Wiki143:Copyright problems/2006 August 17/Images
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Images
- Image:Alexavega1.jpg (history · last edit) from [1]. Wire image marked as press picture (the url goes to a gallery on wireimage website. this image is n. 1333556 ) Abu Badali 21:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- A better URL is this. The uploader, on the image description page, states "This image was in fact taken on the red carpet. I was at the event, and was given an entire kit full of synopsis and photos. The one on the stated website is obviously taken by a different camera or was given as a violation of copyright. Any information needed from me I can submit." Close inspection reveals that the image in the link is identical to the image on Wikipedia, so either the image is a violation, or else the link has misrepresented the copyright of the image. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- That was a very serious accusation from the uploader's part. WiredImage is a company that makes a livin from licensing photos. I would expect it to respect image's copyrights. But of course, I can't prove anything against the uploaders good faith. I'll ask him again about that. --Abu Badali 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, by the time he uploaded it, his memories told him he got the image from somewhere else. He stated "...It was recieved openly as part of a press kit (taken by the press), and was included in the advertising for the event afterwards.". Of course, he may be part of "the press". --Abu Badali 13:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- That was a very serious accusation from the uploader's part. WiredImage is a company that makes a livin from licensing photos. I would expect it to respect image's copyrights. But of course, I can't prove anything against the uploaders good faith. I'll ask him again about that. --Abu Badali 13:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- A better URL is this. The uploader, on the image description page, states "This image was in fact taken on the red carpet. I was at the event, and was given an entire kit full of synopsis and photos. The one on the stated website is obviously taken by a different camera or was given as a violation of copyright. Any information needed from me I can submit." Close inspection reveals that the image in the link is identical to the image on Wikipedia, so either the image is a violation, or else the link has misrepresented the copyright of the image. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
