Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/New Zealand

I haven’t forgotten about this, but am busy flat out doing urgent things. My apologies. Ramir 07:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness and tone

Hi Ramir, if you try to be scathing AND tongue-in-cheek about copyright restrictions, this won't be much use. We ain't asking you to do work you don't want to do - but if you want it to be used by those who it is intended for, then you should do it right, shouldn't you? Even if its only an essay-type document. Ingolfson 10:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will be surprised how little the general population knows, or presumes, about copyrights. From my experience, even Year-13 school students are tabulae rasae on copyright laws. The school teachers are not much more informed. University students have to be given brief “guides” just like this one, only to prevent major copyright infringement.

To informed men like you (or, since recently, me,) stating the obvious about copyright laws may seem silly. To others, it is a valuable introduction. Yet I admit: when I got to section 26 I couldn’t help chuckling. Imagine a court proceeding: Iliya Sheikin against The Crown. “Her Majesty the Queen of New Zealand are offended by Iliya Sheikin’s wrongful Copying of Documents produced by, and unreservedly belonging to, Her Majesty…” I would laugh all the way to prison!

I am now stuck on the “purposes of review or critique”: to me, this seems like a defense (both ethical and legal) to most of our copyright issues: if, in the article, we review or critique the very copyrighted work we include in it, this might pass for “fair dealing”. Although, I guess, we shouldn't critique the photographs of any Crown subjects, or SIS might get at us. “From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Hey, look, the guy on this portrait looks like a potato!”

Okay, okay. Now I am serious. Of course I will improve the document, and, again I say, I am sorry to delay this. The purposes of “review and critique” (the scope of “fair dealing”) are a serious issue. Ethics is also a serious issue. But even our very righteous and supremely ethical lawmakers like an occasional good laugh, sarcastic or otherwise. Ramir 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]