Wikibooks talk:Fair use policy

Concern over inappropriate application of Fair-Use
A debate has been raging on Foundation-l over the application of Fair Use content on Wikimedia projects, and we've been having a minor discussion about this on WB:VfD as well for some specific content. One resolution to this whole issue, besides hiring a lawyer to go over each and every item of applicable fair-use and get a thumbs up or down on that content, is to simply establish a formal policy over what is permitted on Wikibooks.

We want to stay on the legal side of trying to permit content, and to remove copyright violations. By implementing this policy, we are going to remove content that may be legal to host on Wikibooks, but because it is in a legal grey area we are also going to try to stay away from that sort of content. I, for one, don't want to be the target of a lawsuit simply because my name is attached widely to this project and copyright violations occur.

Border items still deserve a VfD rather than a simple speedy delete, but this is going to help clear up some of the issue. This policy page is also a tool to help out administrators in clearing up what sort of Fair Use content is permissable, and perhaps try to educate new Wikibookians about what Fair Use really involves. Fair Use is not the ability to simply copy all content with impunity and then argue that you have "fair use" applications when called on the carpet that the content is in violation of copyright.

The objective here is that if the content (image or text) is not on the list of formally permitted fair use applications, then it will be subject to deletion as a copyright violation. If the fair use application is not on the list of permitted options, you may try to get that generic type of application accepted through a policy change vote by the community, but you can't simply add that to this page.

Obviously for the short term we are going to be making some suggestions for the initial list of acceptable uses. --Rob Horning 18:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful if a summary of the applicable law were to be posted on Wikibooks. I have the impression that 'Fair Use' is a concept enshrined in US copyright law whereas the concept does not exist in the latest European Union Directives on copyright. Perhaps someone with expertise in the field could guide us? Any volunteers, law students perhaps? Does anyone have a friend, relative, colleague, tutor or whatever who could be persuaded to donate a little time to this? If we don't know what the law is we'll have a hard tim complying with it. Perhaps the simplest solution is to ban 'Fair Use' content altogether. --kwhitefoot 08:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll try to do just that (compiling references to various laws about fair use). The Wikipedia article on the topic does a pretty good job, and even references some similar EU laws that at least cover some of the general sentiment expressed by fair use laws in the USA.  Movie and book critics, for example, are encouraged to review the content of what they are reviewing and even give short excerpts without permission explicitly being granted by the copyright owner.  A scholarly quote is also accepted in most countries as well.  It is when you try to surf on the edge of the law and debate over how much of a picture you can copy, the resolution, or other fine details that you start to get into trouble and laws start to be very different.  Images seem to give the most heartburn from what I've seen anyway, and the reason why Commons gave up even trying to come up with a fair use standard.


 * If you want to get dirty with the statutory law for fair use in the USA, See Title 17; Chapter 1, Section 107 of the United States Code (the basic laws for the U.S. Federal level of government). Common Law is another story, and a considerable amount of common law governs fair use in the USA as well.  I'll try to find some applicable laws in other countries as well, but I'm not as familar with their legal systems and it is going to take some more time.  --Rob Horning 05:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Kwhitefoot wrote: Perhaps the simplest solution is to ban 'Fair Use' content altogether.

That would be overly restrictive. I want to able to quote a few sentences, for example when the UK Foreign Secretary speaks, or while discussing an email to foundation-l. --Kernigh 04:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Whiteknight's proposed modification of Policy
While I appreciate the opinion and being bold about proposing a change to this policy, I think he has missed something very basic and is substantially misreading what the WMF has said about fair use policies that need to be adopted for individual projects.

First of all, they are strongly recommending that each project come up with some sort of fair use policy if none currently exists. That is why this page exists in the first place, and I think that is a good place to start. The English language Wikimedia projects are all pretty responsible in this manner, but where this becomes an issue is for mainly the non-English WMF projects.

The other very key point is that we can't have an image or other content that is uploaded "with permission" for use only on Wikibooks, together with suggesting an end to accepting non-commercial use only contributions as well. I don't see that either of these points have been an issue in the past or even recently on Wikibooks.

Nowhere in this posting, or in any other communication from the WMF board has it been suggested that fair-use needs to be completely eliminated. That is something that can and must be discussed within the project. The participants in each project can try to determine just to what degree fair-use can be considered acceptable or not. It should be noted particularly on the Wikimedia Commons that fair-use has been completely eliminated, and is used specifically as an example of a project that may want to go that way.

For myself, I believe that fair-use content does have its place, but such use must be by its nature very restricted to only a very small subset of content that could potentially be used under fair-use or fair dealing guidelines and laws. Quoting a couple of sentances (with reference and attribution) from a copyrighted work is such an example of fair-use that is very traditionally been considered acceptable in most acacemic and scholarly situations, and is even encouraged. I don't know of any country in the world where that would be considered improper or illegal. You cross the line, however, when you have republished entire chapters or whole poems, so such use does need to be restricted to a certain degree.

