[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
On 5/21/06, Arwel Parry <arwel(a)cartref.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing
something like "Technically copyrighted, but
copyright holder not
reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that
this is intended only to be used in the case of private
have not been published (in an effort to prevent
it becoming a
sinkhole for all the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from
I think that's a bad idea. People will start labeling
everything that they can't find the author on as "technically
Can anyone explain why fair use would not apply? The uploader doesn't hold
the copyright, but the use of an image of themselves to illustrate what is
essentially a WP-maintained profile isn't going to be controversial.
When a user labels something as their own creation and
they have licensed it under X-and-Y license, and we have no
real reason to really suspect otherwise (and no, I don't
think "but they didn't necessarily take the picture of
themself" is enough to really suspect otherwise)
I can't see how you can come to this conclusion. If they didn't take the
photograph themselves they don't own the copyright. Not without some
additional assignment of rights, and making the assumption that this has
somehow happened by assuming good faith on the part of the uploader is going
I suggest that ninety-nine times out of a hundred, no such explicit
assignment of rights has occurred, but the uploader is quite confident that
the photographer is not going to make any fuss.
think the risk is legally theirs. I'm also reasonably sure it
falls under the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA, as I
Could you please explain them?
I note that Jimbo's picture on his user page doesn't use anything along
those lines, even though the picture taken by a neighbour is
non-controversial and used with permission.