On 12/7/06, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
But:
- Fair use has not been defined as any sort of harm, only that it's
contrary to an eventual goal.
- 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.