[WikiEN-l] J-Pop and the art of fair use abuse

[Charlotte Webb]

On 4/21/07,  Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because something doesn't meet our fair use rules does not make it a
> copyright violation, and you may really annoy someone by accusing
> them so.

Sorry for my ambiguity, by "copyvio" in this context I meant "violation of
copyright policy" rather than "copyright law" necessarily. Point taken, I
will rethink my choice of words.

The point still stands that I am disappointed that the user who removed
these dozens of fair use abuse images was be blocked as a suspected bot and
mass-reverted as a suspected vandal, because the community reached an ad hoc
decision that these images were "legitimate fair use".

On 4/21/07,  Matthew Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> In many cases, the rules have changed since they were promoted to
> admin.

Probably true, but not for this case. Of the three admins I quoted above,
two were promoted last month, one of them in August 2006. The first sentence
of fair use criterion #1 "No free equivalent is available or could be
created that would adequately give the same information" has not seen any
changes during those eight months.

2006-08-01
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&oldid=66978053
2007-04-21
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria&oldid=124503706

However, I would suggest that the RFA process does not evaluate a user's
understanding of policy as well as it should (though it is arguably a good
measure of popularity, niceness, edit summary usage, and things like that).
Thoughts?

Charlotte
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/J-Pop-and-the-art-of-fair-use-abuse-tf3622903.html#a10123687
Sent from the English Wikipedia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.