Image talk:Cilice3.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Image source

This image was created by me, Alecmconroy, using a GFDL-licensed image available from Wikimedia Commons Image:Cilice.jpg. This is the same image, only cropped. Being simply the cropped version of a GFDL image, I believe this image is compelled to be GFDL as well. However, in the event that I have any rights to the image, I hereby release it under the GFDL. --Alecmconroy 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In this event a link to the GFDL from the ODAN website is not here. Please put one here and one at the commons image. If there is no GFDL statement, then the image is copyrighted and can't be used. Dominick ^(TALK) 12:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please list a link to the GFDL statement on this website, as it does not exist. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Websites don't have to have GFDL statements for images to be released under GFDL. Most such statements occur through email. The person who upload the original image said he received such a statment-- if you want to be extra-careful, you could contact whoever that was and ask him to reconfirm its status. --Alecmconroy 13:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In any event, as regards this image- it'd be my liabilty and my copyright violation, not wikipedia's. I'm the author, I created the derivative work, and I've granted permission to use it under the GFDL. In the infinitely improbably event that the original uploader of the other image lied about receiving permission, it'd be my and his head, not Wikipedia's. I'll remove the possible violation from this image, since Wikipedia is off the hook. Personally, I would be shocked and indeed flabbergasted if the original uploader of the original image was lying about receiving permission, and we certainly have no reason to suspect him of it. The ODAN are advocay people-- they want people to see this image, they have no desire to enforce a copyright on an unartistic image-- I can't fathom that the refused the original uploader permission and he just lied about it. --Alecmconroy 14:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That can't be your call, as if the original work is NOT GFDL then all derivatives can't be GFDL works. Pardon me for using strong language. I looked and I can't find a GFDL notice. You look, and if you can say "here is the ODAN GFDL noticeat URL xxxx.com", then I will agree. If not, you need to find anther image. Dominick ^(TALK) 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Where in the world did you get the idea that there has to be a HTTPed web accessable statement?!?! Email is fine, and indeed is the standard medium in which permission granted. Read Wikipedia:Copyrights-- nowhere does it say a word about web-accessable statements being the only ones allowed. I mean seriously-- you'd have to delete 99% of the images off wikipedia if you did it that way. --Alecmconroy 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dominick-- I finally looked up who uploaded the original image back in 2004, and it turned out to be User:Mond. Mond, as you may or may not know, apparently is a member of the Opus Dei Awareness Network, or so I've been told by his critics. He runs the unofficial opus dei homepage, and his comments at upload releasing it under the GFDL are the statement.

I trust this resolves your concerns about the image. Please do not try to manufacture copyright concerns to leverage a content dispute. If you wish to proceed, I suggest you ask admins to whether web-accessable GFDL statements are required or whether the uploader/authors's word is sufficient.

Although I will have difficulty interpreting it as a good faith action, if you absolutely must propose this image for deletion, do so using the {{{imagevio}} tag under the procedure described at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This is certainly not a blatant copyright violation, it does not meet the criteria for a speedy delete. --Alecmconroy 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright and this image

Let me see if I can help sort through the issues here.

The copyright status of the original image. According to the Commons image page, the image is GFDL, which means the creator agreed to its use. In almost all cases I know of, Wikipedia trusts such statements to be true.

If someone has doubts about this, the easiest thing to do is to contact the uploader of the image and ask where the image came from and what the status of that image is.

In any case, the challenge to the status of the item really belongs in commons.

Alternatively, we could look for another image with clearer pedigree. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, CTS. I've never heard of an instance where Wikipedia didn't consider the uploader's statements to be true either. --Alecmconroy 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty. People lie, and we like to be as sure as possible. Could someone please contact Mond and ask him/her to email permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org from an address associated with the original site of publication confirming that the image has been released under the GFDL? Thanks, --Robth^Talk 06:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)