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:
Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
I don't know, and frankly I don't care. You seem to care, but yet you don't want to ask the only person who knows.
Well, aren't you the one who raised the "made for hire" point originally? If you don't care, then why bother?
As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation
is common
enough that it needs clarifying.
I agree that it'd be useful to clarify it, but I can't think of a better phrasing.
I'm hoping that those on the list who actually know about this stuff can give an opinion.
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?
No. It's because I wouldn't get a straight answer. What is
it you were
saying about AGF?
He's an admin, you're a banned user.
Well, that's not true. You should check your facts.
Seriously, though, if you "wonder about how people [handle] uploading photographs where they are the subject but not the creator", just ask. I'd say they should be handled like any other photo.
Well, I agree. My point is that claiming to be the creator of a photograph you didn't take is a bit rich when you are assigning a free license to it. Claiming fair use seems to be a better way of going about it. We use fair use images non-controversially to illustrate biographical articles, why not do the same thing for user pages, which are similar in nature?
Pete, wondering if common sense might apply here