The main sticking point seems to be with images, where national laws regarding what is acceptable can vary quite substantially. This is precisely why I felt that we need to define some very clear categories of types of images that may be considered acceptable and restrict Wikibooks to only those sorts of images, with some limited room to allow for perhaps some suggested new categories if there were strong reasons to include them. Calling for the complete elimination of fair-use content is IMHO going way over the top and unacceptable in its current context, particularly if you are citing WMF policy as the reason for implementing this huge change in policy.

I ask Whiteknight or anybody else, is this main policy that I mainly helped write (it has been modified by other Wikibookians and tweaked slightly) not clear or understandable? I certainly understand those who would seek to eliminate fair-use altogether, but I felt that this was a reasonable compromise between those who would want to eliminate fair use altogether and those who would want to push the line and use anything that might be legally permissible under the most liberal interpretation of copyright law.

In reference to Whiteknight's specific policy proposal: I would strongly recommend that you eliminate the reference to the WMF as a justification for removing all fair use content. The date is rather arbitrary as well, and that should merely be the date that any such policy of completely eliminating fair use content on Wikibooks to be effective as of the date that the policy is accepted. Otherwise, this is a choice that Wikibookians must make to see which direction to we want to go: Accept some fair-use content under limited and narrow rules, or eliminate it altogether. But that is a project decision and not something that has been imposed upon us by the WMF, particularly when the board has not made that sort of policy. --Rob Horning 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, if you look at the tag, this is not a "policy", it is meerly a proposal. This has never been accepted by the community, and has never been an official policy document. Considering that this has never been accepted by the community, I dont think it is wrong of me to alter the text of this page, or to propose a different fair use policy then the one that you have helped author. I won't be vilified because I altered the text of an unaccepted proposal.
 * Second, even if the WMF is not planning on banning fair use completely (and i don't think that they are), they have provided a number of strong justifications for reducing our dependence on fair use. Regardless of what the WMF has said in the past on this issue, they have yet to make a formal declaration on this issue (that I know of) that would set the record straight. I therefore am not going to alter the text of my proposal, because we don't yet know for sure that the WMF will not ban fair use when they do make such a declaration. Again, I stress that I doubt very much that the board will do such a thing.
 * I used to be very much pro-fair-use, in that I would have argued to keep fair use a part of our project. I have since had a change of heart, and feel that fair use should only be allowed in a very limited number of places. Even in those few acceptable instances, a fair use image should not be used when an open-content image is already available, or if it is possible to recreate the information from that image in a new image that is open-content.
 * The fact that Fair Use is not a universal standard certainly hurts the cause, and I would hate to think that when wikibooks finally does get into the world of publishing, printing, and distributing, that our books will be allowed places where fair use is not. I don't want to be the one to tell poor school children "sorry kids, we can't distribute free textbooks in your jurisdiction because a few of our licenses aren't compatable with the laws of your country." This might not be as big a problem as this, of course.
 * Another issue is that Fair Use content is undeniably and irreparably incompatible with the GFDL. Fair Use content is typically "no-derivs", and is also typically "non-commercial use only", two things which are against the letter of the GFDL, and which are also against what the WMF has said.
 * Beyond the issues of whether fair use is good to have here, the problem has always existed that many things are labled "fair use" when they do not qualify as such. People who don't understand the stickiness of copyright law can mistakenly upload tons of copyright violations without any oversight whatsoever. So long as an image is tagged with "fair use", nobody is set to task to verify the claim.
 * We should demand that (a) there are clear cut licensing guidelines that people can easily follow without having to understand the rigors of copyright law, and (b) that our ideals of free, open-content textbooks are not compromised because abandoning fair use is inconvenient. You can push for the current version of this policy if you want to, but i'm firmly set against it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will note that this policy has neither been accept nor rejected. The process of getting a policy formally "accepted" here on Wikibooks is hardly efficient nor very clear, but this certainly has been a widely publicized policy that has been cited in places beyond just the policy discussion pages, and it is disingenuious to suggest that such a long standing policy that has been reviewed by many Wikibookians, with some edits by more than one user, is a failed policy.  Approval or disapproval simply hasn't happened and you can't say anything else.  I guess I just havn't been a pain in the behind and pushed this through like some other policies have been done in the past.
 * I'm also noting that like all policies, "approved" or otherwise, they can be changed and modified. And I do welcome the discussion and your attitude about the topic.  This is something that perhaps with the current climate that was pushed forward by discussions by the WMF board we should try to focus on within Wikibooks itself, particular with the textbook-l discussion about this topic as well.
 * I'm also not necessarily suggesting that your revised proposal to this general policy is wrong either. But it is a very different vision for the future of Wikibooks, and has some other long-term consequences that need to be considered.  Since you redirected the talk page for that alternative policy to this talk page, I felt it was reasonable to also discuss what I see as some problems with the wording of that proposed policy as well.
 * I don't see anything that was put into statement by Kat Walsh that would suggest a complete elimination of Fair Use was required by the WMF, and I felt that needed to be removed.
 * This policy, as I have written it and before you changed it to suggest fair use needed to be eliminated completely, is a policy to severely restrict fair use media on Wikibooks and even addresses textual fair use, which even Wikipedia doesn't do with its fair use policies. I agree that fair use needs to be significantly restricted.
 * That perhaps even more restrictions can and perhaps should be added here, and I would welcome them as well. That would include requiring a formal justification for its fair use inclusion on each page where it appears (on the image page itself).  Another very valid restriction we could add would be to limit image pixel sizes, as large images generally at high resolution don't merit fair use justification.
 * This is where the decision needs to be made, if fair use images will be allowed at all or if they will be banned. In addition, the role of local multimedia uploads needs to be addressed as to what real value it may have.  There may be some justification (until some changes to MediaWiki happen) to still allow local uploads even with a complete ban of fair use content, even if only to help relatively new users to add images until somebody can show them how to do that on Commons.  --Rob Horning 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. In looking through the history, I guess you didn't create the "Whiteknight" subpage. I'm sorry that I implied that you, Whiteknight, were responsible for the redirect, although I do think keeping the discussion to a single page is useful and important for now. --Rob Horning 21:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My alteration to this page was admittedly a rash one, stemming from my own desire to abolish fair use, and an over-zealous interpretation of Kat's post (although I won't admit that my interpretation was "wrong", but i did assume an undue sense of urgency). I can admit my mistakes, but I would also like to stop being reminded of them. I don't mind that you thought I created that page, my name is on it after all. Had it been me, however, I would likely have used the branch unstable template instead, and created the page that way.
 * Kat's post may not have explicitly said that the WMF intends to ban fair use, but it did show the many ways that fair use is a compromise of our ideals (open content, GFDL, etc). Banning fair use might be inconvenient, and it may cause some trouble in books that rely on fair use images (history and art books have been mentioned specifically in previous discussions), but I think that we owe it to ourselves, to our readers, and to our mission to at least consider the possibility of severly limiting or banning completely fair use. Even if we don't decide to ban them outright now (a proposal that would get some support perhaps, but not enough), we should consider ways that we can move in that general direction. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternate proposal and removing warning message
I just did two semi-substantial actions with Whiteknight's alternate proposal. First of all, I stripped off his name from the proposal. It is a truly alternate way to think about the direction of Wikibooks in regards to fair use content, and it needs to be dealt with on its own merits rather than a direct association with any particular individual. It is different enough in philosophy that it needs to be considered as a full alternative to the older proposal that was written, and I want to encourage other Wikibookians to get involved with its development. If/when we as a community decide to actually vote on this idea and concept, I believe that both proposals ought to stand equally with each other and chart the direction that Wikibooks may want to go, with those who would advocate either philosophy to defend the merits of both concepts. Based on discussion above, I hope that Whiteknight won't complain about this.

