| Magazines Category‑class | |||||||||
|
OK, this is bad. I agree with this site: having so many covers on Wikipedia will not cut fair use, especially as some of them are not lower resolution. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu has began to delete every single Time cover on every page. I reported him to
Vandalism in Progress and
Chick Beown deleted my
Vandalism in Progress
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism stating:
( Dmcdevit deleted the Vandalism in Progress complaint)
I am a law student, and have done some research on fair use.
Ta bu shi da yu and
Chick Beown are is using a
slippery slope argument (the remote potential of lawsuits) with no legal justification to support their his deletions.
In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation the US appelete court ruled that low resolution photos are permissable on a website under fair use.
Using this case, on Talk:Time_(magazine) the wikiusers stopped an arugment by agreeing to shrink the resolution size of the photos.
This can easily done by Ta bu shi da yu with the photos which Ta bu shi da yu complains about.
But instead, Ta bu shi da yu began to delete every single photo of Time on wikipedia. When I asked him to stop he belegerently responded: "Go ahead punk...My deleting will continue until a Foundation member or Jimbo tells me otherwise."
Chick Beown is incorrect and does not seem to realize the breath of Ta bu shi da yu deletions: "Ta bu shi da yu is not removing all Time covers; he is removing the ones that do not specifically discuss the appearance of the subject on the cover."
This is clearly not true.
For example, Ta bu shi da yu deleted:
These are only the first two photos which I checked, everyone of the photos which Ta bu shi da yu may very well "specifically discuss the appearance of the subject on the cover." Travb 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Note
I changed this entry name to RFC to "content" Because I just learned this:
There needs to be one more person first Travb 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.time.com/time/reprints/covers/
Time's' policy is clear for use of their covers on Web pages: ask.
I question the use of the Ann Coulter Time cover on the article about her and its use again on one of her books.
The file history does not indicate that permission was sought and granted. I have stated my reservation on the Coulter talk page. It is up to others to decide whether it is okay not to ask Time despite their stated policy. I suspect Time might grant permission but we won't know until they are asked. skywriter 03:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#First copyright renewal of TIME issues are for 1934. Carcharoth 02:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
| Magazines Category‑class | |||||||||
|
OK, this is bad. I agree with this site: having so many covers on Wikipedia will not cut fair use, especially as some of them are not lower resolution. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu has began to delete every single Time cover on every page. I reported him to
Vandalism in Progress and
Chick Beown deleted my
Vandalism in Progress
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism stating:
( Dmcdevit deleted the Vandalism in Progress complaint)
I am a law student, and have done some research on fair use.
Ta bu shi da yu and
Chick Beown are is using a
slippery slope argument (the remote potential of lawsuits) with no legal justification to support their his deletions.
In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation the US appelete court ruled that low resolution photos are permissable on a website under fair use.
Using this case, on Talk:Time_(magazine) the wikiusers stopped an arugment by agreeing to shrink the resolution size of the photos.
This can easily done by Ta bu shi da yu with the photos which Ta bu shi da yu complains about.
But instead, Ta bu shi da yu began to delete every single photo of Time on wikipedia. When I asked him to stop he belegerently responded: "Go ahead punk...My deleting will continue until a Foundation member or Jimbo tells me otherwise."
Chick Beown is incorrect and does not seem to realize the breath of Ta bu shi da yu deletions: "Ta bu shi da yu is not removing all Time covers; he is removing the ones that do not specifically discuss the appearance of the subject on the cover."
This is clearly not true.
For example, Ta bu shi da yu deleted:
These are only the first two photos which I checked, everyone of the photos which Ta bu shi da yu may very well "specifically discuss the appearance of the subject on the cover." Travb 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Note
I changed this entry name to RFC to "content" Because I just learned this:
There needs to be one more person first Travb 01:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
http://www.time.com/time/reprints/covers/
Time's' policy is clear for use of their covers on Web pages: ask.
I question the use of the Ann Coulter Time cover on the article about her and its use again on one of her books.
The file history does not indicate that permission was sought and granted. I have stated my reservation on the Coulter talk page. It is up to others to decide whether it is okay not to ask Time despite their stated policy. I suspect Time might grant permission but we won't know until they are asked. skywriter 03:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#First copyright renewal of TIME issues are for 1934. Carcharoth 02:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)