Talk:Wikivoyage/Migration/New policies/Non-free content

Template:Disclaimerbox

This is my first draft of the non-free content policy. Please review. Note that WMF is happy to help projects with their EDP so we may want to get their input. LtPowers 00:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your writing is clear. However, what I would like to know is whether this policy might expose Wikimedia to a lawsuit. This is the part that concerns me: you cannot take a free photo of the Cloud Gate sculpture in Chicago, because U.S. law allows an exception only for works of architecture, not works of art. The only non-free content allowed on the English TRAVELSITENAME is as follows:

   Brief textual excerpts from copyrighted media for illustrative or informative purposes
   Photographs of copyrighted artwork and architecture

So we're allowing something forbidden by US law. Is "fair use" the basis for such an exemption? If so, that rationale should be included. If not, what is the basis for the exemption? Ikan Kekek 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "fair use" is the basis for the exemption. I will attempt to make that clear. LtPowers 12:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this looks great. We should have a WMF rep look over it, of course, but the most important thing is that it allows us to do what we really need to be able to do, and explains why. The how part seems to me the least important honestly ;) --Peter ^Talk 15:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am no lawyer, but the proposed policy looks very reasonable and clear. No doubt some hidden problems will show up later, they usually do, but I would say this is good enough to go for now. Nice work. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am anything but lawyer, yet from my perspective the text is clear and appropriate for our goals. Atsirlin 11:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I also support this proposed policy, on the same basis as Peter and Atsirlin (I also am not a lawyer). Ikan Kekek 13:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a new clause; fairly minor, but I need to point it out. Acceptable? LtPowers 18:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright, as far as I can tell. Ikan Kekek 02:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with the "contains" but is it always applicable to add free license for the rest of the image? Perhaps a standard licencing statement requiring the non-free content to be defined, and licensing the rest CC-by-sa would do it. Maybe this is what you meant. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]