Talk:Nag Hammâdi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Copyright

If it's Nag Hammadi, the picture is undoubtedly under copyright. Copyright in photgraphs of art objects (with the exception of buildings or sculpture displayed out of doors) and manuscripts belongs to the owner, not to the photographer. I'm an art historian - I have to pay for the right to publish any pictures I use. Soooooo... (Oh, and, if it's Nag Hammadi it may be a folio, not a scroll. Codex = book, made of pages.) --MichaelTinkler

Michael: The Nag Hammadi manuscripts aren't copyright -- they were written 2000 or so years ago. On the other hand, photographs of them might be. So the manuscript isn't copyright, but the photograph would be. If you can find the MSS and manage to photograph it yourself, you'd have no problems, though I doubt the owners of the MSS would be too keen for you to do so. -- SJK
Yep, as I said. Photos are a separate copyright from the MSS. However, any and all translations are under copyright, as we keep reminding BF. --MichaelTinkler
It's not on the Wikipedia server, so I don't think copyright is an issue. But it's Wikipedia policy not to use pictures on other servers without permission, and I doubt we have permission. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 1
Linking to another site to use their pictures without permission is a copyright violation, I believe. I removed the link. --Stephen Gilbert
I suppose I'm being naive here, but how the heck could linking to a site on the Web be a copyright violation?
It's not linking to another website that is the problem, but using a copyrighted image. On Wikipedia, all we have to do is type in a link to any image on the web, and it shows up on our page. For example:

example removed

This image of old Sigmund Freud is public domain, but if it was not, this would constitue a violation of copyright. --Stephen Gilbert
Why? It's just a link - nothing has been copied. I don't think it would be copyright violation under UK law, at least. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned it doesn't really matter, as we're not supposed to use inline images on other servers without permission anyway, regardless of copyright. (You do have permission for the above image, don't you?) --Zundark, 2001 Nov 1
I'm not totally sure about all the legalities of linking images in this way, but we are using the image which would be legally questionable at the very least. Lee Daniel Crocker is our unofficial copyright guy; maybe he could give a better answer. (As for Freud, there's no copyright on the image; it's public domain.) --Stephen Gilbert
As far as Freud is concerned, you are missing the point. The image is on a Sonoma State University server and uses Sonoma State University bandwidth every time someone views this page. This is against Wikipedia policy, and you should remove the image if you don't have permission from the University. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 1
Point taken. :) --Stephen Gilbert

There's this image called Nag Hammadi papyrus containing the end of Gospel of Thomas and the beginning of Gospel of Philip. I guess we can't use it for the reasons already stated above? --romanm (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very tricky case. According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., a photograph is only copyrightable if it contains "original creative content" (occ). The definition of occ is very broad, and can include almost anything - but a photograph or digital representation of a 2-D work of art is not copyrightable, assuming the photo reproduces the artwork accurately and does not add any occ (shading, angle, etc.) In the Corel case, the court said that if I took a photo of the Mona Lisa and it only duplicated the original (no angle, shading, etc.), then I can't claim copyright on that photo.
So what about the image you mention? I would say it's not copyrightable. The photographer might claim copyright, but if it went to court, I think he would lose. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 01:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nag Hammadi as a place

Can somebody give the exact map coordinates of Nag Hammadi? That would be useful, were you to visit Egypt. 2002 Apr 13

This article is named "Nag Hammadi" (a place), and is about the codices. Do we want to rename it Nag Hammadi codices, Nag Hammadi texts, something?

[edit] Good editing!

An anonymous editor has noticed and fixed this: " thirteen leather-bound papyrus codices were found by local peasants buried in a sealed jar." Not only was it getting stuffy in there, someone had garlic for lunch... --Wetman 03:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiery debates

Are these the documents that were initially being burned for tinder before being rescued? -- Benn M. 07:09, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

Yes they are. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The modern name "Nag Hammadi"

Can anyone with some independent information edit this anonymous contribution into shape:

"The town of Nag Hammadi was established by Mahmoud Basha Hammadi, who was the a member of the big and Egyptian family Hammadi in Sohag. He created this town for the indeginous people who were forced to leave their homland by the British occupation in Sohag, and in return those people gave thr town the name of Hammadi."

Basha is "pasha"? Mahmoud Hammadi gets no Google hits. Is the name "Nag Hammadi" that recent? --12:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Viewpoint?

I have changed the description of a link that said "Christian Viewpoint" for "Evangelic Christian Viewpoint" in order to be an unbiassed description. After all Gnosticism is a branch of Christianity and so the viewpoint of Gnostics is also Christian. Renato Costa 22:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/g/Talk%7ENag_Hamm%C3%A2di_43ba.html"