Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 18 October 20 >

Contents

[edit] October 19

[edit] Image:Strothotte.jpg

No evidence permission was granted to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 02:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Being the owner of the picture, I hereby grant the permission to relaes the picture under GFDL. --Mahak library 23:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Himmler45.jpg

See User_talk:Pharos/NARA#Context and Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images/2007_October_18#Image:Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.jpg. Also, do we know whether this image is from the Hoffmann collection? It is not identified as such.  But|seriously|folks  03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A brief search did not turn up any details on the provenance for this photograph. Curiously, a Google Image search for Himmler 1945 prompted a special message from Google about a Digital Millennium Copyright Act cease-and-desist order and a link to this page, which unfortunately doesn't give any more details. Search the NARA records for the identifier "540164" (sorry, no direct links available) and you will turn up another photo, definitely by Hoffmann, of Himmler at a camp for Russian POWs in 40-41. By the way, I've also followed up on the discussion at User talk:Pharos/NARA#Context there.--Pharos 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This image was copied by me from the service record of Heinrich Himmler which is on a micorfiche at College Park which is the property of the National Archives. I have worked with SS service records for about 15 years now and the answer I always get from College Park is that the stuff they have in ths SS collection is property of NARA and that researchers getting copies ogf it are fre to reproduce it as long as they say its from NARA. The addres for college park is on the image description page and I'm sure a phone number could be found by someone. Now, if people don't want to believe what College Park is saying, then I'm at a los for suggestions. -OberRanks 03:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Huh? The upload log says it image was uploaded by someone named Husnock. What's up with that? -- But|seriously|folks  05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As you will see by my user page (and his), I have come clean and entered a new era of peace and cooperation. Let's work togther to determine the status of these College Park images. -OberRanks 09:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that took some guts. You get some applause for that. -- But|seriously|folks  09:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify here that there is no such thing as "property of NARA". I'm sure NARA would like to be credited (and certainly they deserve to be, as they've invested considerable efforts in the preservation of historical materials), but by NARA's own statements they do not "own" them.--Pharos 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Carefailure.jpg

Tagged as album cover. Unused after removal from biographical article under WP:FU Deiz talk 04:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg

Uploader has uploaded several images, all claiming that he owns the copyright. Some are obviously wrong, such as Google Maps. Others are unclear, such as military insignia. Uploader has not responded to my request for several days, so I'm listing here. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Mottclothof1Bn.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:44Bde Badge1.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:3BnBadge1.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MarblePT.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BuddyPt.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PolePt.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RiflePT..jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ExitProcedures.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RiflePT.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ParachutePosition.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TheHonor.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C47Dakota1.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C130Hercules.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:C160Transall1.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MassDrop.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:1ParaBNlocation.jpg

See 1ParaLogo Originalforweb.jpg above. Pagrashtak 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DSCN0732.JPG

  • Please see previous discussion linked in image talk page, fair use noticeboard[1], in Talk:Nobel Prize, and notices that the uploader has deleted from her/his talk page User talk:Anubis3.[2], resulting in multiple related violations of WP:3RR ("A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.") [S/he has continually deleted and/or moved my templates from the image page concerning the image alerting others to the problems with it. --NYScholar 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]
  • The image is not appropriate in the infobox for Nobel Prize and its licensing is disputed.
  • It is the uploader's derivative work (photograph) of a medal received in 1933 which features a copyright and trademarked design of the Nobel medal/Nobel Foundation logo: the profile of Alfred Nobel.
  • There is no detailed fair-use rationale provided for its use in that article (or any other article or other space in Wikipedia). I dispute the claims on the uploader's image page.
  • Another user User:Panda states that s/he has e-mailed the Nobel Foundation re: this image in the photograph by User:Anubis3; no reply apparently yet received.
  • The image should be deleted from Nobel Prize's infobox (and any other article in which it may be subsequently inserted) until and unless it is clearly acceptable as an image in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as free as design appears to have been published in the US prior to 1923 and would therefore be in the public domain in the US and for Wikipedia purposes. Also, a user is not limited to 3RR on the user's own talk page. -- But|seriously|folks  02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The above comment by User:Butseriouslyfolks has no basis in fact; the registered trademarked and copyrighted images of Nobel medals owned by the Nobel Foundation have been renewed and are currently in force; the reference to "prior to 1923" is totally irrelevant; the user knows that. --NYScholar 02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The images (design of the medals) are registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation, images that are copyrighted as well on its website with clear notices, restricted as per notices posted there, and are definitely not "in the public domain"; to claim otherwise is false. --NYScholar 02:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC) The notice is in the following link (others are posted in the terms of service of the Nobel Foundation website):"The Nobel Peace Medal". --NYScholar 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC) ["Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation" is the caption for the Nobel Peace Medal; "Copyright © The Nobel Foundation 2006" is at the foot of the page. --NYScholar 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]
The following is copied from Wikipedia:Fair use review:
NYScholar:
(1) You seem to be confusing Wikipedia's policy on copyright with WP's policy on trademark. The restrictions you quote are about copyrighted images, not trademarked images. As BSF has explained, WP is perfectly at liberty to use trademarked words, logos etc, so long as there is no danger of consumer confusion. WP's trademark policy can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).
(2) Copyright law. EN-Wikipedia follows the laws pertaining in the United States; specifically, in the state of Florida. Whether the Nobel medal design is still copyright in the European Union (which in fact it is) is irrelevant. In the United States the medal design, being published there before 1923, is now out of copyright.
(3) There is no copyright held by the IWM -- they did not make the image. It is also not from their website. And WP has no contract with them, implicit or explicit, which could be contravened.
In short: there is no copyright in this design in the United States. Nor is the trademark issue a problem. And flooding this page doesn't change that. Jheald 09:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[The above is only a partial transcription of a fuller discussion: see reply by User:Panda there and my own subsequent comment: transcribed below:

<<
I repeat: "*Please consult Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG and Talk:Nobel Prize for the dispute about this image of the medal in the photograph Image:DSCN0732.JPG in Nobel Prize's infobox, which appears to be a violation of copyright and trademark of the Nobel medal image of the Nobel Foundation, and fair use criteria of Wikipedia. Thank you. --NYScholar 06:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)": that pertains to both trademark and copyright, both of which are related to the design of the Nobel medal as clearly stated on the Nobel Foundation's webpages; the use of trademarked images (e.g., company and organization logos) has specific restrictions according to U.S. and international laws governing trademarks (they are linked on my current talk page--for over a year) and also has specific criteria (guidelines and policies) to follow in Wikipedia (trademark is linked via Wikipedia:Trademarks and Copyright via WP:Copyright [with related links throughout]; see also WP:Non-free content). Wikipedia takes a very conservative approach to both copyright and fair use, and it states that. When in doubt, Wikipedia says delete the image. That is the case here. The image in question is not properly inserted where it is (infobox in Nobel Prize), its licensing is deceptive, the "derivative work" uses a design that is currently both trademarked and copyrighted (the image of Alfred Nobel in profile on the medals featured on its website as its trademarked logo and throughout as illustrations of the medals, notably the very same Nobel Peace Medal in the derivative altered photograph); the image is too close to the original design to be claimed to be the original work of the photographer (User:Anubis3/the uploader); the references in the summary and license are awkward and inaccurate; the uploader states that s/he doesn't think that the Nobel Foundation would give permission for the use of this photograph in Wikipedia. This is not "flooding" the page; these are legitimate concerns, and the statements made and other implications suggesting that they are not legitimate concerns are uncivil. I have no further time to address these concerns. I have made them clear and properly linked to the "Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation" and "Copyright The Nobel Foundation" (with the symbols) showing that these registrations are currently in force. 1923 has nothing to do w/ anything; that it does is a fabrication [and a red herring]. --NYScholar 19:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
>>
The image has now been removed by an administrator from the infobox of Nobel Prize. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as free - copyright of photo clearly belongs to the user, trademark (which is allowed on WP) is noted with template and design of medal has copyright which has most likely expired in the US. No reason not to use or consider free. -- aNubiSIII (T / C) 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The above information is not accurate. There has been no expiration of the registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation for its Nobel Prize Medals and there is no expiration of the copyright on its images of those medals.
  • A medal is not copyright; it is an artifact (a work of art; an objet d'art), not a publication. The designer has no copyright on the medal design done for hire by the Nobel Foundation. (A "published" paper of a design is not what we are talking about here; the design of the medal is currently owned by the Nobel Foundation, which claims "proprietary rights" to those designs of those images and those images clearly in notices posted on its website.)
  • These non-free images and this non-free design of Nobel Prize Medals are subject to current "proprietary rights" of the Nobel Foundation, clearly stated throughout its website images of every one of those medals, including the Nobel Peace Prize Medal.
  • Only the physical personal photograph is the property of the photographer; but, as it is in this case "a derivative work" involving the Nobel Foundation's proprietary rights to registered trademarked and copyright-protected images of the medals in it, the personal photograph cannot be published in Wikipedia and thus publicly distributed via the internet with the license stated on the image page by Anubis3.
  • Within "fair use provisions" of U.S. copyright law, the photographer can enjoy it privately or use it privately for personal research use, not publish it via the internet.
  • Any other "use" of its copyright-protected non-free registered trademarked designs of the images on its Nobel Prize Medals requires written permission of the Nobel Foundation, which Wikipedia does not have (as yet).
  • Trademarks are subject to highly -restricted uses in Wikipedia, as already stated. According to the guideline already linked in my earlier comments, they "may" (possibly) be okay but only in articles about the organizations featuring them in one spot in the article (infobox or corner)--reread the guideline. This image inappropriately appeared in the infobox for Nobel Prizes. Wherever it might be used (if at all) in Wikipedia, it would need a detailed fair-use rationale.
  • Moreover, a Wikipedia "guideline" is not a Wikipedia policy; copyright and trademark laws and the provisions of fair use in U.S. copyright laws (and international legal conventions--the Berne convention, to which the U.S. is a signatory, making it also U.S. law) trump Wikipedia guidelines (and policies). Proprietary trademark and copyright notices posted by organizations owning intellectual and artistic properties trump Wikipedia's guidelines (and policies).
