![]() | A fact from Tomoko and Mother in the Bath appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 October 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Might I suggest including a web-resolution copy of the photograph in the article, such as the one at the listed [1] (not the slightly larger resolution version accessible by clicking)? Provided the image was of a low enough resolution not to have a deleterious effect on the commercial value of the original photograph, and that it was being used in an educational context (which this article would fall under), Fair Use would cover the prescence of such a significant photograph (cf. Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, Image:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg, and Image:Kent State massacre.jpg.) I understand the (reasonable) objection by the photographer that the work not be displayed, but legally (if perhaps not ethically) Wikipedia could do so. At the very least could a request for permission be sent to the email provided at the site, outlining Wikipedia's non-profit, educational ideals? GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
why aint the picture included?
I also came from the Main Page and I realy think the picture should be included. If you are to write about a photograph you must show it. Copyright is not an issue, this is legal. Respecting the wish of the family is not a good argument. If the wish was realy respected, the whole article should have been deleted. -- Jan Smolik 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the photo should be included. Note that there are grounds for including it, but as Nil Einne points out above can does not equal should. Given that the family chooses not to have this paraded around it seems civil to take their wishes into consideration. There are links to the image in the article should someone really wish to see it, but the article is descriptive enough that I don't think we need it here. Ziggurat 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Coming back after the Main Page exposure, it looks like the inclusion of a photograph did prove contentious, but ended in a decision of no consensus. Barring any very persuasive arguments, I'd advise sticking to the decision of the original author of the article (as per the AmE v CwE argument), and go with the compromise of a link at the bottom of the page. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest using the template at Template:External media, which I believe is perfectly suited to this situation. The web-site can be attached using the template, and placed in a more visible part of the page near the top or alongside the "Capture" section. If there are no objections, I'll do it in the next couple days. Boneyard90 ( talk) 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If the family has refused to allow the image to be reproduced, and we are intending to honor that intent, then we CANNOT link to an external site showing the image, because THAT site is then engaged in copyright violation, which we cannot link to per our policies on external links (like most youtube videos, etc). If, however, fair use allows the reproduction, WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder, for purposes of discussion of the image itself (NOT for discussion of pollution, birth defects, maternal love, or for political advocacy, fundraising, etc etc), then we have every right to reproduce it here, albeit in low resolution and ONLY for this article. I really dont understand the arguments presented here for why we cannot reproduce the image, but can link to a site that is violating the request we just agreed to. Note that the website we linked to is a COMMERCIAL website using this image as part of their list of notable images, to promote their business. How is that any better than our proposed reproduction? We cant have it both ways. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The Capture section current states "Taken with a Minolta SRT-101 and super wide 16mm Rokkor lens." This lens description is probably not correct. It appears that all versions of Minolta's 16mm Rokkor lenses were fisheye type lenses ( http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/). A characteristic of fisheye lenses is their very strong barrel distortion. Photographs made with fisheye lenses show straight lines as if they were curved. In the photograph that is the topic of this article, the straight lines of the bath appear to be straight rather than curved. The photograph shows no evidence of the strong barrel distortion that is a characteristic of all fisheye lens photographs. Based on its appearance, the photograph was likely made with a moderate wide angle lens or a normal lens, not a fisheye or a super wide. The lens is not an important detail about the photo, but in the absence of reliable information about which lens was used, the description of the lens should be omitted. 100.8.73.140 ( talk) 20:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Tomoko and Mother in the Bath appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 8 October 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Might I suggest including a web-resolution copy of the photograph in the article, such as the one at the listed [1] (not the slightly larger resolution version accessible by clicking)? Provided the image was of a low enough resolution not to have a deleterious effect on the commercial value of the original photograph, and that it was being used in an educational context (which this article would fall under), Fair Use would cover the prescence of such a significant photograph (cf. Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg, Image:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg, and Image:Kent State massacre.jpg.) I understand the (reasonable) objection by the photographer that the work not be displayed, but legally (if perhaps not ethically) Wikipedia could do so. At the very least could a request for permission be sent to the email provided at the site, outlining Wikipedia's non-profit, educational ideals? GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 23:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
why aint the picture included?
I also came from the Main Page and I realy think the picture should be included. If you are to write about a photograph you must show it. Copyright is not an issue, this is legal. Respecting the wish of the family is not a good argument. If the wish was realy respected, the whole article should have been deleted. -- Jan Smolik 21:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the photo should be included. Note that there are grounds for including it, but as Nil Einne points out above can does not equal should. Given that the family chooses not to have this paraded around it seems civil to take their wishes into consideration. There are links to the image in the article should someone really wish to see it, but the article is descriptive enough that I don't think we need it here. Ziggurat 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Coming back after the Main Page exposure, it looks like the inclusion of a photograph did prove contentious, but ended in a decision of no consensus. Barring any very persuasive arguments, I'd advise sticking to the decision of the original author of the article (as per the AmE v CwE argument), and go with the compromise of a link at the bottom of the page. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I suggest using the template at Template:External media, which I believe is perfectly suited to this situation. The web-site can be attached using the template, and placed in a more visible part of the page near the top or alongside the "Capture" section. If there are no objections, I'll do it in the next couple days. Boneyard90 ( talk) 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If the family has refused to allow the image to be reproduced, and we are intending to honor that intent, then we CANNOT link to an external site showing the image, because THAT site is then engaged in copyright violation, which we cannot link to per our policies on external links (like most youtube videos, etc). If, however, fair use allows the reproduction, WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder, for purposes of discussion of the image itself (NOT for discussion of pollution, birth defects, maternal love, or for political advocacy, fundraising, etc etc), then we have every right to reproduce it here, albeit in low resolution and ONLY for this article. I really dont understand the arguments presented here for why we cannot reproduce the image, but can link to a site that is violating the request we just agreed to. Note that the website we linked to is a COMMERCIAL website using this image as part of their list of notable images, to promote their business. How is that any better than our proposed reproduction? We cant have it both ways. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The Capture section current states "Taken with a Minolta SRT-101 and super wide 16mm Rokkor lens." This lens description is probably not correct. It appears that all versions of Minolta's 16mm Rokkor lenses were fisheye type lenses ( http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/). A characteristic of fisheye lenses is their very strong barrel distortion. Photographs made with fisheye lenses show straight lines as if they were curved. In the photograph that is the topic of this article, the straight lines of the bath appear to be straight rather than curved. The photograph shows no evidence of the strong barrel distortion that is a characteristic of all fisheye lens photographs. Based on its appearance, the photograph was likely made with a moderate wide angle lens or a normal lens, not a fisheye or a super wide. The lens is not an important detail about the photo, but in the absence of reliable information about which lens was used, the description of the lens should be omitted. 100.8.73.140 ( talk) 20:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)