User talk:76.117.210.109

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (76.117.210.109) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rooney and Zidane pics

I'm kinda puzzled by the "claim lacks evidenciary proof" edit summary left for Image:Rooney sent off.jpg and Image:Zidane sent off.JPG. The policy for images that are obviously from news/photo agencies and without fair use rationale has been to delete them without the standard discussion/waiting period, since they're highly unlikely to qualify as free use or fair use. Now, those images are clearly photo agency images, unless we're willing to believe that our uploader shot those pictures at the same exact time, at the same exact place, with the same exact camera setting (I'm not). Now, you seem to be looking for evidentiary proof rather than, you know, proof that these images are obvious copyright violations. The fact that the uploaded photos are identical to agency photos should be sufficient reason to delete them for blatant copyright infringement, even if the uploader didn't get the photos from the sites I cited, or whatever other evidence you're looking for. It's not that big a deal since the batch PUI should take care of it, but I wanted to get them out of the way, and the summary is unclear. --76.117.210.109 (talk) 21:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the opportunity to explain my position on these specific cases. I saw no evidence that the images were actually copyrighted by a party other than the uploader. The image uploader put the license tag on the image page that would be appropriate for an image that he or she took themselves. There was no data on the image talk page, nor in the template that said why the tagger thought the images were copyrighted property of another party. An example of evidenciary proof would be "Image is on the getty images site at http://..." or "image appears on an associated press article on news.aol.com at url..." or "image has a watermark in the lower left corner that indicates that JoJo MoMo copyrighted it..." I saw nothing like this except "this image appears to be copyrighted". So, in my way of thinking, just because it is a terriffic picture, alone, does not mean that the veracity of the image uploder's claim should be questioned. I had no way to know "the fact that the uploaded photos are identical to agency photos". I start from assuming good faith, and it requires some evidence to sway me away from that position. Thanks. JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

---

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]