Image talk:Hero of the USSR.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Copyvio discussion
Moved from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 December 23:
- Image:Hero of the USSR.png (history ยท last edit) from [1] Thuresson 01:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)(UTC)
- The image is PD as per tag attached to it. That the web-site displays a PD image and claims a site-wide copyright on entire context of the site is similar to someone placing this image at his personal site and place a note at the bottom that claims copyright on the entire site content. --Irpen 08:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- No evidence that this photo was first published before 1973. Thuresson 09:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- It does not matter when the photo was published or even taken. As long as the image of the medal itself is PD, the simple replication of it does not generate a copyright. Read Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In general, (now quoting from previous similar dispute [2]) "too often user:Thuresson makes overly restrictive interpretations of copyright laws. Too bad, he'd better find a way to help me/us than to kill a barely alive willingness to contribute to Wikipedia." While no one objects that the reasonable effort should be taken to protect WP from legal claims, taggin around obviously harmless images liberally generates a huge waste of time better spent on writing articles. --Irpen 17:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- Addressing my character instead of my arguments is not a support of your own claims. Please self-reflect on the article "Ad hominem". The court case mentioned refers to a specific type of objects - two dimensional works of art, not three-dimensional works like statues, buildings or mountains. You are claiming that this photo was first published before May 27, 1973 ("The image is PD as per tag attached to it") but has presented no evidence for it. Thuresson 05:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- Where did you see any "Ad hominem"? This was indeed a criticism but nothing even close to an attack. Be careful with accusing others in attacking you when they simply critisize your action.
- Addressing my character instead of my arguments is not a support of your own claims. Please self-reflect on the article "Ad hominem". The court case mentioned refers to a specific type of objects - two dimensional works of art, not three-dimensional works like statues, buildings or mountains. You are claiming that this photo was first published before May 27, 1973 ("The image is PD as per tag attached to it") but has presented no evidence for it. Thuresson 05:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- It does not matter when the photo was published or even taken. As long as the image of the medal itself is PD, the simple replication of it does not generate a copyright. Read Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. In general, (now quoting from previous similar dispute [2]) "too often user:Thuresson makes overly restrictive interpretations of copyright laws. Too bad, he'd better find a way to help me/us than to kill a barely alive willingness to contribute to Wikipedia." While no one objects that the reasonable effort should be taken to protect WP from legal claims, taggin around obviously harmless images liberally generates a huge waste of time better spent on writing articles. --Irpen 17:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- No evidence that this photo was first published before 1973. Thuresson 09:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- The image is PD as per tag attached to it. That the web-site displays a PD image and claims a site-wide copyright on entire context of the site is similar to someone placing this image at his personal site and place a note at the bottom that claims copyright on the entire site content. --Irpen 08:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The object is PD as per "PD-USSR", which makes it's exact image with no originality (like a collage would be) a PD too, no matter what the site claims. As such, the date of when the picture was taken doesn't matter. --Irpen 08:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- No evidence that this photo was first published before 1973. Thuresson 14:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- As said above it doesn't matter when the photo was published. It depicts the medal designed earlier on. No matter when you take or publish a photo of an old PD-art image, the photo is PD as per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Similarly, the publication of a PD-USSR medal photo, at any time past '73, unless the image is artistic, like a Collage would be, does not generate a new copyright. Thanks for stopping to call a disagreement with your approach an "ad-hominen" attack. --Irpen 18:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- From [3] "This decision concerns only reproductions of two-dimensional works (like paintings or drawings.) Reproductions of three-dimensional works, such as sculpture, possess the necessary creativity for a separate copyright - after all, the photographer must choose an angle to shoot from, lighting, backdrop, etc. In other words, he is not merely reproducing an exact image." -- Mwanner | Talk 19:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, if you really insist on going into fine legalese, please note that while the sculptures might be a different story, taking a front image of the the medal placed on a flat surface does not include any 3D to 2D conversion like choosing an angle and lighting in shooting the sculpture or a landscape. The image on the front side of the medal is a 2D image: the photographer places a medal on the flat surface and shoots straight up. --Irpen 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- From [3] "This decision concerns only reproductions of two-dimensional works (like paintings or drawings.) Reproductions of three-dimensional works, such as sculpture, possess the necessary creativity for a separate copyright - after all, the photographer must choose an angle to shoot from, lighting, backdrop, etc. In other words, he is not merely reproducing an exact image." -- Mwanner | Talk 19:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Could we close this listing now and remove a misaplied copyvio template from the image? --Irpen 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Are we all agree now that it is a 2D image and that we can safely assume that it is PD? If so, as I presume as nobody responsed after Irpens final comments for over 6 months, could it now be uploaded on the commons as PD? --Hardscarf 18:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
