Wikipedia talk:Publicity photos: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:03, 31 July 2006

Fair use (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fair use, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Fair useWikipedia:WikiProject Fair useTemplate:WikiProject Fair useFair use articles

Status?

What is the status of this policy proposal? Jkelly 17:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's under discussion, I guess. I'm unhappy with the page in its current form. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our two comments are the extent of the discussion? Okay... so, why are you unhappy with it? I'd suggest that it could use some copyediting. Jkelly 17:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is pretty rough. If anyone has any other comments I'd be interested in knowing so that they can get fixed. JYolkowski // talk 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - You stated on 5th February 2006 (on the same day it was re-categorised as not being a proposed guideline for Wikipedia) "this is never going to be a policy or guideline but is a useful description of what publicity photos are", but you didn't remove the wikiproject template on this talk page - which I think you put there last November in response to tha above query as to its status. Do you still regard it as to be developed for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fair_use. Thanks in advance for any info--luke 03:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a rather significant edit. I hope that it smooths out some "roughness". Feedback? Jkelly 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful website?

Actors' Agent Search is an online database search for the agents of professional actors. When it succesfully recognizes a name (which happens less often than one might wish) it returns the actor's agency and that agency's phone number. It might be useful for helping people obtain actual publicity photos as opposed to the "it's a photo of someone famous so it is a publicity photo" method often employed. Jkelly 20:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image size

The images are available in high-resolution TIFF versions

Should these images be resized before uploading? I'm assuming yes. (about to upload Image:Pale Forest.jpg) - Trevor Peacock 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to illustrate? What is the copyright status? What is the source of the picture? Fair use depends on a lot of issues.--24.94.190.164 19:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

criteria for what?

The page seems to confuse criteria for being a publicity photo with criteria for fair use. --24.94.190.164 19:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity photos are a subset of the images usable under Wikipedia:Fair use. --Carnildo 00:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant?

How is this not redundant with our existing fair use guidelines? R adiant _>|< 11:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this is a Guidline to explain a particular instance of fair use for Wikipedians. Then the explicitly word seems doubly unnecessary in the sentence "Note that the above only applies to photos that are explicitly distributed for publicity purposes, and does not apply to most photographs of celebrities." Isn't the relevnt question whether the photos purpose is publicity. Comments?--luke 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luke, why do you still ignore the clear instructions given? It needs to have copyright sources listed; publicity photos should come from an electronic press kit. Etc. You can argue about the modality as much as you want, but the guidelines are not there for fun. The JPS 09:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like User:UninvitedCompany I believe this guidline is unsatisfactory. Look again at our discussion, and think about what is going on. As a previous user suggested, the guidline is misleading, and in its attempt to accurately characterise a publicity photo it misses the point as to its purpose. Surely its purpose should be to help in assessing fair use, do you not agree--luke 07:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is helping in assessing fair use. It is providing guidelines which can be used to assess the copyright status of this specific, often misinterpreted, area. Everytime I look back at our discussion, I always see copyrighted images from a website which isn't an electronic press kit. You and wikipedia has no right to use them. This page clarifies this. The general fair use page allows convenient misinterpretations. The JPS 12:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This publicity image of Mary in Big Brother 6 was widely disseminated in both electronic and print media (many national newspapers carried the picture) by Endemol/Channel 4 in May 2005 to advertise the TV programme

The images you refer to were tagged as above. Do you then disagree with that tag.

Funny you should now say "Everytime I look back at our discussion, I always see copyrighted images from a website which isn't an electronic press kit" when previously you said "The News of the World probably did get them from an electonic press kit"

As I said in our previous discussion (and you seemed to agree then) "It seems overwhelmingly likely that these photos (or their originals) were intended (whether explicitly or implicitly) to be reproduced to publicize the programme." This is why I say that the need for explicitness is unnecessary in such a case, and this proposal needs revising.

In any event it was surely wrong to approve the summary deletion of someone's hard work from Wikipedia without any notice whatsoever, simply on the basis of a proposal and without seeing the need for even a discussion (as you asserted later when I brought this to your attention: "There was, and is, no need for a debate. There are guidelines laying out what can be classed as fair use publicity photos. These photos breach those guidelines," not as you said earlier below "They are tagged for deletion, uploader notified, then deleted.")

