This page is for discussing the contents of Stephen Kui Photography.
Are those pictures of his actual clients?? If not there could be copyright issues and it would definitely be too commercial. —PeteB
They look like it. Book 1 in thumbnail form is watermakered Stephen Kui who was the uploader
this user does run a professional photography studio, it's not a stretch to think they would have a massive portfolio of good photos ~SD
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2013-02-27 14:04:52 Well, it would be very strange for a professional photographer to use someone else's images. Note that the page says, "All images included are copyright Stephen Kui. Under NO circumstances may any of the images on this page be used for any purpose without the explicit written permission of Stephen Kui, and these images are NOT released under Creative Commons,(meaning it's illegal to use these pictures anywhere)."
I guess my concerns are, one, whether the page just looks like one big glossy ad (it does to me), and two, whether its really good to have the wiki have pages with so many pictures on it that are not released under released under Creative Commons (seems less than ideal).
However, other photography pages may have similar issues, if I recall correctly. So that is something to consider as well.
I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this. —CovertProfessor
2013-02-27 14:32:24 I saw that notice but CP asked so I gave my opinion. Maybe an idea is to lay out the pictures on a subpage users can see and leave a few on this one—PeteB
That could work. -SM
2013-02-27 14:34:58 I think there should be a maximum number of photos that a business owner or employee can contribute. Such a number would be arbitrary, but it seems like a better alternative to letting business owners have free reign over an informational resource that is meant to be authored by the community. —ScottMeehleib
Just to name a precedent: I remember that the community decided to restrict the # of photos on a pet sitter page that shall not be named (unless you want me to). —cp
I think the community has taken a different view of for-profits than of not-for-profits. Rightly so, IMO. —cp
2013-02-27 15:10:55 Before you make any hard rules, the original editor should be engaged first. A lot of us try and put together beautiful pages about stuff we are passionate about, and I imagine this guy is probably just doing the same. We shouldn't punish him for trying to do a good job. He hasn't deleted any comments or defaced anyone elses page. Also, I have more photos on the random camera page than this page. —jefftolentino
Again, for-profit vs. not-for-profit makes a difference, I think. And I don't think there need to be any hard rules, but maybe some rough guidelines. I also agree that trying to engage the original editor is a good idea. Are you volunteering, JT? —cp
I'm working and would rather not volunteer at this time. Plus, I'm not really concerned about the content. I don't really see any egregious problems at this point, (as photographer myself, I'm a little biased though). Yeah, its a business page, but he appears to be local and does good work. I just don't want to see him get steamrolled for doing a nice job. —JT
* I'm the business owner and am open to discuss things. The images are, in fact, all wholly and solely my work. The images legally can't be made available as Creative Commons because there are distinguishable people in them, so that's what the copyright is for. As for the quantity of images, I wasn't aware there was any limit on the amount of photos that ought to be uploaded. The photos are all towards the bottom of the page, and as the page concerns photography, I don't see why sample images from a portfolio wouldn't be pertinent to informing the public about the photography. It made sense to me that if someone wanted to continue scrolling down the page they'd be interested in seeing more about the photography, which is why I included the photos (I think that as a photographer, having pictures is a much more efficient way to give people a sense of the work I do) -StephenKui
Stephen-your work is outstanding but I just don't see the need to have SO much of it on there—makes it look a lot more "advertisey" than informational. The Wiki does need to stick more to the information side. —PeteB
Since you're here, Steven, would you be interested in contributing any photos on a creative commons basis to other pages that need photos? There are a lot of pages that need serious help! Similarly, maybe you would you be interested in contributing to the general photography page? If you contributed on a volunteer basis, it would be great PR for your studio! Plus, I would imagine people would be more open to retaining a page that shows off your professional work. —JT
Completely agree with Jeff's idea. —PeteB
2013-02-27 15:44:49 One issue here is whether the page is in violation of the wiki's For Profit Restrictions. (These restrictions are the main reason why it matters that this is a for-profit business).
The wiki community has not said that there should be a limit on the number of photos. However, the page created, together with the for-profit restrictions, raises the question of whether there ought to be one. Other pages might be affected by this decision as well. —CovertProfessor
2013-02-28 09:28:35 I personally like all the photography. There's some great work there. My only concern is whether it runs afoul of for-profit restrictions.
One possibility for making it a bit more informational or educational in tone might be to organize it by category, write a little bit about each category, and maybe describe some info about where, how, and with what the photos were taken - especially if there are connections to Davis. —TomGarberson
That's a good idea. —cp