File talk:Nobel medal.png

Tag

[Added a first heading later so that contents will post correctly. --NYScholar 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)]

I have tagged this photo as {{PD-US}} with regards to the copyright status underlying work of the medal engraving. According to The Nobel Foundation, the medal was first minted in 1902 and its design has not changed since then. [1] Accordingly, the design is in the public domain in the US by way of being published prior to 1923 (or, if you prefer, by being published in Sweden prior to 1909) - see Wikipedia:Public domain for details. KWH 05:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

That's true only if you consider it being minted as having been "published." Is there any reason to assume that sculpture is considered "published"? If it is "unpublished" then it is not PD at all. I don't know enough about this area of copyright law to say. --Fastfission 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S: This at first seemed a picayune and simple question, but after much research I find the situation is unclear again.

I assume you are wondering if all sculptures fall into the unpublished category, and thus life of author plus 70 years protection. (P.S.: Actually the Foundation commissioned the medal from Lindberg, therefore it's a work for hire and, if deemed unpublished, becomes free in 2022) As I noted in one of the other discussions, the medal is like any mass-produced toy or piece of jewelry, only there are not so many, they are given rather than sold, and they are much more important. I cannot find anything which speaks directly to whether a sculpture is ever published. According to the Stanford © and Fair Use Center, "A work is considered published when the author makes it available to the public on an unrestricted basis. This means that it is possible to distribute or display a work without publishing it if there are significant restrictions placed on what can be done with the work and when it can be shown to others." [2]

I also have read of the difference between a general publication and a limited publication, which leads us to Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.. This decision seems a bit controversial but has not been overturned. Notably, King's "I have a dream" speech is considered a limited publication because it was given only to a finite number of news reporters. One could argue that the Prize is similarly limited, or not.

General publication occurs if tangible copies of the work are distributed to the general public in such a manner as allows the public to exercise dominion and control over the work.

My opinion: the Prize is awarded to a finite number of people, but any living person is eligible. Although it is not easy to get one, one might analogize that to a book which costs $1 billion - hard to get but still made available to the whole public.

General publication may occur if the work is exhibited or displayed in such a manner as to permit unrestricted copying by the general public.

Does it count if the prize winner wears the medal in a place where they may be photographed by the public? (P.S: below case indicates that it doesn't count.)

Here's an interesting one, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 9th Circuit, 1991. (for some reason this link is not working, I got the text of the decision through archive.org) With regards to a 'knockoff' of the Oscar, the court applied a two-part test from a prior decision to determine limited publication - "when tangible copies of the work are distributed both 1) to a "definitely selected group," and (2) for a limited purpose, without the right of further reproduction, distribution or sale." IMHO, the court did some logical backflips to maintain precedent; even though "no express restrictions on recipients' use or distribution of the Oscar existed before 1941, we conclude that restrictions on further distribution were implied."

So is there an implicit restriction on redistribution of the Nobel Prize? I did find, for instance, that Sir William Ramsay had his prize melted down and proceeds given to charity. [3] However, he had a replica made. A replica of 1993 Chemistry recipient Michael Smith's medal is at the University of British Columbia. [4] Also, apparently one for Chen Ning Yang, although it's not clear if the article refers to the Nobel medal or another honor received. [5] I have also found evidence that more recent recipients are given the medal as well as several replicas for displays at their affiliated institutes, so it is possible that these replicas are all authorized by the Foundation - whether their redistribution is restricted is unknown.

Are we having fun yet?

According to the Foundation's page, the medals of Niels Bohr and August Krogh were lost during World War II, donated to an auction, bought, and donated again to a museum, where they are today. [6] Several other medals were donated during World War II to help with war efforts, e.g. Selma Lagerlöf. One could make the argument that this showed that the medal itself was considered to have a commercial value in trade. Knut Hamsun donated his medal to Joseph Goebbels. If that doesn't show that there's no restrictions on redistribution, what does?

The back of the Chemistry medal is depicted on a New Zealand $100 note in honor of Ernest Rutherford - did this require permission? [7] The medal itself was donated to Canterbury University College by his widow. [8]

I have to admit after all that, the situation is still unclear. Perhaps even more shockingly, if the medal is unpublished, then according to Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy point 4, we can't use an image of it even under fair use! I will revert the copyright tag and continue to research this matter. KWH 07:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see more recent discussion pertaining to the inaccuracy of the "PD" templates/tags. Deleted due to inaccuracy. Even if the earliest dates of "creation" and/or "publication" [minting] for the Nobel Prize (R) medal were used (1902), this content is still copyright protected, since the work of the design is commissioned Work for hire and Work for hire#Copyright duration pertains; shortest period (95 years)=1902 + 95 years = 2028; longest period (125 years) = 1902 + 125 years = 2022. See the current template w/ links and the revised "Fair use rationale" for further information, as well as the rest of the current image page description and related discussions of this and other Nobel Prize (R) images in the context of the "Copyright" and "Trademark" notices provided by its "author", the Nobel Foundation (quoted in the current image page, with links to sources). This image, the Derivative work, was published in Wikipedia by its original uploader in 2005 and then edited and re-uploaded in March 2007 (the "copyright" dates of publication of the particular images on the image page). Its provenance has been disputed during these two years (from 2005 to 2007). Thank you. --NYScholar 17:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Trademark and copyright

[Added the heading later so that contents will post correctly. --NYScholar 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)]

This image is both trademarked and copyrighted to the Nobel Foundation. It is not within fair use to use it without permission granted by the Nobel Foundation. The copyright notices on the website of the Nobel Foundation are clear with regard to its not being in the public domain or within fair use to use it without explicit written permission from the Nobel Foundation (except in very clearly specified circumstances pertaining only to descriptions of the Nobel medal, and even then certain written permissions and notice provided to the Nobel Foundation are required). This is not an ambiguous matter. The Nobel Foundation medal webpage (like its other webpages) contains an explicit copyright notice as well as a trademark reference Nobel Medals [replaced my earlier link to the Literature Nobel Medal® to the more comprehensive Nobel Medal® webpage (accessed 3 Sept. 2006)]; copyright notice; the copyright notice is an active link on the bottom right of the page. This image cannot appear in Wikipedia articles without both explicit written permission from and notification to the Nobel Foundation. (See the bold print in passages quoted below; note that permission is required in writing; it is not "granted" in advance of written requests; it may or may not be granted. That is the prerogative of the Nobel Foundation.) Here is what the copyright notice says:

Copyright and Trademark Information

The documents and materials presented at Nobelprize.org are generally protected by copyright and related rights or as trademarks and trade names. For use of such material, permission in writing from Nobel Web AB or the Nobel Foundation is required.

All rights reserved. For detailed information, see Terms and Conditions of Use.
Pdf 112 kB  » In order to read the text you need Acrobat Reader.

Permission in writing is not required for: Reproductions - copies - made by private persons for private use of protected works. Creation of links from documents on other servers to any document at Nobelprize.org. Nobel Web AB appreciates being informed of such links. It is, however, not permitted to include content from Nobelprize.org into other websites using frames or similar techniques. Use of the press releases from the Nobel Foundation and the prize-awarding institutions, with the exception of logotypes and Nobel Prize design marks ("the Nobel Prize medals") (see below).

Permission in writing is required for:
Photos or Images of the Nobel Prize Medal

Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate.

An image of the Nobel Prize medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc., nor for publicity or commercial purposes.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated.

Portrait Photos of the Nobel Laureates

On application, the Nobel Foundation may grant a one-time, non-exclusive right to use a photo of a Nobel Laureate in a specific publication. Such a right does not include the right to sublicense uses of the photo or to reproduce the photo for distribution by any means or in other media.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, "© The Nobel Foundation " must be indicated.

Other Photos

For uses of photos, other than those of a Nobel Laureate, permission from the Nobel Foundation or Nobel Web AB, and in certain cases, from the photographer, is required.

To apply for a permit for a photo with © The Nobel Foundation, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, ”© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated.

To apply for a permit for a photo with © Nobel Web AB, e-mail copyright@nobelprize.org. If permission is granted, ”© Nobel Web AB ” must be indicated.

Nobel Diplomas

The artists and calligraphers of the Nobel Diplomas have granted the Nobel Foundation the rights to these materials. To use a reproduction of a Nobel Diploma, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, ”© The Nobel Foundation ” and the specific artist and/or calligrapher must be indicated.

The Nobel Lectures, Presentation Speeches and Biographies

To use or translate a Nobel Lecture, a presentation speech, a banquet speech or a biography, permission has to be granted by the Nobel Foundation.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, ”© The Nobel Foundation” and relevant year must be stated, the text correctly quoted and the author identified as the sole author of the text.

Articles

For use of an article, permission from Nobel Web AB, and in certain cases also from the authors, is required.

