On 11/28/05, Anthere <Anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I do not understand well how you make the difference between
"unlicensed" and "licensed".
Afaik, fair use is licensed. No tag is unlicensed. No ?
Fair use is NOT licensed. Fair use is a doctrine under which
copyrighted content may be used without obtaining a license. There's
a big difference.
Let me repeat that again for the bystanders: Fair use is not a license.
Media used on Wikipedia pursuant to a license allowing the use (e.g.
the GFDL or CC-BY-SA, or some other free or nonfree license) is
licensed. Media that is used on Wikipedia not pursuant to a license
but instead either a claim of fair use, or invalidly as a copyright
infringement, is unlicensed. We are strict on the use of unlicensed
media because the distribution of unlicensed media content is a
copyright infringement unless privileged under fair use.
I have the feeling that in one year or so, freely
licensed orphan images
will indeed be deleted on the english wikipedia. That would be well
within what I currently observe.
I see no reason to share your pessimism.
Kelly