Wikibooks talk:Fair use policy/Archive1

Typos
"We suggest you to avoid fair use materials" needs to be fixed. 69.87.194.147 13:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done (does this include something like what you were thinking of?).
 * While at it, I sort of rewrote the whole section. I believe I kept the same meaning, but feel free to comment if you disagree. --Swift 10:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Commons Images
I just want to put forward an idea right now, I am not necessarily suggesting that we try to do this any time soon. Several other wikimedia projects have banned all image uploads completely, and specify instead that all new images must be uploaded to commons. This would mean that the licensing and enforcing that licensing would be left up to the people at commons, and not be a task for us. If our policies on images are sufficiently similar to those at commons, i suggest we try something like that, because commons is simply better equipped to manage images then we are. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any compelling reasons for keeping image uploads to WB? My understanding is that the differing Fair Use policies are/were an example of such a reason, but are there others?
 * Certainly, it is very convenient for all other projects (including non-English WB, potentially even translations of en-WB) to have the images we use available on Commons. Webaware talk 08:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots
G'day, I am fully supportive of the intention, but I am unclear about how this specifically relates to screenshots. My personal view is that screenshots are at times vital, or at a minimum, incredibly useful tools for instruction when talking about computer software packages. Often times, a picture tells a thousand words. But does this policy mean that screenshots of software under commercial copyright license cannot be be used in Wikibooks?

What are we to do about the screenshots already in use? For examples, please see Category:Fair use screenshots and subcategories.

I believe that a similar situation exists with Category:Logos. Webaware talk 02:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That is true; is it possible to get permission from the owners of the program(s) to use them? I know at least that the MathWorks has a special setup for that purpose. WMF didn't make any explicit exceptions but that doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be willing to make some, after all like I mentioned a lot of them do have uses that are difficult to fulfill without Fair Use unless we somehow obtain permission. Mattb112885 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that has Category:Windows Screenshots, which seems to have some images showing bits of the Windows desktop. Commons refers to this document on screenshots and copyright, however, which appears to suggest that no screenshots of software under a copyright license would be acceptable, on Commons at least, without permission to distribute freely. I wonder what Microsoft would say? (will do some digging in their doco and website, to see whether the issue is addressed somewhere) Webaware talk 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds promising: Except for Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from products that have not been commercially released (including beta versions), you may use screen shots in advertising, in documentation (including educational brochures), in tutorial books, in videotapes, or on Web sites, provided you adhere to the following guidelines: [...] 7. You must include the following copyright attribution statement: "Microsoft product screen shot(s) reprinted with permission from Microsoft Corporation." [...]
 * We'll need to make a template for Microsoft screenshots, at least. With any luck, other software companies will be so obliging. Webaware talk 03:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds promising indeed. I think it would be in most companies best interests to allow people to use screenshots for things like this, after all its like free advertising for them. Hopefully most companies are like microsoft/theMathWorks. Mattb112885 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * &mdash;reset

I have created Microsoft screenshot for screenshots of Microsoft products, and will hopefully later create Microsoft logo for logos of Microsoft products. Please edit these as needed, as I am sure that my hack job is likely to be sub-standard! Webaware talk 07:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yay! _^_ A shiny new template. --Iamunknown 07:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Logos vs Icons
G'day, I looked into the abyss and the abyss looked back, so I backed off to let my poor brain recover somewhat. Maybe someone else can take a look and make some recommendations.

Microsoft have separate policies covering product icons and Microsoft logos. This makes sense, but also introduces complexities. It actually sounds to me like a big problem for us to use logos, but no problem for us to use product icons. Thus, we could create a licensing template for Microsoft product icons, and be very explicit about its use (i.e. not to be used for trademarked logos!) I strongly suspect that the same situation will apply for other software vendors, and that other trademarked logos (including most of these) will be unusable without Fair Use.