To apply for a permit, e-mail copyright@nobelprize.org. If permission is granted”© Nobel Web AB ” and in certain cases the name of the author must be indicated.

Educational Games

The educational games are not available to download or in an offline version. For use of material in the Education Games-section, permission from Nobel Web AB is required.

To apply for a permit, e-mail copyright@nobelprize.org. If permission is granted,”© Nobel Web AB” must be indicated.

The Nobel Posters

For use of the Nobel Posters in Physics, Chemistry and Physiology or Medicine, permission from the respective prize-awarding institution is required.

To apply for a permit, e-mail reception@kva.se (Physics and Chemistry posters), or secr@mednobel.ki.se (Physiology or Medicine poster).

The Swedish Nobel Stamps

Sweden Post has granted the Nobel Foundation the right to publish the Swedish Nobel Stamps.

Permission from Sweden Post is required for use of the Swedish Nobel Stamps.

All rights reserved. For detailed information, see Terms and Conditions of Use. Pdf 112 kB  »

In order to read the text you need Acrobat Reader. (Bold print and italics added)

--NYScholar 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In contradiction to the above-quoted copyright notice posted on the Nobel Foundation's Nobel Prize webpages, the so-called "license" provided by User "David Monniaux" indicates that he himself holds such a "license" or "copyright"; that is not the case and he has shown no evidence of having permission to use this image or to license its use. I've added the copyright notice that must be used if the Nobel Foundation does grant permission to use the images in Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia Commons above his "license" information on the image page. The "License" information provided by David Monniaux does not appear to me to be accurate or true:

Source: David Monniaux

Description: Original photograph of Nobel prize medal, belonging most probably to Edward Victor Appleton. Photographed at the University of Edinburgh.

License: Photo Copyright © 2005 David Monniaux

David Monniaux indicates in the above quotation from the image page that he himself owns the copyright or license to this image. That is not the case. (In Oct. 2005, another W user asked him for proof of a "clear license," and he did not reply at all.)

The Nobel Foundation owns the trademark and the copyright to all the images of all the Nobel medals (for each prize) and for the Nobel Prize logo. All the images of all the Nobel medals and the logo for the Nobel Prize ("the Nobel medal") are both trademark and copyright protected; they are not in the public domain, and using them for other than entirely "private" use (such as making one photocopy or printout for scholarship) is not within fair use of US copyright law. Posting them in Wikipedia articles and in Wikipedia Commons and thus throughout the internet is not a "private" use. Moreover, any use of them is to be governed by the Nobel Foundation's own copyright notice "exception," which indicates clearly that the fair use provision of US copyright law does not apply to the publishing (public dissemination of) images of the Nobel medal or images of a Nobel medal. The Nobel Foundation copyright notice requires written requests for permission to use all and any of those Nobel medal images and reserves the right to grant or not to grant any such requests.

Similar copyright violations seem to occur in other Wikipedia articles and templates using images of Nobel medals (in each prize category) and in Wikipedia Commons. --NYScholar 07:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the tag "d|copyrighted" needs to be added to this image page and for the other image pages for individual Nobel prizes in the various fields and the ones (including this one) featured throughout the article for Nobel Prize and any other articles where these images of Nobel medals appear without proper written permission from the Nobel Foundation, including the template featured at the bottom of the article for Nobel Prize. --NYScholar 07:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use

In short, they cannot prevent fair use just because they say so. The point of fair use is that, for limited circumstances, no permission is required! We don't need the nobel foundation's permission for a fair use of the image of the prize. Now, there needs to be a fair use rationale for the use in articles like Alfred Nobel and Nobel Prize, but "cv" isn't a good speedy reason. It should be taken to Wikipedia:Copyright problems if its going to be deleted. Kevin_b_er 09:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Read US copyright law re: the provision of "fair use." Using trademarked logos in this manner in Wikipedia articles and in Wikipedia Commons is not within "fair use" and it is contrary to Wikipedia's own stated policies re: images that are copyrighted and trademarked by commercial entities (such as the Nobel Foundation, which does have commercial uses of those images: it licenses and sells them). The copyright notices (linked and quoted in my earlier comments above) take account of all uses of the images of the medals. The images are the property of the Nobel Foundation. Permission is required. Wikipedia is not entitled to use copyright-protected and trademarked logos and images owned by others who have restricted their use specifically unless permission is requested and granted by the copyright owners. Wikipedia users, in some cases, are claiming that they themselves own the licenses and copyrights to these images. They do not. Those who are claiming "fair use" are violating the copyright and trademark of the logo and the images of the medals. READ the copyright notices. Use of the content of the Nobel Foundation (the NobelPrize.org site) is copyright protected. READ all of what the notices say and read Wikipedia's own policies and US Copyright Law provisions. --NYScholar 09:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I read the copyright notice, and I'm tell you to read 17 U.S.C. § 107. Go also see Image:Microsoft_logotype.png, Image:Halliburton logo.gif, {{logo}}, and Fair use. The trademark doesn't matter either. Their copyright policy does not trump 17 U.S.C. § 107. Permission is not required Its the embodiment of fair use. If its used properly under copyright lawI would agree that if this image can be used under fair use, it should be taken out of the template and anywhere where a valid fair use rationale cannot be made. This should go to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images or Wikipedia:Copyright problems Kevin_b_er 10:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Nobel Foundation's Nobel medal images is not within Fair Use provision of US Copyright law; such use requires written permission to be granted by the Nobel Foundation

The people uploading the images are making claims that they cannot substantiate. They do not even post copyright and trademark notices that identify the images are the property of the Nobel Foundation (as required by copyright law if such permission to use them in articles about the Nobel Prize or Nobel Prize winners is granted by the Nobel Foundation).

The already-quoted sections of the copyright and trademark notices posted by the Nobel Foundation on its Nobel Prize website is clear; it restricts its use and it is very clear that even in cases of what some might deem "fair use" (in articles about Alfred Nobel and the Nobel Prize winners), use of the copyrighted/trademarked images of the Nobel medal logo and the individual Nobel medals must have written permission which is up to the Nobel Foundation to grant or not to grant:

Permission in writing is required for:

Photos or Images of the Nobel Prize Medal

Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate.

An image of the Nobel Prize medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc., nor for publicity or commercial purposes.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated.

Posting the images all over the internet in articles in Wikipedia that feature "Creative Commons"-type licenses (not granted by the copyright owners of the images) without first having written permission granted by the Nobel Foundation is not within the "fair use" provision of US copyright law. (Read the copyright information provided by Creative Commons, which is the creation of Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford U prof. of intellectual property law who knows what he is talking about; he is very clear that such licenses cannot violate copyright protections of the owners of the copyrights (in this case, the Nobel Foundation, as the copyright and trademark owner of these images). The Nobel Foundation grants "fair use" for "private" use (that is within the provision); "public" or "publishing" on the internet is not "private" use. Wikipedia cannot make its Creative Commons license take the place of copyright notices and copyright protections. Throughout Wikipedia's discussions of its policies about copyright that is quite clear. It is not up to individual Wikipedia editors and users without clear-cut administrative authority and knowledge of copyright policies to determine what is and is not "fair use." It is up to Wikipedia administrators to respect the rights of copyright owners (whose rights are violated if people use the images for circumstances that are not within the "fair use provision" of US Copyright Law and other international copyright conventions protecting those Nobel Foundation images).

By posting the tags, I've drawn this problem of what appears to be copyright and trademark violations to the attention of the administrators. What they do is not within my control. The same images as this one have already been marked for deletion in Wikipedia Commons and some have already been deleted by Wikipedia administrators. These have been misrepresented by the uploader(s) and have not all been deleted yet. If the Nobel Foundation grants its permission for their use in such articles by Wikipedia, then the images can be used. That might happen; but the permission must be requested and granted in writing. For more information see Creative Commons FAQ. It is copyright owners themselves who post Creative Commons licenses, not the other way around. The people uploading these images from the Nobel Foundation site (original source) do not have the right to do so; they claim that they do, but they do not. Some of their claims for posting images of these Nobel medals have already been denied by Wikipedia administrators in Wikipedia Commons deletion and speedy deletion cases. Some of these images have already been deleted from Wikipedia Commons for the same reasons that I have given about this image page in this talk page. --NYScholar 10:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The possible violations of copyright have been brought to the attention of the Nobel Foundation.

