Pogovor:Poštena uporaba

message: Priznam, da tega besedila sploh ne razumem. Ali lahko kdo tukaj še 'po domače' pove. Mislim pa, da sem vsaj eno sliko tudi sam naložil na wikipedijo. Nahaja se v članku o Winstonu »Burning Spearu« Rodneyu. Podobno kot Andrejeva slika naše judoistke Urške Žolnirjeve, z razliko, da ni bil neposredni TV prenos, temveč VHS. Kdo oceni, da je nekaj poštena uporaba - sami, ko nalagamo slike, material, ...? --XJam 12:37, 18 avg 2004 (CEST)
----
Povsem jasno je, da tako kompliciranih (pravnih) pojmov ne moreš stlačiti en stavek (glej angleški članek). Pomembna točka je poudarek, da je (slika) avtorsko zaščitena, z navedbo lastnika avtorskih pravic. Kako jaz razumem zadevo: kdor naloži datoteko je mnenja (predpostavlja), da gre za pošteno uporabo (slike). 
#Iz angleških strani nekaj kriterijev za določanje poštenosti (criteria for evaluating fair use), ki se, seveda ne nanašajo samo na Wikipedijo:
#The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights."
#The Character of the Dealing How are the works were dealt with? Was there a single or multiple copies. Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry?
#The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing.
#Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied?
#The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
#Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required. 
--AndrejJ 12:52, 18 avg 2004 (CEST)
----
Moram še tudi tako vprašati. Ali je tudi razlika med
 #1 neposredni javni TV prenos {javni značaj}
 #2 posnetek VHS               {     ?      }
Se mi zdi, da je, in mogoče zgornji primer {Burning Spearova slika} ni pu, temveč kršitev avtorskih pravic. Malo samokritike ne škodi. --XJam 12:53, 18 avg 2004 (CEST)
----
Dodal sem primere in menim, da (vsaj) Urška sodi vanj.
Sicer je seveda teh slikovnih oznak še cel kup (:en:Wikipedia:Image copyright tags).
In še razlaga od tam, zakaj je tak cirkus s slikami:
#What's "fair use" in one country may not be "fair use" in another country; this allows people creating derivative works in other countries to extract images which aren't legal in their country.
#It is harder to create decent images than decent text, so the temptation to break copyright is bigger, so we like to be a bit more vigilant. For this very reason, sublicensees of Wikipedia are going to be especially concerned about images, particularly for printed versions.
#Secondly, it's easy to rewrite text that turns out to be copyrighted, but harder (though possible) to do the same for images.
#It is good practice to cite our sources, where we've (legally) copied images from elsewhere. If we give due credit, we're more likely to get permission (and some licenses require due credit anyway).
#Where Wikipedians have created the images, they should have a bit of fame! Putting some text on the image description page that they took it themselves, and they license it under the GFDL, is a good way to do that.
--AndrejJ 13:36, 18 avg 2004 (CEST)
----
Ja, zanimivo. S temi pojasnitvami, si nam PMSM prihranil veliko dela in odvečnih pogovorov. Če razumem pojem zaslonske slike v splošnem, potem zgornja BS slika ni sporna. Če pa je razlika, kot sem jo navedel zgoraj, bi to mogoče še posebej specificirali. Še naslednje - kaj pa še to:
 #3 deli izvorne kode, dovolj dolgi za {ponazoritev}
Drugi primeri mi ne pridejo na misel. Prav gotovo so še kakšni. --XJam 13:48, 18 avg 2004 (CEST)
----
Morda tudi. Čeprav moraš paziti, da ne objaviš izvorne kode urejanja z mehurčki, ker ga bo (ga je) kdo patentiral, kakor kažejo določeni trendi. Bom dodal.
Pravni jezik je zadeva, ki je najmanj dvo(če ne celo tro)umna. Recimo stavek z glave strani Wikipedije:
* Zakonita obveza lahko v resnici škodi opravilu, zatorej ne počnite tega.
Kaj je pesnik hotel povedati? Ne bi vedel!
Sicer pa je moj stavek približni prevod tega:
 Fair use attempts to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the
 wider distribution and use of creative works, by allowing certain limited uses that would
 otherwise be considered infringement.
 Načêlo poštêne uporábe tehta interese lastnika avtorskih pravic v primerjavi z javnim 
 interesom.  Načelo uporabljamo pri razširjanju izdelkov, ki bi sicer lahko štelo za kršitve
 avtorskih pravic.
--AndrejJ 14:07, 18 avg 2004 (CEST)
----
Kaj, »bubble sort« je(bo) patentiran? Ali ni to eden od osnovnih algoritmov, oziroma se znajde v mnogih učbenikih o programskih jezikih. --XJam 15:09, 18 avg 2004 (CEST)
thread_title:  Pomen 

message: Ne vem zakaj se je to prestavilo iz članka o pošteni uporabi, saj se neposredno ne nanaša le na wikipedijo. --xJaM 22:25, 11 nov 2004 (CET)
Res je, sem prestavil nazaj. Morda bi bil primernejši naslov "Poštena raba"? --romanm (pogovor) 22:30, 11 nov 2004 (CET)
Ja in ne. Raba in uporaba sta sopomenki. Vendar kdaj? V splošnem, vsaj kolikor razumem, vedno. Ali je lepše rečeno kot pravi SSKJ stroj dosti rabijo ali drugače? Gre tukaj za rabo ali uporabo avtorskih pravic kot v primeru stroja? Načeloma ja. Lepše je v naslednjem primeru: govornik je rabil same domače besede, čeprav niti ne. Večje razlike so PMSM v dovršnih oblikah teh dveh glagolov - porabiti/uporabiti. Seveda je pa razlika, če rečemo, kot je govoril Josip Plemelj, tega ne rabiš, proti tega ne potrebuješ. --xJaM 22:39, 11 nov 2004 (CET)
thread_title:  Imenski prostor 

