User talk:Scott D. White
Welcome[edit]
Hello, Scott D. White, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —Viriditas | Talk 05:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:EFRicketts.jpg[edit]
Thank you for uploading Image:EFRicketts.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. 77.133.12.202 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:EFRicketts.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:EFRicketts.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. 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 provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's already been deleted once and then restored by Veriditas. I posted legit permission for the photo years ago, obtained from the owner. Don't understand what your problem with it could possibly be, unless you just like making Wikipedia worse instead of better. Nice hobby.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott D. White (talk • contribs) 05:14, 12 May 2010
- Just saw this. I'll take a look right now. Viriditas (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I see what User:Angr is talking about. Scott, more than several years ago you wrote this note on my talk page. Since that time, image use policy has really tightened. Based on your message, the copyright holder did not make the license explicit, and currently this can be challenged, which is what Angr (and many others are doing). I know it's bureaucratic and time consuming, but there's actually good reason for them to do this. Just the other day I made a similar mistake, assuming that a particular set of screenshots were automatically in the public domain. My license was challenged, and I discovered that after talking with one of the copyright holders, that only one of the series of images could even be considered for the public domain! The rest, it turns out, were supplemental footage, and belonged to someone else. I had no idea, and while the challenge upset me, it forced me to tighten up the licensing. Although the holder gave me permission, they were unwilling due to time constraints and confusion, to fill out the boilerplate placing the image in the public domain or licensing it as "free", so I was forced to use a non-free license and make a claim of fair use. Instead of having the file deleted again, you will either have to ask Pat to use the form letter at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and send it to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org or make a fair use exemption. In the interim, I'll change the licensing to fair use, even though I'm fairly confident that Pat is happy with the public domain licensing. Unfortunately, that's not good enough for Angr. Contact me if any of this isn't making sense. Or contact me anyway. Good to hear from you as always. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've added a fair use rationale to the image page. I can see now why Angr challenged the public domain license. On the primary website[1], she makes it very clear that unlicensed use of her images is prohibited. Also, the primary image page is clearly copyrighted.[2] However, I'm curious if the image on Wikipedia was sent to you from Pat herself, because it is not available on her website, but a different version is. In some respects, this would bolster your claim if she did send it by e-mail, because it appears to be a cleaner version. In any case, you might want to call her. Her phone number is listed on the site. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, I think I see what User:Angr is talking about. Scott, more than several years ago you wrote this note on my talk page. Since that time, image use policy has really tightened. Based on your message, the copyright holder did not make the license explicit, and currently this can be challenged, which is what Angr (and many others are doing). I know it's bureaucratic and time consuming, but there's actually good reason for them to do this. Just the other day I made a similar mistake, assuming that a particular set of screenshots were automatically in the public domain. My license was challenged, and I discovered that after talking with one of the copyright holders, that only one of the series of images could even be considered for the public domain! The rest, it turns out, were supplemental footage, and belonged to someone else. I had no idea, and while the challenge upset me, it forced me to tighten up the licensing. Although the holder gave me permission, they were unwilling due to time constraints and confusion, to fill out the boilerplate placing the image in the public domain or licensing it as "free", so I was forced to use a non-free license and make a claim of fair use. Instead of having the file deleted again, you will either have to ask Pat to use the form letter at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and send it to permissions-en‐at‐wikimedia.org or make a fair use exemption. In the interim, I'll change the licensing to fair use, even though I'm fairly confident that Pat is happy with the public domain licensing. Unfortunately, that's not good enough for Angr. Contact me if any of this isn't making sense. Or contact me anyway. Good to hear from you as always. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas - sorry for late reply & for my earlier cranky reply on this. Yes, I received the image from (Mr.) Pat Hathaway of California Views, Monterey, Calif. via email back in 2006. I no longer have the original email. My suggestion to Hathaway at the time was that, if he was willing to have the photo appear on Wikip., he should provide an image with his business name embedded. I was in Monterey about a year ago, and wandered into Hathaway's shop. He is a nice man and really enjoys talking to customers & talking about Ricketts. He's got thousands of vintage photos of the Monterey area. I think he'd be glad for whatever little bit of publicity this image & citation might generate. The photo is -definitely- used with his permission. I will send him the form and update here. Would it be worthwhile to cc my query to Wikip.? If so, what address? Thanks for your help. It's a great photo and it would be a shame to remove it over legalistic issues when in fact Mr. Hathaway is glad to have it posted as is. Best, -SW Scott D. White (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)