Quarantine Discussion

The Public Domain claim on the Karl H. Pribram photo does seem to be legit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pribram_Tucson2.jpg

Perhaps if the uploader had provided a link to the source, as we are asked to do, the image would not have been quarantined. Merely saying "Public domain; obtained from Wikimedia" isn't good enough, particularly considering the fact that Wikipedia often makes false claims of "public domain" status.

I understand, but I checked it out, and the claim looks as genuine as any I've seen on Wikipedia. Besides, other linkless pictures have cleared lately.

http://www.librarything.com/pics.php?a=stimsonhenrylewis

But those give enough specific information that they can be tracked. They credit the photo as requested by the source. The Pribram image just says "from Wikimedia", making it aggravating for someone, if they even want to bother, to track it down.

I agree that the image looks okay. But we can't take the uploader's word for it, and we can't expect people to spend time and energy finding the original image based on such minimal information.

I agree that we shouldn't feel compelled to check out linkless images (I usually don't), I just checked that one out on a whim (took about ten seconds), and thought that the flags should be removed; boy, Flag removal dialogue sure would be nice . . .

Daniel J. Sparks and djsparks seem to be the same guy.

> 5

Flag removal dialogue sure would be nice . . .

I completely agree. I don't see why we can say why we're adding a flag, but not why we're removing one!

> 6

He's his own favorite author! ~snerk~

>7 lilithcat:

To be honest, if I'd written a book, I'd have had to favorite myself too; I just don't think I could resist.

> 7

He's his own favorite author! ~snerk~

And he reviewed his own book He Shall Direct Thy Paths: Reflections for America's Soldiers and Heroes…

>7 lilithcat:

Flag removal dialogue sure would be nice . . .

I cross-posted the topic to Recommend Site Improvements (here) on March 11th, but it didn't even get a sniff.

*sigh*

Isn't it about time that we let unpaid members see the quarantine page? Just see it, not remove flags? If they could access it, then we could at least pretend that they're reading the flag explanations, since I suspect that 50%+ of the flagged pictures are uploaded by free users.

> 11

I agree. Sometimes, when I see that an unpaid member is uploading a lot of photos without the proper information, I'll leave a private comment. But I don't always have the time or energy to do that!

Does anyone know whether non-profit members can see the quarantine page? There is a non-profit member currently uploading photos under the claim of "public domain" that clearly are not. They are from copyrighted web sites. But the member does not have comments enabled, so I can't leave a message.

I just signed into this non-profit account and I can see the quarantined pictures and their flags.

Tricia (aka hailelib)

> 14

Great! I hope that the account I'm concerned about will check there.

This is about the Alistair MacLean photo in Quarantine: If you click on a CK fact (Important places) for one of his books, the photo shows up. Here are two more examples.

http://www.librarything.com/work/3206242/book/24870892

http://www.librarything.com/work/132381

I'm not sure, but I think LT may be haunted by the ghosts of uploads past...

Where are lilithcat and christiguc? You don't think.....You don't think they could be, be, de- No; oh no...

You called? ;)

Whew! 'Recently added pictures' looks better already! :)

Hey! I was flagging some of them! Be glad I flagged the spew of spam ones!

I get no love. No love I tell you.

>20 KingRat:

XOXO

Why couldn't I see which account uploaded those spam deals?

I'm still a little worried about lilithcat. I hope her Lifetime Account hasn't run out, so to speak.

Yeah, I noticed that too. I decided I didn't want to take the time to investigate which account(s) it was. I'm on vacation. I'm only doing easy stuff.

I've been off on vacation - with no Internet access! Well, none to speak of. My sister has dial-up, and an ancient browser. It's agonizing!

But I'm back!

>23 lilithcat:

Welcome back to Broadbandland (wasn't that a place in Gulliver's Travels?)

The Tim Spalding photo I flagged was submitted for LibraryThing Author Chat.

readerviews and Irene Watson seem to be the same person.

So it seems. I de-flagged myself.

I just added a NYPL photo to P. L. Travers; I'm pretty sure it's her, but if you guys don't think so, tack a flag on and I'll delete it.

"Yo, check out my I-con."

http://www.librarything.com/authorpics/liguorialfonsomariad-48defb034dc2d-big.jp...

Is anyone else being redirected to the home page after flagging? Annoying.

No--I'm not getting that. But it would be annoying.

saniscalchirobertj and member bobbytech seem to be the same person.

> 30

I do, but only when I'm on my work computer, which is Windows XP Professional/IE6. It's doubly annoying because the home page takes forever to load on this computer (and sometimes just hangs up).

I've also added possibly unhelpful images of both Trotsky and Khomeini: probably should be flagged as well; this one too; just not helpful.

Richard D Squires and member aaronlovecraft seem to be the same person.

>33 lilithcat:

So you think it might be my machine? Because now, every image I flag off the 'Recently added pictures' page is redirecting me to the home page. ):

>36 BOB81: Are you IE6?

I'm using IE something.

Then I would recommend you post about it in Bug Collectors because it appears to be an IE bug. It doesn't happen with FireFox (what I'm using).

Photo uploading suggestion # ???

