Wikipediocracy

Hello everyone.

Anyone find Wikipedia's blanket ban on using images from Getty Images (using a Fair Use rationale) suspect, as I do? I appreciate that there are many here who will oppose Wikipedia's copyright policy altogether, but given that it has expressed commitment to fair use it strikes me as ridiculous that it excludes by far the largest supplier of stock-photos. I get the distinct impression that it is bottling out of confrontation with a provider of images notorious for being something of an atttack dog when it comes to copyright violation.

The issue arose for me in connection with my attempt to upload a Getty Image of Reeva Steenkamp (Oscar Pistorius' girlfriend he shot dead) to her article. It was speedily deleted (and I speedily retired my account). Following are my fair use rationale and my defence against speedy deletion.

I would be interested to see any views.

{{Non-free use rationale
|Article = Reeva Steenkamp
|Description = [[Reeva Steenkamp]] in Johannesburg, South Africa.
|Source = Photo accompanying [http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/14/who ... steenkamp/ ''Time NewsFeed'' article] entitled "Reeva Steenkamp: What to Know about Oscar Pistorius’ Girlfriend". Copyright is stated to be held by Mike Holmes/[[The Herald (Eastern Cape)|The Herald]]/[http://www.galloimages.co.za Gallo Images]/[[Getty Images]] ([http://www.gettyimages.it/detail/fotogr ... /161658209 image #161658209])
|Portion = Right hand is cropped.
|Low_resolution = Yes: 200 x 300 px
|Purpose = Provide portrait in infobox
|Replaceability = No free images are known to exist
|other_information =
}}

Defence against speedy deletion:

This file should not be speedy deleted as having an invalid fair-use claim, because the image, being a thumbnail, is transformative as determined in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation. Moreover Getty Images is not normally considered to be a press agency but rather a stock-photo agency. To ban all images from it makes a mockery of Wikipedia's committment to fair use. The elevation of Getty Images to a press agency was the result of an inexpert edit here (at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =431975087) and was challenged at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_55#Photo_agency_images_and_NFC.23UUI7 where no consensus was reached. That the image is the property of a news agency is in any case irrelevant to fair use rationale as the relevant ruling specifically allows news reporting as a fair use. Wikipedia's problem with news images arises because in fact, whatever it attempts to decaim otherwise, the encyclopaedia can be used as a news source. Thus its home page has in in its top right corner a news section. It follows that copyright issues could indeed arise if Wikipedia were to gain a reputation as being, for example, a repository of the latest sleb tat. However in the case of Reeva Steenkamp she is deceased and we are talking about about a historical figure and not a news story.

WP:GID guidance for images that may not meet non-free content criteria, as you appear to think, is to list at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and I ask you to do me the courtesy of doing that.

I am copying to my Talk page. Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Elissa wrote:Anyone find Wikipedia's blanket ban on using images from Getty Images (using a Fair Use rationale) suspect, as I do?

No.

Do you mind if I fair use your car later this week? There's no other car like it, and it will be the same car when I return it to you. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if use your car in a TV commercial I'm shooting.

Elissa wrote:Hello everyone.

Anyone find Wikipedia's blanket ban on using images from Getty Images (using a Fair Use rationale) suspect, as I do? I appreciate that there are many here who will oppose Wikipedia's copyright policy altogether, but given that it has expressed commitment to fair use it strikes me as ridiculous that it excludes by far the largest supplier of stock-photos. I get the distinct impression that it is bottling out of confrontation with a provider of images notorious for being something of an atttack dog when it comes to copyright violation...

Welcome to Wikipediaocracy Elissa!

I was unaware that fair-use of Getty Images has a blanket ban, but it doesn't surprise me. Two things; Wikipedians are cowards - they have no compunction doing sleazy things like BLP violations, copyright violations and flickr washing- it's only the threat of force that gets them to extract their head out of their anus and behave like adults (Daniel Brandt's biography is a good example). Since Getty Images makes their living off of image licensing, and they defend their property, it's not surprising that Wikipedia accommodates them. Secondly, fair-use requires good judgement and restraint. It's not a license to steal whatever you want, it requires a very good rationale. There aren't many Wikipedia editors capable of this.

thekohser wrote:

Elissa wrote:Anyone find Wikipedia's blanket ban on using images from Getty Images (using a Fair Use rationale) suspect, as I do?

No.

Do you mind if I fair use your car later this week? There's no other car like it, and it will be the same car when I return it to you. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if use your car in a TV commercial I'm shooting.

