In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:47:54 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
The spirit of what we are trying to do is an irrelevance in this case. It is a question of law. The answer FWIW appears to be that it is an issue of contract law and no we've asked appears to be sure of the answer.>>
----------------- This is false. Wikipedia policy is not writen based on actual law. It's an extension of what might be law, what may be law, some interpretation of law. As all of us who worked on it know.
**************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:
This is false. Wikipedia policy is not writen based on actual law.
You will agree that PD images may be uploaded yes? Now what decides if an image is PD. Could be the law?
It's an extension of what might be law, what may be law, some interpretation of law. As all of us who worked on it know.
Argument by assertion and given your record when it comes to knowing what policy actually is not a very convincing one.
geni wrote:
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
This is false. Wikipedia policy is not writen based on actual law.
You will agree that PD images may be uploaded yes? Now what decides if an image is PD. Could be the law?
PD is defined by an absence of law. If there is no law to recognize someone's copyrights on a work it defaults into the public domain.
Wikilaw operates independently of that. It may coincide with general law, but it need not, and is usually more restrictive.
It's an extension of what might be law, what may be law, some interpretation of law. As all of us who worked on it know.
Argument by assertion and given your record when it comes to knowing what policy actually is not a very convincing one.
Ad hominem arguments solve nothing. I know nothing about Will's "record", and don't intend wasting my time to find out.
Ec