The contact address for requests for permission to use these images in Wikipedia articles and in Wikipedia Commons is provided in the linked copyright notices earlier. --NYScholar 10:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

FAIR USE in US Copyright Law is also bound by the US being a signatory to the Berne copyright conventions. For July 2006 policy re: Fair Use, see US Copyright Office and other recent postings. When in doubt, the US Copyright Office AND Wikipedia policies say, refrain from using copyrighted works until permission can be requested and granted and the situation clarified. One does not continue to post disputed copyrighted images. To do so is to invite legal challenges and possible legal action/suits. Wikipedia is very clear about trying to avoid such legal problems. --NYScholar 10:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the db. We'll let the discussion reach consensus here, and if it is to be deleted, it can be deleted at that point. -- Samirधर्म 10:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states to delete possible copyright infringements while they are being debated. Otherwise one risks bringing copyright infringement suits against Wikipedia. This is not a matter of "consensus" among users. It is a matter for discussion by Wikipedia administrators after they actually bother to look at the copyright notices on the Nobel Foundation and to read them as they are written, not as they are being re-written and re-interpretated by Wikipedia users who have posted the images. The opinion of the uploaders of the images is not a neutral opinion. --NYScholar 20:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The use of a fair use is quite common on wikipedia(and possibly overdone). The image may need to be scaled down, and we need to form a valid fair use rationale. The only articles that it really should potentially be used on is Alfred Nobel and Nobel Prize, with the latter especially and the former maybe. I hope to enlist some wikipedians more experianced with fair use rationales into this. I removed the image from several places where it was pure decoration and/or blatnatly against the fair use policy. Kevin_b_er 10:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It cannot be used in these articles until and unless the Nobel Foundation grants the writers permission to use the images. It's the trademark and copyright of the Nobel Foundation and the Nobel Foundation decides to whom it wants to grant such permission to feature its logo and its images of its Nobel medals. Its copyright notice does "trump" Wikipedia's users' claims of "fair use," since the uses it is being put to are not "fair use" and do require permission. Copyrights and trademarks have legal status and they need to be paid attention to, especially when previous uses of this trademarked and copyrighted Nobel Foundation and Nobel Prize logo and Nobel medal images have already been deleted by Wikipedia administrators in other articles and in Wikipedia Commons for the very same reasons (copyright violations; non "fair use.") I have no time left to deal with this matter; I've answered a query on my talk page. All the other queries by other editors about this problem may be found if one scrolls up to the top of this talk page and if one goes to the talk page of the uploader of this image. Other uploaders seem simply to have lied about their "license" and "copyright"; one took a photograph of the medal (he claims) and posted that under his own copyright notice. That was deleted by previous Wikipedia Commons administrators. --NYScholar 10:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference between us and the Commons is that the Commons does not allow fair use images at all. So even if this image can be under fair use, it cannot remain on the Commons at all. Now, as for this image itself, I think it can stay. However, I will echo Kevin and say that the image needs to be scaled down using photoshop or a similiar program. The reason why I think it can stay is that the photo of the medal itself was not from the Nobel website (Swedish), but taken by a private person not attached to the organization (a French national). I would also write up a very, very huge fair use rational and also keep it on just the two pages; about the Prize itself and Nobel. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use and lawsuits

This discussion is, excuse me, rather ridiculous.

First, there is a clear rationale for this medal to be "fair use" on pages directly related to the Nobel prize (Nobel prize, Alfred Nobel) — the pages on which I put it originally. There may be less of a rationale on other pages, I don't know.

Second, please tone down on the argumentation about lawsuits to the Foundation. I'm on the board of Wikimedia France, I also, from time to time, answer the Foundation's emails; and I can tell you that, frankly, copyright issues on "fair use" pictures are far and far between and anyway can be easily solved. In comparison, we have far more real problems with libel (an enormous one)... As for trademarks, the problems we get, in real life, are mostly not about using a company's logo to discuss that company, but about inadvertently using a trademarked name as if it were a common expression.

So, please. If you really want to help the Foundation, instead of acting of self-appointed cleansers of fair use images that have a good fair use rationale, please remove unsourced potentially libellious stuff from biographies of living people, please go to commons and remove copies of mangas or modern art.

As for the allegations: I did not allege I owned the full copyright to the picture. My assessment as explained originally on the page was that the artistic work of the medal was copyrighted by the sculptor, who died in the 1960s if I remember correctly. However, the medal is a tridimensional object and my photograph may be a derived work of the original work of art; that is, it is itself copyrighted both by the author of the original works (or its heirs or the company he worked for) and by the photographer. Thus, the need for the free license tags, which were apparently deleted by over-eager folks.

By the way, I don't appreciate the innuendo about taking a photograph of the medal. I definitely took the photograph of the medal in the place indicated. David.Monniaux 11:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

there is no "innuendo"; another Wikipedia user has posted his own photographs (or photographs that he claims are his own); please look at the other instances of the images whose presentation by the uploader(s) have previously been called into question and which have been deleted by Wikipedia administrators from articles and image pages. The use of the very images provided by the Nobel Foundation from its website without permission being granted first in writing (which "may" or may not be so granted) is a violation of the trademark and copyright notice posted by the Nobel Foundation. Whether or not David Monniaux "appreciate[s]" this being pointed out to him (by me and others) is not the issue. The issue is the violation of copyright and trademark notices restrictions placed on the use of this "logo" and "images" of Nobel medals. The presentation of the "license" by David Monniaux is misleading and incorrect. --NYScholar 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobel website and copyright claims

[See the link to the copyright noticeposted on the webpages relating to the Nobel Medal by the Nobel Foundation. It is the source of my quotations above and below in my own comments about this matter in various sections of this talk page and on my own talk pages and in deletion-related comments pertaining to copyright infringement of the Nobel Foundation's registered copyright and/or infringement of its registered trademark. --NYScholar 19:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)] [Updated: My current talk page includes links to some pertinent resources. --NYScholar 23:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)]

The claims - extensively quoted - from the Nobel website are obviously limited to the materials presented on nobelprize.org. When the following is stated:

Portrait Photos of the Nobel Laureates

On application, the Nobel Foundation may grant a one-time, non-exclusive right to use a photo of a Nobel Laureate in a specific publication. Such a right does not include the right to sublicense uses of the photo or to reproduce the photo for distribution by any means or in other media.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se.

If permission is granted, "© The Nobel Foundation " must be indicated.

It should be obvious that the Nobel Foundation does not need to be consulted to publish any photograph of one of the 400+ winners, but only those to which the Foundation holds copyright. When the following is read in similar context:

Photos or Images of the Nobel Prize Medal

Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate.

An image of the Nobel Prize medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc., nor for publicity or commercial purposes.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se.

If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated.

...it obviously pertains to photos provided by the Foundation in general, and those on the website in particular.

Although I raised the question of whether the photo was encumbered by Nobel's copyright on the medal artwork itself (excluding trademark questions), it was more out of an interest in whether the photo could be deemed "completely Free" due to the age of the medal itself.

There's no question that this photo can be used in places where it would be appropriate under Wikipedia's rather conservative fair use guidelines. The resolution also does not need to be decreased - the fineness of resolution and focus is clearly due to David photography skill, and is his creative contribution which he holds copyright to. The only question is how clearly the current copyright status of the original work (the medal itself) can be stated for the benefit of downstream reusers of the content. KWH 18:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

KWH is incorrect [see my use of bold print and italics in explanations above and below]; the Nobel Foundation reserves the right (of its trademark and copyrighted Nobel medal logo and the images of all the Nobel medals ("a Nobel medal") to grant or not to grant permission to use it. The procedure is set forth. KWH is twisting the notice to make it mean what he/she wants. The intention of the Nobel Foundation to receive requests for use of these images in articles about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize, and specific Nobel Prize laureates is very clearly stated, and it says that it may (or may not) "grant" such permission after the request is made in writing.

<<Permission in writing is required for:

Photos or Images of the Nobel Prize Medal

Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate.

An image of the Nobel Prize medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc., nor for publicity or commercial purposes.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated. [bold print added (again)] >>

Any kind of permission is conditional (see the if clause and the prior statement that request is writing are required) upon the action of the Nobel Foundation in response to requests received in writing. That procedure is the perogative of the Nobel Foundation as stated in its notices on its websites relating to the Nobel Prize (nobelprize.org) administered by the Nobel Foundation. The public relations office of the Nobel Foundation deals with such requests in writing. If one wants to use the logo and/or images of the Nobel medal(s), one has to request permission in writing and wait until it is granted (if it is) to use the logo and the images. US Copyright Law provision of fair use (already cited above in my previous comments) makes clear that in cases like this one, one needs to request permission as directed. It is not "impracticable" to do so. It is practicable — and necessary, due to the copyright notices posted by the Nobel Foundation. It may or may not decide to grant such requests and it says that one must "apply for a permit" and that "If permission is granted," then (and only then) one must put the notice ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” on the instances in which "the logo and the images" are being used. That indicates that it is "the logo and the images" are still the property of the Nobel Foundation with registered copyright held by the Nobel Foundation. Even in such cases, the Nobel Foundation is not granting any kind of "free license" to redistribute the logo and the images ad infinitum as occurs with Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia Commons images (given the "license" and "disclaimer" that they include). --NYScholar 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding some additional information about the "Nobel Foundation trademarks" quoted from the Nobel Foundation website (not the" Nobel Prize Foundation," as the image description currently states); symbols for registered trademark, trademark, and copyright need to be used when the items are mentioned in published text (whether published in print or online formats):

Trademarks
The names, titles, building images, trademarks, service marks and logos that appear on the Site are registered and unregistered marks of the Nobel Foundation, including but not limited to Nobel Prize®, the Nobel Medal® design mark, Nobelprize.org™, Nobel Museum®, Nobelmuseet®, Nobel Media™ and Nobel Symposia™ (collectively, the “Nobel Foundation trademarks”). The Nobel Foundation is most restrictive in permitting use of these trademarks, and you may not use the Nobel Foundation trademarks without prior written permission from the Nobel Foundation. (Added bold print).

