User talk:KoshVorlon

== Archive List ===

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 -- the learning curve

[edit] Thanks

Not sure if you want messages here...but thanks for the heads-up, I'll watchlist it. Thanks! PeterSymonds (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've finally seen it. I don't know what I was looking at last time but I feel it was a wrongful deletion on my part. The image is graffiti on a wall, and therefore it's too original for it to be a copyright violation. The colour's different, there's sufficient original lighting, and it's at an angle. It's a bit like using an image of a work of art. If it's not over 100 years old, then I can't use a photo of it; but if it's my own original photo, taken with original lighting and distance, it would be my own work. If you strongly disagree with my decision, I'd take it to WP:IFD, but if you do, please notify me and paste this comment on the page. Hope this helps. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Say no to fair use"

Have you ever considered that Fair Use is actually a freer system than GFDL? Fair use has a history under US law. Copyleft, as far as I can tell, does not. What happens if someone says "I change my mind?" I don't know - it hasn't been tested in court. More importantly, of course, we have thousands of images in Wikipedia which are tagged as GFDL, and ownership is claimed by a person known only by their username. If you were a company interested in reusing Wikipedia content (ie, one with real assets that made it worth suing), would you really trust an image tagged by a person known only by a username?

It's complicated, but I don't think that fair use is necessarily less free than GFDL. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Laughing man - Chicago Sticker Graffiti .jpg

I undid your tagging of this as a speedy as I can't see evidence that the image is a copyvio. --John (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)