User talk:Jeffness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Stop Deleting Random Images!

Seems to me that you're out to delete any photo that has a logo on it. Please stop, Ive noticed that many of the images you've tagged for deletion contribute to the article it was posted for. Deleting shit loads of images that mean something to the article is senseless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.225.102 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Irony. --Jeff 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether they contribute or not - the fact of the matter is the photographs that were tagged for deletion are improperly licensed. Derivative works of copyrighted material are not eligible for release by the photographer under any license nor they eligible for release into public domain.--Jeff 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, instead of being a hard ass and deleting them, re-tag them or re-license them or whatever you have to do. And from what you've said, you'll then have to tag for deletion any photo of say for example, a building with the logo of a soda they sell because the photographer doesn't have the rights to that logo. So if I'm right, any photo of an object, building, etc. with a copyrighted logo would have to be deleted.

For a few of the images that were nice enough, I did exactly that. Image:Newspritecan.JPG and Image:Pepsi_Fire_limited_edition.jpg. I nominated images that were of poor amateurish quality for deletion, cause if we're going to use an image under fair-use, we might as well use a good fair-use image.. atleast that's how I look at it, know what I mean?
Regarding the rest of your post, you're interpretation is dead-on. Technically, by copyright law, the copyright holder has exclusive rights to authorize the usage of and derivatives of the copyrighted work they hold. That includes whenever it is present in, even as a background object, a photo. The existence of the copyrighted item makes the resulting image ineligible for the creator (photographer, painter, etc) to license it themselves. To resolve the technical copyright issue, the offending logo could be digitally removed or something.
In regards to Wikipedia, I'm of the opinion that such images should be properly licensed and used under fair-use rationale if appropriate, or deleted. It's of paramount importance for the encyclopedia and everyone who uses the content we create that we get the license right, even if it is sometimes stupid and daft.--Jeff 02:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi anon. In the course of my discussions elsewhere, someone pointed me to the concept of De_minimis. This seems to say that any incidental inclusion of copyrighted items in a work does not disqualify an original work from having its' own copyright. Pretty cool. I did not know that. I like it!--Jeff 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Challenge

I repeat my challenge from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Sprite: I defy you to show me any case law ruling that photographers cannot copyright photographs of trademarked products. If you cannot demonstrate the legal basis for this theory of yours, it will be obvious that you are simply tagging these images to be a troublemaker, rather than out of a desire to improve Wikipedia. I look forward to your reply, complete with citations. —Chowbok ☠ 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with trademark; It's a copyright issue. Please see the Wikipedia template for photographs of statues.--Jeff 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
That only applies to copyrighted 3-dimensional works of art. Again, I defy you to cite me a court case that says you can't copyright a photo of a commercial product. If you can't, then you have no business tagging those photos. —Chowbok ☠ 00:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no. You're confusing the text of the template for being a direct quote from the United States Code. Did you actually read that section of USC? I'm guessing not. Section 106 is titled "§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works". Do yourself a favor and read it before you further make a fool of yourself.--Jeff 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to be such a dickhead, so I'm sorry. Really. You'll understand that the reason I react this way has to do with our long running history and I can't help it. I found an interesting page that answers alot of questions regarding copyright and derivative works. [1].
I will maintain that I am extremely frustrated by your behavior though. I swear to god I thought you would actually be pleased with what I've learned about copyright and how it should be applied on Wikipedia.--Jeff 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Especially since my corrections are actually fixing licensing issues while your "corrections" are simply deleting things from Wikipedia that were perfectly vetted under fair-use rationale, properly tagged, and well justified under US law and case law. Despite all of the legal groundings, your objection came under morale grounds. Screw the case law that supports fair-use rights.--Jeff 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel you owe me an apology, or is it too difficult for you to admit you are wrong?--Jeff 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An apology? For what? I asked for case law. You pointed me to the statute and an article which says in the second paragraph that the courts haven't really settled this stuff. The idea that a photograph of a commercial product is considered a derivative work and not original is just your opinion, based on your amateur reading of the relevant laws. This is nothing to base policy on. —Chowbok ☠ 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You're a fool.--Jeff 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
First off, I don't need to quote case law. Your request is irrational and out of spite. Any plain reading of the law would convey an understanding that derivatives of copyrighted works are not allowed.
To bolster myself even further than I already have and more than i should need to, please see the following:
ETS-HOKIN v SKYY SPIRITS, INC. US 9th circuit court.. This case is about a person photographing the SKYY Vodka bottles. In the case, the justice's of the 9th circuit court ruled that the bottle was not a copyrighted object because it did not meet the requirements. It lacked artistic qualities, being just a bottle with a text script label. The inference by the opinion is that, if the bottle had an artistic rendering worthy of copyright, they would have ruled differently. Also please read the dissenting opinion by D.W. Nelson. Dissenting opinions are just as important as the result of any case.
Hal Davis v. Jack Mendenhall Unknown juridiction In 1985, muralist Jack Mendenhall painted a photograph originally taken by advertising photographer Hal Davis. A federal court awarded the Davis $11,000 in damages, $4,000 in legal fees, and granted him the painting's copyright. In essence, Davis was entitled to compensation for all future use of Mendenhall's painting. -- This shows that derivatives are indeed owned by the original copyright holder and have been given monetary damages for misusing a copyrighted work.
Please quit wasting my time. I'm not a law clerk and I have better things to do than help educate you on copyright law and answer your asinine requests for justification.--Jeff 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert on User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Clown read and understood the message, and he deleted it, which is his right. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think he did understand it. He reinstated the {{GFDL-self}} template on the image that I corrected earlier, when clearly the image cannot be licensed under the GFDL.--Jeff 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough; take that up with him. The edit summary of your revert, though, indicated a misunderstanding of talk page guidelines; he does have the right to remove messages from his talk page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
What the fuck. Care to elaborate how I should interpret this, Jim, as I am seriously having trouble interpreting it under WP:AGF. How can I take it up with him when he deletes me from his talk page?--Jeff 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey there Jeff. Thanks for the earlier message. I just wanted to clarify that there isn't a dispute here, feel free to remove the GFDL tag if you'd like, but I would prefer that it be made explicitly clear that I took this photograph to avoid any "sourcing" issues in the future. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok done. Did you want to take care of your other photos yourself? Thanks for the help Jim.--Jeff 04:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to if you'd like. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dood

If you are going to fair use police then expect to be fair use policed back. As it stands your image does not meet the FUC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I invite you to join our discussion about this topic Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Publicity_photos.2C_redux. Please read that in total, it will bring you up to speed. Thanks "dood".--Jeff 16:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coke Picture

Dissapointing that the pictures can't stay. I noticed that there wasn't apicture of the old "Cherry Coke" design of the can. Me being the Cherry Coke fan that I am, I saved an old can from the "good old days". Too bad they're not going to work. DannyQuack 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Wikipedia image copyrights

Wrote something back in reply to your response (re: photograph of musician at concert). Cheers, AppleJuggler 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [2]

Why did you delete this Counterexample? I am concerned because I do watch fair use rules in ruWiki.--Vaya 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The page's history makes it quite clear. It was a reversion of an incorrect addition. not a removal.--Jeff 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea thats what I like to know why was it incorrect?--Vaya 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The addition was a "wikipedia situation where a fair use image shouldn't be used", not a "Counterexample showing what fair-use is not", as the section is.--Jeff 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I get it thanks.--Vaya 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/e/f/User_talk%7EJeffness_8020.html"