Polish law, and therefore we have decided
> not to allow any fair use materials.
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".

I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.

Erik
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/16/06, Tisza Gergõ <tgergo@inf.elte.hu> wrote:
I cannot speak for the foundation but I deal with copyright stuff
rather a lot on en and from time to time other wikis

> 1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> (there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> copyyrighted).
>
United States law must be followed. Following other more restrictive
laws appears to be the choice of individual project (the works made by
the goverment thing is a red herring works made by the US goverement
are still PD and works made by almost any other goverment are not).




> 2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
> [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
> own policies about non-copyleft media content?
>

As long as the policy stays within US law it appears communities are
free to do what they like. That said the foundation retains the right
to remove any image at any time.

> 3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
> are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use?

As far as US law goes no. Outside that I think the choice reverts to
the indivdual project



--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/17/06, Tisza Gergõ <tgergo@inf.elte.hu> wrote:
>
> 1) Which copyright law should be followed? The Hungarian law, the law of
> the United States or both? (And what about France and the Netherlands,
> where IIRC some of the Wikimedia servers are hosted?) This is an
> important question, as Hungarian copyright law is a lot more restrictive
> (there is no fair use, and works made by the government remain
> copyyrighted).


There is a fiar amount of debate in various communities with regards to
this.
In my opinion there are two possible options:
- Follow copyright laws of the US because that is where the foundation (who
in essence maintains control over the projects) is located.
- Follow copyright laws of the country in which the content we are claiming
fair use for was created. The content is protected under that country's
copyright laws.

The second is messy and probably unsustainable.

2) What are the rules, if any, for non-free images? Should we follow
> [[Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy]], or is every community free to create its
> own policies about non-copyleft media content?


I think each community has it's own media rules. I am a believer that free
content should be sought first, with fair use only if absolutely necessary.

3) Is it acceptable to use, in a way similar to fair use, images which
> are illegal in the strict sense, but safe to use? (Eg. under the
> Hungarian law, logos or book covers probably cannot be used without
> proper permission, which is often impossible to obtain - the copyright
> holder cannot be contacted, or doesn't understand a problem, or just
> doesn't care. On the other hand, it's obvious that no one will sue
> Wikipedia for advertising him or his product, especially when that
> advertising would be legal in most countries.)


I wouldn't be too sure there. Some are quite happy to excercise their
copyright rights and jump to litigation.

Cheers,
Nathan
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:

>Tisza Gergo wrote:
>
>
>>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community about
>>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the Foundation's
>>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:Foundation
>>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
>>
>>
>The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official Foundation
>policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around 1
>year ago, the answers where different from one person to another, and
>then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were using
>these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked simple
> question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to constantly
>break Polish Law?
>
I very much disagree that there should be a single policy on this that
affects all projects. There is too much variation in the laws of
different countries, and in the needs of different projects (not just
Wikipedias). It should be up to each project to find its own level of
comfort in this, as long as it is carried on in a general atmosphere of
copyright respect. The question of whether or not someone is "breaking"
the law is rarely very clear.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
If you upload images in Commons you follow rules established for
Commons and used in any countries. If you upload images in Hungarian
Wikipedia you use hungarian law and these images could be used only
for hungarian side of Wikipedia.

For example the italian law allows the use of screenshot of films
but with limited use, since this is only an italian law these images
are uploaded only in Italian database and not in Commons.

Ilario

----Messaggio originale----
Da: saintonge@telus.net
Data: 17.08.06 5.39
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation's position on non-free
images

Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz wrote:

