Marco Krohn was kind enough to email RMS on this fair use issue.
Marco asked:
While discussing (on the mailing list wikitech-l@wikipedia.org) the usage of "fair use" images/music a lengthy discussion came up if it is compatible with GFDL to use "fair use" images at all.
RMS responded:
If the use of these images is truly fair use, then it is ok regardless of what license you use for your work.
Whether this use of the images is truly fair use, that I don't know.
Marco:
This is surely covered by the "fair use" right of the United States, but is the resulting article including the citation still compatible with GFDL?
RMS:
Yes. I don't think there is really an issue here.
Additionally, RMS doesn't seem to think we need to rely at all on the aggregation argument, and finds that aspect of things confusing.
--Jimbo
Good news!
We'll still want to mark "fair use" materials as such and cite all sources, naturally.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Marco Krohn was kind enough to email RMS on this fair use issue.
Marco asked:
While discussing (on the mailing list wikitech-l@wikipedia.org) the usage of "fair use" images/music a lengthy discussion came up if it is compatible with GFDL to use "fair use" images at all.
RMS responded:
If the use of these images is truly fair use, then it is ok regardless of what license you use for your work.
Whether this use of the images is truly fair use, that I don't know.
Marco:
This is surely covered by the "fair use" right of the United States, but is the resulting article including the citation still compatible with GFDL?
RMS:
Yes. I don't think there is really an issue here.
Additionally, RMS doesn't seem to think we need to rely at all on the aggregation argument, and finds that aspect of things confusing.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Regarding RMS's statement that fair use materials do not pose a problem in GFDL works, it would be good to know if he was aware or made aware of the fact that what counts as fair use for one user in one context may not count as fair use for some other use in some other context.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
At 09:50 15/06/2003 -0700, Axel wrote:
Regarding RMS's statement that fair use materials do not pose a problem in GFDL works, it would be good to know if he was aware or made aware of the fact that what counts as fair use for one user in one context may not count as fair use for some other use in some other context.
Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't care less.
I'm probably misunderstanding something.
Lee (Camembert)
On Sun, Jun 15, 2003 at 06:20:53PM +0100, Lee Pilich wrote:
At 09:50 15/06/2003 -0700, Axel wrote:
Regarding RMS's statement that fair use materials do not pose a problem in GFDL works, it would be good to know if he was aware or made aware of the fact that what counts as fair use for one user in one context may not count as fair use for some other use in some other context.
I'm probably misunderstanding something.
Yes
Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't care less.
That's a difference between having one www page of beer-free stuff (not much different from online version of closed encyclopedias) and something that allows creating wide range of speech-free content - textbooks, specialist encyclopedias, science popularization books etc.
At 19:57 15/06/2003 +0200, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't care less.
That's a difference between having one www page of beer-free stuff (not much different from online version of closed encyclopedias) and something that allows creating wide range of speech-free content - textbooks, specialist encyclopedias, science popularization books etc.
If people want to derive works in which a certain instance of fair use wouldn't apply, they can just remove the content included under fair use, can't they?
Here's what worries me: completely disallowing all fair use materials in the Wikipedia, would mean, for example, that an in-depth discussion of some modern novel would be virtually impossible, because we'd not be allowed to quote from it. Similarly, an article on a modern piece of music couldn't include illustrative sound samples or bits of music notation. Or am I mistaken?
But OK, I've enough on with copyright discussion on various other lists - I hereby withdraw from the discussion almost as soon as I entered it.
Lee (Camembert)
On Sunday 15 June 2003 19:20, Lee Pilich wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't care less.
there have been quite some open source / free software projects which had small license issues in the past which turned out to larger problem after some time. For instance, I have followed the Qt / KDE / GPL license battle on the mailing lists and I can assure you it was not fun seeing this discussion coming up over and over again (with all implications, KDE was not allowed being a part of Debian for a long time etc.)
The GFDL was written by lawyers. If we don't pay attention and start "mixing" this license with "fair use" then we _might_ run into problems in the future. So we should be very careful now rather than when it is too late.
