| Revision as of 20:35, 16 November 2007 editDr. Blofeld (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,344 editsm →Errr...← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:55, 16 November 2007 edit undoSarvagnya (talk | contribs)9,152 edits →Errr...: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
| :::Technically if we are to be completely serious and honest about this then using the screenshot images does bend the rules slightly even though I think they are of major benefit to the quality and understanding of the article. Images of films are owned by the film company and claiming use of their product which they legally have the right of ownership and have produced themselves in an article on an actor can be seen as copywright infringement. The major problem is for contemporary actors obtaining a free image that would visually and encyclopedically identify key moments in their career is often impossible. Films and actors are interrelated , a reason why when I initally started WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers i wanted it to be as part of films. The thing is[REDACTED] has become such an enormous and increasingly a sort of world centre on the web that I doubt these film companies would try to sue anybody if they can see how educational it is to the people.]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | :::Technically if we are to be completely serious and honest about this then using the screenshot images does bend the rules slightly even though I think they are of major benefit to the quality and understanding of the article. Images of films are owned by the film company and claiming use of their product which they legally have the right of ownership and have produced themselves in an article on an actor can be seen as copywright infringement. The major problem is for contemporary actors obtaining a free image that would visually and encyclopedically identify key moments in their career is often impossible. Films and actors are interrelated , a reason why when I initally started WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers i wanted it to be as part of films. The thing is[REDACTED] has become such an enormous and increasingly a sort of world centre on the web that I doubt these film companies would try to sue anybody if they can see how educational it is to the people.]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Honestly, let me tell you. I have nothing to lose and tonnes to gain if indiscriminate use of screenshots from movies were allowed on wikipedia. There's no dearth of articles about Kannada movies and movie personalities which are languishing without images and it will be a God-send for me if they were allowed. But short of wikimedia foundation cutting a deal with film industries around the world, I feel using what belongs to somebody else without their permission (stealing, ie.,) just so ''we'' can beautify ''our'' articles is unethical. Its really as simple as that. Just because you/we're consumed by[REDACTED] and obsessed with improving our articles doesnt mean we take the liberties to steal. ] 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:55, 16 November 2007
 | ..have some serious catching up to do with RL. will only be sporadically active for atleast a couple of months |
|
| ??? |
| 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 |
Existing discussion
Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sarvagnya. Thank you. John Carter 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I'm tied up with RL work at the moment, but I will try to take a look at this in a few hours. Best. -- But|seriously|folks 20:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Bollywood Blog stuff
Could we move this conversation to say a subpage of one of our userspaces? Going through the archive at ANI is a pain in the bum, frankly. Perhaps User talk:Riana/BollywoodBlog. Feel free to notify others interested. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- And thanks for the revert :) ~ Riana ⁂ 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I finally weighed in. You owe me two hours of my life. ;-) -- But|seriously|folks 09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, please don't be offended -- I removed your last post from my talk page. I only did so because I think we should hold off on final judgment until the matter is fully investigated. I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, Blofeld posted the identity of the people who provided the images here and on my talk page. He was trying to give you some confidence that things are on the level. Unfortunately, he had forgotten that Devendra asked us to keep that information confidential because of contractual obligations, which is certainly possible, so I deleted the info from the history of this page and my user talk page. Sorry for any confusion this is causing. -- But|seriously|folks 22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, please don't be offended -- I removed your last post from my talk page. I only did so because I think we should hold off on final judgment until the matter is fully investigated. I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote. Cheers! -- But|seriously|folks 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I finally weighed in. You owe me two hours of my life. ;-) -- But|seriously|folks 09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Errr...
Please note that I have raised concerns on the talkpage to which you have not responded. In that light, your edit comment is puzzling. -- Relata refero (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing puzzling about it. You started that discussion only hours ago. So have the patience for the discussion to reach its logical end before you keep re-introducing such contentious edits. Sarvagnya 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Technically if we are to be completely serious and honest about this then using the screenshot images does bend the rules slightly even though I think they are of major benefit to the quality and understanding of the article. Images of films are owned by the film company and claiming use of their product which they legally have the right of ownership and have produced themselves in an article on an actor can be seen as copywright infringement. The major problem is for contemporary actors obtaining a free image that would visually and encyclopedically identify key moments in their career is often impossible. Films and actors are interrelated , a reason why when I initally started WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers i wanted it to be as part of films. The thing is[REDACTED] has become such an enormous and increasingly a sort of world centre on the web that I doubt these film companies would try to sue anybody if they can see how educational it is to the people. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Honestly, let me tell you. I have nothing to lose and tonnes to gain if indiscriminate use of screenshots from movies were allowed on wikipedia. There's no dearth of articles about Kannada movies and movie personalities which are languishing without images and it will be a God-send for me if they were allowed. But short of wikimedia foundation cutting a deal with film industries around the world, I feel using what belongs to somebody else without their permission (stealing, ie.,) just so we can beautify our articles is unethical. Its really as simple as that. Just because you/we're consumed by[REDACTED] and obsessed with improving our articles doesnt mean we take the liberties to steal. Sarvagnya 20:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Technically if we are to be completely serious and honest about this then using the screenshot images does bend the rules slightly even though I think they are of major benefit to the quality and understanding of the article. Images of films are owned by the film company and claiming use of their product which they legally have the right of ownership and have produced themselves in an article on an actor can be seen as copywright infringement. The major problem is for contemporary actors obtaining a free image that would visually and encyclopedically identify key moments in their career is often impossible. Films and actors are interrelated , a reason why when I initally started WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers i wanted it to be as part of films. The thing is[REDACTED] has become such an enormous and increasingly a sort of world centre on the web that I doubt these film companies would try to sue anybody if they can see how educational it is to the people. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ 20:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)