File talk:Student japes.jpg

This should be a featured picture

this is the best picture on wikipedia. make it a featured picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.136.254 (talk • contribs)

I agree.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.199.212 (talk • contribs)

You have got to be kiddingDbiel ^(Talk) 14:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the Summary for this image

Note: the following was moved from the image page: Previously tagged as unsourced, but tag states If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.. File was created by above user, ergo source not required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs)

The license does not say that you do not need to identify the source or that you do not need to provide ALL of the information required in the summary for all images. See: Wikipedia:Uploading_images#Mini HowTo

Also see Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements you will note that "method of contact for the photographer" is also missing from the image summary.

Additionally the copyright holder must have a signed release from the subject of the photo before it can be used under the license posted here. Note: if the subject is also the copyright holder no such release is required, but we do not know who the subject is. We do not know who the photographer was. We only know who uploaded the image. As such, this image currently does not meet Wikipedia standards for use in Wikipedia. Dbiel ^(Talk) 14:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. What? The copyright holder must have a signed release from the subject of the photo before it can be used? Since when? This doesn't apply to any image on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you're aware, having quoted to me the relevant policies and rules. Let's take Image:NigelMansell.jpg. Where is the signed release? There isn't one. This is because "...rights to images generally lie with the photographer, not the subject".

Regarding your general conduct, remember that we have to assume good faith, and that spitefulness is generally not acceptable in any editor. With regard to my experience, yes, I have a large number of edits on Wikipedia, but that does not equate with me being able to memorise every separate policy. The Edit Count is as a road, Dbiel - you must travel the road to reach your destination, and some may travel longer roads than others. But do not judge the person at your door by the length of the road he has travelled to reach you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply, my comment regarding my surprise was just that and nothing more, it was not meant to be judgmental and I am sorry it you took it that way. As far as a signed release from the subject, that is not so much a Wikipedia rule as a general law in affect in most states. Just consider how many law suits have been file by the subject of a photo printed or posted for public view. This image could easily be considered offensive by some and if that happened to include the subject, well.... What Wikipedia does require is the permission of the copyright holder, no photographer has the right of unlimited usage of another person's likeness unless it has been signed over to him. Therefor it is questionable if the up-loader is the true copyright holder; the copyright might belong to the subject of the image which of course is unspecified. Again this is not stated in the summary and needs to be noted or the license in invalid and the image would then need to be deleted. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]