"Fair use" provisions pertaining to copyrights and to trademarks differ, as do the laws regulating and governing copyrights and trademarks. I have added links on my current talk page to resources that people can explore further for more information. I myself have not got time to debate this any further with anyone in Wikipedia and I am not inclined to do so. In my comments in this talk page and others relating to the issue of the images and photographs of the "Nobel Medal® design mark" and of the "Nobel Medal®" I have already quoted other pertinent passages from the Nobel Foundation website copyright notices, in the html and the pdf versions.

My comments pertain to the English version of Wikipedia and to any other language versions using the same or similar images and photographs of the Nobel Medal® design mark and Nobel Medal® (in any field) in any language, in the context of international and national copyright and trademark laws relating to each language. I do not know whether or not the Nobel Foundation has registered its trademarks in the United States; the United States is, however, a signatory to the latest Berne Convention pertaining to copyrights and trademarks and various signatories have mutual agreements to observe one another's copyright and trademark laws. (I have added the registered symbol following the passage quoted above by way of example; the trademark is registered.

As I have already stated several times very clearly in various talk pages relating to the Nobel Medal® design mark and Nobel Medal® images and relating to photographs of a Nobel Medal®, I do not use the e-mail feature in Wikipedia; I do not engage in e-mail correspondence with Wikipedia about Wikipedia. In my view, my comments on the talk pages suffice in raising my questions about the uses of the Nobel Medal® design mark and Nobel Medal® images and photographs and photographs of each individual field's Nobel Medal®; these should be clear enough to administrators in Wikipedia. As I have said in my own talk page, I have not got time to debate these matters any further. I've provided links to additional resources in my current talk page so that other people can explore them as needed. Due to concerns of time and other concerns, I will not be able to respond to or to participate in any further discussion about these Wikipedia articles and images.) --NYScholar 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"Permission in writing is required for"

Notice the large font of the print in the above-linked copyright notice relating to photographs and images of the Nobel medal logo and Nobel medals: <<Permission in writing is required for:>> is in very large print. People choose to ignore it at their own risk.

To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se. If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated. (bold print and italics added)

is crystal clear too.

That Wikipedia users who have uploaded these images are unwilling to follow these directions and that they continue to claim that these directions do not pertain to them constitute infringements of this copyright notice (See copyright infringement.) --NYScholar 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

N.B.: It is quite possible and even perhaps likely that the Nobel Foundation would "grant" its permission for the Nobel Medal logo and images of the Nobel Medal(s) to be used in Wikipedia articles on Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize, and individual Nobel Prize laureates, but one needs to request such permission in writing in order for that to happen. --NYScholar 20:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the corroborating information requiring permission in writing for the use of photographs and images of the Nobel Medal logo and individual Nobel Medals in the image page "license" description, because what its uploader has provided is still not only inaccurate but misleading. He intentionally disregards the notice, despite its clear statement requiring permission in writing. The photograph that he has uploaded is protected by a copyright registered to and by the Nobel Foundation. His source of the photograph is probably the Nobel Foundation website. (It is, thus, not "his" photograph, or the photographer's photograph, but the photograph owned and licensed by the Nobel Foundation.) As such, his use must be governed by its (the Nobel Foundation's) copyright notices. --NYScholar 20:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the .pdf version of the Nobel Foundation's copyright notice; it also prohibits alterations to the photographs and images of the Nobel Medal provided by the Nobel Foundation's Nobel Prize-related websites (incl. those linked via the Swedish Academy, which awards the Nobel Prize in Literature). --NYScholar 21:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how how else to tell you this, permission is not required in the use if used properly under fair use. No matter how many times you repeat that the nobel foundation requires written permission, it may not be required under certain circumstances. Copyright law already fully restricts what can be done with creative work. The nobel foundation simple states the process for which they will grant a limited license to use the work. Fair use is the principal where no fair use is required. For this, the image, if used properly, is not copyright infringement. Read the first sentence of Fair use, which is "Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review." Please don't just repeat the nobel foundations copyright statement if you can't understand the principal of fair use. Your entire basis for opposition is that the nobel foundation can deny fair use, which is plainly wrong. Kevin_b_er 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

NYScholar - I think that it is clear that you are getting something incorrect here. You say "His source of the photograph is probably the Nobel Foundation website." I believe this is incorrect. I believe, based on his statements, that David Monniaux took the photograph himself of a medal on public display at University of Edinburgh. The copyright in the photograph belongs to him. We do not have a civil reason to doubt him. The photograph is a derivative of the original medal created by Lindberg in 1902, and whether that medal is still copyrighted is a very good question. For the photographs on the Nobel website, which the Nobel Foundation owns the copyrights to, they can clearly enforce those terms, although it is still possible that, if someone copied a photo from that site, they might still succeed in claiming fair use in a court case. KWH 21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

He is no more entitled to photograph the medal and to post the photograph (a derivative image of a copyright-protected work) than he is to use the Nobel Foundation's own photographs and images; the Nobel Foundation owns all the Nobel medals too. READ the pdf version of the copyright notices pertaining to them. I've already linked to them. I'm out of time for dealing with this matter. I've posted the information. Please read it. Please also re-read the July 2006 US Copyright Law "fair use" provision, previously linked. There was an editing conflict and I have not got time to reconstruct my comments done while KWH was posting. Wikipedia policy is to AVOID any potential copyright infringement. There are plenty of instances where Wikipedia discusses these policies; please read them; I haven't time to post any more of those links (again). --NYScholar 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, please do not waste any more of your time posting the same links and text again. KWH 22:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I also hate to have to point this out again, but corporations/foundations can claim anything they want. This doesn't make it so. Shell ^babelfish 00:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fair use", Berne etc.

I remind everybody, in particular NYScholar, that "fair use" is a legal exception to copyright that works even if the copyright holder asserts "all rights reserved".

The Berne Convention does allow for exceptions to copyright, known as the Berne three-step test; the precise exceptions allowed are a matter of the law of the member countries. I believe our use on Wikipedia falls both within the three-step test and within the traditional "fair use" doctrine of the US. David.Monniaux 22:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideas

Alright, would something like this and [9] work. Both image sources either are in the public domain or have not restrictions on how to use the work. I know there is more examples I can think of, but I want yall to think about this and comment before I trek on any further. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

NVM, the Pearson photo is used already in Wikipedia. Stiil, what do you think about the photo of the medal taken by the US NIH (first link)? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, this photo will not work, since it still has the permission from the Nobel Foundation attached to this photo, and it was unknown when it was taken. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You can always contact them. For an example of how permission to use copywritten images can work, see the article on the United Methodist Church and click on the logo. Orville Eastland 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Original medal?

The image page says this image is the original medal. But Image:DSCN0732.JPG is from 1933 and it looks different. [....]

Fred-J 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[Updated (....) due to removal of the image from Wikipedia article concerning ongoing dispute. It is otherwise orphaned. --NYScholar 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)]

The current Nobel Peace Prize Medal uses the same image as it did in 1933 and it is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation (an organization): The Nobel Peace Prize Medal. It is of a design different from that of the other Nobel Prize Medals according to the article about these Medals posted on nobelprize.org (organization official website): "The Nobel Prize Medals and the Medal for the Prize in Economics", by Birgitta Lemmel. This article presents the Medals' official history and information about their registered trademarked design (trademark of the Nobel Foundation) and the copyrighted images of the 1933 Nobel Peace Medal from which DSCN0732.JPG (the posted photograph, a derivative work) derives; see Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG re: the Crown copyright pertaining to the Imperial War Museum-exhibited medal (as this summary defines the medal photographed in this derivative work) as well. Its fair-use provenance is unclear at this time.

The face of the medal of the Norwegian Nobel Committee shows Alfred Nobel in a pose slightly different from that of the other medals. The inscription is the same. ... The other side of the Nobel Peace Prize medal represents a group of three men forming a fraternal bond. ... The inscription reads: ... "Pro pace et fraternitate gentium" ... translated "For the peace and brotherhood of men". ... "Prix Nobel de la Paix", the relevant year, and the name of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate is engraved on the edge of the medal. ... The Nobel Peace Prize Medal was designed by Gustav Vigeland. ... [It is a] Registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation. (Bold added.)

--NYScholar 23:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Another user User:Panda [see below] states that s/he has sent e-mail to the Nobel Foundation about this and other images of Nobel Prize Medals; I am not sure what the content of that message states. Perhaps s/he will post a copy of its text. --NYScholar 23:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Email the Nobel Foundation

I didn't mean to make this into such a huge dispute ... I was only suggesting that someone could maybe send an email to the Nobel Foundation and ask them about using the image in Wikipedia. It seems to take 2-3 weeks for a reply. –panda 18:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, I received a reply from the Nobel Foundation (already!) about this image. They responded:

"This is the most hectic time of year. We will not be able to get back to you immediately."

So my guess is that whatever the people here at WP decide is fine for now. If anyone still cares later on, I can try contacting them again in January or February when everything is more calm for them. (Also cross-posted to Wikipedia:Fair use review.) –panda 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Retagged PD-US-1923-abroad

Parallel to the discussion at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Image:DSCN0732.JPG, I have retagged the image {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, as I believe that is the most accurate statement of the U.S. Copyright status of the underlying design of the medal.

The design will continue to be subject to copyright in the European Union until 2036. However, what counts for EN-Wikipedia is its copyright status in the United States. As, without any doubt, the design was widely known in the United States before 1923, there can be no question of it being subject to any current U.S. Copyright.

I have also tagged it {{Trademarked}}. This does not prevent its use on any Wikipedia page; it merely clarifies that the image may not be used persuant to any offered product or service where it might be reasonably taken to signify the Nobel Foundation as the source, guarantor or authoriser of that service or product. (i.e. Don't use it to mint chocolate coins, etc.) Jheald 01:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A trademark "may" be used in the infobox for the company or organization according to Wikipedia:Manual of style (trademarks)#The use of graphic logos, but even that is subject to notices by the organizations and companies' proprietary rights and notices of use. I do not think Jheald is correct. The Nobel Prize Medal designs are not in the public domain either in the U.S. or elsewhere. I don't think that Jheald has carefully read the article [on the Nobel Prize Medals (the source of this "derivative image")] in nobelprize.org. Wikipedia recommends that potential violations of copyright and trademark be deleted. ... --NYScholar 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of faulty template

I deleted the faulty template; a minted medal is not a "publication." It is an artifact. The image of the medal (its design) is both a "registered trademark" of the Nobel Foundation and it is also copyrighted (2006 and 2007) throughout its website. Provenance of this image is disputed. --NYScholar 02:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the link to the source of the image (on the particular medal in the "photograph"), which is also the source of information included in the description. [I added quotations.] --NYScholar 02:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You're shooting yourself in the foot here. A three-dimensional object, like a sculpture, only needs copyright because it is publishable. The term of that copyright runs from when the form of the object is first published - i.e. widely made known to the public. Once that copyright has expired, as copyrights in all objects first widely made known before 1923 have now expired, it cannot be renewed. Jheald 08:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your position re: the object being "published" is disputed in earlier comments by others (scroll to top of this talk page; please read all of the previous discussion, beginning with the "public domain" debate, which proved inconclusive); your "opinion" is still merely an opinion and does not have any legal force. When in doubt (as in this case), (updated) fair use provisions of the current U.S. Copyright Statute advise that one consult intellectual property legal experts (attorneys specializing in this field). There are distinctions among various kinds of intellectual and artistic properties that pertain in relation to copyrights, trademarks, and provisions of fair use. Publishing otherwise-copyright-protected intellectual properties on the internet in articles in English Wikipedia often not considered within fair use of international copyright laws. It is not use for private study, research within educational institutions (schools, colleges, universities), and so on. Such public distribution (publication via the internet, electronic media) is often explicitly prohibited by copyright owners of the intellectual properties on which copyright and registered trademark notices appear. Speculation on this matter while letting such images remain in Wikipedia puts Wikipedia at risk for charges of copyright and trademark violations. (Again, scroll up.) --NYScholar 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [typog. corrs. (tc) --NYScholar 21:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]

Detailed fair use rationale for each use in Wikipedia still needed

See the template: "an accompanying fair use rationale which must be unique to the usage of THIS image in each article in which it is used. You must also give the source and copyright information for all fair-use images uploaded." --NYScholar 03:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note: No articles currently link to this image file (for good reason). Its fair use is disputed. --NYScholar 03:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

ATTN: Administrators: Edit war

There is now an edit war going on over the templates on this image page. I am not reverting the reverting of my clearly-explained deletion of the faulty template. [I edited my earlier version of it.] The user who is placing it on this image page repeatedly (reverting my deletion of it) does not know what s/he is talking about. There is no justifiable claim for "public domain" of the Nobel Prize Medal images and designs, which are clearly stated by the Nobel Foundation to be its properties. Scroll up for other editor's view that the "derivative image" (derived from a photograph of a Nobel Prize medal) is too close to the original medal's registered trademarked image to be feasible as "fair use" in Wikipedia. The user appears to be following me around Wikipedia and fighting over this image now, as s/he has been doing over another image, unable to accept the justifiable notices of proprietary rights on nobelprize.org. These images of the Nobel Prize medals engraved on them are not in the public domain; they have currently-in force registered copyright and trademarks pertaining to them, as rightly claimed by the Nobel Foundation on its website. Derivative works are not in the public domain either; they are subject to the standing current registered trademarks and copyrights featured for these images on nobelprize.org; please see related discussions. There is no support for this claim of "public domain"; it is absurd. --NYScholar 08:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated. See the protection/unprotection page. --NYScholar 09:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]

