In message 06a001c67d24$f193d590$6400a8c0@Tiny, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org writes
From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/22/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
In the case you outline, I would suggest fair use. Releasing a photograph to which you do not hold the copyright into the public domain is morally indefensible, even if it is a very small
sin and you
will get away with it.
This whole conversation is getting a bit silly.
If so, why keep on participating. Personally, I'm grateful for the discussion steering me towards a possible solution.
But I don't agree with your statement that releasing a copyrighted image into PD (insofar as that's actually possible) is necessarily morally wrong. Would my mother care if I published her photo of flowers all over the web with PD marked on it? It is not necessarily the case that any copyright holder actually values that copyright. Therefore it is not necessarily the case that violating it is actually wrong.
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same crime as stealing a million.
Whether you are going to be prosecuted for it is an entirely different question.
Claiming copyright over something you don't own is morally wrong, even if nobody gives a rat's bum.
Agreed, which is why we ought to have a licensing option which states something like "Technically copyrighted, but copyright holder not reasonably traceable or is indeterminable", and make it clear that this is intended only to be used in the case of private images which have not been published (in an effort to prevent it becoming a sinkhole for all the copyrighted photos everyone wants to crib from elsewhere).