Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 13 February 2007

Image tagging for Image:Alexanderthemacedonian.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Alexanderthemacedonian.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Misplaced Pages's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Misplaced Pages:Image use policy
• Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Please see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Licences

Stop lying for your licences! You downloaded them from here and here   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point, these are ancient works, and therefore fall under the PD-Art license because their creators have died over 100 years ago! Please explain to me this image then Image:AlexanderAttackingDarius.jpg, it falls under the same license. Macedonia 21:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No you are missing the point. You cannot steal copyrighted images. Coins are not works of art.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The image of Philip is from a shield, not a coin, and the second image is definately not from a coin. Macedonia 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Even so, you cannot prove that the author, the person taking the photograph, died more than 100 years ago, which is clearly not the case since the pictures are in color.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, Funky, cool it please, no use screaming about "lying". AGF still applies. Macedonia: You are right of course that the coins or whatever ancient objects are out of copyright and hence free in the sense of "PD-Art". But the photographs of the coins are not. The sculptor no longer has a copyright, but the photographer has. Therefore you need to tell us what object it is, where it is, and where and when and by whom the photograph was made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Additional information: The special exception where you can discount the copyright of the photographer holds only for "slavish copies of 2-dimensional images", and even that only when they were made in the US and a few other countries. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me then this image and why what you just said does not apply with it - Image:AlexanderAttackingDarius.jpg Macedonia 21:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the surface of a mosaic would likely still qualify as 2-dimensional. The sculpted surface of a coin wouldn't. Not that there's any hard-and-fast rules about that anywhere out there, mind you, it's basically just a matter of everybody's best judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes but above you said that "where and when and by whom the photograph was made" - there is no info on that, so isn't that image also eligable for deletion? Macedonia 21:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

True, it would be better if that info was provided too - but the point is, in that case we at least have plausible reasons to assume that the photographer doesn't matter, so not knowing him is not such a big deal. And at least they have identified the object, where it is and what it is. In your case, we have neither, and we need both. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

So now your're saying that the author isn't important anymore because the object was identified. So, the image of Philip is also identified as Philip II of Macedon: victory medal struck in Tarsus, 2nd c. BC, currently in the "Cabinet des Médailles", in Paris, France. Macedonia 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice, that's a start, and the copyright for the photograph is owned by whom, and they have released it under a free license when and where? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well see now your're just contradicting yourself because you just said above that that info is "not such a big deal" because the image was identified. Macedonia 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And that info isn't present with Image:AlexanderAttackingDarius.jpg either, but it still manages to pass image standards. Macedonia 22:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Read again what I wrote in my second but last. And try to understand it.

But anyway, I've had it. You're lawyering, and I can't help feeling you're being wilfully obtuse. I think my explanation was crystal clear. If you're unable or unwilling to understand it, then I must conclude it's generally unsafe to let you handle images at all. Therefore I'm now informing you: Please, from now on, refrain from making any image uploads whatsoever. Unless they are entirely self-made. The risk is too great that you'll mess up, wilfully or not. If you must upload something, I strongly recommend you ask somebody competent for advice first in each case. Because: if I see you upload any image ever again that is in any way problematic, I'll block you for a long time, without further warning. Have I made myself clear? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? I just wanted some help on lisencing an image so I was just comparing it to other images and their lisencing. I did not mean to make you upset, but with the information we already have, what lisence do you suggest fits this image? Macedonia 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid none, unless you can provide evidence the image was released by the copyright holder. Sorry. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)