User talk:Artysmokes

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Artysmokes. Click here to start a new topic.

Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.

Hi, I'm Arty Smokes, a guy with lots of crappy cameras and a flickr account. My intention here is to add details and photos of cameras in my collection.

Olympus Wide

The text in the article you created on the "Olympus Wide" is the same as that in this page of At the foot of the latter page, we read "Copyright 2010 OLYMPUS CORPORATION All Rights Reserved". This message is in a generically named GIF file that I'd guess is simply updated year after year. It seems likely that the page was identical, or near identical, one year ago, aside from the content of a GIF differing by two digits.

"All rights reserved" of course means the reservation of all rights, and this is in blatant contradiction to release under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 or of course to release into the public domain. Thus it would appear that your use of this text violated Olympus's copyright. However, I may have misunderstood something. I'd be grateful for an explanation. -- Hoary 21:38, 27 January 2010 (EST)

I don't actually recall adding that text, but I can't find any earlier revisions, so I guess I must have done. Certainly I usually reword anything found on other sites, and provide references and/or links to the source material. I think in the case of info such as that, the reposting would qualify as "fair use" anyway, since it was effectively a press release and links were provided, but I'm not gonna take issue with you removing it. Cheers, Arty. 28 January 2010 03:56 (UK)

No, it's not "fair use". Neither the purpose of what's recycled and nor the addition of a link to it makes the recycling "fair" See this at Wikipedia. Or for more detail, see this:

"In one instance, a court ruled that this factor" -- i.e. "the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work" -- "weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers."

Note that trailers themselves make no money; the fact that Olympus's pages about its historical cameras also themselves make no money is beside the point. ¶ Oh well, I guess this was just a fluke edit. Happy editing elsewhere in Camerapedia! -- Hoary 02:32, 30 January 2010 (EST)