Fastfission wrote:
In the end, in any case, if this were, in reality, what FUC#1 was trying to do, then that should be discussed and ARTICULATED. As it is, this interpretation of FUC#1 is simply added on as a throwaway line, was not discussed in any detail, and is now being used to delete all sorts of things as if it were gospel. That's a bad policy model, in my opinion, but not too many people around here seem to care about what it might mean to have a good policy model, in my opinion.
I've tried to get some movement on this at the fair use talk page. It appears a large amount of people are seeing FUC#1 as a means to an end - we want more free material, and the only way to get it is to delete the fair use stuff whenever possible. Realism doesn't come into play (I know I can't get a free picture of the indie rock chick who's dove out of the public eye to become a mother, but she's alive and I ''could'' get a picture), but rather directing the desires of those who do the image stuff.
I dunno, it seems awfully counterproductive.
-Jeff