Dyskusja:Makak czubaty

message: I don't speak Polish, but I know that Wpedzich does. I'm not attempting to start a debate in English, but I am concerned about the recent reverts (and inappropriate edit protection by involved parties). You are most likely aware that the copyright status of :Plik:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg, :Plik:Macaca nigra self-portrait full body.jpg and several other macaque selfies are contentious. The consensus at Wikimedia Commons, supported by the Foundation's legal representation, is that images taken by animals by animals are public domain. I generally agree with this interpretation, but not everyone does, even within the project. As such, I believe it is important to treat these images with respect. From an encyclopedic perspective it is extremely inappropriate to use it as the sole illustration of a species. They are not actually illustrations of what this species looks like but rather an artefact of a flue of wildlife photography. In short, it degrades the informative quality of the article in favor of sensationalism and quirkiness.
I would also like to stress that these images are not to be treated as copyleft trophies to be displayed in article space on "because we can"-basis. The protests from wildlife photographer David Slater might not hold up in court, but they are quite reasonable from a moral perspective. They are hardly wanton acts of copyfraud. They would clearly not exist were it not for the endeavours of one person. Even if the copyright claim by Slater turns out to be without merit, I consider it downright greedy not to respect the origins of the images. Using them in such an off-hand manner as is done here is morally inept and quite gratuitous. In my view it downgrades the reputation of Wikipedia as a source of serious knowledge. Our actions here are supposed to be that of well-meaning encyclopedists, not copyleft fanatics.
Peter Isotalo (dyskusja) 22:53, 10 sie 2014 (CEST)
replies: text: Hi. I have reverted the image to the full-body view, but please note that edit-warring will not be the preferred version of editing. Going to lower the protection level to "autoconfirmed" for some time too so that it does not get edit-warred again. Wojciech Pędzich Dyskusja 22:58, 10 sie 2014 (CEST)
replies: text: :I urge you to encourage odder to do the same. Her/his arguments have been aimed at me personally at first. There has been no attempt to explain why a quirky selfie is preferable to a perfectly good full-body photo (that isn't a copyright controversy) that actually shows what the full animal looks like.

text: :This seems to be about promoting a certain image, not to improve article quality.

text: :Peter Isotalo (dyskusja) 15:48, 11 sie 2014 (CEST)
* zastępowanie w artykule biologicznym jedynego zdjęcia - zdjęcia całego zwierzęcia zdjęciem kawałka głowy jest niewłaściwe. Encyklopedia ma być źródłem jak najlepszej informacji, w tym graficznej, o danym gatunku a nie miejscem wklejania zdjęć dlatego, że są fikuśne i jajcarskie (małpa zrobiła zdjęcie małpie, wow). Małpa nie składa się tylko z wyszczerzonych zębów, nosa i oczu. Opisywania autora fotki i płci autora akurat w tym jednym przypadku też podchodzi pod robienie sobie hucpy, a nie encyklopedii. --Piotr967 podyskutujmy 17:17, 11 sie 2014 (CEST)
thread_title: Image issues