I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly Clarkson concert picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kell y-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG
The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission".
The deletion seems to be failing though.
Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image, and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during?
Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was allowed?
On 9/24/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly Clarkson concert picture:
Note that the complainer is a new Commons user whose entire activity on the project is nominating this for deletion. This should not be taken as a common belief, although there have been repeated instances of people advocating the position that non-copyright restrictions should make an image unfree even if it is OK copyright-wise.
IMO, given the level of security at your average concert and the fact that they generally will search people on the way in, if they let you have a camera and take pictures, it's de facto OK with the organizers and venue.
-Matt
On 25/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly Clarkson concert picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kell y-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG
The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission".
The deletion seems to be failing though.
Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image, and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during?
Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was allowed?
No.
While there may be personality rights issues that is almost always going to be the case. Even if photography was allowed worse case scenario is that the uploader was committing trespass which isn't our problem.
Daniel,
It's an ongoing farce where the idiot in question is trying to have this free image replaced by a supposedly better non free image he found on the internet. I seem to recall having this problem already, can't recall if it was locally on en.wiki or on commons, but it's not the first time his has happened.
On 25/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly Clarkson concert picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kell y-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG
The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission".
The deletion seems to be failing though.
Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image, and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during?
Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was allowed? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Apologies, it was a Carrie Underwood image we've had this exact same discussion about. They were politely told to go fuck off, which is what I would suggest our friends at Commons do right about now.
On 25/09/2007, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Daniel,
It's an ongoing farce where the idiot in question is trying to have this free image replaced by a supposedly better non free image he found on the internet. I seem to recall having this problem already, can't recall if it was locally on en.wiki or on commons, but it's not the first time his has happened.
On 25/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias <dan@tobias.name > wrote:
I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly Clarkson concert picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kell y-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG
The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission".
The deletion seems to be failing though.
Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image, and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during?
Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was allowed? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Apologies for another mail, but I've found all the Carrie Underwood stuff, which naturally may be of interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Underwood_Carrie.jpg
and there's an old IfD on Commons.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:CroppedCarrieUnderwoodA...
That's all that was said at the time and I'd be surprised if we're not looking at the same person with the same argument, they'll be wanting to replace the free image somewhere with a nice publicity shot.
On 25/09/2007, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Apologies, it was a Carrie Underwood image we've had this exact same discussion about. They were politely told to go fuck off, which is what I would suggest our friends at Commons do right about now.
On 25/09/2007, Nick heligolandwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Daniel,
It's an ongoing farce where the idiot in question is trying to have this free image replaced by a supposedly better non free image he found on the internet. I seem to recall having this problem already, can't recall if it was locally on en.wiki or on commons, but it's not the first time his has happened.
On 25/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias < dan@tobias.name > wrote:
I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly Clarkson concert picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kell
y-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG
The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission".
The deletion seems to be failing though.
Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image, and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during?
Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was allowed? -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
As a followup, the deletion discussion on Commons has been closed as keep, which was never in doubt.
-Matt
Yeap, past precedent with the Carrie Underwood case would suggest all future similar cases could probably be speedily kept unless there's a dramatic change in the circumstances.
On 25/09/2007, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
As a followup, the deletion discussion on Commons has been closed as keep, which was never in doubt.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for such purposes without proper permission".
The deletion seems to be failing though.
Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image, and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during?
This is well beyond copyright. I have no problem with Wikipedians sneaking cameras into concerts to take free pictures. The people who are on stage are in a public performance. Nevertheless, I would question using pictures of normally anonymous audience members.
Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was allowed?
How could we do that without infringing the copyrights of the people who design and produce the tickets? ;-)
Ec
On 9/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
This is well beyond copyright. I have no problem with Wikipedians sneaking cameras into concerts to take free pictures. The people who are on stage are in a public performance. Nevertheless, I would question using pictures of normally anonymous audience members.
Spectators can be blurred beyond recognition. I've done this a few times. If you are good with photoshop or something similar you can usually make bystanders and well-wishers look "incidentally out of focus" rather than "deliberately anonymized".
—C.W.
On 27/09/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Spectators can be blurred beyond recognition. I've done this a few times. If you are good with photoshop or something similar you can usually make bystanders and well-wishers look "incidentally out of focus" rather than "deliberately anonymized".
—C.W.
When using a good camera, the bigger the aperture (the smaller the f-number) the smaller the depth of focus. This also increases the amount of light hitting the film, meaning you can speed up the shutter speed.
