File talk:RodneyMcKaypic.jpg

And the copyright on this is...?  ħ uman  21:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 * "No answer" came the swift reply. No justification at all. Nuke it? [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (with butter!) talk to Toast  14:06, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Anything to piss off CUR. TheoryOfPractice 14:11, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * In violation of community standards. --" 17:58, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Found it on Wikipedia Commons. Under free use license. Now back to the original point: He suits me, doesn't he? --" 14:13, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Give source on ALL images when uploading please. Yes, he looks like a jerk. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (with butter!) talk to Toast  14:15, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * He always was my favorite character. And he's no jerk. Why don't you ask Judge King about him? He would know more about Rodney than even I do. That's saying something. --" 14:16, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Quote from WP: Copyright undetermined 	This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.

It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:

* the person(s), product, event, or subject in question * where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it   * on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other usage of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Publicity photos. It's gonna get nuked. (with butter!) talk to Toast 14:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Actually, it illustrates the person in question. Therefore, it is not in violation. --" 14:20, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * We have an article on this guy, whoever the fuck he is? And if so, why? TheoryOfPractice 14:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * It's GONE now. [[Image:Toast s.png|25px]] (with butter!) talk to Toast  14:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Toast, it does not violate copyright. It is illustrating the person in question. Therefore, it is not in violation. And even if it was, we allow a picture of Marks. Why not Rodney? --" 16:12, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Don't be dense--ALL photographs of people illustrate the person in question. Perhaps if we had an article on the person in question (whoever this loser is...)--which we don't, we could claim fair use. But we don't, so we can't. TheoryOfPractice 16:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * And what about Marks? We don't have an article on him. Since Marks is fine, Rodney is fine. --" 17:42, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Fine we'll delete the picture of Marks too. This picture is a copyright violation and three editors have weighed in to point that out to you. Stop going against consensus and stop edit warring when you haven't a leg to stand on. TheoryOfPractice 17:44, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Marks who?  ħ uman  17:46, 15 January 2009 (EST)

DON'T DELETE MARKS! And I would like to point out that the company released the image. --" 17:51, 15 January 2009 (EST) CUR, I'm going to explain this in small words so that you can understand: We can not host pictures that other people hold the copyright to. you are saying that because the picture "is of the person in question," we can. Please try to wrap your tiny mind around this concept: all pictures of people are of the person in question--so if your argument was correct, we could host any picture of any person. That is obviously not the case. We could, if we had a proper article about whoever this guy is, make a case for using this picture. But we don't. We are not using it in an informative way--you are using ity for a userbox. Moreover, your behaviour on this matter is in complete disregard of our community standards. Stop being an asshole about this. TheoryOfPractice 17:54, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Okay, that's amusing. You're insulting me while critizing me for ignoring community standards (how?). By the way, did you actually click the link? Because my arguments are much better summed up there than here. --" 17:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * I read the link--if we had an article on this turkey, no problem. Userboxes =/= articles. Your userpage =/= an informative article. TheoryOfPractice 17:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)



Rationale of fair use for Rodney McKay This image is fair use because:

This image depicts a fictional character, and as such there are no freely-available alternatives. The image does not limit the copyright owners' rights to distribute the show or DVDs in any way. The image is being used for informational purposes only.

Also, it never said anything about articles. It said for informational purposes. The userbox is informational. Goatspeed. --" 18:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * The informal purposes hurt your cause not help it. - User   18:07, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * Informational purposes. This is informational. Alternatively, why don't we send them a letter asking? --" 18:09, 15 January 2009 (EST)


 * You do that, until then bin. - User   18:10, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) PI, I leave this in your hands--if you say it stays, fine, if not, please delete it. I'm tired of arguing with this guy. TheoryOfPractice 18:11, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * (2 ECs!) The userbox is not informational. It says "this user's alter ego is Rodney mckay". No it isn't, that's just made up. You can't just take an image you like and claim fair use. What is fair about its current use? What information is being provided? Why is the picture necessary? Answers please, or delete. Send a letter if you like, but I'm not sure they'd agree to a fait accompli. Totnesmartin 18:12, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * If your argument was true, no pictures of Humprey Boggart would ever be released, either. --" 18:20, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Aw, Humprey Boggart was GREAT in The Malteese Falkon. One of my favourites.TheoryOfPractice 18:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * This argument is getting so old it is curdling.  ħ uman  18:23, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * (EC) Also, we would have no pictures of anything in a movie, video, game, or, for that matter, anything commercial, unless it was in an informative article. Face it: This does not violate copyright. Give me one good reason that would stand before a judge as to why it does. Or, we could ask Judge King. --" 18:26, 15 January 2009 (EST)

we would have no pictures of anything in a movie, video, game, or, for that matter, anything commercial, unless it was in an informative article. Correct. That's fair use. TheoryOfPractice 18:27, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Humphrey Bogart (1 g, he wasn't an evil spirit from Lancashire) was real, and died 50 years ago. Rodney Mckay is fictional and still under the creators' copyright. Do you understand this point? Actually, is it worth asking, as you seem to be making your answers up as you go along. Go and look up copyright law, then come back. Totnesmartin 18:28, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * CUR, can you please stop mindlessly restoring this. I know you've been told about edit warring before. If people are repeatedly reverting what you're doing, you need to talk it out, and only take further action when the discussion has run it's course & an agreement is reached, which does not appear to be the case here. 18:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Correct. And we do. Therefore, the rule is being enforced arbitrily. I'm also going to write a Fun:Stargate Article. It will be from an anti-intellectual, conservative, YEC viewpoint. Expect a double order of lulz. --" 18:30, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I made it: Fun:Stargate. I am now restoring the picture. --" 19:49, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * You realize you still can't use it in a userbox, etc.? Can you wrap your brain around basic copyright law at all?  ħ uman  20:13, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * I see no reason that I cannot. I am not using it to advertise. And now we have a really good reason to keep it. --" 20:15, 15 January 2009 (EST)

EZ button
Cur, the "fair use" only applies to the article, and barely for that. Just because there's one place we can justify using it, doesn't mean we can put it anywhere we want on the site. Try using it on a userpage on WP and see how fast it vanishes, and the little note the 'bot will leave on your talk page.  ħ uman  20:36, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Stop calling me 'cur.' I know what that means. --" 20:39, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Do you really think you are worth holding the shift key down for?  ħ uman  20:43, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * If the alternative is an unforgivable insult, yes. --" 20:44, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * You're right, of course, I should speak better of badly behaving dogs.  ħ uman  20:50, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Just so you know, this is promotional use. You are more likely to be interested in it if you here about it. --" 20:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * You still don't have permission. Copyright owners have the right to determine what form promoting their products takes.  Also, have you considered that hearing about it from you might actually lower interest in it?  ħ uman  21:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)

In addition, I would like to point out that since I am giving a positive review, and saying that everyone should watch this show, they'd more likely be thrilled than annoyed. I am currently trying to figure out how to e-mail them. --" 21:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * If you can get permission then all is well, of course. You might want to mention the userbox, too, and get permission for both uses?  We have a pumpkin pic I got permission to use, limited to the one place we use it.  At low resolution.  And giving credit to the owner...  ħ uman  21:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * If you expect them to reply, let alone give you permission to use the pic on a userpage on some small wiki they've never even heard about, you're more naive than I thought -- Nx  talk 21:05, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Although the point about copyright is valid enough, I suspect we have plenty of pictures lying around that have the same problem. Shall we subject them all to an equally strict scrutiny? -- 21:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Yes. TheoryOfPractice 22:05, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * I just made the same point on main page talk. Fair use is applied much too inconsistently.  I would personally rather take a relaxed approach to it, but if we do want to be serious about fair use, we have to do it universally.   22:09, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * Well, good luck with that. By my count, there can't be more than about 4500. Just stay away from my smileys, please. -- 22:11, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * What we notice, we catch and try to clean up. Why did we notice this one?  Probably inCURable demands for attention.  ħ uman  22:16, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * So if someone else than CUR had uploaded it, it wouldn't have been a problem? -- 22:24, 15 January 2009 (EST)
 * No, lots of things like this have been uploaded, but since furball is such a pain, people notice it's edits. EG, the one Judge King uploaded (a screenshot from same show?) flew under the radar.  Still wrong, however.  Just slipped it by.  Maybe we should add an image copyright section to the new guidelines page?  ħ uman  22:28, 15 January 2009 (EST)