Talk:Al Gore/Archive 2

message: Chris, Who said the pic had to be recent? Your pic has him looking away from the camera, and has abnormal colored lighting, like what we should see Adolf Hitler portrayed in a Nazi propaganda poster. He doesn't look much aged. What's wrong with the original pic? --Jiang 05:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense, there was no need to protect this page again.  Anthony DiPierro 08:00, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an edit war between you and User:ChrisDJackson, this is the general way of resolving it. Evil saltine 08:02, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit war was over.  Your protection of the page was completely inappropriate. Anthony DiPierro 08:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would have continued to be reverted back and forth, it wasn't over. Evil saltine 05:35, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No it wouldn't have.  I removed my sentence in contribution and was going to sleep. Anthony DiPierro 05:37, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I had reason to believe that the edit war would continue. Evil saltine 05:45, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I guess I can protect it, since I'm not directly involved in the argument on this page. Er.. I guess you can argue on here then. Evil saltine 08:02, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em. Anthony DiPierro 07:33, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I wrote it. Anthony DiPierro 08:01, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Where? - Mark 08:04, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here. Anthony DiPierro 08:05, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By submitting content here you release it under the terms of the GFDL. --snoyes 08:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And by adding copyrighted images to it the GFDL is violated. Anthony DiPierro 08:08, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: I still fail to see the copyright violation. Are you saying that your text violates its own copyright by existing? Because once you submitted your edits, you released it under the GFDL and that is kind of permanent. A minor breach of the GFDL by a separate segment of the article does not revoke the licence for the entire article, or the entire encyclopedia. - Mark 08:11, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: By adding copyrighted images without releasing those images under the GFDL, you are violating the copyright on my text.  Therefore I removed my text.  Read section 9 of the GFDL.  Any breach of the license on my text automatically terminates the rights to use my text under the license.  If you add my text back again you will be in willful infringement of my copyright.  Rephrase the damn sentence, or remove all non-public domain or GFDLed images.  Anthony DiPierro 08:15, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From Wikipedia:Copyrights: "However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here." And from section 9 of the GFDL: "However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." As far as I can understand it, this refers to your text. You are not the original author of the article as a whole, just the sentence in question. If you wish to take this legal matter further, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation. - Mark 08:27, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not permitted to add restrictions to the GFDL.  And by adding images and creating an unlawful derivitive, you are *not* in full compliance.  If you add my text back you will be in willful infringement of my copyright. Tell your excuse to the judge.  Anthony DiPierro 08:30, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I shall. May I ask which jurisdiction you intend to file this motion? Of course, you must know that no damages are recoverable under the common law unless you take reasonable steps to mitigate your 'loss'. In other words, if you do not attempt to contact the Wikimedia Foundation (the company responsible for hosting this copyright violation) then any legal actions will not be successful. - Mark 08:42, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Punitive damages are available for willful infringement. Anthony DiPierro 08:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Infringement by who? Those restoring your copyrighted text? Or the Wikimedia Foundation? - Mark 08:46, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who infringes my copyright willfully. Anthony DiPierro 08:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

text: It's fine. :) Evil saltine 08:28, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: does this article really need TEN images? Can we narrow it down to 4? Kingturtle 02:55, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the images are copyright infringement anyway. Anthony DiPierro 05:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Unless evidence is shown that the images were released from copyright or licensed under GNUFDL, then I will delete the non-fair use images at Wikipedia talk:Possible copyright infringements/Al Gore images in 24 hours. Images are automatically copyright unless they are released from copyright. --Jiang 22:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As promised, that has been done. --Jiang 07:38, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Dammit, I want the beard picture in there right this moment! Acornlord 08:43, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: Moved here from Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements: (Texture 19:30, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: ChrisDJackson seems to be the only person opposing deletion. Anthony DiPierro 00:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio discussion