--- koyaanis qatsi obchodnakorze@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, that's all well and good, but sometimes apparent copyright violations are actually not violations at all. That happened today with a Czech Republic article--someone at another site had claimed copyright on writeups from the U.S. State Department, which are in the public domain. The text was removed, listed for deletion, and restored. I thought you noticed when that happened. :-)
Again, let me stress: I'm as concerned about copyright violations as anyone else, if not moreso: personally, I have misgivings about all the "fair use" photographs and would prefer not to have them. But we must give people time to explain themselves when they upload apparently "copyrighted" material. In some cases, the copyright is theirs. In others, they're claiming copyright on something that's in the public domain. And then, in yet other cases, it's a violation that needs to be taken down or rewritten completely.
kq
==What Wikipedia is not==
14. Mere collections of public domain or other source material; such as entire books, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording.
from [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]]
We shouldn't copy content from public domain sources, only the information from them.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com