Until the dispute is resolved, this page really should not be protected by an administrator engaged in the editing dispute. We can discuss the need for fair use rationales; the image has no use in Wikipedia currently; it is an old image, which has been disputed for a long time. I have had trouble posting to the right talk page. I'm trying to fix this problem. I accidentally created a wrong talk page for the image. That talk page has no content now and can be deleted. I think this matter needs further discussion. As far as I can tell, images of Nobel Prize medals are not at all in the "public domain"; the Nobel Foundation asserts its "proprietary rights" to them, including both its registered trademark and its copyrights, as stated on its website. The image edited in the photograph is too close to the protected design of the medal to be "free content" in Wikipedia; I've posted concerns about its being "non-free content" and not within "fair use". I am not the only one concerned about the misuse of Nobel Prize Medal images in Wikipedia; discussion of these problems have been ongoing for over two years. --NYScholar 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This page is not protected now and has never been protected. -- But|seriously|folks  09:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure at this point; the images have similar names; perhaps I am thinking of the other image that we are discussing elsewhere. I'm tired by now and confused by this "back and forth"; let's give it a rest. Perhaps some other administrators will come along and review these various images. I did run into a page protection that another user was discussing with me; I'll see if I can find the link to it and post it (either now or later); I'm too tired to deal with this any further now and will have to log off and get some rest and then do a slew of work that I need to do that I didn't do while debating these Nobel Medal images matters. Please bear w/ me (and others). Thanks. (I think the C and R notices are proper.) --NYScholar 09:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I did run into page protection on (I thought) the image page relating to this image; but it has been unprotected? I can't find the page now; I asked for it to be unprotected because it was protected when I was on it; I really do think it was this image page (not the talk page). That's why I posted this template asking for editing assistance w/ it (to remove the faulty "public domain" template. I'll look for what I might have seen. Please bear w/ me still. It may be an exhaustion problem. --NYScholar 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Neither this page nor the accompanying image page have even been protected. -- But|seriously|folks  09:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry too; I really don't know how it happened: but it is so that at one point, I looked at this image page and it had no "editing" feature and appeared to be protected, so I could not go into editing mode in it at all (and I was logged on). Either it was a Wikipedia glitch, or the administrator/user who disagrees w/ me in the dispute (jheald) first protected and then unprotected it or someone else removed the protection, or it was just an editing glitch. It used to have a "public domain" template on it too. I think the C and R templates are more accurate; if need be, people with less involvement in editing these images of Nobel medals can review them in time. It may surprise people, but I would actually be delighted if any of the good Nobel Prize Medal images could be used; I just don't think that they are in keeping with the Nobel Foundation's notices of "proprietary rights." According to copyright laws, once one asks for permission, if it is denied, one cannot feature the denied content, so asking can be risky. It is better to link to nice photos via external links that anyone can view (they are beautiful) and forego dubious or questionable images at least for the time being. As another use (User:Panda) has already contacted the Nobel Foundation pertaining to these various Wikipedia Nobel Prize Medals images, one now can wait and see what happens. It is doubtful that the NF will grant permission, but perhaps it will. If it would, the images that one could post would be quite nice ones. Otherwise, it is not crucial to have illustrations with the official website links so accessible. (My viewpoint anyway.) --NYScholar 09:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha! It is not my imagination; jheald has reverted back to the public domain template. I'm not touching it w/ a ten-foot pole; but I do see what happened; at some point it was closed to editing (protected) I still think. I still don't think the public domain template is correct; I think the combination of the C and R templates are correct. Maybe others will review this situation. (And, again, it's not that I don't like the image; I do like it; I just don't think it is permissible in Wikipedia. If this image were in the public domain it could be in Wikipedia Commons; it's not. It does not appear to me to be within the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law and the Berne convention (to which the U.S. is a signatory and thus must uphold). If this particular image were to be in Wikipedia Commons, it would be a safer image to post in some appropriate section on the medals in Nobel Prize perhaps than the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize Medal image of Norman Angell being placed in an infobox!!! --NYScholar 09:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the earlier unprotection/edit template: someone acted on unprotecting? (Administrators can make changes w/o them showing up in the history.) See Diffs.: I agreed with Shell's edit there. Then jheald came along and changed the template to what I still believe is a totally faulty public domain template. I am not the only one who thinks this image has problems of fair use, non-free content, and poses potential trademark and copyright violations. --NYScholar 10:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Shell was just responding to the fact that it had a (C) tag and wasn't being used. I don't think he/she was making any positive assessment of whether the tag was correct. I imagine Shell just accepted the tag as he/she found it. Jheald 12:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Admins cannot make changes without them showing up in the history. Only users with oversight can remove items from the history. This shows the image page was never protected. -- But|seriously|folks  17:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the above information. After I logged out of Wikipedia earlier, I thought about this situation and wondered if maybe I wasn't logged on when I didn't see the "edit" feature show up. To edit an image, I think you do have to be logged on, and that is why the page looked "protected" to me. So after I couldn't access editing, I couldn't see whether or not there was a "protection template" and I went over to the protection admin. page to ask for help and posted the edit request above, asking an administrator to take a look at the "public domain" template that Jheald had added (I had actually not seen such a template in an image in Wikipedia before that). I still doubt that images of Nobel Prize Medals are in the "public domain" with regard to U.S. copyright law. The Nobel Foundation is governed by Swedish laws too, and by its universal declaration (as per Berne) of "proprietary rights", registered trademark(s) (for the images of each Medal and the design of those images engraved on the Medals) in which world copyright and trademark obtain. I really don't think that the "opinions" which are speculative hold force when an organization as lofty as the Nobel Foundation, which presents the most prestigious awards in the world, claims "proprietary rights" to the images of its own Nobel Prize Medals. One needs to consult the Nobel Foundation for its position on such matters and respect its responses. If the publication in articles in English Wikipedia of its Nobel Prize Medal images (in such derivative works as this photograph, which has been altered [a condition which is also taken into account by its terms and conditions/copyright/trademark rights notices]) has the written permission of the Nobel Foundation, then one would have the authority to include such an image as this one in the article (relating to Wikipedia's own other policies and guidelines in its Manual of Style re: images and trademarks, which are detailed). --NYScholar 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[added closing parenthesis inadvertently omitted earlier. --NYScholar 21:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]

[I have clarified my initial request for unprotection/editing in the administrative page re: that and struck out some of it after posting comments here today. --NYScholar 21:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]

Freedom of panorama

Tangential note: note that this image is free for use in the UK.

It was photographed at the Appleton Tower at the University of Edinburgh, where according to everything2, the "Nobel medal is on display in the concourse in a dusty, completely ignored glass cabinet."

As discussed in the Creative Commons guide to Freedom of Panorama, under section 62 of the UK Copyright Designs & Patents Act, that in itself makes the photograph free to publish in the UK (and also currently acceptable at WP:Commons) since its subject falls into the category of "sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public".

It might be difficult, though, to make a choice of law argument that the copy on Wikipedia's server should be governed by UK Law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jheald (talk • contribs) 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the above information too. [Previous discussion already took the information into account, however; it still proved inconclusive: scroll way up.] This matter could use some examination by multiple administrators with experience in copyright and trademark matters in Wikipedia. If the image is acceptable to Wikipedia Commons, then it could be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons with a proper license and used in Wikipedia articles wherever it does meet the W:MOS guidelines and other policies that relate to its use. (In the past, I have replaced questionable and deleted images with Wikipedia Commons images to meet "good article" criteria.) --NYScholar 20:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [added bold print in brackets. --NYScholar 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]

The kind of "sculpture" that is mentioned in that notice that JHeald quotes is not at all the same kind of work as the "work for hire" that is the Nobel medal, which is [engraved, modeled, cast, and minted] by order of and for the Nobel Foundation. (See earlier discussion of "work for hire.") --NYScholar 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[I have developed the image page description relating to some of this process and altered order accordingly in the above comment in brackets. The copyright of the design of Nobel Prize Medals (and their "images") is assigned, retained, and/or transferred (as applies) to The Nobel Foundation ("author"), not to the designer, engraver, model-maker, or mint. See related info. in its "Copyright and Trademark" and "Terms and Conditions of Use" information, which mentions transfer of copyright to the Nobel Foundation in the case of some other intellectual (artistic) properties and which clearly claims both "registered trademark" and "copyright" on images of its Nobel Prize medals (all of them). --NYScholar 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]

Please scroll all the way up and read the prior discussions of this matter, which were inconclusive. --NYScholar 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer, Sources of information in the image page

The "Disclaimer" notice pertaining to the use of the image (as it is clearly the Nobel Foundation's registered trademark) is significant and important to keep on the image page (Summary). There should be [a caption on the photo with proper information: at least] "Original design: ®© The Nobel Foundation" [See above discussion, scroll way up for same info. w/ the symbols] [I've added the proper symbols here now.] in a caption in it as well (I believe), as per the Nobel Foundation's current notices. I see no reason to delete the link to the "source" for the information included in this image page (the Nobel Foundation's webpage on "The Nobel Prize Medals ..." as JHeald has done. The information that the uploader and others put in this image page comes from that website source URL. Please restore it. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [I'll come back after I retrieve the link from edit history and post it. --NYScholar 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)] [Added the proper symbols. --NYScholar 01:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]

The caption on the photo should also identify that it is "The Nobel Prize Medal®© of Sir Edward Victor Appleton, 1947 Nobel Laureate in Physics, on display in Appleton Tower, University of Edinburgh, photographed by David Monniaux in 2005." See section below re: invalidity of the "public domain" template. --NYScholar 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The license should indicate that Monniaux releases his photograph to the public. He cannot, however, invalidate existing trademarks and copyrights pertaining to the Nobel Prize Medal®© image that his photograph depicts. --NYScholar 01:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The image is an engraved image on a gold "medallion" (medal), not a "sculpture"; though a "sculptor" as well as an "engraver", Erik Lindberg made a "model" of the medal on which the image that is the registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation is "engraved" and then the medal is "minted" by a "Mint" in Sweden (identified in the article linked below from the website of the Nobel Foundation; it is not a "sculpture"; the claims that it is and that it has been "published" as such and as such is in the "public domain" are stretches of the imagination and have no basis in the facts stated by the Nobel Foundation in its history and description and claims of proprietary rights to the images and design of the images of the Nobel Prize Medals. --NYScholar 23:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here are the Diffs., showing what JHeald reverted; the link to Nobel Foundation's article about "The Nobel Prize Medals ..." is there: I still offer that clearer information about the provenance of this image, and the description of whose medal the photograph is needs absolute clarity (it is currently still vague); if it definitely is a photograph of the medal exhibited in Appleton Tower (on the date stated), then that needs clearer identification (scroll up to JHeald and prior to that for sources of that information [see recent additions re: the building below]:

"The Nobel Prize Medals", The Nobel Foundation. Original model for the medal by "Swedish sculptor and engraver" Erik Lindberg (1873 - 1966).
Description: The Nobel Prize Medal, first minted in 1902, is a registered trademark of The Nobel Foundation, Stockholm, Sweden: "The Nobel medals have had the same design since 1902"; "The medals for Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine and Literature were modeled by the Swedish sculptor and engraver Erik Lindberg" ("The Nobel Prize Medals").

