Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:35, 12 November 2006

Here to gripe about an image I tagged? Please read this first.

Archives

User talk:Chowbok/Archive 1: April 2005 – August 2006 User talk:Chowbok/Archive 2: August 2006 – October 2006

Mediation

Hello, just letting you know that mediation has begun at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation for a case filed here. You were mentioned as someone whose input would be valued. If you would like to participate, please visit the mediation page and sign up. --Aguerriero (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Randal Pinkett.jpg

It does have a fair use rationale ("For fair use on Randal Pinkett - this is a promotional photo taken from Randal Pinkett's promotional website "), not a very good one though I admit. I will expand it, thanks.--Konst.able 05:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well if you intend to go out and try to make a free alternative yourself, let me know. I have no intention of looking for one. The image displayed there is displayed legally and with a fair use rationale. There is absolutely no reason to remove it - it will not improve this encyclopaedia and currently it is not infringing any laws. As it is, creating a so-called "free" (what a stupid term) alternative is "possible" for any living person. But are you going to go out with your camera spying on celebreties? I don't think so.--Konst.able 23:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No point in me bringing up a new dispute about the policy, there already is an existing one. So instead I went ahead and slapped a {{disputedpolicy}} tag on it.--Konst.able 02:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Randall Simon.jpg

I just wasn't sure which tag to use for that image. I saw that other headshots from MLB.com had been used here, so I figured it was okay, but I didn't know how to tag it. As far as I know, there's no suitable replacement that's up-to-date (I uploaded it after he was traded to the Phillies), but if there is, then whoever finds it is welcome to replace it. Drjayphd 06:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ray Comfort.jpg

Okay, thanks. Only one article linked to it, so I instead linked to another image of him. MessengerAtLWU (talk | contribs) 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation

Howdy! Thanks for the statement. Could I ask you to remove the last paragraph? It is a valid proposal, but at this time we are just making statements on a for/against basis. There will be a time later to propose solutions. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use disputed

Please have a look and argue against my point if you don't agree: Image_talk:Rhsteinunnicelandmiss.jpg Tryggvia 08:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A proposal

Have a look here: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Deletion of promotional photos for a proposal.--Konst.able 09:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bleep pic11.jpg

The image is copyrighted, but is intended to be used for free in conjunction with articles about the film. The source of the image and its copyright status is plainly stated on the image page. No appropriate image tag exists, as far as I know. User:Pedant 18:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Don't turn this into a war, the image information plainly states: Image provided by whatthebleep.com to be used to promote the film. This copyright image may be used non-commercially to promote awareness of the film "What the Bleep do We know". It is neither "provided with a fair use rationale" nor is it "a screenshot ", those are false statements. I'm reverting your revert, because it is wikipedia policy to remove demonstrably false information, regardless of it stating "do not remove this tag". User:Pedant 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My Images

Image:ÉricDesjardins.jpg, Image:Rathje.jpg, and Image:RandyRobitaille.jpg have all been replaced to meet free use criteria and a message has been left on their talk pages. If what I have done is not correct, please leave me a message at my talk page. Briememory 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a fair use rational for Image:RyanKesler.jpg. Please tell me if this does not satisfy you. Also, I would like to know why a picture used in a press release is not fair use, as it fits the description used under the image tag used. Briememory

The point is that this image does not violate fair use criteria. It is a promo photo. I implore you not to delete this images, any of the five that I have created, because they do not violate the criteria. Briememory 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Landscape option live

Ok, I went ahead and added the Landscape option to infobox musical artist. To use it, just add "| Landscape=yes". However, looking at the Mike Love article, I think that one might be better fixed by cropping, especially some of the black area on the left, and leaving it as a portrait image. Just a thought. cheers. --Xtifr _tälk 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:RobertKnepper.jpg

Hi. Can you please check my fair use rationale for Image:RobertKnepper.jpg? Thank you. Ladida 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:RobinGibb.jpg

Hi, I see you have queried the use of this image under RFU - I have made an extensive search but have not been able to find any non-copyright images of Gibb that are available. If you know of one please substitute it. Jud 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry, but the image is a publicity shot from International Ice Hocjey Federation and the swedish "hockeyligan". The Fair use tag doesn't even need too be there, the promophoto tag is enough. How should I proceed?--Krm500 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The image was relased in a press kit by the IIHF before a tournament.--Krm500 04:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images