On 9/27/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
When using a good camera, the bigger the aperture (the smaller the f-number) the smaller the depth of focus. This also increases the amount of light hitting the film, meaning you can speed up the shutter speed.
Maybe so but I'm not a photographer. I did spend countless nights poring through flickr for cc-by-2.0 images. I had a search tab in my monobook, something like http://flickr.com/search/?q=%7B%7BPAGENAME%7D%7D&l=commderiv
—C.W.
On 27/09/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe so but I'm not a photographer.
Well, I can't afford Photoshop, so don't you love it when there's more than one way to do something?
: )
...
;_;
On 27/09/2007, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
On 27/09/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe so but I'm not a photographer.
Well, I can't afford Photoshop, so don't you love it when there's more than one way to do something?
The GIMP has the following advantages:
1. It's good enough for the web. 2. It's free. 3. It's free.
- d.
On 27/09/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The GIMP has the following advantages:
- It's good enough for the web.
- It's free.
- It's free.
4. You don't need to faff around with f-stops to try and get the right balance of blurred and unblurred when you're standing there taking the picture.
This is perhaps the most important of them all!
On 27/09/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
- You don't need to faff around with f-stops to try and get the right
balance of blurred and unblurred when you're standing there taking the picture.
This is perhaps the most important of them all!
Hence the darkroom.
On 9/27/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/27/07, Armed Blowfish diodontida.armata@googlemail.com wrote:
When using a good camera, the bigger the aperture (the smaller the f-number) the smaller the depth of focus. This also increases the amount of light hitting the film, meaning you can speed up the shutter speed.
Maybe so but I'm not a photographer. I did spend countless nights poring through flickr for cc-by-2.0 images. I had a search tab in my monobook, something like http://flickr.com/search/?q=%7B%7BPAGENAME%7D%7D&l=commderiv
Flickr:Advanced search is your friend. I just spent some time there, and this is what I came up with. All pictures should be under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. I'm too lazy to transfer them to commons, so someone else do it! ;-)
Amber Benson http://flickr.com/photos/ravenu/8568461/ http://flickr.com/photos/ravenu/8568460/ http://flickr.com/photos/ravenu/8568058/ (and more from the same uploader, some of them quite funny)
Raveena Tandon http://flickr.com/photos/enygmatic/18030660/
Claudia Schiffer http://flickr.com/photos/timbrighton/5366770/ (only her back, but we don't have *any* image there...)
Cast from Serenity: http://flickr.com/photos/ravenu/sets/1429655/
Angelina Jolie http://flickr.com/photos/tostie14/tags/angelinajolie/
Alfred Molina http://flickr.com/photos/tostie14/34085423/ (bad image quality, but we don't any other image!)
Bryce Dallas Howard http://flickr.com/photos/tostie14/196675099/ (we only have a TV screenshot)
Camden Toy http://flickr.com/photos/ravenu/8777158/ (we have no picture at all)
Tamara Gorski http://flickr.com/photos/ravenu/38583410/ (we don't even have an article about her, just redlinks;-)
James Carpinello http://flickr.com/photos/ravenu/45968911/ (can replace our low-res fair-use screenshot)
Mong Man Wai http://flickr.com/photos/kingofhiking/47586286/ (probably...)
On 9/27/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Raveena Tandon http://flickr.com/photos/enygmatic/18030660/
Appears to be a screenshot or photo-of-a-photo, possibly a dubious copyright claim
Bryce Dallas Howard http://flickr.com/photos/tostie14/196675099/ (we only have a TV screenshot)
This appears to be a screenshot too, probably of a HD monitor at the event so that people at the back can see her.
-Matt
On 9/27/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/27/07, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Raveena Tandon http://flickr.com/photos/enygmatic/18030660/
Appears to be a screenshot or photo-of-a-photo, possibly a dubious copyright claim
Bryce Dallas Howard http://flickr.com/photos/tostie14/196675099/ (we only have a TV screenshot)
This appears to be a screenshot too, probably of a HD monitor at the event so that people at the back can see her.
OK, I just skimmed through them. To make up for it, here's a few more: Ron White http://flickr.com/photos/urthstripe/210679647/
Noah Segan http://flickr.com/photos/dce76/79935922/
Angus Loughran http://flickr.com/photos/willpalmer/156585952/
Ruby Keeler http://flickr.com/photos/alan-light/211166042/
Anne Bancroft http://flickr.com/photos/alan-light/210976071/
Siân Lloyd http://flickr.com/photos/danielmorris/103096315/
Ann Curry http://flickr.com/photos/philip-rosie/96849441/
That's it for today, folks :-)
Magnus