| Revision as of 17:56, 20 August 2005 editHv (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users592 edits →Photo (copyright): remove copyright examination request← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:30, 2 December 2005 edit undoJcuk (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers4,427 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| ::My motivation was less "interest in the subject", but more "this is something I can usefully contribute, if I have the right to do so". ] 17:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC) | ::My motivation was less "interest in the subject", but more "this is something I can usefully contribute, if I have the right to do so". ] 17:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| -------- | |||
| Why is this article on the page "Donald Coggan" when the mans name was "Frederick Donald Coggan"? Is it not wiki policy to put people under their proper name, featuring any name they may be better known as prominantly in the first paragraph? | |||
Revision as of 12:30, 2 December 2005
Photo (copyright)
I have a photo of myself as a child with Archbishop Coggan from around 1978 or 79, taken in the church hall of Croydon Parish Church. Suitably cropped I feel it would make a good photograph for the article.
.jpg){kind=link}
I do not clearly remember the provenance of the photo, but I believe that a professional photographer attending the event took it at my request, and was paid for it. Given the timescales involved, I think it is unlikely I would be able to discover who the original photographer was.
I had a high quality scan of the positive made some years later from which these two JPEG images are derived.
I request advice on what the copyright status of this image is likely to be, and if it isn't mine whether such a crop would be fair use. Hv 13:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Since no one else is trying to answer this maybe I will give it a go - I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. The photo you describe is copyrighted by the professional photographer who derives his income from the sale of his photos. So it wouldn't really be right to use that image. Even though you are in it. Even though we don't even know if the photographer is still alive (but his children may have inherited the rights to his photos). Even though it would be really, really convenient for you because you have it right there. I totally understand. But... I think a better approach would be, if you are really interested in this subject, to go to the source (Archbishop Coggan's family or his church) and ask to have an image that you can upload to Misplaced Pages. CDA 16:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input. I was not sure who would own the copyright in a photo that had been bought from a photographer, nor whether the possibility that the purchaser commisioned the work might affect matters. I think you've answered that.
- My motivation was less "interest in the subject", but more "this is something I can usefully contribute, if I have the right to do so". Hv 17:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Why is this article on the page "Donald Coggan" when the mans name was "Frederick Donald Coggan"? Is it not wiki policy to put people under their proper name, featuring any name they may be better known as prominantly in the first paragraph?