Jump to content

Talk:Annie Chapman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article was listed on WP:VFD in August 2004. For an archive of the discussion see /delete.

Possible additions for later[edit]

  • Albert Cadosch next door reported hearing woman say/cry "no" when he went to use the backyard toilet.
  • I think her old husband might have actually been named Siffey.
  • False reports of polished farthings and rings at her feet, rings actually taken, no coins. Partial envelope found.
  • Inquest details.

DreamGuy 09:24, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

  • Dispute over her time of death. DreamGuy 20:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman while alive photo[edit]

Someone uploaded the photo of Chapman alive. The public does not have access to the original version of this photo. It is held by the family and they have given permission to author Neal Stubbings Shelden to use it, as well as other groups on a case by case basis. The image has been extensively repaired for viewability purposes. Such photo enhancing is covered by a new and modern copyright, even if the original photo is not. As nobody has the original photo except Shelden and the Chapman family, the image that WOULD be public domain if it were available is NOT the same one being uploaded here. Not only is it a violation of copyright law to use this edited version without permission, I would also argue that it is morally incorrect to use the photo without permission from the family when they specifically said they must have prior approval for all uses as part of the condition of it being shown. DreamGuy (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim is strenuously disputed on all the relevant talk pages. The issue here is whether legally the Chapman family own the rights to a photograph taken in 1869. Morality doesn't come in to it- we deal here only with the law. Under UK copyright law (and this image was taken in the UK) photographs taken before 1944 have a copyright term of 50 years from the date the photograph was taken, not from when the photograph was first published. If copyright applies, which it doesn't, it would belong to Annie Chapman, or her husband, or the original photographer, all long dead. If copyright applies to an enhanced and artistically tidied up version of the photograph, which is debatable, the original image remains copyright free. Jack1956 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the original photo is in the public domain. You don't have access to the original photo and do not even know what it looks like. The only own shown in public is the edited one. You have absolutely nothing to support your contention that the image you uploaded can be used. AS such, the way things work here is that images under dispute cannot be used until such time as the case is proven... otherwise people could forever continue to violate copyright just by continuously stubbornly insisting to be correct despite all evidence. Until you have proof that the original is the same as the one shown with permission by the family in a few limited publications you have nothing to support your side. The fact that the image has been up this whole time without any proof of public domain status is a violation of international copyright law, and any good faith effort Wikipedia might make to have made the violation out of ignorance goes out the window when you put the image up despite the violation being brought to your attention. Please do not let you stubborn ignorance but Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, and also maybe you should take a moment to respect the wishes of the family, without whom you'd never have seen this photo in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image appears elsewhere on the internet, including here [1]. Perhaps giving a credit to the family will resolve the issue.
The Casebook explicitly has permission from the family. It's inclusion there does not in anyway mean anyone can reproduce it elsewhere. Copyright violations do not suddenly become OK just by crediting the owner... if that's all it took anyone could steal anything and get away with it as long as it were credited. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DG, it seems clear that the family is upset over this. What is the source so we can read about it? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone explain why the Chapman family are upset about the wedding photo being used as opposed to the mortuary photo? No-one seems to have an answer. In addition, no-one can own the copyright to any photo taken in 1869. Keep the photo. Dreamspy (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't own the mortuary photo, so they know there objections to its use are irrelevant. If they had the legal right to stop people using that without permission to guarantee it is used respectfully, they certainly would. I know they weren't thrilled when some yutz put the mortuary photo on a T-shirt design he was selling. They do, however, own the photo of her while alive and explicitly only allowed its use under very specific circumstances. They (through Neal Shelden) were also the first to publish any version of it, so they have the copyright. If you think nobody can own a copyright to any photo from 1869, then you are sadly mistaken. Guess you didn't bother to read the info posted above? Shame you decided to chime in without any research, even as little as reading what was spoon fed to you. DreamGuy (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The license placed on the photo says straight out "The above is all subject to any overriding Publication right which may exist. In practice, Publication right will often override the first of the bullet points listed." It also claims that the source is unknown, which is nonsense, we know exactly where it came from. The publication right for this photograph is owned by the family of Anne Chapman, as licensed to author Neal Shelden. The photo was only published with provision that it only be in publications approved of by the family. The family most especially does not approve of its use on Wikipedia (nor the copyright-violating site the uploader got it from) and the strongly objects claims on the photo that it is in the public domain. They reject the exploitation of their ancestor's image by third parties showing no respect. On top of that, this version of the photo underwent substantial photo enhancement before release, and this enhancement has a new copyright. *IF* the original photo were public domain, you'd have to have a copy of that. You don't. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question #1 — Where is this sourced? ...all of this about the family's wishes that is...
Question #2 — What website above is claimed to be the "copyright-violating site the uploader got it from" ?
Question #3 — What new information do you have that is different from the previous paragraphs above on this topic (i.e. why are you pursuing this again now and what has changed) ?
Question #4 — Why are you so certain that this photo is the supposedly new digitally-enhanced version?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, please be mindful that while discussion is going on here on the talk page (or elsewhere as this may take us) that we don't change the content pertaining to these photos until a consensus may be achieved. Professional of us to avert potential edit warring, yes? A few days or a couple of weeks while the discussion goes on isn't a long time. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, please be mindful that law trumps policy and policy trumps "discussion" and phoney baloney "consensus" -- The onus for using a photo is upn the peope who WANT to use it to PROVE they can, not the other way around. Violating the law and policy most definitely is a big deal. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue was resolved in May and again in August 2008 with a decision to Keep. Unless DG has some new evidence the decision stands. Please go along with the consensus...that's how Wikipedia operates. Jack1956 (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations are not just "resolved" because some people ignorant of (or willfully opposed to following) the law vote on something. That's not how Wikipedia works.
I already spelled out the new evidence. Please tak the time to read things for comprehension instead of just blind reverting and kneejerk responses. The old evidence was sufficient anyway,m but the new info is that the license for old photos has been updated to more accurately reflect the actual legal situation. It no longer says that anything that old is automatically usable by anyone, it says that publication right for first publication of old material takes precedence. The Chapman family and its representative, Neal Shelden, have this legal right and have been policing it or years. And freaking anyone editing anything about Jack the Ripper should already know this, as this fact is widely discussed in the field, both on websites and in books. Casebook and Neal Shelden's book quite explicitly spell this out, as does any documentary or book that used the photo with permission. Jack1956 uploaded the image from a site that stole the photo and used it without permission, which in no way gives Wikipedia the legal right to do the same.
On top of that, photo editing does give new copyright if it's extensive, and as you don't have the original photo you have no way of knowing if the enhancement is minor or not. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — Please see this decision to keep in August (alt link) and this active thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old decision was wrong, and new info (change in license template to finally acknowledge that first publication means new copyright on old images) trumps old info anyway.

