Citizendium Forums
November 24, 2009, 10:04:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: POSTING RULES FOR MAIN CZ BOARDS: (1) The CZ Forums are Citizens-only (a "Citizen" is a Citizendium member). Non-Citizens may use only the "Non-member discussion" and "General help" boards, but still must register before posting (it's easy!). Non-Citizen posts elsewhere will be summarily deleted. (2) All must now use their own real names. To edit your displayed name, click on Profile > Account Related Settings. (3) Citizens must now link to their CZ user pages. To edit your signature, click on Profile > Forum Profile Information.
Click here to return to the wiki
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
  Print  
Author Topic: Copyright issues on CZ: need for rapid action  (Read 23980 times)
Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #105 on: September 20, 2007, 09:47:16 AM »

Nothing authoritarian about it at all, and there really should be no more room for interpretation when crediting a photo than when crediting a piece of text within a basic style.  You either do it or you don't.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2007, 10:01:12 AM by Stephen Ewen » Logged
RJensen
Forum Communicator
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #106 on: September 20, 2007, 11:48:44 AM »

Let's not use authoritarian language when making requests of authors.  And yes, as any experienced historian will confirm, there are often multiple possible attributions. This is famous in the case of art history, where disputes rage whether a painting was by X, or by "school of X" or perhaps by a modern forger.  Art works are MUCH more carefully studied than old photographs (because genuine ones are worth millions). It often happens that numerous books reproduce the same historic photograph, for example, allowing for multiple attributions.
Logged

Robert_W_King
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 607


WWW
« Reply #107 on: September 20, 2007, 08:18:26 PM »

Let's not use authoritarian language when making requests of authors.  And yes, as any experienced historian will confirm, there are often multiple possible attributions. This is famous in the case of art history, where disputes rage whether a painting was by X, or by "school of X" or perhaps by a modern forger.  Art works are MUCH more carefully studied than old photographs (because genuine ones are worth millions). It often happens that numerous books reproduce the same historic photograph, for example, allowing for multiple attributions.

I fail to see what this has to do with the point.  I think Stephen is suggesting that we follow the practice for all images in order to squelch any problems that already exist in systems that don't provide attribution.  I for one think that should be de facto policy anyway.
Logged

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Robert_W_King

All current posts beyond May 8th are typed in short form (mistakes) or with my good hand (sans mistakes).
RJensen
Forum Communicator
***
Posts: 191


« Reply #108 on: September 21, 2007, 04:37:33 AM »

the point is that if each author has to decide on attribution details then the same image will have different attributions in different articles.
Logged

Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #109 on: September 21, 2007, 11:30:51 AM »

Good thing it's a wiki.   Wink
Logged
Stephen Ewen
Guest
« Reply #110 on: September 22, 2007, 03:01:56 AM »

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Image:Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals_photographic_portrait.jpg

Library science meets the power of a wiki!   Cool 

I am particularly happy that the template on the page automatically generates the code required to place the uploaded image into articles.  Contained within that code is a standardized credit line, meaning the same image will be credited the same way across all articles.

The code was used to place the image at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals
Logged
Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 1068


WWW
« Reply #111 on: September 22, 2007, 04:30:36 AM »

Fine, except that the statement in the image box "The provenance of this media..." is grammatically wrong. Media is a plural noun, with a singular of medium, which cannot be used here...
Logged

luke brandt
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 41


« Reply #112 on: September 22, 2007, 07:31:27 AM »

Fine, except that the statement in the image box "The provenance of this media..." is grammatically wrong. Media is a plural noun, with a singular of medium, which cannot be used here...

See the usage notes on Dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media

suggest perhaps communication medium..?? Suggestions...
Logged

Martin Baldwin-Edwards
Forum Regular
****
Posts: 1068


WWW
« Reply #113 on: September 22, 2007, 08:57:30 AM »

"image or other medium" should be ok
Logged

luke brandt
Forum Participant
**
Posts: 41


« Reply #114 on: September 22, 2007, 10:10:25 AM »

It's clear from the copyright tag location that it's referring to the van der Waals portrait. So why not just say provenance uncertain?

If there is a need to tie in the copyright info with the media in question, then couldn't you provide an option to link, and refer, to it within the tag itself. Also could be useful for statistics gathering?
« Last Edit: September 22, 2007, 10:52:45 AM by luke brandt » Logged

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!