I understand why you're doing it, but please don't post any more messages on my talk page about fair use images I may have uploaded. I uploaded pictures of various Louisiana politicians for a user who isn't very comfortable around computers, and most of them are claimed as fair use. If the rules have been changed so that such photos are not acceptable, so be it, but I dislike having a ton of messages to that effect splashed across my talk page. Sorry if this message sounds angry or flippant; it's not supposed to be. But you don't need to warn me about any more fair use images. Thanks, -- BrianSmithson 06:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rebecca Cummings.jpg

The image fits the Fair Use Criteria. My reply is on the image's discussion page.--HeartThrobs 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:BauhausBand.jpg listed for deletion

Hi. As far as I know (though I may be wrong) promotional photos are still allowed in Wiki. And this image seem to me to be much better than that concert photo. At least, the whole band is clearly visible. Blacklake 11:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Font samples

Are these really PD? The fonts themselves are copyrighted, so the images are not without restriction. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Image: Ryan Ross

This image was provided by their publist package to promote bad. I am not a music writter, nor MTV, so I cannot ask for it directly. That being said, they put it in public domain to promote band. Does this still require a re-host of image of Ryan Ross? Or should I redefine image copyright templeate? Thoughts? Hackajar 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: This comment has been re-submitted. It was trampled over by anthother poster. Hackajar 02:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image fair usage dispute

I have replied here  Glen  04:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sculley j.jpg

I've already looked for a free use replacement for that image before, with no luck. That is why the image is still there and is still in use. I don;t see any problem with the rationale, if you do, then change it. Thanks! — Wackymacs 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:SE3promo (22).jpg

Image:SE3promo (22).jpg is a duplicate, and that is why it is orphaned. I don't know how to remove it. If it is going to be deleted, then that is best. (Bjorn Tipling 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Promontory Point (Chicago)

Thanks, that's a huge lot better! - MPF 17:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance. However, it seems to have been editted by a non-Chicagoan or at least a non-Hyde Parker. You removed numerous extremely important points. I commented on the page if you look at the bottom of the code. Lets meet at the discussion page and discuss my paragraphs of contention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 13:33, November 9, 2006 (UTC-5)

See current discussion page for thoughts. TonyTheTiger 19:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Come work with me. I attempted to reedit. TonyTheTiger 16:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sec. Gen. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer & SACEUR Gen. Jones.jpg

I don't really have the time to travel to Belgium. But if you want to, fine. Otherwise, goodbye to the image. DesertSky85451 17:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that all promotional photos should be deleted?

Hi, is it like you have a goal to get every single publicity photo used in biography articles deleted? I'm asking this because the two images I uploaded and recently tagged by you are photos of artists released specifically for the purpose of illustrating the artist on the media and their usage here perfectly fits the promophoto tag in place. It seems to me that you have a problem with the promophoto tag, and you have to initiate a discussion somewhere about the usage of this tag and possibly work towards getting this tag category deleted. I would also be happy if you could please explain your reasoning to me leading you to think that for Image:SibelTuzunEurovisionPromotion.jpg and Image:SebnemFerahPromotion.jpg, free versions could be created. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 22:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, thanks for making it clear. But the "exception" or "living/dead" issue you are talking about is not mentioned in the promophoto tag itself and I still think that your actual problem should firstly be with that tag, rather than the images using it. You see, there are many people complaining on your talk page saying the images uploaded by them are not easily recreatable and believing the images fit the description in the tag. You could perhaps discuss the problem on that tag's talk page or on Misplaced Pages:Fair use (if you already haven't, of course). Perhaps a rewording of the tag could be agreed upon and prevent interpretations like mine and other complaining guys' from occuring in the future. I still maintain that any publicity photo released by, say, a record company to be used on media for the promotion of one of their artists could also be usable here on Misplaced Pages like they are used everywhere else and this category of images won't pose a restriction on Misplaced Pages's redistributabilty. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 23:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputing image tagging

Hi. I just wanted to let you know I am disputing the tagging of Image:SombatMetanee.jpg and Image:Somluck.jpg. I understand it is nothing personal. I want to do what's right and come to a greater understanding about how images can be used. As I understand it, the {{promophoto}} license is the focus of the replaceable images campaign by concerned Wikipedians. What if the license were changed to {{fairusein}}? Is that a more appropriate license for the use of these two photos? I appreciate your efforts and any help you can offer in helping me to find a correct answer in this dispute. Thanks. -Wisekwai 18:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. I thought I had already explained why the images are fair use in the detailed fair-use rationale for their specific use, and have stated my case again on the article's talk page. -Wisekwai 18:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed image tagging

