User talk:Oden

Utilities: Newpages • Recent Changes • Newbie contributions • Message templates • User:Oden/Boilerplate

Regarding fair use images, please read Robth's explanation and read my Image FAQ before posting a comment.

"Les querelles ne dureraient pas longtemps, si le tort n'était que d'un côté." (Quarrels would not last long if the fault were only on one side). — François de La Rochefoucauld (Maxim 496)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Oden/Archive 2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1, 2

Image copyrights

Please recognize and respect what is written regarding the copyright of an item before changing tags.

• A derivative work is one which uses someone else's work to create something new. Photographing, scanning, reproducing an old artwork purely for the purposes of representing that artwork is not derivative. Please see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. if you are having trouble understanding this.
• I apologize that, due to the insane difficulties of finding images through the most ideal channels, we are forced to resort to finding things on websites which may or may not have been scanned from books, particularly images that do not cite their source. But this does not change the fact that photographers do not own the copyrights to artworks they photograph, and book publishers do not own the copyrights to those artworks either. If the artist is dead over 70 years, the object is public domain. Or at the very least fair use.
• Rather than changing tags towards getting images deleted, I humbly request that you please devote more time and effort to helping your fellow Wikipedians find replacement equivalent images that are safer to use within the restrictions imposed. Deletionist activity is counterproductive to the educational and intellectual purposes of the encyclopedia; if you are concerned about Wikipedia violating copyright law, please help us find better, alternative ways to present images of artworks or other subjects which are public domain. LordAmeth 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read the FAQs you link to at the top of your page, and I am a bit confused about one point; I am hoping you can help. Fair use criteria #1 states: "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.... However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken." For many of the images I am working with, i.e. old artworks, it is difficult to say whether or not a free equivalent is available, because of the tight controls museums, publishers and the like place on public domain artworks. These artworks of course do still exist, and freely-licensed photographs could be taken, but only if the museums, galleries, or private owners of said artwork (owners of the physical object, not of the copyright, which only lasts until 70-100 years after the artist's death, right?) allow one to take photos, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. I say all of this not by way of complaining or whining, but by way of explaining my predicament and asking for your advice. Where is the line drawn between "no free equivalent is available" and "free equivalents could be created or obtained in theory, but are nearly impossible to obtain in reality"? Ultimately, my question is not to find an explanation for why we cannot use these images; my goal is to find out how we can. Thank you for any help you might be able to offer. Happy Holidays. LordAmeth 12:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• In Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. the parties were all within the jurisdiction of US law. The situation discussed here could involve Japanese copyright law or the laws of other countries. The safe solution is to license the images as fair use.
• I also noted that the photographer or the location of the works of art depicted is not noted on the image page. Such information is always useful (and it could make the difference between fair use and public domain).
• Image:Horagai-conchtrumpet.jpg appears to be a scan of a colour photograph, and I am certain that colour photography is a fairly recent invention. Without knowing if the image is public domain I have relicensed it as fair use.
• Replaceability is dependent on access, if the work of art is in a place to which the public has access (such as a statue in a public square) the image is considered replaceable. If it is in a museum or collection which does not allow photography then it is not considered replaceable. (And if the image is destroyed, like Picasso's Le Pentrie then it certainly is not possible to photograph it and license the photograph under a free license.)--Oden 22:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Thank you very much for your help with this issue, and for your kind attitude. LordAmeth 00:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

fairuse tag

Hi, please don't use {{fairuse}} on images if at all possible. This is a deprecated tag, and the remaining images are basically old leftovers that all need to be reclassified. Since you're already looking at the image, try to put the right tag on it, at least {{fairusein}} for the article in which it's already being used. Stan 15:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Noted. --Oden 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

KaDee Strickland

You'll never believe what good your tagging of Image:KaDee Strickland in Fever Pitch.jpg, the (former) lead image on the KaDee Strickland article, as replaceable fair use did. I moved the image down the article so that it was illustrating her role in the film and not just her (because I know that doesn't count as fair use), but then I decided to try and get a free-licensed image of her. I emailed three different sources, all of whom responded and offered to donate images under a free license! So now there is not one, but three free-licensed images on the article, and it's mostly thanks to you. So, here it is: thank you so much! Removing replaceable fair use images or tagging them as replaceable gives people the incentive to look for free-licensed ones. So keep up the good work! Extraordinary Machine 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, the images look great! --Oden 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and the barnstar! I didn't expect that... Extraordinary Machine 19:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Indeed, I requested protection. (→Netscott) 11:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I checked the IP addresses for the three anonymous users which reverted your edits to Michael Richards (81.182.44.242 (talk · contribs), 81.182.105.132 (talk · contribs) and 81.182.109.52 (talk · contribs)) and they all have the same ISP and location. It might be plausible to assume that the edits are somehow related. --Oden 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the anon editor has been hoping IPs to avoid 3RR violation. He's falsely "rvv"d across a number of editors besides myself (and I suspect shortly your own edit will be "rvv"d). The article needs {{sprotect}}ing to cease this nonsense. (→Netscott) 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be worth trying to leave a message on the IP talk page urging the editor to discuss controversial edits on the article talk page instead of starting a edit war (and getting blocked for violating WP:3RR). Of course, if the editor is changing IP addresses then leaving a message on one talk page serves little purpose. --Oden 11:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Until a range block or sprotection is instituted it is virtually pointless trying to counter the anon editor's bad faith edits. (→Netscott) 15:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Richards sockpuppetry?

I am very suspicious that 81.182.xxx.xxx, the anon user responsible for controversial edits and 3RR violations to the Michael Richards page is none other than User:Kgeza67. Almost the minute the article was semi-protected, Kgeza67 returned and began performing very similar edits to the anon user. Circumstantial evidence seems to support my suspicion. Is this enough reason for me to bring this to the attention of the admins who monitor Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ron Kind

Ugh. Thanks for letting me know about the possible copy violation I apparently was endorsing. Definitely not my intention. Is there anything you want me to do about this?--ViolinGirl^♪ 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, since the material probably is public domain since it comes from a federal government website and the material has been edited since that I think the matter can rest. But generally speaking it is always good to keep an eye on the newbies to check for rookie mistakes. You could also consider removing the Barnstar from the user's talk page. --Oden 22:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've not been active on Wikipedia as of late anyway (just happened to get on to check for messages)...but if I decide to give another barnstar for similar work, I will double check for a similar case. I think in this particular instance it could be offensive to remove the barnstar; I'll leave it for now. Thanks again for your concern. Have a nice day!--ViolinGirl^♪ 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)