On 11/28/05, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I do not understand well how you make the difference between "unlicensed" and "licensed". Afaik, fair use is licensed. No tag is unlicensed. No ?
Fair use is NOT licensed. Fair use is a doctrine under which copyrighted content may be used without obtaining a license. There's a big difference.
Let me repeat that again for the bystanders: Fair use is not a license.
Media used on Wikipedia pursuant to a license allowing the use (e.g. the GFDL or CC-BY-SA, or some other free or nonfree license) is licensed. Media that is used on Wikipedia not pursuant to a license but instead either a claim of fair use, or invalidly as a copyright infringement, is unlicensed. We are strict on the use of unlicensed media because the distribution of unlicensed media content is a copyright infringement unless privileged under fair use.
I have the feeling that in one year or so, freely licensed orphan images will indeed be deleted on the english wikipedia. That would be well within what I currently observe.
I see no reason to share your pessimism.
Kelly