I am disputing your ridiculous tagging of slfnow.jpg on the basis that that line up of the band no longer exists, the members of that line up of the band live on two different continents, and unless you can be arsed to phone them all up and arrange for the members to be flown to the same country, so that you can take a photograph of them, so that you can upload it to Misplaced Pages, it aint gonna happen!!! Jcuk 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No I will NOT calm down. I notice now you have even tagged slfofficial.jpg which Stiff Little Fingers themselves asked me to upload, as you can clearly see on my user page. If Stiff Little Fingers permission to use their image is not good enough for you, may I ask whose permission is? Jcuk 18:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet champagne

If you don't like the image of Soviet champagne or feel that it violates someone's copyrights, I give you permission to delete it, provided that you produce a free replacement. I want to remark that the image was uploaded under Template:PD-Soviet and was perfectly valid, until the template was suddenly deprecated and turned invalid, for reasons unknown to me. Good luck, Ghirla 19:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Seasick Steve Photo

Hi there

I have now emailed Steve about that picture, all i can do now is wait. There's a chance he won't reply before the deadline, is there any chance that you could extend the deletion deadline, or whether i would be able to re-upload the photo after his reply? Please reply on my talk page, thanks JimHxn 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Q'orianka kilcher Photo

-Hey i got a question for you, why is the Q'orianka Kilcher image consider for deletion??? You have to give me a valid good reason, because there is nothing wrong WITH it!, including with it's copyright status and owner. It is a copyrighted, howerver it is also realesed as a Free image in the public domain status. I have done every thing to provided accurate details to this picture. Every detail is provided? Or you have private reAsons against Mexicans hey vato? --Ramĺrez November 10, 2006 23:45 (UTC)

-So you are making fun of me now ha??. I feel that, I've been discriminated here.. This is just total bullshit, homes. So I get into trouble for trying to fix a picture!. So tell me, what am I going to do know.? I feel like i'm the bad person here. Instead of complaning for no valid reasons, why don't you help me and our fellow wikipedians out???. --RamÍrez November 10, 01:22 (UTC)

A question re: Reasoning

I saw on another talk page you defended your fair use actions thusly:

Can anybody reproduce and edit the photo for any reason, even for profit? If not, then it's not good enough.

That's not how fair use works, and I think you know it. What you're talking about - or trying to achieve through your multiple fair use violation allegations - is creating a fallacious chain of responsibility. For example, if Misplaced Pages fairly uses an image that someone else then downloads and reproduces, edits, and profits from, you seem to think that WIKIPEDIA is the "bad actor." When, in truth, the person who is NOT fairly using the material is pretty clearly in the wrong. Promotional photos are released for a reason - promotion. Fair use is FAIR. I really wish you'd reconsider the agressiveness of your campaign against fair use images. Jenolen 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cease attacking the properly used images

Removing the "replaceable fair use" tag is considered vandalism, and will be treated as such. Please stop doing it. If you disagree with the tag's application to that image, then follow the instructions listed therein. —Chowbok ☠ 03:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cease attacking the properly used images that make Misplaced Pages a better source by providing illustrations to the articles. The image under question is properly tagged. If you disagree take your grievances to the image's talk page. --Irpen 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

After a brief interaction with you I decided to avoid the repetition of it at all cost but I was prompted by this. This borders vandalism. Please cool it off! --Irpen 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. And in case you are new to internet communication, be aware that picking on the spelling and grammar in your opponent's entries, like you did, instead of responding in good faith is considered trolling. Such actions are even more rude when you know that your opponent is a non-native speaker. If you ever knew more than one language, you would have realized the rudeness of your response. --Irpen 10:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Second notice to me in a row

Since when are "promotional" tags (to make the article more illustrated) not acceptable on Misplaced Pages!? Why won't you do that to people who don't list any tags or sources what so ever!? This is the second day in a row, you have sent me a message to my talk page disputing one of the images I uploaded. I thought that it wasn't "fair use" if you used a certain amount of images on one particular article. Go waste your time elsewhere!!! I absoultely agree with the most recent comments about your actions in this particular talk page. TMC1982 10:38 p.m., 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Misunderstanding of Fair Use Related Issues

Something else to think about!

