Talk:Tomoko and Mother in the Bath

message: Coming back after the Main Page exposure, it looks like the inclusion of a photograph did prove contentious, but ended in a decision of no consensus. Barring any very persuasive arguments, I'd advise sticking to the decision of the original author of the article (as per the  AmE v CwE argument), and go with the compromise of a link at the bottom of the page. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 20:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After the Main Page

message: I suggest using the template at Template:External media, which I believe is perfectly suited to this situation. The web-site can be attached using the template, and placed in a more visible part of the page near the top or alongside the "Capture" section. If there are no objections, I'll do it in the next couple days.Boneyard90 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested template for photo issue 

message: If the family has refused to allow the image to be reproduced, and we are intending to honor that intent, then we CANNOT link to an external site showing the image, because THAT site is then engaged in copyright violation, which we cannot link to per our policies on external links (like most youtube videos, etc). If, however, fair use allows the reproduction, WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder, for purposes of discussion of the image itself (NOT for discussion of pollution, birth defects, maternal love, or for political advocacy, fundraising, etc etc), then we have every right to reproduce it here, albeit in low resolution and ONLY for this article. I really dont understand the arguments presented here for why we cannot reproduce the image, but can link to a site that is violating the request we just agreed to. Note that the website we linked to is a COMMERCIAL website using this image as part of their list of notable images, to promote their business. How is that any better than our proposed reproduction? We cant have it both ways.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I didn't know this background until a colleague told me of it today. Linking to an image in breach of copyright is contributory infringement - and furthermore the copyright statement on the linked image ("© The Heirs of W. Eugene Smith") is inconsistent with that site's own linked elaboration on the copyright ("The Heirs of W. Eugene Smith retain the copyrights to all of his photographs with the exception of the "Minamata" series") as well as Aileen Smith's own statement that the copyright belongs to the Uemura family. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the external link for now. Since i dont know if we can "use" the image here, I will choose one of our 2 options: to not link and not reproduce. That doesnt mean i have determined we cannot reproduce it, only that i am sure we cannot link to THAT site, at least for now. i am not sure what we can do with this image. if someone can show that the actual copyright status of the image does allow for fair use (remember, the family not allowing the use of the image is their not granting the right to reproduce commercially; fair use usually means just that: no permission is needed to reproduce, as long as the reproduction doesnt interfere with the commercial interests of the copyright holder), then please upload the image, or link to a site which unambiguously is authorized to reproduce it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: The Capture section current states "Taken with a Minolta SRT-101 and super wide 16mm Rokkor lens." This lens description is probably not correct. It appears that all versions of Minolta's 16mm Rokkor lenses were fisheye type lenses (http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/). A characteristic of fisheye lenses is their very strong barrel distortion. Photographs made with fisheye lenses show straight lines as if they were curved. In the photograph that is the topic of this article, the straight lines of the bath appear to be straight rather than curved. The photograph shows no evidence of the strong barrel distortion that is a characteristic of all fisheye lens photographs. Based on its appearance, the photograph was likely made with a moderate wide angle lens or a normal lens, not a fisheye or a super wide. The lens is not an important detail about the photo, but in the absence of reliable information about which lens was used, the description of the lens should be omitted. 100.8.73.140 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the lens