Talk:Alexandra Kerry

flash
It's the use of flash. It sees through some materials. Just like you shouldn't wear white into the water, you shouldn't wear black where you're going to get flash pictures taken of you. I'm sure she had no idea the picture would look like this.

Sure makes it interestng to look at though! :)

Can I just say that it's a nice photo. I'm no liberal but I'd vote for her!!!


 * That is not the most flattering photo we could have chosen for a presidential candidate's eldest daughter. Although I assume we're in our rights to put the picture on the page, couldn't we find a more dignified one?  --Ardonik 03:16, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * After another reading, I suppose it is relevant to the article. That doesn't mean I have to like it.  --Ardonik 03:19, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Anonymous user 67.180.24.204 just removed the image in question, calling it a "copyright violation" in the edit sumamry. Since both images were lifted from the same source, but the anonymous user conveniently forgot to unlink the other one, the edit was probably done out of prudishness.  Whether it's a real copyright violation or not is still in question (it's probably valid under fair use), but lying about the reasons for an edit is not acceptable.  I'm reverting the change, and explaining my revert on Copyright problems.  --Ardonik 05:20, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * It was me, and I'm no prude. (My motivations are irrelevant in any case).  I didn't know the source of the other picture.  But the source of the one 'naked' one is explained above in Talk.  It's a wire service photo taken by a commercial photographer.  We have no more right to use it for free than does the NY Times or Washington Post.  If the other picture is also taken by a commercial photographer, it should also be removed.  Just because we would like a free picture, does not mean we get to grab whatever we want.  Anybody who wants to get jollies of Alexandra's jugs can just Google it.  But Wiki policy is to respect copyright.

Picture, picture.
After a little research both pictures are in fact "copyvio" because they were taken by a commercial photographer. The photographer was charging a pretty hefty price for the picture when it was first released so remember, copyright law allows for up to 3 times the damages! Also note, I removed the link to the [Snopes page on the dress because it isn't even factual. From the page:
 * Claim:  Photograph shows Alexandra Kerry in a see-through dress.
 * Status:  True.
 * "The family members of politicians don't generally receive this much exposure, but Alexandra Kerry — daughter of Masschusetts senator and presumptive 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry — did in May 2004 when she attended a Cannes Film Festival event wearing the sheer, translucent black gown pictured above."

She wasn't wearing a "translucent" dress... we've covered this before. The dress looked that way when the flash hit it... jeez JoeHenzi 23:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

just by way of reference, note that jenna bush's bare breast incident was was purged from wikipedia. Wolfman 22:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good point. This should be too, especially the links to the pictures. Do we have links to the topless pictures of Jackie O?--Cuchullain 02:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Should picture talk even be here?
Why is the stuff on this picture even in here? Seems pretty trivial to me. It was clearly little more than an embarassing situation, why should that be entombed in her encyclopedia entry? TastyCakes 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Trivial perhaps, but it did get mainstream media coverage, and so seems worth documenting in a tertiary source. I'd imagine any biography of her would mention the brief controversy. --Delirium 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this details on the picture should be removed. It was an embarassing incident that (giving her the benefit of the doubt) was no fault of her own, got a minimal amount of press coverage two years ago but would never have even made the papers if her father hadnt been in the process of running for president, and takes up roughly 40% of her enclyclopedia entry. Additionally, Alexandra Kerry is at best a minimal public figure and should be held to looser standards than others when it comes to slip ups like this. If it was Hillary Clinton or Barbara Bush, then maybe the story would have had a more lasting impact in the public consciousness, but this is old and barely notable. She has some credits to her resume that can be listed. Listing this just looks cheap. Caper13 22:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed. Minor embarrassing incident for marginal public figure. Not notable given that she has plenty of other biography items to include. It shouldn't have been included in the first place and only made it there due to partisan activities around an election. Unless John Kerry runs for president again I doubt anyone will have much interest in reopening this. The dust has settled and this has pretty much been forgotten.Caper13 16:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Kept. It got lots of media coverage and is the only reason people know who she is.


