User talk:Ddweb

The image you posted of Senator Obama's house has been removed pending proper sourcing information. WP requires that all media be freely licensed and you will need to provide such sourcing (e.g. "This is my picture and submit it under GDFL, etc.) before it can be used.

Also, please note that WP makes every effort to preserve privacy of individuals, even prominent ones. Please note the following text from WP's

Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them.

Before publishing such a picture, you will need to verify that it has already been published in a

Apologies, I didn't think about the implications of revealing said residence. It is not my wish to intentionally reveal private information about private citizens. The reason I posted the image without much thought was because pictures of the residence of the other party have been used in prior journalistic publications, therefore I didn't think much about it. Apparently this one hasn't been used. Removing it was the right thing to do. Ddweb (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so understanding. I have no doubt you were acting in good faith. I agree that the picture is relevant to the article. If it gets used by a

WP:RS then it's probably fair game. Ronnotel (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Cool, that's a good description. Ddweb (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Looks like I should have come here first, but I just put a tag on

WP:NFCC because the image itself is not notable (it isn't mentioned in any article and it's use in the ABC News article is to illustrate the relationship between Obama, Rezko, and the land deal) and it is easily recreatable with free images. I just read the article Ddweb says discusses the image specifically, I don't see any discussion of the image at all. Plenty of discussion about Obama's and Rezko's connection and the land deal, but not a single sentence on the image itself. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Also note that my comments above were about a (non-composite) different photo. In either case, though, the photo itself would have to be the subject of a portion of the article's content (i.e. it would have to be notable) to be included, which is what I said above. In short, I'm with Bobblehead.

talk) 21:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I've also nominated Image:GMA Rezko obama080110 ms.jpg for speedy deletion since it is redundant to Image:Rezko Obama Property Deal.jpg. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if the image passes the "notability" test, that is, for example garnering specific mention in a credible article(e.g. exact wording to the effect of "here is a picture that shows such and such..." in non-trivial notable presentation), that would represent sufficient qualification?

Or let me state it another way. In hypothetical terms. If a CNN reporter were to take the ABC News composite image as is, and confronted Senator Obama(or surrogates) during a scheduled news conference or a rally, generated some type of media or public controversy, and received credible journalistic coverage in which said image was the focal point of the story, with multiple references throughout, then and only then would it be fair game? Ddweb (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]