On 01/02/2008, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)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