On 23/02/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
The point is, that the legalistic interpretation of
what is "free" under the
license is so narrow that we've been blocked from posting for example images
off book covers, which is tendentious.
I assume you mean book covers that have not entered the public domain
or been released under a free license? Such images cannot be
considered free under any reasonable definition of the term.
No author, or publisher, to my knowledge has ever
complained *to* us about
these.
So?
Tendentious editors who want only *self-created*
photographs are
disrupting the project.
That's my opinion.
Will Johnson
Where a reasonable fair use justification can be made book covers are
usable under existing policy.
--
geni