--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Michael Snow wrote:
Klaus Graf wrote:
> There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's
statement in this list
> ("[W]e've consistently held that
faithful
reproductions of
> two-dimensional public domain works which are
nothing more than
> reproductions should be considered public
domain
for licensing
> purposes") has been
"overruled" by Mike Godwin's
statement (which was
> adressed on a Wikisource case)
>
> See
>
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#About_Bridgeman_vs…
I'm not offering a legal opinion on the underlying
issue, but if I
follow the discussion correctly it shows
absolutely no reason to think
Mike has "overruled" Erik on anything.
The
statement from Mike that is
being pointed to is about a different question
entirely.
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
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping