Peter Ansell wrote:
I apologised, but as yet the entire incident has turned into a firestorm I have only ever heard about in american politics. Poor Aussie isn't used to being attacked. Still not taking back the essential comment about GFDL childrens pictures posted on the net.
Laura made a good observation over on the AN/I thread that purveyors of child pornography are unlikely to be concerned about whether the pictures they're using are properly licensed. The issue of whether the photos are under the GFDL seems like another irrelevant tangent.
I am passionate about keeping all possible avenues for exploiting children closed. It is illegal to post pictures of someone elses child on the net in Australia, and I naturally assumed that they saw the risks I guess, mostly because of the emphasis on bathrobes I think.
Wikimedia falls under a different jurisdiction, fortunately, or http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Children would be a lot more sparsely populated. And those photos are of their own kids so that law wouldn't apply here anyway.
I would appreciate even simple comments about how badly things could be taken, as I had not noticed the veracity of the statement until I was brought back to it again. The crux of the statement shouldn't be attacked though even if I expressed it in a bad way.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.