Birgitte SB wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge wrote:
What's concerning about this is that we are referring to a statement by Mike on Anthere's Meta talk page. If he were providing legal advice to the entire community would it not be more appropriate on a page addressed to a more general population. Anybody can read anybody else's talk page, but that is as much to enable dialogue between any two persons. I still respect a kind of semi-private quality to personal talk pages. That someone should derive a legal position based on eavesdropping onto a personal talk page doesn't seem at all the best way to go about this sort of thing.
Ec
Come on Ec! Admit that you dislike Mike's conclusion when giving reasons to not use it. ;)
More on-topic, I cannot see any discrepancy between Erik's and Mike's opinion, even though they are responses to different questions. Erik basically supports the conclusion of Bridgeman v. Corel and Mike says we must follow US law. Since Bridgeman v. Corel *is* US law, I cannot understand what the issue is.
Birgitte SB
The simple fact that Mike is a lawyer doesn't make his opinion superior to anyone else's, but my point was how such issues are presented. Suddenly we have an interpretation out of the context of a personal talk page being taken as an ex-cathedra pronouncement that affects us all. It's especially inappropriate to be extrapolating from a vague statement about the need to follow US law to a disavowal of Bridgeman vs. Corel. In that regard we do not differ.
The Canadian banknote in question is more than 50 years old and is in the public domain. So is any photograph of it.
Ec