In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:00:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online.>>
-----
A good example of the kind of ridiculous behaviour that causes people to leave the project, and which harms the project. Bureaucratic adherence to some letter or worse a fixated interpretation of some policy, instead of making any attempt to understand the *spirit* of what we're trying to do.
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 Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 12:14 AM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:00:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, saintonge@telus.net writes:
IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online.
A good example of the kind of ridiculous behaviour that causes people to leave the project, and which harms the project. Bureaucratic adherence to some letter or worse a fixated interpretation of some policy, instead of making any attempt to understand the *spirit* of what we're trying to do.
In this case, I seem to remember that it was deliberately provocative behavior by someone with a personal dislike of the user, rather than by some Wikipedia bureaucrat.
-Matt
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 3/2/2008 12:00:03 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
saintonge@telus.net writes:
IIRC some people were claiming that he should have gotten permission from the convenient passerby who actually snapped the shot before he put the picture online.>>
A good example of the kind of ridiculous behaviour that causes people to leave the project, and which harms the project. Bureaucratic adherence to some letter or worse a fixated interpretation of some policy, instead of making any attempt to understand the *spirit* of what we're trying to do.
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.
geni wrote:
On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
A good example of the kind of ridiculous behaviour that causes people to leave the project, and which harms the project. Bureaucratic adherence to some letter or worse a fixated interpretation of some policy, instead of making any attempt to understand the *spirit* of what we're trying to do.
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.
When no one understands what some law is saying it's not a particularly useful law.
Ec
On 02/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
When no one understands what some law is saying it's not a particularly useful law.
It is contract law thus very useful. The problem is that we are dealing with the type of case that would not be important enough to end up in court thus no caselaw.
geni wrote:
On 02/03/2008, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
When no one understands what some law is saying it's not a particularly useful law.
It is contract law thus very useful. The problem is that we are dealing with the type of case that would not be important enough to end up in court thus no caselaw.
Precisely. Many of these copyvio situations involve something not important enough for anybody to take to court. There are, therefore, no cases to help us decide the matter. Many of the things that are clearly infringements on a de jure basis are unlikely to be de facto infringements. There is simply nobody there to claim ownership of the rights. Or an obsolete textbook has no market to protect. Perhaps this is why it's so important that a person who wants to issue a take down order must have standing.
Ec