Surely the 4 factors for fair use are the decisive factor, not this guidline - and especially so since it is not even formally approved as policy yet--luke 08:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My statement that the NotW "probably did get them from an electonic press kit" is not proof that they did. More importantly, until you can find an electronic press kit with a specific copyright notice...
Your satement "This publicity image of Mary..." is also probably accurate. Again, it is not a verifiable copyright statement.
Downloading photos from a website and uploading them again is hardly hard work. Until their copyright status is verified, it is theft.

The JPS 15:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Big_Brother_UK_series_6#Images

People keep adding photos from Channel 4's website to Big Brother UK series 6. I'm fairly sure I've got it correct, and I've explained it OK. As far as I understand it, these images are not fair use. They are tagged for deletion, uploader notified, then deleted. Then someone else comes along and thinks it would be a good idea to add them... I've resorted to putting a hidden message in the source.
Anyway, please let me know if I'm wrong. The JPS 15:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And currently (15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)) from the same source to BB7 :) feydey 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

The text of this article has a good description but there's no guidance on special tags or a template to use for uploading publicity photos. Can someone please advise? Burns flipper 13:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wireimage/AP/Reuters/etc.

We need to put in huge bold letters, "Images from award shows and premieres taken by photo agencies such as WireImage, AP, Reuters, etc. are NOT publicity photographs."--Fallout boy 07:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity photos and fair-use images of celebrities

I'm a little confused about the distinction between publicity photos (as described here), and images of celebrities which fall under fair use, under the pretense of being used to illustrate an object. In particular, I raised some concerns at Image talk:DavidTibet.jpg. As far as I can tell, it's a low-resolution image taken from this site. If the image falls under fair-use, then any image of a celebrity found on the web can be used under fair-use, thus undermining the whole point of publicity photos. Can someone clear up this distinction for me? Cnwb 23:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your only confusion in your comment is that all images uploaded to Wikipedia are hosted on the Wikimedia servers in Florida; that has nothing to do with the origin of the image. The image is an incompatible copyright infringement, just like thousands of others inaccurately labelled with Template:Fairusein. It isn't a Publicity photo; there is no evidence that it is a work for hire or that it comes from a press kit, that the copyright is held by David Tibet or his agents, or that the image was intended for wide distribution. The source provided gives no information about the authorship or copyright holder of the image. The best thing to do is to take it to WP:IFD as a copyright infringement with useless sourcing and no rationale. There are plenty more in Category:Fair_use_in..._images if you're interested in hunting them down. Jkelly 23:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing {{Promotional}} from licensing drop-down

Hi all. I propose that we remove {{Promotional}} from the licensing drop-down list at MediaWiki:Licenses. I've deleted a lot of images from CAT:NL that were improperly tagged with it, and I don't think very many people actually visit this page to understand what "publicity photo" means. It's easy for people who know what they're doing to tag an image manually, or if they don't know about the tag, to leave a note in the image summary. ~MDD 46 96 21:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Jkelly 21:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please! Many people think it's a picture of a celeb, therefore it's publicity. I like the table used at Commons, which gives people the extra hint that source is required. The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please!. After {{NoRightsReserved}} and {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}, it's probably the most-misused tag on Wikipedia. --Carnildo 21:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the goal of the drop-down, anyway? I know that "having everything tagged" sounded like a good idea at one point, but honestly, I wonder what the track record is? Users seem to select them at random for the most part. --Fastfission 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, new uploads are tagged correctly about 62% of the time. --Carnildo 06:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional has been removed. ~MDD 46 96 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This eases up a lot of work on image uploads, very nice. feydey 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Hi. Could I ask for your opinions concerning the two images I mention here. Namely: Image:Michael Rose.jpg (doesn't come from a press kit -- it was distributed to fans... the BBC's intentions for reproduction are unclear) and Image:Facade.jpg (the source is an unofficial fansite that has itself taken the image from elsewhere).

I need advice from you folks because I don't want to keep nominating copyvios for them to be rejected. The JPS ^{talk to me} 11:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Facade.jpg has no source (Taken from www.Kryptonsite.com - is not a proper source) and IF it is from somewhere in that site, the license says: "been released by a company or organization" and that site is a fan page (fan pages cannot be held as the copyright owners or producers of the image), so this is a NSD and/or copyvio.

