[WikiEN-l] Deleting orphaned unfree images

[Ray Saintonge]

Thomas Dalton wrote:

>>I was thinking your motivation was to reduce some real-world harm. E.g.,
>>images sitting for a week causes difficulty X to person Y. I gather
>>you're saying it's a more abstract thing, an aesthetic preference?
>>    
>>
>The real world harm is that of copyright violations. IANAL, so I don't
>know if it is actually illegal for us to have unfree images on the
>site for a week without them being fair use, but it has to be quite
>close to that fine line. Just because we can't technically be punished
>unless we refuse to remove it upon request doesn't make it legal for
>us to keep it there until that request is made (by my understanding of
>the law
>
You don't really "know" that it's illegal unless the owner has expressed 
himself.  Even there that assumes that the claimant has a valid claim; 
perhaps the image was not copyrightable in the first place.  Perhaps the 
merger principle applies.  What Wikipedia allows as fair use is only a 
fraction of what the law or the courts might allow as fair use.  As long 
as we are in that very wide space between the two definitions of fair 
use we are quite safe when we wait for a reasonable time.

>if I assault someone, I can't be punished unless they decide
>to press charges, them not pressing charges doesn't make my act legal,
>though).
>
Not correct.  If we are talking about criminal charges it is the state 
that presses the charges.  If the assault took place when there was no 
third party witness it would jusat be difficult to prove the case when 
the victim does not testify.

Ec