Talk:Archive:Media Credit Lines within Articles
[[Image:U2 Live in Toronto 2005 (3).jpg|right|thumb|360px| {|align="right" | <div style="position:relative; top: -1px"><font style="color: rgb(65, 65, 65);"><small>Photo: Metropolitan Art Museum</small></font><BR> |} This is how credit lines appear. Note how the text is gray. This is how credit lines appear. Note how the text is gray. This is how credit lines appear. Note how the text is gray. This is how credit lines appear. Note how the text is gray. This is how credit lines appear. Note how the text is gray.</div>]]
Orphans—when provenance cannot be ascertained
Looks very bad. What are we, Wikipedia? If we aren't willing to take a stand on the licensing status of media, we shouldn't use it, period. --Larry Sanger 08:23, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
"When obtained from sources that might lower the prestigiousness of CZ" -- what's an example? --Larry Sanger 08:26, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
- Tabloids? --Robert W King 08:30, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
- But they're not public domain. --Larry Sanger 08:35, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
- Oh, PD? In that case I really can't think of any that might fit the bill, unless there's some obscure 19th-century "romance novel"... --Robert W King 08:38, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
- But they're not public domain. --Larry Sanger 08:35, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
Orphans and embarrassing source
- Orphans
Orphan works is not some contrived category of mine. It is the category assigned by the professional world of archivists and so forth to describe media whose provenance cannot be ascertained. Here's some info from:
Two examples of orphaned works are to the right. Orphaned works are the perfect case where a fair use claim is very strong, after one shows and documents reasonable diligence in locating the copyright holder. Every authority is unanimous on that. I have thus gone to efforts to create two cases of this on CZ, for illustrative purposes (see examples to the right). Without occasional use of such works, the value of the encyclopedia would be sadly and needlessly diminished. When we find works to be orphaned, a determination that can only be made after seeking permission with considerable diligence, we call the works what they are.
Calling media "orphaned" when it is is the professional thing to do. What WP often does with orphaned works is leap to shallow conclusions on the matter. For example, they host a version of the same photo of Johannes Diderik van der Waals that we do. Because they obtained the image from a U.S. museum who holds a copy of it that was donated by a fellow, they assume the photo originated from the U.S. and leap to call it "public domain". That is clearly erroneous. The fact is, we don't know its provenance on any good authority. Neither does the Nobel Foundation. Neither does the Univ of Amsterdam. Neither does anyone else I can find. So we have an orphan.
- "When obtained from sources that might lower the prestigiousness of CZ"
This is a clause meant to appease certain parties about Google Books, and the like.
Stephen Ewen 13:45, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
- We could simply default to calling orphans copyrighted, however. It may not be accurate in all instances, but it is fine for a default. Stephen Ewen 20:36, 20 October 2007 (CDT)