On 02/03/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Or look at this case I just wandered across today _http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=18812... oldid=188120374_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Patrick_Johnson&diff=18812...)
It should be fairly obvious that the *author* of a work, is trying to display a picture of that work. This man is, in fact the author.
It was speedy-deleted for "invalid fair-use" ? Excuse me? That's awfully tendentious editing.
"He was notified 48 hours ago..." I suppose no one noticed that he hasn't in fact been editing for a month. Supreme silliness. But even this example, I'm sure will get reactions of the person "was just doing their job."
Given that at some point they would have had to ignore an instruction in the upload process to get into that situation I feel the reaction was reasonable.
I suppose it's too hard to just edit the fair use rationale to say the author of the work can certainly display their own work if they want.
Certainly but just not under any fair use criteria. If you want to put your own work on wikipedia you release it under a free license.