Talk:Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras celebrated by 450,000 people

Great Writing

As usual for Elliot; the article really puts the reader into the scene. Neutralizer 16:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But some bastard has deleted the very excellent CC pic I found.- I'm putting it back. -elliot_k 16:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the title change; but at least I can put the pic back. Neutralizer 00:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Title

One thing and just wondering; Shouldn't "gay and lesbian" be in the title? Neutralizer 16:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think so; maybe I'll be bold with this..no more closets for anybody. Neutralizer 16:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

NO! But its too late now! As I was about to say before your edit conflict: I'd prefer not to as this implies a dominant cultural POV.--elliot_k 16:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo's

Jasabella said that she was going to go along and get some photo's - hopefully they'll appear sometime today. - Borofkin 00:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have just recieved permission from the photographer of the pic I posted yesterday. --elliot_k 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC) (Australia - Centre of the Universe)

Craig must've missed Elliot's note; I have replaced image and asked Craig to use this talk page. Neutralizer 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The image is about to be deleted on Commons. Commons does not accept non-commercial no-derivatives licensure. Wikinews cannot accept non-commercial licensure. Elliot K, can you ask the photographer to release it under CC-by-nd? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... Its cool. And I have asked him about it. Although I'm currently unable to check my emails. Either way the photographer has said already its fine for wiki to use it... So I really don't see the problem with it. --elliot_k 05:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that we can't use it unless he declares that it is fine for *anybody* to use it, not just us. It needs to be released under a license that has no restrictions at all on reuse. Wikinews content is reused by other sites, and the photographer may not have given explicit permission for those sites to use it. For example, a homophobic site may re-use the image to vilify gay's, and according to our licensing rules, that's okay. If he has said to you that it can be released under such a license (without any restrictions, non-commerical or otherwise), then you should update the description on the commons page, and everything should be fine. - Borofkin 05:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, I realise all that. And as I already said, I'm waiting for a second response. By the way, the image is from Flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/44124447823@N01/107968865/ It irks me the lengths I/we need to go to to put a little bit of colour on this dreary website! I wish the world had a better general understanding of CC licence stuff.--elliot_k 05:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I also wish that CC became more widespread... I've spent many e-mails attempting to convince Sydney Indymedia that they should change their default license to CC-A. - Borofkin 05:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Indymedia sites almost all use the basic "Copleft" notion. Some have CC buttons. I'd like to see wn and imc more compatible. I will discuss with a few others in the collectives and see...--elliot_k 06:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)