When you flag a photo you've uploaded yourself, it is automatically deleted.

New suggestion thread.

> 40

Is that link a subtle commentary on the thread, or have you not had your caffeine this morning?

;-)

>41 lilithcat:

No caffeine for me, just a bunch of sour grapes.

When you flag a photo you've uploaded yourself, it is automatically deleted

Or, take away the option of flagging a photo that you have uploaded--there is no reason why people should want to flag their own image. Then, people will probably notice the delete and edit options.

>43 christiguc:

Even better.

There's a picture for an art gallery/bookstore that I'm unsure about. It is a picture of one painting which is probably copyrighted. Now, if a copyrighted picture is part of an overall landscape (and not the feature), that is questionable, but this is just a picture of one piece of artwork and so even more questionable. Flag?

I can remember adding an ÖNB/Wien photo of an artist (can't think of who it was) standing beside one of his paintings; now, I'm pretty sure that ÖNB doesn't own the copyright on that painting, but the painting wasn't really the focal point of the photo. Does that make a difference? I don't know. There must be a jumping-off-point somewhere; I just don't know where. I guess, after all that torture, I'd have to say flag 'em: the venue is already well represented in pictures.

> 45

A great many galleries and museums forbid, or restrict, photography due to copyright concerns. Having looked at the image in question, I think I would want to be assured that the gallery allowed photography, and the dissemination of the photos. (At least one local museum at which I have taken photos made me sign a document that they would be for my personal use only with no further dissemination.)

I'm pretty certain ONB/Wien doesn't own the copyright to most of the works that they claim to, at least in the U.S.

I re-uploaded the Edna St. Vincent Millay photo by Carl Van Vechten, which happened to be my 1514th LT picture :) Sorry thomas_and_ed, but the rich just keep getting richer.

>48 KingRat:

Agree, but I'm not sure about this one.

http://www.librarything.com/pics.php?a=kubinalfred

I agree. A lot of the old sketches are probably out of copyright. But, since we have permission to use all that they claim copyright to, it's easier than doing the research to refute their copyright claims on some drawings.

I can see the Duncan Weller picture.

Hm. I can now too. Removing the flag. . .

Ah--so it's an add for his (musician's) appearance at the New York libraries he is trying to upload.

If I tried to sing smooth jazz hits at my local library, I'll bet I'd be severely shushed.

If anthonylibrarian is the Assistant Director of Palatine Public Library, can't we let that Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 Generic photo slide?

> 57

Is he? I didn't realize that. However, I still think he'd need permission from the photographer. He did post one of his own photos, with the same CC license, and I unflagged that one since he can obviously use his own photos.

If it's something the library has rights to, yes I would let it slide. But if he is just posting something from Flickr, no.

. . . and it looks like it would have been a duplicate anyhow.

Perhaps he couldn't see the Forester for the boats?

Puntastic!

As far as I can tell, the only books on the Jean Monnet author page are by Jean Monnet, the Pan-European. Should the picture stay? I've asked myself the same question a few times lately, on other author pages.

I inverted the colors on this picture (see here). Do you guys think this is okay?

>62 BOB81: Here are the terms of our permission for the use of images from NYPL. alibrarian got the "general permission"--you may want to ask if that includes permission to modify, etc.

I just uploaded a possibly questionable photo from LoC.

http://www.librarything.com/pics.php?a=furphyjoseph

Sorry about the cryptic flag details on the two Clare Boothe Luce images (weird pasting glitch): these pictures aren't of Clare Boothe Luce, but of actress and dancer Claire Luce.

> 65

Weirdly, they were nearly exact contemporaries (1903-1989 and 1903-1987). Claire acted on the stage and in film; Clare wrote for the stage and film. Claire was a dancer, as was Clare's mother.

I don't know what this means.

I was trying to fix the information for the belmonte image. The original seems to have a Creative Commons licence in wikipedia, but I am new at this, so could you take a look to see if the licence is ok, and the manner in which I entered the information? I am feeling a little lost here.

I think the photo was flagged because the pt.wikipedia link provides no substantial evidence as to the copyright status of the image.

>67 griscat:, 68
I found the same photo here: you might try to contact them, and ask permission to post the image on LibraryThing.

It also doesn't make sense to have an image for the surname Belmonte -- there are several authors with that surname, whose picture would you put? Ericlia, Juan, Kevin, Thomas, Vasco, or one of the others? If you have just "Belmonte" as the author of one of your books, you should edit your book info to include the author's full name, then you can find a picture to put on that page.

Edited to add: Ah, I see. "Belmonte" on its own is also the pseudonym for another author. The problem is that the same page would be linked to by anyone who only put in the surname of one of the many other authors whose real name is Belmonte, and that sort of thing happens all to often.

Yes. This is a case like Mark Twain. Few people know his real name was Samuel Langhorne Clemens. It makes more sense to classify Belmonte as Belmonte as few people in Brazil know him by any other name. And I see you established Mark Twain as Mark Twain, not Clemens.
As to the image. The link is to the govemental site of the City of São Paulo. And there also you do not have any copyright info. I'll try to contact them. But if I know how my country works, they probably got it from wikipedia.