In message <068f01c67d18$3667b090$6400a8c0@Tiny>, Peter Mackay
<peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ(a)public.gmane.org> writes
From:
wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA(a)public.gmane.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
Sent: Monday, 22 May 2006 6:00 AM
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay
<peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
From:
wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA(a)public.gmane.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Anthony
DiPierro
> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay
><peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ(a)public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > I refer to
> [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PICT4101.JPG] which was
> > clearly not taken by the subject, nor by using a tripod
or other
>
support such as a wall.
>
Maybe he paid $1 to some homeless guy walking the street, and so
it's a work for hire.
We shouldn't have to guess about photographs on WP.
No, we shouldn't, but we also should assume good faith.
See below.
In any
case, the license
used to upload the picture indicates that the subject is
the creator,
and to my mind if the actual photographer is
someone other than the
subject, then the subject is NOT the creator of the image.
I'd say the template should be changed, then. I was going to
say it should be changed to "I, the copyright holder...", but
if it's public domain then the person no longer is a
copyright holder. If you've got a suggestion how to better
phrase the template so that it encompasses the situation of a
work made for hire, let us know.
Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough
that it needs clarifying.
Anyway, you'd be better off asking him first,
maybe he'll fix it.
There are two reasons why I won't ask him. The first is
that I can't.
I just checked, and he does have his email
turned on. But
maybe you're banned from that too. Anyway, is the second
reason that you don't really care, and are just trying to
make trouble?
No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is it you were
saying about AGF?
The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's
page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where
they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks
like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is
setting a good example.
I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling
copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright
holder is inherently indeterminable.
For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary
school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it
reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD
or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a
shilling or two),
- it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of the portrait
survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files,
- the photographer is unlikely to still be in business,
- I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use of the photo
(except on grounds of artistic taste!)
Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in Wikipedia under
any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the theoretical
copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of
tracing effort?
--
Arwel Parry