File talk:Bono honolulu.jpg
Copyright tag[edit]
Tina Vanbeveren's permission is not sufficient, alone, to allow us to use the image on Wikipedia. We need her to release all rights of the image and to release it into the public domain or keep the copyright in her name and allow the image to be used for any purpose.
What needs to be done.
- Author needs to be contacted.
- She needs to:
- Release the image into the public domain or
- Keep the copyright and allow the image to be used for any purpose.
- After such information is released, we need to switch the tag to {{PD-author|Tina Vanbeveren}} or {{Copyrighted free use}} dependent upon which she picks.
Chupper 13:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've e-mailed the author and I'm waiting for a response. Chupper 13:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The author is willing to allow Wikipedia to use this image, but because this image is being used in other projects they cannot allow anyone to use it for any purpose (release all rights). Therefore this image cannot be used on Wikipedia and will be deleted. Chupper 15:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- The author has contacted me again allowing the work to be used for any purpose. I've changed the licensing information on the image page to reflect this. Chupper 15:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is nice, but what is meant by "recreated"?? Lupo 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to change the wording, but basically if the image is put up on another website, or printed for commercial use, etc... Chupper 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, so this is a non-commercial Wikipedia-only release? In that case, the permission is not good enough. This image is not "free", and thus must go, unless you'd like to try making a fair use claim. Lupo 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean now, the conditional license, "It is also requested that Tina Vanbeveren is contacted before this photograph is recreated." If that was in the licensing terms for the photograph, it is indeed not free.
Incidentally, can we please stop removing the {{PUIdisputed}} tag? It is still disputed...--Iamunknown 18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)- I'm sorry, I see it was an OTRS-er that removed it, I feel stupid --Iamunknown 18:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Lupo - notice my wording - it is "requested", but not necessary that they be contacted prior to reproduction. This is not a "non=commercial Wikipedia-only release". The author has released all rights. Again, this is just a request, not a necessity. Chupper 03:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see what you mean now, the conditional license, "It is also requested that Tina Vanbeveren is contacted before this photograph is recreated." If that was in the licensing terms for the photograph, it is indeed not free.
- Ah, so this is a non-commercial Wikipedia-only release? In that case, the permission is not good enough. This image is not "free", and thus must go, unless you'd like to try making a fair use claim. Lupo 18:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to change the wording, but basically if the image is put up on another website, or printed for commercial use, etc... Chupper 17:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is nice, but what is meant by "recreated"?? Lupo 15:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- All right, then let's make that clear. I'm going to change the license description. Lupo 06:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I like the wording that you and Iamunknown have come up with. I wouldn't be a good lawyer ;). Thanks for your help guys, Chupper 12:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
