Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:27:41 -0800
From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
X-Accept-Language: en-us
Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Sender: wikipedia-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on
orwen.epoptic.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_SORBS autolearn=no
version=2.61
Sean Barrett wrote:
I find this entire argument about "fair
use" images annoying. When I
contacted Her Majesty's Stationery Office to inquire about the use of
Crown Copyright material, I was told that Wikipedia could use that
material as long as we used it accurately and not disparagingly -- no
problem -- but that we also had to require that anyone else using it
had to also comply with those restrictions. Opinion was overwhelming
that since we can't pass on those restrictions, even though we have no
problem complying with them ourselves, we can't use the material.
What's the difference?
This type of restriction seems reasonable. I can't see why we can't
just tag the image as "subject to UK Crown Copyright" which links to a
page of ours that describes those restrictions. This is a requirement
rather than a restriction; there is no need to put more into the meaning
of "require" than is already there.
Ec
Fine with me, as long as no one is ever allowed to make the mistake of
thinking that those tagged images are licensed under the GFDL. HMSO
have clearly expressed their opinion that Crown Copyright is NOT
compatible with the GFDL, and may well reiterate that opinion more
forcefully if we choose to ignore their earlier statement.