On 02/03/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
Or look at this case I just wandered across today
_http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=188…
oldid=188120374_
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=1881…)
It should be fairly obvious that the *author* of a work, is trying to
display a picture of that work.
This man is, in fact the author.
It was speedy-deleted for "invalid fair-use" ?
Excuse me?
That's awfully tendentious editing.
"He was notified 48 hours ago..."
I suppose no one noticed that he hasn't in fact been editing for a month.
Supreme silliness.
But even this example, I'm sure will get reactions of the person "was just
doing their job."
Given that at some point they would have had to ignore an instruction
in the upload process to get into that situation I feel the reaction
was reasonable.
I suppose it's too hard to just edit the fair use
rationale to say the
author of the work can certainly display their own work if they want.
Certainly but just not under any fair use criteria. If you want to put
your own work on wikipedia you release it under a free license.
--
geni