User talk:Majora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Image of Snazz D[edit]

Hi, I have full permission from the owner of the photograph to use it on Wikipedia. I thought I had expressed that in the context. Please explain what you would like me to do now. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

@Subzzee: "Use on Wikipedia" is not a valid license release nor is fair use appropriate for living people. If you look on the image page I did go into detail a little bit but I can repeat it here. Images that have permission must have specific permission. Since fair use does not apply the image must be released under a free license. What that means is that the image must be able to be used and modified by any one at any time for any purpose (including commercial use). Now, free use images should not be uploaded here, but to Commons. Please take a look at COM:ET for instructions on exactly what is needed to prove that the image is released under a free license. On that page is also the form that must be filled out by the copyright owner. Once filled out the form can be emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Further information can be found on the instruction page linked to above or you can ask me and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Majora: Hi, I have permission to upload the photograph on Wikipedia. I asked for permission to use the photo and the copy write holder said it was okay. But I do not have permission to upload it under a free license. If there is no compromise available, then I guess you will have to remove it. It's a shame, because I went through the trouble of getting permission in the first place. But I cannot upload the photograph for free use, I am sorry. If that is the only alternative then it should be removed. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)) Happy Easter! :)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Michelle de Bruin Wolf image[edit]

Deletion of Michelle de Bruin Wolf Image. I took the photograph - how to I associate it with me as author then? Blellum (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blellum: Since the image was found online, on a site that had a copyright notice, we could not take your word for it. This is to protect the author's copyright. If you took the photo, proof must be shown. In addition, images that are released under a free license, which was the original license attributed to that image, should be uploaded to Commons. Not here. The instructions on how to show proof can be found here. On that page is also the form that must be filled out and emailed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. If you have additional questions please feel free to ask and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I have the image in my Lightroom library, and am adding metadata to it there. I'll have a go uploading it the way you point out. If I get stuck I'll shout. Thanks Blellum (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, uploaded to Commons, re-added to page, and email sent. Fingers crossed :) Blellum (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Blellum: I added the {{OTRS pending}} tag to the image on Commons. You should be all set. --Majora (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Eijaz Khan's picture removal[edit]

Hi there, i received a message from yourself stating that you removed the picture Eijaz Khan. I was authorized by Eijaz to update the picture on his profile on Wikipedia. I am Admin of his Facebook Group and Page and have been giving approval by the man himself to do this. I have to completely change everything on it as requested by him. What is the point of having Wikipedia profiles if people who actually work for the celeb in question are not allowed to update it. Somebody keeps adding a spouse and that is always allowed to stay but when the actual truth gets added, it always gets removed. I request that this problem gets sorted out and that the only two people allowed to update his profile is me and him.

Yours Sincerely

Sana Khan (Personal Assistant to Eijaz Khan ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetsana157 (talk • contribs) 10:42, April 4, 2016

@Sweetsana157: Alright, there are a few things that you need to know about Wikipedia. First of all, please read our conflict of interest guideline and our Terms of Use (specifically section 4. Refraining from Certain Activities). As Khan's personal assistant you have a financial conflict of interest and you must disclose this on your user page by placing {{paid|employer=Eijaz Khan}} on it. This is non-negotiable and must be done for you to be in compliance with our Terms of Use.

Second, since you have a conflict of interest you should not be editing that page directly at all. Please use the article's talk page located here: Talk:Eijaz Khan. If you need something changed on the page you can submit an edit request by using the {{edit request}} template. Third, all material on Wikipedia needs to be sourced to reliable, third-party, independent sources. That is how Wikipedia works. For more information on what a reliable source is please see WP:RS.

Next, if you actually read the notice that was posted on your talk page you would see that all we need is proof that the image is licensed under something that we can use. All free use images, which is what the picture was licensed under, need to be able to be used and modified by any one at any time for any purpose including commercial use. This is all explained in the notice I left on your talk page. The person that owns the copyright, which is the photographer, needs to fill out the form located here and email it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please include a link to the image in the email. Once you do, you need to place {{OTRS pending}} on the image to let people know the proof has been sent. You have until the 8th to do that after which the photo is subject to deletion.

