User talk:Charles01/Archive 9

Help!

Huh?

This rather awkwardly modified car was photographed in a Film Studio in Changchun, China. It looks British, any clue? Cheers as always, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion: See this image by well known photographer.Regards, Eddaido (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to add except "yes". And good year to you both. And did you spot that some clever fellow repositioned the windscreen wiper? Charles01 (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ligier Dué First

Your are welcome. Feel free to ask whenever you need.--Pierpao.lo (listening) 13:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Attribution licences Infringements Redsimon

I sometimes persuade Flickr photographers to re-license their images and require no more than attribution. I have recently found a couple of websites using these images from WP (sure they might have got them from Flickr but they are grouped as if they all came from WP). I've written to them, got a sensible response from one of them (a professional website designer / builder who was away from home (in Hungary, from Aust! and with a perfectly normal name) for some time so when asked for a deadline I gave Christmas, but I didn't really expect to wait that long.) Then I got a somewhat defiant letter from the employer of the website builder. I would like to show some teeth, motto be prepared etc, and find there may be none except to advise the owners of the copyright which will not necessarily impress them. I find this has happened before with Redsimon and he gives that as his reason for no more contributions to Wikimedia. What would you do if you found someone using your photos given by you an attribution licence and yet no attribution is provided on re-publication? Or OTOH, what should I do about it?
Regards, etc Eddaido (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm

Redsimon has contributed a lot of good pix over the years. I think he still has a website of his own with good car pictures, but it takes a bit of googling to find it, and I don't know if he's uploaded new stuff to it lately.

As far as I am concerned, I have never earned a living as a photographer. To the extent that by uploading my own pictures to wikipedia I may tread on the toes of people who are professional photographers, I regret it. Those guys - a few of whom have an admirable level of talent, and all of whom have presumably struggled to build their careers - are having a tough time of it now that so many people take their own wedding pix using telephones. The copyright thing seems to be largely a matter of courtesy. I would have difficulty persuading a court I had lost money or reputation because someone had used one of "my" wikipedia uploaded pictures without attribution. And they might indeed counter-argue that I had gained reputation through my picture (if it was any good) having been given extra publcity. The exception arises - might arise - if one of my pictures is used to make money for someone else. Under those circumstances, I suppose one might be persuaded to "get legal". But under most circumstances, I would think that any lawyer with nothing more important to do is likely to be a pretty lousy lawyer.

Without knowing anything about the connection between the "employer of the website builder" and the "website builder" you can only speculate about the motives of whoever it was sent you a "defiant letter". Maybe it's a question of "small dogs make more noise than big ones". Maybe he/she had a hangover. Maybe (s)he is in some sort of dispute with the other one. Maybe your own communication was misconstrued as gratuitously discourteous (as if...)

Frankly, unless the picture from Flickr is exceptionally good, or of an exceptionally rare car (or at least a rare something) I would think there might be better ways to spend your wiki-time. But that, clearly, is a judgement for you to make, not me, and I have no wish to be deemed discourteous, in my turn, for cautiously sharing the thought!

Success Charles01 (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And how do you gain reputation if you are an unnamed photographer? Have you not perchance just hit on the very crux of the matter? And also, no single picture but maybe 15 or 20 in each case.

I have a need to punish the employer, who I know fairly well by telephone voice and continuing correspondence, because he is being cheeky about it. Probably idly spent a large sum of money to get his solicitor's opinion which I expect matches yours. The website builder was just doing his job but when I phoned him in early mid-afternoon NSW time he was or had been fast asleep in Hungary and so I came up with Christmas. Anyway employer (to my amusement) pleaded he was unable to find good photos for the moment and used them as a temporary measure. That is case one.

Case two has not answered my polite email. He's made the mistake of advertising his car for sale so I have a phone number. He has in fact supplied attribution to the first half dozen or so then gone slack on it.

So, there you have it all. My concern as I explained way up at the beginning is for the copyright holders. So now I see we really are asking them to give away all control of their pics and we offer no protection / assistance. I don't think I can go on asking for licences to be changed to suit Wikimedia if you are correct and looking at the cheerful face of Redsimon I think you must be.

Always a pleasure to consult a professional. Best regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)