User talk:ShakespeareFan00/Archive2

ShakespeareFan00 is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Wikipedia Weekly music

Hey, thanks for the question. The music for episode 19 is "Daydream", a demonstration song packaged with Apple's Garageband, the editing software we use to create the podcast. Apple actively encourages the use of the loops and tracks included with the software in users' productions, and (as far as I can tell) asserts no ownership over them. -- Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 02:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A valid question, but there should be no problem. According to Apple:

Every podcast sound included with GarageBand is 100% royalty-free, so you can use what you want at will. Add them in during your post-production, or, if you prefer a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-podcast approach, you can even trigger effects during live recording.

Link can be found here [1]. The profesional music that is bundled makes Apple's software a bargain. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification?

Hi ShakespeareFan00, can you elaborate on the note you left on my page? I'm afraid I'm missing something, as I believe it's pretty clear re: the Apple Garageband permissions to use the clips, and the three main folks who do editing all have Macs/Garageband. Feel free to tell me otherwise. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~MIDI~~

Yo.. I did deleted File:Agatha Christie's Poirot.mid, but I'm curious where you got the idea that MIDI is not fair use? The page on media suggests using OGG, but it doesn't really give other information. As far as I know, something like MP3 is a licensed technology but MIDI should not be. Anyway, I deleted it because it isn't a sample, it was actually the entire song, so fair use does not apply. --Spike Wilbury 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Podcast

how does your podcast do?

We discussed the possibility of creating presentations (powerpoint with sound and images) on the basis of podcasts and use them all directly for fundraising(not to sell, but to give them an optional donation button or something similar). So we are a little bit curious what your suggested script looks like. Wandalstouring 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging

Hi. I noticed some images that you had tagged as missing rationales. Please note that it is important to notify the uploader when you apply this tag, particularly if it is a pro forma requirement and it is possible for a reasonable rationale to be added to the image.

There is a suite of tools that makes tagging images extremely simple - see User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js and the documentation. This utility by Howcheng tags the image and notifies the uploader and it works for just about any image deletion tag you would want to apply. The only thing it doesn't do is tag the image in the article.

When the image isn't tagged in the article and the uploader isn't notified, it makes things very difficult for the admin going through the image backlogs. Thanks. --BigDT 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rationale

How dou think the rationale on the ? Please help! Thanks --Beyond silence 07:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless Sample Sounds

Image:Faithless - I Want More.ogg

Image:Faithless Insomnia.ogg

Image:Faithless - God Is A DJ.ogg

All three of these are intended as samples to give examples of Faithless' work in the same way as Image:Muse - Black Holes and Revelations - Knights of Cydonia - sample.ogg is a sample to give an example of Muse's work. Do I simply put this as the rationale? None of the files I uploaded are the full song and are simply 1 minute long extracts from the song as obviously I felt uploading the full track would be rife for copyright infringement. Thanks Chappy84 13:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Faithless - God Is A DJ.ogg would this be ok? if so I'll do similar with the other two. Chappy84 13:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say so, he tagged a bunch of my audio files also. I just added "An example of this artists style of music". And removed the tags. --x1987x^(talk) 14:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I give you permission to label my music for me. I upload them "An example of this artists style of music." It would take the same amount of effort. I looked thru them all once over. Couldn't you have told me or offered help? --x1987x^(talk) 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you running a bot? Your edits are very robotic and you dont respond to your talk page. --x1987x^(talk) 14:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audio clips

I have received a number of messages recently about the audio clips that I have uploaded. All of these are brief (30 seconds or so) clips mentioned by name in the relevant articles. Apparently there have been some changes to the way that audio clips are tagged, so please bear with me while I look into this and make sure that the tags are up to date.--Ianmacm 14:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

In the previous media that I uploaded I have already specified the length, the low bit rate, and how they will be used for the artist in question. Is it not detailed enough to qualify as a fair use rationale? Just to be safe, I added a template for fair use rationale. mirageinred 15:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Cheers for pointing out the lack of rationale on Image:IveBeenWaiting.ogg. It's a pet annoyance of mine to see fair use media without rationale. CloudNine 15:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Firsova_Nightingale_Intro.mid

I created all these files myself. Do not worry (meladina 15:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Hamparsum.ogg

Hello, thanks for your warning message about File:Hamparsum.ogg. I have edited the description page to provide a fair use rationale. Is this sufficient or should I also remove the missing rationale template? Thx!!! Free smyrnan 17:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Jam audio samples

Hi. I went and added a fair use rationale to the Pearl Jam audio samples. If I need to add anything else, please let me know. Thanks.BP322 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:

~~They're not fair use, only because I didn't add some stupid ass rationale on the page? You faggots and your fuckin' technicalities man, delete it, i don't give a shit.~~

The precceding was added byt PDTantisocial in response to what was felt to be justified tagging of claimed 'fair-use' with missing rationale. The above response is telling compared to the other more co-oprative comments on this page on the matter. ShakespeareFan00 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Fair use rationale for Image:Kirsten_Bråten_Berg,_accompanied_Ale_Møller_-_Heiemo_og_Nykkjen_(opening_verse).ogg

Hi ShakespeareFan00,

I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use...

Hope this suffices! Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

davemurray.ogg

Hi - Rationale ratified, cheers --PopUpPirate 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Everafter_-_coming_down.ogg

I have updated the rationale to read: "This is a 29 second reduced quality song sample of Coming Down by Everafter."

Is this enough or is there something else I need? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cazzolla (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

about the song, Image:O Meri Munni.ogg

Hi, I'm the one who uploaded this clip. I believe I have met all the guidelines in relation to uploading and using this clip, these are:

1. The sample is being used for commentary on the recording in question

It is the only hindi/pop album album he has released to date, and the clip is a sample of his title song of the same name.

2. It contributes significantly to the encyclopedia articles it is used in (listed under the heading "File links" below) in a way that cannot be duplicated by other forms of media.

It is a clip from an muscian's wikipedia article. I see no way they can be used again (why should they?)

3. The sample is short in relation to the duration of the recorded track and is of an inferior quality to the original recording.

The sample is only 36 seconds (I think the original song exceeds this length by a factor of 8). Its actual size has been reduced using a loss-based compression technique with the dBpowerAMP Music Converter.

4. No other samples from the same track are used in Wikipedia.

Not likely, not even in the near future.

5. There is no adequate free alternative available.

Not in wikipedia atleast.

Further more I emailed Remo to allow me to use his images from the official web page which he granted to me. I could ask him (though I don't think its necessary) for permission to use his song clips the same way. Thanks for bringing this to my notice. If you don't mind, I'm removing the tag after placing the above points in the licence section. Best regards, --h y dka t 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Your welcome" :) --h y dka t 15:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fair use rationale for Image:Pink_Floyd_Money_DSOT.ogg

Resolved. Thanks for the heads up. --Rotring 19:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Fair use rationale for Image:Time.ogg

I don't have the patience or time for wiki procedure these days, and find copyright stuff painfully confusing and tedious. I added a ton of song samples to Pink Floyd while I was addressing concerns in its featured article candidacy, and I'm sure none of them have the proper fair use rationales if that one doesn't. Perhaps you could bring it up on the Pink Floyd talk page, where those who are still active editors can address the problem. I would really appreciate it, as I would be quite upset at the article losing featured status due to my lack of understanding over a year ago and my lack of time to deal with it now. dharmabum 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]