On 10/20/05, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
No, thats not reasonable. Just because you cant find a picture doesnt make it copyright free. Hardly anything has a justification that we cannot ever find a free one. I have recently been tagging all cars as fairusereplace as there are so few that there is no specimen surviving.
The legal doctrine of Fair Use does not require that we are unable to find a replacement under any circumstances. It is the general policy of Wikipedia - not the law - that we should attempt to replace Fair Use images with a wholly free one whenever we can, which I agree with.
I have found 2 pictures (in the wole of wikipedia) that I think are
fair use, there are easy replacements for everything else.
It sounds to me that you simply are working on a different definition of legal Fair Use than everyone else ...
The other category is people who, wanting to illustrate the
[[GrassMaster Lawn Master 2000]] article, will rummage through their
well-thumbed
stack of "Lawnmower Monthly" until they find one on the cover, scan that cover, and use the magazine cover to illustrate the article. After all,
"aren't
magazine covers always fair use"?
No they arent. The bogus fair use for specific categories should go. There is no fair use without justification.
You missed the sarcasm indicated by the quotes.
-Matt