User talk:Emerman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Visitors to Wikipedia: leave messages here about something I've edited or a question you have by clicking the + tab at the top of the page, or else email me at my Yahoo username "wikipedian_emerman". I archive this page every few months or when the page gets cluttered, but you can see old discussions at the above archive links.

[edit] Thank you

Thanks very much for your notes and your support on the Trick-or-Treater image. I'm really happy we were able to work through our initial disagreements. It means a lot. —Chowbok ☠ 20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

chowbok, thanks, I was in the middle of archiving and just now got this page ready for new talk. Copied in your reply here from the archive page which you wrote in by accident because this page was still temporarily showing a "Redirect" at that time while I set up this new one, sorry for the timing problems but you and I are quick at replies. Emerman 20:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that you (sorta) changed your mind on that. Oh well. You probably noticed, but I did manage to get a not-bad free image of Tanya Donelly. —Chowbok ☠ 21:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I only changed my mind about agreeing it's perfectly fine for you to do things the way you were doing them, but not that the photo itself on your front page was being treated in a childish way by someone else; I agreed with you that you were being treated oddly about your front page photo. Also, I am glad you replaced the Donelly photo. I never challenged your tag. But it was very difficult to acquire the photo to begin with. I'm avoiding fooling with record labels and management companies in the future because I had a bad experience with one of them. At some point I should look at the photos from fans that I uploaded and see if I should try for a free license for anything I didn't get one for originally. I can work better with fans and photographers than some of the arrogant music biz folks. The Donelly photo you found is better than the grim one we had in there previously. In her case, there are probably a lot of fan photos available. I just didn't have time to put in on this. I don't feel like dealing with articles to do with certain artists any more; I've given enough time on certain articles already. I might do other work on unrelated subjects in the future aside from the three or four subjects I feel like avoiding giving my time to in the future. Emerman 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, why does your photo of Donelly have a tag about needing an admin to research the license? If I ever upload something I tag as CC, what are these confirmation requirements about? What will an admin have to research? And I really very much need to find out about which CC license to suggest for a pro who'd want protection from having their work sold by someone else after being downloaded from Wikipedia. Please help me with info on the six different CC licenses. Emerman 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll discuss the CC stuff below, but the admin requirement is just because I found the image on Flickr. There's a new policy on Wikimedia Commons (not on Wikipedia yet, although we really should adopt it here) where if you upload a CC-licensed photo from Flickr, an admin has to verify that on Flickr, the image is actually licensed the way you said it was. This serves two purposes: #1, making sure the uploader wasn't mistaken, and #2, providing some evidence that the photo was licensed that way on Flickr at one point, in case the photographer changes the license tag (releasing a photo under a CC license is irrevocable). If it's your photo that you upload, there's no need for an admin to confirm the license terms. Hope this helps. —Chowbok ☠ 17:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not talking about a photo by me. Talking about a photo from someone else. Do we upload things to wikipedia or wikipedia commons? I saw your photo of Donelly says it's in Wikipedia Commons? Thanks for all the info. Emerman 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if you're uploading a photo by someone else, they'll take you at your word that it is indeed licensed under the terms you state. The verification thing if only for Flickr. You can upload to either Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons; the advantage of Wikimedia Commons is that then it's available to all the Wikipedia projects, so if French Wikipedia has an article on the same topic they can use the image. The disadvantage is that you have to set up another account. Also, this only applies to free images; fair-use images can only be uploaded to Wikipedia. —Chowbok ☠ 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You say it's irrevocable if you release something CC? So is that the same on GFDL? Do I tell a photographer that if he does this, it cannot later be withdrawn by him and so he can't have it deleted from Wikipedia a year later or change his mind some day? Where did you learn of the irrevocability? Emerman 17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's irrevocable under GFDL as well, and yes, once the photographer has released it he can't change his mind or ask us to take it down (just like you can't ask that text you added to Wikipedia articles be removed later). —Chowbok ☠ 18:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Also see here. —Chowbok ☠ 18:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question from Emerman for anyone visiting who wants to reply

