Compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria
with a screenshot from the movie "National Treasure 2":
http://magnusmanske.de/nt2_qv.png
They also briefly show a page about a "Malcolm Gilvary", which we apparently don't have. Considering that page starts with "A [unreadble bold words]", I'll assume it's just another one of ours, with a new title. I can't make outwhich one, though.
Magnus
2008/5/3 Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com:
Compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria
with a screenshot from the movie "National Treasure 2":
http://magnusmanske.de/nt2_qv.png
They also briefly show a page about a "Malcolm Gilvary", which we apparently don't have. Considering that page starts with "A [unreadble bold words]", I'll assume it's just another one of ours, with a new title. I can't make outwhich one, though.
Wikipedia benefits a lot from "Fair Use". Surely, as a low resolution image of a Wikipedia article, this falls under Fair Use for them?
Wikipedia benefits a lot from "Fair Use". Surely, as a low resolution image of a Wikipedia article, this falls under Fair Use for them?
Quite possibly. I don't think it would fall under Wikipedia's definition of fair use (it looks pretty decorative to me), but it may well fall under the actual legal definition. (IANAL, YMMV, etc.)