Misplaced Pages

User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel/history archive: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User talk:Renamed user ixgysjijel Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:21, 17 May 2006 editRenamed user ixgysjijel (talk | contribs)27,236 editsm archiving to User talk:BanyanTree/Archive7← Previous edit Revision as of 16:24, 17 May 2006 edit undoRenamed user ixgysjijel (talk | contribs)27,236 editsm →Image copyrights: clarifying my own wordsNext edit →
Line 10: Line 10:
The other thing is simple courtesy. In most cases, simply crediting the institution (museum or historical picture library) from where the picture was sourced, would help. Often they are just trying to prevent commercial reuse. Having the credit line with the image (rather than a click away - if that) would probably help. ] 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC) The other thing is simple courtesy. In most cases, simply crediting the institution (museum or historical picture library) from where the picture was sourced, would help. Often they are just trying to prevent commercial reuse. Having the credit line with the image (rather than a click away - if that) would probably help. ] 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
:Hi, I was probably guilty of overemphasis there in response to the argument made by the museum itself, repeated many other places on the net, that "we scanned it so we own the image", which is false prima facie. I grant that there are exceptions and caveats, but in cases where the creator of a two-dimensional image has been dead for over 90 years, the assumption has to be that it is public domain, or the utility of public domain breaks down. As far as I remember, neither the museum nor the anonymous contributor on ] were stating that the image had been altered from the original and thus substantially "new" or that it would be nice if there was a credit line, but simply that Misplaced Pages was somehow legally wrong in using the image. :Hi, I was probably guilty of overemphasis there in response to the argument made by the museum itself, repeated many other places on the net, that "we scanned it so we own the image", which is false prima facie. I grant that there are exceptions and caveats, but in cases where the creator of a two-dimensional image has been dead for over 90 years, the assumption has to be that it is public domain, or the utility of public domain breaks down. As far as I remember, neither the museum nor the anonymous contributor on ] were stating that the image had been altered from the original and thus substantially "new" or that it would be nice if there was a credit line, but simply that Misplaced Pages was somehow legally wrong in using the image.
:On your second point, Misplaced Pages is mirrored by commercial sites and, even if somebody wanted to take the image in question and use it in a McDonald's ad, I'm pretty sure that the museum has no legal recourse. (with all the caveats of the paragraph above of course) I believe that all images without attribution (public domain or not) need to be attributed and sourced, and I am happy if the caption states the source as well, especially if the institution in questions asks us to and it is relevant. It is also worth doing due diligence so that we don't get sued for being careless or unresponsive, even in the Foundation wins in the end. However there is a line between being nice and jumping through non-existent hoops. I do think that Wikipedians need to think through the implications of copyright but am firmly on the site of avoiding ]. Cheers and thanks for the note, ]] 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC) :On your second point, Misplaced Pages is mirrored by commercial sites and, even if somebody wanted to take the image in question and use it in a McDonald's ad, I'm pretty sure that the museum has no legal recourse. (with all the caveats of the paragraph above of course) I believe that all images on Misplaced Pages without attribution (public domain or not) need to be attributed and sourced, and I am happy if the caption states the source as well, especially if the institution in questions asks us to and it is relevant. It is also worth doing due diligence so that we don't get sued for being careless or unresponsive, even in the Foundation wins in the end. However there is a line between being nice and jumping through non-existent hoops. I do think that Wikipedians need to think through the implications of copyright but am firmly on the site of ]. Cheers and thanks for the note, ]] 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:24, 17 May 2006

I really dislike breaking up conversations. If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here. I periodically clean out my watchlist, so if there has been a lull in a conversation on your page, please restart it here.

User:BanyanTree/Navbox

The Signpost
24 December 2024

Image copyrights

Following up your comment from the Main Page talk page: "nobody can claim copyright over reproductions of two-dimensional images unless they claim that they are creating an entirely new work of art" - I know from personal experience that there are some plausible exceptions to this rule. One is where people take old books and scan the photographs. The photographs and books themselves are public domain, but they are very poor quality and the pages may have started to turn brown and degrade. What often happens is that the scanner retouches the scan and (to the best of their ability) repairs and restores the picture to its original condition. This does take time and effort, and, unlike in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., the resulting image can be significantly different to the current degraded condition of the object being "copied". This is more restoration than copying. This might sometimes justify a copyright tag.

The other thing is simple courtesy. In most cases, simply crediting the institution (museum or historical picture library) from where the picture was sourced, would help. Often they are just trying to prevent commercial reuse. Having the credit line with the image (rather than a click away - if that) would probably help. Carcharoth 15:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I was probably guilty of overemphasis there in response to the argument made by the museum itself, repeated many other places on the net, that "we scanned it so we own the image", which is false prima facie. I grant that there are exceptions and caveats, but in cases where the creator of a two-dimensional image has been dead for over 90 years, the assumption has to be that it is public domain, or the utility of public domain breaks down. As far as I remember, neither the museum nor the anonymous contributor on Talk:Main Page were stating that the image had been altered from the original and thus substantially "new" or that it would be nice if there was a credit line, but simply that Misplaced Pages was somehow legally wrong in using the image.
On your second point, Misplaced Pages is mirrored by commercial sites and, even if somebody wanted to take the image in question and use it in a McDonald's ad, I'm pretty sure that the museum has no legal recourse. (with all the caveats of the paragraph above of course) I believe that all images on Misplaced Pages without attribution (public domain or not) need to be attributed and sourced, and I am happy if the caption states the source as well, especially if the institution in questions asks us to and it is relevant. It is also worth doing due diligence so that we don't get sued for being careless or unresponsive, even in the Foundation wins in the end. However there is a line between being nice and jumping through non-existent hoops. I do think that Wikipedians need to think through the implications of copyright but am firmly on the site of avoiding copyright paranoia. Cheers and thanks for the note, BanyanTree 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)