Vincentine

Stop removing the image

I'm not sure why you keep removing this image but I will have to seek arbitration if you keep removing the valid image. If you would like to discuss it, I'm all ears. Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies

Hello, Vincentine. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Monica Youn, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Monica Youn. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Legal threats

Hi. You can't make legal threats on Wikipedia. If you do this again, you will be blocked from editing indefinitely. If you wish to explain the issue you have with the public domain photo, feel free to do so, speaking plainly without legalese. El_C 06:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ditto, legal threats on Wikipedia are generally an unimpressive tactic to use, as well as risking a block on the account per WP:NLT. Personally, I can't see a great deal wrong with File:Witter Bynner Fellows Poetry Reading 2008 - Monica Youn (cropped).jpg on Commons, and have said this at WP:ANI. Please see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people for the guidelines that will be applied in this area.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• And above all, if you don't like the photo, please consider releasing one you *do* like. That fixes the problem right there. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A few responses: 1) I didn't make a legal threat. I asked politely to have the unauthorized photo removed. I mentioned rights of privacy and publicity in order to explain why the image was unauthorized. I wouldn't have mentioned the law at all except that Nesnad above threatened to take me to arbitration for removing my own unauthorized image.

2) That the image may be in the public domain is a copyright issue pertaining to the rights of the author of the photograph, not a privacy/publicity right issue, which pertains to the rights of the subject of the photograph. This is explained in the wiki commons guidelines:

• • • When dealing with photographs of people, we are required to consider the legal rights of the subject and the ethics of publishing the photo in addition to the concerns of the photographer and owner of the image. These former issues are quite distinct from the copyright status of the image and may restrict or impose obligations on those taking, uploading or reusing a photograph. A Creative Commons licence or public domain status, for example, means that the photographer (or other owner) has waived or lost certain rights and that their permission to use the image is not required. However, the photographer is not able to remove any rights belonging to the subject of the photograph.***

3) I can release an image to which I own the copyright, but I don't really see why it's necessary. Most poet pages on Wikipedia do not have author photo, and, especially as a female author, I would prefer to be judged for the merit of my work, rather than my personal appearance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 15:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It isn't difficult to find public domain images of Monica Youn. It would be a far bigger problem if the images were copyrighted. Ms Youn is a United States citizen, and appearing at a public event would not normally constitute a reasonable expectation of privacy under US law.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

ianmcm: It's obvious you're not a lawyer and have a very limited grasp of these issues, so I would suggest it's unwise for you to try to offer legal advice to users of this site by parroting legal jargon. Whether or not I'm a US resident is irrelevant here -- rights of publicity and privacy are issues of state tort law, not federal law. Whether or not I'm a citizen would be irrelevant to any intellectual property discussion. Whether or not the photograph was taken at a public event is irrelevant for rights of publicity purposes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I am not a lawyer. However, you still haven't given a plain language version of why any of the public domain images are problematic. For the record, I am British and would regard any of the images as problematic if they were taken at private events. Appearing at a public event with media coverage implies some consent to media coverage, please explain if you think otherwise.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried to explain using the Wiki Commons language above. Once again, whether or not an image is "public domain" is a copyright issue, not a right of privacy/publicity issue. But to simplify even further, as an individual, I have a right of publicity under state law (right of privacy and publicity are closely linked, which is why most lawyers mention both when discussing these issues). "The right of publicity, often called personality rights, is the right of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other unequivocal aspects of one's identity." I have the right to object to the unauthorized use of my image on a website, irrespective of the copyright of that image. And as I explained above, as a female poet, I would prefer to be assessed on the merit of my work rather than on my personal appearance -- the right of publicity gives me the right to enforce that preference. This is why they ask speakers at public events to sign web release forms, and I gave no such authorization here. Hope this clears things up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This is very unusual. The biggest problem on Commons is usually whether an image is copyrighted; none of the proposed images are. Commons is aware of personality rights, but this applies only to commercial use of an image. As for privacy, appearing at a public event where media coverage is involved would normally imply some consent to media coverage. Monica Youn knew that media coverage was going to occur when any of the public domain photos or videos were created. Strictly speaking, this is a Commons issue than a Wikipedia issue, as the image is hosted on Commons. I can't see any obvious violation of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people in any of this, but you can object over at Commons if necessary.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hey Monica. There are a few ways this can work. First, you can continue to make apparent legal threats and probably have your account and IP address blocked for violating our policy, and get a fairly gratuitous link to the WMF legal team, who will most likely tell you that you are a public figure, that your images are in the public domain, and that as "the public", we can use those images within our fairly broad rights. Now, I'm a social worker and not a lawyer, so I can't debate the specifics with you, but I have been editing Wikipedia for quite a while, and you're not the first person who has tried to push the law as a way to change their article. In fact, it's fairly common.

Alternatively, you can respect the fact that this is not our first rodeo. Half my morning was taken up with a German mathematician and what appear to be the more dedicated of his students, and apparently half my afternoon is to be taken up with you. I understand that you don't want to be identified first and foremost by your appearance, but the fact of the matter is that we care much more about how informative our article is than we do about your personal preference. Now I've spent the better part of three hours combing through archival footage at the Library of Congress, and have selected what seem to be the best quality images that I could find in that footage. If you would like those replaced, then you can submit images you own the copyright to and we can certainly take care of that.