Bottom line here is that this is an open and shut case, and has been for ages. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Publication right for the Wikipedia article on the concept. Note the line in the photo's tag explaining that this trumps all other concerns. The Chapman family, with Neal Shelden as their public face, has consistently defended this right for years. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, rather than just open old wounds, why don't you take it up with Media Copyright Questions for an expert opinion. My personal view would be that even if it were to be found in copyright; it would constitute 'fair use' in the context of a page specifically on Annie Chapman - under Images with iconic status or historical importance. I note that the image is on wikicommons - and so the proper forum for a copyright deletion request is in that place - where I note a deletion request was discussed in July and was closed as keep. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the proof that it is a violation was given. Since we do not use images without proof that we are legally allowed to, the image must be removed. Fair use does not mean "images I want to use but otherwise cannot" - the owners of this photo explicitly have publication rights and moral rights to the image. The family is private and would not have released the photo if anyone could just take it and use it for whatever they want, whether they call it Fair Use or anything else. Using it when we expressly do NOT have permission just makes it that much more likely that other people with photographs and other material will not let the public know if it's just going to be plundered by people breaking the law and ignoring their wishes. DreamGuy (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DG, I have as dim a view of copyright infringements as yourself. The question is whether is it legal to host this image in the State of Florida? That is a matter that can appropriately be settled on commons, and in the media copyright forum. The questions of 'fair use' are 'is this image in context' - yes, the article is about the subject of the photograph and 'can this image be replaced?' - no, it is a historic image. 'Is this image the whole image?' - no, it's a reduced quality scan. If there is a copyright, 'does it materially affect the rights of the copyright holders to exploit the image'? - that's probably the only question you can argue on - normally the answer is no, as it's only a reduced quality scan of an original artwork.
I'm not seeking to make a determination either way, merely saying this is not the appropriate place to have that argument. The general guidance for wikipedia is that if something has been transferred to wikicommons, then it is considered to have passed the non-copyrighted image test. I note the additional 'publication right' specifically only applies within the EU, and not in Florida.
By all means have the argument, but (a) it should be somewhere where editors have specific experience to make a determination; and (b) somewhere where the debate would have an operative outcome. This is not the place to have that debate; and the consensus here seems to be to continue to display the image - which (I think) they have a right to, as long as the image exists on wikicommons. Your mileage may, as so often, differ. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I came to read the material parts f the discussion from the post in JTR. I think that DG brings up some pretty good points about copyright, and I think that Kbthompson makes an even better one that neither this article discussion nor the one at JTR is an appropriate place to pursue a discussion. What specifically renders it so is the July decision to keep. If DG wants to submit new evidence (the family's wailing and gnashing of teeth, the copyright info, etc.), there is a good place to do that, and links to such have been provided. If someone could provide a specific link to the destination of this complaint, I would be interested in followingthe discussion, as it presents as interesting problem of protocol as that represented by the Tasini Judgment on copyright. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the family - and author - do wish to assert a proprietorial interest in the photograph - and I could understand why the family might. Then they should get in touch with the ticket request system - asserting their claim over the image in wikicommons. An admin with specific knowledge about the copyright minefield would handle the request; and perhaps reach an accommodation - for instance due attribution. I would hope, DG, that you realise that no-one's trying to be obstructive here, merely trying to obtain a correct determination of the matter, in the correct forum and one where something can actually be done about the matter. For instance, no-one here has the power to remove the image from wikicommons. While it is still there, it may be used on any wiki, not just here. Kbthompson (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that you hope I "realise" that no one is trying to be obstructive assumes that that claim is right, despite evidence to the contrary. If people were hoping to find the "correct determination" they would have taken the time to look up the laws themselves and, most importantly, not just erased my comments pointing out that the photo is being illegally used. Good faith is discussing the issue, not erasing other people's comments and hoping people don't see it. Both Benean Hunter and Jack1956 simply tried to erase the legal evidence showing that they were wrong right off of Wikimedia.
As far as filing a ticket, I will try contacting the family if it might get past the stubborn ignorance being displayed. Note, however, that they absolutely WILL NOT accept "due attribution" as an accommodation, as they explicitly do own the photo rights for multiple reasons and do not ever allow people to use it without explicit permission on a case by case basis. They have always been extremely firm on this point, and, again, anyone with much knowledge about the field of Ripperology would already be well aware of it... or, baring that, anybody who bothes to take a minimum amount of effort into looking it up would learn that quite easily. It's not up to copyright owners to PROVE they have copyright to take away Wikimedia's use of it without permission, it's up to Wikimedia to PROVE they can use it, and they most certainly have not done so in this case. Hell, they haven't even tried. It'd be nice if the editors here were not so actively opposed to dodging responsible actions and didn't demand other people do the work proving them wrong all the time, especially as in every case where they have it has always been proven. You'd think by now they'd realize that if I say something about this topic I know what I am talking about or else I wouldn't have said it in the first place. Stubborn refusal to accept anything I say despite my history of being shown to be right time after time is nothing but bad faith. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment added by DreamGuy above in reopening this closed case is incorrect. The new licence he quotes quite clearly states: "The owner of a copy of a posthumous work, as distinguished from the owner of the original of the work, is vested with no such right, where the copy was transmitted without intent of transmitting such right". The copyright to the image belongs to the original photographer in 1869, and not to the Chapman family who merely own a copy of that image. By selling the original owners a copy of the image he took the photographer did not transmit ownership of that image. If the subjects in the photograph had wanted further copies back in 1869 they would have had to have gone back to him. Jack1956 (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if you stopped spouting the same old ignorant nonsense on multiple pages. Keep it to one place instead of several. It gets tiring correcting you. Suffice it to say you are wrong multiple ways, which have already been explained to you elsewhere. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey now, let's all calm down, please - there is no call for the snarky uncivil comments. Jack, nothing in Wikipedia is ever really closed. If new copyright has become known, then DG has every right - indeed, he has the same responsibility that you, I and every other responsible editor here - to make sure we are following the laws governing that copyright, and revisit the matter if it seems that we aren't. You might not like who's saying it, or how they are saying it, but it doesn't make what they are saying any less important.
