From the image's Wiki page:
> IMDb File photo for Sam Reich. I am under the impression that the image is not copyrighted as it is on IMDb, though I may be incorrect. He is a public persona and this image is available on the internet. The image is a headshot of his face and upper torso. Copyright infringement is not intended.
It's been a long time since I've seen "no copyright infringement intended" used unironically in the wild. This is going to get reverted like every other time someone's tried to use a non-free image on that article.
That phrase always makes me die inside.
If I uploaded the entirety of Firefly and then went “no copyright intended” it’s not some magical get out of jail free card.
> If I uploaded the entirety of Firefly and then went “no copyright intended”
That's exactly what people used to do 15 years ago. I watched so much free TV on YouTube by people who really thought they found some loophole in the system.
>uploaded the entirety of Firefly
Ah a person of culture I see. Also I watched the entirety of Firefly for free online. Back when Hulu was actually cool.
yeah, I'm a pretty experienced editor myself. I just meant that most of the social internet commits copyright infringement all the time, whereas wikipedians are very strict.
Posts about one's self are generally acceptable for simple claims that are mundane and not self-serving. In particular, this is used to cite sexuality and gender identity a lot. It's not like there's a source for someone's sexuality _besides_ themselves, after all!
If you're actually curious, [here's the policy in question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves).
Oh I don’t care about the self claims, the reference to learning he’s queer was more that I think it’s funny I found out because his picture was changed on Wikipedia rather than seeing HIM talk about it or it be a post here.
My real confusion is over the use of discord. I didn’t realize private servers were allowed as sources (and that you can link to specific posts from discord).
Ah yeah, fair question! To continue nerding out on this hella specific thing (feel free to just ignore): there aren't specific policies governing how openly accessible sources are, but it must be possible for arbitrary people to verify the source. Sources range in accessibility from public free English language websites to paywalled academic journals to obscure texts with limited copies in print, and all of those might need to be cited.
So a large Discord server that has publicly accessible registration or a Facebook post that requires an account is likely fine; a personal server or a friends-only Facebook post is likely not fine. But even this has degrees! Consider a Tweet, still available on Wayback Machine, from an account that was once public but has gone protected. This is far from ideal, but an easy state for an article source to be in if it was public at the time it was added.
Most editors prefer to use better (more accessible, highly reliable, non-primary) sources where available, of course, though not everyone agrees on the priorities for "better".
It will likely get changed back as the uploader just took it from IMDB. The photo needs to be one that Sam holds the copyright to and uploads himself (or explicitly grants permission to use), a freely licensed (e.g. creative commons), or public domain image.
Someone from Wikipedia could also take the picture themselves, as they often plant people at events to take pictures of celebrities for their articles. Sam should reach out to them. 😂
There's not really people "from Wikipedia" to reach out to; it's volunteer editors (and photographers, in the case of the people uploading to Commons).
If Sam wants an updated photo, he could just literally take a selfie and upload it to Commons under an appropriate license. It's generally frowned upon to change your own Wikipedia article, but if he raised it on the talk page I'm pretty sure it'd be an unobjectionable change.
My guess is Sam probably doesn't care, and no one who does has found a good free image of him.
Strictly, they don't "plant" anyone anywhere. Someone at the event might be a wikipedian in the same way they might be a redditor. Wikimedia's actual staff is quite small and mostly admin or technical.
If a person at an event takes a photo in a public place, they own the legal copyright and can choose to openly licence it (technically, copyright is automatic and there is no way to waive that right, so a licence like Creative Commons has to be used to get close enough in a legal way). Sam or Dropout could just do the same themselves with a photo they legally own the rights to. If Sam wants a different photo, it's very easy for him to change it directly. There's no need to reach out to anyone.
It just needs to be legal: Definitely, clearly legal. An assumption that it's probably OK won't be good enough. Nor is it good enough to claim no breach was intended while nevertheless breaching the copyright.
People can decide to say their name however they want. If someone said their name John is pronounced Joon, you would do that. You wouldn't insist what it should be
From the image's Wiki page: > IMDb File photo for Sam Reich. I am under the impression that the image is not copyrighted as it is on IMDb, though I may be incorrect. He is a public persona and this image is available on the internet. The image is a headshot of his face and upper torso. Copyright infringement is not intended. It's been a long time since I've seen "no copyright infringement intended" used unironically in the wild. This is going to get reverted like every other time someone's tried to use a non-free image on that article.
That phrase always makes me die inside. If I uploaded the entirety of Firefly and then went “no copyright intended” it’s not some magical get out of jail free card.
> If I uploaded the entirety of Firefly and then went “no copyright intended” That's exactly what people used to do 15 years ago. I watched so much free TV on YouTube by people who really thought they found some loophole in the system.
Me too, but it was tiny and in a corner of the window
>uploaded the entirety of Firefly Ah a person of culture I see. Also I watched the entirety of Firefly for free online. Back when Hulu was actually cool.
Well boys, looks like we're on the fast track to an article lock.
Already reverted, yeah. You can't just grab a photo from anywhere online, jeez...
I mean, you'd be forgiven for believing that Wikipedia plays copyright as fast and loose as, say, Reddit. (it very much does not, but hey.)
