On 3/3/08, Betacommand <Betacommand(a)gmail.com> wrote:
9. one of the key parts to the EDP is ensuring that
the image in
question cannot be replaced with a free image.
10. it only takes one greedy lawyer to shut down the Wikimedia
Foundation, lawyers are not required to send a takedown notice. they can
just sue you for everything you have.
11. if a user wants to use non-free content they need to be able to
say why they need that image on that page. if they dont have good >reason
then that image should be deleted.
However, if a fair use image is used in [[article A]] with a valid
rationale and in [[Article B]] without one, then the image should be
removed from [[article B]], not tagged for deletion. The
responsibility for providing a rationale for [[Article B]] should lie
with the editors of [[Article B]] more so then the original uploader
or the editors of [[Article A]].
IMHO, fair use images should not be autotagged for deletion if they
contain a valid rationale for one of the articles they are used in.
Their use in additional articles should be reviewed by a "human" and
either removed from such articles or a valid rationale added.
12. just because a person stops editing that doesnt
mean that our
policies stop applying to their edits.
But the original uploader is not always the best user to notify.
Perhaps BCB could notify the original uploader, the 3 editors with the
most recent edits in the article in question, as well as leave a note
on the article's talk page.