Jump to content

User talk:Marchjuly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KingOfKilgore (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 8 March 2019 (→‎Permission to edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Posting a photo of a copyrighted painting

To Marchjuly: I posed a question to the Wikipedia community regarding my posting a photo of a copyrighted painting, and you were kind enough to offer a detailed response. I contacted the copyright holder of the painting, forwarded him your response and recommended that he select the Declaration of Consent to confer his permission to post my photo of his painting. He responded that he'd be crazy to sign it, as he would forfeit all of his rights in all media and would allow anyone at any time to modify his artwork. Is there something I'm missing? I'm certain this situation happens all the time on Wikipedia; what is the most commonly chosen solution? Any help you provide would be greatly appreciated. Jr3arlington (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jr3arlington: That's pretty much the gist of it. Wikipedia is set up to allow it's article content to be pretty much freely used by anyone anywhere in the world at any time for any purpose with very few restrictions, and the same applies to images uploaded and licensed under one of the free licenses that it accepts. This is why few creative professionals, etc. are willing to release their work under such a license. When a person uploads a file to Wikipedia under a free license, they are not necessarily transferring copyright ownership over that file to Wikipedia (i.e. they still retain copyright ownership), but they are making available a free version (perhaps a lower quality version) of their work for others to freely use without much restriction. So, the artist who painted the painting still holds copyright over it, but the lower quality smaller version of it depicted in your photo can be freely used by anyone for pretty any purpose (including commercial or derivative use) without requiring permission from you or the artist as long as the user complies with the terms of the license you selected when they uploaded the file. Perhaps back in the day of grainy poor quality photos, this type of reuse might not have been much of a concern; however, these days even a low quality version of one's work might still be too good for some creators to want to release it. There are free licenses which do place restrictions on commercial and derivative use, but these licenses are not free enough for Wikipedia's purposes and are not accepted.
The alternative is to upload the file as non-free content. This is allowed by Wikipedia and is similar to the idea of fair use or fair dealing, but is way more restrictive. Many of the images of paintings you see on Wikipedia are upload as non-free content, but how they are used must comply with Wikipedia's non-free use content policy. For works of art, generally this means that the image is used for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the work in question. Other types of use may be allowed, but they tend to be harder to justify; for example, sometimes a work is so indicative of a particular artist's style or technique that it might be able to be used in support of sourced commentary about the work or the technique in a Wikipedia article about the artist. The thing to remember about non-free content use is that it's not automatic in that the use is OK just because you want to use the file in a certain way in a certain article; each use of non-free content must satisfy all ten non-free content use criteria and those which don't may be removed or deleted if the community feels they don't. Another thing to remember is that Wikipedia doesn't really have any control to stop people from downloading any files, even non-free content files, it hosts and then reusing them in an improper way. Someone downloading a file is required to use it according to whichever license it was uploaded under, but I don't think there's anybody at Wikipedia HQ going around to check that they do. It's kind of up to the copyright holder or the uploader of the file to do that. Hope that answers your questions. I tried to answer them to the best of my understanding. You can find more info in Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Comment?

"Removed personal comment from article. This kind of comment is a good example of perhaps why you should stick to editing per WP:COIADVICE despite your claim of being able to edit according to relevant policies and guidelines." The comment was accurate and factual, not personal. What rule was broken this time? Not to worry, I've made my last edit to the article. Michael from Kilgore (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By "personal comment" I meant adding your own opinions to the article about something not really relevant at all the subject of the article. Basically, you were "talking in the article" which is not appropriate at all. Moreover, your claim that what you posted is accurate and factual is not accurate at all, but rather your own personal slant on the matter.
Your comment "Due to Wikipedia rules, none of the magazine covers may be displayed here because they do not add anything extra to the article." seems to be indirectly referencing Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 January 18#File:Texas Monthly September 2004 Cover Photo.jpg, Wikipedia's non-free content use policy or both, which are things the reader of the article will have no idea about and which are not connected to Kilgore College Rangerettes. Nowhere was it stated that no magazines covers can ever be added to the article; all that was said was that any magazine covers licensed as non-free content need to satisfy Wikipedia's non-free content use policy if you want to use them in the article. You personally may feel (as you posted on here on your user talk) that biggest problem with the system in general is Wikipedia editors and others who are much more interested in the internal rules of the system rather than accurate, verifiable content that is both interesting, easy to read, and enlightening, and you probably wouldn't be alone. The place to discuss concerns such as those, however, is on the talk pages of relevant policy/guideline pages or on article talk pages and not in articles themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Surely there is some better use of your time then replacing :: with ** on deletion discussions. Lots of people use :'s. [1]This is not an error but it is modifying talkpage comments. Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it was a formating error per WP:LISTGAP and WP:AFDFORMAT. No content was changed and it was done per WP:TPG#Fixing format errors. Didn't mean anything personal by it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to edit

May I edit these articles?

More to follow…

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marchjuly&oldid=886726008"