Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
IMO further explanation _is_ required because otherwise a lot of people are misunderstanding something about how fair use works here without any way to correct it.
I can't reveal the exact details, but "fair use" most definately did *not* apply. The image was a copyvio.
But then I get right back to the problem that sparked my initial email. Evidently there's some detail of fair use policy that is not accurately described, since so many people are convinced that this was a fair use image - including at least one editor who's also a lawyer. I don't care about the specific details of _this_ case, but why can't the general principle that was violated be explained? How else can I and other new editors who come along avoid the same mistake?