I've also seen you ask people, say, when it comes to a promotional photo of a football coach, "couldn't someone just go to the stadium and take a picture of the coach, then release it here under a Misplaced Pages acceptable license". The answer - NO. The reason has to do with the different rights included in a photograph. There are the photographer's rights, to the photograph in question, and the subject's rights, the right of publicity. What makes the promophoto tag so crucial to being able to illustrate Misplaced Pages entries is that in the case of a promotional photo, BOTH of these rights have been addressed. The work of the photographer is done as "work for hire," with no rights retained, as their resulting image is MEANT to be widely disseminated. The SUBJECT of the photograph has APPROVED their appearance in the image in question, again, as the image is MEANT to be used widely.

On the other hand, if I go to State University this weekend, and take a picture of Head Coach Bob Noneck, I own the rights to the picture, but I do NOT own the rights to Bob Noneck's image. I have to CLEAR it with him, by submitting a legal document. Not a chance in hell he's going to sign it... and isn't that why he posed for all those publicity photos at the beginning of the season anyway? So he doesn't have to deal with garbage like this?

Think of it this way - do you proprose that for sound clips, say, of The Beatles Blackbird, that instead of using a fair use clip from the album, we instead try to record Paul McCartney singing it ourselves? After all, that COULD be done...

COULD being the key word. A lot of things COULD be done, or MIGHT be done. But they don't have to be, because there are rules in place that balance the needs of copyright holders with the needs of Wikipedians. Rules like fair use.

Don't be afraid of it!

Jenolen 09:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you define a Replaceable Image

It seems to me that an photograph by definition captures something at a moment in time e.g. a sports player in a certain game or stage of their career, or an actor appearing in a certain film or attending a particualr premiere. Many arguments on replacement of an image seem to disregard the context of the image entirely.

Jbuzza 17:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting image

How do I delete an image ?
Thanks
Trade2tradewell 10:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Stretch Arm Strong press photo.jpg

You recently tagged the Strech Armstrong photo. Misplaced Pages has been very lenient with press photos (since they are not a copyvio.) I did read your message about photo tagging, however I do not believe that fair use promo pictures should be deleted (especially if none other is available). It is unencylcopedic not to have pictures of bands because they could "possibly" be made.

I will remind you of what makes bands notable. The list is:

• Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country.
• Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.
• Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country, reported in notable and verifiable sources.
• Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
• Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers (although university newspapers are usually fine), personal blogs, etc.)
• Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.
• Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Misplaced Pages standards, including verifiability.
• Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.
• Has won or placed in a major music competition.
• Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)
• Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.
• Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast on a national radio network.

Once any one or combination of the above are meet (allowing Misplaced Pages to host an article for) photos are "out of the picture". I've been to far too many concerts to count and tried far too many times to take photos of bands (with a huge variety of cheap to top-of-the-line cameras). First of all many bands and venues don't allow cameras. Secondly, even in the front you can be thirty or more feet away from a band member. Keyword 'member'. You may be able to take a (at best) picture of *one* member, and at roudy shows much less. The picture 'might' be good for the members page but it unencyclopedic for the band's page. Good pictures of bands are taken by professional photographers who get paid for their work and hence do not release it into the public domain. Professional photographers also are allowed much closer to bands and can even walk on stage or through the crowd barriers and behind scenes. Their is no amount of good luck that can bring you an encyclopedic picture of all, perhaps three to six members (or more) of any band. Period. Few fans are allowed backstage, and remarkably less take pictures for Misplaced Pages.

Promo pictures, although theoritically possible, in most cases are not plausable to recreate. To assume that they are, and delete fair-use images would be a great disservice to Misplaced Pages and the thousands, if not more, people who read its articles.

Dark jedi requiem 05:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You have proven my point exactly. You can take ONE mediocre picture of ONE person. You still cannot however take a picture of a band. Does Bauhaus have a drummer? Two? Who is the member in the middle? Male? Female? Who are the rest? I'm not sure.

I can see the (possibly) bassist's face. The rest are either facing the wrong direction, overblown, or devoid all together. I will repeat myself "devoid all together".

Is their an alternative? Why, yes there is. Avoid copyright paranoia and upload a fair use promo picture. Maybe then can I see their faces, know how many people are in the band, and also what they look like. Otherwise Misplaced Pages will be unnessicarily stuck almost denude of pictures with a few half rate, confusing, unencylopedia pictures sprinkled every once and a long while.

Plus, I never said any of articles are good. Never said we should copy article from Britannnica either. But hey, we do copy Britannica! The Eleventh Edition is in the public domain--or are you going to let Misplaced Pages's hard working editors use that either? Dark jedi requiem 06:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I will admit that a picture of a sport player, or even a single musician, is easy to take. Most (if not all) of the pictures of sport players you tagged could easily be recreated. Some could be done fairly well. But once again, to get every single member of a band, is very nearly impossible. For instance, Slipknot (as much as I don't like them) have nine members, Catch 22 have seven. To get every single member in a shot, facing the camera is impossible. Even a band with four members or a trio can be impossible. Most of the time even getting a picture of the drummer is impossible. That's why we have fair use images of bands. It makes the job of creating a decent article about a band possible. Without it the pages will be just text and links. Readers can't see anything. And even if I find an explosive picture of a chaotic moment of a loud/crowded concert and I can't see the members, it's not encyclopedic. If people are missing, facing the wrong direction, or overblown it's not encyclopedic. The picture shows 1/4 of the band clearly. I do not need to see the "spirit" of the band. They have the fair-use promo template for a reason. We need to see their faces, we need a fair-use image. Dark jedi requiem 06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Answers:

1. Again, the band's page needs a picture of the band. Not a picture of one/most nor a picture of several pasted together. You will end up with a poorly pasted picture of four seemingly unrelated people. You cannot force it. When they are together, they are a band. When you go in Paint and paste four pictures of four people, you will get exactly that. One picture, made of four pictures of four people. If you use a fair-use image you will get "the band". A team, standing together, unified within the shot. A group shot is unrepeatable, not four pasted together. They are a group, not a series of pictures pasted together to look like a group. With the fair use picture you get the real deal.
2. It's not about Stretch Arm Strong. There are *thousands* of fair use images. Thousands. Why don't you email every single one of them, or their managers, and see how far you get. It would be a waste of time (not only of yours or my own) but of all the editors out there that uploaded a fair-use, and used it properly, legally and responsibly.

We need to think of what's best for Misplaced Pages. As soon as something harms it, or WikiMedia project, it should be fixed--or better yet prevented. As soon as Stretch Arm Strong legally threatens Misplaced Pages, than I will happily delete it (assuming the threat is founded). I make sure my edits do not allow that to happen. To prevent that, I upload legally, responsibly. Laws exist to help define what is and is not fair-use. Their is a legal balance in America and as long as Misplaced Pages says within that, it will be fine. I do not, in any way, make Misplaced Pages vunerable to legal action. I work hard to contribute. I make sure all of the pictures I upload, including the one you feel needs to be deleted, are 100% legal. The only reason the photo should be deleted is if it is a copyright violation. Do you honestly think that me uploading a fair use image, explaining in great detail how it can legally be used, citing my source, applying it to the correct page, and watching to make sure it is not misused honestly compremises Misplaced Pages? Dark jedi requiem 07:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's examine the Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages.

The first pillar clear states: "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy"

Seems strange to settle for something attempting to become an encyclopedia to want either no pictures or to be riddled with unaccurate ones. When free use images are available, Misplaced Pages needs to use them. Pictures such as those of animals and locations do not come with a press kit. That is why we have featured pictures, to help ensure that those pages have a good, if not great picture. Pages with that kind of content are much more encylopedic with a featured pictured. Although it does make the page more attractive, you are completely missing the point if that's all you see it as. Fortunatly, bands have a press kit. Fortunatly we can use them.

Pillar two: "Misplaced Pages has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view..."

Although this does not easily apply to pictures, a normal press picture is much more neutral than say a hyper kind that "captures the spirit" of some, most likely, obnoxious band. Seems like an opinion to me.

You guessed it, Pillar three:"Misplaced Pages is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly..."

Pillar three says TEXT ONLY. It appears that text only is to be distributed. No pictures. No videos. No sound clips. It finishes with "Do not submit copyright infringements or works licensed in a way incompatible with the GFDL." Well, since text is the only thing available under the copyleft of GFDL the images are not freely copied. This is why many specify the specific terms of usage (no commericial use/give credit/public domain/released ect.)

Pillar four: "Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil..."

Irrelevant to dispute.

Fifth and final pillar: "Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold..."