Hi, I'm writing a message here myself (this is my talk page). I am wondering if anyone has an opinion on what is the best type of license to go for on one's own work. CC by SA? I am confused about the difference between CC, CC by, and CC by SA. I looked at the notes but some have obviously picked one over the other for tagging their own photos (i see chowbok's hobo photo was done cc by sa for example) and wonder how people decide. Do I retain the most chance of protecting a photo I shot myself a little and best chance of having the photo credit get passed on by later people copying a photo I took myself if I use CC by SA? Anyone wanting to opine, drop me a line. Anyone know the current policy on watermarks or embedded photo credits? I'd be more likely to post a photo if i could put a credit in since no one wants to police the internet for what happens to photos after it gets in wikipedia and people start downloading it. Emerman 20:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 20:55

I can add my thoughts, for what they're worth. Firstly, there is no "CC" per se; there are six CC licenses, the least restrictive of which is cc-by (they all require attribution). cc-by says that anybody can copy it, sell it, or make derivative works, and all they have to do is credit the original creator. cc-by-sa is almost the same; the only difference is that if somebody makes a derivative work, he/she has to also license that work under the same terms. I can give you a real-life example. I took this photo of a goat. A fellow in South Africa found the photo, reversed it, and ran it though the Photoshop "stained glass" filter or some such, and added it to his homepage. That's perfectly fine according to the license terms I released it under (had I done one of the "nd" licenses, he couldn't have done that without permission). What he can't do now is say "you can't copy or make derivatives of this photo on my homepage"; he has to allow you to go and make it black-and-white and put on T-shirts and sell it, if you want. If it had been simply "cc-by", he could put those restrictions on his derivative work. Does that make sense?
(Replying to Chowbok): I don't understand why other people can sell an image you created yourself. If they tried to sell it, would they be required to show your photo credit on what they sell and would they owe you royalties? What do you mean by "nd" licenses? When dealing with a pro for a photo, I might want to suggest one of the more restrictive Creative Commons licenses if that's what they would prefer. What is the most restrictive free license I can have for wikipedia? I'd like to suggest one of those when dealing with a professional. I'm sure they're not going to want their work to be sold by others but they wouldn't object to having it copied with the photo credit and reposted. Which one is best to use for that? Emerman 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: I found this creative commons page mentioning their licenses. Does wikipedia have a tag to allow CC-by-nc-sa licenses? If not, then why not? Is it because a commercial business couldn't display the image in something of theirs if the NC was put there? (I.e., a tv station couldn't show the image publicly if they took it off wikipedia if it was NC even though they're not selling the photo but they are a commercial enterprise so wikipedia wouldn't want to keep them from showing it via NC designation?) If an image is CC by SA and commercial use allowed, then even if someone made a tshirt and sold it, they would have display the photographer credit, right? Emerman 17:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
People can sell my photos because I did not put them under one of "nc" licenses. If somebody put my goat picture on a mug and sold it, yes, they would have to give me credit; no, they wouldn't have to give me royalties. "nd" means "No Derivatives"; if I'd put that photo under a cc-nd license rather than cc-sa, the South African fellow could still have put the picture of the goat on his homepage, but he couldn't have edited the photo like he did. Wikipedia does not accept any images licensed with one of the CC "nc" licenses. This is because the Wikimedia Foundation want the content here to be able to be sold, either by them or by others. I can see how professional photographers might balk at this, but then we'll just have to not use their photos. —Chowbok ☠ 17:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As for enforcement of credit; yeah, that's always going to be a problem. But it's no different from any other copyright enforcement. You can put regular old-fashioned copyrighted images on your web page and say "nobody copy these without permission", but enforcing that is always going to be a problem. —Chowbok ☠ 22:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not a problem if you embed a photo credit. One of my questions has been whether Wikipedia cares about embedded photo credits these days. Emerman 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
New question when you get time - Chowbok, when you put your photo up and someone used it on their front page after altering it, don't they still have to give you attribution if you had released it as attriubtion only even if the person made a derivative work from it? Do I explain that to the photographer that technically people are supposed to give a photo credit if they use the photo even if they change it if it is CC BY or CC BY SA?

New visitors, I think I have gotten the above answered by both chowbok and a friend who sent me emails about the above, so I think I'm good now on info on this subject. New topics can start below or send me an email at my Yahoo "wikipedian_emerman" email account. Emerman 03:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/m/e/User_talk%7EEmerman_6825.html"