This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shannernanner (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 26 October 2006 (→New infobox image: discussion (edit conflict)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:18, 26 October 2006 by Shannernanner (talk | contribs) (→New infobox image: discussion (edit conflict))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography B‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
|
 Archives |
Image Limits
What a bunch of bullshit. There are all of these limits on fair use, so if you're trying to find pictures of a movie star, you are pretty much limited to screenshots. But only 1 is allowed. So instead you get nothing more than a page of text that no one will read. I for one think it's a lot more fun to read an article with visuals. Do you really think it would hurt anyone to use more than one screenshot? Would that be offensive? Would it disrupt the delicate balance of this fine website? 70.132.31.235 05:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I hear you, but unfortunately Misplaced Pages has really been cracking down on images. Even promotional shots are not necessarily allowed, and magazine images were declared taboo a few months back. This is the first I'd heard of the screenshot limits and I'd like the editor who removed the images to please provide a citation for this rule. Unfortunately when you have Jimbo Wales (owner of Misplaced Pages) making statements that he'd rather see an article with no images than run the risk of violating a copyright, there's not much you can do. 23skidoo 05:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- You can use more than one screenshot, as long as you make and upload it yourself. It's only the fair use screenshots that can only be used once per page. If you go to the image upload page, click on "Licensing," and scroll down to "fair use," it says "Screenshots (one per article)." Sorry, I know it sucks. -Shannernanner 06:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "one per article" restriction appears to conflict with the current {Film-screenshot} fair use tag which states: "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film.....on the English-language Misplaced Pages,.....qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." I also noted that many of the Featured articles on films and TV shows have multiple fair use screenshots in them. Alan Smithee 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, I don't know the answer. The upload page seems fairly unambiguous about it, but you may want to ask someone to clarify. -Shannernanner 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is one of the reasons why using images has become so frustrating on Misplaced Pages -- Misplaced Pages itself can't even make up its mind. And some of its wording is open to wide interpretation. For example technically speaking a film screenshot is only to be used "to illustrate a film and its contents". In my opinion, "contents" includes the people who appear on screen. 23skidoo 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's frustrating. In my opinion too, "contents" includes the people on screen and judging by the number of editors who add screenshots to articles about people, a good number obviously interpret it that way too. The message on the upload page clearly says one per page, and yet Misplaced Pages:Fair use policy says, "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". I think that sentence suggests that if one will NOT serve the purpose adequately, multiple images are ok. Asking someone to clarify is a great idea, but who exactly would we ask? There are a number of people working hard to rid Misplaced Pages of potential copyright violations, and there are vast differences in what each of them will allow or not allow. As far as I can see, in the policy page I've linked to, and in the discussion pages for the various fair use templates, fair use and copyright pages, there seems to be no agreement that images should be limited to one. Many editors, including some very experienced ones, talk about a small number (but still more than one) of images as ok. The only place I can see where it straight out says one only, is on the upload page. I wonder if this is the anomaly then? Maybe it's a carry over from a previous policy, or perhaps was part of an intended policy that was never made official. I don't know, but I'd love a nice, clear policy to follow so that it's not left up to the individual interpretations of any number of editors.Rossrs 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- A dispute has erupted between me and another editor at Kate Winslet over this very issue. He says actors aren't contents so he removed the article's only image, which happened to be a screenshot. According to the Oxford dictionary, a content is "what is contained in something". That in my opinion includes actors. Sometimes I think a lot of bad feelings would be saved if Misplaced Pages simply decided to give in to Copyright Paranoia and ban images altogether. Probably save a lot of bandwidth in the process. 23skidoo 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think eventually that will happen. Rossrs 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- A dispute has erupted between me and another editor at Kate Winslet over this very issue. He says actors aren't contents so he removed the article's only image, which happened to be a screenshot. According to the Oxford dictionary, a content is "what is contained in something". That in my opinion includes actors. Sometimes I think a lot of bad feelings would be saved if Misplaced Pages simply decided to give in to Copyright Paranoia and ban images altogether. Probably save a lot of bandwidth in the process. 23skidoo 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's frustrating. In my opinion too, "contents" includes the people on screen and judging by the number of editors who add screenshots to articles about people, a good number obviously interpret it that way too. The message on the upload page clearly says one per page, and yet Misplaced Pages:Fair use policy says, "Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately". I think that sentence suggests that if one will NOT serve the purpose adequately, multiple images are ok. Asking someone to clarify is a great idea, but who exactly would we ask? There are a number of people working hard to rid Misplaced Pages of potential copyright violations, and there are vast differences in what each of them will allow or not allow. As far as I can see, in the policy page I've linked to, and in the discussion pages for the various fair use templates, fair use and copyright pages, there seems to be no agreement that images should be limited to one. Many editors, including some very experienced ones, talk about a small number (but still more than one) of images as ok. The only place I can see where it straight out says one only, is on the upload page. I wonder if this is the anomaly then? Maybe it's a carry over from a previous policy, or perhaps was part of an intended policy that was never made official. I don't know, but I'd love a nice, clear policy to follow so that it's not left up to the individual interpretations of any number of editors.Rossrs 13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is one of the reasons why using images has become so frustrating on Misplaced Pages -- Misplaced Pages itself can't even make up its mind. And some of its wording is open to wide interpretation. For example technically speaking a film screenshot is only to be used "to illustrate a film and its contents". In my opinion, "contents" includes the people who appear on screen. 