Talk:Floriade (Canberra)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Floriade (Canberra) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Canberra. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Floriade themes
It has proven suprisingly difficult to determine the proper name for previous themes and there are a number of years where I can't find any info. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- List is now up to date through 2005. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New Images
I think the new images are good, I'm just a little concerned that they make the page load slowly using dial-up. I'm not suggetsing that we get rid of them, but wonder if there is a way that we can make the page load more quickly. One idea that occurred to me was to include one of them one of them on the made page and then create Floriade, Canberra/Images to sit behind it. There could be a line in bold which says something line More Floriade images located here or something. I haven't seen this sort of thing done in other articles and don't know if it would be frowned upon, but thought I would float it and see what others thought. Don't get me wrong. I'm not having a go at the pictures. I think this is an article that lends itself to pictures, but it'd be nice if we could reduce the loading time. -- Adz 12:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've resized them all down quite a bit for now. I've been on ADSL for a while so they load okay for me but I remember what dialup was like! Garglebutt / (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- I personally hate these gallerys of images. This is an encyclopedia article, not a photography website. There is nothing wrong with having a limited number of images to illustrate the text and a link to the commons for further media files. There is a reason that there is generaly a maximum number of images you see going through on most Featured Articles, and it is not because they couldn't get any more images. It is all about moderation. --Martyman-(talk) 09:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Also I am not at all thrilled with the lead image in the article being a copyrighted image of questionable legal standing. We do not have "fair use" in Australia. We have access to other images is it really required? --Martyman-(talk) 09:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I took a photo of a poster while I was at Floriade so I don't consider the image copyrighted. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well if that is your claim, then you should tag it as GFDL or another free license. The legalities of copyright for publicly displayed artwork escape me, but someone else might be able to help. I think there are at least two levels of laws invovled, I think you are legally allowed to take photos of publicly displayed artwork, but I am not sure if you then own the copyright to the photo to do with as you please. Then the artist always retains moral rights to the artwork in question no matter what... --Martyman-(talk) 01:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- I took a photo of a poster while I was at Floriade so I don't consider the image copyrighted. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Also I am not at all thrilled with the lead image in the article being a copyrighted image of questionable legal standing. We do not have "fair use" in Australia. We have access to other images is it really required? --Martyman-(talk) 09:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- I personally hate these gallerys of images. This is an encyclopedia article, not a photography website. There is nothing wrong with having a limited number of images to illustrate the text and a link to the commons for further media files. There is a reason that there is generaly a maximum number of images you see going through on most Featured Articles, and it is not because they couldn't get any more images. It is all about moderation. --Martyman-(talk) 09:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
The poster as a 2D work of art is copyurighted, you can't take a picture and reproduce it as your own work- for this reason it can't be licenced under the GFDL.--nixie 02:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- My understanding is that there is no issue if there is no bad faith regarding how it is used, and I'm not representing it as my own work. Would it be any different if the photo included a picture of my wife standing beside it for instance? The tag nixie put on the image seems to cover any copyright issues. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fair use is way overused on wikipedia for things that aren't particularly fair. (and in coutries that have no fair use terms). Also note the fine print from the fiar use rational: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of event posters to illustrate the event in question, in the absence of free photographs which could serve such a purpose,... --Martyman-(talk) 03:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- There are no photos that adequately capture the theme and the poster is what people recognise from seeing it displayed in public places. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Fair use is way overused on wikipedia for things that aren't particularly fair. (and in coutries that have no fair use terms). Also note the fine print from the fiar use rational: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of event posters to illustrate the event in question, in the absence of free photographs which could serve such a purpose,... --Martyman-(talk) 03:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] copyright and fair use
- Not copyright again :-) The Australian Copyright Act currently contains a number of exceptions to copyright known as the ‘fair dealing’ exceptions. For more info see a May 2005 Attorney General's discussion paper available here. At present the fair dealing exceptions are (according to AGs) based on a concept of fairness but The fair dealing exceptions are confined to four purposes:
• research or study (ss 40 and 103C), • criticism or review (ss 41 and 103A), • reporting of news (ss 42 and 103B), and • professional advice given by a legal practitioner, patent attorney or trade marks attorney (s 43(2)). I think these are similar enough for our purposes to the US fair use. It is the third point mainly we would be using. The fair dealing can involve reporting news through the following mediums: • a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical provided that a sufficient acknowledgment of the work is made (s 42(1)(a)), • in a cinematograph film (s 42(1)(b)), • by means of a communication (s 42(1)(b))
There are issues with 2D images. This copyright council fact sheet includes the necessity for permission to of photograph art work. The fact sheet is written for creators and states:
Infringement: My work has appeared on a website without my permission. Does this infringe copyright? Generally, yes. As the owner of copyright you are the only person who has the right to communicate your work to the public using any form of technology, including the Internet. If no exceptions apply to allow the use ( eg criticism and review), you may want to contact the person responsible for the website and ask them to remove your work or pay a fee for the use. Your moral rights (eg attribution) may also be relevant.
Fair use is an important exemption for us and we then need to abide by the wikipedia's guideline in applying fair use. I believe it applies here.--A Y Arktos 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Re-vamp
Right. I'm going to make this article look as good as Floriade it's self. If you want to help: go ahead. Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 00:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Better but not as good as I want. It doesn't help that the best sourse says:
| “ | No part of this publiaction may be reproduced, stored or transmittediny any form without written permission from the Australain Capital Tourisim | ” |
- That Damn booklet! Dfrg.msc Image:DFRG. MSC.jpg 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
