Talk:Yvonne Suhor

message: Her IMDb profile has 1965 not 1961 as her year of birth - don’t know which is correct. Jock123 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth year? 

message: So how do we add a photo and of Yvonne Suhor? FlackMJ (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos? 

message: Hello  and all. Yes, I understood the Yvonne Suhor Find a Grave website as an WP:EL came under WP:ELPEREN, specifically WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL, but per WP:RSP (Find a Grave), WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL, and WP:ELYES wonder if at least the photos that are contributed by those registered with Find a Grave as contributors per Contributors (one photo at least is unique and not available elsewhere, and as all the images may not be permitted for use on Wikipedia) are sufficient to allow the Yvonne Suhor Find a Grave in the external links section under WP:ELYES as “valuable additional content” that “is neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article”.  Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did this unique image come from? If you believe it would not be allowed here, would that not present a linkvio concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia not allowing a photograph in an article (that has no required reference to fair use or a copyright grant if the photo was added to the article) is different, per WP:LINKVIO, from  "know[ing] or reasonably suspect[ing] that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright." The subject website entry has been up for some time and published by an authorized Find a Grave contributor without any apparent copyright violation claim, so I don't know or reasonably suspect there is a copyright problem. Further, the "[c]ontext is also important". Although member supplied content, Find a Grave is generally considered a "reputable website" and photos of deceased are probably "allowed under fair use." Nonetheless, we can put all that aside as the link I provided was not to the website, but to a Wayback Machine page of the Internet Archive and, per WP:LINKVIO, "It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives such as the Wayback Machine, which host unmodified archived copies of webpages taken at various points in time."Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived versions of otherwise acceptable links are acceptable; there is no free pass to link to anything by linking to an archived version. There are already images of the subject available from sites which actually are reputable; there is no clear value or encyclopedic benefit to including this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last sentence is correct if you don’t accept that one of the photos contributes as being unique. As to the Wayback entry: First, “almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography.” Second, the question arises only when an external Web site carrying a work found in violation of the creator's copyright is considered a form of  contributory   (not direct)  infringement , which theory of contributory infringement was used under one preliminary federal trial court (not an appellate court, not stare decisis in other courts) holding in Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. Third, it appears the use of the Wayback Machine as “…currently acceptable to link to” is to avoid a claim of contributory infringement under that singular, non-stare decisis, decision as “illegally distribut[ing] someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.” Fourth, in any event, there is no indication of copyright infringement in the Find a Grave entry and, if there was, it would likely be seen as fair use. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I don't agree that having copies of photos contributes as being uniquely valuable, particularly when we already link to legitimate sources (eg her obit). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one of the photos appears unique and I think would be a nice addition, but if you don't think so, it's not worth further squabbling. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find a Grave as an External Link