  • When in doubt, one removes potential copyright and trademark violations from Wikipedia (that is Wikipedia's own stated policy). See: WP:Copyvio and WP:Copyright for related links. --NYScholar 05:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Please provide us with a source that states that a work published before 1923 in the United States can be under copyright today. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  06:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Copyrights are renewed in the U.S. as are registered trademarks. The sources are in the U.S. Copyright Office registration of copyright information already posted in my own talk page. I suggest that you read the Statutes already linked there. They have been linked on my current talk page for over a year or two at this point. You need to do your own research not depend on me to do it for you. Your claims have no basis in fact. --NYScholar 06:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC) As I stated many times already, a "medal" exhibited in a museum is not "a published work"; the medal is an artifact; the design and the images of the medal are what the Nobel Foundation owns the "proprietary rights" to, as its copyright and registered trademark notices state on every image of the Nobel Prize medals and its website. Its [the Nobel Foundation's] images of the medals' designs are clearly copyright-protected and trademarked; their "use" is restricted by its notices. If you want further information, please contact the Nobel Foundation yourself. It displays its current copyright and trademark notices, dated 2006 (they are up to date), accessed 2007, as of the 2007 Nobel Prizes. There is no reason to doubt its notices, but there is plenty of reason to doubt what you are claiming. --NYScholar 06:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You did not answer the question. You only made conclusory statements, cited self-serving notices from an organization's website, and put it back on me to do my own research (to prove your point?). How do you reconcile your position with WP:PD, which states that "In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain." -- But|seriously|folks  06:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"Registered trademark (R) of the Nobel Foundation" and "Copyright (c) the Nobel Foundation" clearly show that images and designs of the images of the Nobel Prizes are registered with the trademark and copyright offices of the U.S. government: [3]: the page along with others is linked on my talk page. You need to do a lot of work on your own to understand copyright laws better than you obviously do. The images of the Nobel Prize medals are not in the "public domain" just because the medals' engraver or sculptor who modeled the medals is dead some time ago; the Nobel Foundation clearly keeps its "proprietary rights" to those medals up to date and current. Why don't you prove your claims with some basis in fact and laws and Wikipedia copyright and trademark policies? I've done all I can do for you. The rest you need to do yourself. Please don't bother me again with any more questions. You dont read the answers or follow the links provided, so you are wasting my time. (A "medal" is not a publication; your statement makes no sense.) --NYScholar 07:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Linking to a "content guideline" on Wikipedia (a non-peer-reviewed open-source encyclopedia) is not the same as knowledge of U.S. copyright and trademark laws. You need to consult the primary sources of those laws and the other links I've provided already via my current talk page. It's all there. You need to know the difference between kinds of intellectual properties before making claims that you are making; you can't seem to understand the difference between a minted medal and the image and design of a minted medal. The image and the design are what the Nobel Foundation owns proprietary rights to and claims proprietary rights to; we are talking about an "image" here, not a medal. --NYScholar 07:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC) The Nobel Foundation owns the copyrights to those images of its Nobel Prize medals and to its registered trademark of the Nobel Prize medals (all of them). The deceased designer never had a copyright on the design of the medals; the design was not his property; he created it as a "work for hire" for the Nobel Foundation, which paid him for his work and which owns the rights to it; he never published anything; the Nobel Foundation currently publishes the images of the medals on its own website and restricts all "use" of images of the medals due to its "proprietary rights" to them. (The situation is similar when authors transfer their copyright to publishers who negotiate future rights, paying authors royalties, a percentage of sales; many authors do not register their copyrights on their publications; they transfer those copyrights to publishers who do the paper work, registering the copyright.) In the case of the Nobel Prize medals, the Nobel Foundation clearly states its proprietary rights to the registered trademarked images of the Nobel Prize Medals. (The person who designed the medal has no rights to the medals after being paid for his work making the "models" of the medals; then they get minted and photographed, and the images engraved on the medals belong to the Nobel Foundation, not the designer, not to some museum visitor who photographed a medal or to some Wikipedian who may have photographed and edited someone else's photograph of a medal: no way to verify the difference.) --NYScholar 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Technical point: the medal is a commissioned work, technically not a "work for hire". Work for hire has a particular meaning in U.S. law. The medal does not fall into this category, which can be important in consideration of copyright terms. Jheald 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
A minted medal is not "a published work"; the "public domain" discussion that you link to relates to "published works" not to medals. The published works that the Nobel Foundation owns are images of its medals published for all to see on its website; the image of the Nobel Peace Prize is still the same as it was in 1933, and it is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation (currently) and also its images are copyright-protected by the Nobel Foundation in its current copyright notices. It has registered copyright ("proprietary rights") to those images of the Nobel medals and its notices on its site in Terms and Services etc., pdf and other forms, clearly restrict the use of those images, clearly show that they are not in the "public domain" (they are owned privately by the Nobel Foundation); the Nobel Laureates get medals and own the physical medals; they do not own the designs or the images of those medals, because they are registered trademarks of the organization that presents them (the Nobel Foundation). The desire that things be otherwise so that one can feature the images as illustrations (unnecessarily) in an infobox in Nobel Prize does not change the facts. --NYScholar 07:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Since your beef is with the Nobel Foundation apparently (not me), contact its public relations officer and ask for permission to feature its images of its medals like everyone else. --NYScholar 07:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Your ref. to "self-serving notices" is absurd. The organization has proprietary rights under U.S. and international copyright and trademark laws. You need to learn more about those laws. --NYScholar 07:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've asked you before to comment on the situation, not me. It's not your place to say what I need to learn, nor is it particularly civil to belittle my knowledge. Especially when I am correct, as I will now demonstrate.
If you won't accept Wikipedia's statement on the January 1, 1923 date, will you accept that of Brown University? How about Cal State Fresno, which calls that "the only simple rule" of copyright law? Maybe some of these others will be persuasive in your mind:
I'll give the final word for now to the United States Copyright Office: "Works published before January 1, 1923, have fallen into the public domain." -- But|seriously|folks  07:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As an aside, please stop flooding this page with edits. You made like nine in your last post, and it makes it difficult to get a word in edgewise. As for the design of a medal not being "published", that word is a term of art. It is not restricted to paper. -- But|seriously|folks  07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A Nobel Medal is not "a published work". The images of the Medal and its designs are published in 2006, copyright 2006; Somehow you just don't get the point. Stop citing "public domain" for publications relating to 1923, when the images are published, copyrighted, and trademarked as of 2006 and 2007. These are renewed and renewable registered trademarks and copyrights. I have no idea what you are talking about, since there is no "publication" pertaining to what you keep citing. Please read the laws more carefully and try to get the distinctions. If you want to fight with the Nobel Foundation, go ahead. But please let me be. Thanks. --NYScholar 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not forcing you to read my opinion or respond to it. "Published" means different things for different media. For books and papers, it is when they are published in the traditional sense. For phonograph records, it is when they are put on sale to the public. For films, it is when they are released. For medals, it is when the design is used publically. And only the first date of publication is relevant. Otherwise, someone could renew a copyright indefinitely by publishing the work every few years. That doesn't make any sense. -- But|seriously|folks  07:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't just make things up; that's what you are doing. Please stop engaging in edit warring and placing false templates on images requiring speedy deletion due to potential copyright and trademark infringements. If a review of fair use is in progress, one leaves the image page(s) relating to the potential problems alone so that the reviews can occur by "experienced administrators". --NYScholar 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean experienced administrators other than myself, I assume.
As for edit warring, I have no idea what you are talking about. You are the one that persuaded a brand new admin to remove the image from the article while the review was going on, rather than waiting for the determination.
And I'm not just making things up. I have given you cites to authoritative websites. You are the one that hasn't backed up your claims.