I still think that GFDL and "fair use" is incompatible. RMS answers seem to _me_ a bit inconsistent. On the one hand he says that a combination of FU and GFDL is no problem on the other:
me: "Yes, both parts of the article (image, text) come from the wikipedia server. The text is GFDLed, the image is not."
RMS: "Such combination would violate the GFDL."
Jimbo was so kind asking the question to RMS more precisely and also cc'ed the email to Lawrence Lessig (Standford Professor for law). So let's wait a bit for their judgement.
best regards, Marco
Lee Pilich wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't care less.
Because we care about freedom in the sense of GNU, that's why.
--Jimbo
At 12:10 15/06/2003 -0700, Jimbo wrote:
Lee Pilich wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why we, the editors of Wikipedia, should be bothered about any context other than Wikipedia? I want to make the WIkipedia as good as it can be, and if that involves using fair use materials, then so be it. If somebody who makes a derivitive work from the Wikipedia can't use our fair use materials as fair use because, say, they're charging $50 for whatever product they've created, then I couldn't care less.
Because we care about freedom in the sense of GNU, that's why.
OK, I worded my email too strongly and mentioning money was a mistake - I know that's not the real issue. I was in a bad mood, it was too hot, my monitor was buzzing, I deserved all the "free beer" cliches people could throw at me, I shouldn't have sent the email.
I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad idea, though. In not being allowed to quote from modern books, interviews, speeches, articles, films... well, anything, we'd be imposing a limit which, presumably, other encyclopaedias don't have to deal with. And I don't see how we can practically allow some kinds of fair use but not others (I might be wrong on that one, though - I might be wrong on everything).
Lee (Camembert)
--- Lee Pilich pilich@btopenworld.com wrote:
I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad idea, though.
I don't think anybody has argued for that.
I don't see how we can practically allow some kinds of fair use but not others
Maybe we can. How about if we give up our current distinction between images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people upload material to Wikipedia:
By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either * the material is in the public domain, or * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL, or * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
(maybe even with three checkboxes.)
I would think that short quotes, downsampled album titles, grainy TV frames of Hussein etc. then all still qualify.
As rms points out, fair use materials can indeed be modified (thereby even strengthening the fair use case), so the materials described above don't seem to pose a problem GFDL-wise.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Axel Boldt wrote:
* the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take. We want to use stuff that we can use. We want our stuff to be reusable by others pretty easily. And we should flag anything for which questions are likely to arise, so that third parties (or ourselves, in the future) can figure out what everything is.
The central questions, to my mind, are: (1) where should we draw the line, and how can we make it easy for contributors to understand, and (2) what disclaimers do we need on the download page so that people can easily grasp that what is GNU FDL is our own content, and that the database does contain fair use materials, appropriately flagged when possible, so that they can puzzle over fair use for *their* use.
The complication here arises from the fact that fair use depends on the use, not on the image or quote itself.
--Jimbo
Jimmy-
Axel Boldt wrote:
* the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take.
I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we should flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Jimmy-
Axel Boldt wrote:
- the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take.
I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we
should
flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.
The reason is that we want to produce a freely distributable and modifiable encyclopedia.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Axel-
-+- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Jimmy-
Axel Boldt wrote:
- the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
Well, certainly I think that's the right approach to take.
I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we
should
flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.
The reason is that we want to produce a freely distributable and modifiable encyclopedia.
Exactly. *Freely* distributable and modifiable. ;-)
Regards,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Axel-
-+- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we should flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.
The reason is that we want to produce a freely distributable and modifiable encyclopedia.
Exactly. *Freely* distributable and modifiable. ;-)
Yes that's pretty funny. You have already made clear that you interpret "the free encyclopedia" as "free-for-noncommercial-use". The intended and understood interpretation however has always been "GNU-free". [[Wikipedia:copyrights]] says "free-as-in-free-software", which by anybody's definition (FSF, OSI, Debian) does not include mere free-for-noncommercial-use materials.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't think we should exclude fair use material that could not be used in a copy of Wikipedia that is sold for profit. I think we should flag it, but I see no reason to exclude it.
