The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
AFAIK the CC licenses are irrevocable. He can change the license that appears on the Flickr page if he wants, but if we (i.e. you) uploaded when it was licensed freely, the fact that he changed the license later doesn't affect our use of the image. That said, however, the fact that the images are now on Flickr pages that only registered Flickr users can see means we can't verify its license status. (This is why at Commons, Flickr pages are double-checked by a bot or admin and marked as having had their free status verified as of a certain date, so that if the Flickr license is changed later the image can still be used.) —
Angr18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi there. The image from a US government website (USPTO – Patent and Trademark Office – uspto.gov) and is therefore in the public domain, as are all US government publications. If I have labeled it incorrectly, please advise, and I'll correct it promptly. Thanks. David. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dsarokin (
talk •
contribs)
13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Again, the image is a screen shot that's not descriptive of anything. The content of the screen shot is a search result from query made within a government database. That does not make the screen shot itself free. Further, it is of no use to the article - it's not an actual document as the caption states. Specifically, it states that the image is an "Excerpt from the June 1957 trademark record for Frisbee." This is not true - the image is simply the catalog information within a database telling you where to find the document that was being searched for in the screen shot. --
Strothra15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
In clear violation of the stated license text, this image is not used to "provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself", but as an illustration of the person
Stephen Stills (the image description doesn't even say which concert or event the poster was about or what the source was).
High on a tree13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
To let the version from the commons come through. It will fail the speedy deletion conditions because the image already exists on the commons. I uploaded a new version on the commons though, which is identical to the version on wikipedia, as there were a couple of mistakes on the commons version (as there were on the wikipedia one too) My commons account is
commons:User:JackarangaJackaranga 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Jackaranga14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Although the fair use rationale would suggest otherwise, this image is only being used to show that both actors appeared in the movie, which can be done without an image. The article makes no discussion of the acting/fighting styles that the rationale mentions. The image actually accompanies text about casting for the movie.
Jay3218319:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I've added a sentence in the casting section regarding Yuen Biao: "Some of Yuen Biao's past antics were repeated in Rob-B-Hood, including a fight in which he tried in vain to handcuff Jackie Chan's character."
In fact, this picture shows what happened. It was kind of like a complex fight sequence, where Yuen Biao holds Jackie Chan up against the wall, he takes his handcuffs out, lunges forward to cuff his arm, only for Chan to dodge, he swings, he dodges. This is repeated 10 times, then you have the scene illustrated by the picture. Then Jackie Chan, swings to the left, pleading "Steve, listen to me!" Yuen Biao says, "You can explain at the station!" "Let me finish my business! I will own up!" "Who on earth will believe you!" Then there is a brawl in the bedroom involving a clothes drawer and his bed, which are kind of hard to describe. And this shot is taken at the moment I believe you can best see Yuen Biao's face.
Anyway, that pic is to illustrate a very complicated (very hard to describe by words), but funny fight that took place, typical of Yuen Biao.--
Alasdair00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
All of that is an attempt to justify an image used for decoration. It is not clarification on a needed image. The fact remains that a non-free image is being used in a casting section to show two actors in the movie. The added information has nothing to do with casting.
Jay3218303:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Never mind, delete this for now, I don't know what to do with it yet. I'll try using Google to look for sites whose content is free to share and distribute, even commercially.--
Alasdair04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Having done some searches on Google, I've found a pic in this site:
[1]. Since the website's using the CC Attribution Sharealike License 2.5, I took one of their pics, scaled it down, and uploaded into this location. It should be fine now.--
Alasdair07:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Please be careful with images from blogs. Many blogs use a CC license, but in almost all cases this only refers to the written content (where the blogger is the author and copyright holder), not the images that are used in the blog. Most of the time, they use images from all over the web without any explicit permission. --
91.65.124.7415:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Wait, there is a new development. I emailed the webmaster of this site:
[2], asking them if they are willing to drop the NonCommercial requirement of the CC tag. I received a mail, granting me permission to do so, thus making it usable in Wikipedia. Is that fine with you guys?--
Alasdair00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
AFAIK the CC licenses are irrevocable. He can change the license that appears on the Flickr page if he wants, but if we (i.e. you) uploaded when it was licensed freely, the fact that he changed the license later doesn't affect our use of the image. That said, however, the fact that the images are now on Flickr pages that only registered Flickr users can see means we can't verify its license status. (This is why at Commons, Flickr pages are double-checked by a bot or admin and marked as having had their free status verified as of a certain date, so that if the Flickr license is changed later the image can still be used.) —
Angr18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
The copyright status changed to that not having a free license, and the photographer wouldn't allow a free license because of the possibility of the privacy of the persons in the photo being violated.
