Image talk:Glowing tobacco plant.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following conversation regarding this image is taken from discussion about the image during its consideration for featured picture status:
- This is the classic photo by David Ow of a transgenic plant expressing firefly luciferase. This photo is in quite a few text books. For example, Biology of Plants by Raven, Evert and Eichhorn, 6th Edition (Freeman/Worth) page 699. Are there copyright issues?? David D. 23:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- i just read the file history and this photo is supposedly in the public domain. What is strange is that all the authors were at the University of CA when the work was done. The USDA did fund some of the work with along with NSF. Is it the funding source that makes it public domain? David D. 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I put PD because I was under the impression that the Ow group at UofCA was part of the "Plant Gene Expression Center" which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Agricultural Research Service" [1]. But now I don't know maybe he wasn't part of that group back then? Maybe I should email Dr. Ow.--Deglr6328 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- He was a post doc in San Diego when the paper was written. Now he does work at the PGEC in Albany. In your favor, I have seen the picture in at least a couple of text books. May that imply it is public domain? My guess would be to contact Science magazine since they were the original publishers. Usually the publisher holds the photo rights and you have to get their permission to release the picture. David D. 12:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't particularly trust whoever I may happen to contact at Science magazine to not simply claim copyright on it when they themselves may be unsure. Waiting on reply from Dr. Ow. What does your book say in the attributions section?--Deglr6328 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Biology of Plants book credits Keith Wood, University of California, San Diego. David D. 20:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Geez he was a tough one to track down. He now apparently works at Promega making luminescent cellular assays [2].
Looks like there is no contact information out there though.Found it: kwood@promega.com --Deglr6328 22:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)-
- Ha beat me by two minutes :-) Good luck with getting permission. David D. 22:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- i found this info for Keith Wood. It looks current. David D. 22:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- Geez he was a tough one to track down. He now apparently works at Promega making luminescent cellular assays [2].
- The Biology of Plants book credits Keith Wood, University of California, San Diego. David D. 20:00, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't particularly trust whoever I may happen to contact at Science magazine to not simply claim copyright on it when they themselves may be unsure. Waiting on reply from Dr. Ow. What does your book say in the attributions section?--Deglr6328 19:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- He was a post doc in San Diego when the paper was written. Now he does work at the PGEC in Albany. In your favor, I have seen the picture in at least a couple of text books. May that imply it is public domain? My guess would be to contact Science magazine since they were the original publishers. Usually the publisher holds the photo rights and you have to get their permission to release the picture. David D. 12:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I put PD because I was under the impression that the Ow group at UofCA was part of the "Plant Gene Expression Center" which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Agricultural Research Service" [1]. But now I don't know maybe he wasn't part of that group back then? Maybe I should email Dr. Ow.--Deglr6328 02:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- i just read the file history and this photo is supposedly in the public domain. What is strange is that all the authors were at the University of CA when the work was done. The USDA did fund some of the work with along with NSF. Is it the funding source that makes it public domain? David D. 23:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Email to Dr. Ow
deglr6328 wrote to Dr. Ow:
Hello Dr. Ow, I am emailing in regard to the (now iconic) image of a glowing tobacco plant you (presumably) produced for your 1986 papaer "Transient and stable expression of the firefly luciferase gene in plant cells and transgenic plants." which then was published in Science. I am a user of the free and open online encyclopedia "Wikipedia" and we are currently trying to determine if this image is in the public domain or if it is under copyright ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Glowing_tobacco_plant ) so that we may know how to use it in the encyclopedia. The image is wonderfully captivating and could obviously be put to great use in the explanation of genetic engineering. I notice that your group at UofCA was part of the "Plant Gene Expression Center" which is part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "Agricultural Research Service". Do you own copyright on this image? Does Science? Or can it be said to have been done as a work of the US government and thus be in the public domain? Your help in clearing up this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.
Email reply from Dr. Ow follows here:
Over the years, a number of people have asked me about the use of that picture for their textbooks. I have no objections to the use of the picture and would be glad to furnish you with a copy. Even though we created the plant, we had to give it the DeLuca lab for photography because we entered into formal collaborations with them. Hence, Keith Wood took the photo and kept the negatives. So if you want the original reproduction, you may have to contact him. Alternative, as many publishers have done, was to simply rephotograph the picture from the paper. I can send you a reprint of the research article if you like.
