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)
  • idoes 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 whoevHa 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)

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 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)
  • Hi Deglr6328, Since I'm the one that created this work for you I'll be happy to e-mail them and get the required permission. David D. 14:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yay! :) thanks.--Deglr6328 16:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Good news. i just got the following e-mail from science.

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 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)