Wikiman8615:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi there. The image from a US government website (USPTO – Patent and Trademark Office – uspto.gov) and is therefore in the public domain, as are all US government publications. If I have labeled it incorrectly, please advise, and I'll correct it promptly. Thanks. David. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Dsarokin (
talk •
contribs)
13:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Again, the image is a screen shot that's not descriptive of anything. The content of the screen shot is a search result from query made within a government database. That does not make the screen shot itself free. Further, it is of no use to the article - it's not an actual document as the caption states. Specifically, it states that the image is an "Excerpt from the June 1957 trademark record for Frisbee." This is not true - the image is simply the catalog information within a database telling you where to find the document that was being searched for in the screen shot. --
Strothra15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
In clear violation of the stated license text, this image is not used to "provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself", but as an illustration of the person
Stephen Stills (the image description doesn't even say which concert or event the poster was about or what the source was).
High on a tree13:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
To let the version from the commons come through. It will fail the speedy deletion conditions because the image already exists on the commons. I uploaded a new version on the commons though, which is identical to the version on wikipedia, as there were a couple of mistakes on the commons version (as there were on the wikipedia one too) My commons account is
commons:User:JackarangaJackaranga 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Jackaranga14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Although the fair use rationale would suggest otherwise, this image is only being used to show that both actors appeared in the movie, which can be done without an image. The article makes no discussion of the acting/fighting styles that the rationale mentions. The image actually accompanies text about casting for the movie.
Jay3218319:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)reply
I've added a sentence in the casting section regarding Yuen Biao: "Some of Yuen Biao's past antics were repeated in Rob-B-Hood, including a fight in which he tried in vain to handcuff Jackie Chan's character."
In fact, this picture shows what happened. It was kind of like a complex fight sequence, where Yuen Biao holds Jackie Chan up against the wall, he takes his handcuffs out, lunges forward to cuff his arm, only for Chan to dodge, he swings, he dodges. This is repeated 10 times, then you have the scene illustrated by the picture. Then Jackie Chan, swings to the left, pleading "Steve, listen to me!" Yuen Biao says, "You can explain at the station!" "Let me finish my business! I will own up!" "Who on earth will believe you!" Then there is a brawl in the bedroom involving a clothes drawer and his bed, which are kind of hard to describe. And this shot is taken at the moment I believe you can best see Yuen Biao's face.
Anyway, that pic is to illustrate a very complicated (very hard to describe by words), but funny fight that took place, typical of Yuen Biao.--
Alasdair00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
All of that is an attempt to justify an image used for decoration. It is not clarification on a needed image. The fact remains that a non-free image is being used in a casting section to show two actors in the movie. The added information has nothing to do with casting.
Jay3218303:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Never mind, delete this for now, I don't know what to do with it yet. I'll try using Google to look for sites whose content is free to share and distribute, even commercially.--
Alasdair04:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Having done some searches on Google, I've found a pic in this site:
[1]. Since the website's using the CC Attribution Sharealike License 2.5, I took one of their pics, scaled it down, and uploaded into this location. It should be fine now.--
Alasdair07:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Please be careful with images from blogs. Many blogs use a CC license, but in almost all cases this only refers to the written content (where the blogger is the author and copyright holder), not the images that are used in the blog. Most of the time, they use images from all over the web without any explicit permission. --
91.65.124.7415:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Wait, there is a new development. I emailed the webmaster of this site:
[2], asking them if they are willing to drop the NonCommercial requirement of the CC tag. I received a mail, granting me permission to do so, thus making it usable in Wikipedia. Is that fine with you guys?--
Alasdair00:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)reply