Well, we absolutely should flag it, that's for sure. At what point we might want to exclude things, well, that's a different question, and a rather difficult one.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
The complication here arises from the fact that fair use depends on the use, not on the image or quote itself.
I'm personally quite happy with the voting on the german wikipedia, which results in not using e.g. 'fair use'-images. It is complicated to seperate them currently, but fair use is e.g. not existing in german law. Citations are ok, of course.
I'm not very good at laws, but the german law about it, seems pretty good to me: citations are ok, if they are not the main part, and the writer refer to this citation. Pictures and other things are 'big citations' and usually not 'fair use'.
Which means: I can use citations, which is needed in Wikipedia, and I should have a free picture, sound, etc. if I want to include it. In the result everything can be published free, and that's what I think fits with the 'free' in "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."
Don't know if this fits in GFDL or US law, but it's easy to understand.
At 14:25 15/06/2003 -0700, Axel wrote:
--- Lee Pilich pilich@btopenworld.com wrote:
I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad idea, though.
I don't think anybody has argued for that.
I suspected not, but it didn't seem clear - nobody (as far as I could tell) had said exactly how a distinction was to be drawn between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" fair use.
I don't see how we can practically allow some kinds of fair use but not others
Maybe we can. How about if we give up our current distinction between images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people upload material to Wikipedia:
By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either * the material is in the public domain, or * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL, or * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
(maybe even with three checkboxes.)
That would work I guess. If we want to discourage the use of fair use materials that might not be reusable (which seems a reasonable attitude), then this seems a good way of going about it - certainly better than what we have at present where the possibilty of fair use isn't mentioned at all (unless I'm missing something).
The only thing is, of course, the meaning of "such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia" is very much open to interpretation (we don't know who these third party users will be, after all), and probably won't mean very much to most users. Then again, I don't suppose the GFDL means very much to most users, and a certain degree of vagueness is probably unavoidable.
This is perhaps a little off-topic, but is there a quick and easy explanation of why the Wikipedia is released under the GFDL and not into the public domain? Somebody asked me the other day, and I realised that I didn't actually know.
Apologies if I seemed a bit on the hysterical side earlier - I worry about this sort of stuff. Lee (Camembert)
Axel Boldt wrote in part:
Maybe we can. How about if we give up our current distinction between images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people upload material to Wikipedia:
By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either * the material is in the public domain, or * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL, or * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
(maybe even with three checkboxes.)
You mean three radio buttons?
But in the case of images (along the lines of album cover thumbnails), I don't think that we need to worry about future users of Wikipedia (much less try to guess who's /likely/ to be one of these and who isn't). This is because images can be easily removed by the future user. For quotations, we should be able to ensure that the quotation is fair use for /every/ potential user, so that would be all right. Thus, there is a practical difference between text and images.
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote in part:
How about if we give up our current distinction between images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people upload material to Wikipedia:
By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either * the material is in the public domain, or * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL,
or
* the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia(maybe even with three checkboxes.)
You mean three radio buttons?
Yes.
But in the case of images (along the lines of album cover thumbnails), I don't think that we need to worry about future users of Wikipedia (much less try to guess who's /likely/ to be one of these and who isn't). This is because images can be easily removed by the future user.
Granted that it's easier to remove fair-use images than fair-use quotes, but even the former involves going through the articles that link to the removed images and removing the now-broken links. Not to mention the case-by-case decisions about which fair-use images to keep and which to remove. In effect, this necessary work prevents a quick-and-dirty third-party $10 Wikipedia CD from ever seeing the light of day. And there isn't much room: the Encyclopedia Britannica DVDROM sells for $50.
In the end, to get a cheap CD, we would probably have to produce a sanitized version of Wikipedia ourselves.
For quotations, we should be able to ensure that the quotation is fair use for /every/ potential user, so that would be all right.
Even for quotations you need the word "likely" somewhere: your quoting a line of Martin Luther King in an article about him is certainly fair use; my selling t-shirts with that quote on it is certainly not.
Thus, there is a practical difference between text and images.
