Talk:The Book of the City of Ladies
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] copyright of image
http://meta.wikipedia.com/upload/The_Book_of_the_City_of_the_Ladies.png
This image is owned - I know it's horrible, but it's true - by some library somewhere. People who print it pay them money. The way copyright works on art objects is like this (pretty much - I'm far from expert, but I am an art historian whose department employs a professional visual resources person full-time who lectures us all the time):
- If a museum or library owns a painting or sculpture, they control photography rights - no matter how long the artist has been dead. So, they control photography rights strictly, which is why some museums allow NO photography and the few that allow photography don't allow flash (it's not because they care about environmental degradation - they just don't want you to get a decent shot). If you want a DECENT reproduction, you have to buy it from them. If you I want to publish an image in a journal, they retain copyright and only sell me the right to reproduce their picture.
- In the case of architecture, exteriors are fair-game fair use, but only for the photographer. Photographs taken by other people, of course, are theirs unless specifically released.
- In the case of sculpture displayed outdoors, see architecture.
- prints are a slightly funny category - they DO pass into public domain, because they are printed. Thus Dover can sell the complete Dürer prints, but not his paintings, and thus the image on the Canterbury Tales page is fine, I think.
This is not much fun, but it's the way the world works. My institution owns more than 120,000 slides, most of which are now scanned, but because of copyright issues the images have to stay inside the campus network. --MichaelTinkler
This is good information - should it be moved to some meta page? --justfred
Actually, this is not true. The image falls under the {{pd-art}} tag and can be used. All the manuscript images on Wikipedia are "owned" by someone, but they can still be used. {{pd-art}}
Stbalbach 15:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] nonfiction?
- this work is listed as nonfiction; allegory is not exactly "nonfiction" and most allegories are described as "allegorical fiction". ?? anyway i've listed this under feminist fiction; but haven't changed the other nonfiction listings, but am raising it here. --lquilter 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

