In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:28:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
Or is your fundamental disagreement with WP:NONFREE and the Foundation policies it comes from, and you're attacking Betacommand for running a bot that labels violations of said policies at all?>>
-------------------- Fair use of photographs is effectively neutered. There are cases where even fair use photographs are removed because there *might be* a way to get a free photograph. That's pointless.
**************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 23/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Fair use of photographs is effectively neutered.
True but I don't think we are in a position to introduce the kind of changes to US and international copyright law that would be needed to change that.
There are cases where even fair use photographs are removed because there *might be* a way to get a free photograph. That's pointless.
Before we started to enforce that rather a lot of our celebrity bios were illustrated by unfree images. Now days We have a surprising large collection of free images of celebs.
On 23/02/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/23/2008 3:28:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, dgerard@gmail.com writes:
Or is your fundamental disagreement with WP:NONFREE and the Foundation policies it comes from, and you're attacking Betacommand for running a bot that labels violations of said policies at all?>>
Fair use of photographs is effectively neutered. There are cases where even fair use photographs are removed because there *might be* a way to get a free photograph. That's pointless.
That's a "yes", then? So your problem isn't actually with Betacommandbot but with the Foundation; you're just attacking Betacommandbot instead because ... ?
- d.