Talk:Julia Allison
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
Jan. to Sept. 2007 |
[edit] Julia Allison Photo
what's the reasoning for why my julia allison photo was removed? she's a public figure. She appeared in public at Fashion week outside bryant park on public property. she routinely appears on all the major networks therefore negating her right to privacy by journalistic standards. she works as editor-at-large for star magazine, which routinely publishes photos of people without their permission or approval. what good is wikipedia if it's being censored because someone complains about a fact. BPL standards do not indicate this photo should be removed. if that is the case, then shouldn't julia get permission from the living source every time star magazine wants to publish a photo?
According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s Photographers’ Guide to Privacy, “If the subject of the photograph has no reasonable expectation of privacy, then no invasion of privacy is possible. Photographs taken in public places generally are not actionable. Photos of crimes, arrests and accidents usually are considered newsworthy and immune from privacy claims.”Legal Rights of Photographers
"The unauthorized use of an individual's identity in connection with a "news" or "public interest" story requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the person's identity and the subject of the story. When this connection exists then the individual's property rights in the right of publicity must yield to the First Amendment. An individual, to succeed on a right of publicity claim, must demonstrate that the property right in his/her identity was merely used as a vehicle to attract attention to the news or entertainment message. Furthermore, an individual cannot use the right of publicity to claim a property right in his/her likeness as reflected in photographs that were taken in a public place to illustrate a newsworthy story. Unauthorized biographies are also protected by the First Amendment; this is because the right of publicity cannot be used to stifle undesired discussion and legitimate commentary on the lives of public persons." Right of Publicity
Celebrities, public officials and private citizens involved in newsworthy incidences are all legally defined as public figures. Public figures actually have far fewer rights to privacy than an "ordinary person." Public figures break down into three types:
- Public figure: A person who has achieved fame or notoriety or who has voluntarily become involved in a public controversy. A public figure (or public official) suing for defamation must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice.
- All-purpose public figure: A person who achieves such pervasive fame or notoriety that he or she becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. For example, a person who occupies a position with great persuasive power and influence may become an all-purpose public figure, whether or not the person actively seeks attention.
- Limited-purpose public figure: A person who, having become involved in a particular public issue, has achieved fame or notoriety only in relation to that particular issue.
Christopherpeterson 12:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As Diane Zimmerman, a professor at New York University Law School, puts it, ``it's awkward to claim that your privacy is being infringed by the use of your name or your face when you make your living through the use of your name and your face." Star power Christopherpeterson 13:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"When Erno Nussenzweig, an Orthodox Jew and retired diamond merchant from Union City, N.J., saw his picture last year in the exhibition catalog, he called his lawyer. And then he sued Mr. diCorcia and Pace for exhibiting and publishing the portrait without permission and profiting from it financially. The suit sought an injunction to halt sales and publication of the photograph, as well as $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.
The suit was dismissed last month by a New York State Supreme Court judge who said that the photographer's right to artistic expression trumped the subject's privacy rights. But to many artists, the fact that the case went so far is significant." The Theater of the Street, the Subject of the Photograph By PHILIP GEFTER Christopherpeterson 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"Clearly, plaintiff finds the use of the photograph bearing his likeness deeply and spiritually offensive. The sincerity of his beliefs is not questioned by defendants or this court. While sensitive to plaintiff's distress, it is not redressable in the courts of civil law. In this regard, the courts have uniformly upheld Constitutional 1st Amendment protections, even in the face of a deeply offensive use of someone's likeness. Thus, in Arrington, supra, the Court of Appeals recognized that an African American man's image was being used in a manner that conveyed viewpoints that were offensive to him. It nonetheless found the use of the image protected. In Costlow v. Cusimano, 34 AD2d 196 (4th dept.) the court held that the parents of [*8]children who died by suffocation when they trapped themselves in a refrigerator could not assert a privacy claim to prevent defendant from publishing an article with photographs of the premises and the deceased children, because the article was "newsworthy". These examples illustrate the extent to which the constitutional exceptions to privacy will be upheld, notwithstanding that the speech or art may have unintended devastating consequences on the subject, or may even be repugnant. They are, as the Court of Appeals recognized in Arrington, the price every person must be prepared to pay for in a society in which information and opinion flow freely. 55 NY2d at 442.
