| < October 23 | October 25 > |
|---|
What about the image in the screenshot? Liftarn 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo of (probably) copyrighted sculpture. Liftarn 09:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Public art probably has the same copyright status as public architecture; the only difference is their function, but copyright only protects the form. 69.12.143.197 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of copyright holder releasing it. Liftarn 09:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I am dumbfounded by the statement "No evidence of copyright holder". Unless your aim is to affront me, I do not see how such statement can be meaningful. At the time I wrote to you or your colleagues (not once, but perhaps about some ten times --- at the time this photograph was being relentlessly marked for deletion, for reasons entirely unknown to me) that Ms Darya Dadvar has personally sent me this photograph with the full knowledge that it would be placed on Wikipedia; as far as I am aware, she must be further in full knowledge of the implications of this photograph being exposed on Wikipedia (I have explicitly asked her to inspect the copyright statement and modify it according to her wishes; I have even advised her to ask her agent(s) to inspect the present copyright statement). What more evidence do you need? You cannot just periodically send me the same questions! The details are all there; by linking to her personal website and writing to her (her e-mail address is given on her website), you will be able to verify my statements. Please consider the fact that I am not here to run errands for either Wikipedia or for persons whose photographs I happen to have uploaded to Wikipedia; I invariably discharge myself of my actual duties, and you should stop treating me and others in my position the way you do --- I do not consider your actions as signifying diligence, but as your being disrespectful of people's dignity, manifesting a form of institutionalised zealotry. To be frank with you, I am absolutely fed up with your behaviour --- just stop treating the people who spend their valuable time for the public good like a bunch of criminals! Has that occurred to you what my motivation would be in uploading a disputed photograph? I have mentioned it earlier, but feel that I must repeat it again: should this nonsensical statements concerning so-called disputed photographs be kept sent to me, I will just leave Wikipedia for good; I no longer wish to waste my time in defending cases which in the actual fact need no defending. If you have any doubts or questions concerning photographs uploaded by me, please contact the sources indicated next to the pertinent copyright statements, instead of writing to me. Lastly, please do whatever you wish to do, but please keep me outside it all; above all, please do not send me messages --- at the top of my talk page I have made it abundantly clear that I do not wish to receive messages, unless absolutely necessary; in this particular case, you could have checked various histories and seen the statements that I had already given in connection with the photograph of Ms Dadvar. --BF 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide actual source like an e-mail (sent to Wikipedia staff) or perhaps a statement on the website (provide a link) saying the image is released under a BSD license this issue will keep poping up. // Liftarn
- The link is there, and has always been there! The e-mail address is the following: info@darya-dadvar.com. --BF 12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Great, so you handle it then? See WP:COPYREQ for how to do it. // Liftarn
- I do not understand what you mean. But whatever you may have in mind, I propose that we bring this sad episode to conclusion; the fact is, we live only once and we cannot keep wasting our lives on imaginary problems. --BF 13:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the image in the screenshot? Liftarn 10:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo of non-free image. Liftarn 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the licensing? I don't see any problems. I Like To Talk 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Photo of non-free image. Liftarn 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo of non-free image. Liftarn 10:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
header from company's website, not likely to be pd-self XLerate 12:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Correct license & fair use added. SkierRMH ( talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Claims own work, but it's composed of elements from MS Windows XP. Can be replaced with a free image since it's only used to illustrate Slider (computing). Liftarn 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the image in the screenshot? Liftarn 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Source is copyvio Sfan00 IMG 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The name given as the copyright holder is a nonexistent user. Stifle ( talk) 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of permission on source site Garion96 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Found at http://kimchernin.com/bio.html#copyleft - added to image. SkierRMH ( talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see prior dates for earlier discussions; the image is still in dispute and its copyright status is still not satisfactorily resolved. Until undisputed, it does not belong placed in a Wikipedia article infobox in Nobel Prize or elsewhere; the infobox for Nobel Prize is not an appropriate place for this image, and the image is far too large in any case. It is not clear that the photograph made by the photographer (Anubis3) was taken in keeping with the policies for photography of its exhibits by the Imperial War Museum [cf. its Wikipedia Commons exhibit images for additional ref.]; no "fair use rationale" has been provided for this image, an image that is a Derivative work. It is not fully clear that the exhibit or any photograph of it is of content that is in the Public domain. Many aspects of the previous discussion have been ignored in placing the image in the infobox of Nobel Prize. Until all of these problems are resolved, it should not be placed there. (Updated entry.) [Corrected format. Please see the talk page of the image. Thank you. -- NYScholar 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [Please see: Wikipedia:Non-free content and other related project pages re: listings of the image pertaining to "Fair use" questions on earlier dates. Thank you. [Added ref. pts. and my four tildes, which I inadvertently forgot earlier.] (Logging out of Wikipedia after this comment.) -- NYScholar 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Returned to post the following update: Please see updated fair use rationale and talk page of a related image:
Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg, which has a similar situation in Wikipedia, where it is clear that an earlier template claiming "public domain" in the U.S. is inaccurate (removed the template; see talk page and editing history and linked non-free use discussion for explanations).
