From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
But for
casual shots, it is not only
unnecessary to doubt the word of the user in these cases
about the copyright status, but the risk of legal
intervention is so low as to be nil. Additionally, in a case
like this, it will be absolutely clear to the copyright owner
who to complain to. I think this sort of thing is very, very
low priority.
You seem to be saying it's OK to break the law if you can
get away with
it, but I think you misunderstand my point.
Your misconception of law is phenomenal. In some situations
the breach
of the law does not happen until there has been a complaint
by someone
with standing.
So it's legal to breach copyright until someone complains? If you steal from
an outlaw it's not theft?
I agree that
these photographs are (mostly)
non-controversial. But what
is the absolutely correct way of uploading them so
we can
use them with
*zero* risk of being sued?
Zero risk is a figment of your imagination.
Fair enough.
I agree that these photographs are (mostly) non-controversial. But what is
the absolutely correct way of uploading them so we can use them with minimal
risk of being sued?
--Peter, playing the game