While we're on the subject of copyrights I'd like to try out a fair use claim to see what people think.
Currently there are two images of Sharbat Gula which are claimed as fair use. This woman is soley famous for appearing on the cover of National Geographic as a Afghani refugee in 1985, in 2002 the same photographer took her photo again, both images are used in the article and the original is also included on the photographers page (Steve McCurry). The photographer explicitly forbids reuse of the images wihtout permission. Neither image description pages gives a rationale for fair use.
I think the fair use claim on these images is extremely shaky, and the only image that would be fair use in the Sharbat Gula article would be the National Geographic cover since it is discussed in the context of the article. The use of the image in the photographers page is most likely not fair use. Opinions?
If someone wants to set up a fair use verification page along the lines of the image sleuthing page I'd be happy to help out. Targeting images in featured and FAC articles would probably be a good place to start.
Peta Holmes (nixie)
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
There are various reasons for people to oppose WMC's nom for adminship. Some of them are perfectly valid - I feel differently, but they are still rational and valid. Some I disagree with on principle - I don't think that the ArbComm should impose sanctions without there being any finding of fact against William, so if people vote oppose on the basis of the ArbComm injunction then I disagree with the basis of their opposition. But it's still a perfectly logical reason to oppose.
And then there are the people who oppose because (a) he knows too much about the subjects about which he edits, and now (b) because...
"Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too"
When did being an "active contributor" make you ineligible to be an admin? Here I was thinking this project was about writing an encyclopaedia. Am I going crazy, or has the world gone nuts?
Ian (Guettarda)
--- Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
There are various reasons for people to oppose WMC's nom for adminship. Some of them are perfectly valid - I feel differently, but they are still rational and valid. Some I disagree with on principle
- I don't think that the ArbComm should impose
sanctions without there being any finding of fact against William, so if people vote oppose on the basis of the ArbComm injunction then I disagree with the basis of their opposition. But it's still a perfectly logical reason to oppose.
And then there are the people who oppose because (a) he knows too much about the subjects about which he edits, and now (b) because...
"Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too"
When did being an "active contributor" make you ineligible to be an admin? Here I was thinking this project was about writing an encyclopaedia. Am I going crazy, or has the world gone nuts?
That is a strange statement. One possible interpretation is that the user is concerned with possible conflicts of interest if/when WMC uses admin powers on articles he's actively involved in editing. Maybe I'm way off though...
Carbonite
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs