Peter Ansell wrote:
On 31/01/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the real issue.
No, it's not. Look at the title of this thread again. This is increasingly farther afield off down an irrelevant tangent that was quite properly ignored when you first tried to take us here.
Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though, including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
I'm no lawyer, but I've just read through the relevant sections of the GFDL (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) and I don't see anything that could be interpreted that way. The licence only deals with legalities regarding copyright, it doesn't remove liabilities relating to any other law breaking that occurs in the process (and I don't imagine it'd be _able_ to). If someone were to use a GFDLed document to commit libel, for example, I don't see how one could claim that one couldn't sue for libel.
Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the recent issue with commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos, there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child safety in Florida, US.
We're not talking about child safety. We're talking about the safety of _photographs_ of children.
No, we're talking about web hosting and redirects. Never mind.