WikiWhine



  • Ok, here's one I don't understand...

    Look first at the bottom, where they wiggle out of using other people's copyrighted images on thier site as 'fair use' -- the circle is mine but the boldface is theirs... it seems that "low-resolution" is an important point in their argument for using it.

    Yet up above they're lobbying for a "more accurate" SVG version. SVG = Scaleable Vector Graphics, IIRC, so it retains crispness and detail at any size.

    Doesn't that kinda nix the whole "it's OK 'cause it's lo-rez" argument?

    WikiPedia Screenshot



  • As the tag in the screenshot states, use of a copyrighted image for identification and critcial commentary -- which covers Wikipedia's needs -- accompanied by a properly constructed fair use rationale is not "wiggling out of using other people's copyrighted images", it's a perfectly acceptable practise and part of US copyright law.

    The real WTF, of course, is copyright law.



  • Right!

    They are not saying images of low resolution are ok, they say images (of low resolution or not really) are ok in certain situations to identify who the article is talking about.  The notice goes on to say that any other usage may be copyright infringement.

    I think the inclusion of the low resolution part is due to the fact that they have "changed" the image by changing it's resolution. 



  • @KattMan said:

    Right!

    They are not saying images of low resolution are ok, they say images (of low resolution or not really) are ok in certain situations to identify who the article is talking about.  The notice goes on to say that any other usage may be copyright infringement.

    I think the inclusion of the low resolution part is due to the fact that they have "changed" the image by changing it's resolution. 

    Oh, I agree about it actually being fair use; wasn't arguing that.  But as they emphasized (boldfaced) the words "low resolution" and not "identification" or "critical commentary", they made it seem as if that was a key element in their argument... and this was contradicted by the plea for SVG.

     

    Ok, so it's more of a "Hwaaaa?" that a WTF, but it still struck me as odd.

     



  • @BlueKnot said:

    Ok, so it's more of a "Hwaaaa?" that a WTF, but it still struck me as odd.

    The bolding of the "low resolution" part of the message is to the uploader, not to anyone else. It means "do not upload your 600dpi scans of copyrighted material", and it comes from the generic fair-use message, which is used for everything from comic strips to CD covers.



  • @Carnildo said:

    @BlueKnot said:

    Ok, so it's more of a "Hwaaaa?" that a WTF, but it still struck me as odd.

    The bolding of the "low resolution" part of the message is to the uploader, not to anyone else. It means "do not upload your 600dpi scans of copyrighted material", and it comes from the generic fair-use message, which is used for everything from comic strips to CD covers.


    This is correct.  For a logo, "low resolution" is completely pointless, for obvious reasons.  Low resolution is generally used for posters, screenshots, etc.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.