User talk:Feadering

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Timeshift (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo
If the photo is to be freely released under the Creative Commons 3.0 licence, there is a couple of things you need to do:


 * Get the office to write to permissions-en@wikimedia.org
 * Provide that email address with evidence that permission to release text or images under a free license has been received from a third party copyright holder (i.e. Kim Carr's office).
 * A day or two later a Permissions volunteer will come and mark the image in the appropriate way so it will not be deleted and can be used in our article on him. Note that the marking is completely confidential - the only record of any details is kept privately by OTRS volunteers.

We certainly have no objections to new images (esp if they're a significant improvement on what we have) but they need to be put through the proper process to remove any doubt that Wikipedia is violating copyright by displaying images that someone else holds a copyright on. Orderinchaos 05:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the image has been released under creative commons at http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Pages/creativecommonslicense.aspx it claims the image is a self-portrait? It doesn't appear to be so. Failing to give correct attribution to the photographer invalidates the claim of releasing it. It appears to be a copyright breach - who owns the copyright that it can be released? I have tagged at Commons as disputing the license.--Matilda talk 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to your request at my talk page Kim Carr owns the photo, he was not the photographer but all rights were relinquished to Kim Carr as the owner. The photographer does not need to be attributed. Please restore the photo and caption. The page claiming to release it says The image of Hon. Senator Kim Carr by Kim Carr - it doesn't say all rights were relinquished to Kim Carr as the owner in fact it claims Carr took the photo himself - that is how I read "by Kim Carr". As such I dispute the licensing claimed at Commons (and have done so there).  Moreover at Commons you have licensed as public domain something that was licensed under creative commons.  Wikipedia takes copyright issues seriously.  Accordingly you need to take the permissions associated with the photograph seriously.  While the copyright tagging with the photo is disputed it should not be included in the article. --Matilda talk 00:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the image on commons. It isn't PD and doesn't need to be PD. The permissions are ok now. Timeshift (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As you said on my talk page there is copyright associated with the Minister's pages and that copyright is explained at http://minister.innovation.gov.au/pages/ITRMinister_CopyRight.aspx It isn't free, it is copyrighted and the Commonwealth of Australia holds the copyright. It appears http://www.pm.gov.au/team/cabinet.cfm on this page too - again with the Commonwealth of Australia copyright attached to that page and presumably all images on the page.  Images where the Commonwealth of Australia owns the copyright cannot be used on wikipedia or be uploaded to Commons.  The release "for public reproduction" comes with caveats that are unacceptable to wikimedia licensing and thus the image cannot be uploaded to any of the projects or used.  --Matilda talk 01:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And the specific page created for the image released on cc-by-2.5 overrides that. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't and it can't - Kim Carr is not the Commonwealth of Australia - the copyright was not his to release --Matilda talk 01:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a standard copyright notice. How do you know Carr didn't give the photo to the commonwealth? It's on Carr's official site with cc-by-2.5. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly in response to Feadering who stated In legal speak the minister is the commonwealth of australia and he is able to release the photo. - Prove it! I don't believe you - in fact I don't believe your claim that the photo is "public use and is not a copyright infringement" as you yourself have demonstrated a lack of understanding as to what the copyright disclaimer might mean when it comes to "free use" per your note to me.  I am not convinced you are acting either with authority or within the law.  Secondly in relation to Timeshift's query - the copyright is asserted on http://www.pm.gov.au/team/cabinet.cfm moreover the release under creative commons at http://minister.innovation.gov.au/Pages/creativecommonslicense.aspx contains a footer asserting copyright by the Commonwealth.  I would suggest that the public servant who published it is in breach of the code of conduct and should go do some training.  I suspect that the minister did not authorise the publication of that page - nor did anybody with any authority. --Matilda talk 01:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The constitution is a little bit broad in scope to assert that the Minister has authority to override Commonwealth copyright for his own vanity picture. Whose authority overrode the Commonwealth of Australia copyright?  I don't believe it was the minister's authority - surely he has better things to do.  Did he check with Attorney-Generals first?  How does he explain the conflicting tags on the web page? --Matilda talk 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked if I had anything better to do . Yes I have.  Press photos do not meet our guidelines for freely available.  I suggest either you concentrate on fixing the web page with proper attribution or it is likely to be deleted.  I suggest also that you assure yourself of the authority to release under such terms - ie Creative Commons.  Do you actually understand it?  You have used CC and public domain interchangeably and then suggested that the conditions of Commonwealth copyright were OK anyway.  They aren't.  Instead of mucking around with a press photo - why don't you just take a happy snap of Mr Carr yourself.  I quite sympathise that the freely available portrait is less than flattering and I would not insist that that image be used even if we had no other image.  Is that what you are looking for?  In fact you could request deletion of Image:SenatorKimCarr.jpg.  If you have a look at commons:Commons:Licensing you will see that while photos of people who have given their permission is OK, when they haven't it is more dubious. See commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people - you would need to mount a case under the moral issues.  Generally, images are not removed simply because the subject does not like them, but administrators are normally sympathetic to removal requests where good reasons can be given.  Regards --Matilda talk 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Having fun yet?
Politicians' Wiki entries altered - On Tuesday the page for the Innovation Minister, Kim Carr, was changed to remove slabs of personal details and a paragraph saying he had been criticised for branch-stacking. Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image
The image here must be the exact same image (including size) as the one. If it is not it will be removed. Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can see, the image for deletion discussion has been closed with a resulting keep. The image on both wikipedia and the ministerial site are the same size, if you wish for the original larger one you will need to overwrite the current image here and also host that larger image on your side. If not, all is well. Except for the fact Kim Carr and other names have needlessly been dragged through the mud on this issue, mainly because of Roxanne's misinformed email, and your extensive willingness to act upon it. Remember, we are happy to remove libellious claims, but WP:COI. Negative but valid points removed for the point of it under the guise of no citation or other but known to be true will be contested. Timeshift (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)