The other action I took was to remove the "warning" message that was on there. I think it is very useful to note here in these discussions the comments of Kat Walsh speaking on behalf of the WMF board of trustees, but it wasn't meant to be an official policy. This was her own opinion on these matters, even though she did hint about discussions that are ongoing with the WMF board and suggesting the direction that the board was considering in terms of official policy. I will note, however, that there are very, very few policies that have been implemented that affect all of the Wikimedia projects, and even those have not been without substantial criticisms. Generally they try to stay out of trying to dictate to individual projects on content policies, and this is clearly such a content policy.

One of the huge reasons for that is to avoid having a schism within the projects, such as did happen with the Spanish-language edition of Wikipedia, where some individuals were acting in a manner that a majority of the users decided to quit and start a genuine fork of the project on a whole different set of servers. The now two communities do get along rather cordially but it still does cause a bit of friction, even though content freely flows back and forth across both Wikipedia projects.

A similar situation existed here on Wikibooks, where there were several Wikibookians who wanted to create a similar full fork of Wikibooks due to the issue of removing the video game guides. While I won't take full credit for it, one of the reasons why it didn't happen was because even though I was opposed to their removal, I insisted that we try to stick with the WMF and the other Wikimedia projects as there were advantages to remaining within the Wikimedia family of projects... and I didn't want to become a full time network server operator trying to maintain the alternate Wikibooks project. I did have some very legitimate offers of hosting, however, and who knows where that might have gone.

I see a very similar situation occurring if the board decides to push real hard on Wikipedia about fair use. Some concessions have already been made and a tightening of the media content rules have occured, but it will get very, very ugly on the social level if the board decides to push an absolutely no fair use allowed policy. I know that some of that discussion, as it has already, will spill into Wikibooks, particularly if some are going to do the fork as has already been threatened. The whole issue here is going to require some very strong leadership meaning we will have to lead people and get the grassroots to support major changes... even if the WMF is imposing the policy from above. Certainly we can't have admins asserting policy changes when not even all of the admins are agreeing to a certain course of action. --Rob Horning 20:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots again
G'day, with all the discussion about Fair Use again, I'd like to once more raise the topic of screenshots. I find them to be very useful tools when trying to explain how to utilise software, and have been thoroughly flummoxed reading software-related material without screenshots in the past.