On the other side, DreamGuy, you need to realize (or remember) that this probably isn't the right venue to discuss the status of a WikiCommons image. Kbt correctly pointed out that if the image is Commons, it can be used in any wiki. You need to address the source of the issue, and not the side effects of it; doing so wastes less of your energy, time and patience. You may not think it a fair accusation, but you do have a reputation for undue brevity and little patience, and I can say unequivocally that it impedes your interactions with others here; it is almost certainly what is hampering your efforts here. Ease up a little bit, and folk will either come around, or more politely disagree.
DG, if, when you file in the appropriate venue, could you be troubled to post the link here? Speaking only for myself, I would like to follow this particular matter. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the wikipedia says about civility. Are we all agreed that this policy shouldn't be violated, even if you know with complete certainty that you are always right and everybody else is always wrong?:
"Civility is one of Wikipedia's core principles. While other core principles give firm standards as to the content of articles, the civility policy is a code of conduct, setting out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment. This policy applies to all editing on Wikipedia, including user pages, talk pages, edit summaries, and any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians." Colin4C (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is moving off on a tangent. Colin, I think DG is fully aware of the civility policy - he's under ArbCom civility parole, for crying out loud. While I do agree that he could be a lot less abrasive, understand that he is frustrated with what he feels is everyone else's willingness to disregard copyright law. I do not condone his language, tone or comments, but I think its a fair assessment of his motivation here. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and await the process of the Commons ticket discussion. The image isn't going anywhere before then - I think that has been established - and responding in kind to abrasive language doesn't help anyone. By staying cool, the person still unwilling to be nice looks ever more like a jerk for not calming down.
Let's refocus our efforts on another aspect of the article until the image discussion is decided in WikiCommons. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if at any time, I, (or any other editor) was "frustrated" that other editors did not recognise that I was completely infallible, the wikipedia guideline on civility falls into complete abeyance and I have licence to call any editor who crosses me an "ignorant bastard" twenty or thirty times in sucession? Thanks for clarifying that...Good job I'm feeling mellow and laid back today...Colin4C (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody called you an ignorant bastard. But the fact that you are ignorant about the topics you try to discuss has been factually established on several occasions. That's not an insult: I am not calling you stupid or incapable of learning. You and others here just have a long-demonstrated history of making arguments based upon misinformation and lack of understanding. The whole principle of making decisions here is to base them upon law, policy, and facts. Therefore it'd be very helpful if you and some others took the time to learn about any of those before jumping in all the time in tag teaming exercises. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This matter has been raised at the media copyright noticeboard. I would suggest that people keep any arguments civil and accept any determination at that board, and at wikicommons - I don't think the latter is a 'well formed' deletion request, as the previous complaint has been closed. Kbthompson (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What an anoying case. Okey lets start with the dirrect aproach was the photo in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography" or did it first appear in "The Victims of Jack the Ripper"?Geni 21:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this has been noted on the media copyright noticeboard and I commented there, that is of little use because this is a commons image and all discussion or deletion proposal must take place on the commons because this wiki has no control of the image. ww2censor (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's we've been saying pretty much from the get-go. Thanks for joining the discussion, though. :P - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That statement isn't quite true. However I'm a commons admin so I can act on the result of a copyright debate anywhere. Now step one. Was the image in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography"?Geni 09:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Geni, it was. It was also on the cover of 'The Victims of Jack the Ripper' so I presume it is in the photographs in that book also.[2] I haven't seen inside a copy. Jack1956 (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it was first published in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography"?Geni 15:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which was published first, but I think it first appeared in "Annie Chapman: Jack the Ripper Victim - A Short Biography". Jack1956 (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So first published in the US after 1977 but before 2003 so not in the public domain in the US so we can't use it.Geni 15:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a case for WP:Fair use of an historical image? Kbthompson (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it a historical image? It's a personal photo in the possession of the subject's family. We aren't talking about an iconic image or anything. Nothing historic is taking place in it. Hell, even if it were in the public domain there's little encyclopedic reason to use it, but for something under copyright where the owners explicitly prohibit usage you'd have a hell of a time arguing fair use, especially since Wikipedia has been falsely telling people for more than a year that it was public domain and denying evidence the contrary.... pulling a stunt like declaring it fair use looks like simply ignoring copyright and not accepting an error. Good faith means something, and any we might have been able to argue has long since worn out. DreamGuy (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exact legal criteria[edit]

