{{Nonfreedelete}} on en Wikipedia is a template that specifies a with-permission etc. non-free image may be deleted within 30 days if a free license isn't granted. I noticed it because bot PocciScript has slapped it on a number of images. The template has two edits, one of which was merely to correct a link, and there is no discussion page. What's with it? Obviously we are not purging all fair use and with-permission photos, so what is this for?
[[en:User:119]]
Jack Lutz wrote:
{{Nonfreedelete}} on en Wikipedia is a template that specifies a with-permission etc. non-free image may be deleted within 30 days if a free license isn't granted. I noticed it because bot PocciScript has slapped it on a number of images. The template has two edits, one of which was merely to correct a link, and there is no discussion page. What's with it? Obviously we are not purging all fair use and with-permission photos, so what is this for?
I believe we are purging all with-permission photos: Anything except copyleft, public domain, and fair use. See [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images]]
-Mark
One should note that many with-permission images are useable under PermissionAndFairUse, of course. Permission does not remove the ability for reusers to claim fair use. ~~~~
Argh, don't you hate it when you use wiki markup outside wikipedia and it doesn't work?
-Matt (User:Morven)
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:47:00 -0800, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
One should note that many with-permission images are useable under PermissionAndFairUse, of course. Permission does not remove the ability for reusers to claim fair use. ~~~~
Yes, it is kind of frustrating. Have you looked at #154 of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Are_You_a_Wikipediholic_Test recently? ;-)
Josh Gerdes (User:JoshG)
Matt Brown wrote:
Argh, don't you hate it when you use wiki markup outside wikipedia and it doesn't work?
-Matt (User:Morven)
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:47:00 -0800, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
One should note that many with-permission images are useable under PermissionAndFairUse, of course. Permission does not remove the ability for reusers to claim fair use. ~~~~
Jack Lutz stated for the record:
{{Nonfreedelete}} on en Wikipedia is a template that specifies ...
Is there a way to get a list of all /images/ I've contributed? I'm afraid my "my contributions" list is too long to be useful.
Sean Barrett said:
Is there a way to get a list of all /images/ I've contributed? I'm afraid my "my contributions" list is too long to be useful.
Go to [[Special:Contributions]] and ''then'' select "image:" space from the drop down box. When I did it I got this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target...
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
Sean Barrett said:
Is there a way to get a list of all /images/ I've contributed? I'm afraid my "my contributions" list is too long to be useful.
Go to [[Special:Contributions]] and ''then'' select "image:" space from the drop down box.
As that great philosopher said, "D'oh!"
That was much too easy.
Thanks!
On Wednesday 12 January 2005 17:59, Sean Barrett wrote:
Is there a way to get a list of all /images/ I've contributed? I'm afraid my "my contributions" list is too long to be useful.
Hey,
You can filter the log. Ask me for specific directions if you don't know how to do that.
I have a document created by a sailor in the [[Kriegsmarine]] during [[World War II]]. Thus, the document is approximately 60 years old, but its author didn't die until 1982. The document has no copyright notice associated with it and was never published until it was captured by the Allies after the war. I can justify a claim to fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd like to determine what its copyright status really is. Can anyone help me?
Sean Barrett wrote:
I have a document created by a sailor in the [[Kriegsmarine]] during [[World War II]]. Thus, the document is approximately 60 years old, but its author didn't die until 1982. The document has no copyright notice associated with it and was never published until it was captured by the Allies after the war. I can justify a claim to fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd like to determine what its copyright status really is. Can anyone help me?
In the absence of more detail about the document I would say it's still covered by copyright until the end of 2052. But then I prefer a conservative approach when facts are missing. I presume that this a German language document by a German citizen so German law should apply. Copyright notices were a uniquely US requirement. The copyright notice or the fact that the document was stolen by an allied soldier should have no bearing on the matter. The fair use claim is only meningful if the document continues to be protected by copyright, but ultimately you would have the burden of proof for such a claim.
Ec
Wouldn't it belong to his heirs?
Fred
From: Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org Organization: Boskonia Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:12:19 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Obscure Copyright
I have a document created by a sailor in the [[Kriegsmarine]] during [[World War II]]. Thus, the document is approximately 60 years old, but its author didn't die until 1982. The document has no copyright notice associated with it and was never published until it was captured by the Allies after the war. I can justify a claim to fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd like to determine what its copyright status really is. Can anyone help me?
-- Sean Barrett | I have a plan so cunning you could shave with it. sean@epoptic.com | _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Wouldn't it belong to his heirs?
