User talk:Jess Key

Jess Key

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2

Chris, just finished a help article on how to archive user talk page

Please look at User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox where I have just finished a help page on how to archive subpages. I plan to upload it as CZ:Archiving user talk pages and you can then fit it into your new Help structure. I know that CZ:Talk Pages has a section devoted to the same subject ... but my stand-alone article is much more detailed and covers more aspects of the subject. I tried to write it so that newcomers could follow it step-by-step.

I would appreciate any comments or revisions you may want before I upload it. Thanks. Milton Beychok 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Milt, that looks great. I cannot think of any improvements.

It may be easier to move the page straight into the help system then going via a CZ page. If you could move it to Help:Index/Communication/Talk/Archiving that will put it straight in place. Also please add {{Help page|Talk Pages}} to the top of the page, and {{Back to help}} at the end of the page. Thanks for your help! --Chris Key 10:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. The Help:Index/Communication/Talk/Archiving is now in the Namespace (or should I say the Helpspace?). By the way, Hayford also reviewed it and had no changes to make. Milton Beychok 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo Attribution

This morning, after feeling so much better, I realized why I was doing this. Any work done for hire and any work paid for by the US Government, or by an employee of the US Government, is considered work for hire or public domain. See: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.pdf Attribution automatically goes to the agency that paid for the work and since we all paid for the federal government photo it's considered public domain. That means the Mack article and the Osprey article were correctly attributed by me. It would be best to change the current attributions to the Harvard Press Office and US Government for those photos as they are now incorrect. It is nice to credit the photographer, if known, but the correct and presumably legal attribution goes to the agencies involved. I fulfilled my ethical and professional responsibility by notifying Citizendium of their error. Mary Ash 15:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Mary, if you will look closely at the photo of Mack that you uploaded, the photo itself has attribution to Harvard Press at the bottom (in very small print). As for the the V-22 Osprey photo you uploaded, the current credit line (which I added as required by CZ) has both the U.S. Navy (which is the government agency) and their photographer's name (who took the photo). So all is well. Thanks for your comment and concern. Milton Beychok 17:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." (ref: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105).

Therefore photos taken by non-government photographers but then given to the government ARE in fact copyrighted and are not public domain. Also, it is very possible that the copyright would be retained by the original photographer but the image licenced for use by the government. Therefore, unless we know for a FACT the exact copyright status of the image, it is best to attribute both the government agency and the photographer. --Chris Key 18:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also...

106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art —

(1) shall have the right —

(A) to claim authorship of that work [...]

(e) Transfer and Waiver. — (1) The rights conferred by subsection (a) may not be transferred, but those rights may be waived if the author expressly agrees to such waiver in a written instrument signed by the author. Such instrument shall specifically identify the work, and uses of that work, to which the waiver applies, and the waiver shall apply only to the work and uses so identified.

Therefore even if the original author of the work did give the copyright to the government, they still have a legal right to be attributed to the image. Even if they sign a waiver the waiver only applies to certain usages, and therefore would not apply to our usage on CZ. --Chris Key 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And I agree. The file history should reflect ownership is the US Government with credit given to the photographer. As written now the photographer is cited as the owner of the photo not the US Government which is incorrect. Mary Ash 18:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AOsprey.png&diff=100693841&oldid=100693698

Wrong. The photographer is cited as the AUTHOR of the photo, which is correct. The creditline (here) states that the copyright is held by both the photographer and the United States Navy. Unless we have proof that the copyright has been fully transferred, we must assume this is correct. --Chris Key 18:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Or here: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image%3AMack_harvardpressoffice.jpg&diff=100697324&oldid=100697131 ...said Mary Ash (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Also I have changed it from 'public domain' to 'copyrighted'. Unless we have proof that the photo has been released to the public domain we must assume that it has not. --Chris Key 18:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

{unindent} If you read the PDF copyright file I sent it says any work done for the federal government is considered public domain. The author/photographer was taking photos for the US government therefore is considered a federal employee making the photo public domain attributed to the US government. The way I attributed it originally is correct. Mary Ash 18:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I did read it. If YOU read what I put above it says that "the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." Therefore the work MAY be copyrighted if it was not created by a government employee. Unless you can prove that it has been released to the public domain, we must assume it is copyrighted. --Chris Key 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the John E. Mack photo, if you look at your original upload you can see that you have put a URL as both the author and the copyright holder. There is no way that a URL took the photo or holds the copyright. As the photographer is unknown, we have now put this. We can assume that the copyright is held by the Harvard University Press Office. Therefore with the corrections now made this is correct. --Chris Key 18:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add if it says U.S. Navy photo you can betcha it's owned by the federal government. I do believe that's what the original photo upload cited. I'll read the rest of your comments later but I wanted to make sure CZ was informed of the correct attribution. What made me think of this is that I was thinking about my work at our local newspaper. Yes, I was given a byline for every article written, but the paper owned copyright as it was done as "work for hire". Mary Ash 18:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if it is owned by the US government this does NOT mean that it is public domain. The copyright could have been transferred from the original photographer to the US government. Consider this, all of the other photos on that page do not say "US Navy photo by Joe Bloggs". This would suggest that this is a special case, and the author has to be attributed. "you can betcha" is not proof, and in order to claim public domain we need proof. --Chris Key 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Anyway, like you I am no expert on copyright. If you wish to further dispute the copyright attribution of that (or any other image) please do so on the talk page of that image. If you wish to draw this to the attention of certain Citizens you are welcome to point them in the direction of that talk page, however it is not very helpful to have these discussions on user pages. This is especially the case when you try to hold the same discussion on three separate user pages as it creates a fragmented discussion. Creating a central point for discussion (the image talk page) and asking other users to read it is enough. Those who wish to follow the discussion can then follow it on their watchlist - there is no need to copy/paste sections of the discussion onto users talk pages. --Chris Key 18:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to email you privately but I can't find a "mail" logo to click on. I am not an attorney, therefore I can not offer you legal advice, but I do suggest you contact your site counsel for legal advice. I notified you of the potential inaccurate photo attributions as you are a listed admin. For your information, and to the best of my knowledge, if a photo says this:

Caption: Marine Corps Special Operations troops fast rope to a rooftop at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in May 2006, from a Block B MV-22B Osprey operated by Tiltrotor Test and Evaluation Squadron 22 (VMX-22). US Navy photo by James Darcy.

Date of Photo: 06 Aug 2010 Filename: 5-24-06 2nd fast rope 1 sm.jpg

http://www.navair.navy.mil/v22/index.cfm?fuseaction=gallery.viewPhoto&id=139

It means the US Navy i.e. the US Federal government owns copyright. You can contact the NAVAIR public affairs office to confirm photo status or you can consult with your attorney. As I wrote before, I thought of this situation this morning and contacted an admin. Mary Ash 19:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to email a user you can click 'E-mail this user' at the end of the left side bar whilst visiting their talk page.

I think it is very important that I clarify something. I am not an administrator on Citizendium. You may have seen the word 'Administrator' under my name on the forum, this is because I have administrative permissions on the forums in order to perform certain technical functions.

If you wish to contact an official on the site, I would suggest either contacting Larry Sanger who is the Editor-in-Chief (sanger@citizendium.org), unless the matter refers to an issue with the behaviour of a Citizen. In the latter case you should contact the Constabulary (constables@citizendium.org). For a legal or copyright issue such as this the Editor-in-Chief is the correct person to email. --Chris Key 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)