We are more than willing to work with you in ways that help improve the encyclopedia, but we are patently not willing to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia in order to suit you. I'm sorry if this comes off as abrasive, but it's probably best to just lay things out the way they are. TimothyJosephWood 18:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not issuing threats. The only thing on this page resembling a threat is nesrat's opening statement to me where he says, "I will have to seek arbitration if you keep removing the valid image." Explaining why I think my position is legally justified is not a threat, and telling me what you think Wikipedia's lawyers will "likely" tell me is not particularly impressive, given that you still do not seem to understand the legal issues involved. As I have said, I would strongly prefer not to have a photo on my Wikipedia page -- I have seen very few living poet's pages with photos, including such famous poets as Jorie Graham and Anne Carson. I am not a politician or celebrity, nor am I particularly well known as a poet. I notice, for instance, that you don't have a photo of yourself on your talk page, so you are allowing yourself a degree of privacy that you are not allowing me. If you insist on publishing a photo for reasons that I completely fail to understand, I have uploaded one to which I own the rights.

If it's any comfort, most articles will eventually get an image, if nothing else, as the limit of US copyright protection recedes (usually life of the author plus 70 years). Currently that "intellectual property event horizon" is in 1923, but it marches on. The explanation for why Graham and Carson don't have images is as simple as the fact that no one has found an image with the proper license and added it, but thanks for pointing them out; I'll see what I can do. While the lot of you may not be the most popular persons in the world, that you satisfy our standards for notability in most cases means that you are a public figure, at least for the purposes of Wikipedia. I may not have an image on my user page, but I'm also not a National Book Award finalist, and don't qualify for my own Wikipedia article by a long shot.

I apologize if our response has come off overly harsh, but we regularly deal with vandalism of every imaginable variety, and it's occasionally difficult to immediately tell the difference between clever vandalism, and well intentioned but less than helpful good faith contributions. At any rate, it may take a day or more for your email to clear, but when it does I will add your uploaded image to the article. As to your comment on information that was removed, it's not entirely clear what that's referring to, but it you can be more specific I can certainly give it a look. TimothyJosephWood 12:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

What was removed was the isbn info and publisher of my third book Blackacre as well as awards that that book had won, including the William Carlos Williams Award.

 Done TimothyJosephWood 14:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice the isbn etc is still missing from the bibliography section as well as mention of the awards in literary career, although it now appears in the Awards section.

Umm... maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it looks like all the books listed have ISBNs included in them already. I'm afraid you may have to idiot proof it a bit more for my own benefit.

As to the awards, normally articles don't duplicate content in multiple sections, and prefer inclusion in the more specific section over the more generic in scope. If you compare, for example, Svetlana Alexievich, she does just manage to get duplicate mentions of her Nobel, but only because the award itself was unique among laureates.

For what it's worth, I suppose you could say Anne Carson "lucked out" on this one, since there literally does not appear to be a single appropriately licensed image or video of her anywhere on the internet. TimothyJosephWood 15:03, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Under poetry collections, only my two recent books are now listed. I have three books. You deleted Blackacre and it's isbn info. I'm fine only having mention of the awards in the awards section, but then I don't understand why the NBA finalist mention and the witter bynner award appear in the literary career section. I understand not duplicating award information in that section, but it seems odd to include award information in that section only up until 2010.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. Ok. Looks like the editor who reverted your addition could have been a touch more... surgical. But I readded Blackacre, and I also trimmed the mentions of the awards. TimothyJosephWood 15:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Photo and copyright

Hey Monica, in case you don't see my reply on my talk, you need to follow instructions here and legally verify with the Wikimedia Foundation that you are the owner and that you release it for public use, considering that you are the subject of the photo, and not the person who took it (the default copyright holder, unless they are commissioned). Note that this does not only release it for use by Wikipedia, but for use by the public, even and including commercial reuse and modification. If you are not the person who commissioned the photo, and rather a company or other organization was, then you likely do not own the copyright and are unable to license it appropriately. TimothyJosephWood 19:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I followed the intrsuctions on your link but never received a response. The photo is here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SS032616MY_092L.jpg. Is it ok to use?--Vincentine (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Monica Youn. It looks as though the copyright on this image would be held by the photographer Sarah Shatz unless stated otherwise. This would make it unsuitable for a free license on Wikimedia Commons.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:39, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

As I filled out in the extensive forms, that I submittied to Wikipedia, the photograph was commissioned by me as a work for hire under contract for which I paid the photographer, who transferred the copyright to me. This is standard practice for author photos. i am the sole owner of the copyright. My comment above wasn't addressed to you, but to Timothy Joseph Wood, to whom I've already explained these issues at length.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, but you may not know how fussy some of the people on Wikimedia Commons can be about copyright. If they see that the copyright holder of the image is Sarah Shatz rather than the uploader of the image, they will say that it fails to qualify for a Creative Commons license. This is why I said at Talk:Monica Youn that the situation is similar to a wedding photo. If Sarah Shatz has released the copyright on the photo, that is fine.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care about the fussiness. Sarah Shatz is not entitled to release the copyright since she no longer owns it. It would be a pretty serious legal violation for her to do so. I filled out the form per Wikimedia instructions and submitted it to them and I'm waiting for a response. If you continue to demand requirements that go above and beyond what the site requires, I will report you for harassment since I am not aware that you have any right to do so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to be helpful here. There are some seriously fussy people over at Wikimedia Commons and they would notice that the uploader and the copyright holder are different people. The metadata of the image states that the copyright holder is Sarah Shatz, and this is similar to a watermark. Strictly speaking, it is a form of digital watermarking. I'm not a copyright expert and have consulted the guidelines here. At present, the subject/uploader and the copyright holder are named as different people for the image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SS032616MY_092L.jpg .--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware of what it currently says Wikimedia Commons. The meta-data on the photo is not legally binding – copyright can be transferred by contract, per work for hire. The form that I filled out at the link above makes specific provisions for this and other work for hire provisions. I am awaiting a response to the form I submitted to change what is currently listed on the site. Unless you can expedite review of that form, which I don't think you can do, I don't see how you can be helpful at this point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincentine (talk • contribs) 13:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)