Image talk:Tianasquare.jpg/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What the hell? The Wiki interface sucks. It’s way too easy to accidentally revert an image without realizing what you’re doing—it's not intuitively obvious the (rev) link takes an action. And if someone replies with “B-b-b-but there’s a legend!” I’ll sock them for not understanding the meaning of intuitive. This shit is so typical of Wikipedia.

---

sorry - accidently reverted. Should be back to normal - agreed: reverting is too easy! Jgritz

Agreed to fair use???

What exactly does this mean?

Chuck Zohler (AP NY photo library) has agreed to the fair use.

You can't agree to fair use. Fair use requires you to admit copying a copyrighted material first, then claim fair use as a defense. You can't agree to fair use at all. Cburnett 07:08, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair use is a legal term exclusively used within the US, and is used in two different set of laws. Fair use as a license agreement, primarily known as Fair dealing in most of the world is a way using material in sometime else. Quoting a text is allowed under fair use.... Fair use is a term used in trademark law is used as a defence. Colloqually when people say fair use, they refer to the copyright license agreement, not the trademark defence. - UnlimitedAccess 09:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jeff Widener (the photographer) gave me direct permission, but said since its sold to AP we needed their permission, AP refused to allow GFDL... Chuck agreed to allow us to use it on Wikipedia, but ONLY wikipedia, provided that credit was given to Jeff Widener (the photographer) and to the AP, but does allow Fair Use/Wikipedia Only use.  ALKIVAR™ 21:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You still cannot call it fair use. Fair use is a defense against allged copyright infringement. It is not a license. It makes no sense.

Try Template:Copyrighted or Template:Permission but not fair use. Cburnett 21:38, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

If you'd bother to LOOK AT THE PICTURE, you'd see I did that.  ALKIVAR™ 22:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You made your change to the image *after* you posted here on its talk page. Cburnett 22:26, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yes but still before your response:

Your Response: (cur) (last)  16:38, 3 Apr 2005 Cburnett (→Agreed to fair use???)
      My Edit: (cur) (last)  16:19, 3 Apr 2005 Alkivar

Sorry, dad, am I not allowed to step away from the computer? Cburnett 23:08, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

When you bitch at me to change a template, dont you think you should check to see if i've done so first before responding? That would seem to be common sense.  ALKIVAR™ 23:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Horray for petty bickering!!!! Let's settle this: you screwed up on "agreeing" to fair use and I screwed up for walking away from my computer. We done now? Cburnett 00:54, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Up for deletion?

Can anyone tell me why this image is up for deletion despite the original photographer allowing the image to be shown on Wikipedia?

The tag explains this for you:

This image is copyrighted, and used with permission. The terms of the permission do not include third party use. It is not licensed under the GFDL.

? Cburnett 07:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why revert to the fuzzy image?

The difference between the current and previous revisions of this image are like night and day. The previous one (why was it reverted???) is full of noise; the version replaced is 5,840 pixels smaller and much much much cleaner. Loosing 6,000 pixels is not much of a reason to replace quality with size. Is there a copyright problem with the previous image? I'm going to revert back to the previous version and hope someone can list why (if they do) they revert it again. Triddle 00:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I answered my own question when trying to revert this myself. Looks like I fell into the same trap everyone else did: attempt to revert and only make stuff worse, then no mater what you click on, it doesn't do what you expect. I even looked for docs on how to revert an image, couldn't find them. I finally reuploaded the good picture; what a nightmare. Triddle 00:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)