User talk:ForrestCroce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image copyright problem with Image:Eagle2.JPG 2 License tagging for Image:Eagle1.JPG 3 Image:Volunteer Park Blues.jpg 4 eagle pix 5 Tioga Pass? pic 6 Thanks re sepia tone pic 7 Queen Anne District 8 Ah, the great Forrest of dpreview.com! 9 Gull and depth of focus 10 Pictures (and URL) 11 userbox 12 Re: attribution 13 Drop shadows and licenses 14 Free use 15 Image licensing 16 Non-commercial only images 17 Unspecified source for Image:SepiaMediumFormatCamera.jpg

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Eagle2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Eagle2.JPG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Tim1988 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Eagle1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Eagle1.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Volunteer Park Blues.jpg

Hi! It seems there is no license tag for Image:Volunteer Park Blues.jpg. Could you please add one (or even better, upload it to Commons). Thanks! // Liftarn

[edit] eagle pix

would you consider reuploading these pictures of yours under a free license? --Lukobe 23:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tioga Pass? pic

I may have been wrong in deleting the pic: this is what I thought. It looked like it wasn't a picture of Tioga Pass, but rather a picture of Dana Meadows taken from Tioga Pass. In other words, my guess was that you were standing near the park entrance, looking south along highway 120, into the park. The peak in the center right of the picture would be Mammoth Peak, and the reddish peak to the left would be part of Mount Dana.

On reflection, perhaps I was wrong in deleting the photo --- perhaps I should have simply relabeled the photo "View from Tioga Pass to the south".

Did I guess your orientation correctly? hike395 04:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I would recommend using http://landscapephoto.us/Photos/TiogaLakeSnowy.html as the photo of Tioga Pass, since it actually shows the pass, as opposed to being taken from the pass. However, that's your photo, and WP has no right to it unless you decide to donate it --- it's up to you. hike395 05:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks re sepia tone pic

Your picture of a camera in sepia tone in the article Sepia tone is a beautiful contribution! Thanks! O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 18:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thnaks for the note on my page. Would you approve of putting the sepia camera photo in Wikimedia Commons so that the other language Wikipedias can access it too? O'RyanW (☺ ₪) 01:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen Anne District

You created the Queen Anne District article. I have proposed that it be merged into the Queen Anne, Seattle, Washington article. Please express you opinion of this proposal at Talk:Queen Anne, Seattle, Washington. -- Patleahy 02:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ah, the great Forrest of dpreview.com!

Your reputation precedes you! I've been mainly a lurker on dpreview.com but have asked the odd technical question or two from time to time, but I have noticed your name as a valuable contributor, so your kind words carry extra weight. I'm in a similar situation to you in that I'm an IT techie by day but a photographer at heart. I haven't yet ventured into the world of commercial work - I've just been honing my skills and donating some images to Wikipedia in the process. One day this may change. Preferably without a significant pay cut.. we can dream, can't we? Anyway, I noticed you had already created the 100mm f/2.8 macro USM article. One point though.. I think the optical design was somewhat altered between the original and USM versions. I haven't used the original, but from what I gather, the front element telescoped slightly during focus. I'm no optical engineer though and it is possible that the internal lens elements are still the same. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're as modest as you are talented. And well traveled. I'd be proud to have shot most of what's in your portfolio. And you've got a lot of diversity of style - the gorgeous twilight Montreal photo, the interiors, panoramic landscapes ( and Zion !! ) ... it's inspiring.

You may be right about the 100/2.8 versions - I'v read this a few times, but never from a source that's completely reputable. That's why I added the cite needed tag, but I should list this on the talk page, see if somebody who works for Canon wants to comment?

Good luck, if you ever make the jump out of the IT world, not that you need it. I've seen lesser images on Getty than 90 % of what's in your gallery here. ForrestCroce 03:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gull and depth of focus

Forrest, your new Image:Seagull In Flight.jpg looks like a yellow gull against a gray sky, as if you allowed AWB to apply a too-high color temp. Crank up the blue and it will look good.

And your suggestion to merge Depth of focus into Depth of field needs to be followed up by a discussion section. Dicklyon 06:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. My laptop died, so I'm using an old monitor that I just can't get good color out of, and wind up goofing the color balance. But I'll see if I can do this at work. How do I start a discussion page for the DOF merger? ForrestCroce 06:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I can upload the one I modified if you like; just say the word. For the DOF merger, follow the link from the notice you created, to the talk page, and just add a new section at the bottom; not a new page. Dicklyon 15:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you could fix the cast, that would help a lot - thanks! Eventually I'll add a better image, but right now I'm not sure how long it'll take to fix my laptop ... if it's a couple of months, I might have to get a better screen. I started a section for the DOF article merge, and explained my reasoning, so hopefully others will chime in and clarify the issue. ForrestCroce 04:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I could have gone further, but this is OK, I think. Dicklyon 06:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures (and URL)

