On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 01:51, Kim Bruning <kim(a)bruning.xs4all.nl> wrote: Apart from Jeffrey acting really quite weird I believe there should be at least a round of trying to convince him that his views need serious revision. (Not about copyright, mind you, but about calling others names, starting ad hominem debates and offtopic rants and considering himself the leader of the pack.) Good contributors shouldn't be driven away even if they became obssessed or believe they're gods. Maybe he needs a vacation (a longer one), not a kickban. Good contributors have earned the "right" to spend some time on them before we administratively kick them out. Try not to handle such things too lightly. ps: "Take my advices, I never have used them anyway." -- byte-byte, grin

As many of you are aware, Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at [[Commons:Sexual content]].[1] It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - if you haven't read it yet, please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon. Dcoetzee has requested feedback from the English Wikipedia, and we'd appreciate it if you can all help spread the news to your own local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you! [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content

He is also a "bit" miffed about you forwarding the message to the list, as you are probably aware, emails are still copyrighted. -Peachey

On 27 June 2010 13:55, Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> wrote: The law is a little out-of-date. When someone sends you a physical letter you can give that letter to anyone you like, since it is a piece of tangible property that you own (unless you've signed a non-disclosure agreement, or something). However, giving someone an email involves copying it, so copyright becomes a factor. I think forwarding an email without permission is, technically, a copyright violation in any jurisdiction that hasn't created an exception to the usual law for it (I suppose some jurisdictions might interpret sending an email as including an implied license to copy it, so don't require a statutory exception, but I don't know of any such interpretations). What jurisdictions have such exceptions, I don't know. Google will find you plenty of discussions (some reasonably well-informed) about this issue.

On 27 June 2010 15:29, Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sure, but I think "creative expression" is usually interpreted very broadly. It doesn't have to be artistic or anything, just something more than raw facts presented in the same way anyone else would present those facts.

On 27 June 2010 21:30, Dennis During <dcduring(a)gmail.com> wrote: You've copied the email as a by-product of replying to it to provide context. I think that is very clearly fair use. Copying an email in order to send it to new people doesn't sound like fair use to me.