Image talk:StephenJones(BJU).jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This photo is from Jones's itinerary, intended to be published. If this photo fails fair use, it's hard to imagine what would make the cut.--John Foxe 17:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't fail fair use. It is indisputably fair use. The question is whether it can be reasonably replaced by a free image. I think it can. —Chowbok ☠ 17:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- How? --John Foxe 17:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Somebody could write him or BJU and ask if they'll release this photo or another under GFDL or similar. Or somebody could just take a picture of him at a speech or a graduation ceremony. —Chowbok ☠ 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- You mean release a GFDL picture to Wikipedia, the place where anyone can replace the whole content of his article with the word "racist"? Not to mention where the photo might end up with no restrictions. If I were his lawyer, I'd tell him to ignore the request.
- If a photographer took a picture of Jones, you'd then have to get the photographer's permission, plus there's no guarantee that you could legally post that image without Jones's permission anyway.--John Foxe 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, you don't release a GFDL "to" anybody; you release a photo under the GFDL, period, and then anybody can use it, be it Wikipedia, MoveOn, Ford Motor Company, or the Ku Klux Klan. And yes, that means it might end up somewhere you wouldn't want it. Sorry that makes you unhappy, but it's one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia. As to your other points: yes, the photographer would have to release it under the GFDL (or an acceptable Creative Commons license). Happens all the time. No, we wouldn't need Jones's permission to publish it. People don't get to veto whether pictures of them taken in public places get published, especially public figures, despite what you might have heard. —Chowbok ☠ 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the first question, I think we're in agreement that in terms of legal prudence, releasing a photo of oneself under GFDL provides little advantage to the grantee and many potential problems. As to the second matter, whether Stephen Jones is a public person in the New York Times v. Sullivan sense is debatable, especially when Hollywood stars have sued over the issue and books ready to be released have been scrapped for less.--John Foxe 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I release all my photos under the Creative Commons Attribute-ShareAlike license, which is identical for our purposes to the GFDL, so obviously I don't agree that it provides little advantage–not that I take pictures for "advantage" anyway. And even if Jones is not a public person, which I doubt, he still doesn't have the right to stop photos taken of himself in public to be posted on the web. We'll just have to disagree there. —Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- As it happens, I've released a few of my own photos (of definitely limited artistic value)under the GFDL as well. None of them includes an identifiable person. Posting unauthorized pictures of non-public persons on the web is a fuzzy legal issue, as I'm sure you're aware. Last year my church pulled some of its Vacation Bible School pictures from its website because of possible privacy violations. They continued to post pictures in which the children were unidentifiable. --John Foxe 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I release all my photos under the Creative Commons Attribute-ShareAlike license, which is identical for our purposes to the GFDL, so obviously I don't agree that it provides little advantage–not that I take pictures for "advantage" anyway. And even if Jones is not a public person, which I doubt, he still doesn't have the right to stop photos taken of himself in public to be posted on the web. We'll just have to disagree there. —Chowbok ☠ 21:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the first question, I think we're in agreement that in terms of legal prudence, releasing a photo of oneself under GFDL provides little advantage to the grantee and many potential problems. As to the second matter, whether Stephen Jones is a public person in the New York Times v. Sullivan sense is debatable, especially when Hollywood stars have sued over the issue and books ready to be released have been scrapped for less.--John Foxe 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, you don't release a GFDL "to" anybody; you release a photo under the GFDL, period, and then anybody can use it, be it Wikipedia, MoveOn, Ford Motor Company, or the Ku Klux Klan. And yes, that means it might end up somewhere you wouldn't want it. Sorry that makes you unhappy, but it's one of the founding pillars of Wikipedia. As to your other points: yes, the photographer would have to release it under the GFDL (or an acceptable Creative Commons license). Happens all the time. No, we wouldn't need Jones's permission to publish it. People don't get to veto whether pictures of them taken in public places get published, especially public figures, despite what you might have heard. —Chowbok ☠ 20:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Somebody could write him or BJU and ask if they'll release this photo or another under GFDL or similar. Or somebody could just take a picture of him at a speech or a graduation ceremony. —Chowbok ☠ 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- How? --John Foxe 17:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
