User talk:Stephen Ewen/Archive 5

From Citizendium
< User talk:Stephen Ewen
Revision as of 00:41, 1 July 2007 by imported>Stephen Ewen
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Yet another image question

Graph of when works pass into the Public Domain in the United States.

1. Term of joint works is measured by life of the longest-lived author.
2. Works for hire, anonymous and pseudonymous works also have this term. 17 U.S.C. § 302(c).
3. Under the 1909 Act, works published without notice went into the public domain upon publication. Works published without notice between 1-1-78 and 3-1-89, effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act, retained copyright only if efforts to correct the accidental omission of notice was made within five years, such as by placing notice on unsold copies. 17 U.S.C. § 405. (Notes courtesy of Professor Tom Field, Franklin Pierce Law Center and Lolly Gasaway)

Or at least it's related to a couple of images that I would like to use.

CZ is not a Minnesota 501(c)(3) organization, correct? I'd like to use images from the Minnesota Historical Society collection, but their policy seems to be that only Minnesota based non-profits may publish their images for free: Any ideas? --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:32, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Yuck. Hmmm. Which image(s) and in which article and for what purpose, Joe? Stephen Ewen 11:42, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
They will be for Little Crow, which I just started the other day. (This means that images won't really be necessary for a while yet.) The images I have in mind are a painting by Seth Eastman (here) and a photo of Little Crow (here). Some comparable images or even the same ones might be available from the National Archives, but I haven't had a chance to check yet. --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:57, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp, a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art is not copyrightable in itself in the U.S. However, one MAY copyright their digitized scans of such art (weird, eh?), which is what these people have done. Regarding the portrait, the image at Wikimedia Commons here is (again!) falsely represented, as can be seen at its source here (if J.E. Whitney took that photo as a twenty-year-old the copyright would not have expired). Here is what I would do: I would email them and briefly explain what CZ is as a new non-profit encyclopedia project and let them know you'd like to use the two images, pointing them to the near-complete article, but that neither yourself (who is donating his time as are all contributors at CZ) nor CZ has the budget for their fee. Keep me posted! Stephen Ewen 12:21, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay. Sounds like what I was planning to do. I have some contacts at the MN Historical Society library, so I'll send a note off once the article develops a little more. First, I have to go back and reread my books, but I was trying to figure out what is out there so that the resulting text and images would complement each other a little better.

Thanks for the help. --Joe Quick (Talk) 12:42, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

I have a question regarding to the Whitney photo. On the Whitney image, the Library of Congress said it is copyrighted yet "no known restriction on publication", is it contradictory? Yi Zhe Wu 12:40, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

No known restrictions would probably mean that they have no explicit knowledge of restrictions. Yet it says "Photoprint copyrighted by Whitney" and that the photo was taken "1862". In the U.S., that copyright holds through the life of the author PLUS 70 years. We do not know when Whitney died. So, we play it safe and assume he took the photo at 20 years of age and assume he lived to say, 80. Given that, he would have died in 1942. Add 70 years and it is 2012. Or, we do a bit of leg work and find out when Whitney died. Genealogical records at the LDS Church website may clarify when the person died, meaning we might safely say Whitney took the photo at age 50 and died a year or two later, or whatever. In point of fact, this image will probably never be a problem! But I think playing it safe is better. What if Whitney's down-and-out great-grandson decided he wanted to push some rights? It is best to assume the most restrictive interpretation of data and proceed from there. Stephen Ewen 12:53, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the explanation, I get it now. Yi Zhe Wu 13:14, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
I disagree. everything published before 1923 is public domain regardless of when anyone died. Richard Jensen 13:23, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

On the 1923, perhaps so. I am still learning. ;-)

However, I understand that digitized images themselves, even of a public domain painting, can be copyrighted. This is what the MN Historical Society library has done.

Stephen Ewen 18:55, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

See graph to the right. That should help keep all these dates clear from here out. :-) --- Stephen Ewen 20:59, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Wikipedia often cite a court case, but seems like it was only a lower federal court case, and the Supreme Court has not spoke about it, so it's a question that if the case can be a binding precedent. Yi Zhe Wu 19:07, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Citizendium won't be the one to push the matter. ;-) ---Stephen Ewen 19:49, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Did you miss articles for approval above? Please see telephone newspaper and tux gallery. Thank you, Nancy Sculerati 13:31, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
You are safe to use this image. Joel Emmons Whitley died circa 1870 according to Craig's Daguerreian Registry, which is an excellent, documented, research site for collectors of daguerrotypes and early photography. By the by, the image is from CDV (Carte de Visite), which was produced in multiple copies, so the LOC and other images may indeed derive from completely different originals (both copies). Cheers! Russell Potter 19:59, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Wow, you are a proverbial gold mine with this sort of stuff, Russell. Thanks! Stephen Ewen 20:59, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
The courts have ruled that putting an image in a photocopier and pressing the button lacks the creativity needed to be copyrightable. I suggest the scanner is in the same status. What is the court case that says scanned images can be protected? Richard Jensen 21:41, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, the language is that "a slavish copy" of a public domain (PD) image is not copyrightable. The issue, however, is that stock photo entities like Corbis, and perhaps surprisingly museums, are claiming that their digitized PD images are a different class and thus copyrightable, since they require the digitizer to make artful decisions about resolution, dots per inch, and so forth[1] [2] (see also "Museums are prisons? Public domain reproductions in the cage of ownership rights" for an interesting read). The Minnesota Historical Society appears to be doing this. Thus, such entities are claiming that such images can be copyrighted and are acting and charging fees accordingly. Whether or not such claim and practice would withstand court challenge is another matter, but I think I am very safe to say (!) that CZ by policy will not be making itself the test case for such things. Just get permission from the museum to use the painting by Seth Eastman instead. ---Stephen Ewen 23:12, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
we open CZ to lawsuits if we give up our rights, so don't ask permission for a PD artwork like Eastman. Courts have always been on our side on this (re pre 1923 items). ::::"Artful" decisions indeed! that's like saying you make an "artful" decision at the copier by using heavier stock, or yellow paper, or a darker setting. Such claims have no legal standing and no court has ever supported them; the Supreme Court is pretty strongly on our side on this one. The Museums are prisons article does not argue against CZ in any way. If we ask permission, however, we are relinquishing our rights, which is very dangerous legal grounds for CZ. The Eastman painting is pre 1923 and in the public domain and Minnesota has no legal right to any copyright in it. Richard Jensen 23:23, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Richard, as sympathetic as I am with the broad pre-1923 claim, I think that we must tread with care here. For one, pre-1923 is only applicable for works created in the United States. Secondly, I can tell you from experience that many museums and archives are vigorously defending their right to any images --accurate and inartful as well as others -- they claim as "derived" from works they own. This is property law set atop copyright law, and if a museum feels they are exercising this right and we just ignore it we put CZ at risk. Lastly, asking permission does not, so far as I know, limit or reduce any future rights of use CZ might make (any copyright attorneys out there correct me if this is mistaken!). Russell Potter 23:30, 12 May 2007 (CDT)
Richard, you and I have the same feelings about a lot of this. Some of it is just outright ridiculous. But my main point is, how would CZ open itself to a lawsuit by asking The Minnesota Historical Society for permission to use its digitized image of the painting by Seth Eastman? It seems exactly the inverse is so, since they are making property and copyright claims here. And yes, they look vigorously.[3] ---Stephen Ewen 23:35, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

