On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Sarah Ewart<sarahewart(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu <
ddascalescu+wikipedia(a)gmail.com <ddascalescu%2Bwikipedia(a)gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, <elipongo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This is similar to the whole "fair use" brouhaha at
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Madeleine_close2.jpg#Licence (the
> photo of Madeleine McCann, a child who's been missing for 2 years) -
> as if Madeleine's family wouldn't wholeheartedly agree to that picture
> being plastered on every website in the world.
I can think of several websites they wouldn't want it plastered on.
I'm sure thats correct and it also makes it easy
to resolve - get
permission. I think they're fairly accessible through their website, so an
editor could simply email them, explain what's needed and ask them to
release an image under a compatible license or to provide one that's already
been released under a free license. These types of disputes are usually
easier and quicker to actually resolve than it is to complain and argue
about it.
And when someone uses the image in an inappropriate fashion (I know
they can do that anyway, without it being on Commons), what then? At a
minimum, this image should have the various warnings heavily plastered
on it (personality rights or whatever the equivalent is for a missing
child), and it should be used with decorum in Wikipedia itself. There
are some articles some editors would put it on without realising what
offence it might cause.
Carcharoth
