Public Domain... but not?

[Caesar Schinas]

Is it possible for an image to be in the public domain and yet still have restrictions imposed on its usage?
Surely not - public domain means that nobody owns it and it is not copyrighted, so how does anyone have a right to enforce restrictions on its usage?

And yet we have several templates for exactly this purpose - eg PD-butclaim, PD-butrequest.

An example of someone trying to impose restrictions on public domain works is NOAA, which I believe is part of the US Government, which would bean that all of its works are in the public domain.
And in fact, is says that there is and can be no copyright on its images, and then states that it requires attribution. How can this be?

Someone please explain... 

[Hayford Peirce]

Steven Ewen was/is the image guru but he has been very absent for a long while now.    He still drops in occasionally, however, so you might try contacting him.

[Milton Beychok]

Caesar:

It happens quite often that federal government agency websites have photos and/or drawings that they did not create and for which they had to obtain permission from the copyright holders. Therefore, I think (but am not sure) that such photos/ diagrams are not necessarily public domain. Again I think (but I am nor sure) that the photo or diagram must have been actually created by the federal government agency for the photo or diagram to be truly public domain.

As I recall, the pertinent CZ license is stated to be "a work" of the federal agency. Hence, photos/images they obtained elsewhere could be construed as not public domain ... in my non-lawyer way of thinking.

[Hayford Peirce]

What Milton says above certainly makes sense, and I feel pretty certain that a couple of years ago, when a *lot* of discussion was focusing on images and rights, his same arguments were presented. There might, in fact, be an 1850 picture of Abraham Lincoln that is *obviously* public domain in one sense, but not *quite* public domain in another in that the *source* of the Web-found image was some society or something. Take a look at the Abe article and its Talk page -- I *think* there is a lot of discussion there (or on subpages) about at least one of the pictures. That might help answer some of your questions.

[Caesar Schinas]

Yes, I can see that just because the image appears on a US Gov website doesn't mean it's a work of the US Gov, but then it's not public domain either so PD-butclaim etc wouldn't be applicable.
And to quote from the NOAA website :

Most NOAA photos and slides are in the public domain and CANNOT be copyrighted.
Although at present, no fee is charged for using the photos credit MUST be given to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department of Commerce

So they're certainly instructing you to credit PD images, which strikes me as odd.

[Hayford Peirce]

So they're certainly instructing you to credit PD images, which strikes me as odd.

Not really, artists, even commercial ones and amateur ones and totally untalented ones, like their due. For instance, for a long time, when I uploaded photos I had taken myself into WP and CZ, pix of food preparation, say, or of a javelina in my front yard, I would release them for unlimited use BUT with the caveat that I had to be credited as being the photographer. I think many people would agree with my feelings about that.

For a *LOT* more about this, and the exact reasoning behind it, see this very recent exchange between Caesar and our resident PD guru, Stephen Ewen (all blessings upon his head and may he return and be active again!), at this CZ talk page:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephen_Ewen#PD..._but_not.3F

[Caesar Schinas]

So they're certainly instructing you to credit PD images, which strikes me as odd.

Not really, artists, even commercial ones and amateur ones and totally untalented ones, like their due. For instance, for a long time, when I uploaded photos I had taken myself into WP and CZ, pix of food preparation, say, or of a javelina in my front yard, I would release them for unlimited use BUT with the caveat that I had to be credited as being the photographer. I think many people would agree with my feelings about that.

You can release you own images under whatever terms you like, but then they're not public domain. That's fine.
But NOAA (for example) state that their pictures are public domain, but require attribution.
I don't think this has any legal standing, but Stephen has now explained why we have notices to take account of it, and it makes perfect sense.

For a *LOT* more about this, and the exact reasoning behind it, see this very recent exchange between Caesar and our resident PD guru, Stephen Ewen (all blessings upon his head and may he return and be active again!), at this CZ talk page:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephen_Ewen#PD..._but_not.3F

Now, what's the point in sending me to my own conversation...? 

[Hayford Peirce]

Sending *OTHER* people who might wander in here to follow this thread....