Copyright Issue:: Smoking Is Glamorous

I believed that "Poor Image" was a suitable reason for my thoughts on the page image for Smoking Is Glamorous. I saw that it had been picked by another image pickin' forum, but I don't think it's suitable because I don't think that's Marlene Dietrich. I think that that's a Marlene Dietrich impersonator.

I don't want to change the photograph away from the actress unless it's eventually decided as the case but may I suggest any of her/the photos on the trope's image link page or something similar like this: http://thebestamericanpoetry.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54fe4158b883301156f1f679f970c-pi

Hmmm...the suggestion works almost as well.

You're mostly right. It's not necessarily an impersonator. It is however, part of a modern photo project by Giuliano Bekor posted on his gallery page in 2008 (fourth image in the series) that was lifted, had the watermarks removed, and then started making its way around the net.

In any case. It's a copyright violation to use it without permission and attribution and we're now complicit in a misrepresentation that it's actually a photo of Marlene when we know it's not. It needs to be removed, whatever we replace it with. On those grounds, I've pulled it from the page and left a note and a link to this discussion.

For the record, it was this:

edited 4th May '17 6:41:45 AM by Madrugada

I learnt something today. Thank you.

Thanks for catching that.

Thank @Kitchen90 They caught it. I just verified it. When I tineyed it, most of the sites I found it on said it was La Marlene. I was mildly suspicious, because the earliest date I found it being used was 2010, but I figured, "Whatever" and was about to quit. Then I came on one that simply said "It's not." but didn't give any details, so I kept looking. And found it linked to Bekor. Then found it on his gallery pages.

Funny thing is, I also found one of the others from that series on a page, credited to Bekor, but identifying the picture as one "taken in the 1930's by noted photographer Giulani Bekor." (Bekor is, as best I can determine, in his late 50's).

Thank You, Kitchen.

edited 4th May '17 5:23:06 PM by Madrugada

[1]◊, [2]◊, [3]◊

edited 4th May '17 7:43:40 PM by eroock

Previous thread, which is four pages long and has an enormous crowner.

Also there is no need for the page to picture that particular person.

edited 4th May '17 7:54:05 PM by rodneyAnonymous

I'd be happy to just move to the one that came in second on that crowner, as long as it doesn't also have copyright issues.

Looking at the crowner in the previous thread, there was a tie for second, but this◊ had a higher ratio.

I'm concerned that it's from a stock image site. That's a copyright issue, as well.

I don't think so. Google Search by Image returned 20 million results; the few-dozen I saw were on articles about hair.

If you change the search bar from stuff about hair to "smoking" you can eventually find some stuff. There's a possibility that it's from "pixdaus" (link) credited to 'wordrain." A few of the Pintrest copies of that image attribute it to "pixdaus." Most of what I'm seeing is from Pintrest and somebody's beauty blog (and one link to /pol/ but that's obviously not helpful).

That's as far as I got.

edited 4th May '17 9:09:36 PM by WaterBlap

Cool. I can go with that. I'd say we made a reasonable effort.

You're welcome, everyone.

Also, I do like those three, eroock.

edited 5th May '17 4:10:24 AM by Kitchen90

Honestly, I prefer this◊ or this◊ to that pic that came in second in the previous crowner.

Second one is nice.

I like the second one too.

16.2 for me.

I prefer 7.2 / 16.1.

16.2 I find more strict than glamourous.

I'm starting to agree with the duck, upon second thoughts. I prefer 16.1

That thread discusses having a "runoff crowner". What about having one with the green options from the previous, plus new suggestions here?

Good plan.

I'll reserve my vote for a crowner.