Richard Stevens photo - Unix

This is a discussion on Richard Stevens photo - Unix ; I am very sorry to post a message that's not strictly related to unix programming, but I this is the best place to ask people about it, since it's probably where most people have heard of Richard Stevens and are ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Richard Stevens photo

  1. Richard Stevens photo

    I am very sorry to post a message that's not strictly related to unix
    programming, but I this is the best place to ask people about it,
    since it's probably where most people have heard of Richard Stevens
    and are familiar with his work.

    I frequently edit wikipedia articles, and am currently looking for
    information about Stevens, but there are so few of them available on
    the Internet. I found his personal page, in memoriam page etc. but I
    can find no free photos.

    Do any of you have information on where I can find any (free!) photos
    of him, since I really think he deserves it being displayed on world's
    most visited source of information? If any of you have them your
    selves, be so kind as to upload it on wikipedia.

    Thank you,
    Darko


  2. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    On Tuesday 06 Nov 2007 9:11 am Darko wrote
    in article <1194320497.135936.56170@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.co m>:

    > I am very sorry to post a message that's not strictly related to unix
    > programming, but I this is the best place to ask people about it,
    > since it's probably where most people have heard of Richard Stevens
    > and are familiar with his work.
    >
    > I frequently edit wikipedia articles, and am currently looking for
    > information about Stevens, but there are so few of them available on
    > the Internet. I found his personal page, in memoriam page etc. but I
    > can find no free photos.
    >
    > Do any of you have information on where I can find any (free!) photos
    > of him, since I really think he deserves it being displayed on world's
    > most visited source of information? If any of you have them your
    > selves, be so kind as to upload it on wikipedia.


    Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    his photo?


  3. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    On Nov 6, 11:30 am, santosh wrote:
    > On Tuesday 06 Nov 2007 9:11 am Darko wrote
    > in article <1194320497.135936.56...@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.co m>:
    >
    > > I am very sorry to post a message that's not strictly related to unix
    > > programming, but I this is the best place to ask people about it,
    > > since it's probably where most people have heard of Richard Stevens
    > > and are familiar with his work.

    >
    > > I frequently edit wikipedia articles, and am currently looking for
    > > information about Stevens, but there are so few of them available on
    > > the Internet. I found his personal page, in memoriam page etc. but I
    > > can find no free photos.

    >
    > > Do any of you have information on where I can find any (free!) photos
    > > of him, since I really think he deserves it being displayed on world's
    > > most visited source of information? If any of you have them your
    > > selves, be so kind as to upload it on wikipedia.

    >
    > Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    > his photo?


    If any are publicly available, and the photograph made it free - of
    course not. He was a noted author and thus a public person in a way.
    E.g. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Kelby and others in the
    category. There is nothing wrong in showing one's photo, unless, of
    course, it degrades their public image in any way.


  4. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    santosh wrote:
    > On Tuesday 06 Nov 2007 9:11 am Darko wrote
    > in article <1194320497.135936.56170@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.co m>:
    >
    >> I am very sorry to post a message that's not strictly related to unix
    >> programming, but I this is the best place to ask people about it,
    >> since it's probably where most people have heard of Richard Stevens
    >> and are familiar with his work.
    >>
    >> I frequently edit wikipedia articles, and am currently looking for
    >> information about Stevens, but there are so few of them available on
    >> the Internet. I found his personal page, in memoriam page etc. but I
    >> can find no free photos.
    >>
    >> Do any of you have information on where I can find any (free!) photos
    >> of him, since I really think he deserves it being displayed on world's
    >> most visited source of information? If any of you have them your
    >> selves, be so kind as to upload it on wikipedia.

    >
    > Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    > his photo?
    >


    Unfortunately only if he lived in California. See California Civil code section
    990.


  5. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    Darko wrote:
    > On Nov 6, 11:30 am, santosh wrote:


    >> Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    >> his photo?


    > If any are publicly available, and the photograph made it free - of
    > course not. He was a noted author and thus a public person in a way.


    Yes, but even if it is legal to do so, wouldn't the considerate
    thing to do be to abide by the family's wishes and/or his own wishes
    if either has (or had) a preference?

    - Logan

  6. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    On Nov 7, 3:50 am, Logan Shaw wrote:
    > Darko wrote:
    > > On Nov 6, 11:30 am, santosh wrote:
    > >> Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    > >> his photo?

    > > If any are publicly available, and the photograph made it free - of
    > > course not. He was a noted author and thus a public person in a way.

    >
    > Yes, but even if it is legal to do so, wouldn't the considerate
    > thing to do be to abide by the family's wishes and/or his own wishes
    > if either has (or had) a preference?
    >
    > - Logan


    Yes, of course, but I don't see how, in general, would that "hurt" the
    family in any way? I mean, I really don't see a reason.
    There are so many people that passed away whose pictures are publicly
    available, that I don't really see a reason
    why it would be "moral" to consult the family first? If the family
    doesn't want it, ok, I don't ask questions, but I
    really don't see why I should presume the family doesn't want their
    husband's/father's/son's photo shown in encyclopedia,
    I really don't. Do you know something I don't, or are you just trying
    to tutor?


