Talk:Fetpedia
(This thing's been very badly done) |
(Comment) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Anyway, the site is not being maintained. There is clearly no provision to copy over new articles or corrections from here, and nearly all the users seem to be spambots writing nonsense user pages.--[[User:Leafman|Leafman]] ([[User talk:Leafman|talk]]) 07:40, 16 March 2013 (GMT) | Anyway, the site is not being maintained. There is clearly no provision to copy over new articles or corrections from here, and nearly all the users seem to be spambots writing nonsense user pages.--[[User:Leafman|Leafman]] ([[User talk:Leafman|talk]]) 07:40, 16 March 2013 (GMT) | ||
| + | : Yes, Balzac approved of and indeed was involved in making the copy. Uploaders have no copyright as such, though I'd have thought they have some moral right to recvognition for their work in finding suitable photos. Where they have uploaded their own work under say Template:GFDL-user [http://www.londonfetishscene.com/wipi/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:GFDL-user&limit=500] that should be recognised. You could argue that they are not, because the link is to a non-existent person e.g. User:Xxxxx there rather than User:Xxxxx here, but you'd have a tough job asserting your rights. The same applies to edits to articles.--[[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] ([[User talk:Ropeuser|talk]]) 18:26, 16 March 2013 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 14:26, 16 March 2013
This thing's been very badly done. I assume Balzac approved of the copy as he's a bureaucrat there, and that under GFDL and CC-BY they can copy over the material just giving the minimal acknowledgement they have given. But failing to copy the talk pages means they lose lots of important stuff. And the photos are clearly not copyright compliant. Firstly, if they are "Permission to use on Wipipedia", they should not have been copied without permission. Secondly, they have not preserved the name of the uploader; they all seem to have been uploaded by "Maintenance script".
Anyway, the site is not being maintained. There is clearly no provision to copy over new articles or corrections from here, and nearly all the users seem to be spambots writing nonsense user pages.--Leafman (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2013 (GMT)
- Yes, Balzac approved of and indeed was involved in making the copy. Uploaders have no copyright as such, though I'd have thought they have some moral right to recvognition for their work in finding suitable photos. Where they have uploaded their own work under say Template:GFDL-user [1] that should be recognised. You could argue that they are not, because the link is to a non-existent person e.g. User:Xxxxx there rather than User:Xxxxx here, but you'd have a tough job asserting your rights. The same applies to edits to articles.--Ropeuser (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2013 (GMT)
