On 12 Mar 2007 04:00:06 -0000, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Day daily-image-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sanfranciscoearthquake1906.jpg Copyright status: Public domain as a work of the Old organisation.
Um ...
- d.
On 3/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 04:00:06 -0000, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Day daily-image-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sanfranciscoearthquake1906.jpg Copyright status: Public domain as a work of the Old organisation.
Where is that claim made?
On 12/03/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 04:00:06 -0000, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Day daily-image-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sanfranciscoearthquake1906.jpg Copyright status: Public domain as a work of the Old organisation.
Where is that claim made?
The licence template is {{PD-old}}. I would guess slight non-robustness in the daily-image-l script.
- d.
On 12/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 04:00:06 -0000, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Day daily-image-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Sanfranciscoearthquake1906.jpg Copyright status: Public domain as a work of the Old organisation.
Where is that claim made?
The licence template is {{PD-old}}. I would guess slight non-robustness in the daily-image-l script.
Yes, don't worry, I noticed too... as Greg has noted before, the PD license categories are not easy to neatly enumerate.
As for the claim, note this was made a FP back in 2005 and it is not hard to guess standards were less stringent then. Because of the decision to only host FP/QI as POTD, some quite old nominations that were never made POTD, are now showing up.
AFAIK no one checks on a regular basis, that the copyright claims of POTDs are actually reasonable.
I eventually found it: http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/arch_results_detail.jsp?&pg=1&si=0&am... (search at http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/basic_search.jsp for '531006')
it's been cleaned up a lot, but also FLIPPED! wonder if that was intentional?
It was created by the DoD.
regards Brianna user:pfctdayelise & d-i-l script tweaker
On 3/12/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote: http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/arch_results_detail.jsp?&pg=1&si=0&am...
(search at http://arcweb.archives.gov/arc/basic_search.jsp for '531006')
The image we have is higher resolution.
it's been cleaned up a lot, but also FLIPPED! wonder if that was intentional?
I think it might make it more accurate. According to the description the image was taken from the ferry building looking down market street. In the "flipped" picture on commons you can see that the streets on the left are at a 90 degree angle to market street while the streets on the right are at steep angles. It would appear that our copy is correct, or at least matches my memory. Perhaps someone who lives in that part of the world can confirm?
It was created by the DoD.
I've cleaned up the copyright tagging. ... although someone might want to fix the wikipedia article on the Department of Defense, it says it wasn't formed until 1947.
... ;)
2007/3/12, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com:
I've cleaned up the copyright tagging. ... although someone might want to fix the wikipedia article on the Department of Defense, it says it wasn't formed until 1947.
Probably this means that it was not the Department of Defense but the Department of War (or, less likely, the Department of the Marine) that held the copyright.