On 06/09/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Anyway, thinking about this more I have to say that providing free images for people to use on their bottles of dish detergent is at least currently outside the scope of Wikimedia.
So you propose to change (or make more specific) the [[Commons:Project scope]]. I am not necessarily opposed to that either. I just dislike living in perpetual limbo-land and with the lack of guidance from on-high, making concrete policies is one way to resolve it.
But anyway, I note that we've (the collective Wikimedia community, that is) abolished WikipediaOnly permissions. Do you support that or not? Because you can use those in Wikipedia et al, yet we require stronger permissions. We also abolished non-commercial (NC) clauses, even though Wikipedia itself is a non-commercial enterprise. Do you support that?
I am not trying to be paranoid here, but I feel uneasy that we recognise a (2D) video cover design is not free and yet somehow we accept the infamous "Pringles photo" ( http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Pringles_(aka).jpg ) simply because the original object is 3D. And also http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BibelTV-logo.jpg ... doesn't seem quite right.
Brianna