On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay peter.mackay@bigpond.com 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.
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.
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?
I now understand the accusation Jimbo was trying to make when he pointed out that I was taking a similar position to you on another issue. Not that it was any more than a petty jab, but at least it now makes sense.
Anthony