I feel that the discussion about Fair Use needs to take into account the great utility that screenshots have in software-related texts, and look to a way that they can be kept when formulating a Fair Use policy. I fully agree with many of the points made by people in the discussions above, but there must be some allowance for making books useful and readable too, otherwise they might as well not be here on Wikibooks.

Perhaps the problem, if one can term it such, is the use of the GFDL itself. In my (simple-minded) view, software-related books that utilise screenshots from commercial software can never truly be compliant with the GFDL if that license allows for indiscriminate reuse but where the screenshots are only Fair Use. Does that mean that any books that are greatly enhanced by the inclusion of such screenshots are unwelcome here at Wikibooks? (I would hope that it does not!)

What if books with Fair Use images had a banner or infobox positioned somewhere prominently, on the front page of the book as well as on each "offending" page, stating that the book has limited distribution possibilities (i.e. not fully compliant with GFDL!) Such books could then still exist here, bearing a warning to any who seek to copy and/or modify them that there are copyrighted inclusions which may need to be removed.

I would note also that Fair Use, specifically and as defined under US law, isn't the only situation where copyrighted images can be included in texts. Some companies specifically permit the use of screenshots in limited contexts, including educational materials, thus allowing their inclusion in texts beyond the boundaries of Fair Use laws. However, many of the same issues apply to these images as do with Fair Use images, because of the restrictions placed on their use by their owners.

Finally, I'd like to point out what I see as a problem in the text of the existing Fair Use policy, regarding screenshots. Currently, it states that Fair Use screenshots should be reduced in size and quality, and potentially even cropped to present only a portion of a screenshot. However, this practice is in direct conflict with the instructions of companies that do permit screenshots to be included in texts, e.g. Microsoft allows resizing but not otherwise modifying the screenshot.

I hope that we can find a way to retain screenshots in Wikibooks. Webaware talk 23:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will apologize for not responding here earlier. Please note that educational fair use is simply not permissable for Wikibooks for a number of reason that I won't go into here.  It would be nice to use that as an excuse for this project, but that would be establishing a legal precedence that doesn't exist at the moment.


 * I see screen shots as one of those issues that is certainly borderline in regards to this policy, and if this policy is accepted it will be where the most number of hard judgement calls will have to be made. This is a far cry from the fair use debates on Wikipedia where all other sorts of disputes are coming up mainly on publicity photos and media cover sheets (aka book and album covers).


 * I disagree that cropping of a screenshot is necessarily a bad thing. I certainly don't think that a screen shot would necessarily require including the "start" buton or other elements not on the application in question.  Or focusing on one particular set of screen elements when that is explicitly what you are talking about in the Wikibook when you are using that image.  That is explicitly what fair-use is supposed to permit:  where you are doing scholarly or critical commentary about the software.  Showing just a close-up of menu options instead of showing a very blurry screen shot where you can hardly read the menu would seem to me to be a much better way to show the information.


 * In other words, I don't see where a full screen shot of the software is necessarily a good thing. The main point about fair use is that you are not using the "whole work" but are using an excerpt of it as a part of the critical commentary.  Just as you would be doing with textual quotations (using fair use principles too).  When used in this context, it can't be argued that you are making a competing product.


 * On the other hand, if you are modifying a screen shot to add text that wouldn't necessarily appear there, or misrepresenting a piece of software in a manner like taking a quote out of context, that would be unethical. I would imagine this is what Microsoft is warning against, but I can't speak for them.  In addition, if you are taking one particular screen element, such as an icon or something else that is similar, you have lost the context that the icon is being used (typically).  You certainly don't have permission from companies like Microsoft to use these icons repeatedly in manners unrelated to a discussion about how they are actually used in the application.  The former video game guide Wikibooks were notorious about abusing fair use in this manner, using the icons from screen shots as mainly decorative elements of the pages, and not really noting why the icon appears.