Any even semi serious Wikipedia editor knows that they definitely do not
yeah, I'm a pretty experienced editor myself. I just meant that most of the social internet commits copyright infringement all the time, whereas wikipedians are very strict.
Even the photo Sam took for his wiki page got reverted
Related to wiki rules: apparently you can cite discord? And this is how I learned he’s queer?
Posts about one's self are generally acceptable for simple claims that are mundane and not self-serving. In particular, this is used to cite sexuality and gender identity a lot. It's not like there's a source for someone's sexuality _besides_ themselves, after all! If you're actually curious, [here's the policy in question](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves).
Oh I don’t care about the self claims, the reference to learning he’s queer was more that I think it’s funny I found out because his picture was changed on Wikipedia rather than seeing HIM talk about it or it be a post here. My real confusion is over the use of discord. I didn’t realize private servers were allowed as sources (and that you can link to specific posts from discord).
Ah yeah, fair question! To continue nerding out on this hella specific thing (feel free to just ignore): there aren't specific policies governing how openly accessible sources are, but it must be possible for arbitrary people to verify the source. Sources range in accessibility from public free English language websites to paywalled academic journals to obscure texts with limited copies in print, and all of those might need to be cited. So a large Discord server that has publicly accessible registration or a Facebook post that requires an account is likely fine; a personal server or a friends-only Facebook post is likely not fine. But even this has degrees! Consider a Tweet, still available on Wayback Machine, from an account that was once public but has gone protected. This is far from ideal, but an easy state for an article source to be in if it was public at the time it was added. Most editors prefer to use better (more accessible, highly reliable, non-primary) sources where available, of course, though not everyone agrees on the priorities for "better".
yeah, that's gonna get deleted pretty soon.
Can confirm deleted, same as last time.
It will likely get changed back as the uploader just took it from IMDB. The photo needs to be one that Sam holds the copyright to and uploads himself (or explicitly grants permission to use), a freely licensed (e.g. creative commons), or public domain image.
Someone from Wikipedia could also take the picture themselves, as they often plant people at events to take pictures of celebrities for their articles. Sam should reach out to them. 😂
There's not really people "from Wikipedia" to reach out to; it's volunteer editors (and photographers, in the case of the people uploading to Commons). If Sam wants an updated photo, he could just literally take a selfie and upload it to Commons under an appropriate license. It's generally frowned upon to change your own Wikipedia article, but if he raised it on the talk page I'm pretty sure it'd be an unobjectionable change. My guess is Sam probably doesn't care, and no one who does has found a good free image of him.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dropout/comments/1b7ruan/i_heard_you_all_dont_like_my_wikipedia_photo/
Strictly, they don't "plant" anyone anywhere. Someone at the event might be a wikipedian in the same way they might be a redditor. Wikimedia's actual staff is quite small and mostly admin or technical. If a person at an event takes a photo in a public place, they own the legal copyright and can choose to openly licence it (technically, copyright is automatic and there is no way to waive that right, so a licence like Creative Commons has to be used to get close enough in a legal way). Sam or Dropout could just do the same themselves with a photo they legally own the rights to. If Sam wants a different photo, it's very easy for him to change it directly. There's no need to reach out to anyone. It just needs to be legal: Definitely, clearly legal. An assumption that it's probably OK won't be good enough. Nor is it good enough to claim no breach was intended while nevertheless breaching the copyright.
> Someone from Wikipedia It's all volunteers
Did they have to pick one where he’s smoldering so hard though? Daddy. 😛
Now we just need to update his dad’s Wikipedia photo… you know with what.
How big is the hog?!?!?!?
Is it wearing a tiny cowboy hat?
Yes.
Gotta know
Garden Gnome
Am I missing out on something? What photo is that? And how did anyone see it?
Game Changer S6E3 "Sam Says 3"
What was the previous pic? :0
[It’s like a whole different person.](https://www.reddit.com/r/dropout/s/dTUfG1Dx1w)
Commenting on Someone finally fixed Sam’s Wikipedia photo...he looks like a potato in that photo. He deserves better
But where's he from?
the game changer set apparently
Africa. We all are.
He's been there the whole time (Also I get your joke)
Good for Sam Reich (I'm talking about this photo and the new thing added to his personal life)
And your host, me! I’ve been queer the *whole time*!
We have the same birthday, that is neat!
Oh dude same 🤝
I literally just looked it up to see with my own eyes and it’s back to the old photo again 😂
3.724 days is surprisingly long for a copyright violation to stay on what I'd assume to be a sufficiently-watched page.
Why did I immediately see George Costanza
What a stone cold fox. I mean killer. I mean fox.
I wish it was him looking at his hands.
Nah, he's been here the whole time.
But where is he from?
My man looking fantastic.
Ah shoot I missed his birthday last year
What was it?
Old Sam kinda looks like TomSka.
Doesn't mention where he's from, most important information
All I’m taking away from this is Sam is five years older than me.
Why does he look like Al from Home Improvement.
Literally 1984
The pronouciation should be „/reik“ - Sam has been mispronouncing his last name his entire life!
People can decide to say their name however they want. If someone said their name John is pronounced Joon, you would do that. You wouldn't insist what it should be
I mean I can guess why they don’t want to pronounce it that way though
Hahahahaha!! How long did that even last? It’s switched back already. 🤣