[Foundation-l] Re: Copyright complaints

Michael Snow wikipedia at earthlink.net
Mon Feb 13 00:57:37 UTC 2006

Kim Bruning wrote:

>On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 04:56:59PM -0800, Michael Snow wrote:
>>If there is no such complaint, what's the urgency that requires you to 
>>unilaterally delete things? Unless you wish to argue, as some people 
>>have about the regular deletion process, that it regularly reaches 
>>incorrect results, I'm not sure why it's so important to short-circuit 
>>the normal procedures for removing copyrighted material that isn't 
>>properly licensed.
>That's an interesting question. I suppose if that's the case, we really
>should take things a bit slower. However, it is the case that sometimes
>for instance images for deletion does not delete images that are not
>correctly fair use. It also happens that userpages use "fair use" images.
>I'm not sure what should be done about those. I don't do deletions myself
>anymore, so I'm a fairly neutral party just watching the shells fly both ways.
Dealing with fair use images is slightly different from normal copyright 
problems, I would think. Since the fairness depends on the type of use, 
it ought to be sorted out where the image is being used. If there's an 
inappropriate claim of fair use somewhere, remove the image from the 
article (or user page, as the case may be). Acting unilaterally in that 
regard is just being bold, doesn't require adminship, and is not 
something to punish unless you have an edit war about it.

If the removal of the image holds, then the rest is really quite simple. 
Once the image is an orphan, there is no longer any basis for a fair use 
claim, and it can be deleted using the normal processes. No need to 
punish anyone for unilateral action.

--Michael Snow

More information about the foundation-l mailing list