 * As far as the GFDL is concerned in conjunction with fair use content, none other than Richard Stallman himself has responded that GFDL'd content certainly can use fair use content... just as any other copyrighted content can have fair-use. Having fair use content does not prohibit redistribution of the GFDL'd work as a whole.  The larger concerns would be if Wikibooks content can be used outside of the USA where the same use of content may not be considered legally permissible.  This is precisely why I have tried to put together this policy in the first place, to help guard and protect against expanding fair use materials but noting where they are currently being used in Wikibooks at the moment.  Screen shots of software are one of those items that is accepted in many other countries besides just the USA.  --Rob Horning 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * G'day Robert, thanks for responding.
 * Regarding cropping and resizing, I don't see such as being necessarily bad either. Our current policy, however, recommends that screenshots be cropped or resized beyond readability. This is not only annoying in the extreme in some instances, but often also in direct conflict with the licensing terms of the copyright holders (e.g. Microsoft, Adobe). To put this another way, Fair Use may allow us to take portions of screens or windows as appropriate, and the copyright holders' licensing terms may allow us to use entire windows or even full screen shots as appropriate, without loss of quality. I suggest that any revision of the Fair Use policy should take this into account.
 * Regarding the GFDL and Stallman's comments on Fair Use images, great! That is what I would have hoped for, but not what has been implied or stated here in previous threads. I feel strongly that screenshots are essential tools for some types of book, so we should ensure that they are permissible if possible. Webaware talk 08:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly wouldn't be the first time that copyright holders claim rights they really don't have. Again, the point of recommending cropped and resized screen shots is precisely to maintain fair-use justifications, as you are "excerpting" from the screen, just as you would excerpt from a textual source.  I believe in a copyright lawsuit, this would be a very reasonable justification and defense, and I can't imaging a judge "forcing" you to use the full screen shot instead.  The worry is to take such a screenshot out of context and misrepresenting it.  Again, the same issues apply to textual quotations as well.  Of course in the case of actual law sometimes common sense doesn't apply.
 * As for why Stallman's comments (and Moglan's) have not been mentioned.... it s because people are being ignorant about the topic. Stallman wrote about this nearly three years ago on Foundation-l, and while he considered this a settled issue, others have come into Wikimedia projects since then and have not read those words.  I agree that this is a huge area of misunderstanding.  At the same time, many participants of Wikimedia projects take fair use much more seriously than those who add stuff to YouTube and other mass collaboration websties.  With policies like this one in place, together with aggressive elimination of copyrighted material, I can't see that Wikibooks will face nearly the legal problems that YouTube is going through at the moment, or any signficant legal challenge to our content in any form.
 * BTW, the only way I can see screen shots being eliminated from Wikibooks is if all fair use is eliminated. Screenshots have been so widely used that this is current accepted practice, even if it isn't exactly policy yet.  --Rob Horning 16:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * An added thought here... In terms of the full screen shots being used under the terms that Microsoft and Adobe have suggested here.... that would be something completely outside of fair use entirely. That would be content that is free to use, as it would be "with permission".  I don't know how you would qualify this in terms of a license on Commons, but it certainly would not be fair use.  That may be something to add to this policy document, that sometimes you may be able to get permission that goes above and beyond fair use standards.  --Rob Horning 17:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to add extra postscripts here, but in going through the Microsoft guidelines, all it says is that you can "not include portions of a screen shot in your product user interface." That would be to use a partial screenshot as a design element in a software package.  I would have to agree that this steps beyond even fair use concepts and is a pure copyright violation.  What we are doing here is entirely within what Microsoft has said is acceptable.  This policy also excludes the use of screenshots as design elements as well, so I don't see that there is a significant conflict with Microsoft's policy.  What Adobe says is essentially the same thing, although I would agree both of these documents are vague about partial screen shots for critical commentary... but that is the point of fair use here, and we don't need permission from Microsoft or anybody else to have fair use content.  Fair use is a legal exception to copyright requiring permission from the copyright holder.  --Rob Horning 18:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Robert, please read what I wrote, then refer to Microsoft screenshot and Adobe screenshot. Also bear in mind that Fair Use isn't a universal right (I don't have it in all the cases that you have it, for example), and that the copyright owner's license terms extend beyond the borders of the USA. Webaware talk 23:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that you may want to avoid fair use for a particular Wikibook. We have even suggested (although it isn't codified yet) that some Wikibooks may have some unique policies that are exclusive to just them, such as the banning of fair use.  The Wikijunior books, for example, have some unique policies that are quite a bit different from the main Wikibooks policies.  Mainly by extentions and adding additional restrictions to the content (such as being written only for children and discouragement of massive expansion of titles).  So you may want to put in such restrictions into your book, or only permit screenshots using the licenses you are mentioning above, if that is the direction you would like to go.  I do know that many EU nations can use screenshots in the fashion that is mentioned in this policy, which is one of the reasons why it is included here.  They don't necessarily have fair use laws like the USA, but some kinds of images can be used under related legal concepts like "fair dealing" and "scholarly commentary".  Of course the details are something you need to consider yourself.  I like these templates that you have created, although it should be made clear that when meeting the terms of these licenses from Microsoft and Adobe that you are using them with permission of the copyright owner.  That concept is in the templates, but it doesn't seem to be quite so clear to me.  That is something that can be worked upon in the future, and this is a good place to start.  Items which don't follow the terms of these licenses should be labeled as fair use, using the appropriate template and fair use standards, if the images are to be used at all.  --Rob Horning 05:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Be bold. Webaware talk 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots as Exemption
The wikimedia resolution says that media relating to contemporary copyrighted works may be used as an exception. This means that if we extend the fair use policy here to cover screenshots explicitly, that we can keep them around. I think this should ease alot of fears from the computer software bookshelf, and hopefully calm Webaware down some. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention like half of the wikipedia images for computer software. I think it'll be OK, both because of this resolution and because of what Rob mentioned about the licenses of microsoft and adobe (though others don't necessarily follow the same models) to allow screen shots. But we should change the fair use policy to reflect that, though I'm not sure if we'd need to change copyrights to explicitly allow screenshots as well. Where was that resolution posted anyways? Regards Mattb112885 (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont have the link on me right now, i posted it at WB:AN, and WB:SLC. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't see it, I have too much crap on my watch list! But anyways, assuming that fair use qualifies as an "unacceptable license" (which I think it does) your interpretation is correct. So according to what I read, I think we can keep the provisions present in the current version for screenshots and logos, and probably coat of arms, coins I'm not sure if we're using (correct me if I'm wrong) and if we aren't I think we should get rid of it, and just say use pictures of old coins if you can rather than copyrighted pictures of newer ones (same with stamps which are PD before 1975 if I recall correctly; I'm sure there's plenty of both of those on commons anyways). We should make it more explicit that fair use should only be used when no free alternative is available (I had to search to find that provision), I'll try and edit it to make it more clear to people who want to upload them, but I don't want to delete large portions without support (since I think that would probably be more reckless than anything). That aside, how long do you think before we should take a vote on this? Mattb112885 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Pending quite a bit a further discussion, I would say. --Iamunknown 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Things that calm WebAware down are to be seen as a Good Thing&trade; IMHO. The closer he gets to 40, the more easily incensed he becomes. One can only hope that there will be some sort of inflexion point when he gets there... Webaware talk 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One policy
I believe Wikibooks only needs to have one policy rather then two, to deal with images and other media, such as Wikibooks:Media. Which I think needs to deal with:


 * What types of media is allowed.
 * What types of media isn't allowed.
 * How to properly tag images with license information.
 * What information needs to be provided along with the license.

What type of media is or isn't allowed should include any limitations on fair use. Also I think whether or not images without a license tag should be assumed to be GFDL needs to be decided and included in such a policy, if so. --dark lama  01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Much of the content in Image use policy is better suited for the help namespace then a policy. Likewise, the fair use policy is simple enough that it could easily be merged with the image policy and anything else that's related. Write up a draft of whatever you have in mind, and we can work on it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Updates
User:Mattb112885 and I have made some changes to this proposal tonight to help reflect some of the issues in the WMF resolution. All those changes are shown in this diff.

I think we have both tried to keep the original spirit of this policy very similar to how it was, in acknowledgement that this document has been a de facto standard for some time now. Basically, the changes involve higher emphasis on the use of non-fair use media where possible, and the fact that fair use media that isn't properly rationalized can be deleted. It is my hope that these changes won't upset too many people. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I made one additional edit so now the changes are in this diff. The goals were as WK said above, and as I mentioned in my earlier post. Mattb112885 (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the whole these are very positive changes to this policy. I'm rather impressed.


 * You did water down the previous wording that said the exceptions listed on this page were the only ones permitted. I do feel that if we start to allow other forms of fair use content, we should turn that into a policy discussion rather than simply something to let slide by on a one time basis.  For example, the publicity photo issue that has gone through Wikipedia, where studios and agents will send publicity photos to Wikipedia but not give explicit GFDL permission to reproduce the photos.  Some even have the wording "for use on Wikipedia only".


 * I'm just saying here that if we start allowing other forms of fair use here, it is a very slippery slope where you give a litle bit and some individuals will take as much as they can get... and push for more. It also opens up a rampant use of people saying "this image is used here, why can't I upload and use something similar?"


 * On the other hand, it does set a more positive tone that we will consider, as a project, other forms of fair use content. Again I'm curious about why you (whoever did this) made this change.  --Rob Horning 12:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if WK or I did this, but if I did it, I intended it to shed a more positive light on it, as though we have to limit it as much as possible, we must still be open to possible exceptions, and it's stated that people shouldn't just assume that their images are acceptable, but discuss with the community and share their rationalization. Maybe we should put a link to the WMF essay on the subject in there, so that people know what they have to comply with when they make their suggestions. As far as giving a little and taking a lot, I think people will try and do that anyways, as there are always different interpretations of policies (for example, of whether something is really "replacable" or not, is this a low enough resolution screenshot, is this specific enough to justify fair use, and so on) and people would try to stretch them whether we allowed for some leeway or not. Just if there wasn't we'd have to modify the policy every time there was a possible exception. Mattb112885 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Context sensitive
If Wikibooks is going to permit any non-free illustrations at all, could we please consider an amendment to this policy which will only permit non-free images on a book by book basis? It seems that most of the arguments for non-free images in wikibooks apply only to a subset of all possible Wikibooks, we should not be burdened with lurking non-free media for the large number of Wikibooks where no substantial argument can be made for using it. If there are no objections I will adjust the proposed policy to reflect that a community decision will be made on a book by book basis to determine what non-free images will be permitted from nothing up to the maximum amount permitted by the overall Wikibooks policy. --Gmaxwell 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont necessarily agree with that, doing things on a book-by-book basis is going to cause additional bureaucracy and confusion. We would need a mechanism to decide which books can and cannot use such materials, a mechanism to mark books that are permitted to use them or not, and Admins would have to weed through fair use uploads (admittedly a small number of all the total uploads) and selectively delete based on which pages use which images. I think it's better to have a single global policy with very strict standards. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Whiteknight here. The nature of Wikibooks allows an image uploaded for specific use in one book to be later included into many more books. Policing these inclusions would be an administrative nightmare. Better to make demands of the image, than of the books. Webaware talk 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be trivial to setup a special page that reports on all fair use images used in wikibooks which have not been flagged as permitting non-free images. --Gmaxwell 04:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, the Debian project is split into "main" and "contrib" sections. Packages in "contrib" are allowed to depend on non-free works. --Damian Yerrick 20:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative, consider taking a screenshot of a free alternative to the proprietary software
I'm curious about how effective this concept is. While I will admit there are several "clones" of commercial software (arguably Open Office instead of Mircosoft Office, for example) it seems as if you are going to be writing a book about a particular piece of software, you need to get screen shots of that software and not something else... even if it is similar. It is also intellectually dishonest to say that a screen shot is from one piece of software when it is in fact from something else.