I removed the links to your website you'd included in several articles per WP:EL. I'd have given you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you were promoting your site if you hadn't attempted to mask the posting of the URL behind the "adding photo" edit summaries. - Dudesleeper 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Forest, your new pix all link your commercial site on their image pages, too. If I were Dudesleeper, I'd have done complete reverts of all your recent edits, not just the link parts, since your images are clearly there for spamming. Please remove your commercial site links from them; you can of course keep the personal attribution, by name and user page link, and link your personal site from there (from your personal user page), so it will still be findable by anyone who cares. Dicklyon 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First, my site is non-commercial, and second I've reverted the changes fully; the photographs must come down with the attribution. Sorry, but fair is fair. ForrestCroce 02:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair? The terms of your license assure you attribution, but I haven't been able to determine exactly what that means. I thought it meant you could require, for example "photo copyright Forest Croce" wherever the image appeared, but when I put such things into articles it was removed; it was explained to me that attribution on the image page is all that's required. I'm not sure I agree. But I'm pretty sure you're not "entitled" by this license to a link to your personal web site, commercial or not. Wikipedia is overrun by people trying to place links to bring traffic to their sites; don't be part of that spam problem.

Just one editor's opinion. Dicklyon 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is the attribution has to go along with the content being licensed; a lawyer I asked about this says it needs to be "adjacent, on the same page" (including thumbs) but that it's up to the photographer to ensure this is carried out, or you loose / implicitly give up all rights to your images. And I'm not going to let that happen, even as much as I like being able to contribute here. ( Especially to local parks, like Myrtle Edwards, the Center for Wooden Boats, and others.

You have a point, though; I honestly didn't stop to think that Wikipedia would be attractive to spammers. I don't see myself in that sense ( I'm an IT consultant, photography is strictly a hobby, and my web site exists only to share my photos and tips - I don't even sell prints ) and on reflection I can understand why external links are such a hot-button. But all of the links I added were relevant to the article: from Big Basin Redwoods State Park I linked to a page with seven photos, four of them from Big Basin. In the Belltown article I linked to a page with a small handful of photos shot in that neighborhood, from Queen Anne I link to the same page, with three photos from QA. Honestly, even if you don't consider that I uploaded one from each collection and linked to the rest, the links seem appropriate?

Still you're right that links don't exist to provide attribution. I may be in the wrong; if that's the case I hope people can understand that I'm trying to balance my ability to keep some rights to my images against Wikipedia's need to use them, and I'm only doing this on articles that I also have content about on my site. ForrestCroce 03:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Forrest, I believe your pictures make a positive contribution to the pages on Queen Anne, Seattle, Washington and Lower Queen Anne, Seattle, Washington. I hope we can reach an agreement that allows their continued use on Wikipedia. You licensed these pictures under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. The layman's version of the license says "You (Wikipedia) must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." You didn't specify a manner. There is attribution and a link to your website on the image page for your pictures. This page is shown when you click on the picture. Here is an example of such a page for one of your pictures. Most authors are content with this. If you read the guidelines on External links, I think you will agree they are not intended for providing attribution. Is having your site linked from the image pages sufficient for you? If not, how do you think the pictures could be attributed to you? -- Patleahy 06:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Others seem to agree; I went to put those two photos back up, and somebody beat me to it. A good friend of mine is an intellectual property lawyer, and gave me some sobering advice, that I have to enforce an attribution going with each use of my image, or loose all rights to it, including the right attribution at all. I hope people can understand my position; I want to allow Wikipedia to use them in articles where they're useful, but I don't want them to wind up on somebody's MySpace page, with them claiming to have shot my photos. ( This has happened to me once already. )

I had been putting "Photo by Forrest Croce" in the caption under thumbnails, but was told this is against the rules. So I've been adding photos to articles that I have something on my site about, and posting links to it. For example, I uploaded a photo for Tioga Lake and put a link to a page on my site with two photos from the Lake, and the rest within walking distance.

You're right that external links aren't there for attributing an author, but I did think using them in cases where I have more info on the subject on my site would be in keeping with the external link rules, and keep my rights from evaporating.

It would be a good idea for me to get a second opinion, but photography is a hobby for me, and I only have one lawyer friend... ForrestCroce 03:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] userbox

A userbox you might be interested in: {{User:Coelacan/Userboxes/animal shelter}} — coelacan talk — 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm honored - thank you! My cat also thanks you - she came from an animal shelter, and is happy not to be there any more. ForrestCroce 01:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What a lovely kitty! Lucky too. Give her some pettins for me. =) — coelacan talk — 16:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: attribution