23skidoo 12:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I took this discussion over to Misplaced Pages:Fair_use and asked for clarification of "one per article" vs. "limited number" regarding screenshots. I couldn't get anyone to defend "one per article" as the official absolute limit in Misplaced Pages (see Article limits for screenshot images). There is also an earlier discussion about screenshots (see Too many images in an article.) For now the official policy is Misplaced Pages:Fair_use#Policy criteria #3 The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately. So it seems that mutiple screenshots can be used in an article, but each image meet all the criteria especially #8: The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose. Alan Smithee 19:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's just a mistake not to have more than one image. Most people skimming through wikipedia and going to a page on Audrey Hepburn aren't really interested in every detail of her life, they just want the general summary and mostly they want to see what she looked like. I like reading articles that have visuals for each section that in effect summarize what the section is about. In this case, pictures of Hepburn in iconic movie scenes and at different stages of her life. This article should be an exception because it is about one of those most photographed people in history. 70.231.227.12 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it should not be "an exception". The rules should allow for more images to be used if the subject of the article warrants it, and Hepburn is one of many that warrants it. This is the shaky ground part of the discussion - everyone has their own favourite who they believe to warrant special consideration. Not that I disagree with you, but making exceptions on the basis of POV is dangerous. Better to have a uniform policy. Rossrs 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Just because there is no official limit doesn't mean editors can add as many images as they want here or elsewhere. For example, adding a screenshot from every film that Audrey Hepburn was in would clearly be over the line of acceptable fair use. Exactly where the line should be drawn is the subject of intense debate all over Misplaced Pages right now. Anyone adding a fair use screenshot or other image needs to clearly state the reasons the image should be in the article (Fair Use Policy pt. #8) and had better be prepared to provide a solid and convincing defense if challenged. If people can't excercise restraint in the use of fair use images, then it will eventually come down to a limit of one fair use image per article or no images at all. Alan Smithee 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed the place up a bit, and I'll continue to do so until it is a featured article. Still need to source everything. I prefer actually doing things instead of debating about doing things. 67.161.26.190 11:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Just because there is no official limit doesn't mean editors can add as many images as they want here or elsewhere. For example, adding a screenshot from every film that Audrey Hepburn was in would clearly be over the line of acceptable fair use. Exactly where the line should be drawn is the subject of intense debate all over Misplaced Pages right now. Anyone adding a fair use screenshot or other image needs to clearly state the reasons the image should be in the article (Fair Use Policy pt. #8) and had better be prepared to provide a solid and convincing defense if challenged. If people can't excercise restraint in the use of fair use images, then it will eventually come down to a limit of one fair use image per article or no images at all. Alan Smithee 00:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it should not be "an exception". The rules should allow for more images to be used if the subject of the article warrants it, and Hepburn is one of many that warrants it. This is the shaky ground part of the discussion - everyone has their own favourite who they believe to warrant special consideration. Not that I disagree with you, but making exceptions on the basis of POV is dangerous. Better to have a uniform policy. Rossrs 00:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's just a mistake not to have more than one image. Most people skimming through wikipedia and going to a page on Audrey Hepburn aren't really interested in every detail of her life, they just want the general summary and mostly they want to see what she looked like. I like reading articles that have visuals for each section that in effect summarize what the section is about. In this case, pictures of Hepburn in iconic movie scenes and at different stages of her life. This article should be an exception because it is about one of those most photographed people in history. 70.231.227.12 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed that too, I don't know the answer. The upload page seems fairly unambiguous about it, but you may want to ask someone to clarify. -Shannernanner 09:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The "one per article" restriction appears to conflict with the current {Film-screenshot} fair use tag which states: "It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots for identification and critical commentary on the film.....on the English-language Misplaced Pages,.....qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." I also noted that many of the Featured articles on films and TV shows have multiple fair use screenshots in them. Alan Smithee 09:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
re: did not read the entire article but have to concur with the initial statement. there is inadequate visuals to complement the articles in wikipedia. also, a lot of the pictures aren't exactly the best in terms of being representative of that person nor the most update. im a newbie contributor by the way haha don't know much but have only been doing many grammatical corrections only to realise i used wikipedia as a resource so much i should just make an account. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony4moroney (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC).
