Talk:Fair use/Archive 2

message: fair use > eula? can an EULA take away your right of Fair use? i hope not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yqbd (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 January 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use > EULA... right? 

message: I found this section in Wikiquote:
* Don't infringe copyrights. Wikiquote is a free compendium licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Submitting work without the copyright holder's permission threatens our objective to build a truly free compendium of quotations that anyone can redistribute, and could lead to legal liability for the project. See Wikiquote copyrights for more information.
:What does that mean ? How far does Copyright and Fair Use go ? Can I cite a living person or a short passage from a recent book if its relevant ? Does it need to be embedded in a scientific or critical .. article like in Wikipedia ? Or is a link to the originating Wikipedia article enough ? I hope that i can find the answers here. Thanks, --Mononoke 20:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote Policies 

message: Anyone know if quoting a definition from a dictionary, if sourced, is fair use? RJII 03:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: quoting a dictionary

message: I've seen numerous editors who interpret the "four factors" described in the article so broadly that essentially any image they find on the Web seems, to them, to fall under fair use.  To combat this tendency, it would be extremely useful to have a section listing things that are definitely not fair use for Wikipedia.
(Of course, it's impossible to be "definite" outside of a court decision on the matter.  However, we can list things whose fair-use defense seems shaky enough that we wouldn't want to include them in Wikipedia.)
For example, how about: an AP photo of a celebrity?  A personal photograph of a boat taken (without permission) from someone's home page?  A promotional photo of a location from a commercial tourism site?  A (low-resolution) image of a shark from a professional marine photographer's web site showcasing samples of artistic work?  A technical drawing scanned from a textbook?  A frame from a comic book illustrating a character?  A still from a DVD for a famous film?
—Steven G. Johnson 17:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
* It's pretty much all a matter of how it is used. I don't think there is such a thing as an image or text inherently incapable of being used fairly. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
::I'm sorry, but that's a cop-out; it's precisely this unwillingness to rule out anything as fair use that makes the "fair use" on Wikipedia so wishy-washy.  We're talking about the image being used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a related subject; I think that's a specific enough context to make reasonable statements.  —Steven G. Johnson 05:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::Fair use is wishy-washy. It's supposed to be. To give you some idea, copying every TV broadcast made by every major US television channel for commercial purposes without the permission of the channels was found to be fair use. From your list, though remember that context is vital so this is not definitive:
:::*an AP photo of a celebrity? fine, though use with contextual care, like about the photographer and their work.
::::What about used on a page about the celebrity, not about the photographer?
:::*A personal photograph of a boat taken (without permission) from someone's home page? fine, commercial loss seems minimal and it's a transformative use.
:::* A promotional photo of a location from a commercial tourism site? fine, depending on use. Use it in an article about the photographer or the tourism site and it's fairly easy.
::::What about in an article about the location, e.g. an article about Jamaica if it's from a Jamaica tourism site, but not about the tourism site/company/photographer in question.
:::* A (low-resolution) image of a shark from a professional marine photographer's web site showcasing samples of artistic work? fine, assuming it's about the artist and their work.
::::No, say we use it in to illustrate an article about sharks.
:::* A technical drawing scanned from a textbook? maybe. fine if about the work of the person who produced the drawing or to provide an example of the contents of the book, for example.
::::No, say it's a textbook about clocks and we use it to illustrate an article about clocks, not an article about the book in question.
:::*  A frame from a comic book illustrating a character? fine, given the purpose specified here.
:::* A still from a DVD for a famous film? fine, assuming the typical uses, to illustrate an article about the film, the character(s) in the scene or those involved in the production.
:::On the other hand, not fine would apply to many of these if on the user page of one of the authors of the encyclopedia, because the context there is different. Might also be fine there but it's less likely. Depends on the context, as always. Just because something is in the images available doesn't mean that it can be used anywhere - each use has to be considered and some can be fine while others can be not fine. Jamesday 08:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is ''not'' fair use for images on Wikipedia? 

message: Please correct me if I am wrong, isn't the concept of "fair use" a copying exception, it does not apply to or mean copyright law can restrict "uses" of the original that was purchased or otherwise obtained legally? There seems to be much confusion over whether "fair use" means uses of the purchased version that are fair, or copying that is considered fair.  "Fair use" should really be renamed to "fair copying" to avoid confusion. Perhaps it originally meant something like "fair uses of having/making copies that would normally be disallowed under copyright law". zen master T 20:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright law clarification question 

message: "Fair use makes copyrighted work available to the public as raw material without the need for permission or clearance, so long as such free usage serves the purpose of copyright law, which the U.S. Constitution defines as the promotion of "the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (I.1.8), better than the legal enforcement of claims of infringement.  The doctrine thereby attempts to balance the interests of individual copyright holders with the social or cultural benefits that follow from the creation and distribution of derivative works.  Insofar as this doctrine protects forms of expression that might otherwise be enjoined as infringing copyright, it has been related to First Amendment free speech protections in the U.S. Constitution."
It's not particularly accurate -- courts have only recently considered the constitution's language at all wrt fair use.  And the first amendment bit is certainly something commentators have claimed, but I don't think I've seen it cited by any court opinons.
I moved some of the content around, removed some of it, and cleaned some of it. 
Novalis 19:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut section from intro 

message: Last year, in the KP Permanent case, the Supreme Court ruled that trademark fair use doesn't necessarily require an absence of consumer confusion.  I'll try to fix it myself at some point, but wanted to flag it in case someone else has time first.  Bob92 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trademark section contains an inaccuracy