On 3/17/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/17/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
My whole point is that there are exceptions. I do disagree with you though that Wikimedia is the *only* corporation which has practical legal reasons not to license certain images under a free license, though.
I don't think Fastfission claimed that.
That other corporations also have good reason to not license images freely doesn't mean we /have/ to change our policy to accept less free images, though.
-Matt
First of all, I agree. That other corporations also have good reason not to license certain images freely doesn't mean Wikipedia /has/ to change its policy to accept less free images.
You seem to be missing the context of my original comment though. It was in response to a statement "The bottom line is that who are highly protective of their intellectual property probably should not be contributing it to Wikipedia."
For further context, the example situation we were discussing was "If I make an image, that is, take a photograph of a leader or an actor I adore and do not want it to be photoshopped into some unknown monstrosity, I would be more comfortable in using Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 2.5 license."
Anthony