UNICEF in her early life
I'm new at this and apologize if I violate any protocol. I merely wanted to point out the last line under the "Early Life" section appears to state that Ms. Hepburn's life was saved by UNICEF immediately after the end of the Second World War. This would have been impossible given that UNICEF didn't come into existence until 1946. --Uciwikipediaguy 01:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the inconsistency. Shannernanner 06:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
That is true ; but she got much needed food and drink from UNRRA, another UN agency. Audreyfan Audreyfan
Charade image
The Charade image used in the infobox is terrific, but unfortunately I fear someone might try to remove it citing the arguments (I'll call them arguments) ongoing regarding fair use images at Kate Winslet and other articles. Apparently one "interpretation" of Misplaced Pages's fair use image rules is that screenshots showing actors are not acceptable in biographical articles. I disagree 100% so as such I have no intention of touching the Charade image (or any other screenshots that may be used in this article) ... but I'm just giving a friendly heads up that if the Fair Use copyright police happen to swing by, the image might suddenly disappear. 23skidoo 20:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- This one should be fine. Charade is in the public domain and as such screenshots from it are also in the public domain. Rossrs 01:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- There's some problem since the picture comes from the audrey1.com website...which is foolish since the other 2 Charade pictures also came from that website...but I have sent an e-mail to the admin of audrey1.com asking for permission. I think it'll be fine. I think it's a great image for the article. And I've ordered a Hepburn bio and plan on properly referencing everything, so hopefully pretty soon this article will get cleaned up and will remain static.67.161.26.190 06:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I completely forgot about the fact Charade is public domain. I stand corrected. 23skidoo 01:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Filmography
The filmography is wrong. "Monte Carlo Baby" and "Nous irons a Monte Carlo" were made at the same time, with slightly different casts, after "The secret people". I have a copy of "One wild oat" and it has a copyright date of 1950, which means it was her first English speaking role (for all of 30 sceonds) to appear ; whether it was made before "Laughter in Paradise" I do not know. Audreyfan Audreyfan
- The filmography follows the imdb.com filmography. But imdb might be wrong, who knows. 67.161.26.190 01:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with Audreyfan, and in fact if you check the wikilinks you'll see both titles are linked to the same article. It is possible that the two films, while made at the same time (as noted in the article on the film which I created a couple of weeks ago) might have been released at different times. In terms of the IMDb filmography, it shouldn't be considered the epitome -- filmographies should also be compiled from biographies and other sources. For example, the IMDb for about 2 years had Audrey listed as appearing in "A New Kind of Love" which she is not. We also have to be careful not to copy the IMDb style otherwise that's a copyvio; that's why I reversed the order of the filmography awhile back. Only the IMDb lists start with the most recent. 23skidoo 01:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The IMDb is certainly incorrect as regards the order of the films and it is internally self-contradictory. Filmographies should be based on research not merely on the adaptation of somebody else's list. Audreyfan
I've done some amendments, but I don't know how to change "One wild Oat" to 1950. Audreyfan
Quotes section
Is this a necessary section? Isn't that what Wikiquote is for? 67.161.26.190 01:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Check other biographical articles. They appear elsewhere. Not everyone uses Wikiquote. I removed the bullets because that made things extremely awkward; I'm not too fond of the existing indents either. 23skidoo 01:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guess the bullets were a dumb idea, now that I think about it. I just don't like those indents. How about eliminating them altogether? 70.231.232.226 10:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a query
The main pic from Charade. Was it ever there in the movie. I saw the movie yesterday and nowhere did I find this pose. I wonder if it is really a screengrab
- Please sign your comments. It's from the closing scene in the theatre when Reggie is looking up from the conductor's box. Presumably it's a screengrab from the DVD. I remember the scene. 23skidoo 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
New infobox image