The publication right law started in the UK in 1996.

Neal Shelden, on behalf of the family, first published the photo in 2001, so the law was active.

Just hitting the highlights here:

16.—(1) A person who after the expiry of copyright protection, publishes for the first time a previously unpublished work has, in accordance with the following provisions, a property right ("publication right") equivalent to copyright.

Absolutely was previously unpublished, unlike a lot of photos in the case. So this wouldn't apply to most of the Ripper documentation.

(3) No account shall be taken for this purpose of any unauthorised act.
In relation to a time when there is no copyright in the work, an unauthorised act means an act done without the consent of the owner of the physical medium in which the work is embodied or on which it is recorded.

Family owns it, gave authorization to Neal Shelden.

(4) A work qualifies for publication right protection only if—
(a) first publication is in the European Economic Area, and
(b) the publisher of the work is at the time of first publication a national of an EEA state. Where two or more persons jointly publish the work, it is sufficient for the purposes of paragraph (b) if any of them is a national of an EEA state.

Published in the UK by Neal Shelden in a limited capacity, he's a UK citizen.

(6) Publication right expires at the end of the period of 25 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published.

So copyright by this would expire at the end of 2026.

Open and shut case.

That's just the publication right. They assert additional rights. But those aren't even necessary to go into now with this clear cut evidence.

DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright example
  • By 'publication' you are referring to Shelden's use of the image in 2001. The image was first published in 1869 by the photographer who took the original picture and sold a copy of it to the Chapman family. If you look on the back of such photographs you will usually see that, amid all the photographer's advertising, there is an assertion to ownership of the copyright of his images. [See image right} It will also usually add 'Additional copies can be had/ordered' clearly showing that the photographer reserved all rights over his images. Jack1956 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Think about that for a second. If that counted as publication for the purpose of this law, there would be no such thing as a non-published photograph, and there'd be no reason to list a photograph as an example of a work that could not have been published previously. The law does mention photographs. This law specifies what publication means for the purposes of this law. I didn't include it above, because I underestimated the stubbornness of certain people here I guess, but here you go:
(2) For this purpose publication includes any communication to the public, in particular—
(a) the issue of copies to the public;
(b) making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
(c) the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d) the performance, exhibition or showing of the work in public; or
(e) broadcasting the work or including it in a cable programme service.
None of these criteria in the specific law being discussed (as compared to other laws) qualify for the Chapman photo until Neal Shelden published it. Thus he and the family have first publication by this law.
And, beyond that, you don't know that any photographer sold it to them, or if that photographer claimed copyright. You can't assert that this photo must have had a copyright notice on the back (or that any such notice complied with the law at the time -- copyright was a lot more difficult to get back then, and proper listing always included the copyright claim with date and owner, which your example does not so is not valid) unless you have seen the back of the photograph. What you are trying to do here is give *some* scenario in which you *think* you'd be allowed to use the photograph without proving that your scenario has any legal standing or that your scenario is even correct. Don't show me the back of some other photo and make claims about this photo. If you want to assert that the photo was copyrighted and published, show some proof of that. Otherwise you are just talking about what you want to believe and not what really happened. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't count as publication under US law which is unforunate since it means that the work was published after 1977 but before 2003 under US law thus it is under copyright under US law and we can't use it. People in countries with more reasonable legal systems such as say Isreal can. While I would view the attempt to claim copyright over the image as an unreasonable use of copyright law the fact is the law does in fact support their position.Geni 16:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "unfortunate" that we cannot violate the conditions in which the family set to even let the photo be seen by anyone? I hope your position is not that you wanted to violate the family's wishes and make it less likely that that family or others would ever let any researcher use the items in the future. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it unfortunate that the faimily has the right to set such conditions yes.Geni 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, Geni. If I am wrong then I am wrong. I am in the UK and the image originated in the UK and I acted in good faith in uploading it, under what I understood as UK copyright law. Jack1956 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the University of Cambridge cautions about providing access to private collections which can lead to an unwitting 'publication right' on previously unpublished material. The IPO provides clear guidance that the owner of the copyright is actually the photographer, or his representative; so, the good Sheldon should probably be chased by the photographer's heirs, and assignees, for usage fees.[3] Kbthompson (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name is Shelden, and, whatever the original copyright was -- still have not shown that the original photographer asserted one or that it was not someone in the Chapman family -- the current situation is clear. We cannot use it, period... just as I've been saying for a year. I don't know why some people can't just realize that I know what I am talking about and accept that instead of fighting tooth and nail every single time. DreamGuy (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no argument that the image should be removed from wikicommons; and I thank Geni for his time. The point I was making is that Shelden (apologies, splchkr doesn't like the name) probably owes usage fees, as UK law is quite clear that any ownership of the image remains with the original photographer, and his heirs - not with the republisher. It's not a right that can be assigned.
You can spend a year hollaring to yourself in front of a mirror, but it's only through using the due process of wikipedia that you can actually get anything done about the matter; and that has now been done in this case. Thanks again, Geni. Kbthompson (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how badly you messed up your legal interpretation before you seem pretty certain that your interpretation that the family owes the photographer's family (still, you don't even know that they are different families) is accurate. I don't know why you continue to put such faith into your interpretation of what you skim when you've screwed them up so many times before. Probably better to let people who have proven they know what they are talking about do the talking. And the due process would have been done more than a year ago but for some ignorant people holding it up. DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop, DreamGuy; this is precisely the sort of uncivil and unfriendly behavior which propels you to AN/I and ArbCom every single time. Please do not attack your fellow editors, no matter how wrong you feel them to be. You can point out their errors, but the attacks should stop, or you risk being blocked again. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean me being proven correct in a dispute and having people file false accusations out of an attempt at revenge? Don't you remember that the last three or more times you tried this particular tactic? That's right, when you took it somelpace official instead of just making threats your claims were rejected, and quite soundly. You'd think by now you'd give up making such obvious threats. Any claims you would have to be making such accusations in good faith go out the window with your documented history of abusing ANI and ArbCom dispute resolution system to try to prevail in personal conflicts. Give it a rest already. DreamGuy (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah..this really isn't the proper venue for discussing your issues, DG. Should we repair to one a bit more proper? There is no threat inherent in my comments. It was simply intended as a notice that you can be correct without calling everyone else a jerk for not believing you. I don't want to rehash your past indiscretions, blocks, etc, and I won't. Do others the same courtesy. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Should we repair to one a bit more proper? There is no threat inherent in my comments."' Wow. Talk about a major disconnect between what you say and what you claim to say. And I didn't call anyone a jerk. For all your claims of not wanting to drag up accusations (which aren't real anyway) you sure do bring them up a lot. Give it a rest already. DreamGuy (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure of your point, DG, and frankly, I am pretty sure it wouldn't be even remotely connected to the article. When I suggest a different venue, I mean your usertalk page. Clearly, would be a wasted effort. The only person hurting your editing ability here, DreamGuy, is you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So delete the image already[edit]

