User talk:Biem
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
government work argument?[edit]
Hi, on what basis did you mark File:Radon and Cancer by Cohen.GIF as a government work? 151.200.10.248 23:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hellow. That is because its author Myron Pollycove is in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (governemental structure), and the text is published through EHP, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (governemental structure). But actually, this is probably irrelevant, since this picture itself should have been PD-ineligible in the first place : it is just a data plot, the only part that could qualify for authorship is the comment that I pasted as description. I'll add that. Biem (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see, i thought it was from the reference you gave when you included it on pages. However, I disagree with both claims. (1) the work is clearly referenced to be from another source, it is therefor not USG work. (2) The idea that all plots are not copyrightable is just silly. This would suggest that almost all of the output of Edward Tufte ws not intellectual property. 129.2.175.70 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- (1) You are probably right. Now, I've seen the same picture also published on a USG site (but I don't remember which one). (2) You are probably too hasty in your opinion. To be the object of any author's right, a work must demonstrate (at least some) artistic creativity, that's the rule. A statistical vanilla-flavored plot like that one definitely embeds no creativity. The works of Edward Tufte, at least the idea I can get through google, is based on graphical plots "plus something else" and definitely demonstrates artistic creativity. And "just any kind of plot" will have to be asserted on a case-by-case basis, the very idea of generalisation would indeed be silly (I agree with that). Biem (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see, i thought it was from the reference you gave when you included it on pages. However, I disagree with both claims. (1) the work is clearly referenced to be from another source, it is therefor not USG work. (2) The idea that all plots are not copyrightable is just silly. This would suggest that almost all of the output of Edward Tufte ws not intellectual property. 129.2.175.70 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Several files with copyright issues[edit]
FYI, I've used the Toolbox's semi-automatic "Nominate for deletion" system to flag several files that appear to have copyright issues. -- Limulus (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the notice, I've answered the nominations, and I'll keep them in my watchlist. (supressing the file list) Biem (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like decisions have been made; all but two were kept. Sorry for the trouble on those. -- Limulus (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)