[WikiEN-l] overzealous image deletion?

Tue Dec 5 01:48:31 UTC 2006

On 5 Dec 2006, at 01:18, Steve Bennett wrote:

> On 12/5/06, Mark Wagner <carnildo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not what's being enforced here.  If someone is a noted recluse
>> and the only available picture is a fair-use one, then the image
>> passes FUC #1.  On the other hand, if someone makes weekly  
>> appearances
>> in front of tens of thousands of people, there's no reason to use a
>> non-free image of him.
>
> If we don't *have* a free image of someone, why should we not use a
> non-free image? This is the bit I don't get. Yes, by all means,
> someone should go out and photograph Mr John C Popular Esquire. But
> until they've done that, why deprive ourselves of the fair use image?
>
> If it's just about motivating someone to go and do it, isn't that a
> separate problem?

Thats no different from saying if we dont have an article on Mr John
C Popular Esquire why dont we just copy the one from the Encyclopaedia
Brittanica until we get around to writing one. Yes it makes us look  
better
but it doesnt belong to us. This copyright theft is "justified" as  
"fair use"
because we allegedly dont steal too much from one place at a time, eg we
only have pictures of all the Pokemon charcaters, so each one is fair  
use.

And if we had copied all the articles from EB and hadnt got sued, so you
think we would be where we are today? People improve things where  
there are
gaps, and stolen images are not gaps.

Justinc