Finally, your last request is simply not going to happen. You are on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You, nor Eijaz, own anything on that page. Nor do you have any extra right to stop other people from editing it. For our policy on this matter please see WP:Ownership of content. This is a collaborative project and pages here are open to be edited by anyone.

If you have further questions about this or any of the above, including what is needed on the image, please feel free to let me know and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Majoran justinleestansfieldjpg[edit]

Why is that picture flagged for copyright violation. The picture is public available and therefore public. The artist provided the picture in question after me requesting such. Based on what did you flagged the picture for deletion. This seems a random choice and is not fact based. Please remove the flag immediately. Thank you Borismatt (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Borismatt: Public availability does not equate to a license we can use and you tagged it with a {{self}} license which means you took the photo. Judging by your request that is clearly not true. Images on Wikipedia that are under a free license, which that image is, must be able to be used and modified by any one at any time for any purpose including commercial use. If the photographer of that image has given it to you and agrees to publish it under this license please see this page for a form that must be filled out by the copyright owner and instructions on what you have to do to get the image placed under the proper license. In addition, free use images should be uploaded to Commons, not here. As of right now, the image is a copyright violation since there is absolutely no proof that the author of that image agreed to license it under the license you gave it. If you have further questions or are confused on what you have to do please let me know and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The picture is handedoing over by the owner. No problem. I will ask the artist owner to provide proof. The picture is public available on g+ for everyone to use. In this case your assumption is wrong because I can use and place the picture where ever I want. Nevertheless I don't get it how you come to such a conclusion but I use the form to comply... Borismatt (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia Extendedconfirmed.svg if you can...[edit]

Hello Majora, hope you are doing good. I remember you were one of the users who submitted customized Wikipedia logo(s) denoting Wikipedia's 5 millionth article, so I thought you could help. As you are aware, extendedconfirmed user rights are in place. And I thought it might be a good idea to have topicons and userboxes for the rights. Since you can design logos, if you can, can you please design a logo for extendedconfirmed similar to the autoconfirmed one, but with a blue (or whatever the color of the lock of Arbitration 30/500 protection is) tick, so that it can be used in {{Extendedconfirmed topicon}} and {{User wikipedia/Extendedconfirmed}}? You can also do what feels more right/good to you! Feel absolutely free to decline the offer, rest assured I won't be offended Face-smile.svg Thanks anyways. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 10:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Peter SamFan: Hello, I see you've added an image (File:Wikipedia Reviewing.svg) to the above two said templates. What's your say on the above said idea? Are you okay with that? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
"@UY Scuti: I'm okay with that. The problem is that there is already an image with a blue check mark for confirmed (not autoconfirmed) users: File:Wikipedia_Confirmed.svg. The check-mark will have to be red, yellow, orange, pink, or something like that. (Or, you could just stick with what I added.) Peter Sam Fan 15:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@Peter SamFan: Ah, thanks for the heads up. My opinion is to have a logo similar to the ones on other confirmed user logos, i.e. one large tick mark. I'm okay with any color (but note, orange is taken for autoconfirmed and green for autopatrolled). I'll leave the color choice with Majora, if he chooses to do this. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 15:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti: I thought about it, and that might be boring. I'm thinking of having something like File:Wikipedia Protected page editor.svg, only the padlock will be blue instead of bronze. Peter Sam Fan 18:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Just letting you both know that I have seen this. I would be happy to throw something together, both a top icon and a userbox, using the blue padlock/colored check. I can do it both ways to see which one you like better although I am thinking the topicon should be the check and not have the padlock in there since it can be confused as the page being under 30/500 instead of being able to edit 30/500 pages. The userbox is a different story. --Majora (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: So, I changed my mind about the padlock on the image. Primarily because there was one that was an unlocked blue padlock. Quickly putting the two images together results in http://imgur.com/u1Wqsxr. Thoughts? (Peter SamFan, please let me know if you want me to stop pinging you) --Majora (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
That looks cool Majora! Will this image go for both userbox and topicon? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 07:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks nice! Peter Sam Fan 14:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@UY Scuti and Peter SamFan: Unfortunatley, the end result did not turn out extactly as I had hoped. The top icon is too small to really show the padlock very well and for whatever reason the icon has a white background in the userbox (see below). That was probably caused by an issue during the SVG creation since I converted it from the original PNG format since I don't have the program to directly work with SVGs. Going to try something else and see if I can make it better. --Majora (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia extended confirmed.svg This user is extended confirmed on the English Wikipedia. (verify)
The image looks good except for the white background. Is it not possible to design one with plain background? And for the topicon, I think we should go with the check mark, since it spans across the entire Wikipedia logo and will be more clear for a topicon, or you have a better plan? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 20:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
@UY Scuti: My problem is that I am using an online converter to change the file from a PNG to a SVG since that is the preferred format for images like this. The issue with that is that I can't seem to find one that will keep the transparent background. There are a few that will do it if you pay them but I would like to avoid that. Still looking. Worst case, I'll just upload it as the PNG and put a "please convert to SVG" template on it. --Majora (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Nevermind, I found one. All set for the userbox. Just have to update the template and that on is good to go. I'll work on the top icon after dinner. --Majora (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to have put you in this miserable situation, if something goes wrong with the one you have now, see if this works. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 21:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Miserable? I find this fun. Wouldn't be doing it if I didn't. Thanks for the link. That program is much better than the quick fix I found. I updated the image on {{User wikipedia/Extendedconfirmed}} so that one is all set. --Majora (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Perfect! —UY Scuti Talk 21:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Note I've updated the top-icon, and it doesn't look too bad in my opinion. Peter Sam Fan 22:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Alright, that works then. I guess everything is all set. Topicon and userbox done. --Majora (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use images of Fifth Harmony[edit]

