I didn't see that notice when I uploaded this image. I thought LBL was a Division of the Department of Energy, and, as such works performed there were in the public domain. So, let me see if I understand this. The UofC says the DOE merely contracts the running of LBL, and LBL is a UofC facility, not a DOE facility -- and the employees are UofC employees, not DOE employees, not employees of the US Federal government? Have I got that right?
Geo Swan20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep and reprimand user:Oden for bad faith tagging, continued stalking and harassment. The statement at the source clearly allows reuse provided the attribution is given. GFDL are also "copyrighted". This particular image is copyrighted but free to be used. The tag says exactly that. Oden just keeps attacking images of anyone who disagreed with him in the past to avenge criticism. --
Irpen22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete per nom -- what part of "all rights reserved" is weakened by demanding attribution? The demand for attribution may be simply unnecessary. I would think that without a phrase explicitly allowing reuse, that the right to control reuse is "reserved."
Mangojuicetalk20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I didn't see that notice when I uploaded this image. I thought LBL was a Division of the Department of Energy, and, as such works performed there were in the public domain. So, let me see if I understand this. The UofC says the DOE merely contracts the running of LBL, and LBL is a UofC facility, not a DOE facility -- and the employees are UofC employees, not DOE employees, not employees of the US Federal government? Have I got that right?
Geo Swan20:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep and reprimand user:Oden for bad faith tagging, continued stalking and harassment. The statement at the source clearly allows reuse provided the attribution is given. GFDL are also "copyrighted". This particular image is copyrighted but free to be used. The tag says exactly that. Oden just keeps attacking images of anyone who disagreed with him in the past to avenge criticism. --
Irpen22:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete per nom -- what part of "all rights reserved" is weakened by demanding attribution? The demand for attribution may be simply unnecessary. I would think that without a phrase explicitly allowing reuse, that the right to control reuse is "reserved."
Mangojuicetalk20:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)reply