On 12/7/05, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 12/7/05, Justin Cormack
<justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-07 at 11:02 -0500, Anthony
DiPierro wrote:
Well, I like "4) Stop the nonsense about
deleting images simply
because they aren't being used in articles." This whole process is
based on a misconception about *why* relying solely on fair use is bad
for Wikipedia (and these images likely fall under "fair dealing" as
well as "fair use" anyway).
You are not being very clear. What do you think the misconception is?
The misconception is that it has something to do with whether or not
it is legal to have these images. The truth is that we don't want to
rely on fair use, because *reusers* of the content can't necessarily
rely on it.
So that means we aren't an encyclopedia about anything then? We're
actually an encyclopedia about what suits commercial usages? Fair play,
we have to look out for commercial users, but what is more important
here, the encyclopedia or the potential reuse of it?
Commercial reuse is only part of the problem with fair use, though
yes, it is one of them. But even if you don't agree about commercial
reuse, what about non-commercial reuse by people subject to non-US
laws?
You ask what is more important, the encyclopedia or the potential
reuse of it. The answer is that both are absolutely essential.
Fortunately, they're not mutually exclusive.
Anthony