Wikipedia article for Psychédélices

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Roman

All good points. My point was really that I'd like a picture of Alizée on her page in Wikipedia. There was one, but it was removed due to permissions problems. Since I have never taken a picture of Alizée, I suppose I don't have permission either, but could one try to find a suitably public domain picture?

Did anyone ask Julien for, say, permission to use the picture from outside NRJ? I mean, one of those guys (or an accomplice) actually took the picture and so must be able to grant permission.

[Ben]

Originally Posted by heyamigo

i would be okay if in the article it said, rumored or speculated song

Well I think it's a little silly to call it a "rumor" at this point, though I did say the article could call it a "reported song". Unless I was imagining things while watching television, that's a fact.

Or better yet, the page could have a section on the album's leak history, like many other wiki pages: example, and another...

Real or not, it's a fact that this file exists. I agree with Roman that leaving it off would make the entry rather incomplete.

Edit: By the way, why is Bertrand Burgalat listed as the producer of both the album and single? As far as I know he just wrote one song, right?

[Sir Wood]

Originally Posted by Roman

All good points. My point was really that I'd like a picture of Alizée on her page in Wikipedia. There was one, but it was removed due to permissions problems. Since I have never taken a picture of Alizée, I suppose I don't have permission either, but could one try to find a suitably public domain picture?

Those on her MySpace friends list could try to see if she'll voluntarily update or authorize a picture. Maybe she doesn't know about it.

Then again it's not like she might not have run across the French one, which also lacks a photo.

[Toc De Mac]

Has anyone noticed that there is now a picture on her page?

[heyamigo]

yea but i don't see it lasting...most pics get removed quickly these days.

so is anyone gonna ask her on myspace for a picture for wiki?

[jaco]

Originally Posted by Toc De Mac

Has anyone noticed that there is now a picture on her page?

Yeah, I just deleted that image myself. We can only use free-content images on Wikipedia.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by jaco

Yeah, I just deleted that image myself. We can only use free-content images on Wikipedia.

Can you explain what would constitute a "free-content" image in this case? What specifically was the problem with that picture? Was it because you don't know who took the picture or because you do know who took the picture but don't know if permission was given or something else?

[espire]

Originally Posted by Roman

Can you explain what would constitute a "free-content" image in this case? What specifically was the problem with that picture? Was it because you don't know who took the picture or because you do know who took the picture but don't know if permission was given or something else?

The problem is that the image is copyright somebody else. Though it is allowed by US law for the image to be used there as "fair use," that's not all Wikipedia wants. Wikipedia's goal is to be fully free content, so that anybody can take anything from it, change it, use it, and share it with others. Fair use images don't cut it for that situation, they must be licensed as Creative Commons, or as public domain.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by espire

The problem is that the image is copyright somebody else. Though it is allowed by US law for the image to be used there as "fair use," that's not all Wikipedia wants. Wikipedia's goal is to be fully free content, so that anybody can take anything from it, change it, use it, and share it with others. Fair use images don't cut it for that situation, they must be licensed as Creative Commons, or as public domain.

Ok, I just look at it and see a picture. Maybe a picture like that is more obviously copyrighted than a different picture, but all I see is a picture. Does this mean that we assume all pictures are copyrighted unless somewhere someone states that it is not or is available as public domain. What I mean is, how can you tell something is freely available as pubic domain unless you are the person who took the picture? Does this mean that we can find a picture taken by a fan, for example, track down and email that person to request permission then argue that permission was given in the wikipedia forums or whatever? (do I need to just go find and read another article in wikipedia about this?)
Has anyone on this forum ever posted a picture they knew to be "free" that you did not take yourself?

[fsquared]

Originally Posted by Roman

Ok, I just look at it and see a picture. Maybe a picture like that is more obviously copyrighted than a different picture, but all I see is a picture. Does this mean that we assume all pictures are copyrighted unless somewhere someone states that it is not or is available as public domain. What I mean is, how can you tell something is freely available as pubic domain unless you are the person who took the picture? Does this mean that we can find a picture taken by a fan, for example, track down and email that person to request permission then argue that permission was given in the wikipedia forums or whatever? (do I need to just go find and read another article in wikipedia about this?)
Has anyone on this forum ever posted a picture they knew to be "free" that you did not take yourself?

Umm..... there's a reason why those kinds of images were referred to as "copyright violations" in the old Usenet days.