I have no objection to the new image, however it should be noted that discussion at Misplaced Pages:Fair Use has established that Misplaced Pages has basically prohibited the use of publicity shots of this type, since they are still copyright (at least in the US). It's a sore spot with me as I feel such images are necessary and justified, but just fair warning that the copyvio police might take this one away. 23skidoo 04:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think a picture like this is completely necessary. And I've noticed that in the Vivien Leigh (featured) article, there is a publicity still used. The rationale is:
- "No free or public domain images have been located for this film, and the only free use image that has been located for Vivien Leigh depicts her much later in life. Image is a promotional photograph, intended for wide distribution as publicity for the film. As the role of Scarlett O'Hara is arguably one of the most significant film roles in history, and certainly the most widely seen and noteworthy role in the career of the actress, Vivien Leigh, it is appropriate that it be illustrated in a comprehensive article about the actress. The image reflects the way she is most remembered, and in addition to providing an illustration for the discussion of the role, it also accurately depicts her appearance at the time, which links to the various references throughout the article to her beauty. Image is of considerably lower resolution than the original, and is used for informational purposes only. Its use does not detract from either the original photograph, or from the film itself."
- I think we can make similar arguments in this case. 70.132.28.57 07:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you, but unfortunately I've run into this problem before. The problem is - and yes, it sounds nutty - is that under the fair use rules, such images cannot be used "to simply illustrate what a person looks like". The fact the publicity shot at Vivien Leigh is still there probably just means they (the copyvio cops) haven't gotten to it yet. We ran into this problem at Glenn Ford and Kate Winslet and a publicity photo at Don Freed (an article about a singer) is going to be removed soon, too. I believe the Milla Jovovich article has also had this trouble. The fair use rules have in my opinion gotten so far out of hand that last week I actually quit Misplaced Pages in disgust for a couple of days over this very issue until I was talked back into the fold by a fellow editor. The specific rule I'm citing is at Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Counterexamples (see No. 8). That said -- the rule specifically states that it applies to living persons, so it's possible that's a loophole for keeping the Audrey and Vivien Leigh images, since neither actress is still with us; but that doesn't explain why we ran into Fair Use problems with publicity images for the now-deceased Glenn Ford. 23skidoo 13:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I won't tell if you don't. :) Worst case is we'll just say "oops" and put the Charade screenshot back up. Whoops, never mind. It's already gone. Looks like there is a real tussle going on in the editing page. I agree with Irpen. If we can't use a publicity picture, is there some reason why we can't use a screenshot from an earlier movie? Hepburn's public image will always be the one from the 50's, when she had the short hair and the thicker eyebrows. 70.231.251.129 14:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not disagreeing with you, but unfortunately I've run into this problem before. The problem is - and yes, it sounds nutty - is that under the fair use rules, such images cannot be used "to simply illustrate what a person looks like". The fact the publicity shot at Vivien Leigh is still there probably just means they (the copyvio cops) haven't gotten to it yet. We ran into this problem at Glenn Ford and Kate Winslet and a publicity photo at Don Freed (an article about a singer) is going to be removed soon, too. I believe the Milla Jovovich article has also had this trouble. The fair use rules have in my opinion gotten so far out of hand that last week I actually quit Misplaced Pages in disgust for a couple of days over this very issue until I was talked back into the fold by a fellow editor. The specific rule I'm citing is at Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Counterexamples (see No. 8). That said -- the rule specifically states that it applies to living persons, so it's possible that's a loophole for keeping the Audrey and Vivien Leigh images, since neither actress is still with us; but that doesn't explain why we ran into Fair Use problems with publicity images for the now-deceased Glenn Ford. 23skidoo 13:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It was asked that I discuss the new image on the talk page, though I believe I have specifically stated why replacing it with a fair use image is not supported by policy; it is on the Misplaced Pages:Fair use page. It is especially emphasized throughout Misplaced Pages that a public domain image be used in the infobox if at all possible, and if one is found, not be replaced with a fair use image. If you feel the publicity shot is necessary to illustrate the article, please insert the proper fair use rationale and put it elsewhere on the page. Shannernanner 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Categories: