| Revision as of 01:00, 28 July 2005 editHayford Peirce (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,790 edits fair use photo← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:05, 2 August 2005 edit undoHayford Peirce (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,790 edits "fair usage" and "fair dealing" -- it's difficultNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Because this picture is obviously copyrighted by the LA Times. They own all rights to it. It's not fair use to use one of their pictures without first getting their permission. It's not enough just to attribute the photo to them and say that they have the copyright.... You can dispute this, of course, but if you do, and revert the picture to the article, I'll just list this picture for deletion in the appropriate Wiki section for disputed pictures and about 3 weeks from now it will be deleted. ] 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | Because this picture is obviously copyrighted by the LA Times. They own all rights to it. It's not fair use to use one of their pictures without first getting their permission. It's not enough just to attribute the photo to them and say that they have the copyright.... You can dispute this, of course, but if you do, and revert the picture to the article, I'll just list this picture for deletion in the appropriate Wiki section for disputed pictures and about 3 weeks from now it will be deleted. ] 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :PS -- I don't like this any more than you do. I own several paintings and drawings by well-known artists that I would like to put into the articles about them. But I cannot do so because even though these artists are dead, and I physically own the paintings, their '''estates''' own the rights to the images of the paintings.... | :PS -- I don't like this any more than you do. I own several paintings and drawings by well-known artists that I would like to put into the articles about them. But I cannot do so because even though these artists are dead, and I physically own the paintings, their '''estates''' own the rights to the images of the paintings.... | ||
| ::I just don't know precisely what "fair usage" means -- and I think it can be argued about forever. There's a lot of Wiki back-and-forth about it, and there are hundreds of pictures in a proposed deletion section in which people chip in their own opinions. It seems pretty clear, however, that if a newspaper or magazine runs a picture of someone, that paper (or the photographer, or both) *owns* that particular picture. I can take a picture of the dome at Yosemite, for instance, and although I don't own any rights to the dome, I own the rights to that particular picture. Even if I *give* you, Haiduc, a copy of that picture, you do not then have the right to publish that picture anywhere -- without my express permission. Look at all the ] pictures of Yosemite that are still being sold for big bucks. His estate owns the rights to those pictures. And there's a 1923 picture of Yankee Stadium that someone wants to put into the ] article -- but the New York Times owns the copyright (or at least has licensed it) and is advertising that picture for sale in the newspaper almost on a daily basis. So we've got to be *very* careful about taking pix from newspapers. I myself just added a photograph of a 1925 British cartoon to the article about the American tennis player ] under what apparently in England is called "fair dealing" -- but even so I'm not 100% sure at all as to whether this will be allowed to stay there.... ] 18:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:05, 2 August 2005
It has been my experience that the more others know about me, the less they know about me. If you want to know what I am like, please read my contributions. Haiduc
fair use of LA Times photo
Because this picture is obviously copyrighted by the LA Times. They own all rights to it. It's not fair use to use one of their pictures without first getting their permission. It's not enough just to attribute the photo to them and say that they have the copyright.... You can dispute this, of course, but if you do, and revert the picture to the article, I'll just list this picture for deletion in the appropriate Wiki section for disputed pictures and about 3 weeks from now it will be deleted. Hayford Peirce 01:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- PS -- I don't like this any more than you do. I own several paintings and drawings by well-known artists that I would like to put into the articles about them. But I cannot do so because even though these artists are dead, and I physically own the paintings, their estates own the rights to the images of the paintings....
- I just don't know precisely what "fair usage" means -- and I think it can be argued about forever. There's a lot of Wiki back-and-forth about it, and there are hundreds of pictures in a proposed deletion section in which people chip in their own opinions. It seems pretty clear, however, that if a newspaper or magazine runs a picture of someone, that paper (or the photographer, or both) *owns* that particular picture. I can take a picture of the dome at Yosemite, for instance, and although I don't own any rights to the dome, I own the rights to that particular picture. Even if I *give* you, Haiduc, a copy of that picture, you do not then have the right to publish that picture anywhere -- without my express permission. Look at all the Ansel Adams pictures of Yosemite that are still being sold for big bucks. His estate owns the rights to those pictures. And there's a 1923 picture of Yankee Stadium that someone wants to put into the Babe Ruth article -- but the New York Times owns the copyright (or at least has licensed it) and is advertising that picture for sale in the newspaper almost on a daily basis. So we've got to be *very* careful about taking pix from newspapers. I myself just added a photograph of a 1925 British cartoon to the article about the American tennis player Ray Casey under what apparently in England is called "fair dealing" -- but even so I'm not 100% sure at all as to whether this will be allowed to stay there.... Hayford Peirce 18:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)