Talk:1993 Australian federal election
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Nick-D in topic Article protected for 24 hours - unlicensed Keating image
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1993 Australian federal election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
"VAT is a new tax"
This slogan is what pulled Labor back from an almost certain defeat. Why is this not mentioned anywhere in the article?
- Got some reliable sources to demonstrate this? Timeshift (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Article protected for 24 hours - unlicensed Keating image edit
Per my usertalk discussion, the user is repeatedly reverting to an invalid license image - Paul Keating colour 1989 - for over a dozen Paul Keating articles. If absolutely nothing else, won't even follow WP:BRD - status quo during dispute until consensus. My attempts to educate have gone unheeded. Raised at [WP:AUP]. Was then taken to ANI. Now protected. Timeshift (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Alright, the question is whether File:Stanley Bruce 1926.jpg and File:StanleyBruce.jpg are appropriately licensed. In my mind File:Stanley Bruce 1926.jpg 's licensing needs cleanup; the file link points directly to the image instead of a filepage and it's not at all clear that the image is in fact by the Australian government. Sidenote: Getty images are usually not acceptable under WP:NFCC#2 when non-free; however they also sell public domain images and these would be OK. As for File:StanleyBruce.jpg if the image is in the scope of Crown Copyright it'd be also free, but I am not certain if that image is within the scope of Crown Copyright; when clicking on "copyright" in the sidebar of the file source it says "copyright undetermined" and reading theough the website implies that they may also host non-government/Crown Copyright images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the that, however the Bruce image is of secondary concern. Of primary dispute is the Paul Keating colour 1989 image. Give http://www.naa.gov.au/copyright/index.aspx and http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs08.aspx a read - Ivar acknowledges that the image is Crown Copyright. As the image is nowhere near 50 years old, it is still under copyright. And the CC-att-3.0-au licence applies to native naa.gov.au content - for their images, read below that - "Various copyright conditions apply to content in the National Archives collection, depending on the type of material and its age". You agree with me on the Bruce image and i'm sure you will agree with me on the Keating image... thanks for confirming! [User:Timeshift9|Timeshift]] (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Whoopla. On File:Paul Keating 1989 01.jpg I can't find the license given in the page the image comes from. Now it seems like the image is a government one (the website says that it hosts government images) and government images are subject to crown copyright and this one from 1989 would still be in copyright. File:Paul Keating 2007 2.jpg is from Flickr and has the license, but I am always a little suspicious of
small resolutionEXIF free images. Some other images by the Flickr user have EXIF from several different cameras, and with diverging sizes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)- Okay, so you admit the 1989 image is a clear copyvio per crown copyright. I'm not sure why you then want to try and pull down the 2007 image (is that your idea of balance...?) but when you looked at it, did you also notice that it is a headshot crop, and that in 'other versions' is the original uncropped image? And the flickr source for that gives camera model and shutter settings? Did you look at the author's huge range of other photos, all very similar in style, resolution, and all with the same level of camera detail? There is absolutely no reason to be suspect of the creative commons license apart from your generic suspicion. Let's try and build rather than tear down. Why does this sort of rigid unbalanced balance always tend to come hand in hand with ANI involvement? It's one of the reasons ANI puts me off. Timeshift (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Whoops again. I have a bad cold and didn't notice the crop. The thing about EXIF free images in Flickr galleries with inconsistent EXIFs is that they are sometimes an indication that the gallery was assembled by taking images from elsewhere. It is not a definitive sign however. Perhaps a way of putting it is that File:Paul Keating 1989 01.jpg is much more questionable than File:Paul Keating 2007 2.jpg in terms of copyright status; otherwise I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, so you admit the 1989 image is a clear copyvio per crown copyright. I'm not sure why you then want to try and pull down the 2007 image (is that your idea of balance...?) but when you looked at it, did you also notice that it is a headshot crop, and that in 'other versions' is the original uncropped image? And the flickr source for that gives camera model and shutter settings? Did you look at the author's huge range of other photos, all very similar in style, resolution, and all with the same level of camera detail? There is absolutely no reason to be suspect of the creative commons license apart from your generic suspicion. Let's try and build rather than tear down. Why does this sort of rigid unbalanced balance always tend to come hand in hand with ANI involvement? It's one of the reasons ANI puts me off. Timeshift (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- The NAA is very clear on the fact that Commonwealth-Government items sourced from its database such as the above are subject to the rules around Commonwealth Government copyright: [1]. The Keating images sourced from the NAA database are clearly not PD. Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