I think my work was done when I removed the links to your site. - Dudesleeper 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You think wrong; by removing any type of attribution you've violated the terms of the license. I don't know why you're being so combative about this? You took it upon yourself to violate IP law, and said it wasn't an accident when I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I don't know what specific grudge you have against me, but if you're going to remove all forms of attribution the law compels you to remove the content as well. I've now asked you twice to simply obey the law - that's not an unreasonable request. Thank you. ForrestCroce 01:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Forrest, you need to learn a bit more about licensing and attribution. An external link on an article is not a very sensible attribution, since it's not even by the photo. If you require a specific attribution when a thumbnail is used on a page, you need to say so in the notes with your cc-2.5-attribution-sharealike tag. What you can NOT require on wikipedia is a non-commercial-only or a no-derivatives license like you tried by adding "licensed for non-commercial use only, no derivative works"; this is in conflict with the license you granted. Dicklyon 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you're still at it. I'm about to head for bed, but I fear I'll be seeing the words Forrest and Croce in my sleep, such is their abundance around these parts (even in thumbnail tags now). How about just not linking to your site anywhere on Wikipedia and make thing a little easier for those who try to stick by the rules? - Dudesleeper 05:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Forest, I realize your edits were a few days back and Dudesleeper is just catching up, so this may be redundant advice, but here's the deal: you should never add links to your own site; that's very clear conflict of interest. As to your name on the thumbnails, that depends on the terms of attribution spelled out in your license. If you have stated clearly in the license that even usage of thumbnails needs to include the attribution "photo by Forrest Croce", then wikipedia editors should be expected to respect that; as far as I'm concerned, it's even OK if you go back and update your license requirements, since you didn't quite understand when you first put the photos in. Then, when you see a photo used without the attribution, the right move is to point it out on the relevant article's talk page, and politely ask that the photo either by attributed as required or removed. That way, it's not you who decides, and you avoid any conflict of interest. Putting the photo into an article yourself will however be regarded as conflict of interest if you require your name to go with it. Get it? Nobody wants to take advantage of you; we just want you not to be acting in a conflict of interest situation when editing wikipedia. As for external links, same thing: you can recommend your site on talk pages and see if a less conflicted editor agrees that it's worth linking; don't link it yourself. Dicklyon 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: you need to remove the "non-commercial" and "no derivatives" phrases in your licenses; otherwise I will list images with those terms for speedy deletion; see item 3 on Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia. Dicklyon 05:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drop shadows and licenses

Forrest, thanks for contributing many of your pictures here for Wikipedia. I've enjoyed several of them.

I notice that you've edited in a drop shadow to most of your pictures, though, which isn't typical practice here. I downloaded one in order to edit it out (Image:TiogaPass.jpg) and was about to replace the old version when I noticed that you specified in your license that there may be "no derivative works". As another editor mentioned above, that makes them eligible for deletion. To quote the criteria from Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2FMedia:

Improper license. Images licensed as "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use" or "used with permission" that were uploaded on or after May 19, 2005, and for which no assertion of fair use is provided. [1] This includes images licensed under a "Non-commercial Creative Commons License".[2] Such images uploaded before May 19, 2005 may also be speedily deleted if they are not used in any articles.

I'd hate to lose the images you've provided for use here, but in order to keep them up, you'll need to choose a different license. Would you consider releasing them under the GFDL instead? I'd be glad to help if you have any questions. Tijuana Brass 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free use

You do know what free use mean, yes? That means you can't claim free use images to have no derivatives and for only non-commercial use. Better change this or all of these images are getting deleted. Roguegeek (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing

You have Image:CenterForWoodenBoats.jpg, Image:AncientWoodenBoats.jpg, and Image:WoodenBoat.jpg (and, I would imagine, other pictures) marked as cc-by-sa-2.5, but you also say "non-commercial use only". This contradicts that license. Please sort out which one you mean (if it's non-commercial use only, then it probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia at all, according to current policy). - Jmabel | Talk 03:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if it's been brought up several times already. It also seems editors have fixed wording on the licenses and images, but ForrestCroce simply reverted those edits back. It may be time to start looking into other actions because it's pretty clear knows of the problem, has no intention of fixing it, and is maliciously reverting edits that do correct the problems. Roguegeek (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of the people who made these changes acted in an uncivil way and even engaged in a personal attack on Forrest. I believe this has lead to a feeling by Forrest that he was being harassed.

Forrest, as I said before, I would like to see your pictures continue to be used in the Seattle related articles. However people are correct, non-commercial and non-derived works licenses are incompatible with Wikipedia. [3] Also, attribution on a per article basis is not an accepted practice.

I hope you choose to change the licensing terms on the pictures to that they can be used in Wikipedia. I am sorry that this issue has not been resolved in a friendly manner already. -- Patleahy 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-commercial only images

As others have said above, these images are not permitted on Wikipedia. Non-commercial content cannot be used on Wikipedia because there are "downstream" uses of our content like about.com and ask.com that are commercial. Please feel free to re-upload any of them that you would like under a compatible license and without watermarks. If you are concerned about someone profiting off of your work, you may want to use the GFDL. The GFDL requires that the entire derivative work be GFDL and makes it painful for someone who just wants to do a CD with a bunch of photos or some such thing. Any image that specifies non-commercial use only is deleted on sight. (Please see CSD I3.) --BigDT 03:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:SepiaMediumFormatCamera.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SepiaMediumFormatCamera.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Liftarn 12:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)