User talk:MichaelMaggs/Archive/2011< User talk:MichaelMaggs
Hi Michael, I have used your snowdrop photo on our page www.beyondtheblarney.ie/Imbolc.html. I just took out the background to suit the design and feel of our own web page and have credited you with the photo. so hope that's OK.
This bot User:RobotMichiel1972 (operated by User:Michiel1972) is uploading loads of french demography diagrams. This bot is operated without permission; the requeest was declined. Greetings, High Contrast (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Images of living people
I started a discussion on the village pump about images of people who wish their images removed. I found an old proposal from you that had good language on the subject, so thought I would let you know. --SJ+ 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
|Template:PD-UK-known has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
is it possible to use your Photos of the chess figures in print media?
Have a nice day
- Hi Armin. That's fine as long as you comply with the licence (essentially, that just requires you to credit me in print as the photographer).
PD-Art in UK
Photographs of identifiable people
I see you did some good work in the past on this guideline, and a proposed version (which I assume didn't proceed). You may be aware of this Commons Resolution on images of identifiable people. This prompted me to look at the guideline. In the past, I've been involved in some discussions concerning patient images on WP. I started a discussion on the specific issue of what "identifiable" means (something covered in your proposal) and whether we should apply different thresholds for different kinds of images. I get the feeling that your proposal ran up against polarised opinions with some folk taking the view that only copyright issues and criminally illegal images are grounds for deletion. I'm rather disappointed at the lack of response to the discussion and looking at the guideline history, it doesn't seem to be very actively maintained. Although this is a matter that concerns me, I have better things to do with my time than bang my head against a brick wall. So I'd value your opinion as to whether it is worth attempting a significant improvement wrt Commons guidelines on non-copyright issues regarding people.
Here's an example of an issue I think Commons gets very wrong. Patient images are, nowadays, taken with consent forms that generally ask for permission to three levels:
- 1. The photographs are held with my health care records.
- 2. The photographs may be used by the hospital for teaching and presented anonymously.
- 3. The photographs may be published only as described: [ insert description of publication (e.g., specific paper to be published in a medical journal, or chapter in a medical book) ].
The maximum level of consent is not
- 4. The photograph may be uploaded to Commons and used for any purpose (not necessarily educational).
I have seen a number of medical photographs on WP where the "permission" is a link to the website of a journal where the images were taken from, or some random physician's personal website, where the journal/physician has published the photos with a sufficiently free copyright licence. This neglects that Commons is not allowed to re-publish the photographs because the subject of the photographs did not give their permission so do to. I also believe, that in these cases where a consent form has been agreed upon, that this extends all such patient images, not just ones that that meet the level of "identifiable" in the proposal above. So if a physician gets my consent to take a picture of my ingrowing toenail for use in a paper he's writing for an open-access journal, this does not allow that physician or indeed any other Wikimedian to take that photo and upload it on Commons. Or do you think I am wrong on a moral or legal ground here? Clearly the toe is a petty example, and it matters much more for more personal images or where one's children might be involved.
|Commons:Deletion_requests/Mass_deletion_request has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this project page, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.