On 12/7/06, Jeff Raymond <jeff.raymond(a)internationalhouseofbacon.com> wrote:
But:
1) Fair use has not been defined as any sort of harm, only that it's
contrary to an eventual goal.
2) We already allow fair use, thus implying that it's really not harmful
at all.
Nyet. By that logic Cyanide is not toxic since it appears in some
commonly eaten food.
A photo of a building in the town over is an
"unfree" image on Wikipedia
currently. I can't get over to said building to take a picture until,
say, next Saturday. The "unfree" picture harms nothing. It does not
detract from the project's goal, it does not harm anything. Furthermore,
said building is an architectural wonder, with unique arches and windows.
Removal of the image until next week does harm to the project, as the
unfree image illustrates the object in ways words simply cannot. The
unfree image, in this case, is not harming at all, but rather helping.
Are we talking wikipedia only, non comercial use only or claimed fair
use because I'm haveing a hard time seeing how any fair use claim
could be legit. In which case it is a copyvio. Copvios are a dirrect
threat to wikipedians and depending on how courts find wikipedia.
--
geni