Discussion:Fair use

message: {{Wikiprojet
|Droit|moyenne
|avancement=B
}}
{{Voir aussi Wikipédia|Le ''fair use'' peut être invoqué sur certaines Wikipédia : voir '''[[Wikipédia:Fair use]]'''.}}
Comentaire de Brion et de Jimbo au sujet du [[Wikipédia:Copyright|copyright]], du "[[Fair use]]" et du "inline linking" des images: 
 Brion Vibber wrote:
 
 > And remember, folks, *no picture* is much better than a picture we can't
 > redistribute. If you didn't make it with your own hands or scan it from
 > a piece of paper older than 1924, and it doesn't have a "public domain"
 > or "GNU Free Documentation License" note on it, think twice.
 
 I agree completely with this sentiment.  I think we should not be
 pushing any boundaries with respect to fair use, because of the
 redistribution issue.
 
 As Alex has been patiently teaching us, fair use is a defense, a
 defense that depends on the use, and for that reason, and because of
 our interest in free redistribution, we should take care that when we
 do rely on fair use, we do so in such a way that almost anyone could
 rely on a fair use defense for any plausible re-use of our content.
 
 To take the easiest possible example, a quote of a few sentences of a
 copyrighted novel in an article about the author of that novel.  This
 is fair use for us, and it's also going to be fair use for just about
 any plausible re-use of our content.
 
 > > But when I go on w.es.kissinger, I see an
 > > image...which is not an internal image, but rather an
 > > external link to another web site (but is displayed in
 > > wikipedia frame as well).
 > > 
 > > I might be wrong, but I thought this has been
 > > forbidden/made-impossible because of the famous (and
 > > well remembered by old timers :-)) goatxe image ?
 
 > It was disabled on the English wikipedia, as that's where abuses were
 > occuring (quite frequently). In any case I would _discourage_ such
 > linking. And there have been enough crazy court decisions over 'deep
 > linking' and such that I wouldn't rely on "it's just a link to another
 > site, we're not _copying it_" for an image embedded into a web page.
 > (IANAL)
 > -- brion vibber
 
 Yes, and it's pretty rude to the other webmaster.  People often refer
 to it as 'stealing bandwidth', which may be an overly bold claim, but
 still, it's not good etiquette to embed an image in that way.
 
 --Jimbo

message: Commentaire de Alex (w:IAAL)
from: "Anthere" <anthere6 at yahoo.com>
Could anyone knowledgable help us here ?
replies: text: I volunteer to try, but remember this is not legal advice even though IAAL.
As a reminder, we were told that, being hosted on a californian server, we had to respect US law, and not everyone understand american law :-) Could anyone explain to us what is fair use for images

text: There is a page on fair use in the English Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
How precisely it applies. On which types of pictures. What it implies. Which are the limits. And when we should consider a picture is fair use and as such may be inserted. Or not.

text: Fair use is a defense. It applies to _each_ _use_ differently. It depends on the picture and where you got it from and how it is used, i.e. why is it being included in the article.

text: At the bottom of the Fair Use page is a checklist: from Purdue University: http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.pdf I think this is a useful checklist for a fair use analysis.

text: Going through this analysis can give one some comfort about the potential finding of fair use (remember it is only through judicial action that fair use is determined, we can only guess on it). It is my suggestion that such an analysis be put on the page description and added in each article that the image is used (the fair use of an image in one article may not be fair use in a different article). I suggest describing the analysis in the article in hidden text i.e.  This will hopefully remain part of the article and anyone who uses the article under the GFDL can determine if their use is different that the use claimed by Wikipedia. It is up to them to make their own determination of fair use. A fair use is not necessarily transferrable under the GFDL.
I am not looking for an extensive discussion over the merit of including fair use images or not :-) Just on which principles we can base our decision making over keeping or not keeping the images

text: I've recently tried to make sure that the list of the four major factors that apply to fair use determinations is explained to some degree in the fair use article.

text: Unfortunately Anthere it is not always a clear determination. Not all judges/juries apply the law the same way.  It is a factual determination based upon a total appreciation of the evidence as presented during the proceedings. Lawyer may also, when giving an  opinion, differ. This is why some prefer to get permission and even pay a small royalty when using something that might even qualify as fair use. It is better to pay that royalty than to pay the costs of defending fair use in court.

text: I do not mean this to be evasive, but some people talk about fair use as if it can be defined easily. See http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_issues
and http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/copyright

text: I do not agree. I think that it cannot be clearly defined  and that it is not a given that fair use on Wikipedia  means that any subsequent sublicensee will automatically be able to claim fair use on the GFDL. This is the major problem when it comes to fair use on Wikipedia one cannot say that an image is fair use, one can only say "Use of this image on Wikipedia is fair use, that fair use may not be transferable under the GFDL."

