[WikiEN-l] BetacommandBot, (currently) centralized discussion

[geni]

On 23/02/2008, WJhonson at aol.com <WJhonson at aol.com> wrote:
>  That has not been the actual experience.
>  "Reasonable" is an added herring.  Fair use is fair use.

Yes but because we are not a court for the most part we are dealing
with fair use cases. Why we think something is fair use. These reasons
should be at least broadly consistent with both statute law and case
law. So no reasonable is not a red herring.

> Book  covers should
>  be allowed to be used, without restriction.

That would be a descision for the courts and frankly I can't see them
producing a ruling that broad. In addition since both playboy and
playboy and Scientology have published books I really really would not
like to rely on a universal "they will never sue"


> All book covers  are fair use.

Fair use is about use. So closest you could ever get to that would be
along the lines of "Use X would be considered fair use for any book
cover". There are many uses for which a book cover would not be
considered fair use.


-- 
geni