I was raising the question of fair using your BMW rather than your Škoda , numpty. Try looking for one in your bum.

Added: A brain cell I mean (sorry). Fair use rationale or no.

TungstenCarbide wrote:
I was unaware that fair-use of Getty Images has a blanket ban, but it doesn't surprise me. Two things; Wikipedians are cowards - they have no compunction doing sleazy things like BLP violations, copyright violations and flickr washing- it's only the threat of force that gets them to extract their head out of their anus and behave like adults (Daniel Brandt's biography is a good example). Since Getty Images makes their living off of image licensing, and they defend their property, it's not surprising that Wikipedia accommodates them. Secondly, fair-use requires good judgement and restraint. It's not a license to steal whatever you want, it requires a very good rationale. There aren't many Wikipedia editors capable of this.

Yes, I think that's right on both counts. In the Wikipedia discussion I linked, Daniel Case had this to say:

"I find this suggestion that we consider the relative ability of the rights holder to exploit the image's commercial potential when assessing compliance with the policy a dangerous road to go down. In essence, we are saying to our editors "look for little rights holders to take stuff from." The policy should treat all rights holders equally.

Given the underlying values of the Wikipedia project that were repeatedly invoked when the policy was adopted, I find this particularly disturbing, to say nothing of outwardly hypocritical."

Unfortunately the administrator ("Future Perfect at Sunrise") owning this particular nugget of Wikipedia policy simply wasn't prepared to address any of the issues that arose, obstinately insisting that commercial holders are treated equally, when in fact they simply aren't.

Getty Images are extremely litigious, I understand. I totally "get" the blanket ban here.

WP, by the way, has no commitment to "fair use" of images. Quite the contrary. I disagree with their weakness to pursue fair use when it is clearly applicable. With regard to Getty — that's another deal. Stay away from cobras, they bite.

RfB

Randy from Boise wrote:Getty Images are extremely litigious, I understand. I totally "get" the blanket ban here.

WP, by the way, has no commitment to "fair use" of images. Quite the contrary. I disagree with their weakness to pursue fair use when it is clearly applicable. With regard to Getty — that's another deal. Stay away from cobras, they bite.

RfB

Well OK, "commitment" is perhaps too strong a word. But their licensing policy http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Res ... ing_policy does clearly commit to EDPs (Exemption Doctrine Policy) of which one they quote is illustrating historically significant events, precisely what I was seeking to do in uploading an image of Reeve Steenkamp.

The issue with Getty Images is that there really is a blanket ban on using their images. I mean even with a legitimate fair use rationale. That's a huge depository of images which are for ever closed to Wikipedia.

No suitable free image of Reeva Steenkamp is ever likely to appear on her page. The only really suitable images, that is to say images which aren't glamour images, are the ones owned by Getty Images. That no image of her appears on her page as a senient being has the effect of desentisizing her and her shooting. Already we can see subtle in-house POV in Oscar Pistorius' article in Wikipedia (for example the euphemistic heading "Legal problems"). The same editor (HelenOnLine) who owns that article had placed a comment in Reeva Steeenkamp's infobox in the markup of her article that images from AP or Getty Images would be speedily deleted.

Join the dots ...

Randy from Boise wrote:Getty Images are extremely litigious, I understand. I totally "get" the blanket ban here.

So am I.

As it is the FU criteria mentioned above is crap. You don't get to reuse any image you like just because no one happens to have released one under the specific CC license you happen to want. I love the way that these wikipedia people have such a sense of entitlement that think they can just take whatever they want.

As for the 'news' aspect: The image is of a person that is in the news, it is not the news itself.

lilburne wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:Getty Images are extremely litigious, I understand. I totally "get" the blanket ban here.

So am I.

As it is the FU criteria mentioned above is crap ... these wikipedia people ...

As for the 'news' aspect: The image is of a person that is in the news, it is not the news itself.

What part of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation is faecal matter in your estimation? I'm not a 'wikipedia person' (mostly identifiable by their compulsive editing of the project and similar forums), please don't patronise me. The issue on which I was posting on and soliciting constructive views about was Wikipedia's ban on Getty Images, not fair use or any particular instant of it. We agree on the news aspect.

Elissa wrote:

lilburne wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:Getty Images are extremely litigious, I understand. I totally "get" the blanket ban here.

So am I.

As it is the FU criteria mentioned above is crap ... these wikipedia people ...

As for the 'news' aspect: The image is of a person that is in the news, it is not the news itself.