I would agree that if you are trying to use a generic example of a screenshot of a word processor program, that it would be better to get a generic example from Open Office than Microsoft Office. But I would question that fair use would even apply here as the justification for having the image in such a generic context is no longer valid.

I guess I'm trying to see why this line was added into this proposal. --Rob Horning 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added that for two reasons. First, as an example of a possible alternative to the use of fair use images. Second, as to why this specific example may apply, I added it because there are often clones with essentially the same features (as you mentioned, Ooo over microsoft is one) where we can eliminate the necessity of fair use by taking the screenshot of the free software rather than the proprietary one. The writer can just mention in the book's text that the picture is a substitute showing essentially the same thing, I would argue that if the feature is similar it isn't always necessary to use the same software. As for when fair use actually applies (how specific it has to be) I have no idea, I'm no lawyer. Of course, such a suggestion would not work in all cases (as you said, there may be differences that are critical to understanding) and in those cases it would be necessary to take the screenshot of the proprietary software, I just think that it is worthwhile to consider other options beforehand. Hope this clarifies things.Mattb112885 (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's potentially useful in some cases, I think. For instance in the Control Systems book, in lieu of using screenshots of MATLAB (which is copyrighted) I have been using screenshots of GNU Octave which show similar graphs and results. I have been careful, however, to label all such pictures as having been generated in Octave and not MATLAB. Where an open-source clone program exists, I think it should be permissible to use screenshots from that instead of the proprietary software. As another example, ReactOS is a clone of Microsoft's Windows XP, and screenshots from one are typically similar to screenshots of the other. Of course there are going to be differences between any two clone programs, so those should be well documented. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then how would one document such differences without exercising fair use? --Damian Yerrick 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Another possible line would simply be to discourage the creation of a book about a particular piece of proprietary software, just as the video game guides were moved to StrategyWiki. Instead of making a guide to Microsoft Office software, make a guide to OpenOffice.org software. Instead of making a guide to Maya, make a guide to Blender. Instead of making a guide to Paint Shop Pro, make a guide to GIMP. Or would this count as promoting one piece of software over another in violation of the typical Wikimedia neutral point of view? --Damian Yerrick 22:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, taking the extra effort to purchase proprietary software, obtaining screenshots, and properly licensing them probably constitutes favoritism. There is a licensing hurdle (even if we make it a small one) that needs to be overcome to write books about proprietary software, it's just a fact that we need to deal with.
 * As an aside, many professonal software companies have PR departments or academic departments that are tasked with promoting the software and educating people about the software. Many software companies have people who will help an author write a book about their software, because that serves as a form of advertisement for that company. It is perhaps possible that we could contact these kinds of people and get special permission to write books about their software. Of course, any license resulting from these deals would likely be "no commercial use, no derivatives" which isn't really acceptable either. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My experience in situations like this, when we "stick to our guns" and insist upon "free content licenses" for images, many of the companies are more than willing to comply. And it should be noted as explained in a previous discussion on this page, Adobe and Microsoft (neither are very friendly toward open source software and open content documents) both have licensing terms that explicitly grant copyright permission for screen shots, even if they are not quite as free as perhaps some people would like.  I tried to even get Commons to accept these sort of screen shots, as they do offer derivative rights to 3rd parties receiving the images and can be used for both non-commercial and commercial purposes.  And you don't need explicit written permission from either of these companies either for this sort of image.  If you let some of these companies know there are alternatives to non-commercial only licenses that still allow those companies to make money and retain copyright control, and use examples explicitly like Microsoft to show that even major for profit software companies are willing to license screenshots for content like Wikibooks and Wikipedia, they would certainly be more willing to cooperate.  Certainly a business case can be made to encourage or at least not discourage people from trying to write something like a Wikibook about their product.  --Rob Horning 19:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for "taking the extra effort to purchase proprietary software"? It takes extra effort not to purchase proprietary software. At local electronics stores in Fort Wayne, Indiana, United States of America, I see plenty of home PCs with a preinstalled proprietary operating system published by Microsoft. I don't see any home PCs with a preinstalled Ubuntu operating system. Wal-Mart used to carry one low-end desktop PC model with Linux, but it's sold out. Are Linux PCs more easily available at brick-and-mortar stores in other anglophone industrialized regions (Canada, the British Isles, and Down Under) than in the United States? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no "non-commercial use" only media?
Other language wikis have no problems allowing images which specify no commercial use. Why do the English language versions need to be so strict? And why does the foundation wish to do this? Wiki projects are created by their communities so why would the community want a greedy corporation making money from them? People use Wikipedia and related projects because they know it is free and that it's free from commercial influence. I know there's not much we can do about this but that's my 5 cents worth anyway. --ЗAНИA talk 23:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I've taken so long to respond to this question. I've been busy elsewhere and taking on real life.


