The "ethics" of it are of no concern for us. In a situation like this,
I think we can, for once, assume good faith in terms of copyright --
that the person who is providing the picture of themselves has the
ability to make some claims as to its copyrightable status. I see no
reason to doubt it in this instance, or in most instances where users
are using pictures of themselves.
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
I was doing some research on ArbCom admonitions
against personal attacks,
and I came across a photograph on a user page where the subject of the
photograph states that he is the creator.
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.
In contrast, another photograph of the same user released under an identical
) is clearly taken
by the subject by holding the camera at arm's length.
While I applaud the photographer for his long record of contributions to WP,
I must wonder about the ethics of claiming the work of another as his own,
even if he is the subject of a photograph taken on his own camera.
I suspect that a great many photographs of editors on WP would fall into the
In fact I raise the point because the photograph on my user page was removed
under the same circumstances and if something is good for the goose, it
should be equally as good for the gander(s).
Pete, keen photographer
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: