Image talk:Piusxiib.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- truecatholic.org is an anti-pope website and may not be careful about papal image copyrights. Thuresson 04:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
-
- The image was used on millions of marital papal blessings issued to Catholics marrying worldwide in the 1950s and was used by Catholic and non-Catholic publishings without any copyright in the 1950s and since. From what I can gather there has never been a copyright issue with it anywhere. truecatholic.org is not an anti-papal website but a sedevacantism website (something quite different). While they may not be very thorough in establishing copyright, given that they regard Pius XII as a true pope they were more likely to be careful in his case than in the case of later popes. In any case, as mentioned, this image has never had a copyright enforcement problem. FearÉIREANN
\(talk) 21:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The image was used on millions of marital papal blessings issued to Catholics marrying worldwide in the 1950s and was used by Catholic and non-Catholic publishings without any copyright in the 1950s and since. From what I can gather there has never been a copyright issue with it anywhere. truecatholic.org is not an anti-papal website but a sedevacantism website (something quite different). While they may not be very thorough in establishing copyright, given that they regard Pius XII as a true pope they were more likely to be careful in his case than in the case of later popes. In any case, as mentioned, this image has never had a copyright enforcement problem. FearÉIREANN
From WP:PUI:
- Image:Piusxiib.jpg - Copyright holder is Yousuf Karsh [1], not www.truecatholic.org; does not explicitly state that the image can be used for any purpose. This image may be used under fair use to illustrate only the article on Pope Pius XII. SCHZMO ✍ 03:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it is fair use in Pope Pius XII as what is most likely the most famous image of Pius. If you read the image talk, User:Jtdirl outlines how ubiquitous this image is. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- As usual, those placing claims of breach of copyright on images on WP don't read the information posted on the page! lol Mr Karsh does not hold the copyright to this image. He claims copyright to a derivative black and white image and that claim in itself is suspect. The image on Wikipedia is an official portrait of Pope Pius XII taken by the Vatican for use on Matrimonial Blessings issued during Pius's reign and so issued by the millions to couples who married in Roman Catholic churches between 1939 and 1958. It was issued as an official press photograph by the Vatican during Pius's reign. Mr Karsh has nothing whatsoever to do with the original image. He could only be the owner of it if he was the official papal photographer who took it. He wasn't. And that gentleman who was the official papal court photographer signed over all rights to his photographs to the Vatican, as did his sucessor (who retired recently and who photographed all popes from Pius XII to Benedict XVI). FearÉIREANN
\(caint) 03:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- As usual, those placing claims of breach of copyright on images on WP don't read the information posted on the page! lol Mr Karsh does not hold the copyright to this image. He claims copyright to a derivative black and white image and that claim in itself is suspect. The image on Wikipedia is an official portrait of Pope Pius XII taken by the Vatican for use on Matrimonial Blessings issued during Pius's reign and so issued by the millions to couples who married in Roman Catholic churches between 1939 and 1958. It was issued as an official press photograph by the Vatican during Pius's reign. Mr Karsh has nothing whatsoever to do with the original image. He could only be the owner of it if he was the official papal photographer who took it. He wasn't. And that gentleman who was the official papal court photographer signed over all rights to his photographs to the Vatican, as did his sucessor (who retired recently and who photographed all popes from Pius XII to Benedict XVI). FearÉIREANN
-
-
- I was going to say, see this discussion, but it seems like Jtdirl has a point. However, all that should matter is where the image was first published. If Karsh copyrighted his derivative work in 1949, that means that the original was published in 1949 or earlier, and would qualify for {PD-XXXXXX} as long as we knew where it was first published. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. It is unlikely that Karsh was the original photographer because the Vatican doesn't use other photographers' images on Matrimonial Blessings. The reason why I know it was used in Matrimonial Blessings is because it was used in the Blessing my next door neighbours received; as a child I used to see it hanging on their wall. I forget when they married but it was probably pre-1949. The image itself is of an older Pope Pius, I would guess in the late 1940s (hence the wrinkles under the chin, etc). FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Before accusing the Karsh estate of making false copyright claims, it behooves you well to do some research into Karsh's biography. He visited Pope Pius XII in 1949,[2] and indeed the George Eastman House has several Karsh photos of the Pope, including a very similar image evidently from the same shooting session. (See also Library and Archives of Canada.) There's another of Karsh's images of Pius XII used in the Ecyclopædia Britannica. You might also want to take a look at Karsh, Y.: How I photographed the Pope; Maclean’s magazine, vol. 62, no. 25 (December 15, 1949), pp. 16-17, 45-46. It's a Karsh photo allright, and © 1949 Karsh estate. Having been taken in 1949, it doesn't fall under {{PD-Canada}}, and having been published in either Portraits of Greatness or maybe This is Rome (both by Karsh; if someone has access to them, please check), they would be copyrighted anyway. Delete or make a fair use claim, and remove that spurious and completely unproven claim that it was taken by an "official Vatican photographer". That whole "Matrimonial Blessing" business and that the Vatican never used images from other photographers is also completely unsourced. Even if that should be true, I wonder if the Vatican didn't use a similar image for the matrimonial blessings... Lupo 11:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have removed it from all articles other than Pope Pius XII, but I think that it can still qualify as fair use there. This is a very widely distributed image and I will try to find more evidence of that. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Still not convincing. The Vatican does not use other photographers' images on its matrimonial blessings, all of which contain an imprint of the signature of the pope and his blessing. It uses the images taken by the official photographer to the papal court. It used this one on the tens, if not hundreds of millions of Matrimonial Blessings distributed worldwide. Therefore either the image was not his, or if it was, he signed away copyright to the Vatican and it now owns copyright on that specific image. It would not, and could not, use someone else's copyright image on tens of millions of papal Matrimonial Blessings. Apart from anything else, it is hardly going to pay someone to use their image on each one of the tens, probably hundreds of millions, of blessings supplied to newly married Catholic couples in every parish on the planet. If it used someone else's copyright image it would end up paying him millions of pounds in royalties. Why on earth would it do that when it had its own court photographer to take photographs and allow them to use them for free? Either way the image qualifies unambiguously as fair use. So this whole debate here is a complete red herring and non-issue. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Still not convincing. The Vatican does not use other photographers' images on its matrimonial blessings, all of which contain an imprint of the signature of the pope and his blessing. It uses the images taken by the official photographer to the papal court. It used this one on the tens, if not hundreds of millions of Matrimonial Blessings distributed worldwide. Therefore either the image was not his, or if it was, he signed away copyright to the Vatican and it now owns copyright on that specific image. It would not, and could not, use someone else's copyright image on tens of millions of papal Matrimonial Blessings. Apart from anything else, it is hardly going to pay someone to use their image on each one of the tens, probably hundreds of millions, of blessings supplied to newly married Catholic couples in every parish on the planet. If it used someone else's copyright image it would end up paying him millions of pounds in royalties. Why on earth would it do that when it had its own court photographer to take photographs and allow them to use them for free? Either way the image qualifies unambiguously as fair use. So this whole debate here is a complete red herring and non-issue. FearÉIREANN
- I have removed it from all articles other than Pope Pius XII, but I think that it can still qualify as fair use there. This is a very widely distributed image and I will try to find more evidence of that. savidan(talk) (e@) 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Before accusing the Karsh estate of making false copyright claims, it behooves you well to do some research into Karsh's biography. He visited Pope Pius XII in 1949,[2] and indeed the George Eastman House has several Karsh photos of the Pope, including a very similar image evidently from the same shooting session. (See also Library and Archives of Canada.) There's another of Karsh's images of Pius XII used in the Ecyclopædia Britannica. You might also want to take a look at Karsh, Y.: How I photographed the Pope; Maclean’s magazine, vol. 62, no. 25 (December 15, 1949), pp. 16-17, 45-46. It's a Karsh photo allright, and © 1949 Karsh estate. Having been taken in 1949, it doesn't fall under {{PD-Canada}}, and having been published in either Portraits of Greatness or maybe This is Rome (both by Karsh; if someone has access to them, please check), they would be copyrighted anyway. Delete or make a fair use claim, and remove that spurious and completely unproven claim that it was taken by an "official Vatican photographer". That whole "Matrimonial Blessing" business and that the Vatican never used images from other photographers is also completely unsourced. Even if that should be true, I wonder if the Vatican didn't use a similar image for the matrimonial blessings... Lupo 11:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. It is unlikely that Karsh was the original photographer because the Vatican doesn't use other photographers' images on Matrimonial Blessings. The reason why I know it was used in Matrimonial Blessings is because it was used in the Blessing my next door neighbours received; as a child I used to see it hanging on their wall. I forget when they married but it was probably pre-1949. The image itself is of an older Pope Pius, I would guess in the late 1940s (hence the wrinkles under the chin, etc). FearÉIREANN
- I was going to say, see this discussion, but it seems like Jtdirl has a point. However, all that should matter is where the image was first published. If Karsh copyrighted his derivative work in 1949, that means that the original was published in 1949 or earlier, and would qualify for {PD-XXXXXX} as long as we knew where it was first published. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
-