It seems that although Misplaced Pages does not have firm rules I have not violated a single one by uploading my picture. Misplaced Pages has a category called "Non-free image copyright tags". We cannot create a completely "freely-redistributable encylopedia". Because in that case we would have to contain absolutly zero fair-use images. In that case we should start by deleting every album picture. Every movie picture. Every movie poster. Every logo. Every modern American stamp. Every magazine cover. Every Newspaper cover. Every sports poster. Every political poster. Every video game screen shot. Every movie screen shot. Every computer program screen shot. Every music video screen shot. Even all the screen shots of Misplaced Pages! We would have to delete even the picture of Osama Bin Laden.

Then, when all the pictures are deleted. We will have a completely, comprehensively, unmistakably, "freely-redistributable encylopedia". Then again, that's why the pillar only said "text". Dark jedi requiem 20:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:TapaniKalliomäki.jpg

Yes but I thought the whole point of the promotional image was that it is currently used TEMPORARILY to illustrate an actor for educational purposes. Then image MUST be removed if a free image becomes available. I really don't think there are many people going throughout Finland or wherever especially taking free shots of famous actors to upload to wikipedia do you? One of the principal characteristics about film and actors is visual image. Special promo photographs were taken especially for this reason to promote an image in the media. It must be marked that if a free image is created - this is highly unlikely then the current photo should be removed. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is true but can't you see how that is very important on articles about actors that they are visually identified. Removable of there image is jeopardizing the quality of the article. These small articles will be written in full later,. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that if a wikipedian has a photograph of an actor they would upload it to wikipedia whether there is a photo already there or not. THe same goes for politicians. Politicans are far more in the public eye even more than actors far more even likely to have a free photo available yet there are thousands of images which are not free and have been uploaded to wikipedia under fair use. Why should this be different for actors??Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How can it be better to have no image? WHile I agree that it wuold be great to have a free image for everything wikipedia is supposed to educate the reader. Education involves not only text but images help to identify and put the article in its context. I beleive that taking away an image which was released into the media for the purpose of such promotion anyway is vandalism to my article.Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I know mate I appreciate your concern about imagery but I really do think you are looking too much into it. This is isn't a war. Peace my friend. People upload images to wikipedia to attempt to make sense of what they reading and help improve our articles and understanding for everybody. Whilst direct copywright is a serious matter, I really think you are putting too much time and effort into something that will only cause annoyance as you said and not really doing anything to help educate people. I feel your efforts would be better suited to improving wikipedia grasping the main purpose of the project - to provide information whether it be through text, maps or photographic images. I'm sure many agree with me as you said. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I'm sure your work would be far more rewarding for yourself and from other wikipedian users if you concentrate on improving wikipedia Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I absolutely agree with you that wikipedia should aim at producing a free, redistributable work to anybody on the planet but also at the same time it needs to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia which means that this may not always be possible. And I can see how in regards to this concept your work can be seen as improvement but I strongly sugggest that to evade this kind of dispute in the future that something is done to the tagging to state the importance of removing an image if a free alternative becomes available Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Landuaer

Hi, I'm confused about Image:Rolf landauer.jpg. It's marked as both a copyrighted promotional image and a cc-licensed image. Which is it? If it's cc-licensed, can you put in the description where specifically it was released under that license? Thanks... —Chowbok ☠ 02:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chowbok, I don't understand. You appear to be saying that promo images and CC are mutually exclusive. Please explain rationale. If you are correct, then which alternative to CC should one switch to? Best, bunix 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's go back a bit. Who owns the copyright on that photo? —Chowbok ☠ 21:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

IBM (I think)...although their website doesn't explicity say that. It simply contains the photo for free download for media releases, promotional use etc etc. bunix 21:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you don't know who owns the copyright, then you can't say that the image is CC-licensed. An image has to be specifically licensed that way by the copyright owner, they can't just say it's for free download, etc. I'm going to mark that as a promotional photo, and also mark it as replaceable. (You'll be seeing the boilerplate text that explains that shortly.) Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, can you please sign your messages on my talk page with ~~~~? That way I can click right on your username and go back to your talk page. —Chowbok ☠ 21:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he's dead, isn't he? I'll just mark it promo for now (not replaceable). —Chowbok ☠ 21:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he is dead as a doornail. I thought it was already marked as promophoto. bunix 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously

No offense, but don't you have anything better to do? TheQuandry 22:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You made it my business when you started adding templates to images I uploaded with a poorly-rationalized claim that the image can be "made free." It looks to me like this is all you do all day long, like some kind of weird personal crusade. It borders on trolling, if you ask me. TheQuandry 22:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)