User talk:Eeekster/Archives/2014/December

File permission problem with File:Marco Tiggelaar - Shenzhen, China cropped02.jpg

Hello, Eeekster. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'd like to inform you that Marco Tiggelaar has emailed his permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

Kaguchi (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright permissions for elly barnes

Thanks Eekster, I will take the necessary action. JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Eeekster, permission has been emailed by Elly Barnes in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. I have marked the image {{OTRS pending}} JulesatEducate&Celebrate (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair use

Hello Eekster;

It is obvious that the "no free equivalent/reasonable to get a free equivalent" point of the non-free use rationale is open to interpretation. My contention is that procuring a free equivalent of these images is essentially unreasonable. Please see Wikipedia:Elimination_of_Fair_Use_Rationale_in_Promotional_Photos#Discussion_break_7. Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is it unreasonable to expect somebody to take a picture? Eeekster (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it is asking too much. Instead of simply placing an image under legitimate fair use rationale (a ten minute process), you are asking someone to physically go to the location (a city where English is not the native language), get permission if necessary to take the picture (in other words, you are asking the possible photographer to take a chance), take an adequate picture, upload it and then have the willingness to release it under a GNU license (an undertaking that could take a day or more [depending on where the photographer lives], some negotiation and a hefty amount of goodwill for Wikipedia).

Also, not everyone knows about wikipedia; to some people, it's "just a website" (especially in non-English-speaking countries). Why is it reasonable to ask someone to contribute their time and energy, for free, to "some website" in this way? The picture they take may not even protect wikipedia from litigation if it is obtained illegally, whereas this promotional picture I've upload has been approved for promotional distribution. Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's asking to much? This is a matter of law, it is not about how convenient this are for you. The image is against policy and no amount of arguing is going to change that. Eeekster (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's against one of many interpretations of policy, not against the policy itself. As per one of the five pillars of wikipedia:

"Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute: Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources. 'Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.'" (emphasis mine)

I strove to find a free alternative. There was none. Hence, the fair use rationale I displayed. Cases apparently exist where fair use is allowed, even for non-free images. Therefore, the inclusion or deleting of this file hinges solely on the interpretation of "could be created". Technically, anything "could be created"; that does not mean it's legal or reasonable. For example, when JD Salinger was alive, instead of using an existing copyrighted picture from his youth under fair use rationlae, someone "could" have sneaked into his house and taken a picture of him while he slept in order to create a "free" image for wikipedia. Is that legal or reasonable? A strictly literal interpretation of point 1 of the fair use rationale would preclude the copyrighted picture from being used, but would allow the aforementioned "free" image.

Also, as you know, wikipedia desribes itself as using a stricter set of criteria than US copyright law when it comes to fair use rationle. However, as per Wikipedia's other pillar says:

"Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles, and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected."

Wikipedia's policies are not inflexibly fixed; they are not "law" (and even the law can be changed). They are occasionally described as "guidelines". Therefore, there is leeway in interpretation. This picture has been approved for promotional distribution, fulfills an encyclopedic function, does not impinge on commercial opportunities, is used minimally, follows the image-specific policy, has contextual significance and follows the restrictions on location; no free one is available and due to the difficulty in acquiring a "free" equivalent, it is not reasonable to expect one to be created (for the reasons I've outlined above). Piotr (Venezuela) (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Enough. Nothing is going to change. Please stop posting your opinions here. Eeekster (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyright image removal

Hi Eeekster, I've added the copyright tag to the image on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Lippincott-Schwartz You had deleted the image due to copyright violation. I hope this solves the problem. I have undone your edit. I'm still not very good at images, but my students are updating pages on women scientists. Let me know if I need to do anything else on the image. Thanks, Drsusan1968 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)drsusan1968Drsusan1968 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It still needs a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided or something to show it was created by a government employee as part of his work. Eeekster (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The photo I uploaded belongs to me, and is of me, and I have used it in an article about me, to represent myself. I own the photo and the credited photographer is a friend who has given his permission to me to use it as I see fit. I have provided the following link as reference: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darick Robertson (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thanks for checking for me! Whovianplanet (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to your query regarding image verification

This is regarding the query raised by you regarding image verification. I have already forwarded the permission email send by the owner to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. I consider this matter closed. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayan999 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

New York Methodist Hospital

Hi Eeekster--thank you for your note. I have to admit I am a bit deer in the headlights with this copyright stuff. What I can tell you is that we (New York Methodist Hospital) fully own each of the photos uploaded to our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Methodist_Hospital. We have purchased the images from the contracted photographers to use as needed for our various purposes.

How do I cite this per your guidelines? Thanks for your time! mrs9007

Mrs9007 (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You start by reading the notices and the help linked to in them. Eeekster (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Philip Archuleta

Can you explain [1]? Connormah (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This was the MCQ thread I was referencng. Connormah (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you put a valid license tag on the image? Eeekster (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Am I confusing the preexisting tag with something else? As you can see I was advised that the current tag is sufficient. Connormah (talk) 23:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging you once again. Not too how you think there's no info on its copyright status, as the tag states. The disclaimer and such are clearly linked in the template, which I get from the response at MCQ. Connormah (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Carey (novelist)

Thanks for the note re the photo I uploaded of Peter Carey. I did a bit off digging into the Random House publisher's "Conditions of Use" and they don't match the requirements of Wikipedia. I have therefore deleted the photo from the article in question, and have added a photo request citation to the Talk page. Now just need to figure out how to delete the photo on file so no-one else uses it. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I doubt I have the permission level to delete this image. Do you? If so, could you delete it for me? Many thanks. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 06:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Just edit the photo page and add {{db-author}} and it will be deleted as soon as an admin gets around to it. Eeekster (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

All deleted now, thanks. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Eeekster. You have new messages at File talk:Meghan Trainor Miranda Lambert All About That Bass.jpg.
Message added 21:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-Lips Are Movin (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Why did you delete the photo I uploaded for Dr. Michael Lardon? I'm really upset and I think it is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vissequ (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, wondering if you could tell me how I upload permission for a "selfie" which is used as a the article's main image? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiobhanEnright (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously

How about you look what I removed? Seriously a stupid couple name and some necessary infos which should rather be added to the site of the show instead on the singers page!? And let's not forget the source - allkpop...very reliable. This is a wikipedia page after all, K-pop fans need to learn to add reliable sources. --77.11.129.54 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How about explaining with more than "blablabla" when you remove content. Eeekster (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

How about you actually look what was removed? Do you think I add "blablabla" out of fun? You even re-added the couple name. I'm trying to fix some of the pages because they have too many unnecessary infos and unreliable sources, it's not vandalism.--77.11.129.54 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't care what you are trying to do. If you remove content and don't explain why, it's disruptive editing. Eeekster (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)