The court, therefore, finds that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under New York Civil Rights Laws §§ 50 and 51. Summary judgment is granted on such basis and the motion to strike the affirmative defense is denied. "
Nussenzweig v DiCorcia - NY Supreme Court ruling that unequivocally defines the rights of photographers to shoot in public places. Christopherpeterson 13:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Another administrator has told an IP address to email the Foundation in regards about the photograph. I am authorized to read and respond to those emails, along with other people. I will see if there is a response from her people; if not, we could restore the photos. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
"The dividing line that is used most often by the courts is one of "endorsement." When an artist uses the image of the celebrity to endorse a product or the artist, the artist has usually violated the celebrity's right of publicity, despite free speech interests in the work. For example, in a recent case, clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch used the names and images of some surfers in its catalog without their permission. The surfers sued under the right of publicity, and won on the grounds that Abercrombie & Fitch was essentially using them to endorse and sell its clothing without their permission. The court found Abercrombie's catalog to be more a proposal for a commercial transaction than a work of art. Thus, the surfers' rights of publicity won out over the company's rights of free speech and expression." Legal Q&A for the Arts Christopherpeterson 14:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- After a few moments of thought, I don't know exactly how the picture violates BLP, because BLP states that information that is libellous or damaging should be taken out. I just see with this picture her smiling in a conservative outfit, not doing something in a scantily clad outfit, or slapping someone. IMHO, this is a borderline autobio case. However, I do agree that the picture should stay up for now, because it poses no harm to the person, more importantly it's a free picture of a living person (Wikipedia needs more free images of living persons). If she complains, she can always provide a free alternative photo, as told to do so in her IP page. Yet, I advise to the subject to not make no legal threats against people who improve the article about her (whether it be taking pictures), because she could be blocked for indef. period of time. Miranda 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also am not sure how this photo could possibly violate BLP. It certainly doesn't violate any law, though it's important to keep the distinction between Wikipedia policy and the law in mind--something can be legal and still violate Wikipedia policy (thus I think the conversation thus far has been a bit off-topic). In any event, the picture doesn't really violate anything, as far as I can tell. · jersyko talk 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also am not sure how this photo could possibly violate BLP. It certainly doesn't violate any law, though it's important to keep the distinction between Wikipedia policy and the law in mind--something can be legal and still violate Wikipedia policy (thus I think the conversation thus far has been a bit off-topic). In any event, the picture doesn't really violate anything, as far as I can tell. · jersyko talk 20:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- After a few moments of thought, I don't know exactly how the picture violates BLP, because BLP states that information that is libellous or damaging should be taken out. I just see with this picture her smiling in a conservative outfit, not doing something in a scantily clad outfit, or slapping someone. IMHO, this is a borderline autobio case. However, I do agree that the picture should stay up for now, because it poses no harm to the person, more importantly it's a free picture of a living person (Wikipedia needs more free images of living persons). If she complains, she can always provide a free alternative photo, as told to do so in her IP page. Yet, I advise to the subject to not make no legal threats against people who improve the article about her (whether it be taking pictures), because she could be blocked for indef. period of time. Miranda 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Julia Allison. With regard to Christopher's photograph, I would appreciate if it were removed. I didn't ask for this wikipedia site, and frequently people post such atrocious - and false - things about me on here it actually brings me to tears. I get a ton of crap in my career, and I'm asking you respectfully, as fellow human beings, to understand that I just don't like that photograph. That's all. I don't think it looks like me and given what I understand about wikipedia policy, you're supposed to err on the side of caution. So, if you need a photograph, I've posted two alternatives in Wiki commons - as requested - including the headshot that was used in both my AM New York column and my Time Out New York column, to which I own the copyright.
I will let someone else remove the photo and post the new one - I don't even know how to do it, but it's your call. I'm just saying, I would greatly appreciate it. I'd accord you the same respect. Thank you.
- You forgot to provide a license for the photo. It will probably be deleted if you don't provide a license within a week or so. miranda 11:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how to provide a "license" - ???? - Julia
- Go here and read the instructions. miranda 04:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] STOP VANDALIZING MY FREAKING PAGE, PLEASE FIND SOMETHING MORE CONSTRUCTIVE TO DO
Also, WHY THE HELL IS SOMEONE - ON CHRISTMAS DAY, NO LESS - VANDALIZING MY WIKIPEDIA PAGE with repeatedly removed issues about my COLLEGE COLUMN? Excuse my frustration but this is RIDICULOUS. My former editor Josh Zumbrum has REPEATEDLY refuted the allegations. I'm so goddamn sick of this! - Julia —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaAllison (talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC) PS. And MY GOD, LEARN HOW TO SPELL "PLAGIARIZE," FOR CHRISTSSAKE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaAllison (talk • contribs) 23:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- E-mail info-en@wikimedia.org to discuss the problem. miranda 04:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WP:UNDUE
I have removed the bit about the so-called "plagiarism scandal" for a reason of WP:UNDUE. According to the source cited, her column drew notice from "National Public Radio, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and Fox News Network". Why did it get such attention? "And she had an irresistible story line for them: Sweet-looking gal writes sexy stuff at one of the country’s most stodgy campuses. Even better, the columnist relies on close attention from her chief editor—her mother, Robin Baugher."
That sounds interesting... a sex column at a stodgy campus, helped in editing by her mother. I can understand why it got some "puff-piece" attention, and why not?
But the paragraph that was there focused on what sounds to me like a totally "trumped up" scandal. There was an allegation of plagiarism but we are saying she left the paper after the allegation was proven to be false. Well, gee, it sounds to me like it isn't even a story at all.
If additional reliable sources could be found suggesting that there is more to this than the short mention in the Washington alternative weekly, it seems difficult to include this at all. But in any case, it is certainly wrong to include it as pretty much the sole thing we say about a column that achieved national mentions on other grounds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Jimbo, the Washington City Paper is a real newspaper. That story was written by one of their editors. Let's have more information, not less, on Wikipedia. Winter2004 (talk) 06:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Winter2004
Some people dont celebrate Christmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reason88 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] RfC: Should plagiarism newspaper story be mentioned?
Should plagiarism report be mentioned in the article or is it being given undue weight?
- Comment – At this point NO! The one article cited retracted the statement. The other article was at best supposition. Shoessss | Chat 11:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I think probably not at all, but certainly not as the only thing being mentioned about her college column. My primary reason for removing it (as outlined above in more detail) was WP:UNDUE... a full perspective on her career would not focus solely on this apparently relatively minor detail. If we had a few paragraphs about the column, with multiple sources, then this bit might be sensible to mention. Maybe. Though I think probably not.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo, really? It seems to be the most interesting thing about her college column. What other news would you report about it? It's true there only seems to be one source that mentions her plagiarism, but it's a reputable newspaper article. Can't get much better than that right? And why not have more information on Wikipedia rather than less? Winter2004 (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Couple of issues with the article
Her column drew notice from "National Public Radio, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, and Fox News Network . . . And she had an irresistible story line for them: Sweet-looking gal writes sexy stuff at one of the country’s most stodgy campuses. Even better, the columnist relies on close attention from her chief editor—her mother, Robin Baugher."[1]
- First, I took out because this was a direct quote-copy of the paper. Second, the BLP has had issues with the picture shown on the article right now. Julia uploaded another picture on Commons, and the picture was subsequently deleted after 7 days on Commons because Julia did not provide a license for the photo. I have tried to contact the subject regarding the photo, but the subject did not respond to e-mails. Third, Julia personally publishes her own blog, but for legal reasons, someone on OTRS may need to contact her for confirmation. Finally, I believe that this article should be semi-protected, or better yet protected due to disputes...especially with a BLP. miranda 10:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have contacted her to ask for a photo, so we should have that sorted pretty soon. I tend to agree with you about protection or semi-protection.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Photo
I am reinserting the photo. If the subject wants to upload a picture she needs to provide a free license (i.e. here). I think it is unfair to Christopher that we are not using the image which he released under a free license. I also think it is unfair to users that she is owning her biography, and not allowing users to add information (I am not referring to the libelous claim above), but simple things like (what type of picture is on the page). miranda 22:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] JuliaAllison.com as a reliable source
The article currently has a number of {{verification needed}} tags on the citations of Allison's website. These citations are meant merely to cite Allison's own claims — surely her own website is reliable enough for that? Unless someone can provide a good reason as to why the tags should stay, I will remove them. Skomorokh confer 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- After reviewing WP:SELFPUB, I have removed the relevant templates from the article. скоморохъ ѧ 13:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Please provide a reliable third party source indicating that her blog is really by her." -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t17:28z
- Tried to get in contact with the subject, but she doesn't respond. This may help? miranda 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- "Please provide a reliable third party source indicating that her blog is really by her." -- Jeandré, 2008-02-03t17:28z
[edit] Photo
I changed the picture to the one found on Juliaallison.com for three reasons:
1. It represents Wikipedia in a better light to acknowledge a person's request about their own picture and help them change it upon their inability to do so.
2. The picture seems more relevant to her occupation and is not in anyway promoting or libeling her.
3. It looks more authentic.
It is left to administrators to change this back to the earlier image but it only goes to prove how "not-so-easy" it is for anybody to edit Wikipedia as against popular claims.
I don't see why it is important for us to be fair to Mr. Christopher Peterson and not be so fair to Ms. Julia Allison.
