From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. |
|
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. |
|
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. |
|
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby grant the permission to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. |
[edit] Stolper pics
OrphanBot has removed all your pics from Matthew Stolper, alleging that you did not provide information on the copyright status. On the photos that you yourself took, be sure to add either {{PD-self}}; or if you don't want to release them into the public domain you can use any of the licences listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. Once you do that you should have no problem using them. But as for Image:LH65.jpg, you claim it wasn't copyrighted to begin with. What evidence do you have for this claim? Generally any photo is considered copyrighted unless there's good reason to think otherwise (made by a government employee for work, made by someone dead for over N years, released under a free license by the creator etc.) --Iustinus (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, too late, East718 came along and deleted all the images. You'll have to try again. Though I notice you had put {{GFDL-self}} on at least one of them, so I don't know why it was considered problematic. Oh, and as the documentation for that last template points out, it might be worth uploading the unambiguously "free" images to commons instead of here. --Iustinus (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
