"Anthony DiPierro" <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote
in message
news:71cd4dd90602060519n2b2e7b11o67cdfe01176b774c@mail.gmail.com...
[snip]> In the interest of trying to reach consensus, I'll boil everything
down to this. "''This work is a
[[copyright]]ed promotional photo
with a '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known source]]'''" was
changed to
"This work is a [[copyright]]ed promotional photograph of a person
that is '''[[Wikipedia:Cite sources|known]]''' to have come from
a
media kit or similar source."
That wasn't a comment about copyright or fair use
or anything of that
sort. It was a comment on *what the image was*. If people want to
add extraneous text to image tags about what may or may not qualify as
fair use under copyright law, let them waste their time. But in this
instance a sentence describing the image itself was changed in a
significant way.
Absolutely. To take a concrete example, I uploaded a picture of the author
[[Jim Butcher]] after checking with the webmaster for his website, where the
original picture was hosted, and receiving confirmation from Jim's wife that
they were OK with tagging it as I had suggested.
This picture is *not* from a "press pack" or "media kit", it's
from the
personal/professional website for its subject.
It *is* a promotional photograph, and when I tagged it as such, the working
of the template was accurate and satisfactory to the providers of the
picture.
HTH HAND
--
Phil
[[en:User:Phil Boswell]]