  7. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    Darko wrote:
    > On Nov 7, 3:50 am, Logan Shaw wrote:
    >> Darko wrote:
    >>> On Nov 6, 11:30 am, santosh wrote:
    >>>> Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    >>>> his photo?
    >>> If any are publicly available, and the photograph made it free - of
    >>> course not. He was a noted author and thus a public person in a way.

    >> Yes, but even if it is legal to do so, wouldn't the considerate
    >> thing to do be to abide by the family's wishes and/or his own wishes
    >> if either has (or had) a preference?
    >>
    >> - Logan

    >
    > Yes, of course, but I don't see how, in general, would that "hurt" the
    > family in any way? I mean, I really don't see a reason.

    Well, if the family are Australian Aboriginals, then images of those who
    have died are not acceptable. 'Tis why we have warnings on the telly
    here when any footage containing those who may have died is aired.

    Of course, W. Richard Stevens wasn't an Australian Aboriginal, but be
    aware that there is much you do not know, grasshopper.

    Cheers,
    Gary B-)

    --
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
    whether you were up them with or not
    - Barry Humphries

  8. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    In article <1194465829.329921.243370@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.c om>,
    Darko wrote:

    > On Nov 7, 3:50 am, Logan Shaw wrote:
    > > Darko wrote:
    > > > On Nov 6, 11:30 am, santosh wrote:
    > > >> Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    > > >> his photo?
    > > > If any are publicly available, and the photograph made it free - of
    > > > course not. He was a noted author and thus a public person in a way.

    > >
    > > Yes, but even if it is legal to do so, wouldn't the considerate
    > > thing to do be to abide by the family's wishes and/or his own wishes
    > > if either has (or had) a preference?
    > >
    > > - Logan

    >
    > Yes, of course, but I don't see how, in general, would that "hurt" the
    > family in any way? I mean, I really don't see a reason.


    It's called being considerate of people's wishes. There doesn't have to
    be damage, it's just a common courtesy.

    --
    Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
    Arlington, MA
    *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
    *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

  9. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    On Nov 7, 11:40 pm, "Gary R. Schmidt" wrote:
    > Darko wrote:
    > > On Nov 7, 3:50 am, Logan Shaw wrote:
    > >> Darko wrote:
    > >>> On Nov 6, 11:30 am, santosh wrote:
    > >>>> Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    > >>>> his photo?
    > >>> If any are publicly available, and the photograph made it free - of
    > >>> course not. He was a noted author and thus a public person in a way.
    > >> Yes, but even if it is legal to do so, wouldn't the considerate
    > >> thing to do be to abide by the family's wishes and/or his own wishes
    > >> if either has (or had) a preference?

    >
    > >> - Logan

    >
    > > Yes, of course, but I don't see how, in general, would that "hurt" the
    > > family in any way? I mean, I really don't see a reason.

    >
    > Well, if the family are Australian Aboriginals, then images of those who
    > have died are not acceptable. 'Tis why we have warnings on the telly
    > here when any footage containing those who may have died is aired.
    >
    > Of course, W. Richard Stevens wasn't an Australian Aboriginal, but be
    > aware that there is much you do not know, grasshopper.
    >
    > Cheers,
    > Gary B-)
    >
    > --
    > __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    > Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
    > whether you were up them with or not
    > - Barry Humphries


    So people (news writers etc.) who have published photos of various
    noted authors and painters and
    architects etc. are all being inconsiderate not previously asking
    their family if they are Aboriginals or
    of similar religious beliefs? C'mon.

    I'm not here to disregard anyone, make Photoshop effects and publish
    it for fun, I'm asking you people
    if you know if there is a free photo of Richard Stevens that I could
    include in the world's most used
    encyclopedia on the Internet. If you do, and you want to share it with
    me or put it yourself on wikipedia,
    then please do so, I feel Richard Stevens deserves being in
    encyclopedia for his great work; if you
    don't, then please don't practice your moral thoughts on me, there is
    no need for such thing concerning
    this issue.

    Thanks


  10. Re: Richard Stevens photo

    On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:03:49 -0000, Darko
    wrote:

    >On Nov 7, 3:50 am, Logan Shaw wrote:
    >> Darko wrote:
    >> > On Nov 6, 11:30 am, santosh wrote:
    >> >> Should not his family be consulted and approval got before publicising
    >> >> his photo?
    >> > If any are publicly available, and the photograph made it free - of
    >> > course not. He was a noted author and thus a public person in a way.

    >>
    >> Yes, but even if it is legal to do so, wouldn't the considerate
    >> thing to do be to abide by the family's wishes and/or his own wishes
    >> if either has (or had) a preference?
    >>
    >> - Logan

    >
    >Yes, of course, but I don't see how, in general, would that "hurt" the
    >family in any way? I mean, I really don't see a reason.


    Would it hurt you in any way to ask them?

    >There are so many people that passed away whose pictures are publicly
    >available, that I don't really see a reason
    >why it would be "moral" to consult the family first? If the family
    >doesn't want it, ok, I don't ask questions, but I
    >really don't see why I should presume the family doesn't want their
    >husband's/father's/son's photo shown in encyclopedia,
    >I really don't. Do you know something I don't, or are you just trying
    >to tutor?


    You have no more reason to presume that the family *does* want the
    photo published. There may not be a legal requirement, but it's common
    courtesy.

    --
    Al Balmer
    Sun City, AZ

+ Reply to Thread