<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Reporters take pictures of actors & actresses and post it all over the newspapers & web without their consent, actually sometimes the pictures are in an undesirable situations for them - yet they get posted. I think it is enough to show a disclaimer may be like what wikipedia does in a clear box: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CBSEveningNewsKatie.jpg">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CBSEveningNewsKatie.jpg</a> I also suggest to add a check box for the uploader that states the the uploader did not **significantly** alter the image from its original source. Images has to be altered in order to change its format from raster to vectors. However, there were situations like this: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/29/cbs-whittles-katie-couric_e_28314.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/08/29/cbs-whittles-katie-couric_e_28314.html</a> when CBS altered an image in a way they thought people would like it more by making Katie look thinner. She didn't like it and was in the news headlines for a couple of days even though she worked for CBS for a period of time. So my opinion is to allow addition of celebrity images. If adding the check box is a trouble then may be vectorizing & cliparting of celebrity/people images should be outlined in the policy. Happy new year to all of you, Mohamed Ibrahim Greg Bulmash wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:47794D41.9000109@gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Perhaps there needs to be a special warning on such pages, stating that while the image itself is public domain with respect to copyright, images of famous people carry other restrictions and you should consult an attorney before using it in commercial projects. I don't believe that such images should be rejected, because they do have a lot of legitimate uses. But beyond a "consult an attorney" disclaimer, I don't know how much more you can do. Heck, most people still write in and ask for permission to use the images because they won't RTFM. You could put up 50 point blinking red letters, and some people would miss them. Add the disclaimer to the image description/page, and let it go. John Olsen wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">This is one of those fuzzy areas of the law still being sorted out. In the US it is perfectly acceptable for an artist to create a recognizable image of another person. One court decision excerpt: "The court held that Sections 50 and 51 had no application because an "artist may make a work of art that includes a recognizable likeness of a person without her or his written consent and sell at least a limited number of copies thereof" without violating the statute. The court also declared in dicta that works of art, including sculptures, were deserving of First Amendment protection that superseded the right of privacy." The only problem I see is in use by someone taking the image from here. If the image was used for publicity purposes or to make money based on the fame of the person, then the user would be in violation. It might be easy enough to solve this by renaming the file with a vague name - "Hollywood actress" or just "Sandra". Thoughts? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">_______________________________________________ clipart mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:clipart@lists.freedesktop.org">clipart@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/clipart</a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>