Talk:Ugo Fano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Photo removal

Somebody named User: SCEhardt said he took down the photo of Fano I had put up with permission from Univ. of Chicago. I tried to follow the directions to make it show again but it did not work right. Anybody want to fix - please do!

There is a photo here: [1] with contacts :Media Contact: Steve Koppes, (773) 702-8366, s-koppes@uchicago.edu - who GAVE permission!!!!!!! (as shown in the change I put in) "(You may fearlessly repost the photo. The U. of Chicago News Office .Best Wishes, Steve Koppes. Tel: 773-702-8366)"

also at: [2] and here [3]

but I am not sure you can copy the last two. If I got permission and found a way to put the photo back in some idiot would probably take it down again Carrionluggage 20:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It is easy enough to download the photo again, and upload to wikipedia again. But what is the nature of the permission that you got? Wikipedia requires one of several unrestricted licenses, or a release to the public domain. What did Steve Koppes send you or tell you? Permission to use it is not sufficient. Dicklyon 07:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much, Dicklyon. You have not said how I can find out what are "one of several unrestricted licenses," and if you will provide a link to that I will contact Koppes again. I found this on the web: [4] so I can ask if U of Chicago agrees to that for the photo, or if they will put it in the public domain, of if "x||y||z" holds, where those are among the "unrestricted licenses" you mention. So please tell me where to find those (a link). Sorry, but cruising through Wikipedia "help" pages is sort of like trying to thread a labyrinth, and you probably know who lives (or used to - but who really knows?) at the middle of the Labyrinth. Carrionluggage 17:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. I know, it's still too much, but you'll have to wade through some of it. Dicklyon 17:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks but I am not a lawyer and can't make much out of all that. So I give up (again). Seems to me that if various admins take it on themselves to delete images where a contact is provided, they might instead (already knowing the rules, I'd hazard), contact the contact - in this case Steve Koppes. But you can see that here you are into an almost infinite regress. How do you know that Koppes is authorized? You may decide to find his superior, to be sure he is empowered to give various permissions, and then the supervisor of that supervisor, and finally, the Board of Trustees of the University of Chicago. Even then you are in trouble, because, due to a typographical error, the by-laws state that no Trustee shall vote on any matter of concern to the University. That stipulation comes right after the definition of "Honorary Trustee" and the author(s) surely intended to say "no Honorary Trustee shall vote on any matter of concern to the University" but that is not how it reads. The upshot seems to be that no one can say whether that photo is in the public domain, etc. Now I can see that if somebody wanted to put in an image from the Bettman Archive, or Playboy, or National Geographic or the DIA then Wikipedia might be concerned about lawsuits or even prosecution. But a picture of a physicist hardly known to the general public - if there were a lawsuit how big do you think the damages might be? The photo has just about zero monetary value. And zero chance of violation of rules on classified documents and photos. This fuss over permissions can turn into silliness distilled to the purest attar possible. The Wikipedia "doth protest too much, methinks." Carrionluggage 20:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I emailed Steve to ask whether he can provide the required license. I don't think we have go meta on the problem. Dicklyon 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Steve says no on the required licenses that I gave him several options on: "We're generally quite lenient about how our photos are used on a case-by-case basis, but I'm not comfortable with making a photo available without any restrictions. When this first came up I believe I granted Wikipedia permission to use the photo along with the profile. That's as far as the news office is willing to go at this point. I understand this means that you will not be posting the photo." Dicklyon 20:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Agreed more or less on meta-avoidance in this case, but remember all the identity thieves and phishing scams around. If Wikipedia is going to be near paranoid on authorizations, it may have to deal with such matters. For higher-value material, the danger is greater. Carrionluggage 00:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Late Bulletin: U of Chicago does not want to grant public domain use. I am contacting a former student of Fano's who has a lot of photos posted to see if any can be released. Carrionluggage 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to a surviving family member indicated by the former student, but there is no response. Looks like Wikipedia has painted itself into a corner by being unwilling to post photos released to it, but not to all. Carrionluggage 05:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed a common frustrating problem with wikipedia, but the goals require it. It's not necessarily the end of the line, however, just a current impasse. Some day someone may give an appropriate license or release an image to the public domain. In the mean time, you should take a look at the fair use tags and see if we can use one that way (seems likely). Dicklyon 05:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Got a photo

OK, I got us a photo we can use. Please respect the attribution request of the license terms. Dicklyon 19:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Great!!! Sorry I was sluggish to look up "fair use." Dunno what you are asking the viewers to respect either, but I of course agree in any case. I am going to unwatch Prof. Fano at this point. Carrionluggage 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a "fair use" image.

If you click am image, it takes you to the page where the license terms are described. This one has an attribution-sharealike license, which means you can do whatever you like with it, as long as you provide a copy of the license terms and attribute the photo as the copyright holder requests. In other words, don't remove where it says © Chris Greene, since he's the copyright holder and that's the license terms he offered. Dicklyon 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

'