Sharadtriyama 9:28, 02 Feburary 2008 (IST)
- No. It's fair use. Wikipedia doesn't accept fair use over free use, only in rare cases where no free alternative is available. miranda 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- People can easily get the idea that Wikipedia "editors" have a hate-on for good looking, successful women like Julia Allison and Rachel Marsden and demean them as often as possible by adding "controversy" to their entries and posting lousy pictures of them. Is it sexism or envy? Just asking. Herniaboy (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- I assure you that we don't. Provide me with a more appropriate, free image of Allison or poorly-sourced controversy about her in this article and I'll prove it to you! In the meantime, of course, we will assume good faith. скоморохъ 01:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- People can easily get the idea that Wikipedia "editors" have a hate-on for good looking, successful women like Julia Allison and Rachel Marsden and demean them as often as possible by adding "controversy" to their entries and posting lousy pictures of them. Is it sexism or envy? Just asking. Herniaboy (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- i reallyy like that photo. has anyone nominated it for featured photo yet?-Thatsbeautifulforeal (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
Nope. miranda 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyrighted Free Use
I personally contacted Julia Allison and she has sent me three pictures shot from her own camera stating that she is allowing free use of these images. I have uploaded them in Commons under "Copyrighted Free Use". Waiting for it to be deleted with some contrived invention of certain devious minds. Sharadtriyama 17:18, 05 Feburary 2008 (IST)
- "Coprighted Free Use" is oxymoronic. Save yourself fruitless stress and read the image use policy. Regards, скоморохъ 18:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, Sharadtriyama, looks like your wish is granted. The people on Wikipedia who hate successful, attractive women will always find a wiki-reason or wiki-rule for what they do, and there's enough of them, editors and admins, to make sure they get their way. Be careful or they'll ban you. Herniaboy (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyrighted Public Domain Image
Julia Allison has released the image into the public domain from her own account.
Waiting for the next set of intelligent connivances.*yawns*
""Coprighted Free Use" is oxymoronic." - Then why does Wikipedia have such a category? You are moronic.
Sharadtriyama —Preceding comment was added at 06:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not Julia Allison. miranda 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- IMHO the new picture looks more like her than the old based on a google search. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I was referring to the user who posted the image under her account. Yes, it is her physical image. But, that's not her posting under the account. miranda 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO the new picture looks more like her than the old based on a google search. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- The subject has provided photos. I used one from Chris and one from her. I hope that this issue is done. miranda 14:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I am surprised! Did you hit your head or something? Hope you're ok!Sharadtriyama —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.207.30 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Recommend for Deletion
This article appears to be about a non-notable person, and has been largely edited by that selfsame person.
-
-
-
- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.50.2 (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Eh, no? miranda 20:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Kind of true. 216.165.95.5 (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If she were taller and wore less makeup, she would be hotter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.70.209 (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I dunno, she did make national news with that affair, and she's a frequently appearing pundit on national TV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popageorgio (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] DOB
Sorry, I'm confused. This woman has posted her exact date of birth on her blog a couple of months ago[2] but it shouldn't be included here because a year ago she was unhappy with the idea[3]? I feel I'm missing something here. Caomhin (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- There were complaints from the subject to leave it off. According to BLP, we should leave it off. miranda 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Include a couple of strong, reliable, sources when / if you reinsert the dob. I think that would be fine. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- While I don't argue with the [BLP logic I really feel that an individual who publishes the same data elsewhere over a year after the initial request has decided the data is public domain. She mentioned her exact age on her birthday twice[4] this year, on her official blog, which she links to from her official website that is linked from here, I don't see that the request for privacy has any standing on this matter any more. The original request appears to be a reaction to people working it out from information she published in a newspaper. I only stopped by to look at the EL cleanup flag and stumbled across the data so easily I thought it worth including, I'm pretty surprised that data so easily discovered is being protected like this. Meh, I won't reinstate, it just feels excessive to me. Caomhin (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll e-mail Julia about this issue, forward to OTRS and let them take care of it. miranda 01:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- While I don't argue with the [BLP logic I really feel that an individual who publishes the same data elsewhere over a year after the initial request has decided the data is public domain. She mentioned her exact age on her birthday twice[4] this year, on her official blog, which she links to from her official website that is linked from here, I don't see that the request for privacy has any standing on this matter any more. The original request appears to be a reaction to people working it out from information she published in a newspaper. I only stopped by to look at the EL cleanup flag and stumbled across the data so easily I thought it worth including, I'm pretty surprised that data so easily discovered is being protected like this. Meh, I won't reinstate, it just feels excessive to me. Caomhin (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)