User talk:Nicky3000

June 2009

The recent edit you made to Melanie Pullen has been reverted, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 00:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

File:MelaniePullen1.jpg

At MelaniePullen1.jpg we read that

Source = Melanie Pullen Estate

which implies that Pullen is dead. But the article says she's alive. Is she alive or dead, and just what is the source of the image? -- Hoary (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I tried to revise the whole thing but am still getting familiar with how to do this correctly. She is alive. I got the image from a website on her work, it was in a press article.

As far as "estate" goes, I was using another photographer's page as a reference on what information to put in the article, and thought this meant that it simply had to do with images Melanie Pullen owns.

I would like to add images to the article but cannot figure out how to do this properly. She's in my textbook in school with a lot of images of her and her work and some of her work is in the museum here, too. How do I do this? Do I need to contact musuems that have her work to get some kind of authorization? And if so who do I send the authorization to?

As there is quite a bit of press and reviews that I am drawing information from wouldn't this mean that I can add images for consideration in the US (non-free content)? I may be far off on how to do this, so what do you suggest?

I'm going to be doing articles and adding information on a few other artists I admire, that I've learned about in school, but she is my first and I would love to do a great job with many proper references, etc..

If you could help advise me on the best way to put works of art up that would be great. I noticed that many other artists have their artwork up on Wikipedia.

Thanks for your help.

Best, Nicky3000 11:38 PST, 27 January 2010

Well, an estate is what you have when you're dead. Or so I had always thought.

Lots of artists do indeed have artwork in their articles, but most of those artists are long dead -- and, for copyright purposes, conveniently so. For living artists, it's a lot tougher.

The best thing to do is just to write to MP and ask her to offer low-resolution versions of one or two photos to Wikimedia Commons. These -- the low-res versions only -- would have to be copyleft via one or other of the pair of acceptable licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or GFDL). Once the images are (legitimately) at Wikimedia Commons they'd be usable anywhere in Wikipedia. (NB they'd also be usable for jokes, etc.) She can go to Commons:Upload and upload the files as "entirely my own work", and (near-) simultaneously write email to the Foundation to show that yes, she really the person who she says she is and therefore is in a position to release the low-res images.

Perhaps even simpler, ask her to add an additional page to her website to which she adds whichever low-res images she wants released, and has the web page say explicitly that they are released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or GFDL. Then she doesn't have to do anything with Wikimedia/Wikipedia; instead, you or anyone else can then copy the images to Wikimedia Commons, citing the source web page and its explicit copyleft notice.

I'm no expert in this aspect of Wikipedia and I'm therefore about to ask more expert eyes to take a look. Don't do anything till somebody else has either confirmed or corrected what I've written above. -- Hoary (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Textbooks showing Pullen's work

You say: She's in my textbook in school with a lot of images of her and her work. Which textbook would this be? -- Hoary (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Now you say they're in textbooks (plural). Which are these? -- Hoary (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer regarding: Textbooks showing Pullen's work

Still working on the article and trying to figure out images. I'll figure it out soon.

To answer your question. Here's the info on a couple of the textbooks. I've actually come across more in my studies but these are what I had at hand.

Artwise Contemporary contains an entire chapter and several images + The University of Virginia references her work in several places.

Here's the info on a couple of the books:

Artwise Contemporary Visual Arts 10 -12 ISBN: 0731402243 (0-731-40224-3) ISBN-13: 9780731402243 (978-0-731-40224-3)

Visual Studies, Volume 24 Issue 2 2009 Visual Anthropology; Visual Arts; Visual Culture; University of Virginia Publisher Routledge DOI: 10.1080/14725860903106112

Thanks for the link on the photos and your suggestions. I'm looking into the suggestions I've been given so far. I'm sure one will work out and I finish this up.

Best, Nicky3000

talk (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it. She indeed has a chapter within the former. As for the latter, surely it can't be by any university; do you perhaps mean this? Anyway, it would be better if you explicitly based what you wrote on these published sources. Of course the need to "source" everything is a drag -- this took me hours or maybe days, and the result is boring -- but it's the Wikipedia way. -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk

Hoary, Thank you for your help. I'm referencing many different public sources, reviews and publications for the article (I continue to find more and more). I sadly had other stuff edited out that wasn't proper a while back and had to figure out what I'd done wrong. I had to start over from scratch and had to start studying up on stuff.

I really like the link you sent me of the photographer you did an article on. It gave me a few ideas. After seeing your article - I researched some other avenues and have downloaded a few press releases that I have found from a few sites and may use them in the way that you did - your piece gave me that idea.

The press releases are very informative and I was happy to see that you used that approach.

I'm happy with the way the article on Pullen is taking shape so far and plan to continue to improve it. Someone else began it a long time ago and it was kind of a mess. It's taken me a lot of research and time to learn Wikipedia to get it where it is so far but I will strive to make it even better.

Learning Wikipedia has been interesting and I'm enjoying it.

Oh and Ari Blatt the writer of the second piece (Visual Anthropology; Visual Arts; Visual Culture). Mr. Blatt is actually a professor at Univeristy of Virgina and that is how I got a copy of the publication. It's a pretty in depth series of journals on artists if that's something of interest to you. I personally enjoy reading such stuff when I can.

Best, Nicky3000 Talk (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:MelaniePullen1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:MelaniePullen1.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the discussion above and your post on the Help Desk, let me try to explain why the image is tagged for deletion. This image is apparently copyrighted, as you took it from a website relating to the individual in question. Also, you were apparently attempting to tag the image for use under our Fair use policy (although your fair use template is broken). However, per our Non-free content criteria, copyrighted images of people that serve only to show what the person looks like are generally considered "replaceable" with free content. That is, it is not justifiable to use a copyrighted image of a person when it is possible to obtain a freely licensed photo of them (taken at an event by a fan or something). As such, unless the replaceable-ness of the image is disputed, the image will be deleted in 3 days. Please feel free to reply here if you have any questions. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If Nicky3000 is wondering, I believe that "your post on the Help Desk" above means my post at the Help Desk. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)