On 9/12/05, uninvited@nerstrand.net uninvited@nerstrand.net wrote:
At present I am more interested in policy matters. I do not believe that I can accomplish anything meaningful by my own extensive use of and involvement in an existing copyvio image process that (a) is far more work for the listing admin than the uploader, (b) takes weeks to reach resolution in uncontroversial cases, and (c) has an excessive inclusion bias for copyvio images with a fair use claim. I'm willing to review images, and list them for deletion, but not until the policy issues are properly addressed. I have had too much Wikistress in the past trying to work to implement things that lacked definition.
What I was getting at was the fact that you were specifically complaining about people not wanting to delete anything. I didn't see where the evidence of that was -- if you could throw a link or two my way it would make it easier to see that.
At present, the project isn't soundly grounded in legal advice. I'm not an attorney so I can't fix that. However I do disagree with the other WikiProject members in several important areas. I believe this is a matter better resolved by competent counsel rather than by compromise and consensus. That is why I have brought it here.
I believe, for example, that we do not accomplish anything meaningful by using low-resolution images and sound clips; consenus appears to be that resolution limits are important. I don't think that discussing or voting on this will help us because it is better settled by sound legal advice. I don't think it is in the best interests of the project to have a bunch of laypeople (non-lawyers) dream up fair use policy.
OK. Then don't complain about how you've tried to discuss this and haven't gotten anywhere with it. You haven't tried to discuss it. In the end, the hope is that one of our Wikilawyer types will look over all of the things we've been working on. But they're probably busy too. Better a dreamed up fair use policy based on some understanding of copyright law than no fair use policy at all. I don't think most of our legal understandings are really so baseless -- there is a heap of caselaw on the usage of small or degraded media in regards to fair use -- but then again, hey! I'm not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know. If you want discussion, it's there for you. If you want "just discussion with lawyers" then you'd better find a few lawyers who want to participate. They're welcome to participate too if they want to.
You've named a few miscellaneous issues here, none of which you've bothered raising on the project talk page, or really anywhere else for that matter. So I'm not sure why you're clamoring about your lack of discussion -- it's clear that what you really want is some closure. Which is fine -- wouldn't we all like that? -- but don't make it out like you're being ignored. You are, erm, "invited" to participate in the wiki way.
I'd love it if some legal types would stop by and take a look at what we're up to, give some guidance when it comes down to it. At the moment we're trying to get something basic together, something to work with, and correct the obvious problems of the current policy which have allowed things to get a bit out of control. Which is frankly better than nothing, in my opinion. If your attempts to get unequivocal answers to difficult and murky questions turns up anything useful, please feel free to let the rest of us know. In the meantime, we'll continue our work.
FF