True, but I'd like to maintain the spirit of GNU-free for the whole encyclopedia, not just for its text.
Axel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 11:15:02AM -0700, Axel Boldt wrote:
For quotations, we should be able to ensure that the quotation is fair use for /every/ potential user, so that would be all right.
Even for quotations you need the word "likely" somewhere: your quoting a line of Martin Luther King in an article about him is certainly fair use; my selling t-shirts with that quote on it is certainly not.
Are you sure about that ? In Poland I wouldn't hesitate for a moment before selling such t-shirts. Short quotes receive next to zero protection here and I don't know why it should be otherwise anywhere else.
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
Even for quotations you need the word "likely" somewhere: your quoting a line of Martin Luther King in an article about him is certainly fair use; my selling t-shirts with that quote on it is certainly not.
Are you sure about that ? In Poland I wouldn't hesitate for a moment before selling such t-shirts. Short quotes receive next to zero protection here and I don't know why it should be otherwise anywhere else.
In 1979, a US federal court ruled that Ashleigh Brilliant's "Pot-Shots" are Epigrams, therefore copyrightable, and he's won a half-dozen lawsuits (and several other cases that never made it to court). A "Pot-Shot" has a /maximum/ of 17 (English) words.
To be sure, Brilliant's epigrams are unusual; because of their small size, they're more like images. You can't take an Excerpt from a "Pot-Shot".
-- Toby
Axel Boldt wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Axel Boldt wrote:
How about if we give up our current distinction between images and text and require a single confirmation whenever people upload material to Wikipedia:
By uploading material to Wikipedia, you certify that either * the material is in the public domain, or * the copyright owner of the material releases it under GFDL, or * the material can be used under the [[fair use]] doctrine and such fair use will likely extend to all third party users of Wikipedia
(maybe even with three [radio buttons].)
But in the case of images (along the lines of album cover thumbnails), I don't think that we need to worry about future users of Wikipedia (much less try to guess who's /likely/ to be one of these and who isn't). This is because images can be easily removed by the future user.
Granted that it's easier to remove fair-use images than fair-use quotes, but even the former involves going through the articles that link to the removed images and removing the now-broken links.
We should write a utility that will strip them. That can't be hard, and providing it with our work, whether or not it's necessary to comply with the text of the FDL, certainly helps in complying with the spirit.
Not to mention the case-by-case decisions about which fair-use images to keep and which to remove. In effect, this necessary work prevents a quick-and-dirty third-party $10 Wikipedia CD from ever seeing the light of day. And there isn't much room: the Encyclopedia Britannica DVDROM sells for $50.
It's easy to produce a /quick-and-dirty/ CD this way; simply strip out all questionable (3rd option) images. We do need to save the choice made when it was uploaded, of course; but I think that everybody agrees on adding such metadata.
In the end, to get a cheap CD, we would probably have to produce a sanitized version of Wikipedia ourselves.
To get a cheap CD with some of the fair use images, yes. But to decide who the image is fair use for and who not -- that's a difficult decision to make once and for all. I'm certainly not up to judging whether something is fair use for all of the /likely/ third-party future users. How am I to judge that when we argue over an image's status for just us? If a third-party user has a particular usage in mind, then they can judge their circumstances better than we can. I agree that it's nice if we can judge it ahead of time, but I don't agree that we're capable of it.
For quotations, we should be able to ensure that the quotation is fair use for /every/ potential user, so that would be all right.
Even for quotations you need the word "likely" somewhere: your quoting a line of Martin Luther King in an article about him is certainly fair use; my selling t-shirts with that quote on it is certainly not.
Fair enough. But in this case, "likely" is easy to judge.
Thus, there is a practical difference between text and images.
True, but I'd like to maintain the spirit of GNU-free for the whole encyclopedia, not just for its text.
I'd also like to do this, but the only pracitcal way is to not include fair use images in "the whole encyclopedia" at all. Of course, this is what /you/ want (and is consistent with my practice too), but the other Wikipedians aren't likely to come around to that. This leaves us with a difference between text and images -- to with, that we /can/ maintain the spirit for the entire text, but cannot for all of the images.
