User talk:Mike Peel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting -- ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Thank you.

Start a new talk topic.

Image Options[edit]

Hi, I'm Rick- we met at the Portsmouth Zooniverse Wikithon a couple of months back. I've been editing an article on Savile Row tailoring recently and have been trying to expand it with the use of images. I have some images that I have been given by two companies concerned. However, I cannot use any of them (3 images) as we don't have the photographer's permission, so using a Creative Commons licence is a no-no. I uploaded one of them but that has since been deleted having gone through an OTRS procedure. The company concerned was involved with that, but it was decided that the company's representative wasn't 'close enough'.

The point is that the companies have given me images in good faith, knowing that I wished to use them in WP. Is there any licence or fair-use policy that might allow me use these images of 'men in suits'? I don't want to cheat the photographers, but as far as I can gather from emails with the companies, the images have been given to them as 'marketing'.

Any help or suggestions would be much appreciated. They might well be viewed by the companies concerned. Rgds Richard Nowell (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Richard Nowell: it was good to meet you in Portsmouth. How are you doing?
I'm afraid that from your description, it sounds like these three images can't be used on Wikipedia at all. It's great that the companies are willing to provide images for use in the Wikipedia articles, and they should be thanked for being willing to do so. However, the copyright of the images will be owned by the photographer(s) rather than the company, unless the photographer(s) signed over the copyright for the images to the company, or provided license terms that describe how the company can make use of them. The company should have records of either the copyright transfer or the license terms, so they should be able to check those agreements to see if they can freely license the images or not - even if the images are 'gifts' for use in marketing, they should still have such permission on record. If they don't have such records, then they shouldn't even be using the photographs themselves as they could well be inadvertently breaching copyright law.
You could upload the images here as 'fair use' under U.S. law, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. However, it sounds like the images would fail the no free equivalent criterion as they could be replaced by a new photo under a free license (unlike, e.g., photos of a past event where no freely licensed images are available or are likely to become available in the next few decades).
The best option would be to ask the companies whether they have alternative images where they do clearly have the photographer's permission to release them under a free license, e.g. if they could contact past photographers to obtain such permission, or if they take new photos in the future where they can obtain such permission at the same time as the photo-shoot takes place.
Sorry for the hassle I'm sure that this will cause, but it is important to make sure that copyright law is followed when uploading images to Wikipedia. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm well thankyou. The licensing is as I expected, although I hoped there might be a 'fair use' licence; apparently not. I guess the way forward is to approach the photographer(s) first, although by using Creative Commons they are relinquishing any royalties for evermore! It's either that or travelling up to London for a few photos taken with a naff camera. OK, much obliged for your advice... rgds Richard Nowell (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
With royalties: that's not entirely true, as they can still ask for royalties for images used outside of the Creative Commons terms (e.g. if the reuser doesn't want to provide an attribution statement, or release derivative works under the same license, if the image is released under CC-BY-SA). They also get to raise the profile of their images by their inclusion here, and their subsequent reuse elsewhere.
It might be worth asking if they have any B-roll photos that they'd be willing to share, rather than the main one that they want to get royalties from. There are always many photos from a photoshoot that don't get used, in addition to the one that does, and they might be more willing to share one of these. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
B-rolls- not I term I know! Good idea though, there must be a lot of extraneous images squirreled away that would be adequate for WP. As I mentioned above, the answer must be to approach photographers first, then companies. As long as the image is reasonable, the companies probably won't mind, as it shows off their products. As long as the article is kept neutral, then illustrations from different companies of different styles can only benefit the article. Descriptions are nice, but this is a visual subject, so it needs illustrations. Thanks again, Richard Nowell (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a film term more than a photography one, but I'm not sure what the photography equivalent is: see B-roll. Yes, approaching photographers first is probably a good idea. For quite a few things, you won't need to then approach the company afterwards - it's only if the object that's being photographed is also copyrighted that the company would also need to be asked. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Manchester Girl Geeks at SpacePortX[edit]

Hope you like tea and cake.--ZoeEBreen (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


I've read your user page and see you're an astrophysicist, that's pretty cool.

HELP: Locked out with lunch[edit]

Pls come down and let us in.

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Two Forms (Divided Circle), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Evanston and The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)