User talk:Whpq
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
FYI
Since you leave talk back messages you may want to use this script - User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/selfTalkbackLink.js Place the import script code in common.js it creates a small send a Talkback link besides each users signature on your own talk page! Thanks VarunFEB2003 Offline when signed 15:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- Twinkle is perfectly adequate. I have no need for extra scripts. Btw, your signature is stupidly wrong.
Books & Bytes - Issue 18
The Wikipedia Library
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads
- New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
- Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
- TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
- OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Questions about how to designate fair use photo for Lily Mae
Whpq,
The photo in question is the first I've uploaded to Wikipedia. It is a photo I took, but I prefer not to designate it as a "Free" image. I'm happy to have it used on Wikipedia, but if someone wants to use it elsewhere I would prefer that they contact us first.
If there is a better way to label the photo for that purpose, or if that is something that is not allowed on Wikipedia please let me know.
As far as the photo being replaceable, since there was no one else there taking photos that day I don't see how it would be replaced. I know of no other current photos of Lily Mae that are available for free.
Is what I've said here sufficient? I'm just not that familiar with how Wikipedia works.
Any guidance would be appreciated.
Thanks!
Bbm (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Images that are designated non-free must meet all of the non-free content criteria. In the case of images of living people, they almost always fail to satisfy point 1 which is that there is no free equivalent that could be created. For living people, somebody (not necessarily you) could take a picture of the subject and release it under a free license. So in the case of the photo you submitted, there is no way to label the photo as non-free and still use it on Wikipedia. Regards, -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Whpq,
Ok, I think I get it. I read the logic of Point 1 incorrectly and thought that if either of those conditions was true it was Ok to post the non-free photo. If I now understand correctly then as you point out, for a living person, there is the possibility that someone might take a picture and also post it somewhere and it could somehow end up on Wikipedia, and that is somehow better than if I post my picture for free on Wikipedia but wish to retain my copyright.
I'm guessing that Wikipedia prefers freely copiable content, is that the issue?
Thank you for taking the time to answer. I hope I'm not putting this answer in the wrong place. I haven't figured out Wikipedia talk yet.
Cheers!