On 5/20/06, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
The effect will be limited. Even quite senior
people don't appear to
be able to follow our copyright policy.
And even those who claim they do still want to claim fair use in cases
where it's plainly not.
If this is an oblique reference to me and the O RLY situation, I still
haven't come across a convincing argument for why fair use didn't apply.
It's hardly "plainly not" when even actual lawyers think it's fair
All I've been asking for is some sort of explanation of the takedown. I
don't mind the image being gone for other reasons than invalid fair use,
if that's the case, I just want to know why.
As of now the image *is* in the article, in the form of [[Image:Orlypaper.jpg]].
I suppose if you don't think the use is fair use, then the current
image is a copyright violation of a copyright violation of a copyright