geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Then why do we bother putting extra tags on images that are of disputed fair use status?
Fair use isn't blatent copyvio.
Exactly
This whole copyright argument is really a non-starter. Even in the cases where there's _blatant_ copyright violation, as in a letter-for-letter copy and paste from a webpage with a clear copyright notice in flaming letters thirty feet high, the standard procedure as described on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems is to simply _blank_ the page and replace it with a {{copyvio}} template. The article's history remains intact and accessible for at least 7 days while the listing is on the copyright problems page.
So going through the dreadful prose in that provision I find reference to blatant copyright violation which must also meet four further criteria. It then goas on to add, "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator". Is there a listing somewhere to show that these notices were in fact given? If you're going to depend on a rule based criterion, at least use the whole thing rather than just relying on those bits that suit your purposes.
The speedy deletion of BJAODN goes way beyond this process even though it should be vastly _easier_ to resolve any potential copyright issues. This is all stuff that was released under the GFDL at some point, all we need to do is confirm its pedigree.
You have acess to deletion logs prior to 2005?
We're talking about a 2007 series of deletions, not ones that happened in 2005.
Ec