-- Toby
Lee Pilich wrote:
I still think getting rid of all instances of fair use is a bad idea, though. In not being allowed to quote from modern books, interviews, speeches, articles, films... well, anything, we'd be imposing a limit which, presumably, other encyclopaedias don't have to deal with. And I don't see how we can practically allow some kinds of fair use but not others (I might be wrong on that one, though - I might be wrong on everything).
Well, I agree with you, at least to a point. I think it would be an absurd conclusion that we can't quote from any copyrighted work. Here's the example article that I showed to Lessig and Stallman: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howl
That's an article about Allen Ginsburg's famous poem _Howl_.
On the other hand, I'm also absolutely not comfortable with some of the images that we currently have on the server, even though I think it is fairly clear that *we* can use them under fair use.
Others, I'm uncomfortable with because it isn't clear to me that *we* can use them, see for example: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears
That's a nice sketch, and if it was done by some Wikipedian who released it GNU FDL, I'm excited to know it. But if it was hoisted from a website somewhere, it's pretty clear that it's inappropriate for us to use it under "fair use". (Part of the trouble is that fair use is a difficult and vague doctrine, of course.)
This page explains little: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BrithneySpears.jpg
"Used in Plish edition"
I think that means "Polish" edition, because the image also appears there: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears
--Jimbo
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
On the other hand, I'm also absolutely not comfortable with some of the images that we currently have on the server, even though I think it is fairly clear that *we* can use them under fair use.
Please cite examples.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Dafoe
There's no clue as to where that image came from, but it seems unlikely that it's use is appropriate under fair use, except *perhaps* for us, under an aggressive interpretation of fair use.
Certainly, if someone wanted to take our content and use it as a foundation for a highly commercialized celebrity database, or let's say a "50 greatest actors" magazine special, they'd not be able to use this photo.
It has no attribution of any kind, we have no idea where it came from, we have no idea what justification we might or might not have for using it. It is a clip from a movie? Is it a publicity still that was circulated freely by the studio? Is it a famous artwork by a litigious photographer of repute?
We just don't know, and that makes me uncomfortable.
--Jimbo
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:01:17AM -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy-
On the other hand, I'm also absolutely not comfortable with some of the images that we currently have on the server, even though I think it is fairly clear that *we* can use them under fair use.
Please cite examples.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Dafoe
There's no clue as to where that image came from, but it seems unlikely that it's use is appropriate under fair use, except *perhaps* for us, under an aggressive interpretation of fair use.
Certainly, if someone wanted to take our content and use it as a foundation for a highly commercialized celebrity database, or let's say a "50 greatest actors" magazine special, they'd not be able to use this photo.
It has no attribution of any kind, we have no idea where it came from, we have no idea what justification we might or might not have for using it. It is a clip from a movie? Is it a publicity still that was circulated freely by the studio? Is it a famous artwork by a litigious photographer of repute?
We just don't know, and that makes me uncomfortable.
Don't we have "when in doubt, remove" policy when it comes to copyrights ? If some unknown (usually ip) user posts something that looks suspitious, and doesn't answer questions about that in about a week, then it's best to remove it.
--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Don't we have "when in doubt, remove" policy when it comes to copyrights ? If some unknown (usually ip) user posts something that looks suspitious, and doesn't answer questions about that in about a week, then it's best to remove it.
Hardly. Please see my talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe where I am currently being excoriated for doing just that. But then it seems that, whatever *I* do is wrong, when in other users, it is not only acceptable, but applauded.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 06:11:49PM -0700, Zoe wrote:
--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
Don't we have "when in doubt, remove" policy when it comes to copyrights ? If some unknown (usually ip) user posts something that looks suspitious, and doesn't answer questions about that in about a week, then it's best to remove it.
Hardly. Please see my talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe where I am currently being excoriated for doing just that. But then it seems that, whatever *I* do is wrong, when in other users, it is not only acceptable, but applauded.
Nothing personal, but I also think that these images that you claim to be under "fair use" are clearly not and should immediately be deleted.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org