Proposal talk:No more Fair Use

From Strategic Planning


Putting aside that virtually all media under 80 years old or so is “under copyright″, even media created specifically for Wikipedia. I am not understanding the rational. I got the impression the the author of this proposal was worried about content creators somehow losing income due to fair use of the work(s) on wikipedia. However, the restrictions on fair-use work already part of policy ensure that only small exceprts, samples or low resolution copies of the work can be used. I really cannot think of a single example of that causing anyone damage.-- 19:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can see several legal complications, even in countries that do not provide in its laws the Fair Use
  • I also see a foundation Non-profit encouraging, with Fair Use, the use of copyright.
  • Produce content that can not be distributed without payment of royalties in a foundation that seeks to free distribution of knowledge is a paradox, because any massive printing of an article that uses a copyrighted image, may not be distributed without payment of copyright . Nor can we display in a classroom / lecture articles that contain images copyrighted.
  • So what is this free knowledge? Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 18:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will wholeheartedly support any proposal to get rid of all "fair use" material in Wikipedia, because it inherently contradicts our free content philosophy. But all that anti-copyright rhetoric is fundamentally misguided, and must be eliminated from this proposal. Almost all Wikipedia content (except for a few PD images) is protected by copyright. Only this protection makes it possible to publish it with a free license, to make sure that the free content really remains free. --Latebird 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the necessary changes. Now the proposal focuses on the actual problem, and doesn't get sidetracked by political issues outside of our influence anymore. --Latebird (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)v[reply]
I don't see why Wikipedia has to be so extreme. Leave aside the ideology that most readers don't give a damn about, have there been many of these "potential legal problems?" Has there been many incidents where a copyright owner had trouble removing their copyrighted content from Wikipedia? Getting rid of fair use will just mean that a lot of articles concerned with modern media will end up being dry blobs of text. Does it really harm Wikipedia, the copyright owner, the reader, or anyone else to put a low res CD album cover in an article about the album? So you propose we just take the theoretical high ground and sit around feeling nice about "freedom" instead of improving our content.--Konstable 07:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This would mean that we couldn't have any logos, any pictures of logos, or anything else that is trademarked. Have you ever taken a picture of any scene anywhere that didn't have a Pepsi, Coke, Microsoft, Apple, or Sony logo *somewhere* in the image? Those logos aren't free, even if you take the picture. Mind you that's trademarks, not copyright, but I get the feeling from the author that they mean *everything* has to be free-use. Gopher65talk 20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Few Wikipedias use Fair Use as you can see in Pepsi, they do not use the logo, but take advantage of some things, like public image of the logo. And we can also change the view of some companies, authorizing in writing the use of logos, after all, Wikipedia is one of the largest websites in the world, generating some publicity (like it or not), but fairly in a way that people believe that there is no influence of the market, which is true. Furthermore, it is a space for historical information business, an attraction to the final consumer, ie, it is interesting to them for providing data and images. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who takes the picture. If *you* take a picture of a corporate logo, they own that picture, not you. Gopher65talk 13:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we can also change the view of some companies" - have you noticed that even the Wikimeida Foundation itself refuses to release a free logo? The Wikipedia logo and all other Wikimedia logos are non-free? For a good reason too. The very idea of licenses like CC and GFDL is that you allow anyone to do almost anything to your logo. Every company in this capitalist world needs to protect their image, the little circle with blue and red is worth millions to Pepsi and to think you can change their mind is naive. Secondly, photos of Pepsi cans still contain a copyrighted image. If you hand-drew the Pepsi logo it would still be a copyrighted image. There is no way around it, and it is most certainly is not free. So yes, a blanket ban on fair use images means no logos of Pepsi, or even Wikipedia on w:en:Wikipedia--Konstable 09:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Simple, on Wikimedia projects should abolish media under copyright. Could this please be made grammatical, and then fleshed out a little? Its meaning is not transparent. I think it means that no copyrighted material should be used in Wikimedia projects. Is this right?

Incidentally, if you're trying to get input from Wikipedia users, how about making it possible to do it while logged on to Wikipedia, instead of having to create an account mid-action? 07:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to create an account. There is a bug in the system that currently logs you out of your global account (if you have a global account) when you come to the Strategic Planning wiki for the first time, but all you have to do is log in with your regular details (again: if you have a global account). Gopher65talk 13:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "No copyrighted material should be used in Wikimedia projects". Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 03:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by

Moved here from the proposal. Following comments are by User: and have been added here. Regards, --ChrisiPK 05:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a truly asinine proposal. Writers and authors, such as myself, write in order to make a living or to supplement our income. May I have part of YOUR paycheck? No? Why?

Another foolish proposal, born in the mind of a non-critical thinker. A world "free of copyright" will be a world free of new books. By what method of "thinking" did you reach this idea of a "copyright free world"? How about a world free of patents or trademarks? How about a world FREE of ANY incentive to do ANYTHING because no living can be made by writing or inventing ANYTHING? This reads like the proposal of a 13 year old who does not understand that people write and invent to make a living to feed their families.

I, along with the twelve other authors/writers I know, would take Wikipedia to court and win some big bucks.

  • This is a joke, right?

I'm still in a discussion of a Wiki environment (which requires no issues voluntary monetary incentives), is not it? As a person who has this vision can edit a Wikimedia project? For what I remember, most of the issues in the projects are under a free license.

And please, have education, do not write that way. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, can be enormous, because it is an openness to the world "free", a change of view on the licenses and a further affirmation of the goal of the Foundation.

In Brazil, people are becoming accustomed to seeing the "Wikipedia" as a place where they can have access to free images, it is not correct, should see the Wikimedia Commons in this way, but it's a start, I do not know about the U.S.A. Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this proposal impact is 4 or 5, because, it could change redaically the whole wiki world. Fale 19:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]