I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look at this and made some comments. I will proceed no further with this line of work until then. Webaware talk 08:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reading both those pages, it looks like we would need product icons and Microsoft logos to be used under fair use. Remember that any material licensed under the GFDL (which is everything on this site, with the exception of images licensed otherwise) is subject to copying, editing, and redistribution as long as the GFDL license is preserved. There are, however, specific restrictions on use of product icons according to Microsoft's legal page. That does not go well with the GFDL. Granted, the use of product icons specifically in a contextual educational environment is okay -- which is good for us, because we will use them as such. On Wikipedia, for example, I would imagine a license being created for these product icons which would say, "For the purposes of Wikipedia, these icons are being used under fair use and must have an accompanying fair use rationale," because that is Wikipedia policy. We don't have a fully fleshed policy yet, so I don't know what I would consider as requirement for use of the icons. But I would support a policy akin to Wikipedia's. --Iamunknown 00:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even sound as if it would be used per fair use, but rather it would be use of a copyrighted work, with permission of the copyright holder, because the sites says you can use it in a educatinal enviroment, like wikibooks, but that brings up an issue of wikibooks has permission to use it, but, oftne titmes someone might see it on here and think its "free content" and use it elsewhere without going to the image page and seeing the notice of the restrictions Microsoft has on their use. I am not sure how such could be delt with, without having to put a disclaimer in the caption for such images wherever they are used.RyanB88 00:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But because we need to consider downstream use (due to the copy-edit-redistribute GFDL license) it would still need to be used under something akin (if not equal to) fair use. People could think that because everything on this site is GFDL'd that they can use these icons for any purpose, decorative or inappropriate. --Iamunknown 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * the problem I see with this is often if an image is posted on a WMF project it is assumed that it is under a free license and can be redistributed, however this is not the case with Microsoft Icons which are subject to copyright, but used with permission, I am not sure how that would work.71.217.206.24 00:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. But if we declared that we are using them in an educational environment, but one which anyone could grab the icons and legally use it anywhere else (including a non-educational environment), without permission under fair use, then that distinction would be obvious. --Iamunknown 03:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See WB:COPY, and note that the footer on every page on WB says "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)". I don't think we need to be as concerned about this as either of you suggest, as long as every image is correctly licensed and the license tags explain the situation sufficiently (including links to text backing up any claims). Webaware talk 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to Enforce/Reject
This policy proposal is succinct and will do a good deal to help keep us out of legal problems in the future. We should not be without some kind of policy on this matter, because fair use represents a dangerous fringe area of copyright law, one that is not accepted in many countries around the world. Containing fair use materials will make it difficult, if not completely illegal, to print or publish our works in many countries. However, not allowing fair use content will be very restrictive, and will reduce the quality (if only on a temporary basis) of some books, until suitable replacements for that content can be found. I propose that we act on this issue ASAP, and choose one of two options: I personally am inclined to say wikibooks would be better off without fair use materials, but considering that this proposal is well-written and sufficiently restrictive, i would be fine with it if people wanted to enforce this policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Accept and enforce this policy the way it currently stands, or with some alterations in text, but keeping the general meaning and spirit of the current version the same.
 * 2) Reject this policy and any rewording of it, instead opting to ban fair use content entirely. We would need to draft a replacement policy to ban such materials and move to enforce it.
 * Wow I had no idea about that message from WMF, that'll surely wreck some havoc in WP where basically every title image is listed under fair use. At least we should prevent too many of them from coming in here before we have the same predicament (even though it appears that most modules in WB don't rely as heavily on images as those on WP, except for some specific exceptions like Wikijunior books). I made some relatively minor changes to the text of the article, but I mean I agree that fair use should not be used in a project like this, IMO if you want to use an image use a free one\make your own, or get permission like real books do for images that they cannot otherwise print due to copyrights. Mattb112885 02:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we must choose either one proposal or the other. I think it would be feasible to craft policy that allowed for significantly limited (much more than is currently acceptable on either Wikibooks or on Wikipedia) use of media used without permission if it would be practically impossible to replace the media with a free media and also allowed for small textual quotations. --Iamunknown 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would need to read up on the differences between properly cited textual quotations, and the use of text as "fair use". I believe that text can be reproduced in small quantities so long as it is properly cited, and not fall under the category of fair use. I think that fair use needs to be highly limited, at least to the point that we are as restrictive as the WMF is (if not more so). We cannot be less restrictive. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to break the news here, but copying words without premission is a copyright violation, even if it is just a single word. When you do a quote, it is through fair use concepts that you can republish that quote.  A citation is just a way to justify why you are using the information and document that you know that the content you have copied is not your own, but you are using somebody else's words.  This is fair use at its most fundimental level.  --Rob Horning 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)