File:Akkari-report-1.jpg

Summary[edit]

Source: http://www.ekstrabladet.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=329877 (b/w scan) http://www.arabskole.dk/nosrafile/nosra/ (color version)

Page 1 of a report compiled by Ahmed Akkari related to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.

Licensing[edit]

This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories listed at Wikipedia:Non-free content § Images or Wikipedia:Non-free content § Audio clips, and it is not covered by a more specific non-free content license listed at Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright templates. However, it is believed that the use of this work: To illustrate the subject in question Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information On the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Copyrights. Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Akkari-report-1.jpg true

It is unclear whether the work is protected under copyright law. (Copyright is designed to protect 'creative' works, with art (protected) at one end and the yellow pages (unprotected) at the other end of the scale; as a compilation of business letters and news clippings, this work might not qualify.)

At any rate, if it is protected by copyright, I believe our use of the work here is fair use: Fair use permits copying for purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research," which is precisely what this is.

• The effort to produce an accurate translation in Wikipedia is a nonprofit, educational, and research use.
• Although a substantial portion of the work is scanned here, it a low-quality scan that just barely allows for readability for translation and an understanding of the work; it is not a high-enough quality scan to substitute for the original in the marketplace, if the group ever decides to sell it.
• Finally, fair use takes into account the nature of the copyrighted work - this work is factual rather than creative in nature, and I can't imagine an example of a work that is of any larger historical importance in current events, or of any higher journalistic interest than the referenced work.

I am comfortable that our use of the work here is pretty clearly covered under fair use. -- Vanitas 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)