Licensing policy FAQ draft

Why the need for this policy?

As stated in the Wikimedia Foundation bylaws, the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to "develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain." While the understanding of "free license" has often been referred to, it has never been made explicit. Many Wikimedia projects have started using files that do not meet the conditions defined in http://freedomdefined.org/Definition - this new policy clarifies that such media are only acceptable under an exemption doctrine policy defined by the project ("fair use", "fair dealing" or equivalent national laws).

Does this new policy mean that all pictures under non-free licenses have to be deleted?

Not necessarily. However, such images may only be used under an exemption doctrine policy, and if no such policy exists, then they must be deleted.

Does this new policy mean a major change for the English Wikipedia and other projects which already distinguish fair use and free content licenses?

It should be almost no change at all from policy. But it may mean a difference in how strictly it is applied—the English Wikipedia should consider this a renewed call to the community to examine its use of non-free media to ensure it is in line with the intent.

My country does not recognize any kind of fair use! How are we supposed to develop an exemption doctrine policy?

There are several projects which have chosen not to use one at all, and whose images and media come entirely from the Wikimedia Commons; it is certainly possible to build a high-quality project in this way. However,

Why do the non-free images have to be deleted? Why can't projects keep them until free images exist to replace them?

Having an image tends to discourage others from creating free ones to replace them. People who see an article with an image don't check to see if it is free or not, in general; they just assume the need is already filled and move on. However, articles which have no image, or a "dummy" placeholder image, let people know there is something missing; people see them and want to fix them.

Why is this a problem? No one is likely to sue over most of them.

We are a project built on a principled mission—to create and encourage free content. Because of this, our policies are intended to further that mission, and not just to keep us from getting sued. Using images under licenses other than the ones we choose to accept may not get us in legal trouble (although in some cases they definitely can), but they don't help us with our goals. There are plenty of projects on the web that you can access for no charge, and some of them are pretty good. But we are unique in being free content, not only available without payment but for anyone to use and modify as they see fit. Allowing everything that won't necessarily get us sued makes us just another site you don't pay to use.