As for copyright, I believe you will have to check with Science, but since so many have already published this photo, I take it that the terms are going to be reasonable. Many scientific journals, including Science, now have open access for public use, so it is not likely that they will bar you from using it for a free online encyclopedia.
Cheers,
[edit] Science Magazine copyright request
- Someone want to email science? I'm not very good at this stuff. --Deglr6328 07:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for your request! Our letter granting permission for use of the
- requested figure on the Wikipedia site is attached below. Please let me
- know if you have any questions or problems accessing the attachment.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Best regards,
- Emilie
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Emilie L. David
- Administrator, Rights, Permissions & Licensing
- The American Association for the Advancement of Science
- 1200 New York Ave., NW
- Washington, DC 20005
- Ph. (202) 326 7074
- fax (202) 682 0816
- edavid@aaas.org
- What should I do with the letter, any ideas? David D. 21:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Yay!!! I'd say just post it to the image page. Did they send a hires copy?--Deglr6328 04:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- A hires copy? Also you should announce on the 'featured picture' page that you have permission since a couple of people made their support dependent on that permission. David D. 17:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- "High-resolution" I thought they may have given you a better copy of the image.--Deglr6328 02:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, "HiRes", now I see, that makes sense. No they did not send a hires image. In fact, they specifically said that they do not give out the images and say that a request should be made to the author to secure the image. I'll upload the FAX so you can see what they say. Did you see the copyright issue below? Apparently wikipedia does not use 'non exclusive, non-transferable' copyrighted pictures. David D. 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yea I know, it is teh suxxor :( though we might be able to use it since it was uploaded before the ban went into effect...? oh well.--Deglr6328 03:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- I imagine there are many pictures that need to be deleted. May be Solipsist knows what the procedure is? I hope it can at least stay on the current pages for a while. It's certainly good PR for plant biology. David D. 04:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yea I know, it is teh suxxor :( though we might be able to use it since it was uploaded before the ban went into effect...? oh well.--Deglr6328 03:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, "HiRes", now I see, that makes sense. No they did not send a hires image. In fact, they specifically said that they do not give out the images and say that a request should be made to the author to secure the image. I'll upload the FAX so you can see what they say. Did you see the copyright issue below? Apparently wikipedia does not use 'non exclusive, non-transferable' copyrighted pictures. David D. 03:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- "High-resolution" I thought they may have given you a better copy of the image.--Deglr6328 02:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- A hires copy? Also you should announce on the 'featured picture' page that you have permission since a couple of people made their support dependent on that permission. David D. 17:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Well done to you both on following up on the copyright situation. I might wait before closing the WP:FPC until we see the wording of the letter. In the meantime, can you clarify - from the wording above I get the impression that Science is claiming ownership of the copyright, but granting the right to publish on Wikipedia only.
That is still quite an achievement in itself, but it would translate to the {{Copyrighted}} which is one of the deprecated, unfree tags. The image was still uploaded early enough that it is not likely to be removed anytime soon, but it would make it inelligible for Featured Pictures. -- Solipsist 20:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's not good news then. They granted us non-exclusive, non transferable permission limited to WWW format only. I'll upload their whole letter, actually a FAX but it is quite obvious from reading Wikipedia:Copyrights that this picture cannot be used on wikipedia full stop, let alone as a featured picture. That is a shame since it's effectively irreplaceable. David D. 21:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- Uploading a copy of the letter, or just the text, would be a good idea. From what you say, it sounds like {{Copyrighted}} is the correct licence. That doesn't mean we have to delete the image immediately - we have the legal right to use it on Wikipedia and it was uploaded before May 2005 which is the guideline cutoff for deleting unfree images. The problem is that it can't be used by our mirrors and sister projects - using the correct tag should help them avoid that problem.
- There are other groups of editors who do a good job cleaning up and deleting images with deprecated licences (and worse, untagged images). This image has now got more detailed copyright information than most pictures, which should help them make the right decision at the appropriate time. -- Solipsist 07:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, did anyone ever post/transcribe the fax? Non free science is such a pain. Anyone know some friendly scientists who grow this sort of thing an can take new photos? Justinc 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
