User talk:Jonathan Grynspan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi there...not sure if you're Canadian or not (you've edited a couple of Canadian-related articles), but if you are, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board. Bearcat 23:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should point out that you should not have altered the location map for the European Union Image:LocationEuropeanUnion25.png. French Guiana is an integral part of France/the European Union, and therefore needs to be included in any complete map of the EU (unlike dependencies and such, which need not or shouldn't be).

For your personal reference, this applies also to Guadeloupe and Martinique in the Carribean, and Réunion in the Indian Ocean. Needless to say that the Canary Islands (Spain), Madeira and the Azores (Portugal) are also integral to the EU, just as much as say, Sicily is.

zoney ♣ talk 12:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did no such thing. Why are you accusing me of doing so? Jonathan Grynspan 23:12, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That your account changed the file can easily be seen from the File history listed for Image:LocationEuropeanUnion25.png. If you did not make the change yourself, then someone else has been using your account fraudulently and you should look into securing your account and password.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:51, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I know I looked at the image. I wonder if I modified it by accident. I don't see how I could have, though. Disconcerting. Jonathan Grynspan 02:34, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see what I did. I clicked "rev" by accident. I must have assumed it would show me a side-by-side comparison, like the similarly-placed link on article history pages does. Whoops! Jonathan Grynspan 02:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry. I wouldn't have left you a note but for the fact that I wanted to make sure it wasn't changed again (one can't actually watch images for changes, only the pages).

No serious harm done! Enjoy your wiki-ing! zoney ♣ talk 10:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyvio

I found a notice on my page that pointed me to the copyvio discussion, but I don't see any of the Copeland-related items on that page. Further, since the images in question are "full resolution" screen shots (as opposed to artwork or mockups), they certainly fall under the screenshot "waver". Can you indicate exactly what the problem is, and why they are listed? Maury 12:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2006_June_9/Images for the listed images. To the best of my knowledge, the exclusion for screenshots is for ones you take yourself; screenshots by others still need permission and attribution. Jonathan Grynspan 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then if this is really the case (it's news to me!), these images definitely fall under that category. They were originally taken by someone at Apple, and placed in a widely spread series of formats, notably a CD called "Intro to OS 8" or something like that.

I can understand the difference between me taking a photo, and someone else taking a photo. On the other hand, it would seem that this image could be created identically by anyone with the software -- myself included. If I am allowed to make a screensnap of the software myself, it's not entirely clear to me how someone else can claim copywrite abuse.

The reason I felt it fell under fair use in this particular case is that it has a very real historical importance -- this project was one of the most celebrated failures in modern computer history -- I was under the impression that the historical clause was fairly "powerful", if that's the right word.

I am concerned that if this is actually not fair use then it is very worrying. The topic in this case is from a system that no longer exists, and would be very difficult to get screenshots from today (it will not run on any system from the last 10 years or so). I can't help but think that the vast majority of screenshots from legacy systems found here, things for the C64 and such, are also examples of materials provided by others. Is this not the case?

BUT, IANACL, so I would like to know where we go from here? Maury 21:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it's now up the Powers That Be at Wikipedia to decide whether the images are in violation. If they are, an easy fix (but one not to be undertaken until the current process is complete) would be to contact the creator of the original images and ask permission to use them on Wikipedia. There's a protocol for doing that as well, but I'm not familiar offhand with its details. Jonathan Grynspan 07:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but is it possible this is all due to confusion about the original source? Reading the postings you made, it seems you think they were made by the person who created the pages at http://www.cupertino.de. No, HE took them from Apple too. Maury 01:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Then Apple owns the copyright, which is possibly worse for Wikipedia. Apple, after all, has a US $8 billion war chest, give or take. The point is, they're copyrighted images, and so Wikipedia needs to have permission from the creators before using them. Jonathan Grynspan 03:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well what the heck do you think "fair use" is?! The tags were created pretty much specifically to cover the case under discussion here. Unless you can be very specific as to why you think free use does not cover these images, I think I should remove the tags. Maury 14:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires attribution for copyrighted sources, and permission from the copyright holder. Jonathan Grynspan 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All you need to do is cite the source of the images; you yourself said you didn't create them. I don't want to get into a fight with you about it. :) Jonathan Grynspan 03:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)