--- 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