 * As far as allowing images which specify "no commercial use", I think the non-English language versions of Wikimedia projects are perhaps mis-reading the terms of the GNU Free Document License. Under the terms of that license, all materials which are presented simply must be available for use with commercial projects.  Merging them into GFDL'd content simply makes anything that references those images or content voiding the license.


 * Of course, there is a point of view that suggests that the license of the image is independent of the textual content it is related to. And since Wikimedia projects are by definition non-profit and non-commercial, we should be able to use non-commercial only images.


 * A great deal of this boils down to Richard Stallmans's philosophy about free content that is embodied in the GFDL and GPL. He emphasized that content isn't really free unless you are free to do anything with it including commercial activity.  You are certainly free to take any of the content from Wikibooks and make a commercial publishing venture to try and resell this content for a profit.  The only thing you can't do is restrict down-stream users (aka those you sell the stuff to) from being able to copy these books and being able to publish them in additional formats or forms.  In other words, there isn't an exclusive copyright on the content but it is copyleft.


 * By having non-commercial use content mixed in with GFDL'd content, you are forcing users to have to decide if they are going to remain non-commercial with downstream applications or if they are going to be forced to remove these images from such commercial ventures. That really destroys the content of the book and in the long run makes it difficult to publish books according to the terms of the GFDL, effectively changing the GFDL into a non-commercial use only license which was never the intention of that license.


 * This principle applies to fair-use images as well, as any application or use of fair-use principles simply must allow this commercial application as well. It is for this reason that any fair-use content must be permitted only with the understanding that it will be used in a commercial context.  U.S. and UK laws on fair-use do take into consideration commercial applications of the content... again why this is such a critical issue.  Along this line of thought, to be safe, some are simply advocating the complete removal of all fair-use content entirely.  I suggest some fair-use images could be shared with copyleft content that are used under terms of fair-use, but that is a point of view and a political stance on the issue.  Non-commercial use only images simply can't be shared with GFDL'd copyleft content in a commercial application, except under fair-use rationale.


 * BTW, I think the other language wikis are wrong in even allowing non-commercial images, but I'm not going to rock the boat too hard on those other projects. They just need to read the GFDL in detail.... and IMHO why the GFDL won't really merge into the CC-by-SA license in spite of the best of intentions by Jimbo Wales and the Wikimedia board of trustees.  --Rob Horning (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be following rob around, but I didn't even know this discussion question existed until I saw his edit on the RC feed.
 * When you talk about the "greedy corporation", I think you're artificially limiting what "commercial use" means. We're not just talking about large conglomerates, although I agree that large greedy media companies like AP shouldn't get to profit off the backs of us unappreciated volunteers. We're also talking about the startup companies in Africa, India, China. We're talking about people who can barely keep the rent paid, much less hire a marketing team, or a graphics design team. If my work benefits a small company in the developing world, and helps to keep people employed, I'm happy to donate my work for that.
 * And also think about individuals here, who want to print and sell bound copies of our books. It's not a pipe dream, it's happening right now: I've been talking to people who are interesting in selling bound copies of our books for reasonable prices. A 15$ textbook is far better then the 115$ I spent on one book last semester (it was used too). A non-commercial use image must be excluded from such an endeavor, and if non-commercial content was prevalent enough the whole idea would be made illegal. We as a project would lose an entire means of publication, distribution, and advertising, just because we over-generalized "greedy corporation" to be the embodiment of all commercial use. I'm not going to deny so many great commercial uses just because I want to spite modern global conglomerates. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hum I don't give as much importance to images, I use commons for all my image contributions (and I don't understand why we keep a local archive on the project) as for the licensing I release everything as public domain, but most of what I submit aren't elaborated designs or very creative work most fall under diagrams or simple visual aids so the rights aren't very important.
 * I don't agree with Rob vision that wikis are wrong in even allowing non-commercial (only) images, I don't see this as a problem a for profit entity must remove or substitute any images that fall outside of the permitted use as I do think that the license of the image is independent of the textual content (due to GFDL limitations), another similar topic is the source code but that is a bit more complex and at this time I don't have a position, but making it clear wouldn´t hurt, one of this days I may include some sort of disclaimer on the works I contribute to about that. As for the images I don't have any problem with our limitation, even if I see it as one more reason for reducing participation in our projects, in other words the community is doing police work to ease the profitable use of our freely given work. --Panic (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)