Talk:Zoe McLellan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
[edit] Fair-use image
If the fair-use issue with the current image from JAG is not resolved, then the image I added previously (here) may be a suitable replacement. — Lee J Haywood 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it probably won't be. I've run into this with other articles and am no longer contributing images of people as a result. Basically under the tightened rules the only images they'll except are either: 1. Images you've taken yourself, 2. Images from a public domain source, or 3. Images for which the copyright holder has explicitly granted Wikipedia permission for use. Magazine covers, DVD screen captures and publicity photos are, under the current interpretation of the rules, not allowed. And yes that is resulting in many articles becoming the poorer for it with no images whatsoever. Your image, under the current rules, could be used for the article on the movie, however. 23skidoo 13:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the clarification. It's somewhat annoying with regard to celebrities that have images everywhere but few Wikipedians are ever likely to get anywhere near in person, but it's useful to know that I've been wasting my time. (; — Lee J Haywood 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's just one of the many inconsistencies around here. Eventually you get used to it. I used to have 1000 pages on my watchlist but I've cut it back to about 200 as it just gets frustrating when people decide to change the rules based on what direction the wind is blowing. A year ago I don't think anyone would have cared if a publicity image were used. And to be honest I'd rather have no image than some of the truly crappy Wikipedia Commons images I've seen floating around. (Actually, as an aside, there are occasional burps about Wikipedia banning images period; the German Wikipedia adopted a "no fair use" policy awhile back and it's one of the dullest-looking websites you'll ever see. 23skidoo 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- And so the image disappears ... sometimes I wonder why they don't just ban images altogether and make this an all-text website. It might look dull but it would save major $$$ in bandwidth and would probably eliminate a lot of the hard feelings being generated on both sides of the issue. What annoys me most is the people deleting these images wholesale are making NO apparent effort to provide replacements. 23skidoo 23:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Additional: for some reason I accidentally logged myself out before I made the previous edit; the anon edit to my comment that appears in the history was made by me. 23skidoo 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's just one of the many inconsistencies around here. Eventually you get used to it. I used to have 1000 pages on my watchlist but I've cut it back to about 200 as it just gets frustrating when people decide to change the rules based on what direction the wind is blowing. A year ago I don't think anyone would have cared if a publicity image were used. And to be honest I'd rather have no image than some of the truly crappy Wikipedia Commons images I've seen floating around. (Actually, as an aside, there are occasional burps about Wikipedia banning images period; the German Wikipedia adopted a "no fair use" policy awhile back and it's one of the dullest-looking websites you'll ever see. 23skidoo 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, you get the same sort of experience with people that insist on a fair-use rationale – you add one and they don't bother to come back and take the template off the image. It's a joke that most of the fair-use images I've added are still happily sitting on articles whereas the just odd one or two are being questioned. There should either be a way to announce such a big change in policy so that I can resolve the issues myself, or the policy should stay as it is. — Lee J Haywood 09:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
-
