From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael Snow
Peter Mackay wrote:
>From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
>[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
>
>Peter Mackay wrote:
>
>
>>It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent
is the same
crime as stealing a million.
I would have to say there are precious few ethical systems that make
that claim.
Most criminal codes will identify the crime of theft (or larceny)
without discrimination as to amount: Theft is "...the dishonest
appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Theft_in_English_law
To define theft as a concept doesn't require any statement as to the
amount or value of the property stolen. Nevertheless, at least in the
United States, most jurisdictions classify theft in different
degrees of
seriousness, generally tied to the dollar amount involved.
The standard
sentences that accompany these degrees of theft increase
along with the
minimum dollar amount, which is effectively an element of the crime.
Fair enough. US criminal law is something of which I have no direct
knowledge - and happy to keep it that way, thanks! - but I think we're
splitting hairs and arguing fine points at this stage.
I don't think there's any great wrong being committed if you upload a
picture of yourself onto your user page, even though it was taken by someone
else. I think we can AGF enough to say that people doing so will only do it
if they know that the partner/relative/friend/random person on the street
who was the actual photographer isn't going to complain.
My concern is really that a lot of those uploading such images will have
been telling small untruths by identifying themselves as the creator when
they know very well that they didn't take the photograph. I don't think we
should require Wikipedians to tell even small untruths and I think we need
to work out the copyright situation.
My opinion is that fair use would cover it and we aren't likely to have any
problems with this.
--
Peter in Canberra