Hello, I made new adjustments to the Fifth Harmony images that were notified for seeming to fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion. Is everything in the description correct or should I make further adjustments?

Thank you, Raul1798 — Preceding unsigned comment added by raul1798 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Raul1798: Hi Raul1798, unfortunately it is not about the description. The first non-free content criterion states Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. What this means is that fair-use, copyrighted, images can only be used if it is unreasonable that a free use, creative commons or public domain, image cannot be made or is not already available. Since we already have free use images on that page, no fair-use image can be used. Even if a free use image was not already available, since the band is still together and still touring it is reasonable that a free use image could be created and therefore fair-use would not apply. I understand that you want to show a specific event but unfortunately that is not how copyright law, and the policies of Wikipedia, works. Sometimes we just have to work with what we have available to us. If you have any further questions please feel free to ask me and I will be happy to try to sort them out. --Majora (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg[edit]

Majora, thank you for the heads up.

RE: Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license.

The manager of the band The Hot Sardines informs me that the band owns the photo uploaded to File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg. They twice sent emails to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org to permit reuse under the CC-BY-SA license. They got no response. They emailed me asking what to do. I then forwarded their original email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:15 PM with the heading Wikipedia photos for submission. I also got no response. I do not know what else I should do.--Toploftical (talk)

@Toploftical: Ok, lets see if we can work this out. Right now File:The Hot Sardines Jazz Band close up.jpg has a "this image is under copyright" license. Is that not what you intended to do? Did the permission form that was sent explicitly say CC-BY-SA? Also, what version of CC-BY-SA did it say? There are a few of them. 1.0, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, and 4.0. If it just said CC-BY-SA, that defaults to the 1.0 license. The licensing needs to be figured out first.

Then, did you email the permission to permissions-en@wikimedia.org or permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? That matters as the two sites are not actually the same thing and the different email queues go to different people. If you emailed it to commons please let me know and once all the licensing issues are ironed out I can move it over there. As for the long wait, I do apologize for that. We are trying to work our way though our email backlog and the volunteers that process those things are working as fast as they can. Did you receive a ticket number yet from your original email?

