In a message dated 3/2/2008 1:30:30 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Extremely useful one. The quality of the average fair use rational for a pic on a living person bio is basically crap and since there is almost never any criticism or comment on the actual picture in the article the odds of building a worthwhile fair use case are basically zlich. Thus technicaly they could be nailed under EDP section 10)C but since that would involve trying to teach your average internet user about fair use law it is far less effort all round to zap them under EDP section 1)>>
----------------------------------- I don't really address issues by what is "less effort". I try to address them by what would enhance the project more. I'm not sure referring to our valued editors contributions, even if not well-informed, as "basically crap" is a useful position to take.
**************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:
I don't really address issues by what is "less effort".
However day to day this project is run by realists. Assessing the legalist of 10s of K fair use rationals isn't really practical and would risk upsetting even more people (the album mob are annoying enough imagine if we ever started deleting all the covers with weak fair use rationals).
I try to address them by what would enhance the project more.
Encouraging free content meets that requirement.
I'm not sure referring to our valued editors contributions, even if not well-informed, as "basically crap" is a useful position to take.
If it gets them to write better fair use rationals or stop uploading images with weak ones it is.