>Tisza Gergo wrote:
>
>
>>There is an ongoing debate in the Hungarian Wikipedia community
about
>>image license policies. I didn't find anything about the
Foundation's
>>position on the issue (except for the rather vague [[m:
Foundation
>>issues]]), so I'll try to ask here:
>>
>>
>The same is on Polish :-) I think there should be an official
Foundation
>policy about it. When we were asking people from Foundation around
1
>year ago, the answers where different from one person to another,
and
>then two groups of users (pro fair-use and anti fair-use) were
using
>these diffrent answers as a key argument. Finally, someone asked
simple
> question: do we really want to make Polish Wikipedia to
constantly
>break Polish Law?
>
I very much disagree that there should be a single policy on this
that
affects all projects. There is too much variation in the laws of
different countries, and in the needs of different projects (not
just
Wikipedias). It should be up to each project to find its own level
of
comfort in this, as long as it is carried on in a general
atmosphere of
copyright respect. The question of whether or not someone is
"breaking"
the law is rarely very clear.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
> > The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
> > others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> > Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>
> I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.
>
FWIW, I don't think the Foundation should come along and say "fair use
is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed", but mainly because that's
such a ridiculous statement - it would be like saying "free speech is
allowed" or "free speech is not allowed".

I do think it is the role of the foundation to work with the community
to come up with an a consensus agreement on what is and isn't allowed,
on a very high level basis. The basis of the definition should be
freedom, and the definition should answer the question "what is free
enough" on a high level basis, without referring to laws of specific
nations. IOW, it'd answer the question of what to do with certain
content which is copyrighted, not licensed under a free license, but
could be used quite liberally without permission under certain
conditions, such as fair use - without actually mentioning fair use.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.

Has the foundation not set the policy? If not carved on stone tablets
then through the actions of those on its board and in its employ.

1) Thou shall not upload content which will place the foundation in legal peril.
2) Wikimedia projects are Free Content.

These decisions leave a lot of grey area which must be navigated by
the projects, true, but that is really a fact of life. Copyright, and
especially international copyright, are not clear black and white
matters which can be easily codified in a policy document.

Because the WMF merely provides a forum and some fertilizer for
community of people around the world to come together and create
perpetually free educational content, we really can't expect it to
step in and make decisions over every image. Not only would it not
scale, but it would fundamentally change the nature of the foundation
from providing infrastructure and support for a charitable purpose to,
effectively, authoring and controlling the authoring of the content
itself.

On enwiki the issue is currently 'solved' in the sense that the people
working on it are consistently and reliably doing the right thing.
We're still buried under a pile of bad decisions made in the past and
we're still challenged by the constant influx of new problem
content... but at least we are soundly moving in the right direction.
Given time enwiki will be completely straightened out... the bigger
question is how to develop a culture and a community of folks
addressing these issues on other problems.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
Hoi,
It is the Wikimedia Foundation that will be the one that will be served with
a notice of intent to go to court. It is also really nice when individual
contributors do not have to face this type of music.

All in all, I am not impressed with people who do not consider these things.


Then again, I am also on record that I do not agree that we cannot have
pictures that are trademarked and can be freely used with our content but
are not Free in that we are allowed to change these images.. Having logos in
Commons, would make the special position of the Wikimedia Foundation logos
not special anymore; it would make it a standard way of having logos and
have it in a legal way. The current paractie is imho not really defencible
as it is not consistent. Given that some insist that there should be no
exceptions to the notion of that at Commons everything should be "FREE",
these people are what makes progress on this impossible.

Thanks,
GerardM

On 8/17/06, Anthony <wikilegal@inbox.org> wrote:
>
> On 8/16/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the
> Foundation.
> > > The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo
> or
> > > others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
> > > Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
> >
> > I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> > policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> > projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.
> >
> FWIW, I don't think the Foundation should come along and say "fair use
> is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed", but mainly because that's
> such a ridiculous statement - it would be like saying "free speech is
> allowed" or "free speech is not allowed".
>
> I do think it is the role of the foundation to work with the community
> to come up with an a consensus agreement on what is and isn't allowed,
> on a very high level basis. The basis of the definition should be
> freedom, and the definition should answer the question "what is free
> enough" on a high level basis, without referring to laws of specific
> nations. IOW, it'd answer the question of what to do with certain
> content which is copyrighted, not licensed under a free license, but
> could be used quite liberally without permission under certain
> conditions, such as fair use - without actually mentioning fair use.
>
> Anthony
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/17/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1) Thou shall not upload content which will place the foundation in legal peril.