Russell, you said, "asking permission does not, so far as I know, limit or reduce any future rights of use CZ might make." I think it would, if the granter stipulates conditions. Even if not, we cannot just assume that permission to CZ extends to re-users of CZ. It seems to me we need to ask explicitly for that permission. And let me echo: any copyright attorneys out there correct me if this or anything else I am saying is mistaken! Stephen Ewen 23:44, 12 May 2007 (CDT)

We will NOT be using the MHS digitized image, we will be using our own digitized image (copied from them but a different file). They do NOT claim to own a copyright of this image, so they are not able to give copyright permissions. The Museums as prisons article explicitly rejected the notion that a scanner can create a copyright. Let me add the MHS folks are very pleasant--my wife published a book with them--and they don't do lawsuits, especially not when they are giving the image away free. (They can't claim lost sales when the image is free) Actually only Hollywood does copyright lawsuits -- but that is not CZ's world. Nobody is talking lawsuit so let's move on.Richard Jensen 02:59, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Image updates

Just in case you don't know it works this way... I recently updated USSZenobia.jpg. The system asked me to fill in the new template stuff, which I did. But the new image doesn't show the new template. The data are listed in the file history, but not in the nice template format.

BTW, I still think it would be wonderful to have an icon or image or some non-text thing that would indicate "click me to see an image(s) on another site." It would help in dubious copyright cases. Louis F. Sander 10:33, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Image updating problem

Many days ago I had difficulty uploading an image. I got the error message

Could not copy file "/tmp/phpdQZCyX" to "/czdata/mediawiki/images/c/cc/USSDevosa.jpg". Retrieved from ""

Today I tried to upload another version of the same image, and got the same message. I've got the same problem with another image, too. It's almost like the system is gagging on the image name or something. I could try another name for it, but I first want to see if this problem is known and can be fixed. Louis F. Sander 10:42, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

==Tux/gallery, since I e-mailed--

Stephen, I did not realize that everything in that Gallery is already in the Tux article. Can it get appended somehow? Nancy Sculerati 12:23, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Help with images for Judaism-related articles

Steve, I'm wondering if you know any users who would like to help put images into some articles? (I know they're important but I'm not that interesting in working w/images myself.) Perhaps the user could import from wikicommons or otherwise search for whatever CZ considers acceptable/appropriate. Thanks. David Hoffman 12:32, 14 May 2007 (CDT) P.S. Is there a spot where people list "requests for collaboration"?

A "Requests for collaboration" page sounds like a great idea. So does, perhaps, an "Image requests" page. You might propose such at Forums. Till then, the article talk page is I guess the best place going. Stephen Ewen 13:40, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, the other place to make collaboration requests is the Workgroup Home, in this case for religion. Stephen Ewen 16:44, 14 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for feedback page! Perhaps some graphics-oriented folks could make a livelier version of Project Home? David Hoffman 17:50, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Re-approval of Tux

Done. I hope I put the template in the right place! Greg Woodhouse 22:43, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Spam article added?

Hi, I just saw this -- it sure looks like spam to me. But I don't know what to do about it or who to notify. Could you help?

Hayford Peirce 14:14, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Thank you, Hayford. I did delete it. Stephen Ewen 14:31, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I think the cashnet article is back again. You may have to delete User:Eric_Wood. --Robert W King 14:42, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, it's back! I suspect Eric Wood is a "sock" for someone at this company, but I suppose it is possible that his account has been hacked? Russell Potter 14:45, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I doubt that. Look at his user page.--Robert W King 14:45, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Seems over now. :) ---Stephen Ewen 14:54, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Article Deletion

Hi Stephen, I was marking articles for deletion based on the instructions in the Big Cleanup. It links to this:

and I saw no other way to mark for deletion. I'm still learning the ropes, so could you let me know the proper procedure? Thanks David Martin 21:31, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

You may tag anything for deletion per the criteria listed at CZ:Article_Deletion_Policy under the section "Articles deletable by constables acting on their own recognizance". ---Stephen Ewen 21:38, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
Most of what I've been tagging have fallen under the first category, being copied from WP with no significant edits over a week. Can I ask what article was tagged that didn't fall under this criteria. A good example will help me avoid future mistakes. David Martin 21:52, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
I already deleted it. :-) It was Secretion. Just use your best judgement. I'm sure you'll do great, and don't worry too much about making a few mistakes. Stephen Ewen 21:56, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Tux (that pesky bird!)

Stephen, please see:[4]. You might look at my talkpage also-where there has been some discussion. I'm sure you guys will get this straightened out. Nancy Sculerati 07:50, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Oh bother, said Pooh. I hope I fixed the issue, without fixing it in this instance. Stephen Ewen 21:36, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Public domain

Thanks for license advice. I modified it. If its still odd let me know. David Tribe 08:00, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

8088 processor image replacement

An Intel 486 processor and a Motorola 68030 processor

Stephen, After you left the notice on my user page, I found a replacement for Image:I8088.jpg that I hope meets CZ's two-pronged test. When you get time, please look at File:8088AMD.jpg and let me know whether this one passes. And, thanks for the pointer to Flickr. I've been seeing talk about this test but hadn't paid enough attention before now. Pat Palmer 08:50, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I've tried a third again. No need to reply unless something's wrong. Sorry for the hassle to you. What a learning curve! Pat Palmer 14:34, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
No hassle. That image works! I tidied the upload page and added one missing link. You can compare. All you gotta do is described at Special:Upload. Stephen Ewen 14:59, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Bacteriophage images

I've uploaded new images:

These were taken from PLoS Biology. PLoS license info:

The Public Library of Science (PLoS) has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) to all works we publish (read the human-readable summary or the full license legal code). Under the CCAL, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles in PLoS journals, so long as the original authors and source are credited.

...said John J. Dennehy (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Great! Sorry for any trouble. Stephen Ewen 18:11, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Most of the images on that page are currently tagged as Public Domain. Anything from PLoS should get {{Cc-by-2.5}}. I'll fix the images already there, but I thought I'd leave a note about the right template to apply in the future. (There is also one image by permission that needs a little work.)--Joe Quick (Talk) 19:26, 16 May 2007 (CDT)


That was funny! You know of course that is my specialty! --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:08, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

While in El Salvador, and learning Spanish, I once asked a guy if he knew where I could get pollo con pero (chicken with dog). I meant Pollo Campero. :-D ---Stephen Ewen 23:04, 16 May 2007 (CDT)
Haha. I asked for "cojone asado" (roasted [rude word for a testicle]) once in Mexico. I meant to ask for "conejo asado" (roasted rabbit). --Joe Quick (Talk) 19:06, 18 May 2007 (CDT)


Princeton/Bollingen appears to be an ultra-short spam article, can you take a look? Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 21:36, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for pointing this out, Yi. Looks innocuous to me, but is a stub that is too old. Stephen Ewen 21:41, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

Roosevelt image...


I actually did type in the direct link but for some reason it just goes to the main page. I think it has to do with their flash website. You can find the image by clicking "exhibitions" and on the right side of the screen it will have "site search". Type in Theodore Roosevelt and the image is right there. Sry for the mix up. Should I write directions to the image on the image page?

Eric Pokorny 20:41, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

This is the URL . I right-clicked over the collection image after searching and chose copy link. I'll add it. Stephen Ewen 20:45, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Images I've uploaded

Hi, thanks for the compliment re: Image:Panda.jpg. I noticed you'd corrected my licensing - I presumed that I should use the updated one the licensing page linked to by Flickr mentioned, rather than the original, but I must've been wrong, sorry. John Stephenson 03:05, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

No worries. Just always copy the data from the source precisely. Hate to be suck a stickler about it, but have to. The panda image from flickr is under version 2.0, so it is ever under that version until the uploader changes it. Stephen Ewen 03:11, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Re: Image:Benares_1890.jpg

Hi Stephen! I am in the process of contacting the people. But as far as I know, the images are not copyrighted and are in public domain... and that the claims of website of owing the copyright are in itself incorrect. But I may very well be wrong, so please explain to me.--Anupam Srivastava 10:06, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

See User_talk:Stephen_Ewen#Yet_another_image_question for a discussion of what the museum may be claiming. Please do send them an email and find out about the status of the image and upload that email to Image_talk:Benares_1890.jpg/Permission following the directions at Help:Images#Documenting_free_content_releases_and_images_by_permission. Stephen Ewen 13:19, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Hi! I have updated the permission page. I am still in process of getting the image released under some license, so we can be absolutely sure. By that time, I think we can use the image happily though.--Anupam Srivastava 16:56, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Hi! You can lock the permission page now.--Anupam Srivastava 06:32, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Image help...


I just want to make sure that I didn't make any mistakes. I just uploaded this photo:

Does everything look okay? I really hope that we can get this straightened out. Thanks for your help and sorry again.

Eric Pokorny 17:21, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Much better. Something to think about: just because the "vast majority" of NAR images are Public Domain, does that mean this image is? I tidied the upload page a bit to show an effort to determine that. Stephen Ewen 17:53, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Image:Smallbone Deceased cover.jpg

Hi, Stephen. Thanks for your prompt reply! Geez, this is terrible! So, rather than being like Wiki, which let in all sorts of photos for years under various "fair use" rules, and now has apparently changed its collective mind and is deleting them like crazy, CZ is going to be super-cautious right from the start? I suppose that's probably the wisest approach for the long run. I gotta say, though, that my enthusiasm for trying to contact a publishing company in London and THEN expecting a response from them is extremely marginal. At least I know Stan Schmidt, the editor of Analog (SF mag), and if I emailed him about covers from his mag. I'd get an answer. But beyond situations where I actually *know* someone.... Geez, should I just remove this image before someone else does it? And not make any more scans of book covers? I suppose that the same applies to authors' photos taken from book covers? Oh my, oh my, oh my.... Hayford Peirce 17:23, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

The fair use policy is not formulated; this is what we can do for now. Please do feel free to weigh in on the matter at the Forums! Publishers routinely contact other publishers about such matters. All publishers have either a whole department devoted to permissions (big publishers like the University of Chicago) or a person who handles them (smaller publishers). Seems to me a great way to deal with fair use is to first try to avoid it and just get permission like most journals and book publishers and entities like the encyclopedia Britannica would attempt to do as a first step. But you don't have to do all this by yourself. One thing you can do is simply post the information for the publisher on the article talk page and ask another to please handle the permission request. You might be surprised at how people would be willing to help like that. And afterward, there will never ever be one worry about the fair use claim because it will have been avoided from the get-go. I see that as a pretty sane approach, when feasible. Question: if WP had followed such a course early on, would those images be getting deleted like crazy now? Of course not. Hmmm. I have been wondering if it might be neat to think about a "CZ Permissions Department" of sorts. ---Stephen Ewen 18:03, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the info! Certainly at Wikipedia the "fair use" doctrine was extremely convoluted and misunderstood, plus, I gather, it was always *changing*. An admin I know named 23skidoo is leaving Wiki mostly because of image disputes after having done many thousands of edits. He fears that eventually there will be no images at all at Wiki. I'd hate to see that happen here. I will certainly take your advice and post that publisher info request on my talk page! But do I understand you to mean that, having done so, I can then leave my image there (at least for the time being)? I saw the Constable's notice that has been placed on the image -- will it really be deleted after 1 week? I think that for newbies like me, and even for experienced editors/authors, a "CZ Permissions Department" would be a wonderful idea! Hayford Peirce 18:23, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Well, I'm the constable who tagged the image. ;-) While permission is being sought, please remove the image from the article.

As I see it, most fair use can be avoided:

  1. Try to use a free content image; failing that,
  2. Seek permission; failing that,
  3. Then evaluate your fair use claim.
  4. If you believe you have a strong claim, include your documented but unsuccessful permission attempts as part of your fair use claim.


  • A copyrighted image by permission documented by an image of a formal permissions release — see Infant colic, Postulated causes and associated conditions and follow the links to its image and permission pages.
  • A copyrighted image by permission documented by an email — see Gilad Atzmon and follow the links to its image and permission pages.
  • An example of a thus far unsuccessful attempt at gaining permission — Talk:Tux/lin64
  • An example of a thus far probably successful but as yet inconclusive attempt — Talk:Tux/ccpenguin.jpg

Whether all this will be policy is yet to be determined, of course. But the policy now is no fair use at the present time.

Stephen Ewen 18:37, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay, thanks for taking the time to give me all of the above info. I will study it carefully and see what I can absorb. In the meantime, though I will immediately remove the image. Thanks for the help! Hayford Peirce 18:41, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I'll probably have to delete the image, too. However, it takes 10 seconds to undelete it come time. It will be more like "hiding it" until all the ducks get in a row. Stephen Ewen 18:44, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Righto. I've just removed it from the article. But I wasn't certain about actually *deleting* it -- even if I knew how! :) Hayford Peirce 18:45, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
See the article talk page. ;-) ---Stephen Ewen 18:48, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
I just did -- that's fantastic! I'll send in as much info as I can. ISBN numbers, obviously, didn't exist back in 1961, but I'll do as much as possible. Thanks again. If I make the same request for, say, the Gold Medal books published by Fawcett (see The Interlopers), will you have the same info for them? If so, you're a miracle worker! Hayford Peirce 19:02, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Fawcett is held by Random House. Unfortunately, they do not accept emailed request; it will require someone to print out their permission request form and send it by snail mail to the address and according to the directions provided here. Stephen Ewen 19:12, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

CZ Permissions Department

I really like that idea. I think something like this could help in a lot of ways. Maybe after I finish up finals I could start working on a proposal... --Joe Quick (Talk) 19:08, 18 May 2007 (CDT)Ǫ

Go for it, Joe. Good luck with finals! Stephen Ewen 19:12, 18 May 2007 (CDT)


Hello Stephen, I have a question. Are we allowed to import articles from PD/GFDL/creative commons sources other than Wikipedia, like dKosopedia, Conservapedia, SourceWatch, early versions of Britannica, etc., and change them into CZ articles? Yi Zhe Wu 20:32, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

One at a time only, and be very, VERY leery of using anything from Conservapedia because of its bias. Document everything on the talk page. Stephen Ewen 22:22, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Paper (or electronic) trail for asking publisher's permission

I've just filled out the Hodder & Stoughton form that you so kindly linked me to. I tried saving it to my harddrive in two different formats once I had filled it out and before I sent it. The form itself saved beautifully in both formats -- but none of the information I entered was saved. There was also no way of copying the form as a CC or BCC that I could see; once you push the SEND button, the form is gone. I know you said that it would be valuable to save whatever I do trying to get permission from the publisher, but in this particular case I don't see what else I could have done. Sorry.... Hayford Peirce 17:13, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Yea, I too have found that text I have typed into forms does not save. Not quite sure I understand why. But in this case we have definitely found the copyright holder and it is very unlikely your request will be ignored. Their reply alone will suffice for the permission upload. Stephen Ewen 18:13, 19 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, I just received this curious email from them, an automated one, saying, if I understand it, *three* times that I should include the ISBN. As I carefully pointed out in my form request, ISBN did not *exist* in 1961. What do you think of this? Should I just ignore it and hope that a human being will eventually read my request?

This is an automatic reply.

Thank you for your interest in our titles.

We will be unable to process your request unless we receive all of the following information\3a

> For reversions\3a the title, ISBN and author of our publication

> For permissions\3a the title, ISBN and author of our publication and the title, author, retail price, print run, format and distribution areas required for your publication.

If you have not supplied us with all of the above information, please re-send your email with all the pertinent information clearly outlined.

Please be aware that the minimum response time for permissions will be four weeks from our receipt of your full request.

Thank you.

This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc.

Geez! Hayford Peirce 18:43, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd include the ISBN for any edition that had it, making clear you wish to use the '61 edition. Stephen Ewen 02:25, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Copyright problem

Image:Greg Abbott.jpg---I assume the state of Texas owns the copyright, because work by individual states are not in PD. Is it a copyright violation? Yi Zhe Wu 19:11, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks again, Yi. I deleted the image. Stephen Ewen 19:56, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

colour code

Do you explain the copyright template colour code anywhere? Chris Day (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

It should be done! Basically, Green-Yellow-Red = High-free, Intermediate-free, Non-free. Blue (unsettled color) = Informational. Beige (unsettled color) = Constabulary. Thoughts? Stephen Ewen 02:12, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Other than I think it's a good idea? I would put this info in the category header for one. Chris Day (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Here we go: Category:All_media. ---Stephen Ewen 04:20, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Bill Tilden hitting a backhand

Hi, Stephen. I've been getting some help from Russell Potter about old photos from the Chicago Historical Society (which I had put into numerous Wikipedia articles -- and from which they have recently vanished) and I have now uploaded *one* of them, with, I hope, all the necessary info. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at this picture and see if I've done it correctly. If not, perhaps you could give me some tips to bring it into compliance. These Chic. Hist. Soc. pictures are what are turned up when one searches the Library of Congress, so according to *those* heavy hitters, it *is* permissible to use them.... I sure hope so! Thanks, Hayford Peirce 17:03, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm, I'm really baffled. I if paste into any of my browsers box, then click, it takes me perfectly to the Chic. His. Soc. page. Why not here?! Hayford Peirce 17:21, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
A quick p.s to Stephen and Hayford -- the trouble here is that this is a dynamic URL dependent on a temp file, so I think it might be better to simply link to the collection hompage and give the caption or negative number so that users can retrieve the original that way. Russell Potter 18:19, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, I wondered if that "temp" business might be the trouble. I'll wait to see what Stephen has to say about this, then, if the rest of the image citation is OK, I'll make your suggested change. Hayford Peirce 19:02, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

I-yi-yi! Since I seriously doubt the Chicago Daily News put in for the extra 20 year extension, I think this may be a Public Domain image. There are other things. 1) the museum clearly encourages fair use--what would a detailed rationale for that look like in this case? 2) it would not be difficult to use it by permission, except that it would cost $50 per year for CZ (utterly and blatantly usurious--same price they'd one-time charge PBS to put it in a documentary!). Input, please! ---Stephen Ewen 20:24, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Hi Stephen! Several points: 1) The Chicago Daily News went out of business in 1978, so they could not have renewed any coprights, either for the 28 years or the 20 year extension, after that point. This makes it very unlikely that there are any copyright issues with the 10 years or so at the tail end of the date range covered by the Library of Congress materials, and certainly no copyright for pre-1923 items. The current holder of the original photographic material encourages "fair use" with a credit line. Ergo, I would say, as long as we reproduce the credit line, and as long as CZ remains an unambiguously not-for-profit entity, I think our use of these images should pose no problems. Russell Potter 20:35, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I am comfortable with a PD claim. The image upload page needs to say what you just said about them going out of business. Also, here is a free image of Bill Tilden: which I added to the article. Stephen Ewen 20:37, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for all the great help that you two have offered -- it's really a pleasure working with you! I'll make an RTF file for myself incorporating all of this additional input so that the next Chic. His. pic I put in will be ready to go except for changing the number of the picture. And, by the way, thanks for the Tilden picture from the plaque -- it's interesting to speculate, perhaps, that a Wikipedia image Soup Nazi might remove it because the photograph within the photograph is *clearly* one of the photos I have seen a million times already and has been deleted across Wikipedia because the copyright wasn't clear! Hayford Peirce 23:39, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the kind comments, Hayford. By the way, the plaque photo would not be permitted at WP because it prohibits not only either derivatives or commercial use but both derivatives and commercial use. Honestly, they are right that the freer the better, but such is just not always available or practical. I am not a lawyer, but the plaque image seems to very nicely illustrate that latter point because it is in very high resolution. It is very appropriate to license the plaque image as no-derivatives-allowed because it contains a photo of uncertain copyright. If the uploader had not licensed it as no-derivatives-allowed, the whole release would be tenuous. Because he would then be implying that someone could cut out that photo of Bill and use it alone--that would be a derivative--something he clearly would not have the right to do. The plaque image is thus an example where a "fully free" license is not desirable, and probably not even permissible. Stephen Ewen 23:48, 20 May 2007 (CDT)
Hehe, we had a edit conflict here -- I was just putting in the below comment when you put in yours. I agree with you -- but all I know is that all this picture copyright business is just one *tremendous* can of worms that I don't even begin to understand. But if you think that the Tilden plaque is permissible, then tomorrow I will bring in the Kramer plaque for the article on Jack Kramer -- it too is a picture that I have had deleted from Wikipedia.... Thanks for the on-going encouragement! Hayford Peirce 00:02, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
Show me the image where it is located and let's start there. Stephen Ewen 00:03, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
Okay -- I'll have to track it down - it's one of those ubiquitous pix that one finds all the time if one Googles an Image for Jack Kramer -- it's probably a photo from around 1947 or so.... That is to say, the *original* picture. I meant above that there's a Jack Kramer plaque similar to the Tilden one, taken by the same fellow. If the Tilden plaque picture is OK, then the Kramer one ought to be OK also.... Hayford Peirce 00:11, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

We cannot assume that. The Bill plaque photo was taken by a private person who specifically released it under a Creative Commons license. Let's look at the photo and see. Meanwhile, google the word flickr and see what is available using advanced search, searching only within Creative Commons images. Stephen Ewen 00:16, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Bill Tilden tennis plaque

I don't think that this plaque is at the Newport Hall of Fame -- the date of induction, for instance, is wrong by 40 years or so. And I have looked at the other pictures that the gentleman who took this picture has on his Website -- it looks to me as if all of these are pictures he took at the place they play the current U.S. championships. You will note, if you look at these other plaques, that they only mention victories at the U.S. Championships, NOTHING about other career achievements.... Hayford Peirce 23:56, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Investigate it. The links are there where you can do that! Correct the info if it is wrong! ---Stephen Ewen 00:02, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
I *know* it's wrong. Tomorrow I'll make the necessary corrections. Hayford Peirce 00:06, 21 May 2007 (CDT)


Is it possible to simplify the use of that page by using a separate text box for each part of the information template? This would replace the current "Summary" box. I imagine the problem is getting each box to refer to a different part of the same template? Maybe we can think of a way around that. --Joe Quick (Talk) 01:38, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

I sure hope so! I have communicated that same basic ease-of-use idea for that page to Jason P. but have been told they must be on-hold until the next version of the MediaWiki software gets released. Drat! I'd really like to make that page an essential no-brainer, as far as possible, for even the first-time user! I'm certainly not sure all of how to do it though, so please keep offering ideas as they come. :-) Very nice addition to Category:All media, by the way. Stephen Ewen 02:55, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
It's not a no-brainer at the moment, even for an experienced Wiki uploader! What I finally did was copy all of the info form into a WordPad file and save it as an RTF file in the Citizendium folder on my harddrive. Then when I want to upload a picture I get the info about the picture, go to WordPad to open my RTF, then add the new info, then do a Copy and Paste into the Upload box. There's probably a simpler way but right now this seems to work reasonably well. Hayford Peirce 13:55, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Cc-by-nc categories

Didn't notice my mistake until after you started fixing them. :/ Thanks.

Not a mistake. Collaboration. :-) Stephen Ewen 16:19, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
Oh, that's what that means! :-) BTW, if something is licensed Cc-by-nc, does that mean I can make a derivative work, attribute the source and do whatever I want with it? That seems a little strange... --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:26, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

It sure does seem clear you can make derivatives.

A lot more than just the Cc-by-nc license seem a little strange to me.  :-D

Stephen Ewen 16:31, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Lacking both ShareAlike and NoDerivs seems to make the license kind of pointless, doesn't it?
I found the source of my "collaboration," BTW. I think you'll find the Cc license categories much fuller than they were a few minutes ago. --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:44, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
I think I even know which stand this is. I'll have a long list of photos to take the next time I make it back to Guatemala...

