Image talk:Milaria Scotia Regium 1595.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portion of a map Milaria Scotia Regium drawn by Mercator in 1595 All images © National Library of Scotland http://www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map/early/scotland.cfm?id=130# Copyright Screen prints may be made of these maps for non-commercial educational and private purposes. Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any digital material from the Library's collections, whether in hard copy or electronic forms.

Uploaded after May 19 2005. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 On {{CrownCopyright}} 2 Explanation why this image is not covered by Crown Copyright 3 Rktect's addition 4 On {{screnshot}} 5 Copyright Violation 6 Exact copy of PD image 7 September 8, 2005 listing on WP:CP

[edit] On {{CrownCopyright}}

The CrownCopyright template doesn't apply in this case :

• • The crown copyright template does apply in this case. The National Library of Scotland supplies information about the Scottish People.
• National Library of Scotland is not listed under the UK departments for such template. See [1]. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Its listed by definition. Its a National Library !!!, Like the Library of Congress !!! -- unsigned comment by Rktect

Not what the site copyright notice states. Not every UK department applies to crown, btw. And please don't put your comments in the middle of mine, use proper markup, don't be disruptive please. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• The webpage where the image is taken has a very specific copyright notice not compatible.
  • The written permission specifically says there is no problem for Wikipedia using the image.

It only grants it for nonprofit and educational. But ONE MORE TIME: not you and me will decide, that's what the request for copyright examination is.

This is not a portion of a map but rather a screen capture of a portion of a map. For what its worth there seems to be a copyright distinction. Its also a crown copyright (Library of Scotland)In addition this written permission specifically says no problem for Wikipedia and offers a formal letter so if there is any way in which the language of this written permission is not clear enough, let me know and I will ask Peter Milne to be however much more specific it takes. Rktect 05:00, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

It must explicitly allow third party uses and commercial uses too. Otherwise, it cannot be used on wikipedia. For the n-th time, here is the link with the rulings: [2] -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Peter Milne

Map Library Services Manager

National Library of Scotland

33 Salisbury Place

Edinburgh

EH9 1SL

tel 0131 623 3970

fax 0131 623 3971

e p.milne@nls.uk

There will be no problem in granting permission to use this image for a contribution to such an admirable venture as Wikipedia (my opinion). It fulfils all the criteria to be classed as non-profit and educational. Can you give me the title or subject of the article and I will send a formal letter giving permission as a Word attachment.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Pete Milne

Sent: 25 August 2005 01:21

To: Map Library

Subject: request for permission to use a screen shot from a digital map to illustrate an article on wikipedia

Hi,

I would like to use a screen shot of the scale on a map entitled Milaria Scotia Regum - 1595 which you have on your website for a wikipedia article {{ http://www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map/early/scotland.cfm?id=130# scotland]]

your copyright for this page says

Copyright Screen prints may be made of these maps for non-commercial educational and private purposes. Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any digital material from the Library's collections, whether in hard copy or electronic forms.

http://www.nls.uk/collections/maps/services/reprographics/permission.html permission

I'm unclear as to whether a screen capture for wikipedia meetsyour definition of non-commercial - educational and is permitted without filling out the form or whether you require the form because you would consider putting it on a page online a digital reproduction?

regards,

steve

Visit the National Library of Scotland online at www.nls.uk This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the ICT Helpdesk on

+44 131 623 3789 or ict@nls.uk and delete this e-mail. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Library of Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and has been scanned by MessageLabs.

• You claim that http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk protects this image, which is not true. Such image comes from nls.uk, and gro.scotland.gov.uk is a census office, not even remotely related to the library.

-- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Its the tag Wikipedia presently has for crown copyright. Just so you know in the UK there is only the crown copyright and the parlimentary copyright. This is a crown copyright. It isn't limited just to The UK Office of Public Sector Information, formerly HMSO, bbut they are the source of information we cite about it so we use their tag.

"UK Crown Copyright

The UK Office of Public Sector Information, formerly HMSO, has told us:

Crown copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from the end of the year in which the material was first published. Therefore [for example] material published [fifty-one years ago], and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world. [1]" In this case the map whose partial image I was granted permission to use has been out of copyright since 1645. Rktect 03:41, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation why this image is not covered by Crown Copyright

Ok, I will repet it ONE MORE TIME. Not every UK goverment department falls into CrownCopyright template.

Ok ONE MORE TIME: Not every UK goverment department falls into Crown copyright.

Its either crown copyright or parlimentary copyrwrite 2 choices that's it, This is crown copywrite.

Please look at Template_talk:CrownCopyright where depts who do fall are listed. MOREOVER those who do, have a link where EXPLICTLY states that you can use Crown Copyright. NLS does not fall into crown copyright, for they use a different copyright license, which you can see clicking on "Copyright" at [3]

It says on the web site its crown copywrite. -- unsigned comment by Rktect.

that is a lie, I provided the links that prove otherwise, can you show WHERE on NLS site it says crown copyright applies? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

If you click on "more information" you get permission.html where it states

Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any material from the National Library of Scotland's collections. 
Acknowledgement must be made to the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland.
: Yes, which I got.

For publications, display, exhibitions, TV, electronic copying, etc., a separate written application must be made
in advance to the appropriate department for each work.

Basic permission fee:

    * £30.00 per image for UK or single country distribution
    * £50.00 per image for distribution to more than one country
    * Cover illustrations: double basic fee
    * Advertising rates: double basic fee
    * Facsimiles, postcards, gift items: fees by negotiation
    * Non-profitmaking publications: fees may be waived and free copy (or copies) requested instead

Whereas Crown copyright states:

Crown copyright protection unless otherwise indicated.

The Crown copyright protected material may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided
it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context, except the designs, graphics, logos, 
FCO crest, maps and the travel advice notices. 

Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are republished or copied to others, 
the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged.

: What are you going on about? I already explained that Britain only has two types of copywrite, Crown and parlimentery. Where it says crown copywrite protection unless otherwise indicated...maps...that is what we are talking about here. 

So If it were really crown copyrighted, you'd need not to pay a fee.

Now, a personal remark.

Given that you've acted in not a very trustworthy way before you apply tags alternating between reasons until you get one that works, you mislabel this as crown copyright, you put an url that supposedly protected this image (the census office) but which is actually not related to the image, and you're known to disrupt wikipedia in order to get your point across, I can no longer believe that the email that you show, and it's supposed to give permission (and which explitly states it's giving it with permission for an on profit and noneducational project, which, btw is not enough for wikipedia since may 19) is actually a real email granting permission. It is my personal opinion that such email is forged, but again, all this I think will be settled with the request for copyrigth examination that I filed so we can have a neutral point of view. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have never acted in an untrustworthy way. I do not disrupt Wikipedia to get my point across. Your charge of forgery can't be taken seriously as its trivially easy to disprove and as you intentionally mischaracterise its specific permission for use on Wikipedia "no problem", what I see you reduced to is spewing forth a number of false charges.

Once again you are making personal remarks based on your own opinionated, speculative POV with absolutely no facts to back them up and a track record of always being wrong. You tend to try and jump to conclusions and mark things which are still controversial for speedy action. The idiom that best describes you is "loose cannon" . Your judgement is non existent and your prejudice is appalling.

This is a crown copyright, go look at the definition I posted.

The census office logo is probably associated with the crown copyright on Wikipedia because that is where whoever went to research it went to get their info.

For what its worth the copyright tags directions suggest adding multiple tags to be sure you have covered as many shades of copyright coverage as may be involved.

Since it's likely you're going to start posting yoru reasoning all over again, I will first ask you a question. Can you PROVIDE proof (a link would do) where it shows that NLS is under crwon copyright? I've provided evidence that it is not. Don't give arguments, give evidence. Please don't blank the previous explanation (your history shows that you blank comments you don't like). I'm not answering your arguments on crowncopyright unless you can provide evidence that this image falls into it. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[crown copyright]"Loan copies of SE publications may be available from your organisation's library service or your local public library via the National Library of Scotland, the British Library or other co-operative inter-library loan schemes."

"The Scottish Executive Information and Library Services "

You really should check things out more before you make ridiculous comments like the above Rktect 15:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rktect's addition

This is not a portion of a map but rather a screen capture of a portion of a map. For what its worth there seems to be a copyright distinction. Its also a crown copyright (Library of Scotland)In addition this written permission specifically says no problem for Wikipedia and offers a formal letter so if there is any way in which the language of this written permission is not clear enough, let me know and I will ask Peter Milne to be however much more specific it takes. Rktect 04:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Milne Map Library Services Manager National Library of Scotland 33 Salisbury Place Edinburgh EH9 1SL tel 0131 623 3970 fax 0131 623 3971 e p.milne@nls.uk

There will be no problem in granting permission to use this image for a contribution to such an admirable venture as Wikipedia (my opinion). It fulfils all the criteria to be classed as non-profit and educational. Can you give me the title or subject of the article and I will send a formal letter giving permission as a Word attachment.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Pete Milne

Sent: 25 August 2005 01:21 To: Map Library Subject: request for permission to use a screen shot from a digital map to illustrate an article on wikipedia

Hi, I would like to use a screen shot of the scale on a map entitled Milaria Scotia Regum - 1595 which you have on your website for a wikipedia article http://www.nls.uk/digitallibrary/map/early/scotland.cfm?id=130# your copyright for this page says

