Talk:Karla Bonoff

Birthyear

One website says she was born on December 27, 1952 and another says she was born on December 27, 1951. I wonder if anyone can confirm which is correct?

I am her webmaster and she has personally told me that it was incorrectly listed many years ago in print as 1952 and that was repeated on the web in some places. It is 1951 and the story of why it's incorrect in some places is on the FAQ page on her website. (her name dot com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.195.74 (talk) 08:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll : Revised and Updated for the 21st Century, p. 100, the date given is December 27, 1952. If this isn't correct, we need others sources for 1951. The "testimony" of "her webmaster" isn't a source on Wikipedia. Simon Villeneuve (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Photo

I added a photo and assigned a Creative Commons license to it. An IP user removed it, and claimed that it had been "Removed at the request of the artist". If the artist has a better photo, AND is willing to assign a Creative Commons license to it, she or her representative should upload it. But thinking a photo is not flattering enough is not a great reason to delete one, especially when there is no replacement available. K8 fan (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of years (or so) ago I asked for a photo for Wikipedia, and Karla said that I could use either of the two publicity photos, go to this page and then click on "the press room". I took the one on the top left, cropped out some of the empty space on the right, made it a little lower resolution and added it to the article. It was there for a few months, then someone on Wikipedia objected to using it, even though I was specifically given permission to use it, and it got deleted. I never understood why. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that, even though the photos are intended for publicity, and even if they were specifically shot as "work for hire" by the artist, they are still copyrighted. The only way for an artist to get an image on Wikipedia and have it remain there is to specifically assign an "open source" copyright to the image, like Creative Commons. Every other image, under the terms of the Berne Convention is copyrighted. Bonoff should select a photo of which she approves, place it on her web site with text asserting a Creative Commons license, or declaring that she is not asserting any copyright on the image, that it is public domain.

Any effort short of that will not be enough. There is an annoying level of doctrinal purity by some Wikipedia folks, but the reason is that this entire site is intended to be freely distributable - you can take the content and copy it, sell it, translate it, package it onto CD-ROMs, whatever. And to that end, every image and word of text has to remain freely distributable.

As a producer of copyrighted works herself, and a beneficiary of the protection offered by the system of copyright, one would hope that she would appreciate the effort made here to protect copyright. My image may not be particularly flattering, but it was one that I owned the copyright to, to which I could assign to a copyright claim that would allow Wikipedia, and indeed anyone else, to freely reproduce.

For instance, Kate Bush was once the most photographed woman in England. But we have not been able to get a better recent image that meets the requirement of free reproduction. So it could be worse. Good luck. K8 fan (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That must be the problem. She gave me permission to use that photo on Wikipedia. It is a press/publicity photo. But it is not released to the public domain or Commons. If the person gives permission to use it, and it is a publicity photo that they give out and give people permission to use, then what is the damn problem? (rhetorical question about Wikipedia policy). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that her giving you permission is not enough. I have been through all of this with any number of articles. Permission to use on Wikipedia is not the same as "permission for anyone to use for any purpose at any time for any reason" which is what the Creative Commons license grants. Feel free to shoot a better image, one that she will be happy with, and assign it a freely reproducible copyright.

Personally, the entire article is woefully short for a writer and performer of her stature and desperately needs a lot more content and references. The best tool I have found for that is Google Books, which indexes both books and magazines. Here is a Google Books search for her name, and produced 821 results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Karla+Bonoff%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbs=bks%3A1&tbo=1 K8 fan (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have such an image. I've seen her twice and I plan to see her in concert again next spring. I'll try to take a camera, but usually cameras are not allowed. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

An unregistered user recently tried to remove the existing image, with the edit summary: "removed photo at request of artist." Hopefully, they'll read this and ask Karla to release a nice photo under the appropriate Creative Commons license. Anthony (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's really what it's going to take. The image and WP use of it does not conflict with any WP policy, and its removal does not improve the article. So it will only be removed if it can be replaced with an image of equivalent or better informational value and photographic quality. postdlf (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Would adding a statement to this page asserting a Creative Commons license for the images linked be enough? K8 fan (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in so late. I forwarded her current promo photo (the same one that was up at one time) to an editor who asked what the hell was going on. There are dozens of fan photos on her website and we're always open to adding others but she wanted her professionally done photo used. That doesn't seem unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Grosso (talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Paul Grosso, stop removing the image until it can be replaced. The professional photos on her website are not licensed in the way they need to be for use on Wikipedia. Until that changes, they can't be uploaded here, and there is no basis for removing the present image from this article.

@K8 fan, I think that would be sufficient. Anyone disagree? postdlf (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, if the editor you forwarded the photo to was me, I haven't gotten it. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Paul, please read the above discussion where the reasons a "publicity photo" cannot be used unless it has a copyright that allows free distribution.

The gist of it is this:

1. Confirm that Karla Bonoff owns the copyright to the photo in question (i.e. that it was shot as "work for hire").
2. Confirm that she is willing to change the copyright status of the image to an "open source" one like Creative Commons attribution.
3. Place a notification on her web site's Press page that the images on the page are available to use freely.

Once those things happen, the photo can be placed here and everybody is happy. This is only about the copyright status of those images, and has nothing to do with the copyright status of her songs, recordings or other photos. Thank you. K8 fan (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Karla Bonoff at Knuckleheads Saloon.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Karla Bonoff at Knuckleheads Saloon.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Damnit, another idiot with a bot! Ban these things! K8 fan (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I just checked, and I was wrong. Someone claiming to be Karla Bonoff is trying to get the image removed from the Commons. As I explained over there, she is free to have a photograph taken and to assign a Creative Commons copyright to the work and upload it. K8 fan (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Karla Bonoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708102501/http://www.bryndle.com/site/faq.html to http://www.bryndle.com/site/faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)