From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us.
In the case of attributing ownership to creative works?
Nope! Just the legal aspect is enough, thanks. That's enough, without worrying about ethics. Let the person uploading the photo worry about the ethics.
I disagree. When the photographs are obviously NOT taken by the subject, the question of copyright becomes non-trivial.
Sorry, it's pretty trivial in this case. If the picture in question was being used to make big bucks somewhere, or was at least the work of a professional, sure, it might be worth worrying about. But for casual shots, it is not only unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases about the copyright status, but the risk of legal intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very low priority.
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can get away with it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with *zero* risk of being sued?
Jimbo seems to have gone about it by obeying the rules. Perhaps we should emulate his example?
Peter