User talk:Jeffness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

User talk:Jeffness/Archive 1: January 1 2006 – November 25 2006 User talk:Jeffness/Archive 1: November 26 2006 – February 1 2006

Contents 1 Stop Deleting Random Images! 2 A Challenge 3 Your revert on User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me 4 Dood 5 Coke Picture 6 Regarding Wikipedia image copyrights 7 [2] 8 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart 9 Image:MeijerGardensAmericanHorse.jpg 10 Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg 11 Images I've taken will not be removed from my user page 12 Fair use rationale for Image:MeijerGardensAmericanHorse.jpg 13 Replaceable fair use Image:DVChikyu.jpg 14 Warning 15 Stephen Short wikipedia page 16 Stephen Short peer review

[edit] Stop Deleting Random Images!

Seems to me that you're out to delete any photo that has a logo on it. Please stop, Ive noticed that many of the images you've tagged for deletion contribute to the article it was posted for. Deleting shit loads of images that mean something to the article is senseless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.225.102 (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Irony. --Jeff 22:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they contribute or not - the fact of the matter is the photographs that were tagged for deletion are improperly licensed. Derivative works of copyrighted material are not eligible for release by the photographer under any license nor they eligible for release into public domain.--Jeff 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, instead of being a hard ass and deleting them, re-tag them or re-license them or whatever you have to do. And from what you've said, you'll then have to tag for deletion any photo of say for example, a building with the logo of a soda they sell because the photographer doesn't have the rights to that logo. So if I'm right, any photo of an object, building, etc. with a copyrighted logo would have to be deleted.

For a few of the images that were nice enough, I did exactly that. Image:Newspritecan.JPG and Image:Pepsi_Fire_limited_edition.jpg. I nominated images that were of poor amateurish quality for deletion, cause if we're going to use an image under fair-use, we might as well use a good fair-use image.. atleast that's how I look at it, know what I mean?

Regarding the rest of your post, you're interpretation is dead-on. Technically, by copyright law, the copyright holder has exclusive rights to authorize the usage of and derivatives of the copyrighted work they hold. That includes whenever it is present in, even as a background object, a photo. The existence of the copyrighted item makes the resulting image ineligible for the creator (photographer, painter, etc) to license it themselves. To resolve the technical copyright issue, the offending logo could be digitally removed or something.

In regards to Wikipedia, I'm of the opinion that such images should be properly licensed and used under fair-use rationale if appropriate, or deleted. It's of paramount importance for the encyclopedia and everyone who uses the content we create that we get the license right, even if it is sometimes stupid and daft.--Jeff 02:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi anon. In the course of my discussions elsewhere, someone pointed me to the concept of De_minimis. This seems to say that any incidental inclusion of copyrighted items in a work does not disqualify an original work from having its' own copyright. Pretty cool. I did not know that. I like it!--Jeff 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Challenge

I repeat my challenge from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Sprite: I defy you to show me any case law ruling that photographers cannot copyright photographs of trademarked products. If you cannot demonstrate the legal basis for this theory of yours, it will be obvious that you are simply tagging these images to be a troublemaker, rather than out of a desire to improve Wikipedia. I look forward to your reply, complete with citations. —Chowbok ☠ 00:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with trademark; It's a copyright issue. Please see the Wikipedia template for photographs of statues.--Jeff 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That only applies to copyrighted 3-dimensional works of art. Again, I defy you to cite me a court case that says you can't copyright a photo of a commercial product. If you can't, then you have no business tagging those photos. —Chowbok ☠ 00:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. You're confusing the text of the template for being a direct quote from the United States Code. Did you actually read that section of USC? I'm guessing not. Section 106 is titled "§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works". Do yourself a favor and read it before you further make a fool of yourself.--Jeff 00:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to be such a dickhead, so I'm sorry. Really. You'll understand that the reason I react this way has to do with our long running history and I can't help it. I found an interesting page that answers alot of questions regarding copyright and derivative works. [1].

I will maintain that I am extremely frustrated by your behavior though. I swear to god I thought you would actually be pleased with what I've learned about copyright and how it should be applied on Wikipedia.--Jeff 01:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Especially since my corrections are actually fixing licensing issues while your "corrections" are simply deleting things from Wikipedia that were perfectly vetted under fair-use rationale, properly tagged, and well justified under US law and case law. Despite all of the legal groundings, your objection came under morale grounds. Screw the case law that supports fair-use rights.--Jeff 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel you owe me an apology, or is it too difficult for you to admit you are wrong?--Jeff 17:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An apology? For what? I asked for case law. You pointed me to the statute and an article which says in the second paragraph that the courts haven't really settled this stuff. The idea that a photograph of a commercial product is considered a derivative work and not original is just your opinion, based on your amateur reading of the relevant laws. This is nothing to base policy on. —Chowbok ☠ 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're a fool.--Jeff 03:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I don't need to quote case law. Your request is irrational and out of spite. Any plain reading of the law would convey an understanding that derivatives of copyrighted works are not allowed.

To bolster myself even further than I already have and more than i should need to, please see the following:

ETS-HOKIN v SKYY SPIRITS, INC. US 9th circuit court.. This case is about a person photographing the SKYY Vodka bottles. In the case, the justice's of the 9th circuit court ruled that the bottle was not a copyrighted object because it did not meet the requirements. It lacked artistic qualities, being just a bottle with a text script label. The inference by the opinion is that, if the bottle had an artistic rendering worthy of copyright, they would have ruled differently. Also please read the dissenting opinion by D.W. Nelson. Dissenting opinions are just as important as the result of any case.

Hal Davis v. Jack Mendenhall Unknown juridiction In 1985, muralist Jack Mendenhall painted a photograph originally taken by advertising photographer Hal Davis. A federal court awarded the Davis $11,000 in damages, $4,000 in legal fees, and granted him the painting's copyright. In essence, Davis was entitled to compensation for all future use of Mendenhall's painting. -- This shows that derivatives are indeed owned by the original copyright holder and have been given monetary damages for misusing a copyrighted work.

Please quit wasting my time. I'm not a law clerk and I have better things to do than help educate you on copyright law and answer your asinine requests for justification.--Jeff 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert on User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. Clown read and understood the message, and he deleted it, which is his right. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think he did understand it. He reinstated the {{GFDL-self}} template on the image that I corrected earlier, when clearly the image cannot be licensed under the GFDL.--Jeff 04:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough; take that up with him. The edit summary of your revert, though, indicated a misunderstanding of talk page guidelines; he does have the right to remove messages from his talk page. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What the fuck. Care to elaborate how I should interpret this, Jim, as I am seriously having trouble interpreting it under WP:AGF. How can I take it up with him when he deletes me from his talk page?--Jeff 04:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Jeff. Thanks for the earlier message. I just wanted to clarify that there isn't a dispute here, feel free to remove the GFDL tag if you'd like, but I would prefer that it be made explicitly clear that I took this photograph to avoid any "sourcing" issues in the future. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok done. Did you want to take care of your other photos yourself? Thanks for the help Jim.--Jeff 04:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to if you'd like. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dood

If you are going to fair use police then expect to be fair use policed back. As it stands your image does not meet the FUC. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Matt, I invite you to join our discussion about this topic Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#Publicity_photos.2C_redux. Please read that in total, it will bring you up to speed. Thanks "dood".--Jeff 16:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coke Picture

Dissapointing that the pictures can't stay. I noticed that there wasn't apicture of the old "Cherry Coke" design of the can. Me being the Cherry Coke fan that I am, I saved an old can from the "good old days". Too bad they're not going to work. DannyQuack 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Wikipedia image copyrights

Wrote something back in reply to your response (re: photograph of musician at concert). Cheers, AppleJuggler 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [2]

Why did you delete this Counterexample? I am concerned because I do watch fair use rules in ruWiki.--Vaya 12:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The page's history makes it quite clear. It was a reversion of an incorrect addition. not a removal.--Jeff 16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea thats what I like to know why was it incorrect?--Vaya 16:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The addition was a "wikipedia situation where a fair use image shouldn't be used", not a "Counterexample showing what fair-use is not", as the section is.--Jeff 21:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it thanks.--Vaya 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MeijerGardensAmericanHorse.jpg

Hello, Jeffness. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MeijerGardensAmericanHorse.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jeffness. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg

Hello, Jeffness. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MSU Bronze Sparty 2.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Jeffness. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images I've taken will not be removed from my user page

This is ridiculous. I am not going to be bowing to the contention that I am not allowed to use images, that I myself acquired no less, on my user page. Fuck policy. Policy is made by social people who have no better thing to do than constantly bicker amongst themselves about. Policy is inherently flawed because it's made by people who dedicate themselves to a bureaucracy. Under copyright law, I am more than well within MY FUCKING RIGHTS to use these fair-use images of MY taking in this way. Wikipedia policy should be consistent with copyright law and no more. My use is allowed within copyright law. If you think otherwise, kindly direct your concerns elsewhere. Thank you.--Jeff 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Jeffness, with due respect our policies on this are clear. We do not make exceptions. We used to make exceptions for the main page of the encyclopedia, but no more. We just do not permit it. Even it is legal under terms of the law, we do not allow it. The reason for this is simple; if we had a situation where there were legal justifications required for each use outside of the main article namespace (where we are usually quite clear of legal concerns), we create a situation that is highly unmanageable for us. Thus, the Wikimedia Foundation drew a line in the sand that is easy to understand, and easy to follow. We do not permit the display of copyrighted works on pages outside of actual encyclopedia articles. I'm sorry you're negatively affected by this policy, but there's no flexibility on it. There's no intent here to push you off the project in any respect. We're simply trying to manage our copyright environment, which frankly is a very daunting task. I've been doing this for over a year now, with thousands upon thousands of removals, and it never seems to get any better. The bot is impersonal, but it's the first time we've had a tool to actually get on top of this situation. I've taken a different approach to removing the images from your page; I've changed them to links instead of displaying them. See [3]. I hope this is more acceptable to you. I too have a gallery of images that I've taken or found elsewhere, and I too have to not display them. See User:Durin/Contributions#Fair_use_images_.288.29. All the best, --Durin 16:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MeijerGardensAmericanHorse.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MeijerGardensAmericanHorse.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:DVChikyu.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DVChikyu.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Garion96 (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

If you continue edits such as this and this, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -SCEhardT 16:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

oh no, blocked from editing a worthless wikipedia run by idjits like you, tragic.--Jeff 17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the wrong attitude, Jeff. I spoke to you once before about personal attacks [4], and am now blocking you from editing for three days. You're welcome to return when the block expires, but please do so only if you've resolved to treat all of our volunteers with respect. ×Meegs 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to respect anyone on this damned project. Every effort I have ever made has been dismantled and torn apart by people dedicated to dismantling others' work. I don't care, do whatever you want.--Jeff 05:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Short wikipedia page

Jeff,

I appreciate that you informed me of your concern. I am not Stephen Short, nor a "surrogate". I'm merely a fan of his work as well as a friend. I've tried to correct false information on Wikipedia, and I have provided references on most occasions. Could you please kindly remove your post at "WikiProject_Spam", as this is absolutely not meant in a promotional nature? If you have any more concerns, please let me know. My goal is to keep information about the bands and people that work with them as factual as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManbirS (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I mentioned this below, but I have concerns about Conflict of interest here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Short peer review

I am sorry, but the Stephen Short Peer Review meets the Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy, specifically Requests that aren't appropriate for peer review, for instance requests for help in containing vandalism, resolving an edit war, or detecting a copyvio. These should be removed promptly in the interest of the requester, since he/she is unlikely to get adequate response to them at Peer Review. Please drop a note on the requester's talk page to inform them of the removal and the reasons for it, and try to recommend a better page to list the request.... I archived it. If the listing at the SPAM noticeboard does not work, please consider the conflict of interest noticeboard: WP:COI/N. Thanks and sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)