On 01/02/2008, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Peter Ansell wrote:
If the pictures were never posted to a public place then there would be zero risk of them being vandalised by a paedophile. That was the real issue.
No, it's not. Look at the title of this thread again. This is increasingly farther afield off down an irrelevant tangent that was quite properly ignored when you first tried to take us here.
It is almost a coincidence that this thread still has the old subject header, sorry for not correcting that. I *didn't* first try to take the thread there, it was a clear aside comment which was purposefully not trying to take the thread there!
Wikipedia editors should understand the GFDL as a prerequisite though, including the revocation of any right to sue a person who modifies a photo in any way as long as they attribute its authors correctly.
I'm no lawyer, but I've just read through the relevant sections of the GFDL (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License) and I don't see anything that could be interpreted that way. The licence only deals with legalities regarding copyright, it doesn't remove liabilities relating to any other law breaking that occurs in the process (and I don't imagine it'd be _able_ to). If someone were to use a GFDLed document to commit libel, for example, I don't see how one could claim that one couldn't sue for libel.
If someone releases text under the computer-program-documentation-focused-GFDL then they had better know what they are doing because there are a lot of complicated provisions that must be adhered to. If it is not illegal to modify photographs in the US then they are not lawfully doing anything wrong.
Still, given the wikipedia review topic about the recent issue with commons having a "Category:Lolita" and the vandalism of scout photos, there is an issue. Its a shame that freedom of speech outweighs child safety in Florida, US.
We're not talking about child safety. We're talking about the safety of _photographs_ of children.
There is no difference between the safety of children and the safety of the photographs. Otherwise a paedophile could use this defence for swapping images that they did not take.
No, we're talking about web hosting and redirects. Never mind.
We were talking about that... I brought the issue of the angry AN/I posting about me up again here as a basically separate thread. It just had the same subject header for ease of reference back to the disputed statement.
Peter