Fred
From: Sean Barrett
I have a document created by a sailor in the [[Kriegsmarine]] during [[World War II]]. Thus, the document is approximately 60 years old, but its author didn't die until 1982. The document has no copyright notice associated with it and was never published until it was captured by the Allies after the war. I can justify a claim to fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd like to determine what its copyright status really is. Can anyone help me?
Who the copyright belongs to is a different issue.
I would venture to guess that the vast majority of material that is protected by copyright lacks an owner who would have rights to be protected. This may have some bearing on the desire of major copyright holders to have criminal law apply. I would suggest that in criminal law it may not be necessary to prove who owns the copyright, while in civil law the complainant needs to have standing.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Wouldn't it belong to his heirs?
Fred
From: Sean Barrett I have a document created by a sailor in the [[Kriegsmarine]] during [[World War II]]. Thus, the document is approximately 60 years old, but its author didn't die until 1982. The document has no copyright notice associated with it and was never published until it was captured by the Allies after the war. I can justify a claim to fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd like to determine what its copyright status really is. Can anyone help me?
Who the copyright belongs to is a different issue.
I would venture to guess that the vast majority of material that is protected by copyright lacks an owner who would have rights to be protected.
I think there are almost always heirs, or the state, or whatever, but in some cases it would be a considerable effort to find out who it is. If you recall the NPG guy who sent us the nastygram about images of paintings, part of his day job was to track down copyright owners, because the NPGs makes millions of dollars from their holdings, and a copyright owner could surface and demand a piece of the action. In our case, it's hardly worth spending much time on the research, even on a volunteer basis, since we're not making any money from the copyrighted work; if an owner ever shows up and decides that the old document is somehow a moneymaker, the most we would need to do is to take it down.
So we should just be able to tag things as "copyright owner unknown" and leave it at that.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Wouldn't it belong to his heirs?
Fred
From: Sean Barrett I have a document created by a sailor in the [[Kriegsmarine]] during [[World War II]]. Thus, the document is approximately 60 years old, but its author didn't die until 1982. The document has no copyright notice associated with it and was never published until it was captured by the Allies after the war. I can justify a claim to fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd like to determine what its copyright status really is. Can anyone help me?
Who the copyright belongs to is a different issue.
I would venture to guess that the vast majority of material that is protected by copyright lacks an owner who would have rights to be protected.
I think there are almost always heirs, or the state, or whatever, but in some cases it would be a considerable effort to find out who it is. If you recall the NPG guy who sent us the nastygram about images of paintings, part of his day job was to track down copyright owners, because the NPGs makes millions of dollars from their holdings, and a copyright owner could surface and demand a piece of the action. In our case, it's hardly worth spending much time on the research, even on a volunteer basis, since we're not making any money from the copyrighted work; if an owner ever shows up and decides that the old document is somehow a moneymaker, the most we would need to do is to take it down.
So we should just be able to tag things as "copyright owner unknown" and leave it at that.
I would be comfortable with that, but I fear that I am in the minority. What's more common is material that comes out with no notice whatsoever. It leaves me with the impression that our contributor has done no homework at all. The rest of us should not have to do someone else's due diligence.
Ec
I think that would be okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fairuseunsure is a good template for this purpose.
Josh Gerdes (User:JoshG)
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Wouldn't it belong to his heirs?
Fred
From: Sean Barrett I have a document created by a sailor in the [[Kriegsmarine]] during [[World War II]]. Thus, the document is approximately 60 years old, but its author didn't die until 1982. The document has no copyright notice associated with it and was never published until it was captured by the Allies after the war. I can justify a claim to fair use for Wikipedia's purposes, but I'd like to determine what its copyright status really is. Can anyone help me?
Who the copyright belongs to is a different issue.
I would venture to guess that the vast majority of material that is protected by copyright lacks an owner who would have rights to be protected.
I think there are almost always heirs, or the state, or whatever, but in some cases it would be a considerable effort to find out who it is. If you recall the NPG guy who sent us the nastygram about images of paintings, part of his day job was to track down copyright owners, because the NPGs makes millions of dollars from their holdings, and a copyright owner could surface and demand a piece of the action. In our case, it's hardly worth spending much time on the research, even on a volunteer basis, since we're not making any money from the copyrighted work; if an owner ever shows up and decides that the old document is somehow a moneymaker, the most we would need to do is to take it down.
So we should just be able to tag things as "copyright owner unknown" and leave it at that.
I would be comfortable with that, but I fear that I am in the minority. What's more common is material that comes out with no notice whatsoever. It leaves me with the impression that our contributor has done no homework at all. The rest of us should not have to do someone else's due diligence.
Ec
Josh Gerdes wrote:
I think that would be okay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fairuseunsure is a good template for this purpose.
It seems like a good idea I'll consider developing something similar for Wikisource.
Ec