I suppose if the uploader's grandmother (as the author) doesn't want to be identified, but the user is in good stead and, while not being able to prove it isnt a copyvio, there is no evidence to the contrary, we need to rethink it. The problem is we can't assume there's no scope for legal action from the real copyright owner. Any comments on this?
On 9/9/06, Akash Mehta draicone@gmail.com wrote:
But its also a legal issue, because those who own the copyright on copyvio images can take legal action, and have certainly tried in the past ([[WP:OFFICE]] is here for a reason!).
On 9/9/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/8/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/8/06, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 9/7/06, Ben McIlwain cydeweys@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like OrphanBot may need a slight tweak to keep track of how many unsources images a user is uploading, and then
start
raising red flags if it exceeds a certain number.
I just wish the bot would stop telling me that the images Ive
uploaded
that dont have a known source (and were released under Sharealike
1.0
which doesnt require a source) are candidates for deletion.
We don't allow unsourced images of any sort on Wikipedia. That's as much a moral issue as a legal one.
It's not a legal issue at all. It's a moral issue in that it forces people to identify themselves in order to contribute images to the encyclopedia.
I don't know about your morality, but my morality dictates that I *not* reveal the identity of someone who creates an image and asks not to be identified.
Anthony _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l