[WikiEN-l] Who is uncomfortable

[K P]

On 8/31/07, Monahon, Peter B. <Peter.Monahon at uspto.gov> wrote:
>
> > [Re: Misogyny is the perfect troll]
> > Earlier: ... I think this thread needs to
> > end if we continue to get so personal ...
>
> Peter Blaise responds: Isn't that exactly what's being asked about
> cleaning up the offensive, denigrating crap that is accepted, even
> defended on Wikipedia?

>On the one hand, when (the generic) "others"
> feel uncomfortable, the response is, "Get over it."  But, when (the
> generic) "I" feel uncomfortable, then "this discussion must come to an
> end!"

Nicely said.
>
> > [Re: Article authorship was: Making damn
> >     sure image attribution is very clear]
> > Earlier: ... Photographers upload their
> > original photographs to Wikipedia ...
> > Response: ... Of a reality largely not of
> > the photographer's creation ...
>
> Peter Blaise responds:  Ooops!  What's THAT supposed to mean?
>        A photograph is not "of a reality" any more than anyone's
> writing, or dancing, or singing, or painting, or any other creative form
> speech is "of a reality".  As Magrite painted, "This is not a pipe" -
> it's a painting! (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Magritte)
>        Universally, the photographer gets 100% copyright at the moment
> they release their camera's shutter, at the capture of even the latent
> image.  Not part copyright to the photographer and part copyright to the
> creator of the so-called external reality!
>        Rather than explore if there even IS an external reality, let me
> direct us all to review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright and many
> other copyright dialogs across the world and through history, especially
> about photography, which has been (legally) considered (US
> Constitutionally protected) free speech for more than 100 years already!
> Why is this news for anyone anymore?
>
>
Because people think that shooting pictures only requires the
ownership of a camera--once the technology was invented everyone in
the known universe became an artist.  This isn't true.  It never has
been.  Artists who took pictures in the 1850s that could readily be
reproduced today to better quality are still talked about for their
work--the artists are talked about, because they left something of
value to human culture, their art work.

And heck, people pay for my pictures, even when they could shoot the
same thing, and even though photography is not my genre.  But I'm an
artist, and people buy art, and technology doesn't make the artist
today, any more than it did 25,000 years ago.

But writing facts, distilling information in a non-creative manner
from published and established sources is something that a lot of
people can do and do well--this is what makes Wikipedia work.

KP