On 08/08/06, Raimond Spekking raimond.spekking@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with you but with one exemption: the deletion of copyvios. In my opinion we have to delete them as far as possible to show all others that we do not accept copyvios. Redlinks are more acceptable than copyvios.
Well, how do you define a copyvio? Almost everything that we delete has, in the end, been decided to be a copyvio or a suspect copyright violation. That is after all why we delete no-source/no-license images. That is why we delete screenshots and derivative works and photos of public art in certain parts of the world, and images once believed to be free but found out to be actually not. Because we suspect or believe they infringe someone's copyright. So, this is rather where we are right now, rather than a new position.
In case of any complains by original authors we can say "sorry for the violation, but we do our very best to fight against copyvios, every day."
Hm, that's a good point, at least morally. I don't know if it holds any legal weight.
I also don't know how many, if any, serious legal problems the WMF ever has with regards to images. But that's why my second escape clause was for "OFFICE" style actions, where Jimbo et al intervene due to avoid imminent legal action and the like.
An idea *poke Düsentrieb*: Is it possible to show at CheckUsage if the project has a CommonsTicker? This can reduce the work to en: and smaller wikis.
I think that's a great idea!
Brianna