Hello
I just found the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFJesus.jpg
which seems to be under a different sort of license, if I am not mistaken.
I would like to include that image, in the corresponding German wikipedia article, however so far people hesitated since they believe that this license as expressed in the above url, would/could violate the GDL. I find it odd that different wikipedias have different standards concerning the license politics.
What can be done? May the simplest solution would be to contact the artist (if he/she can be find) and ask for explicit permission.
Any comments, suggestions?
Uwe Brauer
On 11/25/05, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
Hello
I just found the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFJesus.jpg
which seems to be under a different sort of license, if I am not mistaken.
I would like to include that image, in the corresponding German wikipedia article, however so far people hesitated since they believe that this license as expressed in the above url, would/could violate the GDL. I find it odd that different wikipedias have different standards concerning the license politics.
I think the German wikipedia tries to follow german law which doesn't have much of an equiverlet of fair use.
What can be done? May the simplest solution would be to contact the artist (if he/she can be find) and ask for explicit permission.
You almost certianly won't get i.t
Any comments, suggestions?
Uwe Brauer
What do you want to use it for?
-- geni
"geni" == geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
geni> I think the German wikipedia tries to follow german law which geni> doesn't have much of an equiverlet of fair use.
A could be, I don't know about that. Good point.
What can be done? May the simplest solution would be to contact the artist (if he/she can be find) and ask for explicit permission.
geni> You almost certianly won't get i.t
Well maybe this way the artist gets publicity for free!
geni> What do you want to use it for?
To put in the German article about the same subject!
On 11/25/05, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
Well maybe this way the artist gets publicity for free!
It turned up in pretty much every newspaper in the uk. I don't think the artist is short of publicy
To put in the German article about the same subject!
historical jesus? To be honest I don't think the image has much value since at best it shows a typical first centurey jew.
-- geni
"geni" == geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
geni> It turned up in pretty much every newspaper in the uk. I geni> don't think the artist is short of publicy
Well right, but who does remember the newspaper of last year? I mostly don't.
geni> historical jesus? To be honest I don't think the image has geni> much value since at best it shows a typical first centurey geni> jew.
That's the title of that article. Well the image is certainly better than anything available I have seen so far: all this paintings of person which remains much more of western European type. Or the movies. Anyhow, I wrote BBC, let us see what will happen, most likely nothing.
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 16:10 +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
Anyhow, I wrote BBC, let us see what will happen, most likely nothing.
What did you ask for ezactly? Release as GFDL or CC?
They are not very cooperative I dont think.
They also may not own the copyright, the person who created it may - might be a better source.
Justinc
Justin> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 16:10 +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
Anyhow, I wrote BBC, let us see what will happen, most likely nothing.
Justin> What did you ask for ezactly? Release as GFDL or CC?
I did not specify, but I was thinking of the CC.
Justin> They are not very cooperative I dont think.
Justin> They also may not own the copyright, the person who Justin> created it may - might be a better source.
That's what I asked, the address of the person who is the copyright holder. May be the cleanest solution, if this does not work out is to make a link to that page.
Uwe
The caption of it was plain wrong. It is not supposed to be Jesus' face, it is just supposed to be someone from the same time/place of Jesus. I've corrected this.
FF
On 11/25/05, Uwe Brauer oub@mat.ucm.es wrote:
"geni" == geni geniice@gmail.com writes:
geni> It turned up in pretty much every newspaper in the uk. I geni> don't think the artist is short of publicy
Well right, but who does remember the newspaper of last year? I mostly don't.
geni> historical jesus? To be honest I don't think the image has geni> much value since at best it shows a typical first centurey geni> jew.
That's the title of that article. Well the image is certainly better than anything available I have seen so far: all this paintings of person which remains much more of western European type. Or the movies. Anyhow, I wrote BBC, let us see what will happen, most likely nothing.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 15:19 +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
Hello
I just found the following image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFJesus.jpg
which seems to be under a different sort of license, if I am not mistaken.
I would like to include that image, in the corresponding German wikipedia article, however so far people hesitated since they believe that this license as expressed in the above url, would/could violate the GDL. I find it odd that different wikipedias have different standards concerning the license politics.
What can be done? May the simplest solution would be to contact the artist (if he/she can be find) and ask for explicit permission.
Any comments, suggestions?
This is typical of en-w's "flexible" approach to licensing.
Someone is pretending that because it was printed in some newspapers under terms that we know nothing about somehow this gives us permission to use it under some unknown terms even though we dont accept pictures where we are explicitly given permission any more.
Currently its not worth trying to get rid of these pictures from en as there are still thousands of more dubious ones (no source for example). It might get picked up at some point in the fair use examination.
You cant use it in de: only real free images, sensible policy.
Justinc