I think somebody has previously said that that's because it wouldn't
be compatible for use outside of Wikipedia, and we do have a lot of
forks and mirrors. We don't regulate that, so we would need to get
the copyright holder to completely give up rights to the image for
safety. And that's not always fun for everybody. The contradiction
is peculiar and unfortunate, but makes some sense.
--Ryan
On 12/4/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/5/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Certainly the most obvious case would be one in
which the hollywood
star did not own the copyright to the photo.
We're talking about publicity shots aren't we? As in, photos that are
provided to the media so they can write puff pieces about
them...presumably the publicist owns the copyright, and presumably it
is legal for the media to use them this way. So presumably also legal
for Wikipedia to use them as the lead image for relevant articles. But
possibly not legal for downstream Wikipedia content reusers...
The interesting issue though is that we probably have permission to
use these types of images without resorting to "fair use", but we
actually prohibit ourselves from using that kind of image: we accept
free images, we accept fair use...but not "permission granted for
Wikipedia". It's a strange one.
Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l