[WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs

[Arwel Parry]

In message <068f01c67d18$3667b090$6400a8c0 at Tiny>, Peter Mackay 
<peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> writes
>> From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org] On 
>>Behalf Of Anthony DiPierro
>> Sent: Monday, 22 May 2006 6:00 AM
>> To: English Wikipedia
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Creation of user photographs
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay 
>><peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > > From: wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org
>> > > [mailto:wikien-l-bounces-g2DCOkC13y2GglJvpFV4uA at public.gmane.org] 
>> > >On Behalf Of Anthony
>> > > DiPierro
>> >
>> > > On 5/21/06, Peter Mackay 
>> > ><peter.mackay-bzGI/hKkdgRBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> 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.
>
>See below.
>
>> > 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.
>
>Is it made for hire? That's a guess.
>
>As for templates, I don't know. I think that the sutuation is common enough
>that it needs clarifying.
>
>> > > 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?
>
>The reason I picked that image is because I happened to be on that user's
>page, and I wondered about how people handled uploading photographs where
>they are the subject but not the creator. Looking around further, it looks
>like it is handled in a variety of ways, and Jimbo has made sure that he is
>setting a good example.

I think we need to apply a modicum of common sense when handling 
copyrights, particularly when determining who is the actual copyright 
holder is inherently indeterminable.

For example, if I had sufficiently bad taste as to upload the primary 
school portrait of me at age 7, taken in 1966, I would consider it 
reasonable for the subject, me, to release the photo under GFDL, or PD 
or whatever, as:
- I have absolutely no idea who took photographs of primary school 
children in Denbighshire, Wales forty years ago,
- my parents paid good money for that photo (possibly as much as a 
shilling or two),
- it is highly unlikely that the two unpurchased copies of the portrait 
survived more than a couple of years in the photographers' files,
- the photographer is unlikely to still be in business,
- I cannot conceive of anyone possibly objecting to the use of the photo 
(except on grounds of artistic taste!)

Do you contend that some pictures can never be used in Wikipedia under 
any circumstances, even in similar circumstances where the theoretical 
copyright holder cannot be traced despite any conceivable amount of 
tracing effort?

-- 
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/