Image talk:Btrieve for Windows 95NT Workstation config.PNG
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Folks, this was adapted from the Btrieve manual - not wholy created from it! Sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- You have it tagged as fair use. If you can change that to a free license, then we can keep it. Let me know if you need help with that. —Chowbok ☠ 07:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm, Chowbok? That still makes it fair use. Under the tranformative condition of fair use doctrine, it's still not a GFDL image, but it satisfies the most important aspect of fair use criteria. That is why I marked it as fair use. Just a quiet note: I am well aware how to mark images as fair use. I think you'll find that I actually created aspects of fair use policy - like a fairly strict deletion amendment! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it's fair use, then it needs to be deleted, as this could be easily replaced with a free image. —Chowbok ☠ 07:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- How so? If redrawing the figure is a form of adaptation, and in order to convey the same information, then it can't be free if simply redrawn. Therefore, a free image cannot be reasonably created. TheQuandry 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The presentation of the information is copyrighted, not the information itself. You can't copyright basic data (like the listings in a phone book). It's just like a map; if we scan in a map from a Rand McNally atlas, they own the copyright, but they wouldn't have a claim on a new map we drew, even if we used their map to get the geographical information. Same thing here. Since Ta bu shi da yu redrew the image, he owns the copyright and needs to release it under a free license. —Chowbok ☠ 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh, I see. So he's just got it tagged wrong? Ta bu shi da yu, this is an image you created, why don't you just retag it as CC 2.5 or one of the other tags that lets you retain copyright but lets Wikipedia keep using it without the hassle of the current fair use war? TheQuandry 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because, IMO, I can't claim ownership of the image and just give it to Wikipedia. It's more accurate to say that it's a fair use image that represents the issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- You should be able to claim ownership of the image. Chowbok is right that people can't copyright data. At least in print publishing, when someone creates an illustration or figure using someone else's data, no copyright permission is needed. All you need to do is say "Adapted from...". One of these tags should be fine [1], [2]. Just trying to help you keep you image. TheQuandry 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- All right, I've added the CC 2.0 attribution template, with the text "This image was adapted from the Pervasive manuals to describe a technical aspect of their product. You must acknowledge this when using this image." - Ta bu shi da yu 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- You should be able to claim ownership of the image. Chowbok is right that people can't copyright data. At least in print publishing, when someone creates an illustration or figure using someone else's data, no copyright permission is needed. All you need to do is say "Adapted from...". One of these tags should be fine [1], [2]. Just trying to help you keep you image. TheQuandry 18:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Because, IMO, I can't claim ownership of the image and just give it to Wikipedia. It's more accurate to say that it's a fair use image that represents the issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ahhh, I see. So he's just got it tagged wrong? Ta bu shi da yu, this is an image you created, why don't you just retag it as CC 2.5 or one of the other tags that lets you retain copyright but lets Wikipedia keep using it without the hassle of the current fair use war? TheQuandry 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- The presentation of the information is copyrighted, not the information itself. You can't copyright basic data (like the listings in a phone book). It's just like a map; if we scan in a map from a Rand McNally atlas, they own the copyright, but they wouldn't have a claim on a new map we drew, even if we used their map to get the geographical information. Same thing here. Since Ta bu shi da yu redrew the image, he owns the copyright and needs to release it under a free license. —Chowbok ☠ 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- How so? If redrawing the figure is a form of adaptation, and in order to convey the same information, then it can't be free if simply redrawn. Therefore, a free image cannot be reasonably created. TheQuandry 16:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it's fair use, then it needs to be deleted, as this could be easily replaced with a free image. —Chowbok ☠ 07:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm, Chowbok? That still makes it fair use. Under the tranformative condition of fair use doctrine, it's still not a GFDL image, but it satisfies the most important aspect of fair use criteria. That is why I marked it as fair use. Just a quiet note: I am well aware how to mark images as fair use. I think you'll find that I actually created aspects of fair use policy - like a fairly strict deletion amendment! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
