Difference between revisions of "File talk:Posessed.jpg"
From The Shartak Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchBig Kahuuna (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
::::Unless you can show the original copyright information allowing reuse here, this image should be deleted.--[[User:Johan Crichton|Johan Crichton]] 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | ::::Unless you can show the original copyright information allowing reuse here, this image should be deleted.--[[User:Johan Crichton|Johan Crichton]] 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
:::::Look. I don't know the original copyright information to this picture, but it is one used by all film reviewers, exorcist fanpages and more. I believe it is the official press image and if you read about the copyright laws, they say that press images are free to use indiscriminately. I work as a damn journalist in RL. I should know. Besides, how many of the images in this wiki can seriously show ORIGINAL copyright information. That documentation is, if existant, property of the maker of the picture. In most cases they aren't even existing. Copyright issues are seldom documented, unless you specifically want the papers. You get the copyright automaticly. At least that's the case in the countries I've worked in. Get your facts straight. And keep away from my picture. I have no quarrels with you, except when you took my discussion with etherdrifter personally. Something that is beyond my control. Please don't bring that here. -- [[User:Big Kahuuna|Big Kahuuna]] 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | :::::Look. I don't know the original copyright information to this picture, but it is one used by all film reviewers, exorcist fanpages and more. I believe it is the official press image and if you read about the copyright laws, they say that press images are free to use indiscriminately. I work as a damn journalist in RL. I should know. Besides, how many of the images in this wiki can seriously show ORIGINAL copyright information. That documentation is, if existant, property of the maker of the picture. In most cases they aren't even existing. Copyright issues are seldom documented, unless you specifically want the papers. You get the copyright automaticly. At least that's the case in the countries I've worked in. Get your facts straight. And keep away from my picture. I have no quarrels with you, except when you took my discussion with etherdrifter personally. Something that is beyond my control. Please don't bring that here. -- [[User:Big Kahuuna|Big Kahuuna]] 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::All I was trying to do (at that point in time) was try and encourage people uploading images that they didn't create to provide some copyright information on them. This wiki has a policy against uploading copyrighted material, but in checking the upload file we're lacking a reminder there. --[[User:Johan Crichton|Johan Crichton]] 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:02, 18 April 2008
Please identify the copyright information on this image. Failure to do so will result in me marking this for deletion. --Johan Crichton 20:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Marked for deletion. --Johan Crichton 20:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was a promotional picture, so copirights shouldn't be a problem. Don't have the original picture-link though. -Big Kahuuna 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you can show the original copyright information allowing reuse here, this image should be deleted.--Johan Crichton 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Look. I don't know the original copyright information to this picture, but it is one used by all film reviewers, exorcist fanpages and more. I believe it is the official press image and if you read about the copyright laws, they say that press images are free to use indiscriminately. I work as a damn journalist in RL. I should know. Besides, how many of the images in this wiki can seriously show ORIGINAL copyright information. That documentation is, if existant, property of the maker of the picture. In most cases they aren't even existing. Copyright issues are seldom documented, unless you specifically want the papers. You get the copyright automaticly. At least that's the case in the countries I've worked in. Get your facts straight. And keep away from my picture. I have no quarrels with you, except when you took my discussion with etherdrifter personally. Something that is beyond my control. Please don't bring that here. -- Big Kahuuna 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- All I was trying to do (at that point in time) was try and encourage people uploading images that they didn't create to provide some copyright information on them. This wiki has a policy against uploading copyrighted material, but in checking the upload file we're lacking a reminder there. --Johan Crichton 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Look. I don't know the original copyright information to this picture, but it is one used by all film reviewers, exorcist fanpages and more. I believe it is the official press image and if you read about the copyright laws, they say that press images are free to use indiscriminately. I work as a damn journalist in RL. I should know. Besides, how many of the images in this wiki can seriously show ORIGINAL copyright information. That documentation is, if existant, property of the maker of the picture. In most cases they aren't even existing. Copyright issues are seldom documented, unless you specifically want the papers. You get the copyright automaticly. At least that's the case in the countries I've worked in. Get your facts straight. And keep away from my picture. I have no quarrels with you, except when you took my discussion with etherdrifter personally. Something that is beyond my control. Please don't bring that here. -- Big Kahuuna 18:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you can show the original copyright information allowing reuse here, this image should be deleted.--Johan Crichton 21:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- It was a promotional picture, so copirights shouldn't be a problem. Don't have the original picture-link though. -Big Kahuuna 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Marked for deletion. --Johan Crichton 20:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
