Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:38, 24 November 2006

Quadell's talk archives

The full archive

Just the most recent

Milton Friedman photo

Hi! Just noticed that you deleted the photo on Milton Friedman. Just curious, what was wrong with it? You can answer here, I'll watch your talk page AdamSmithee 23:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I (think I) got it. In the meantime I found out about Flickr and found this. How can I tell if it is free? If it is, can I crop friedman out of it, and how? Hope you can help with the questions. AdamSmithee 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not free, unfortunately. You can tell because of the little "all rights reserved" sign. But I sent the photographer an e-mail that said the following:

If she agrees, then it's a free image. If not, we'll have to keep searching. Thanks for looking! – Quadell 02:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ironic update: Mr. Friedman died today. As such, the photo now passes all our fair use requirements. I have restored it. – Quadell 21:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

More like a tragic update. May he rest in peace AdamSmithee 00:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed that you uploaded the now-free photo of Milton Friedman, which is great. My question is whether you used the large version of the original photo to crop Friedman? As, otherwise, we could easily obtain a higher quality pic from the higher res photo AdamSmithee 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did use the highest-resolution photo available on Flickr. It is pretty low res, though. I'll e-mail the photographer and ask her if she has a higher res copy. – Quadell 15:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably not :-(. However, this is good enough in the end AdamSmithee 16:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion without reason

I just noticed this deletion. You had your facts wrong on that one, but since you unilaterally went ahead and deleted it ... well ... too bad you didn't open it up for comment. --evrik  21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the case, I endorse this deletion. No serious case for non-replaceability was raised, and Quadell's action was entirely appropriate. --Robth 04:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• it's too bad the rest of us can't look at the page to evaluate the argument. --evrik  15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I suspect you were fully aware of the discussion's contents, given that you were involved throughout it, but I have undeleted the talk page on the off chance that anyone wants to examine the case. --Robth 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yup, i know what was said, but since I'm not an admin i couldn't look at the deleted image. Now, since my last posting I contacted Ray Suarez and asked about the use of the image. I have the emails from the Newshour discussing the use of this image and giving permission for Misplaced Pages to use it. I haven't written about this prior because their seems to be no response to my last posting. I was waiting for a response, but there was none. This is why I found the deletion of the image to be surprising.--evrik  16:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

re grahics for deletion links

Thanks for the links and clear explanation! Very useful and appreciated, and I will be helping out.

Now, a question. On the speedy delete page for graphics, I'm finding some graphics that are in non-replace fair use but are tagged for speedy deletion because their license is Misplaced Pages-only. Yet if they were just straight-out copyrighted and used without permission (for fair use, and if non-replacable) they would not be speedied. This seems odd. What's one to do in a case like this - delete it nonetheless, change the tag, or what? Thanks, Herostratus 19:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question. A Misplaced Pages-only license (or a non-commercial license, for that matter) should be treated exactly the same as a fair use claim. Images should not be speedied if a good "fair use" claim could be made. Instead they should have a {{fairusein}} tag added, and a fair use rationale. However, if the image would obviously not pass our fair-use policy (like a map or a drawing that could be remade), then there's no point in making a fair use claim. In general, a mistagged image shouldn't be deleted (but retagged instead) if it could pass under a different tag. Thanks for helping out! – Quadell 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Munich

Would you be interested in helping out atWikiProject Munich? And you don't have to know anything about Munich. Maybe you could help out on bringing Munich-related articles up to Misplaced Pages Policies and guidlines standards or maybe another area where you could help improve Munich-related articles. (Maybe you could be in chage of Munich-related photos)? Kingjeff 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congrats

Thanks :) Martinp23 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your new powers

Thank you very much! I will proceed with care when using these tools, and hopefully will not disappoint fellow editors and administrators with the decisions I take. Thanks again! -- ReyBrujo 23:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You deleted an image that does not have an alternative.