message: Da ne bo šlo tako hitro v pozabo:
Ali ne velja za vse naslovnice glasbenih del enako pravilo? --xJaM 16:14, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)
replies: text: Ne. Spet ti lahko priporočim v branje gradivo z en: Fair use. Lahko pa seveda nadaljujemo v tem slogu in čakamo, da nas kdo toži. --Eleassar pogovor 16:24, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)

text: Kot sam praviš - to je Wikipedija v slovenskem jeziku. --xJaM 16:57, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)
Bolj smo papeški od papeža: :Image:Laibach album cover.jpg in :en:Image:Laibach album cover.jpg. Mnenje? --Andrejj 16:56, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)

text: 'Slovenska' slika je lepša ... --xJaM 16:58, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)

text: Predlogi sta isti (odkar je sl: prevedena), in ne vem v čem je problem. Poleg tega en: različica nima navedenega vira, sl: različica pa ima (na vir, kjer ni vira). --xJaM 17:01, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)
replies: text: :Zakoni so zakoni. Če na en: tega ni še nihče opazil, to ne more biti opravičilo. XJaM, če se sklicuješ na to, da je to Wikipedija v slovenskem jeziku, potem bo najbolje, da uporabo gradiva za pošteno uporabo kar ukinemo. Slovensko pravo je namreč (vsaj kolikor jaz vem) ne pozna. --Eleassar pogovor 17:02, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)
Prosim, pokaži mi eno fair use sliko (lahko na en:), ki ustreza merilom. --Andrejj 17:05, 14 junij 2006 (CEST)
Podobno je problem pri sliki Bob Marley The Wailers n2 Uprising 1024.jpg, katero sem pripravil za Wikipedijo. --xJaM 03:39, 17 junij 2006 (CEST)

text: V glavnem, na en: (kjer se bistveno bolj spoznajo na pošteno uporabo, saj so konec koncev tam številni ameriški pravniki), imajo naslednja sodila (Fair use):
#The material must be used in at least one article.
#The image or media description page must contain:
#*Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible.
#*An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed.  A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use page.
#*For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question.

text: Da me ne bo zaradi navajanja angleških pravil spet kdo hotel linčati: to je samo v premislek, zaradi mene se ni treba ravnati po tem.

text: Sicer pa tudi tam še potekajo razprave, kaj storiti s slikami, ki temu ne zadostujejo (glej :en:Fair use criteria/Amendment in pridruženo pogovorno stran). Še posebej je zanimiv ta komentar. --Eleassar pogovor 03:09, 18 junij 2006 (CEST)
replies: text: :Zanimiv je tudi ta komentar: This ammendment, at this point, clearly has no consenus. --Andrejj 08:21, 18 junij 2006 (CEST)
Iz zadnjega komentarja, kolikor razumem, gre tudi za to kako se neka vsebina uporablja. Je razlika, če uporabljaš logotip Coca-Cole v članku in na svoji uporabniški strani v 'škatlah' ipd.Dobro bi bilo res vedeti kaj in kako v takšnih primerih. --xJaM 03:32, 18 junij 2006 (CEST)

text: Ko bo Jimbo odločil, bomo pač vse te in podobne slike odstranili. --Andrejj 08:24, 18 junij 2006 (CEST)
Ja, razlika je, kako se stvari uporablja. Kdaj gre za pošteno uporabo, opisuje članek :en:Fair use. Kdaj gre za v Wikipediji smiselno uporabo, :en:Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. Glede na to, da slovenski zakoni poštene uporabe ne poznajo, mislim, da bi morali biti kvečjemu še bolj restriktivni glede uporabe takih slik, ne pa manj. Kaj pa Jimbo ve o slovenski zakonih! Mnenje, da zato, ker so strežniki na Floridi, pa lahko slovenske zakone kar kršimo, je zgrešeno. Cilj projekta ni samo ustvariti dobro enciklopedijo, ampak enciklopedijo, katere vsebina je na razpolago vsakomur za kakršen koli namen. Jimbovi komentarji:
*"Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science." ---Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats
*"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." -Jimmy Wales, July 2004
Še en komentar drugega uporabnika:
Please keep in mind that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The use of copyrighted images outside of the articles that they apply to almost universally fails to contribute to the project's purpose. For example, using the Coke logo in a userbox saying "This user drinks Coke" does not contribute in any respect to the project's purpose of building an encyclopedia. Yet, it could be construed as a coypright violation by the Coca-Cola corporation. In return for gaining a potential copyright violation that Wikipedia could be sued for, we gain nothing that is contributing to the purpose of the project. That math doesn't add up. --Durin 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
To velja za vse fair use slike, ki niso uporabljene v člankih, ki opisujejo njihovo vsebino. --Eleassar pogovor 10:49, 18 junij 2006 (CEST)
thread_title: [[Pogovor o sliki:Proarte.jpg]]