To that one should add: "The Nobel Medal of Sir Edward Victor Appleton, the winner of the 1947 Nobel Prize for Physics ... on display in the concourse in a dusty, completely ignored glass cabinet" in Appleton Tower, at the University of Edinburgh, is depicted in the photograph taken by the uploader." (with a parenthetical source citation link to "Everything2" or some more authoritative and uptodate source from the U of Edinburgh). Note: According to the U of Edinburgh website, Appleton Tower is part of an extensive renovation project; it is currently unclear where the exhibit will be or how it will appear after the renovation; whatever information is provided about it may need updating in the future. Appleton Tower houses the School of Informatics at the U of Edinburgh: See its 2004 press release re: the renovation (scheduled to take 10-15 years): press release 2 (PDF). (As I find relevant info. about the location of the medal in the photograph/image ("derivative work"), I may post it later.) --NYScholar 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the new location (new building) for the School of Informatics, which it appears will be a replacement for Appleton Tower (?): Building: Informatics Forum. Perhaps someone from the University of Edinburgh can clarify; pay a visit to the display case (if it is still there) and clarify what has or is happening to it; where it is now (?). Is it in the same "dusty" and "ignored" glass cabinet described in the sentence quoted from Everything2, or ....? Perhaps User:David.Monniaux (the French uploader) will return to help w/ some of these questions about his photograph and what he photographed. (He was helpful earlier when he stated that he had taken the photograph at the U of Edinburgh and not used the Nobel Foundation's website photograph in editing the image.) --NYScholar 23:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left a request on his talk page. --NYScholar 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the contact info. for Appleton Tower; it is the current location of the School of Informatics Map location (24), which it appears will be relocated to the new building; it is not clear what has happened or might happen to the displayed medal, its display case, etc. As it is a Nobel Prize Medal in Physics, that probably depends on where the Physics dept. is located at the U of Edinburgh. Perhaps there is a way to find a U of Edinburgh photograph of the medal to ascertain where it is now. (I know this may not make a difference in the featuring of this particular image, but it might help in its "summary" and "description" to be able to provide up-to-date sources of information about the actual medal being photographed.) --NYScholar 23:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

From the BBC Historic Figures site that I just added to the Wiki. art. on Appleton, I have learned that he did not arrive at the U of Edinburgh until two years after he received the 1947 Nobel Prize in Physics (1949); he went there to assume very high-ranking administrative posts, which he held until he died (1965): "In 1947 Appleton was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics and, two years later, moved to the University of Edinburgh to become principal and vice-chancellor, a position he held for the rest of his life. He died on 21 April 1965." So he would be a very important person at that University and one would think that his Nobel Prize Medal would eventually be placed in a more prominent location than a "dusty" "ignored" glass cabinet and photographed and featured on the website of the University (at the least). (Perhaps someone who would like to know more about this particular Nobel Medal wants to contact the Appleton Tower (School of Informatics) (see contact link above) press office, which does accept inquiries. [Or perhaps not!] --NYScholar 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Public Domain

The current template claiming that in the U.S. the Nobel Prize Medal®© is "published" prior to 1923 and in the "public domain" is inaccurate. There is no proof that the medal itself is "published" "outside" the U.S. at all. It is a physical object that was minted in a Mint in Sweden. It is not a "sculpture." [It is a "work for hire"; see below and scroll way up to earlier discussion about this category.] Its design (image engraved on the medal before it is minted) is the registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation, which is in Sweden, not the United States. Swedish laws apply, according to Wikipedia:Public Domain. Moreover, even in the U.S., according to U.S. copyright, there does not have to be "registration" of a copyright for copyright to pertain. The idea that images of the Nobel Prize Medals®© are in the public domain has no support even from Wikipedia:Public Domain. I suggest that some administrators who have dealt with these issues before read this talk page and its editing history and re-consider how to present the license, replacing the current template(s) with proper copyright notices, and adding detailed "fair use rationales" as required; otherwise the image should be deleted until proper documentation of its license and claims in templates can be verified. --NYScholar 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See the section of Wikipedia:Public Domain providing the exception for "work for hire", which links to Work for hire in Wikipedia. Also review the sections pertaining to "International laws" and unpublished works and multiple claims of copyright in multiple jurisdictions. This matter is far more complex and potentially risky than the template suggests; it should be removed. It is not accurate and has no substance in fact. --NYScholar 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, as stated earlier, the Nobel medal is not what is at issue and requiring a license; the "image" in the photograph of the Nobel medal in the image page (which has been altered and which is a registered trademark and copyright-protected by the Nobel Foundation, the employer and owner of the "work for hire"--the design of the image engraved on the then-minted medal)] is what requires the license in Wikipedia; the templates must be accurate. Currently, they are not. The alteration of the image itself is highly problematic as the Nobel Foundation says that its registered trademark cannot be altered. More evidence is needed for proper licensing and proper templates for this image (if it is not wholly deleted). --NYScholar 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The "public domain" template reverted by JHeald falsely states that "this image" (the image in the image page) was "first published prior to 1923"; this image (the original uploader's photograph Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg) was "first published" in Wikipedia in 2005, by David Monniaux when he uploaded it; the current image was re-edited and uploaded in 2007 by Ral315, with a reference to "fair use" by the uploader (see its "file history"). Yet there is still no detailed "fair use rationale" provided in this image page. The image depicted in his edited photograph of the medal on display [a "derivative work"]--the image that is the registered trademark and copyright of the Nobel Foundation--is still the organization's (by law the "author"), and the Nobel Foundation explicitly claims current "proprietary rights" to images of its Medals. I have listed Monniaux's/Ral315's image for further review (by experienced administrators with expertise in these complex issues) in the copyright violations noticeboard. Similar images of the Nobel Prize Medals have already been listed in the fair use violations noticeboard concerning related problems. They are still the subject of dispute. --NYScholar 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Editorial interpolation moved to talk page

The following appears only in editing mode; I have moved it to the talk page where it belongs: It was not signed by its originator, but its originator's user name appears in it; the format is not correct for an image page. I need also to find a better template re: disputed image; the current one relating to "article" is temporary. --NYScholar 09:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<<

Fair use rationale

This image is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (Wikipedical) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

• It illustrates the subject in question
• There is no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information

>> --[moved from image page where it showed up only in editing mode by] --NYScholar 09:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above editorial interpolation constructed by User:Wikipedical and the statement that the image is "deemed" to be "fair use" by its original uploader, David Monniaux, I have provided a working "fair use" rationale for the image page. Given the claims of "fair use" by both uploaders (David Monniaux and the most recent (current) image uploader, User:Ral315), it appears to be necessary to have such a rationale, and I have provided the "fair use" template under the "license" section heading where it is generally placed in such image pages with similar claims by uploaders. --NYScholar 10:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize (R) Medal images

[cross-posted from my own talk page as it relates to this image. --NYScholar 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)] I do remember a specific situation regarding that image. I'm not sure of the specifics, or what I can say about it, but I'll get back to you ASAP. Ral315 » 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There was an OTRS request regarding this image (ticket #2006092110007177). The Nobel Foundation didn't appear to have any problem with us using the 200x200 resized version. I don't think that means Wikipedia has rights to use it any way we want to, but I do take that to mean that we can use a straight-up claim of fair use, which I think is defensible in Nobel Prize. Since they weren't too concerned about the image, I don't see a problem.

For what it's worth, Panda should not have e-mailed the Nobel Foundation; that's really something that should be handled within the Wikimedia Foundation, if at all. Ral315 » 11:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I did provide a "working" "fair use rationale" for the image for general reference with that possibility in mind. If the Nobel Foundation has already been contacted in writing and responded in writing, it would be helpful to cite that correspondence in the image page, explaining for those who do not know what "OTRS" stands for (with a link to numbered the "ticket" item) [if that is Wikipedia procedure (I don't know)]. I will archive this exchange a bit later. [corr.] --NYScholar 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia:OTRS for those who need it. Thanks again. --NYScholar 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [cross-posted from my own talk page as it relates to this image. --NYScholar 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

