Guettarda wrote: Such notices are irrelevant to the determination of whether something is copyright, except perhaps in establishing when the copyright will expire, but that problem is moot until 2067. Release under GFDL is implicit whenever anyone saves an edit. Why should it be any more explicit in this case? Whether she is who she says she is is more problematic. What kind of proof are you looking for? Can we ever be sure that anyone who posts with his "real" name is identifying himself truthfully? "Assume good faith" favours keeping the material. If you doubt the good faith, you would do better by trying to contact the person through independant channels. Ec

Mark Wagner wrote: It wasn't stated before that the material was from Britannica. I was under the impression that it was from another source. In the more general situation when a person grants a license under GFDL it includes a prima facie claim that he has the right to make that grant. Ec

On 5/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: "Assume good faith" doesn't mean, believe that someone is telling the truth despite all evidence to the contrary. It simply means, make a reasonable effort to interpret people's actions, in the absence of other evidence, in a positive way. If someone claims to be Celine Dion, by all means, be skeptical - but don't block them right off the bat. Steve

On 5/10/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Or are wrong for a variety of other reasons (ignorance, accident, confusion, translation issues, etc.). One can still assume good faith and also assume that people are, well, people. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "be unskeptical." It just means, "don't assume maliciousness" -- it doesn't mean "assume they are correct." In copyright issues I assume first that the user does not understand our copyright policy or copyrights in general. After that, I move into the realm of "...and maybe they don't care." After that, I move into, "well, whatever the case, they're doing the wrong thing and that won't do." In rare cases do I suspect people of being legitimately malicious in their actions (though there have been more than a handful of that, of course). FF

On 5/3/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: published on another website, we usually require a clear statement from the author of the content that the content is being licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) [...]. This statement must come from an email address that we can clearly recognize as being from the operator of the website, or be in reply to a message sent to the operator of the website." Umm, what if the operator of the website isn't the author of the content? Anthony

On 03/05/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Then we rephrase the boilerplate :-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

"Work for hire" means CBS International is the copyright owner rather than the person who took the photograph or who's in it. If it has not been released under a free license by the copyright owner it can be deleted. Mgm On 5/4/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: