In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:34:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
If you follow the conversation back you will find that this particular
line was nothing to do with fair use law but instead the elements of
contract law involved in asking someone to take a picture for you.>>
-------------------
And this position makes no sense.
There is no contract law in "asking someone to take a picture for you"
Please point to some case, in contract law, where a random stranger, sued
the person they were taking a picture of, because they didn't get permission or
whatever you're saying.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:00:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge(a)telus.net writes:
IIRC some people were claiming
that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who
actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online.>>
-----
A good example of the kind of ridiculous behaviour that causes people to
leave the project, and which harms the project. Bureaucratic adherence to some
letter or worse a fixated interpretation of some policy, instead of making
any attempt to understand the *spirit* of what we're trying to do.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 2:46:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
shimgray(a)gmail.com writes:
> > I think the intended meaning was along the lines of "Current lack of a
> > free image is not sufficient justification to use a non-free image".
>
> That would make more sense, and is a position with which I think we could
> all agree.
It is the general consensus view, but I'm a little worried we may be
failing to communicate quite what it means very well - it's the
position you seem to have been arguing against all day!
See, an hour before, you said: "If we have no free-use image, we
should be and are free to use a fair-use image *until* such time as we
do have a free-use image."
So you insist that we can use non-free images when we don't currently
have a free one, but then you agree that not having a free image just
now *isn't* justification to use an non-free one. [1]>>>
--------------------------------------------------------
Let's be aware that a "non-free" image is not identical to a "fair-use"
image. Non-free covers the entire universe outside of "Free", and "Fair-use"
only covers a sub-set of that external set. It's quite possible that people not
understanding this, are making the claim that everywhere the policy
discusses "non-free" it's discussing "fair use", but imho it isn't.
You paraphrase me as saying that "not having a free image just now isn't
justification to use a non-free one". What I actually agreed to was a more
particular expression that "Current lack of a free image isn't sufficient
justification to use a non-free one".
The actual justification of when a fair use image may be used, is spelled
out in the Non-free policy and other linked pages. What is actually occurring
is that fair-use images are being deleted without having any replacement
image, or even any idea of whether a replacement free image exists.
There's a fair divide between those positions.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:26:44 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
morven(a)gmail.com writes:
I think the intended meaning was along the lines of "Current lack of a
free image is not sufficient justification to use a non-free image".>>
---------------
That would make more sense, and is a position with which I think we could
all agree.
The observe and contrapositive do not necessarily follow.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:47:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
The spirit of what we are trying to do is an irrelevance in this case.
It is a question of law. The answer FWIW appears to be that it is an
issue of contract law and no we've asked appears to be sure of the
answer.>>
-----------------
This is false. Wikipedia policy is not writen based on actual law.
It's an extension of what might be law, what may be law, some interpretation
of law.
As all of us who worked on it know.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:34:54 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
No as far as we are concerned the foundation does and they use
http://freedomdefined.org/Definition .>>
-------------------
You were stating that the *law* did. I was stating that it did not.
Evidently I was more accurate.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:49:52 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
It is contract law thus very useful. The problem is that we are
dealing with the type of case that would not be important enough to
end up in court thus no caselaw.>>
-------------------------
It is not contract law.
You are not a lawyer.
So stop trying to make this argument from law.
It doesn't work.
Thanks.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:41:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
> I try to address
> them by what would enhance the project more.
Encouraging free content meets that requirement.
> I'm not sure referring to our
> valued editors contributions, even if not well-informed, as "basically
crap" is a
> useful position to take.
If it gets them to write better fair use rationals or stop uploading
images with weak ones it is.>>
----------------------------------------------
And no one has been arguing against *encouraging* free content. We are all
for it.
Calling any useful contribution "basically crap" isn't likely to be seen as
positive re-inforcement.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:37:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
If an image can be replaced then it can be replaced. We can get by
without an image untill a free one becomes available.>>
----------------
Yes we know that your argument is to constantly beat the free drum.
That just isn't our policy. We do allow fair use images, and that isn't
going to stop based on this discussion.
Perhaps you can address the discord between our fair-use policy and your
position?
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
In a message dated 3/1/2008 5:39:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
The author is free to release the image under a free license should
they wish to do so.>>
--
Or since we have 200K non-free images, they are also free to cite a fair-use
critieria.
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-du…
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)