Where does it say that and what sort of legal peril are we talking about?

Or in short is this a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:American_McGee_Strawberry_Shortcake.jpg

A bit har to delete under current en rules.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 8/16/06, Anthere <Anthere9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think the projects are not (should not be) managed by the Foundation.
>>The Foundation supports the projects, which is very different. Jimbo or
>>others may provide some guidance, but it is not the role of the
>>Foundation to say "fair use is allowed" or "fair use is not allowed".
>>
>>
>I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
>policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
>projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.
>
Having this set at the Foundation level would create just as much of a
mess. Fair use is only one part of the problem. There are other
matters that cannot be resolved with a single policy. The merger
principle is of great concern to Wiktionary, and it is not unusual to
find publications that include copyright notices on material that is
essentially uncopyrightable.

It's useful for the Foundation to have a broadly worded policy
supporting the principle of respect for copyright. It's also useful for
the Foundation to establish protocols for dealing with formal requests
to take down copyright violating material. Beyond that projects need to
learn how to deal with such matters responsibly.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/17/06, valdelli@bluemail.ch <valdelli@bluemail.ch> wrote:
> If you upload images in Commons you follow rules established for
> Commons and used in any countries. If you upload images in Hungarian
> Wikipedia you use hungarian law and these images could be used only
> for hungarian side of Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, that's not at all how it works. The Hungarian
Wikipedia is not even remotely tied to the nation of Hungary, and
likewise for the many languages of our various projects. You may as
well say that the Italian Wikipedia follows the laws of Italy,
although as a Swiss contributor you should know better.

The operative laws are those of the United States and of the nations
of the individual contributors involved, along with those of anyone
who might use the resulting material. Currently, projects (and even
individual languages of those projects) are allowed to set their own
copyright policies, and while the trouble arising from that has thus
far amounted to a relative nuisance, the issue is something that
should be discussed and—fingers crossed—resolved very soon.

This is not to say that I expect it will happen, but at least it's
being discussed.

Austin
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Foundation's position on non-free images [ In reply to ]
On 8/17/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> >I'll state for the record my disagreement with that. I think copyright
> >policy should be made on the Foundation level in cooperation with the
> >projects. The current situation is an unsustainable mess.
> >
> Having this set at the Foundation level would create just as much of a
> mess. Fair use is only one part of the problem. There are other
> matters that cannot be resolved with a single policy. The merger
> principle is of great concern to Wiktionary, and it is not unusual to
> find publications that include copyright notices on material that is
> essentially uncopyrightable.
>
> It's useful for the Foundation to have a broadly worded policy
> supporting the principle of respect for copyright. It's also useful for
> the Foundation to establish protocols for dealing with formal requests
> to take down copyright violating material. Beyond that projects need to
> learn how to deal with such matters responsibly.
>
> Ec
>
The lack of unity is a problem, but what's less clear is how to solve
it. The Free Software Foundation takes the position that *all*
*software* should be free. While they try to accomplish this within
the framework of the law, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say there
is policy instituting a principle of respect for copyright, at least
as it pertains to software. Remember that copyright on software was
never a given in the first place - there were those who thought at the
time software started becoming widespread that software was not
legally of the form of expression that can be copyrighted.

So how does that relate to Wikimedia? Well, ask people working on the
projects whether or not they believe that *all* *content* should be
free. I'd even ask it of the people on this list. And I don't think
many people would say that yes, it should. Wikimedia, assuming you
can refer to more than just the board as Wikimedia, seems to have a
diverse set of opinions on this issue - many people don't even believe
in free software, and that seems to be OK.

Jimmy Wales and others have been recently using the term "free
knowledge" to describe the product of Wikipedia. I wonder how many
people reading this email believe that *all* *knowlege* should be
free. If it's significant, maybe that's a starting point on how to
formulate a copyright policy which answers questions about fair use.
But I'm not sure even that can be agreed upon. Either way, I think
it's an important question to answer from the outset.

Anthony
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l