geni wrote:
On 6/2/07, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CSD#G12
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