text: w:user:Alex756 (Je suis aussi une membre ici, nom:Alexei756)

message: Could anyone explain to us what is fair use for images ? Anthere
replies: text: c'est horriblement compliqué. la meilleure chose a faire c'est de:

text: 1. vivre sans l'image en question -- trouver une alternative

text: 2. si c'est indispensable, marquer que c'est "fair use" sur la page  description image. Tarquin
Mentionning it is fair use as Alex explained seems a
good idea to me. Why is not the english wikipedia doing
this as well ?Anthere

text: Good question. I recently added specific information regarding this at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale It does not appear that anyone thought that fair use was use specific. I hope people will follow this suggestion. It will make Wikipedia much more useful to third parties that might want to include images in their versions of Wikipedia content. Alex756
S'il y a des questions de "fair use" en français vous pouver me poser des questions. Alexei756 16 sep 2003 à 02:11 (CEST)

message: Il reste encore 2 petits paragraphes à vérifier. Un "juriste" pourrait-il s'en occuper? Hemmer? Didup?
replies: text: Un juriste, je ne sais pas. Hemmer? J'espère qu'Alex aura l'occasion de jeter un oeil. Pour moi, c'est présentable (les morceaux avec l'anglais dessous était déjà corrects à mon avis, j'ai juste reformulé). Note sur "usage loyal" : la traduction est donné par l'office québecois de la langue française, spécifiquement pour le fair use US. J'aime bien, parce que loyal se rapproche du sens de fair dans fair play. Avant, j'avais mis raisonnable (fait parti des trad. de fair donné par mon dico, et à mon avis collait bien). Didup 20 sep 2003 à 15:11 (CEST)
replies: text: :OK, merci. -- Looxix

text: Copie de Page Discuter:Utilisateur:Didup :
replies: text: :J'ai ajouté des choses à Fair Use en anglais : Quelqu'un pourrait en ajouter à la version française? Je crois que le texte en anglais est trop severe. Il ne dit pas qu'il y a toujours la usage permissive ,  toujour une possibilité. Alexei756 25 sep 2003 à 07:40 (CEST)

text: C'est fait. Merci Alex. Didup 26 sep 2003 à 00:19 (CEST)

message: Quelqu'un peut-il donner des références pour ce passage :
en France, on trouve le droit de citation, mais qui ne concerne que les écrits, et exclut les images ;
Cf. cette discussion.
Merci Abrahami 30 avril 2006 à 09:36 (CEST)
replies: text: CODE DE LA PROPRIETE INTELLECTUELLE (Partie Législative) Article L122-5, cf . Si on prend le code à la lettre, les images ne peuvent être reproduites que par "court extrait", donc jamais intégralement. Michelet-密是力 7 juillet 2006 à 07:43 (CEST)
replies: text:  Et en ce qui concerne la vidéo ? Si on prend juste une seule image d'une vidéo, c'est un très court extrait, donc c'est ok ? Quel problème il y aurait il de prendre des images provenant de la télévision par exemple ? Sylenius 30 novembre 2006 à 22:14 (CET)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: SAlut,
Quand on traduite d'une autre langue vers le français, le copyright est toujours actif ? Merci Atchoum 19 août 2006 à 23:50 (CEST)
replies: text: Merci de m'avoir répondu andrew. Mais lorsque la langue source est l'anglais, ne peut-on pas invoquer le "fair use"...? Atchoum 9 septembre 2006 à 20:36 (CEST)
thread_title:  Traduction langues étrangères->français, et fair use 

message: Je trouve dommageable que l'on ne puisse importer sur wikipédia des affiches de film ou des photos de vedettes qui pourtant son visibles dans tous les magasines. Nico92 (d) 31 décembre 2008 à 13:25 (CET)
thread_title:  Trop restrictif 

message: Certaines biographies du Wikipedia en anglais utilisent des illustrations en "fair use". Pour quelle raison celles-ci ne seraient pas utilisables dans la version française de Wikipedia, au moins lorsque le détenteur des droits est américain ? Le contraire suppose une altération de l'égalité dont se prévalent volontiers les juristes américans.
--Jojo V (discuter) 17 septembre 2016 à 20:03 (CEST)
replies: text: Réponse en retard à qui viendrait se demander ici pourquoi Wikipédia francophone n'est pas illustrée dans les articles contemporains: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Exceptions_au_droit_d%27auteur#Rejet_du_fair_use Emelkaji (discuter) 9 décembre 2018 à 15:05 (CET)
thread_title:  English Wikipedia vs french