Once everything is all set I can tag the image with a "permission pending" label so that administrators don't delete the file. --Majora (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Majora: The license requested was explicitly CC-BY-SA 3.0.
I used "this image is under copyright" license because I thought that the image was copyrighted by the Hot Sardines. What license should I use?
We sent our requests for permission to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org NOT to permission-en. I did not know about the english -en suffix. See my email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org on Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:15 PM for the content. IAC I never received a ticket number of any other sort of response.
Another problem is the the business manager does not seem to understand what a URL is. The two photos that we would like to use are in a dropbox location which can be accessed from the Hot Sardines website at http://hotsardines.com/about/ (we only want the first and third photos on that page). BTW, I made a low-res image of the first photo and uploaded that. I needed it for the Hot Sardines infobox. Was that a good strategy?
Thank you so much for looking into this. If this involves too much time and the licensing issues cannot be sorted out, so be it.--Toploftical (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
@Toploftical: A CC-BY-SA 3.0 license is a release from copyright. It is considered a free license. So while there does have to be some attribution, the license means that it can be used or modified by anyone at any time for any purpose. Is the business manager aware of this? Also, is the business manager LeAnn Mueller? Since according to that site, the copyright is owned by Mueller and Decca Records so only Mueller or a legal representative of Decca can legally release it for our use. The low-res image is fine, although once released under a CC license you can use whatever resolution you want. Once worked out it really doesn't take that much time and I am happy to do it as Wikipedia articles look so much better when we have images to go along with them. Copyright is just a complex subject so specific things have to be done to make sure everyone is covered.

What form did you fill out and send in? Was it the one listed here: c:Commons:Email templates#Declaration of consent for all inquiries? I actually don't have the proper rights to view the email queue as that system is limited to a specific subset of volunteers. Would you mind forwarding the email to me and I can ensure that it is valid? If it is I can forward it again to the proper queue and place all the necessary notices on the image until the people who have the proper rights gets to the email. I can be reached at majorawp@outlook.com. Please note that if you don't want to do this that is fine. However, I would recommend sending the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the above form if that is not the one that was already filled out. Please make sure you include links to the uploads that are already hosted here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hot_Sardines_Jazz_Band_close_up.jpg). Let me know what you decide to do. --Majora (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Toploftical: I have received your email and everything looks to be in order. The OTRS agent that gets assigned to it may need to contact the business manager just to double check but I have went ahead and tagged the images with the proper notices. You should be good to go and I can act as an intermediary if anything comes up. And to answer you other question, yes, I do enjoy Forensic Files as it is one of the only shows that actually shows real forensics instead of the fake, made-for-tv stuff you see on a lot of police dramas. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:ROBIN AT 3 BARNSsmall cropped.jpg[edit]

Hi Majora,

Thanks for your message as I was a little unclear how to complete this permissions process. Also I trust this reaches you..I'm finding my way with Wiki communications! I have now contacted Lillian Delevoryas and asked her to formalise her permission by sending an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating her ownership of the photograph and her wish to publish it under a free license. Once I receive her confirmation I will add a {{OTRS pending}}. If there is anything further I need to do please let me know. Best wishes Awenparadigm (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Awenparadigm: Yep that is the template you would add to the page to notify patrolling administrators that permission has been sent. Please let Lillian know that we have a specific form that has to be filled out to completely verify that the image is licensed under something we can use and the person releasing the image knows exactly what they are doing. The form can be found here: WP:CONSENT. Please let me know if you have any further questions and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Majora, Many thanks for this. Lillian has now sent the permissions letter you referenced to Wiki and she received a confirmation of receipt of email [Ticket#: 2016041110016103]. As a result I have now posted ORTS pending notice. Will the process complete automatically or shall get back in touch with you when Lillian lets me know she has received a reply? Thanks for your time. Awenparadigm (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Awenparadigm: It is not automatic but you do not have to do anything else. When an OTRS agent gets to the permission form they will verify and complete the process. You are all set. If you have any further questions please let me know. --Majora (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

New article question[edit]

Hi Majora

I would like to make a new page for a film I am working on but would like to download the template to fit my information in. Not having much luck with that! Please help. Thanks so much, Peggy April 13, 2016 Mickey501959 (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mickey501959: It looks like you tried to start the article here: Draft:Radio Silence. There really isn't a template for an entire page. There is something called an infobox which is a quick summary that sits at the top right of an article but that does not fill in the rest of the information for you. Has the film received media attention yet? Wikipedia requires that all articles be summaries of published, independent, third-party sources. These sources must also be what we call reliable which basically means they have editorial oversight and a history of fact checking. Major news companies and reputable magazines are what we are looking for. Without these sources there can not be an article. We do have a tutorial that can walk you through how to edit (Wikipedia markup is a little archaic and can take some time to get used to). Please let me know what exactly you are looking for and I can try to point you in the right direction. --Majora (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Thank you very much for correcting the error. You contribute to the task of making better the lemma and perfect the Wikipedia effort. (Aris de Methymna) 23:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MC Buffalo 1990.jpg[edit]

I think i put in the correct usage term if you could please check if everything good now I'd appreciate it! --> HipHopRijeka (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@HipHopRijeka: Unfortunately, no. That is not exactly what we are looking for. There has to be a fair use rationale that covers all ten parts of WP:NFCCP. We have a template that you can fill out and use that covers it all. You would just need to fill it out and put the code on the image page. The template can be found here: {{Non-free use rationale 2}}. Please let me know if you have further questions and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair use questions[edit]

Hi Majora,

Thanks so much for getting back to me so soon with your helpful information. Let me ask you another question. What about a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivative Works license where the artist allows the photo to be shared? (either a photo of their paintings or a photo portrait of the artist by a professional photographer)

Here is the original exchange between us

Hi Folks, I have an artist who gives her permission to upload photos of her paintings to an article about her. (Sol Kjok) What does this entail? I know you either have to have them put a Creative Commons license on the work, but what if they want it to remain in the non-free category but are giving Wikipedia sole permission to reproduce it. How do I provide evidence of this to the Wikipedia editors? I don't understand how I prove fair use. Every time I have tried to upload the photos, they get rejected. Extremely confused. Many thanks TWB1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) @Twb1934: Sole permission is not really how we do things here. They can either be under fair use if they meet all of the criteria at WP:NFCCP or they have to be free use (public domain, creative commons, ect.). In this instance fair use would not apply since you want to use them on the article about the artist. It would apply on an article about the painting. There is a slight difference there but it is a difference that matters. So if you want to use the paintings on the article about the artist they must be under free use. What that means is that the image is open to used or modified by anyone for any purpose. To get permission for this please have the artist fill out the form here: WP:CONSENT and email it into the permissions email detailed on the CONSENT page. If you have further questions about this please let me know. --Majora (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs)

@Twb1934: Unfortunately, as mentioned at the help desk, that would not be free use if commercial use was not also included in that. Remember, a free use release means that the image can be used by anyone, at any time, for any reason. If the artist wants to release only one of their paintings for this purpose that would be fantastic but it cannot be used as fair use on the article about the person. See below for next part of this response. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

another question about copyrighted images for artists[edit]

Hi Majora,

I just wanted to add a question on using paintings for pages about the artist. From what I understand, you said that the image of the painting must be free use if it is to be used in the article about the artist. (not an article specifically about the painting)

Is there a reason why the articles for the artists below have paintings under fair use? I am confused because this seems to contradict what you said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Golub

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Doig

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Diebenkorn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Clemente


Thanks again for being so helpful!!!

Twb1934 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have started to go through the images on those pages and I have already removed a few of them from pages they were not supposed to be on. I am working my way though the rest of them. The main concern here is the contextual significance of the image. This means that the image must significantly increase the readers' understand of the article's topic. While this criterion can be rather subjective there is one point of clarity. The article's topic. An image of a painting would have contextual significance on an article whose topic is the painting. But it would not really have that same significance on an article whose topic was the painter. Unless of course it was an self-portrait since that would be an image of the person. It is all about context. I'm going through those pages you mentioned above and will be removing the ones that are blatant violations and starting discussions for community input on the ones that are not. --Majora (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again Majora. Another question, if I uploaded a photo portrait of the artist by a photographer, could I put it up under fair use since the article is about the artist. I have permission from the photographer but I don't think they created a CC license for that photo yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Twb1934: It is probably going to seem like I am just leading you in circles but unfortunately that would also not meet our fair use criteria since the person is still alive. That would fail WP:NFCCP #1. What #1 means, is that a free use image could reasonably be created or found. Since the person is still alive and there is no mitigating circumstances it is reasonable that a free use image can be made or found. So fair use would not apply. The thing with fair use is that it has to meet all 10 of the criteria in order to be acceptable. Miss just one and it can't be used. I know it must be frustrating and it seems like I am making you jump through hoops but sometimes we just have to work with what we have. If you can get the photographer to release it under a free license that would be fantastic and it would be greatly appreciated. --Majora (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow! So complicated. Thanks for all your help, Majora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twb1934 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Majora&oldid=716679882"