Some of these articles appear to be copyrighted materials, with certain phrases changed slightly (and made slightly more inaccurate as a result. Despite Vera/Lir's protests that there is no other way to write it (which I don't buy), we are walking a thin line of copyright violation.
Danny
At 11:42 PM 1/8/03 -0500, Danny wrote:
Some of these articles appear to be copyrighted materials, with certain phrases changed slightly (and made slightly more inaccurate as a result. Despite Vera/Lir's protests that there is no other way to write it (which I don't buy), we are walking a thin line of copyright violation.
Speaking as a writer, editor, and historian, I agree--there's always more than one way to write things, which is why copyright protects expression but not facts. At most, she's claiming that *she* isn't a good enough writer to find another way to express the material. This may be true, but isn't a legal defense.
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
Some of these articles appear to be copyrighted materials, with certain phrases changed slightly (and made slightly more inaccurate as a result. Despite Vera/Lir's protests that there is no other way to write it (which I don't buy), we are walking a thin line of copyright violation.
Then we'd better remove them.
See the section on the village pump headed "Todo lists" about rearranging Votes for Deletion / stub / articles in need of NPOVing list pages
I've had two OKs and no objections, so in a few days I'll assume no-one objects & I'll go ahead and make the changes.