What part of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation is faecal matter in your estimation? I'm not a 'wikipedia person' (mostly identifiable by their compulsive editing of the project and similar forums), please don't patronise me. The issue on which I was posting and soliciting constructive views about on was Wikipedia's ban on Getty Images, not fair use or any particular instant of it. We agree on the news aspect.

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation was about using thumbnail images (100px largest size) as link buttons to web pages, is that what you were doing? No you were using the image as a portrait of the person, which is exactly what the purpose of the image is for. There for no transformative use therefore Kelly does not apply.

lilburne wrote:
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation was about using thumbnail images (100px largest size) as link buttons to web pages, is that what you were doing? No you were using the image as a portrait of the person, which is exactly what the purpose of the image is for. There for no transformative use therefore Kelly does not apply.

No. The operative part of the ruling was as follows:

"The most significant factor favoring Defendant is the transformative nature of its use of Plaintiff's images. Defendant's use is very different from the use for which the images were originally created. Plaintiff's photographs are artistic works used for illustrative purposes. Defendant's visual search engine is designed to catalog and improve access to images on the Internet. Joint Stip. ¶¶ 27-29, 32. The character of the thumbnail index is not esthetic, but functional; its purpose is not to be artistic, but to be comprehensive.

To a lesser extent, the Arriba Vista image attributes page also served this purpose by allowing users to obtain more details about an image. The image attributes page, however, raises other concerns. It allowed users to view (and potentially download) full-size images without necessarily viewing the rest of the originating Web page. At the same time, it was less clearly connected to the search engine's purpose of finding and organizing Internet content for users. The presence of the image attributes page in the old version of the search engine somewhat detracts from the transformative effect of the search engine. But, when considering purpose and character of use in a new enterprise of this sort, it is more appropriate to consider the transformative purpose rather than the early imperfect means of achieving that purpose. The Court finds the purpose and character of Defendant's use was on the whole significantly transformative.

The Court finds the first factor weighs in favor of fair use."

This established the transformative principle with regard to thumbnailing without ruling on size. Moreover in "my" use the link (I mean on clicking the image and going to the Wikipedia file description page) was to the same thumbnail image, that is to say not to a larger image, the part of the judgement that still needs clarification in law. The purpose of the thumbnail in the infobox was to link to an information page where details of the image could be found and where a link was provided to the image in question owned by Getty Images, functional rather than esthetic, while in any case the ctiations habitually provided in these article by their nature routinely link to web articles where copyrighted images (without watermarking) that can easily be copied are displayed.

Once again I was posting on Wikipedia's blanket ban of Getty Images (i.e. to say the speedy deletion of all such images rather than referring it for discussion). I don't think we can usefully add any more here to our discussion about the validity of its fair use.

Thank you for your input.

Elissa wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Elissa wrote:Anyone find Wikipedia's blanket ban on using images from Getty Images (using a Fair Use rationale) suspect, as I do?

No.

Do you mind if I fair use your car later this week? There's no other car like it, and it will be the same car when I return it to you. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if use your car in a TV commercial I'm shooting.

I was raising the question of fair using your BMW rather than your Škoda , numpty. Try looking for one in your bum.

Added: A brain cell I mean (sorry). Fair use rationale or no.

Elissa. Turn it back a notch. You've come here looking for support for your viewpoint on fair use and what you've found is that there are people here who do not believe that property is theft. TheKosher is making a simple point. We do not look at all kindly on abuse of regulars by newbies - you have to earn your right to abuse others here

On the Internet, there tends to be a belief that it is a brave new world and the rules of the real world don't apply and in the new world, there are certain truths that do not need to be challenged. Wikipedia takes this attitude in spades.

You also should be aware that although the USA has fairly liberal fair use provisions, elsewhere in the world it is more restrictive.

In the end, putting a picture in an "encyclopedia" (cough) article is not such a devastatingly important requirement that the world will stop turning if The Evil Getty are not battled into submission. It is worth considering that if it is ok to put a picture on a Wikipedia article without payment, then there is no reason at all why the same picture should not be used for free in a newspaper - in fact you could make a far stronger fair use argument for the one time use in a paper to illustrate an important news event of the moment than the semi-permanent record on Wikipedia. Freetards don't then consider where the next generation of picture libraries are to come from ...and if it is so important to have Getty images, it rather suggests that Commons is not able to fulfill that function unless you need precisely that percentage of erection of a white male's penis.

dogbiscuit wrote:

Elissa wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Elissa wrote:Anyone find Wikipedia's blanket ban on using images from Getty Images (using a Fair Use rationale) suspect, as I do?

No.

Do you mind if I fair use your car later this week? There's no other car like it, and it will be the same car when I return it to you. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if use your car in a TV commercial I'm shooting.

I was raising the question of fair using your BMW rather than your Škoda , numpty. Try looking for one in your bum.

Added: A brain cell I mean (sorry). Fair use rationale or no.

Elissa. Turn it back a notch. You've come here looking for support for your viewpoint on fair use and what you've found is that there are people here who do not believe that property is theft. TheKosher is making a simple point. We do not look at all kindly on abuse of regulars by newbies - you have to earn your right to abuse others here

Erm, no. I came here to post on whether Wikipedia was consistent in its policy on Getty Images, an issue that was raised in the discussion I linked and, as often happens in Wikipedia, was not properly discussed there. I had imagined that one purpose at least of this forum was to rectify those omissions.

The second sentence of my post made it clear that I understood that many here are opposed to Wikipedia's copyright.

The Kosher's was the first response and it was negative and wilfully evaded the point. It certainly wasn't welcoming. My response was merely gently ironic.

I am retiring from this forum.

Elissa wrote: This established the transformative principle with regard to thumbnailing without ruling on size. Moreover in "my" use the link (I mean on clicking the image and going to the Wikipedia file description page) was to the same thumbnail image, that is to say not to a larger image, the part of the judgement that still needs clarification in law. The purpose of the thumbnail in the infobox was to link to an information page where details of the image could be found and where a link was provided to the image in question owned by Getty Images, functional rather than esthetic, while in any case the ctiations habitually provided in these article by their nature routinely link to web articles where copyrighted images (without watermarking) that can easily be copied are displayed.

It did not establish a general "principle with regard to thumbnailing" it established that Arriba's use of thumbnails within the context of a search engine was transformative and a fair use. But that wasn't what you were doing with the image. You were using it because

No suitable free image of Reeva Steenkamp is ever likely to appear on her page. The only really suitable images, that is to say images which aren't glamour images, are the ones owned by Getty Images.

thus your use is admitted to be illustrative and

The purpose of the thumbnail in the infobox was to link to an information page where details of the image could be found

is disingenuous to say the least.

Almost all of WP's fair-use claims are bogus, the WMF know it, and as such it is no surprise that they should blanket ban such claims when the source is known to defend the copyright. That they allow theft in other cases is just indicative of the moral bankruptcy of the site owners and its community.

lilburne wrote:

Elissa wrote: This established the transformative principle with regard to thumbnailing without ruling on size. Moreover in "my" use the link (I mean on clicking the image and going to the Wikipedia file description page) was to the same thumbnail image, that is to say not to a larger image, the part of the judgement that still needs clarification in law. The purpose of the thumbnail in the infobox was to link to an information page where details of the image could be found and where a link was provided to the image in question owned by Getty Images, functional rather than esthetic, while in any case the ctiations habitually provided in these article by their nature routinely link to web articles where copyrighted images (without watermarking) that can easily be copied are displayed.

It did not establish a general "principle with regard to thumbnailing" it established that Arriba's use of thumbnails within the context of a search engine was transformative and a fair use. But that wasn't what you were doing with the image. You were using it because

No suitable free image of Reeva Steenkamp is ever likely to appear on her page. The only really suitable images, that is to say images which aren't glamour images, are the ones owned by Getty Images.

thus your use is admitted to be illustrative and

The purpose of the thumbnail in the infobox was to link to an information page where details of the image could be found

is disingenuous to say the least.

Almost all of WP's fair-use claims are bogus, the WMF know it, and as such it is no surprise that they should blanket ban such claims when the source is known to defend the copyright. That they allow theft in other cases is just indicative of the moral bankruptcy of the site owners and its community.

No lilburne. I was not being disingenuous (understated or otherwise) amd I was not admitting that the intended use was illustrative.

As indicated above, I frankly don't see the point in continuing here (and that is an understatement).

Elissa wrote: No lilburne. I was not being disingenuous (understated or otherwise) amd I was not admitting that the intended use was illustrative.

As indicated above, I frankly don't see the point in continuing here (and that is an understatement).

Sigh. TC has it right at the start.

NOTE: If you have a genuine fair-use case then it is easy to state you don't need to hum-n-haw about it.

The only unambiguous copyright material on WP are the multimedia files, many of which are on there under bogus criteria and even when a proper CC license was given wikipedia editors contrive to disregard their responsibilities under the license.

Suppose Getty made a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to allow Wikimedia projects to have free use of certain images? Would that be a fair compromise? Or maybe the WMF agrees to pay for certain Getty images?

Look at it this way. A car manufacturer gives away a bunch of cars for free on Oprah. The exposure of their product gets them attention from a large audience and a potential customer base that more than makes up the loss of giving away some of their products. Getty images on Wikipedia, one of the most popular websites in the world, could give Getty a new audience and a boost in sales by people mesmerized by their images on Wikipedia. So, Getty lets a few images ago for free or at low-cost to the Wikimedia Foundation. Could that work or would it be too risky a business strategy?

The Joy wrote:Suppose Getty made a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to allow Wikimedia projects to have free use of certain images? Would that be a fair compromise? Or maybe the WMF agrees to pay for certain Getty images?

Look at it this way. A car manufacturer gives away a bunch of cars for free on Oprah. The exposure of their product gets them attention from a large audience and a potential customer base that more than makes up the loss of giving away some of their products. Getty images on Wikipedia, one of the most popular websites in the world, could give Getty a new audience and a boost in sales by people mesmerized by their images on Wikipedia. So, Getty lets a few images ago for free or at low-cost to the Wikimedia Foundation. Could that work or would it be too risky a business strategy?

What would the expected sales be from having an image on wikipedia?

When you reach zero, let me know.

Elissa has done a diva flounce, and is gone, requesting an email removal. I did so, and suspended her account per her request.

Vigilant wrote:

The Joy wrote:Suppose Getty made a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to allow Wikimedia projects to have free use of certain images? Would that be a fair compromise? Or maybe the WMF agrees to pay for certain Getty images?

Look at it this way. A car manufacturer gives away a bunch of cars for free on Oprah. The exposure of their product gets them attention from a large audience and a potential customer base that more than makes up the loss of giving away some of their products. Getty images on Wikipedia, one of the most popular websites in the world, could give Getty a new audience and a boost in sales by people mesmerized by their images on Wikipedia. So, Getty lets a few images ago for free or at low-cost to the Wikimedia Foundation. Could that work or would it be too risky a business strategy?

What would the expected sales be from having an image on wikipedia?

When you reach zero, let me know.

Well, maybe the WMF should pay for the images, then. I would like someone on Wikipedia to suggest that just so I can watch the "Information must be free!"-crowd frothing hysterically and throwing fits like toddlers.

Zoloft wrote:Elissa has done a diva flounce, and is gone, requesting an email removal. I did so, and suspended her account per her request.

Speaking of copyright, under our forum's rules, Elissa's first post is protected under her copyright. However, she stated that she copied her first post to her Wikipedia talkpage, which releases said text to the public as a CC-by-SA license. My brain is hurting thinking about this, but does that mean she no longer owns her first post and we can do whatever we want with it?

Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (T-H-L)

Yes, I'm being anal and proving a WP:POINT (T-H-L).

Zoloft wrote:Elissa has done a diva flounce, and is gone, requesting an email removal. I did so, and suspended her account per her request.

A touch of the Wikipedian there me thinks. Greg posted a perfectly reasonable analogy and got soundly abused and Elissa thinks we have a problem?

Elissa also doesn't realise that if she got support here, she would also guarantee that Wikipedians would fight against any of her proposals on principle, so we have done her a big favour.

The Joy wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

The Joy wrote:Suppose Getty made a deal with the Wikimedia Foundation to allow Wikimedia projects to have free use of certain images? Would that be a fair compromise? Or maybe the WMF agrees to pay for certain Getty images?

Look at it this way. A car manufacturer gives away a bunch of cars for free on Oprah. The exposure of their product gets them attention from a large audience and a potential customer base that more than makes up the loss of giving away some of their products. Getty images on Wikipedia, one of the most popular websites in the world, could give Getty a new audience and a boost in sales by people mesmerized by their images on Wikipedia. So, Getty lets a few images ago for free or at low-cost to the Wikimedia Foundation. Could that work or would it be too risky a business strategy?

What would the expected sales be from having an image on wikipedia?

When you reach zero, let me know.

Well, maybe the WMF should pay for the images, then. I would like someone on Wikipedia to suggest that just so I can watch the "Information must be free!"-crowd frothing hysterically and throwing fits like toddlers.

Pay for pictures? Without a penis in them? INCONCEIVABLE!

Hell, they can't even pay their developers prevailing wages...

I suppose the summary is:

* Fair use is a rather dodgy concept and does not exist in most countries
* Wikipedians often abuse fair use - surprise, surprise
* Wikipedia does not abuse Getty; it may indeed go in the opposite direction and not allow as much as it can legally get away with, because it is frightened of Getty.

The WMF is unlikely to pay Getty for use; remembering the WMF policy that all images must be freely re-usable, it would have to buy out the copyright totally, which might be expensive.

To change the subject slightly, has anyone noticed that Jimbo's Flickr photos are not licensed in a way suitable for WP use?

Zoloft wrote:Elissa has done a diva flounce, and is gone, requesting an email removal. I did so, and suspended her account per her request.

Good riddance.

We should have an auto-suspend feature that triggers when someone begins a post with "Erm, no." That's always a sure sign for me, anyway.

Outsider wrote: To change the subject slightly, has anyone noticed that Jimbo's Flickr photos are not licensed in a way suitable for WP use?

Depends what they are. Even the most rabid freetard should be wary about freetarding images of people.

I think that fair use can have its place for Getty images of particular historic significance, as opposed to a random current news photo in the original post of this thread. For example, this famous photograph of the firebombed library of Holland House, London (T-H-L). It's a significant part of the story of a historic building, and would improve the section about its history in the twentieth century. Hosting a low-resolution copy would clearly be appropriate for studious purposes and not hurt Getty's profits one bit. It might even improve them, by directing some traffic their way of people who'd like to see a big version.

Of course, I know that my opinion and Getty's may not jibe on this matter, and I understand the necessity of playing it safe. I also don't make any argument for any kind of blanket exception; this is purely regarding the single case that I've encountered of a potentially useful Getty image.

Hex wrote:I think that fair use can have its place for Getty images of particular historic significance, as opposed to a random current news photo in the original post of this thread. For example, this famous photograph of the firebombed library of Holland House, London (T-H-L). It's a significant part of the story of a historic building, and would improve the section about its history in the twentieth century. Hosting a low-resolution copy would clearly be appropriate for studious purposes and not hurt Getty's profits one bit. It might even improve them, by directing some traffic their way of people who'd like to see a big version.

Of course, I know that my opinion and Getty's may not jibe on this matter, and I understand the necessity of playing it safe. I also don't make any argument for any kind of blanket exception; this is purely regarding the single case that I've encountered of a potentially useful Getty image.

If the WMF believed in Wikipedia as a product, the alternative is to say "There are images of worth that are not free and we should have an arrangement to licence them for the use of the community." There could be basic copy protection applied to them (e.g. no cut and paste) though of course people can still screen grab them, but that is life.

They could set aside a miniscule proportion of their wealth and people could make their case.

It is called a commercial arrangement.

I stifled a laugh at the studious purposes justification.

Fundamentally, things don't always have to be "Wikipedia's terms or no terms."

dogbiscuit wrote: I stifled a laugh at the studious purposes justification.

You may not like that US copyright law has the concept of fair use enshrined within it, but that's your problem.

Is the image in question available for viewing - yes.
Does not being able to embed it on a wikipedia page rather than linking to it create a significant cultural loss - no.

Hex wrote:

dogbiscuit wrote: I stifled a laugh at the studious purposes justification.

You may not like that US copyright law has the concept of fair use enshrined within it, but that's your problem.

Erm, (just for Greg). I am fine with the law, as is often the case, it is the interpretation of the law that is the issue.

For example, what's educational about a picture of a murdered woman in this instance? Calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia does not justify all its content being educational.

Really the standard is (when put to the test) "there's no way at all to do this without using this picture which by rights they otherwise don't have to let us use at all." For most photographs that's going to come down to an article about that photograph.

The really stupidly doctrinaire decision is the refusal to allow "educational use only" images in. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an educational enterprise?

Wikipedia should not have any images that are not iron-clad freely licensed or in the public domain. They don't have contributors with the competence (and legal responsibility) to make accurate fair use determinations. In actual fact, there is almost never a good argument for a "fair use" image in an encyclopedia.

The kid gloves treatment of Getty versus less powerful rights holders is a good example of the hypocrisy and bullying behavior that reign supreme at Wikipedia. But the answer to this problem is not to treat Getty just as horribly as many other rights holders.

They should nuke all images that dubiously claim to be "fair use" immediately. Wikipedia's failure to do so is more evidence that it's run by a whining, irresponsible mob.

dogbiscuit wrote: For example, what's educational about a picture of a murdered woman in this instance?

I guess you didn't read the part where I said I didn't think it applies to the image discussed in the opening post of this thread.

Hex wrote:Hosting a low-resolution copy would ... not hurt Getty's profits one bit.

Why hasn't Getty hired you to manage their business, since you are clearly an accounting wizard?

thekohser wrote:

Hex wrote:Hosting a low-resolution copy would ... not hurt Getty's profits one bit.

Why hasn't Getty hired you to manage their business, since you are clearly an accounting wizard?

They tried, but there's a big queue of people fighting to hire Wikipedia admins, y'know? They'll have to wait until my consulting role for the U.N. is done.

lilburne wrote: Almost all of WP's fair-use claims are bogus, the WMF know it, and as such it is no surprise that they should blanket ban such claims when the source is known to defend the copyright. That they allow theft in other cases is just indicative of the moral bankruptcy of the site owners and its community.

Awww, that's baloney. The "fair use" exemptions to American copyright law create a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through (or use a picture of one) with respect to illustration of educational articles for a non-profit encyclopedia. The fact that WP hasn't been sued into oblivion, or close to oblivion, or very much, or at all, over the matter proves this point richly.

Wikipedia actually needs to be more aggressive pursuing fair use when it legitimately applies under the law, rather than less aggressive...

That said, I am 100% supportive of a ban on use of images from Getty Images.

RfB

Randy from Boise wrote:

lilburne wrote: Almost all of WP's fair-use claims are bogus, the WMF know it, and as such it is no surprise that they should blanket ban such claims when the source is known to defend the copyright. That they allow theft in other cases is just indicative of the moral bankruptcy of the site owners and its community.

Awww, that's baloney. The "fair use" exemptions to American copyright law create a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through (or use a picture of one) with respect to illustration of educational articles for a non-profit encyclopedia.

Bullshit! A non-profit organization such as WP is undertaking a commercial activity the distinction is that they do not distribute surpluses as dividends but retain any surpluses within the organization. Example TheGuardian#Ownership (T-H-L) newspaper is a commercial organization.

The main use of images in wikipedia articles is illustrative NOT educational. Example Chartres cathedral (T-H-L) none of the images there of stone work would qualify for fair-use.

Hex wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Hex wrote:Hosting a low-resolution copy would ... not hurt Getty's profits one bit.

Why hasn't Getty hired you to manage their business, since you are clearly an accounting wizard?

They tried, but there's a big queue of people fighting to hire Wikipedia admins, y'know? They'll have to wait until my consulting role for the U.N. is done.

Would everyone who has a strong belief in the Wikipedia Way back up just a weenie bit away from Mr. Kohs? I think you're poisoning him. He bit the head off a live fair use advocate the other day. We're thinking of creating a heavy metal band around his charismatic, raw stage presence if this Comcast thing doesn't work out.

Zoloft wrote:

Hex wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Hex wrote:Hosting a low-resolution copy would ... not hurt Getty's profits one bit.

Why hasn't Getty hired you to manage their business, since you are clearly an accounting wizard?

They tried, but there's a big queue of people fighting to hire Wikipedia admins, y'know? They'll have to wait until my consulting role for the U.N. is done.

Would everyone who has a strong belief in the Wikipedia Way back up just a weenie bit away from Mr. Kohs? I think you're poisoning him. He bit the head off a live fair use advocate the other day. We're thinking of creating a heavy metal band around his charismatic, raw stage presence if this Comcast thing doesn't work out.

Aww, don't kid yourself, he's already in a garage band. Does backyard wrestling on Saturday afternoons, too...


RfB

Let me be a little more clear about how WP needs to push "fair use."

It is a major fucking pain in the ass to use even low resolution graphics of dust jackets to illustrate articles about books or their authors. It should not be. WP should push, push, push on this. Every commercial site in the universe uses them. They use seller images on ABE Books. They use them on eBay. There is ZERO reason that these should not be slam dunk automatic OKs under a certain resolution that we can probably all agree upon in two days of debate...

RfB

There was a case in the US a few years back where a manufacturer managed to get images of cosmetics removed from a grey import site under copyright claims. The site argued fair-use and lost. Patry in a blog post argued that they shouldn't have argued fair-use, but instead have invoked section 113c. Basically copyright does not apply to photographs of items that have been offered for sale when you are either commenting on the item or offering it for resale.

In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.

lilburne wrote:

Outsider wrote: To change the subject slightly, has anyone noticed that Jimbo's Flickr photos are not licensed in a way suitable for WP use?

Depends what they are. Even the most rabid freetard should be wary about freetarding images of people.

I'm just commenting on an apparent inconsistency, anting others to let his project use their picturs but not letting his own project (or anyone else) use his. Surely Jimbo is never inconsistent!

lilburne wrote:There was a case in the US a few years back where a manufacturer managed to get images of cosmetics removed from a grey import site under copyright claims. The site argued fair-use and lost. Patry in a blog post argued that they shouldn't have argued fair-use, but instead have invoked section 113c. Basically copyright does not apply to photographs of items that have been offered for sale when you are either commenting on the item or offering it for resale.

In the case of a work lawfully reproduced in useful articles that have been offered for sale or other distribution to the public, copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with advertisements or commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles, or in connection with news reports.

Commercial use v. non-commercial use.

There is zero, zip, zilch reason for WP not to have a green light for low-res dust jacket scans for illustrative purposes. Their idiotic party line in favor of making everything "freely reproduceable, even by commercial exploiters" would seem to be the stopper...

RfB

Randy from Boise wrote:
Commercial use v. non-commercial use.

Bullshit WP is engaged in a traditional commercial activity. Every other encyclopaedia needs to obtain licenses for the media files they use. You need to get this into your noggin WP's is commercial. It may be non-profit but it is still commercial in the same way as Guardian Media is. The Guardian can no more reuse copyright material simply because it is a non-profit than MIT, Eton School, or wikipedia can. All are engaged in commercial activities. Not providing a share-holder dividend does not give you a commercial advantage over those that do provide a share-holder dividend, and you have no right to expect a handout from people that are trying to make a living from their creative activities.

Whether WP's use of book covers comes under section 113(c) may be a point of discussion. Although WP certainly aren't selling them, and they aren't displaying them as part of a news story. But in general you don't have a fair-use claim.

lilburne wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:
Commercial use v. non-commercial use.

Bullshit WP is engaged in a traditional commercial activity. Every other encyclopaedia needs to obtain licenses for the media files they use. You need to get this into your noggin WP's is commercial. It may be non-profit but it is still commercial in the same way as Guardian Media is. The Guardian can no more reuse copyright material simply because it is a non-profit than MIT, Eton School, or wikipedia can. All are engaged in commercial activities. Not providing a share-holder dividend does not give you a commercial advantage over those that do provide a share-holder dividend, and you have no right to expect a handout from people that are trying to make a living from their creative activities.

Whether WP's use of book covers comes under section 113(c) may be a point of discussion, WP certainly aren't selling them, and they aren't displaying them as part of a news story. But in general you don't have a fair-use claim.

I might be willing to trade you lame fair use claims for a fulsome and aggressive use of 113(c).

Deal?

RfB

lilburne wrote:The Guardian can no more reuse copyright material simply because it is a non-profit than MIT, Eton School, or wikipedia can.

Fair use doesn't exist in the UK so The Guardian and Eton certainly can't anyway.

Randy from Boise wrote: I might be willing to trade you lame fair use claims for a fulsome and aggressive use of 113(c).

Deal?

If you can stretch WPs use into 113(c) it is a clearer principle. Most usages though of dust jackets or LP/CD covers are concerned with selling the things or are genuine news stories. WP's use maybe problematic in that regard, as dust jackets change over time. As an example I bought a book last weekend and there were 4 different editions of it, each with a different cover, none of which were remotely similar to the first edition DJ. So in many cases what you have is purely eye-candy to spruce up a page. Something that a commercial entity pays for.

Here is a good guide to this shit.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/

Outsider wrote:

lilburne wrote:The Guardian can no more reuse copyright material simply because it is a non-profit than MIT, Eton School, or wikipedia can.

Fair use doesn't exist in the UK so The Guardian and Eton certainly can't anyway.

Fair use certainly does exist in the UK, but it is far more constrained than the American definition.

Similarly, schools (including state schools) in the UK had a habit of copying passages from textbooks and so on "for educational purposes" and they got into a lot of trouble, so schools typically have strict photocopying policies to address this. You can hardly have a business based on producing textbooks if the schools can claim that they are allowed to copy the contents for educational purposes - it would not be a healthy system that desired people to expend labour producing such works but then did not offer protection to the producers.

Copyright is a balancing act - go down the extremist view in either direction and you end up with a mess. Wikipedia tends towards naive extremism in its fanatical belief that it is a great educational work.