[1] A similar fair-use rationale is needed for
Image:DSCN0732.JPG and the inaccurate "public domain" template tag needs removal for similar reasons. --
NYScholar
17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- See espec. the dates provided relating to a commissioned Work for hire#Copyright duration; even if the earliest possible date for the design of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals (1902) is used [the physical medals were not actually minted until 1902 and presented belatedly], the duration of copyright owned by the Nobel Foundation extends to 2022 (if 1933, date of this medal being photographed, 2028); the date 1923 seems to have no basis; but even if it did, the work is still in copyright (1923 plus 95 years [shorter duration for "creation"] equals 2018; 1923 plus 125 years [longer duration for "publication"] equals 2048). The design was completed on commission for the medals as Work for hire in 1902; this medal (the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal to Angel was presented in 1933. [The date of "creation" of the design has a copyright duration of 125 years; date of "publication" of the design has a copyright duration of 95 years.] The design was "created" ("completed") in 1902, according to the Nobel Foundation article cited. The design was "published" (minted) and presented in the first awarding of the Peace Prize (see Nobel Peace Prize); this medal in the photographed Imperial War Museum exhibit, according to the photographer claiming it [Anubis3], is a "1933 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Norman Angell on exhibit to the public at the Imperial War Museum" (presented in Oslo, Norway, not the U.S.; [added the Wiki links]). The photograph of the medal is published by the photographer who took it ( User:Anubis3) in 2005 (date of its publication in Wikipedia). Currently, this photograph is not "free content" and it cannot be licensed as such (as if it were "free", or with GFDL) at this time because it is a Derivative work based on a commissioned Work for hire for which the content is still both a registered trademark and copyright protected. (The design of the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal has not changed since 1902.) Please see the other image for further information. Thank you. -- NYScholar 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
![[1]](/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_21#Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg){kind=link}
| < October 23 | October 25 > |
|---|
What about the image in the screenshot? Liftarn 09:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo of (probably) copyrighted sculpture. Liftarn 09:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Public art probably has the same copyright status as public architecture; the only difference is their function, but copyright only protects the form. 69.12.143.197 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of copyright holder releasing it. Liftarn 09:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I am dumbfounded by the statement "No evidence of copyright holder". Unless your aim is to affront me, I do not see how such statement can be meaningful. At the time I wrote to you or your colleagues (not once, but perhaps about some ten times --- at the time this photograph was being relentlessly marked for deletion, for reasons entirely unknown to me) that Ms Darya Dadvar has personally sent me this photograph with the full knowledge that it would be placed on Wikipedia; as far as I am aware, she must be further in full knowledge of the implications of this photograph being exposed on Wikipedia (I have explicitly asked her to inspect the copyright statement and modify it according to her wishes; I have even advised her to ask her agent(s) to inspect the present copyright statement). What more evidence do you need? You cannot just periodically send me the same questions! The details are all there; by linking to her personal website and writing to her (her e-mail address is given on her website), you will be able to verify my statements. Please consider the fact that I am not here to run errands for either Wikipedia or for persons whose photographs I happen to have uploaded to Wikipedia; I invariably discharge myself of my actual duties, and you should stop treating me and others in my position the way you do --- I do not consider your actions as signifying diligence, but as your being disrespectful of people's dignity, manifesting a form of institutionalised zealotry. To be frank with you, I am absolutely fed up with your behaviour --- just stop treating the people who spend their valuable time for the public good like a bunch of criminals! Has that occurred to you what my motivation would be in uploading a disputed photograph? I have mentioned it earlier, but feel that I must repeat it again: should this nonsensical statements concerning so-called disputed photographs be kept sent to me, I will just leave Wikipedia for good; I no longer wish to waste my time in defending cases which in the actual fact need no defending. If you have any doubts or questions concerning photographs uploaded by me, please contact the sources indicated next to the pertinent copyright statements, instead of writing to me. Lastly, please do whatever you wish to do, but please keep me outside it all; above all, please do not send me messages --- at the top of my talk page I have made it abundantly clear that I do not wish to receive messages, unless absolutely necessary; in this particular case, you could have checked various histories and seen the statements that I had already given in connection with the photograph of Ms Dadvar. --BF 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide actual source like an e-mail (sent to Wikipedia staff) or perhaps a statement on the website (provide a link) saying the image is released under a BSD license this issue will keep poping up. // Liftarn
