Forum:About Fair use

de:Forum:Fair Use

I got a question about fair use. It is allowed in non-English wikias? I know some wikipedias don’t use it for legal matters. What is the position of wikia? --Marlon 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's more or less heavily use on fr.guildwars. 90% of the images there are screenshots from the game. But since there isn't any other way to document that game... — TulipVorlax 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * German wikis are entitled to use unfree images by the right to cite. I guess this would apply to French wikis as well. Ahem, if it wasn't for Canada.--AB 17:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Canada is supposed to have a thing almost the same as fair use as it's described on the wikipedia article about fair use (called Fair dealing).
 * But i dont consider any french wikis on Wikia as been obligeated to follow laws of France nor Canada since the hosting might not be really in thoses countries.
 * I'm dreamming of an Internet not bound to any countries laws, as if Internet was a separate world with it's own laws. That would simplify somes things. And the laws of Internet could be made so anyone from any country can contribute to wikis in any language they wishes...
 * Now, is there a lawyer or something around here that could help understand what we can do and what we can't do, considering both the language of the wiki on Wikia and our residing country ? — TulipVorlax 20:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, and folks should get one if they want a real opinion, but based on discussions on Commons regarding licensing, I believe the principle in force here is that since wikia's servers are in the US, it is US's copyright law on fair use that is in force, not those of Canada or France or wherever. Of course US copyright law includes its obligations under international copyright treaties, and so things like understanding the rules of the country of origin matters for determining copyright expiration. But we are discussing fair use. US copyright law observes international constraints but like the variants of fair use such as Germany's right to cite, this legal mechanism specifically overrides intellectual property rights whether the owner of the copyright is domestic or international. If my understanding is correct, then it would only matter what Canada's laws on fair use were if the servers were on Canadian soil. And they aren't.  01:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, then why some Wikipedias, like the spanish one, don´t use it? Furthemore, Wikia is commercial, isn't? So, still Fair Use allowed?--Marlon 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Most websites (like forums and whatnot) i've previously encountered in my life on the net were only using the laws of where was theirs servers even for a multilangual community. So, i was thinking that it was normal to assume the same here and for any wikis.
 * But if i take the case of, say, the french Wikipedia, not forgetting that Wikia is not the same thing, the community there really (really) want to follow the rules and laws of the french country and that lead them to delete most pictures on the site (wich i think is a shame for an encyclopeadia), so this must mean that the french wikipedia is hosted in France, no ?
 * I dont know Wikipedia enough to find that information over there. — TulipVorlax 03:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have only made a few contributions to fr wikipedia, so I don't have a lot of knowledge of their practices with images, or the rationale for what you are saying is a more restrictive usage policy.  I do know that they are no less legally entitled to use images from wikimedia commons simply because the content is in french and the french government happens to have more restrictive copyright laws.  There is no link between language and jurisdiction.  If this were so, then we would have absurd outcomes.  In Hawaii, I am not required to drive on the right hand side of the road when I speak French to my children.  Anyway, here is the pertinent quote from Wikimedia Commons regarding the relationship between the location of the servers and how that may make things legal for the foundation, but not necessarily for the viewer of the information, or for the reuser of the information.  Substitute wikia for the foundation.  This means that just because it may be legal for wikia to host the information on its servers does not necessarily mean that you can make a copy of it (even if it is only to display it on your screen) if this violates the copyright laws of the country in which your computer is located.  The same applies for your reuse of that information.  Anyway, the quote:


 *  Please note that the information found here may be in violation of the laws of the country or jurisdiction from where you are viewing this information. Wikimedia Commons does not encourage the violation of any laws, but as this information is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, it is being maintained in reference to the protections afforded to all under the United States Constitution's First Amendment and under the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. The laws in your country may not recognize as broad a protection of free speech as the laws of the United States or the principles under the UN Charter and, as such, Wikimedia Commons cannot be responsible for any potential violations of such laws should you link to this domain or use any of the information contained herein in anyway whatsoever. source: commons general disclaimer
 * As I said, I am not a lawyer. The en wikipedia has a good section on misconceptions about fair use.  (For instance, just because you are in a for profit organization does not disqualify you from employing fair use.)  The entire article is pretty interesting, tracing the origins back to English common law concept of "fair abridgement" developed in the 1700's.   07:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the German wikipedia simply chose not to use right to cite, because those images are unfree. They make exceptions for trademarks that aren't eligible for copyright, though.--AB 15:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One could still argue that copyright laws refer to individuals (editors), not storage media (servers).--AB 15:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, and rightly so. Copyright law applies to everyone.  For wikia's part, it is legal for them to keep genuinely fair use (as defined by US law) material on their servers.  For the editor's part, they are subject to the laws of their country.  It may be illegal for them to have copies anywhere on their machines of information regarded as a state secret- including for example images of protesters on Tehran streets.  Now, even under US law it would be possible to challenge the legality of the pictures.  For example, an Iranian could claim that the pictures were taken from his camera and that no one is permitted to distribute them.  Even if something like this were attempted, there is probably a fair use defense for maintaining some version of noteworthy pictures that depicted events there.  As for the editor in Tehran that initially posted them, they are probably breaking their local laws, and wikia or the foundation legal departments most likely strongly recommends that folks need to thoroughly follow local laws.  Not being connected in any way with wikia or the foundation, I would shout loud hurrahs for such editors.   19:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought more on the line of users actually uploading or embedding images and how that may be prohibited by local laws.--AB 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, personally I recommend that people understand the basics of public domain rules and employ fair use only with low res images, in cases where the owner would likely welcome promotion, or if it illustrates the specific subject being described in the article. Otherwise I recommend people use their common sense and not get paranoid about it.  Let's take a few practical examples that illustrate copyright law differences.  Under US law, the wikia server is entitled to keep a copy of an image published outside of the US if it was published prior to 1923 source.  So it is perfectly legal for a US editor to post a photo taken by a New Zealand military photographer during World War I.  When I was living in New Zealand it would not have been legal for me to scan such an image and post it because I would have been subject to Crown copyright which is 100 years.  Yet if I lived across the ditch in OZ, it would be ok for an ozzie military photo because crown copyright is 50 years.  In the US, I can publish a photo of my home town street even if it has some buildings in the panorama whose design is under copyright.  I could not legally do that in France, because their panorama laws are quite restrictive.  It may be surprising, but under French law I could not legally post a photo of my wife taken at night with the Eiffel tower behind her while I was in France.  So if I was particularly concerned about the gendarmes breaking down my door, I could simply wait to post my photo from my hotel room in Germany.  Fastidious editors might like to study the various notes in the different PD country templates on wikipedia:Category:Wikipedia image copyright templates and on commons in order to gain a greater depth of understanding on issues having to do with their particular country.  Sometimes there is detailed documentation on the rules pertinent to the country.  I wouldn't let your fears get the better of you though.  Use your common sense.  If you are living in Spain and a guy down the street is selling reproductions of some photos of at artist taken prior to 1923, that guy is motivated to come knocking at your door if you scan it and publish it on a US server.  Under EU law, that photo is protected not by publish date, but for 70 years after the death of the photographer.  Besides, why do you want to hurt another person economically anyway?  He's got mouths to feed too.  Can't you find a different photo that would suit?  Even though I live in the US, if I knew a family business somewhere would be hurt if I published a work of their family's that they are getting income from, I personally wouldn't post it even if it were legal under US law to do so.  Has nothing to do with legalities, but a personal decision about what's fair.  (Yet another disclaimer- I am just an unpaid contributor here, not a lawyer, nor am I connected in any way with wikia, so concerned parties should refer to advice from counsel or wikia official documents on the subject).  18:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think i should try to see what are the canadians laws (and Quebec laws) around the matter but i dont really feel like it. One day maybe... In the mean time, if nobody complain i think it's ok and if anyone would complain one day, i would simply proceed with the deletion. — TulipVorlax 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Something interesting to know about Canada's juridiction, it seems we dont have the version 3 of the CC licenses yet : CC in Canada. — TulipVorlax 08:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)