Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
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?