A few questions for you: If a medal can't be published, is this medal an unpublished work? Or do you contend that there is a category of copyrighted works that are neither published nor unpublished, and, if so, can you direct me to a scholarly discussion of this category? Do you agree that a medal is a "visual art work"? Have you seen this page, which proves that statues and other works of that sort can be published:
"A statue erected in a public place is not necessarily published."
Also, where is the copyright registration for this medal? -- But|seriously|folks  08:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • ButSeriouslyFolks - 28; NYScholar - 0 (despite the pages and pages of writing). Seriously, that's where we stand on valid arguments and actually backing them up. Might I also add that someone is a very patient admin even when called "inexperienced". Does this debate need to go on any longer? aNubiSIII (T / C) 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as free - NYS's claims that the medal is copyrighted and trademarked ultimately sink his argument; the medal was first struck a priori 1923, and as such a copyright and trademark would only affirm its PD status in the United States. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (Editing conflict)Keep as non-free with full detailed fair-use rationale:
Given the "non-free" status of these Nobel Prize (R) Medal images, according to another uploader of a related image (a photograph taken by User:David.Monniaux in 2005, which pre-exists this one in Wikipedia), there already was contact with the Nobel Foundation (relating to its notices on its website re: any such images of its Nobel Prize (R) Medals (including this one). For purposes of copyright, the Nobel Foundation is the "author" of the images of its Medals, whose design is Work for hire. See the other talk pages on the medals, and recent exchange in User talk:NYScholar and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 16 (where I'm archiving such exchanges from uploaders). This image does not exist in a vacuum in Wikipedia; there is about two years' (or more) of discussion about the Nobel Prize (R) Medals and the copyright status of images of them. Fair use rationales are needed for such images (photographs) of these medals. The Nobel Foundation was the "author" of the design of these Medals in 1923 and it still is their "author". Please consult the discussions relating to these images and their editing histories throughout Wikipedia. I refer to those discussions and to therein linked relevant laws and Wikipedia policies and guidelines for relative newcomers to consideration of them. I myself do not have time to deal with these matters further. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the link: [4]; see also October 22; there are still conflicting points of view and opinions about these Nobel Prize (R) Medal images throughout all of the discussions. This is but one of several, which is inconclusive. It is safest to provide a detailed "fair use" rationale for disputed images. They need to be used in proper ways as well. It is a question of both proper licensing and proper use, not merely one or the other. These (use and license in image pages) go in tandem in Wikipedia. [The link didn't post earlier; I've tried to fix that; there is another direct link that could be added to October 22, where conflicting points of view are expressed by various editors as well. Re: the comment below, where focuses on the contributor and not the content: please see WP:ANOT and links re: administrator abuse. The idea is to provide the most accurate information in an image page and for the correct presentation in an image page to protect Wikipedia from potential problems (claims of copyright and trademark violations) in the future. Thanks. --NYScholar 20:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

Re: I myself do not have time to deal with these matters further. That's like the 6th time you've said that. But resistance is futile. We control the vertical hold. -- But|seriously|folks  19:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, it was an Outer Limits reference. It has nothing to do with being an admin. Please WP:AGF. On a related note, I see you've already been back, proving me correct. -- But|seriously|folks  20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I said that I would return to try to post the related image link; here it is: Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg (Wikipedia links provided therein as well). Please consult it for the references in it to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines pertaining to "possibly unfree images" and copyright and trademark issues that also pertain to the image in this listing). For the record, I posted that I would be unable to deal with this matter further because I knew that I would be away from my computer all day on October 23, which was indeed the case. I haven't logged on to Wikipedia at all between my messages of October 22 and 23 (not that I have to "answer to" the previous user. But it is important to recognize that the comments on contributors are out of line. This matter concerns images not contributors. [I'm offline again after this to do other work. I posted out of courtesy because of the comment in my current talk page from one of the uploaders of the other image. Please refer to the discussion. I'll archive it later. Thanks.] ---NYScholar 20:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, Mr. Pot, you've been commenting on contributors throughout this page. You only need to look up the page to see this. -- But|seriously|folks  20:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)