[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fastfission
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
"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
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?