--- koyaanis qatsi <obchodnakorze(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, that's all well and good, but sometimes
apparent
copyright violations are actually not violations at
all. That happened today with a Czech Republic
article--someone at another site had claimed
copyright
on writeups from the U.S. State Department, which
are
in the public domain. The text was removed, listed
for deletion, and restored. I thought you noticed
when that happened. :-)
Again, let me stress: I'm as concerned about
copyright
violations as anyone else, if not moreso:
personally,
I have misgivings about all the "fair use"
photographs
and would prefer not to have them. But we must give
people time to explain themselves when they upload
apparently "copyrighted" material. In some cases,
the
copyright is theirs. In others, they're claiming
copyright on something that's in the public domain.
And then, in yet other cases, it's a violation that
needs to be taken down or rewritten completely.
kq
==What Wikipedia is not==
14. Mere collections of public domain or other source
material; such as entire books, original historical
documents, letters, laws, proclamations and other
source material that are only useful when presented
with their original, un-modified wording.
from [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]
We shouldn't copy content from public domain sources,
only the information from them.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com