On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Sarah Ewartsarahewart@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Dan Dascalescu < ddascalescu+wikipedia@gmail.com ddascalescu%2Bwikipedia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 06:23, elipongo@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