Talk:Alexandra Kerry

message: After a little research both pictures are in fact "copyvio" because they were taken by a commercial photographer. The photographer was charging a pretty hefty price for the picture when it was first released so remember, copyright law allows for up to 3 times the damages! Also note, I removed the link to the [Snopes page on the dress because it isn't even factual. From the page:
:Claim:   Photograph shows Alexandra Kerry in a see-through dress.
:Status:   True. 
:"The family members of politicians don't generally receive this much exposure, but Alexandra Kerry — daughter of Masschusetts senator and presumptive 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry — did in May 2004 when she attended a Cannes Film Festival event wearing the sheer, translucent black gown pictured above."
She wasn't wearing a "translucent" dress... we've covered this before. The dress looked that way when the flash hit it... jeez JoeHenzi 23:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture, picture. 

message: Paragraph 3 says "scheduled to shoot in 2008".  It is past that now.  Has the film been done yet?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.165.23 (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has it been done? 

message: I suggest the earlier discussion of whether to use a photo of the dress that showed Ms Kerry's bosoms showed a fundamental misunderstanding of the principle of "fair use".
Yes, it is the policy of WMF projects, including the wikipedia, to respect the intellectual property rights of copyright holders.  
When used appropriately there are only limited conditions when the principle of "fair use" applies.  But when it does apply it supercedes the intellectual property rights of copyright holders.
One of the conditions of when "fair use" applies is when the image itself becomes part of the story, and for others properly report the story they need to use the image.
To understand this properly you need to be reminded as to why states grant copyrights and patents to the creators of intellectual property.  
We want those who created intellectual property to make money from their creations.  Why?  So they can go make more intellectual creations.
Why do we want them to make more intellectual creations?  Because we believe in progresstm, and so new intellectual creations are a good thing.
I am going to repeat this, as it is a key point.  Ultimately, we grant protections to copyright holders because we believe it is in the public interest to do so.  And, ultimately, exemptions are made to the protections we give to copyright holders, under "fair use", when doing so is in the public interest.  
Under the narrow conditions where fair use applies at all, it over-rides the protections given to copyright holders.  
Consider this interview with Marie Claire magazine over 3 years later -- the very first 3 questions -- more than a third of the article, are devoted to the Cannes pictures:
:
:Q: I hate to begin this way, but when I Googled you, all these sites came up devoted to the incident on the red carpet at Cannes in 2004, when your gown became transparent.
:A: I know -- 73 pages of the dress. It's such a shame. I saw the heads of Google last summer, and I joked with them: "How do I get this off your site?"
Note: Ms Kerry's discussions with google succeeded, for a while.  Several years ago I googled those images, to use in a discussion, and couldn't find a single one.  So I used yahoo's search engine.  Wiser heads have prevailed at google, and they are no longer trying to censor history.
Rob Reiner had a segment devoted to his work on 60 minutes, a few years ago.  They asked him about his role as an actor on that old sitcom "All in the family" -- where Archie Bunker routinely referred to him as "meathead".  He joked that if he were to win the Nobel Prize, the headlines would say "'Meathead' wins Noble Prize".  The comments triggered by these photos of Ms Kerry at Cannes 2004 will be mentioned in her obituary.  I regard it as highly inappropriate to prune all mention of it from her wikipedia article.
Here is a generally favorable
article about her, from 2012, which, nevertheless addresses the Cannes dress that became unexpectedly translucent when exposed to highpowered flash photography.
I think the dress incident belongs in the article.
I think the dress incident should be illustrated with a fair use image.  Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental misunderstanding of fair use

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alexandra Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-07-14-kerry-daughters_x.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111029231845/http://alexkerryfilms.com/ to http://www.alexkerryfilms.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alexandra Kerry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140509032058/http://www.locomotivefilm.com/about.html to http://www.locomotivefilm.com/about.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111029231845/http://alexkerryfilms.com/ to http://www.alexkerryfilms.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified