On 7/27/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Silas Snider wrote:
Except when process protects us from (potentially lenghty and costly) legal proceedings. Without a tag, it is not clear whether we have the right to even host the image.
It would be nice if people who put up these claims about protecting us had half a clue about what they are saying. Such legal proceedings are always possible no matter what we do. So too is winning the big prize in a national lottery. If you sign a binding agreement to donate 50% of that prize to WMF when you win it, I would suggest that the Board not make that eventuality a prominent part of its future plans.
Ec
I'd like to think I have at least half a clue, having seen loads of "you are using my copyrighted material, take it down or else" messages. (And then many more "hey, I wrote this press release, and you guys called me a copyright violator, take that down immediately." You just can't win.)
Most of them are just angry and will never actually go to the trouble of a lawsuit, sure. Some of them might. Considering the volume, not many of them would have to for it to be a huge waste of the limited resources of WMF. It's *possible* for people to attempt to sue us for all sorts of frivolous things even if we take as much care as possible, yes, but it's not the wisest course of action to invite it where we don't need to by failing to be responsible.
However:
In this case, there must be some sort of special case. Purist though I generally am, surely there must be some way to hang on to a few pictures of deceased editors and tag them appropriately to make their status clear. Considering all the copyright issues on the project, it would be a happy day if this were the most pressing of them. I would be loath for this to be some sort of precedent so that everyone and his dog wants an excuse to be a special case, but, well, really, I am OK with this particular image.
-Kat