Geni says it's under copyright in the US and UK. The uploader and others who were disputing this have agreed. So... why is the image still on the article? Maybe one of the people who edit warred to insist on having the illegal image there would do the right thing and remove it themselves instead of forcing me to do so for them again. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was under copyright in the US so we cannont use it. The situation in the UK is slightly different but would prevent any use in the UK.Geni 19:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for lending a hand, Geni. It is much appreicated. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to throw the cat among the pigeons, but what DreamGuy and others may not realise is that even now that the image has been deleted from the commons by Geni, no one will be stopped from uploading it again to this wiki and claiming a fair-use rationale which will most likely stick. ww2censor (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would NOT stick, as it doesn't meet the criteria in the slightest. There is no encyclopedic purpose in having the photo in the first place, and one of the criteria is if other free images are available, and there clearly are free images. There's no rationale for using this image, especially in light of the major copyright violation Wikipedia was committing for well over a year. DreamGuy (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry DreamGuy, but I don't think you don't know what you are talking about. I clearly see this image as passing all of the fair use criteria if someone want's to claim it, no matter what you think, but that is up to you guys. ww2censor (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's the thing, Ww2censor; we seem to have arrived at a consensus that it shouldn't be in this article without the family's permission. As they are unlikely to provide it (and we are of course assuming in the first place that they object to its usage here - w/out material proof of such, we only have a single editor's word to go on), we can keep it out of both this article and related JTR articles. At least, I will work at ensuring that. An orphaned image usually gets deleted here in WP if unused within five days or so. A notice can be made in WikiCommons, so folk are aware of it. I think that covers most of the bases. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, that is up to you. ww2censor (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the odds of your maintaining a consensus to give any viewpoint in an article about a long dead person special consideration against a conserted challange are likely to be limited. But we shall see.Geni 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Where do the extended quotes in this article source from? They are interesting and notable, but appear out of nowhere and are unreferenced. (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Age at death[edit]

Her age at death is given as 48 but her birth year makes it only possible that she be a maximum of 47 at death. Which is correct? Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes are supposed to summarise the article, not contradict it. Thanks for pointing out the contradiction. Dimadick (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallie Rubenhold[edit]

For a discussion on Hallie Rubenhold's The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper see Talk:Whitechapel murders#Prostitutes? --John B123 (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resting place[edit]

In common with other victims, the coordinates of 51.5518265°N 0.0360350°W are incorrect as this is in Hackney 4 miles away from the Manor Park Cemetery, Forest Gate, London, Post Code E7 0NP. Her grave no longer exists but there is a memorial plaque in the cemetery & it's at 51.552354°N 0.043065°E see bullets below for reference.


This page has a number of mistakes, particularly around the killing itself. The witness that says she saw Annie saw her in the street, not in front of the backyard (whatever that means). Also Richardson went to the steps; he specifically said he did not go out into the backyard. This is all in The Complete History of Jack the Ripper, New Edition by Philip Sugden, widely acknowledged as the most authoritative book on the subject. I'm not going to edit because I'm not a regular editor and so my edits have often been reversed, when I tried on other pages, but I really recommend someone review the details as they are arguably some of the central facts of the killings. P.S. the use of photos on the page is excellent. Mrowand89 (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not errors - they are referenced (and yes, some authors' accounts slightly contradict others' very occasionally- I have noticed that myself but there is a myriad of info. to draw sources from). For example, Richardson went to Hanbury Street shortly before 5 to check the property was secured (a theft of tools had occurred a few months prior at the property). He walked to the back to the yard door (which was closed) and stood at the top of the steps, from where he could see the cellar door (from where 2x saws and 2x hammers had been stolen) was still securely padlocked. He then sat to trim a piece of leather from his boot with a "rusty little table knife without a handle" before standing, pocketing the knife, and leaving to walk along Hanbury Steet, allowing the yard door to close itself. The entire process was three minutes, maximum. This is in Beggs' book Jack the Ripper: The Facts pp 75-76.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]