Copyright Screen prints may be made of these maps for non-commercial educational and private purposes. Written permission must be obtained in advance to reproduce any digital material from the Library's collections, whether in hard copy or electronic forms. <http://www.nls.uk/collections/maps/services/reprographics/permission.html>

I'm unclear as to whether a screen capture for wikipedia meets your definition of non-commercial - educational and is permitted without filling out the form or whether you require the form because you would consider putting it on a page online a digital reproduction?

regards,

steve

Visit the National Library of Scotland online at www.nls.uk

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the ICT Helpdesk on +44 131 623 3789 or ict@nls.uk and delete this e-mail. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Library of Scotland. This message is subject to the Data Protection Act 1998 and Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and has been scanned by MessageLabs.

---

Yes, so as I said, let's be on the safe side and request a copyright examination. It's not up to me or you to decide. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Its already had an opinion from Kenwarren that its ok for Wikipedia Rktect 05:01, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

However it got deleted by the copyright guys. Kenwarren is entitled to an opinion, just like you and me. So ONE MORE TIME. Let us see the results for the request for copyright examination. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On {{screnshot}}

I've got a question here-- the material chosen to be copied for this image was chosen by the uploader, right? The uploader didn't just copy an image that consisted only of the uploaded detail. The physical map itself presumably is in the public domain since it is from 1595. And the online digital image was not made to be creative, it was made to be an accurate depiction of the map. So here's my question, not being an expert on U.K. copyright law: Exactly what creative expression has been taken for this image that is copyrightable to prevent inclusion here? It isn't Mercator's work, that is long since in the public domain. It isn't the editorial choice of this small portion of the map, the uploader apparently made that choice. What creativity (not mechanical workmanship) is there in merely creating an image of Mercator's map? -- unsigned comment from 68.20.28.234

I think you got to be careful with what it constitutes a screen capture. Because if you stretch the idea, you can display in your monitor any copyrighted image, capture the screen and upload it, and voilà, no more copyright applies!! Is that what you are implying? The page where the image is taken has a very specific copyright license on the map, that's why I requested a copyright examination. No creative expression is in question, but the problem the image comes from a copyrighted source. This is not a screen capture as it is not capturing the screen, it's a digital modification (cropping) of a copyrighed image. --

Since the original source is in the public domain, and the crown copyright has expired and the national library has given permission for its use on wikipedia anyway and beyond that as a screen capture it is an image of an image and permitted you have no leg left to stand on and should just give it up. Instead you make a slew of false charges including forgery. I'm sorry. You simply have no credibility left. Rktect 15:57, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

(☺drini♫|☎) 03:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The screenshot tag doesn't address my question. My question specifically is, under U.K. law, what is it about the copied map image on the source library's website that is eligible for an assertion of copyright? To restate: Under the law of the relevant jurisdiction, is there something different about digitizing the original map and slapping the original map down on a copy machine (not that anyone would do that)? Or is the copyright notice as applied to the map actually a spurious claim? Note that I am not referring to the interface, just the image of the map itself. The reason I ask is that the bar for copyrightability is set differently in different jurisdictions. In some places, reprinting a public domain book in a different font size arguably creates a "new" work deserving of protection. In other places, new scientific articles are considered too factual and not creative enough to deserve protection. Where does the U.K. fall in that range? Or is the image protected under some form of database protection?

• That is why screen captures are permitted and why the screen capture tag is there. Rktect 03:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

Regardless of any permission letter we have, this email from Jimbo clearly states that images used "with permission only" or "for non-commercial purposes only" are not acceptable and have to be deleted.

According to your statements above, we have permission to use the image for non-commercial purposes. I'm afraid that this isn't good enough; we have to have license to use the image for whatever purpose. I don't buy the screenshot argument; if one takes a screenshot and crops it only to include the original image, then I believe UK copyright law will state that that is as good as copying the original image.

Jimbo has recently pointed out that we need to delete copyright-violating images more quickly. I'd call for an admin to come and delete this post-haste. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Following Kelly Martin's analysis, of course, that's all rubbish. Indeed, the image is public domain, so it doesn't matter what permission we have; we don't need it. It's not under copyright, and their version of it is not a creative reproduction of a public domain image, it's a straight copy. Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't thinking. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 15:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Kelly Martin's analysis (and the debate we had on IRC) convinced me too. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 16:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exact copy of PD image

This is a portion of an exact reproduction of a public domain image. As such, it is public domain in the United States under the precedent set in Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. Just because someone claims a copyright on something doesn't mean they have one. I see no problem with using this image on Wikipedia. No need to delete. Kelly Martin 15:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] September 8, 2005 listing on WP:CP

Here is the discussions from WP:CP concerning this image. The image will not be deleted related to this specific listing. RedWolf 02:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)