User talk:Zarafan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DaniellaRush5.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DaniellaRush5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You've added this photo to an article, the photo will be deleted unless you add some license info...if you look at the material in the message above you'll see that images without the proper copyright status will be deleted. If the photo is from a web site run by her or a production company it's probably protected and cannot be used here. In that case it shouldn't be added to the article. Let me know if you have any questions. Rx StrangeLove 05:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your communication; as you probably know I'm new to all this and want to make my contributions valid, well-received, and enduring. I understand the nature of your complaints but I'm at a loss to resolve them. The "official sight" is not actually run by Daniella Rush herself and the photo I uploaded does not originate at that site, but rather has appeared on many websites and user groups. I know that the appeal "50,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong" doesn't work in a copyright dispute--and hope that phrase itself isn't copyrighted--but I don't know what, short of inventing a time machine and traveling back to the days when she was active to convince her to let me take a picture of her myself, would constitute acceptable usage of any image under the criteria Wikipedia maintains. I can only say that the photo was intended for publicity purposes and has been used as such all over the internet, so I am baffled as to why Wikipedia should reject the standards of "prior fair use" or why Wikipedia's use of this image should create legal problems that so far have eluded every other web site which has used this image. If there's a means for me to re-classify this image along the lines I have discussed here, please let me know: I really think that a publicity shot of an actress contributes something significant, and entertaining, to an article devoted to her career. Thanks again, Zarafan.
-
- Using other people's images on Wikipedia is more complicated than typing in your own text. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Porn_stars#Photographs:_Free_use_vs._Fair_Use for how to do it for porn star articles.... if it's a clear promotional image, you may be interested in the {{promophoto}} tag. However, Luke Ford has kindly released all his photos for our use with attribution, and has a page full of Daniella Rush images here, http://www.lukeisback.com/images/photos/000504.htm . If you take (or edit) one of those, mark it Creative Commons 2.5 license, and cite lukeisback.com and User:Tabercil/Luke Ford permission. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] :Image:Daniella Rush 5.jpg listed for deletion
[edit] Image Kepernyuo8(3).gif
This image was deleted partially because it is unnecessary, partially because it is used only by permission. There is already an appropriate image on the depicted person's page, it does not need another one. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the decision on this image, but not with the ruling on Daniella_Rush_5.jpg, which is necessary for the illustration of the article by that name, and which is a legitimate publicity photo!