- The link is there, and has always been there! The e-mail address is the following: info@darya-dadvar.com. --BF 12:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Great, so you handle it then? See WP:COPYREQ for how to do it. // Liftarn
- I do not understand what you mean. But whatever you may have in mind, I propose that we bring this sad episode to conclusion; the fact is, we live only once and we cannot keep wasting our lives on imaginary problems. --BF 13:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the image in the screenshot? Liftarn 10:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo of non-free image. Liftarn 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the licensing? I don't see any problems. I Like To Talk 02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Photo of non-free image. Liftarn 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Photo of non-free image. Liftarn 10:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
header from company's website, not likely to be pd-self XLerate 12:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Correct license & fair use added. SkierRMH ( talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Claims own work, but it's composed of elements from MS Windows XP. Can be replaced with a free image since it's only used to illustrate Slider (computing). Liftarn 14:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the image in the screenshot? Liftarn 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Source is copyvio Sfan00 IMG 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The name given as the copyright holder is a nonexistent user. Stifle ( talk) 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of permission on source site Garion96 (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Found at http://kimchernin.com/bio.html#copyleft - added to image. SkierRMH ( talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see prior dates for earlier discussions; the image is still in dispute and its copyright status is still not satisfactorily resolved. Until undisputed, it does not belong placed in a Wikipedia article infobox in Nobel Prize or elsewhere; the infobox for Nobel Prize is not an appropriate place for this image, and the image is far too large in any case. It is not clear that the photograph made by the photographer (Anubis3) was taken in keeping with the policies for photography of its exhibits by the Imperial War Museum [cf. its Wikipedia Commons exhibit images for additional ref.]; no "fair use rationale" has been provided for this image, an image that is a Derivative work. It is not fully clear that the exhibit or any photograph of it is of content that is in the Public domain. Many aspects of the previous discussion have been ignored in placing the image in the infobox of Nobel Prize. Until all of these problems are resolved, it should not be placed there. (Updated entry.) [Corrected format. Please see the talk page of the image. Thank you. -- NYScholar 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [Please see: Wikipedia:Non-free content and other related project pages re: listings of the image pertaining to "Fair use" questions on earlier dates. Thank you. [Added ref. pts. and my four tildes, which I inadvertently forgot earlier.] (Logging out of Wikipedia after this comment.) -- NYScholar 00:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Returned to post the following update: Please see updated fair use rationale and talk page of a related image:
Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg, which has a similar situation in Wikipedia, where it is clear that an earlier template claiming "public domain" in the U.S. is inaccurate (removed the template; see talk page and editing history and linked non-free use discussion for explanations).
[1] A similar fair-use rationale is needed for
Image:DSCN0732.JPG and the inaccurate "public domain" template tag needs removal for similar reasons. --
NYScholar
17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- See espec. the dates provided relating to a commissioned Work for hire#Copyright duration; even if the earliest possible date for the design of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals (1902) is used [the physical medals were not actually minted until 1902 and presented belatedly], the duration of copyright owned by the Nobel Foundation extends to 2022 (if 1933, date of this medal being photographed, 2028); the date 1923 seems to have no basis; but even if it did, the work is still in copyright (1923 plus 95 years [shorter duration for "creation"] equals 2018; 1923 plus 125 years [longer duration for "publication"] equals 2048). The design was completed on commission for the medals as Work for hire in 1902; this medal (the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal to Angel was presented in 1933. [The date of "creation" of the design has a copyright duration of 125 years; date of "publication" of the design has a copyright duration of 95 years.] The design was "created" ("completed") in 1902, according to the Nobel Foundation article cited. The design was "published" (minted) and presented in the first awarding of the Peace Prize (see Nobel Peace Prize); this medal in the photographed Imperial War Museum exhibit, according to the photographer claiming it [Anubis3], is a "1933 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Norman Angell on exhibit to the public at the Imperial War Museum" (presented in Oslo, Norway, not the U.S.; [added the Wiki links]). The photograph of the medal is published by the photographer who took it ( User:Anubis3) in 2005 (date of its publication in Wikipedia). Currently, this photograph is not "free content" and it cannot be licensed as such (as if it were "free", or with GFDL) at this time because it is a Derivative work based on a commissioned Work for hire for which the content is still both a registered trademark and copyright protected. (The design of the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal has not changed since 1902.) Please see the other image for further information. Thank you. -- NYScholar 17:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)