[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay <peter.mackay(a)bigpond.com> wrote:
My question about the ethics of claiming a photograph taken
else as your own is a legitimate one. It applies
to a great many
photographs on user pages. How I got to this particular is really
immaterial, and I mentioned research in case someone like
why I chose this user as an example.
With respect, it's really not important, and was probably a
tag slapped on in haste, knowing that no one is going to
dispute the copyright of that image,
I dispute it, and I raise the point for other user photographs on WP. Here
are a few I've pulled in from all over the place:
g A professional studio portrait purporting to be released into Public
Domain by the subject claiming to be the creator.
is shown as GFDL,
albeit with a bit of honesty: "was taken by my niece, with my camera".
permission from a website).
and that no one is ever
going to attempt to reuse it for anything. Our system isn't
really geared to handle these types of images - what tag
would *you* have put on it? All I can think of is getting the
creator (yes, that random passerby) to write an email
certifying that they release it under GFDL, and we could
*still* dispute whether it was actually them or not.
I'd put a fair use tag on it.
But I note that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jimmy_Wales.jpg
uploaded by the photographer and released into the PD.
We don't really have a way of dealing with images
copyright value is so low as to actually be negligible.
Copyright is not like other laws - if it's inconceivable that
anyone could actually sue us over it, or even complain about
it, there is not, afaik, any problem with us violating it.
So why not put fair use on it? Sure, it's a copyvio, but not one that is
going to concern too many courts, given its nature.