You recently deleted Image:RezaPahlaviII.jpg with the reason: "Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 5 November 2006." However, the image was properly tagged as publicity photograph and no free image can be found right now. ♠ SG →Talk 05:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not correct. Our fair use policy forbids using a non-free image if a free image could be created that could be used in its place. See criterion #1 and counter-example #8. In this case, it would be possible to create a free image; therefore this non-free image may not be used. Whether a free replacement image exists or not at this time is not relevant. – Quadell 12:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean someone should dig up the Shah's skeleton and take a digital photo of it? That might be difficult, though not impossible. Perhaps it could make for an interesting project for this year's group of Skull and Bones initiates. Badagnani 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The image in question was of Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, who is alive and visible without the assistance of shovels. Please check your facts before making pithy comments of this sort. --Robth 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image:Bogoakathame2.jpg

I'm sorry, it's confusing how you pick and set the right copyright flags/tags. I obtained the written permission of the copyright owner to put the image on wikipedia. I don't know how to set that from the options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojl (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, having permission to use the image on Misplaced Pages isn't enough. Because Misplaced Pages is free and open content, we try to only use images which are also "free", in the sense that anyone can use them for any reason. If the copyright-holder will allow anyone to use the photo for any reason -- including modifying it and using it for commercial purposes -- then we can use it. But if not, then we can't use it, even if we have permission to use it specifically on Misplaced Pages. All the best, – Quadell 18:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Abu Badali

Can you please take a look at the situation with Image talk:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg, Image:SemrowMTUSA02.jpg and User_talk:PageantUpdater#Vanessa_Marie_Semrow. I feel I was tricked by an underhand move and I'm not happy with the behavious of Abu Badali in the slightest. I know that comment borders on a breach of AGF but I'm very unhappy with what he is insinuating. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll look over it. – Quadell 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Rosetta Stone as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive. This week Rosetta Stone was selected to be improved to featured article status. Hope you can help.

AzaBot 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns

You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may wish to post them at User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns. -- Jreferee 22:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to the comments made already. Rebecca is Rebecca. – Quadell 23:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

fair use image RfC

There are a whole bunch of replaceable fair use images uploaded by Badagnani, fair use disputed, the uploader is claiming pretty vociferously that the images are allowable. Partly to placate him, give him his day in court so to speak, and partly to make sure I'm doing the right thing, I opened an RfC on the matter, here: User talk:Herostratus/Image RfC. Herostratus 05:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Q

You appear to be an image copyright guru (or at least an image copyright guru-in-training), so I thought I would ask you my question about Image:IMG 0887.jpg. From User talk:Wknight94:

By the way, not to have copyright paranoia, but does having copyrighted logos on the car pictured in Image:IMG 0887.jpg invalidate its public domain designation added by the photo creator?

Perhaps it is not a problem, as I see there are many images, like Image:Snickers wrapped.jpg, that are billed as free to use. But it appears any image with so much as an eñe of the Misplaced Pages logo gets a {{CopyrightByWikimedia}} template. So, I'm not entirely sure. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question, and one I have an answer for. There are two issues here. One is that logos generally aren't copyrightable; they are trademarked instead, and trademark law is a separate bit of law than copyright law. (Some logos are copyrighted as well, but most aren't.) Anyway, Misplaced Pages seems to treat trademarked images the same as copyrighted images, so let's pretend the logos are copyrighted.

So lets say there is some copyrighted material whose copyright is held by Person X. And let's say you take a photo of a scene that includes this material. You hold the copyright to that photo, not Person X; but since Person X holds the copyright to the material, you can't reproduce your own work without Person X's permission (or without making a fair use claim.) You see, your photo is both an original work (which makes it copyrightable by you), and a derivative work (which is why you can't reproduce it freely). If you were to, say, take a photo of each page of the latest Harry Potter book and try to publish them as a bunch of your own photographs, you would get sued. You would own the copyright to the photos, but that wouldn't matter; you would still be publishing derivative works of copyrighted material.

In the case of the Snickers photo, for instance, however, the author (User:SCEhardt) could presumably defend the use of the copyrighted wrapper as a fair use. That would be SCEhardt making a fair use claim, not Misplaced Pages. The photo itself is public domain, since the author released it as such. Misplaced Pages only needs to be concerned with the copyright status of the photo itself (which is PD), and not the status of the material in the photograph, unless there's reason to suspect that the photographer's fair use claim would fail.

Now, why does the Wikimedia Foundation claim copyright on derivative images of its logo? Well, legally, this is just a good idea on their part, even if it isn't necessarily accurate. If someone could show, in court, that Wikimedia was not aggressively defending their trademark, they could lose their trademark. (That's one way that trademark law differs from copyright law.) Even though you would hold the copyright to an image you create that reused a logo, and even though typefaces (such as enes) are not copyrightable at all, it's still important for their legal position for them to do everything possible to discourage violation of their trademarks.

I hope this rambling answer was helpful. – Quadell 05:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)