User talk:Jenolen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No thanks...
[edit] Re : Image:BoyGeorge.jpg
Done. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestions for ways to build consensus for REFU?
eom Daniel Case 05:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A Discussion User:Angr Removed From His Talk Page as "Trolling"; Judge For Yourself
For me, a nonfree image is nonreplaceable if it's copyrighted 2- or 3-dimensional art, a still from a TV show or movie, or a photograph showing a unique historical event. A nonfree image is not easily replaceable (but still not completely nonreplaceable!) if it's of a no longer existing structure (bridge, building, etc.), an extinct or endangered animal or plant species, of a deceased person, or a living person who is in prison, under house arrest, or known to be reclusive. (The fact that we didn't have a free image of Anna Nicole Smith until after her death shows that a person's death does not automatically make all copyrighted images of them nonreplaceable.) A nonfree image is replaceable if it's of an existing structure, an animal or plant species that's not endangered in the part of the world where it's endemic, or a living person who regularly appears in public. The distinction you wanted to make between "A-list" stars and "B-list" stars where nonfree images of the "A-list" stars are considered "not generally replaceable" is not only too vague to be helpful (who decides which star is on which list?) but is totally belied by the fact that we have free images of a lot of the biggest names in show business (Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Britney Spears, Madonna, Cher, Barbra Streisand). And three Commons members have recently applied for press credentials from Wikinews, which will make it even easier for them to get access to stars so they can photograph them. —Angr 06:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- What's intesting about your six primary celebrity examples? In the top photo in all of them, the photo I assume to be the best photo we have -- not a single one of them is actually looking at the camera. Classic amateurism... but very, very "libre." I'm not sure what point this proves, other than "copyright-free or GFDL photos of major celebrities are likely to be sucky." Jenolen speak it! 07:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Crediting copyright-holder vs. sourcing website
First of all, don't worry about me assuming that you're "picking a fight". I am open to having thoughtful conversations about these issues, believe it or not, but it is easy to understand why you might not have that impression.
As for the Twiggy example, I'm not all that interested in that particular image. I'll try to explain my two larger concerns, which aren't at all specific. One is that we've gotten quite lazy about verifying copyright holder information, and we get email not infrequently about how we've gotten it wrong. I don't mean to overstate the case; I'm not talking about a deluge here by any means. But reguarly enough. In this case, while it seems a safe assumption that the photography they're publishing is owned by the subject (or, more likely, the subject's agents), we don't know that. They may have licensed it for republication and sale. One thing we need to ask ourselves, and I mean anybody who is doing any thinking about this, is where our comfort level lies in making these assumptions. The other concern is, in some ways, a little more esoteric. Let's say that we get mail saying "Hey! Why is my photograph on your website? Please take it down!" and I, or someone else, goes and looks at it and says, "Oh, this seems to fail WP:FUC", and it gets deleted. If the image gets uploaded again by some random user, that's signficantly easier to explain, and thereby head off a takedown notice, than if one of our admins undeletes it. In short, I'm uncomfortable with what seems to me an apparant blitheness about copyright concerns when tallying votes. Now, obviously, if I thought that there was any urgent concern about this image, I'd have done more about it than just tag it and chat about it. As I said above, I think the assumption that the copyright is owned by the subject's agents is probably right.
Incidentally, it seems that Library and Archives Canada has a lot of old Montreal Star material in its collection, which they allow unrestricted use of. Unfortunately, they don't have a digital image of this photograph available. I'm considering buying a print to scan anyway. Think it is worth it sight unseen? I'm not sure I want to make a habit of doing this; it could get expensive. Jkelly 01:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sarcasm reply
I'm sorry if it wasn't meant to be sarcastic but I'm sure you can see that it sounded a bit flippant. In future I'll think more deeply about rewording rather than deleting. Sorry again. Algebra man 18:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "I bid you adieu"
WP:IBYA or WP:ADIEU. C.m.jones 09:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for fighting!
Just wanted to post a note here letting you know that I, for one, appreciate your ongoing fight against the anti-free-use zealots who have been running rampant over Wikipedia. While its nice to have optimists out there who believe that all images can one day be set free from their captivity, common sense is a more appropriate approach and it should be the goal of this encyclopedia to place providing the highest quality and most relevant content above imaginary disputes over easily identifiable free use images. So, thank you, thank you, thank you for keeping up the fight! Jmdustin 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- The fight is a loosing battle here, however. Because the edict has come from the top. 70.146.32.22 02:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright vs licensing
We're getting badly tangled up in terminology here. Something that is licensed under the GFDL is still copyrighted. You, for instance, enjoy copyright protection on all your pro-Wikipedia-use-of-promotional-media arguments, you just agree to license them under the GFDL when you publish them here. When I take a blurry, unflattering photograph of some celebrity, and upload it to Commons, I retain copyright on that blurry, unflattering photograph, but choose to dual-license it GFDL/CC-BY-SA. Some people do just donate their work into the public domain, meaning that they give up any copyright protection altogether, but there's nothing either encouraging or discouraging that. There is a little cartoon that encourages people to not license solely under the GFDL, but one can if one wants. This matters because it is important that we don't infringe on copyright regardless of the license; content creators who choose to license their work under something that is compatible with our mission still need to be properly credited as part of the GFDL or CC-BY, for example. Jkelly 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Jenolen, I took the liberty to reply your message here. --Abu badali (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wheelchair image
The image is on Commons; please list it for deletion there. Also note that without a policy change that will allow the International Symbol of Access to be used, it will not be deleted. --NE2 21:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] thanks!!
hey thanks for finding a solution for reverting the anastacia discography... i was the one who originally cleaned it up and made all the tables i was a little mad when that user changed it to how he wanted but i wasnt sure if he was right thanks for your help Rsf7589 00:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Historical photographs
In the case of both the Hindenburg disaster and with Elian Gonzales, along with the Tiananmen Square protest and some other topics, the photography is very much part of the public discourse; it is what Wikipedia calls "iconic". An encyclopedic treatment of these subjects could conceivably, and I might go so far as to say "ideally should", contain commentary on the imagery and reaction to it. There's nothing particularly iconic about Image:20061016 02.jpg that I am aware of; there's apparantly no more reason to use this image than some other image of the incident, we don't know of any third parties who have commented on this photograph; in short, we're using it without comment to illustrate an article about the event instead of as a cultural artifact, which is precisely the original role of photograph, and there is therefore nothing obviously transformative in our use. Jkelly 18:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP POINT on WP:FAIR
I hardly think guideline pages are an appropriate place for WP:POINT joke edits.[1] --tjstrf talk 08:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Both it and your initial post in the thread where you "proposed" it are worded like satire, and I'm reasonably certain the reason it didn't gather any opposition is because everyone else who opposed it thought the same thing. See my comments on the talk page if you haven't seen them already. --tjstrf talk 16:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Restore...
Done. utcursch | talk 10:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for commenting
Thank you for your comments at the village pump on the use of the international wheelchair symbol. I appreciate it. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