Image:Michael Rose.jpg license says:"that is known to have come from a press kit" and the image has just a link under Summary (to http://www.nceastenders.com which is again a fan site) so I'd say, no fair use rationale given or verifications that this is a promotional image from an official press kit. If it were from a BBC press kit images site, then I'd keep it (or if there was a line on the image: "for promotional use" or similar). Even if it was distributed to fans doesn't mean it is a promo picture. All above is IMHO then.

feydey 15:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, feydey: you've confirmed my thoughts. The Michael Rose image (one of many similar images) had been rejected from copyvio status becasue the 'fair use tag' is in place. I'm currently clarifying for that user what a promophoto is. The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know of the results. feydey 10:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Talk.

The subject of an article in Wikipedia sent me an image by electronic mail to be included with the entry.

Is this considered a "publicity photo"? Also, what steps need to be taken before the image is uploaded? --Folajimi 13:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the subject also the photographer? How is the image licensed? Jkelly 16:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the photographer was a third party; however, I will confirm that with the subject. As for licensing, I doubt there is one; I asked for it, and it was given to me. What should be the next course of action?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Folajimi (talk • contribs)

Ideally, get the photographer to email permissions AT wikimedia.org with a statement saying that they have released the image under a free, reusable license, assuming that they do. Then use {{GFDL}}, {{cc-by}}, or whatever the appropriate license is. If the photo is not licensed under a free, reusable license, you may make a Wikipedia:Fair use claim, and add {{Permission}}, but note that the image may be deleted at any time, especially if a free, reusable alternative is found. Jkelly 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the deletion logs, {{CC-BY}} never existed. Could you please clarify what that template is supposed to represent? Also, I was wondering if any of those tags mean that they are free to use by the project, provided that they are not altered. Do you know if there are any such licenses? Folajimi 17:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the CC-BY, sorry. That would be a "No derivatives" license, which means a Wikipedia:Fair use claim would have to be made. Jkelly 19:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was taken by the subject's manager; does that make it safe to upload? --Folajimi 19:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the procedure to follow when uploading images made by me? Folajimi 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images made by you should be tagged {{GFDL-self}}, or {{PD-self}}. If you upload them to Wikimedia Commons, you have a few more licensing options. Jkelly 20:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is dangerous

Because this page is linked to from the official fair use policy page, it may be extremely confusing for end users, despite declaring at the top that it is not policy. As currently written, the page is not just wrong in some minor ways, it is diametrically opposed to the direction we have been heading with respect to fair use in Wikipedia.

In general, ordinary publicity photos of celebrities should not be used in Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license. We are powerful enough now that we can insist on this, and get it, from just about any celebrity, or we can get a free photo in a number of different ways. Using fair use in such cases discourages us from creatively looking for a way to enlarge the commons.

My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance. The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example. A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration. Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary. But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity? We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.--Jimbo Wales 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 :::::::What is the procedure to follow when uploading images made by me? [[User:Folajimi|Folajimi]] 20:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 ::::::::Images made by you should be tagged {{tl|GFDL-self}}, or {{tl|PD-self}}.  If you upload them to [[Wikimedia Commons]], you have a few more licensing options.  [[User:Jkelly|Jkelly]] 20:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
+== This page is dangerous ==
+Because this page is linked to from the official fair use policy page, it may be extremely confusing for end users, despite declaring at the top that it is not policy.  As currently written, the page is not just wrong in some minor ways, it is diametrically opposed to the direction we have been heading with respect to fair use in Wikipedia.
+In general, ordinary publicity photos of celebrities should not be used in Wikipedia unless they are released under a free license.  We are powerful enough now that we can insist on this, and get it, from just about any celebrity, or we can get a free photo in a number of different ways.  Using fair use in such cases discourages us from creatively looking for a way to enlarge the commons.
+My own view, which is at the extreme end of the spectrum I know, and therefore not (yet) formal policy in every case, is that we ought to have almost no fair use, outside of a very narrow class of images that are of unique historical importance.  The cover of an album is the best and only sensible illustration of an article about that album, for example.  A screenshot from a movie is often also the best and only sensible illustration.  Some pictures (Elian Gonzales and the Border Patrol for example) are historically critical and irreplacable and worth fighting a fair use battle for if necessary.  But an ordinary photo of a random celebrity?  We are much better off to have no photo than to have a fair use or even "wikipedia only" photo.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 21:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)