On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 08:02, Anthere wrote:
A technical question. JacquesD mentions that the two pictures we have of Kissinger (pictures that I find POV, so that are gonna be deleted after the case is solved anyway) are of dubious copyright. Hence, he delinked them. The link has been replaced (then removed again) upon the reason it came from es.wikipedia (apparently, coming from another wikipedia is *enough* to be declared "cp correct*.
If all the other wikipedias jumped off a cliff, would you too? :) Claiming something is okay just because it's on another wiki doesn't wash; the other one is just as likely to _not_ be okay.
And remember, folks, *no picture* is much better than a picture we can't redistribute. If you didn't make it with your own hands or scan it from a piece of paper older than 1924, and it doesn't have a "public domain" or "GNU Free Documentation License" note on it, think twice.
Don't waste everyone's time copying something that turns up in 3 seconds searching images.google.com; creating original works is better.
But when I go on w.es.kissinger, I see an image...which is not an internal image, but rather an external link to another web site (but is displayed in wikipedia frame as well).
I might be wrong, but I thought this has been forbidden/made-impossible because of the famous (and well remembered by old timers :-)) goatxe image ?
It was disabled on the English wikipedia, as that's where abuses were occuring (quite frequently). In any case I would _discourage_ such linking. And there have been enough crazy court decisions over 'deep linking' and such that I wouldn't rely on "it's just a link to another site, we're not _copying it_" for an image embedded into a web page. (IANAL)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)