You know, every time I find a new photo to use, it ends up meaning twenty minutes of work on license templates and the related pages. At least it'll be easier for others in the future. And this one is definitely worth the work. Check it out. --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:58, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Wow, beautiful shot indeed. I am taking the same philosophy as you regards the making of the mechanics of all this area. I appreciate your help! ---Stephen Ewen 17:17, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Link to images *without* the picture showing up

Hi, Stephen. On my user page I wanted to start a list of images that I have uploaded and placed into articles, for instance the latest Bill_Johnston_and_Bill_Tilden picture. When I put brackets around it, plus the words "image" and "jpg", just the way the file is named, it worked all right -- but with the picture itself popping up into my user page. I've been playing around with various alternatives but can't come up with a live link directly to the picture that does *not* cause it to show on my user page. Is it possible to do this? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 23:18, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

No problem. Here is the code to do that [[:Image:Bill Tilden Hall of Fame.png]]. Note the only difference is you place : before the word image. Note also this is the way to make links to Categories, and one way to link to templates, without placing either the category or template on to the page. Stephen Ewen 00:12, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for this info! I'll give it a try and let you know how it works -- there are always so many neat things one has to learn, particularly when it comes to the images! Hayford Peirce 11:53, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Bill Tilden article

Thanks for the kind words! Most publishers like my *writing* -- it's just the *sales* they don't like! Give me a little time to do a little more research on Big Bill and try to work in some more stuff, as well as, hopefully, some objective appraisals. Off-hand, I would think that another 500 words, 1000 max, ought to be able to do the job -- what do you think? Hayford Peirce 11:53, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I think that, then we ought to maybe cut out a bit. Never good to even start that till everything is in first. Stephen Ewen 12:03, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Righto. I'll even do a hardcopy printout and do my final editing there, the way I used to for *real* writing. The trouble with the Wikipedia structure was/is that it's set up like a newspaper article: main info in first paragraph; family info in second, next most important item in 3rd parag, etc. etc. Finally, it just becomes a shopping list, particularly as editors with various hobby horses of their own begin to stick stuff in. Nothing wrong with new stuff, of course, but many times it's hard to integrate it into a smooth whole. As I look through the various tennis biographies I've imported, that is the major problem with all of them: they've become disjointed laundry lists. Give me some time, however, and I'll smooth them all out -- which, of course, is a lot more work than writing laundry lists! Hayford Peirce 12:17, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Fred Perry statue

And thanks for the cleaning up you did on the info there -- I wasn't certain at all how to put that info in. By the way, in the very small CZ gallery of GNU pictures, there are now *two* of me: the first one that I mistakenly uploaded, and that has a Kleenex box growing out of my head, and the second one, without the box, called HP2. I tried to delete the first one, but I assume that one has to be a Constable in order to do so. Could you take a look at this when you have a moment sometime? Thanks! Hayford Peirce 11:57, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

You just put {{speedydelete}} on the page in the form {{speedydelete|REASON|~~~}}. Stephen Ewen 12:23, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
Gotcha! Hayford Peirce 12:47, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Stephen Ewen, editor, Onslow Beach Workgroup

You'll be an expert soon. ;-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:11, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

ROFL. Tis' what happens when someone tells me an article cannot be improved. ---Stephen Ewen 00:20, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
BTW, look at the size of the editing window at Special:Upload now. ;-) Stephen Ewen 00:22, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Is that right? Well, all of the articles on the Citizendium cannot be improved.

Do you mean "side" of the editing box? I noticed that.--Joe Quick (Talk) 00:29, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Yikes! Guess I asked for that one. I did mean size. Stephen Ewen 00:32, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Hmm. Then I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. It still stretches of the side of my screen but doesn't seemed to have changed. --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:40, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Must be your screen size. At any rate, it has 3 times more hight. Stephen Ewen 00:41, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Ah, yes. I see. I copied the info template into it to see what it looked like. That's much easier to manage that way.
The width thing could be a result of my screen size but it only started to look that way after the license dropdown appeared. At first it seemed to be connected to one really long line in the dropdown menu but that line is gone now and the dropdown still seems to be causing problems. Dunno what's going on there, but it hasn't been a problem so I figured I could just live with it :-). --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:50, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
Oops, no, actually the really long lines are still there, but at the bottom where I didn't see them. If I could think of a shorter way to phrase them, I would tell it to you and ask you to change them, but nothing is coming to me. I imagine it isn't a problem for most people, and even with my screen size it doesn't actually cause any major problems, so I'm going to focus on developing all of these projects that I've started and maybe come back to that later. --Joe Quick (Talk) 01:01, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Maybe you could write a book called Return to Onslow Beach. :-) If you unlock Snake venom, I'll add the article checklist and the Big Cleanup will be done. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:24, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Unlocked. I just finished my thriller-fiction novel Snakes on Onslow Beach. Now I'm working on a 14 Volume history set for the place. (Just kidding) ;-) Stephen Ewen 14:28, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
lol I need the talk page unlocked too, please. --Joe Quick (Talk) 14:31, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Done. Keep forgeting unlock is not inherited. Stephen Ewen 14:33, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Chicken Chicken


See this page for inspiration. Written by Doug Zongker, at University of Washington. The finest piece of research published, ever.--Robert W King 13:35, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

ROFL. That is hilarious! I need to publish "Egg". Hmmm. This could give a whole new status to the Chicken vs. Egg debate. ---Stephen Ewen 13:40, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Stephen, don't forget the possible countless theories based on "Chicken Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet Eggsum." An entire new world of Academia. --Robert W King 13:48, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Alright, this brilliant paper has now made its rounds through two departments at the college I work at. Those of the sort to appreciate Monty Python have quite errupted. :-) Stephen Ewen 15:02, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

What hath God hatched???--Robert W King 15:11, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm confused, why this paper has only one word "chicken"? and what is it all about? Yi Zhe Wu 15:36, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
That, precisely, is the yolk. Nothing more to it than that.--Robert W King 15:39, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Looks like this piecing analysis is a PowerPoint presentation as well[5]. :D ---Stephen Ewen 15:55, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Time Magazine covers

Hi, I'm fairly sure I know the answer in advance, but I'd still like to make sure. I, and many other editors at Wikipedia, at one point put in magazine covers from Time and Newsweek to illustrate various articles. For the Jack Kramer tennis player, article, for instance, I had a cover from Time. By some miracle it appears to have been overlooked (up till now, at any rate) by the Soup Nazi image eradicators. Here is what the boilerplate under the image looks like:

Image:Jack Kramer Time Cover.jpg From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Image File history File links

No higher resolution available. Jack_Kramer_Time_Cover.jpg (390 × 520 pixel, file size: 37 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

[edit] Summary,16641,19470901,00.html

[edit] Licensing This image is of a magazine cover, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the publisher of the magazine or the individual contributors who worked on the cover depicted. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers

to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question, with the publication name either visible on the image itself or written in the image description above, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Note: It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image. Such usages will be removed.

File history


Since CZ is still working on its own fair use definition, I suppose that this cover couldn't be used here. Or could it be if there was additional *precise* info about the "fair use rationale" etc.? Just a faint hope on my part.... Thanks! Hayford Peirce 16:54, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

The use of the TIME Mag cover as currently used at the Jack Kramer article at WP is a perfect example of what is VERY SHAKY as Fair Use. For it to be fair use, you would have to be critically commenting on the cover, per se, not using it merely to illustrate the subject. You as the uploader could conceivably get into some trouble over the matter.
The most straightforward solution to use the image at CZ, of course, is to just get permission. Here is the exact email form at TIME for doing that. This is exactly the standard that any other publisher would hold to in this matter. I got the go ahead to open up fair use in some limited areas, but am working out details first. Stay tuned. But this cover would not be allowable either way. And a couple of us have a "Media Department" in the works to make all this as easy as making a simple request, but for now, you can either post a request for someone to do the legwork at the article talk page or just dive on in yourself. :-) Cheers, ---Stephen Ewen 18:27, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks for the comments and explanations. And thanks for the imput to Time to ask for permission: I'll do that right away, particularly since I used a bunch of other Time covers for various personalities. In the Wiki article I had an old (1938-ish) Newsweek cover for Bobby Riggs, and someone else put in a Sports Illustrated cover also. Have you got anything for those? I can see that I will have to copy all of these addresses to my User page for easy use in the future. Hayford Peirce 18:36, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I suggest the following for this section:

Print Run: Website
Expected publish date: Upon receipt of permission
Cost of publication: Free. Citizendium is a non-profit encyclopedia project without fundng to pay permission fees.

Also, this is a one-cover-per-request form.

Stephen Ewen 18:40, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

A big Danke for the above info! I was just about ready to start filling out the form! I'm copying all of your info to my User page. Thanks again, Hayford Peirce 19:00, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

I have just sent the request to Time Magazine, with a BCC to you. If you think that my email is the proper form to use, I would be happy to turn it into a template of some sort for your projected Media Department, which, of course, is a great idea. And if it *isn't* the proper form, I'm sure that we can edit it into something more suitable. Hayford Peirce 19:23, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Unintended removal of WP tag

In articles such as Arctic Ocean, Karl Popper and others the "from Wikipedia" tags were unintentionally (and mysteriously) removed. I just reinserted them. Is there any way to prevent his? Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 17:56, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Yi. To actually re-insert them, you have to also make a trivial edit, like add a space somewhere. Otherwise the edit does not show. How to prevent it from happening? I don't know. I think one way is to turn it on by default and make it so only Constables can remove the tag. Another is to create a bot that continually checks the diffs and flags problems. Stephen Ewen 18:10, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
P.S. Did you "get" the Chicken paper yet? :D Stephen Ewen 18:34, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Thanks Stephen. Actually I like the idea of keeping the tag and only constables can remove it. However, the tag should be only perpetual when it's actually imported from WP. For ones started from scratch the WP tag would be totally unneeded. And, sorry I did not get the chicken paper. Is it some esoteric way to express mathematical logic or some philosophical concept? Yi Zhe Wu 18:38, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
Still didn't get the chicken chicken, sorry, what is it? Yi Zhe Wu 09:04, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Looks like some sort of sick disgusting computer programmer humor to me. Don't let it foul your mind up Yi. :D --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:10, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
In some countries, they would sentence you to death for all this cluckery.--Robert W King 15:09, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Eggzactly! ---Stephen Ewen 16:08, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

what is fair use

US federal law has four criteria for fair use. They do NOT include anything whatever like this statement: For it to be fair use, you would have to be critically commenting on the cover, per se, not using it merely to illustrate the subject. This comes I think from the confused folks over at Wikipedia talk pages. In general, ANY use that meets the 4 criteria are allowed, and no permission is needed. See [6] for the 4 criteria. Richard Jensen 21:45, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Read the very Chicago MOS you referred me to. Pretty good guidelines. Stephen Ewen 22:04, 24 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm on the road and don't have a copy of Chicago. Just what does it say about magazine covers? Richard Jensen 22:27, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Northwest Passage

Hi Stephen,

Looks as though Northwest Passage is ready for Approval -- would you do the honors? Many thanks, Russell Potter 16:54, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

p.s. just discovered that two users had made very minor copyedits, one just a few minutes ago. I agree with all these and feel they are very minor; I altered the second edit slightly by switch from in-word brackets, e.g. [[North Amerca]]n, to piping [[North America|North American]], as I think this is more in line with our style. I don't think any of these edits need further review, but use your judgment, or check with Nancy or with Richard if you see any issues. I hope that, as per last practice, the Approved version can incorporate these slight but valuable improvements. Many thanks! Russell Potter 18:55, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Working on it right now. Stephen Ewen 19:12, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Done! Congrats! Stephen Ewen 19:36, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
I just now tried to make some minor changes but could not--does approval means I'm locked out or everyone is or what? Richard Jensen 21:04, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes. You now have to make changes to the draft. Often there is a short span between Approved Version 1.0 and 1.1 as people see the article in a new way once approved and correct minor things. Stephen Ewen 21:07, 25 May 2007 (CDT)
That makes excellent sense. thanks. Richard Jensen 21:13, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Image of Ray Casey

Hi, Stephen. Could you take a look at Ray Casey and see what you think. I remember that when I wrote this article for Wikipedia and put in the picture almost 3 years ago I spent a long time trying to read up on the British copyright system. I also ran my findings past at least two Wiki administrators who seemed to think that my use of the image was permitted. In any case, it hasn't yet been deleted from Wiki and it's sure been there a long time by their standards. If you don't think it's permitted, however, please delete it instantly and I apologize in advance for bothering you with it. Hayford Peirce 21:25, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

That one is going to be a tough nut to crack without having the exact edition the comic appeared in. Let me seek permission for this one. I deleted it in the meantime. It can be un-deleted later. Stephen Ewen 23:45, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, we know that Wimbledon is played in June. And the paper says it's the Tuesday issue. Meaning the match was probably played on Monday, the day before, the day that Wimbledon starts. Since Casey lost in the second or third round of the singles, it ought to be able to find out a tournament draw for that year, or at least some info about when the tournament itself started. I'll start looking for that info tomorrow and will pass it along if I can find it. Hayford Peirce 23:51, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
That wasn't too hard! I found a NYT article of June 22, 1925, saying that Ray Casey was going to have a first round match against someone from Holland named C. Bryan. The cartoon says that Casey beat a gentleman from Holland. And the top of the paper says "Tuesday". I found an Internet calendar for 1925 and it says that the 23rd of June was a Tuesday. So I think we can say fairly conclusively that this is The Daily Mail for Tuesday, June 23, 1925.... Hayford Peirce 00:12, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
Awesome! Thanks! ---Stephen Ewen 01:11, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

WP-style cats?

Is stuff like this, Category:United States Law permitted on CZ? I thought CZ has denounced the Wikipedia style categories. Yi Zhe Wu 12:26, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Yi. I am not sure whether they have been rejected, but they have been rejected for now. :-) Stephen Ewen 12:44, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Ann Coulter image

Yeah, that has been on my list for a long time. I'm not sure what sort of permission is valid for this purpose, though. What should I ask for? Louis F. Sander 15:59, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Re [7]

Many of the photographs I have uploaded are used in articles; for example, see Military and Organism. Other images I am uploading will be usable in articles when the relevant articles are created or identified. For instance, although the Citizendium currently doesn't have an article concerning Autumn in which to place Image:Fall.jpg, it is reasonable to assume that we will have an article concerning such a significant subject. David Ellis 19:34, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

The same could be said for thousands and thousands of images, that does not mean we upload them now. And four images is hardly "many" out the more than three dozen orphaned images in your gallery. Please upload images only to place them into articles straightway. Stephen Ewen 19:48, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

I would note that your request is contrary to Larry Sanger's advice here, as well as finding no apparent support in Citizendium policy, and being contrary to common practice on the Citizendium -- see, for example, User:Robert Tito/gallery, User:Robert Tito/gallery 2, and CZ:Image Bank - The Gallery of Domestic Animals. Of course, if you disagree with Larry Sanger's statement "Now, don't get me wrong, you're free to upload as many pix as you like here (esp. if they're like these)" [8], you may discuss the matter with him. David Ellis 20:12, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Furthermore, your implication that only four of the images I have uploaded are used in articles [9] is factually incorrect. In addition to Military and Organism, photographs that I have uploaded are also used in Grass, Welding, Astronomy, Army, and Stem cell. Image:Lightning over Oradea Romania 2.jpg was, until recently, used in lightning, and should probably be restored. David Ellis 21:11, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

The issues of orphaned images is being discussed on the constabulary list. Stephen Ewen 21:45, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

McBragg, Lincoln

Hi Stephen -- thanks very much for the template reminder for McBragg -- and is it really true that we might get permission to use some images? What could be next -- Tennessee Tuxedo and Chumley!

About the Lincoln image -- I did in fact add it to the main Abraham Lincoln page with the suggested credit line (substituting the correct negative number). But Richard Jensen removed the credit line; he fervently believes that a credit line which implies that we might have sought permission for this image would weaken CZ's position, because he "knows" it's public domain. Of course I'm certain he's completely wrong! But since, in History, he's the Editor and I'm the author, I didn't want to make a row about it. I believe you may see some discussion of this on the Talk page for the Lincoln entry, as well as a smaller thumbnail of the image which does have the complete caption. Russell Potter 06:35, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

CZ uses the standard well-established rule that pre-1923 images are all PD. The notion that you can put an old image in a machine like a copies or scanner and come out owning a copyright on it has been rejected by the Supreme Court, and is NOT asserted in this case. Richard Jensen 09:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually, that was US District Court (BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. v. COREL CORP., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)), and since a claim of this sort has not yet reached the Supreme Court, the law is not settled on the issue nationwide. My sense is that all the "courtesy of" statement does is in this case is acknowledge the source, not reflect permission sought or granted. Russell Potter 11:04, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
the law is clear enough for CZ. There are NO court rulings adverse to our policies. If someday there is one we can change then. Meanwhile our job is to follow the spirit of the Constitution and promote learning. Richard Jensen 11:42, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Until such time as one of us visits the museum and digitizes our own image of the photo, it needs to be credited as the museum says or it will be deleted. Simple as that. Stephen Ewen 12:01, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

We'll comprimise and make it a footnoted ref. Certainly you would want people to be able to know the source of that image and to find it if they wish, right? I made the change in the article. Stephen Ewen 13:42, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Also, there is nothing that diminishes learning by crediting a photo as the colections holder wishes. In fact, it increases it. ---Stephen Ewen 13:44, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
OK Richard Jensen 15:30, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I've been thinking about this credit-giving thing. It seems a little weird to be giving credit in the caption where we have asked permission but not giving any credit in the caption where we get the image under a CC license from Flickr, for example. The photographer who releases a photo under a CC license deserves no less acknowledgment than someone who doesn't want to give up any rights on their work.

I feel like we need to standardize our practice in one direction or another. Either we always credit the author/owner in the caption or we never do. Since permission will often require us to give credit in the caption, then I think the decision is already made for us. This should also help to address Mr. Jensen's concerns -- if we list a source for every image (including ones for which we clearly didn't ask permission), then a credit line doesn't imply anything. --Joe Quick (Talk) 15:54, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

I've been thinking the very same thing. Feel free to draft the change on the relevant talk pages, Joe, and we can add it in. ---Stephen Ewen 15:56, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
But would that be awkward for our self-made images? Also, with the CC and GFDL and so forth images, there is not usually a stated requirement that they be attributed, unlike with copyrighted photos. --Stephen Ewen 16:10, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
It definitely has the potential to be a little awkward for self-made images, but I think we can address this by listing a name but not linking it to a user page -- CZ users are no different than anyone else in this case. As far as there being no requirement about attributing work under some licenses, this doesn't mean that the authors don't still deserve as much credit as the authors of copyrighted works, and it doesn't mean that it can't become CZ policy (or at least encouraged by CZ) to credit owners/authors anyway. --Joe Quick (Talk) 16:27, 30 May 2007 (CDT)