[WikiEN-l] Nuke [[WP:CITE]] and [[WP:RS]]

[George Herbert]

On 1/25/07, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/07, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 1/25/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > It's been established in the US that you lose trade secret status with
> > > > stuff in open court filings (hence a lot of sealed filings in civil
> > > > cases), and that copyrighted stuff doesn't lose copyright but enters
> > > > the "suitable for fair use in coverage in the media and legal
> > > > commentary and the like" realm.
> > > >
> > > Which is fine, we have a whole set of rules for all that. The original
> > > claim was that the picture was a production of the US government, for
> > > which the main evidence seemed to be that it was introduced at a federal
> > > trial. We still don't know whether the picture was taken by a random
> > > person in the group or by a professional, and if the latter, who the
> > > professional was working for. Copyright paranoia? Well, I would be
> > > pretty angry if someone copied all of my photos, removed my name, and
> > > declared them "PD-USGov" on some flimsy pretext.
> >
> > Yeah, I was responding in the general here.
> >
> > I think it's fair use to use these, but they're clearly not PD-USGov;
> > someone took them, and unless they released them in a way we don't
> > know about, they're still private copyrighted photos.
> >
> > It's copyright paranoia to say that there's no fair use to be found
> > here.  It's not copyright paranoia to take the PD-USGov tag off.  The
> > owner would have a perfect right to be upset over that.
>
>
> Okay, so what's the right tag?

We don't have enough tags, to be honest, in some cases because of
disagreement over what WP fair use policy is in a particular case.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com