 * (dumb comment removed) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

← I removed an uncited reference to this unnotable incident - it doesn't belong in her bio. Tvoz / talk 07:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Parents marriage and annullment of said marriage
Even though I am a little uncomfortable with including it, I think it is valid because the text lists her mother and father and the dates of their marriage indicating a divorce took place. If the marriage was later annulled, then the marriage never happened. Getting a marriage annulled after such a long period of time is highly unusual and requires a little bit of explanatory text to put it into perspective. Its kind of a weird situation, but if you are going to mention her parents, you almost have to include it. Not mentioning the annullment at all makes the marriage section incorrect.

Has it been done?
Paragraph 3 says "scheduled to shoot in 2008". It is past that now. Has the film been done yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.165.23 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding of fair use
I suggest the earlier discussion of whether to use a photo of the dress that showed Ms Kerry's bosoms showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of "fair use".

Yes, it is the policy of WMF projects, including the wikipedia, to respect the intellectual property rights of copyright holders.

When used appropriately there are only limited conditions when the principle of "fair use" applies. But when it does apply it supercedes the intellectual property rights of copyright holders.

One of the conditions of when "fair use" applies is when the image itself becomes part of the story, and for others properly report the story they need to use the image.

To understand this properly you need to be reminded as to why states grant copyrights and patents to the creators of intellectual property.

We want those who created intellectual property to make money from their creations. Why? So they can go make more intellectual creations.

Why do we want them to make more intellectual creations? Because we believe in progresstm, and so new intellectual creations are a good thing.

I am going to repeat this, as it is a key point. Ultimately, we grant protections to copyright holders because we believe it is in the public interest to do so. And, ultimately, exemptions are made to the protections we give to copyright holders, under "fair use", when doing so is in the public interest.

Under the narrow conditions where fair use applies at all, it over-rides the protections given to copyright holders.

Consider this interview with Marie Claire magazine over 3 years later -- the very first 3 questions -- more than a third of the article, are devoted to the Cannes pictures:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * Q: I hate to begin this way, but when I Googled you, all these sites came up devoted to the incident on the red carpet at Cannes in 2004, when your gown became transparent.
 * A: I know -- 73 pages of the dress. It's such a shame. I saw the heads of Google last summer, and I joked with them: "How do I get this off your site?"
 * A: I know -- 73 pages of the dress. It's such a shame. I saw the heads of Google last summer, and I joked with them: "How do I get this off your site?"

Note: Ms Kerry's discussions with google succeeded, for a while. Several years ago I googled those images, to use in a discussion, and couldn't find a single one. So I used yahoo's search engine. Wiser heads have prevailed at google, and they are no longer trying to censor history.
 * }

Rob Reiner had a segment devoted to his work on 60 minutes, a few years ago. They asked him about his role as an actor on that old sitcom "All in the family" -- where Archie Bunker routinely referred to him as "meathead". He joked that if he were to win the Nobel Prize, the headlines would say "'Meathead' wins Noble Prize". The comments triggered by these photos of Ms Kerry at Cannes 2004 will be mentioned in her obituary. I regard it as highly inappropriate to prune all mention of it from her wikipedia article.

Here is a generally favorable article about her, from 2012, which, nevertheless addresses the Cannes dress that became unexpectedly translucent when exposed to highpowered flash photography.

I think the dress incident belongs in the article.

I think the dress incident should be illustrated with a fair use image. Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexandra Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-07-14-kerry-daughters_x.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111029231845/http://alexkerryfilms.com/ to http://www.alexkerryfilms.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alexandra Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140509032058/http://www.locomotivefilm.com/about.html to http://www.locomotivefilm.com/about.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111029231845/http://alexkerryfilms.com/ to http://www.alexkerryfilms.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)