Or look at this case I just wandered across today _http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=18812... oldid=188120374_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=18812...)
It should be fairly obvious that the *author* of a work, is trying to display a picture of that work. This man is, in fact the author.
It was speedy-deleted for "invalid fair-use" ? Excuse me? That's awfully tendentious editing.
"He was notified 48 hours ago..." I suppose no one noticed that he hasn't in fact been editing for a month. Supreme silliness. But even this example, I'm sure will get reactions of the person "was just doing their job."
I suppose it's too hard to just edit the fair use rationale to say the author of the work can certainly display their own work if they want.
Will Johnson
**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living. (http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duf... 2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Or look at this case I just wandered across today _http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=18812... oldid=188120374_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=18812...)
It should be fairly obvious that the *author* of a work, is trying to display a picture of that work. This man is, in fact the author.
It was speedy-deleted for "invalid fair-use" ? Excuse me? That's awfully tendentious editing.
"He was notified 48 hours ago..." I suppose no one noticed that he hasn't in fact been editing for a month. Supreme silliness. But even this example, I'm sure will get reactions of the person "was just doing their job."
Given that at some point they would have had to ignore an instruction in the upload process to get into that situation I feel the reaction was reasonable.
I suppose it's too hard to just edit the fair use rationale to say the author of the work can certainly display their own work if they want.
Certainly but just not under any fair use criteria. If you want to put your own work on wikipedia you release it under a free license.
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 1:55 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
I suppose it's too hard to just edit the fair use rationale to say the author of the work can certainly display their own work if they want.
Certainly but just not under any fair use criteria. If you want to put your own work on wikipedia you release it under a free license.
Change the wording on the upload page?
"If you are the author of this work, you hereby assert that you release it as <some license >"
Michel
On 02/03/2008, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 1:55 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly but just not under any fair use criteria. If you want to put your own work on wikipedia you release it under a free license.
Change the wording on the upload page? "If you are the author of this work, you hereby assert that you release it as <some license >"
1. People don't read.
2. If they don't read, it's better they don't appear to be asserting something they don't mean. We've had enough trouble with people trying to "withdraw" GFDL from contributions they've made. (Typically the contributions get removed if it's not a pain in the arse to do so, because we don't want to be dicks about it, but not if it is.) Similarly, trouble with people who upload text and images to the article about them that turn out to be owned by their employer, and they in fact have no right to release them.
It's really better in practice for them not to appear to assert release of material under a free licence unless they really truly mean to do that.
- d.