I provided a link to the featured article in nobelorg.org describing the work as commissioned from the designers; that is hardly my own assertion. Please read the linked article. It is currently accessible from my own talk page, via the Nobel Prize (R) Medal sources that I linked. It is absurd to state that I am making this up. All the information that anyone has cited about what these medals are comes from nobelprize.org; they simply do not give their source, as I have done in the image page (for that reason: to document it with a verifiable reliable source--Wikipedia policy: WP:V#Sources; WP:CITE--as in articles. Others have taken the information about who designed the medal for the Nobel Foundation from the same article without giving their source. --NYScholar 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that after I referred to this work as such, Jheald made undocumented edits to the article Work for hire; I've tagged the page with the "missing citations" template since just noticing that. I stand by my description of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal images and their designs as work that the Nobel Foundation commissioned from its designers and the Mints that made them; the gold medallions are described in considerable detail in the article that I have linked as my source in the image page and elsewhere. It is available for all to read on nobelprize.org. It is featured by that website for the Nobel Foundation; as such it is an official document of the site and authorized by the Foundation. What more do you want? --NYScholar 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The "author" in the case of the design of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals is the Nobel Foundation; scroll up in Works for hire; description of "author" relates to "commissioned" works (no matter what date they were "created" and/or "published"), whether they are "commissioned" or "work for hire"--the "designer" is not the "author" as far as "copyright" goes when he has been paid for his work and his rights to the design are subsequently listed as "proprietary rights" by the organization/corporate entity in its registered trademark and coppyright notices (as is the case with the Nobel Foundation): not my assertion; that of the organization/corporate entity in its posted notices for "Copyright and trademark"; already linked. (Shell deleted some of the information that I had provided on an earlier version of the image page; it's still in my talk page, where I may add more if needed. I had quoted exactly from the Nobel Foundation's notices. Scroll up as well.) --NYScholar 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use rationale and image page templates updated

Please follow the linked discussions. I've removed the "public domain" template at this point, because it is clearly inaccurate. In the U.S., for commissioned Work for hire, there are specific exceptions to copyright duration: see Work for hire#Copyright duration; the Nobel Prize (R) Medals were first designed in 1902; the medal being photographed here was presented in 1947; even using the earliest possible date of "creation" and/or "publication", the duration of copyright still is in force (1902 plus 95 years [the shorter term for creation] equals 2228; 1902 plus 125 years [the longer term for publication] equals 2022. Another editor provided these dates in one of the discussions of this matter. "Public domain" does not currently apply to the image from which this image page's image (Derivative work) derives. Please consult prior discussions. Thank you. --NYScholar 16:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

For related information, please see Wikipedia's own notices re: GFDL (links below editing boxes) and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Please provide a direct link to the e-mail correspondence (letter sent and reply received) with the Nobel Foundation (ticket no. in the image page). Thank you. --NYScholar 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Another note: You are aware that you will not be able to see the text of the email sent to OTRS? I will add the link to the image page as you suggest, but actually the m:OTRS ticket number is all that is needed for a member of the OTRS team to verify the content of the email. Shell ^babelfish 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. No, until you just provided this information, I did not know that I (and other Wikipedia users) would not be able to see the text. Have you verified it and is the text consistent with the claims made about it in the image page? What can you tell us about what the Nobel Foundation "implies" or "suggests" that it permits Wikipedia to do with this image and others like it (Wikipedians' photographs of Nobel Prize (R) medals) from museum or other exhibits of them on display to the public)? That would be helpful to know. --NYScholar 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel Foundation asked that we not use high resolution photographs (you can see that this one was resized) but took no issue with our use of photographs per se. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You do know, don't you, that (1) under the U.S. legal definition, it wasn't a work for hire (2) these copyright terms would only apply to works published after 1978, or unpublished works.

A list of categories when a "specially ordered or commissioned" work might be eligible to be considered a work for hire can be found at Work for hire#Law of the United States. The Nobel Prize medal falls into none of these categories. Jheald 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Its also important to note that the PD tag was not in regards to the trademark or work, but, because this is a photograph of a three-dimensional object, the photographer was agreeing to release all rights so that we may use the photograph. The subject's copyright status is a completely different matter. Shell ^babelfish 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It [[David Monniaux's image based on his photograph] is a Derivative work based on registered trademarked and copyrighted content; of course it relates to the image on the image page. Even the taker of the photograph recognizes that; he listed it as within "fair use"; one only does that when copyrighted content pertains to the image. --NYScholar 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [added bracketed info. for greater clarity. --NYScholar 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]

Please see the Nobel Foundation's article that I've cited; it describes the work done to create the medal as work that it "commissioned"; laws of Sweden, where the work was created, apply to how it is described, as it was a work created there. --NYScholar 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On the narrow point of "work for hire". Swedish Law doesn't have a concept of "work for hire" applying to anything but computer programs. "Work for hire" is a particularly U.S.-orientated term. But under U.S. Law, the medal does not fall into any of the limited categories for "specially ordered or commissioned" things that can be agreed to be "works for hire". Jheald 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Shell: I understand the reverting of the PD license tag, but I really do think that until it is clear that it actually is warranted, it should not appear on the image page; it contradicts well-documented information about the nature of the image on the image page (the Derivative work (photograph then edited and uploaded to Wikipedia) by the original and later uploaders. The work has been edited. It is a photograph of the medal in an exhibit; but the photograph presents an image that is copyright-protected (currently) and also a registered trademark of its "author" (the Nobel Foundation); thus, there was correspondence w/ its copyright holder of record, the Nobel Foundation. The Nobel Foundation has not released images of its medals into the Public domain. It is located in Sweden, not in the U.S. The U.S. respects international copyright and trademark laws. The dates claimed for public domain are entirely inaccurate. The photographer claims "fair use" and a "fair use rationale" is thus provided. "Fair use rationale" is needed. --NYScholar 18:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what the U.S. respects is its own copyright law. Just as a point of detail. Jheald 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. is a signatory to the Berne convention; as such it respects the international copyright convention, which is part of U.S. copyright law. That is not simply "a point of detail"; it is a point of law. I've linked to the U.S. copyright code in my talk page; the up-to-date legal links are there, as they are throughout Wikipedia; see WP:Copyright and WP:Copyvio, also linked on my talk page in various sections. Thanks. See Shell's most recent editing history diffs., which I agree "clean up" the image page successfully. --NYScholar 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As you ought to know, treaties are not self-enacting. The law applicable in the United States disputes is U.S. Law. The Berne Convention, whatever it says or does not say, has no directly actionable relevance beyond the letter of what is written into U.S. Law. Jheald 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the concept of "works for hire" isn't anywhere in the Berne Convention. Jheald 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to point this out, but your comment makes no sense to me. Please read the laws (access them directly) or go to a site like Cornell University which explains them. Thank you. (We are not substitutes for lawyers; we just try to follow Wikipedia's own stated policies regarding Copyright and to try to avoid creating inconsistencies and potential copyright and trademark violations in Wikipedia articles (and related space, such as image pages). Please see administrators' noticeboards for various disputes. U.S. fair use exceptions to its own copyright code clearly state that when doubt exists, one should consult legal experts (not Wikipedia users). --NYScholar 18:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Such "legal experts" are intellectual property attorneys, for example. We cannot depend on Wikipedia users for such claims about U.S. copyright law. That is why I link to the U.S. copyright code (inc. section 107) on my current talk page (and have done since about 2006). Please consult it. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Right then. (1) 17 USC 101 defines the meaning of "work for hire". The Nobel medal doesn't fall within that definition. (2) If the work, namely the medal, was published before 1909 (or 1923 if you exclude the 9th circuit), then it is no longer protected by copyright in the United States. See this useful table. Jheald 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it again since it may be confusing and the text already states David's release of the photograph itself. Shell ^babelfish 18:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that this is a clearer image page. Can you tell me whether or not you think that the other image that I've been questioning should have a similar image page description, summary, licensing, and fair use rationale provided such as this one currently does? I'll find the link to it in a moment if you need it. (See my "contributions" editing history for it if I don't get it in here quickely enough.) Thank you for your help. Much appreciated. [By the way: please know that I like the images [except for too much black space in DSCN0732.JPG]; I just question how they are being licensed and otherwise described etc. Wikipedia needs to be consistent in the treatment of these images of the Nobel Foundation's Nobel Prize (R) Medals throughout its articles (my position).] --NYScholar 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [clarified in brackets. --NYScholar 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]

Here's the other image: Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG; please see related discussions. Thank you. --NYScholar 18:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See editing history summary of Shell's edit; please stop reverting to the inaccurate PD tags. Thank you. I've asked Shell for assistance. --NYScholar 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding. You have been pushing your own understanding of copyright for more than a year despite multiple people trying to help explain this to you. In the United States, works published outside the US before 1909 are considered public domain, however, other countries may have different laws. For Wikipedia's purposes, US law applies in this instance. Shell ^babelfish 19:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply on your talk page; I do not think that this matter is clear. If you scroll up to the top of most of the image pages where there has been discussion, you will see that there is a lot of confusion by a number of Wikipedia editors (some of whom agree with my point of view about this matter; some of whom do not). It is not as clear-cut an issue as you state. It would be helpful if Wikipedia's policy/guidelines statements (project pages) provided direct guidance about the specific situation demonstrated by these particular image pages: where Wikipedians have posted Derivative works based on material that is subject to Trademark and Copyright. Right now there seem to be multiple conflicting points of view about how to present the image pages relating to such images (as David Monniaux's and Anubis3's images based on photographs that they made of exhibited or displayed items). You will note that there are images from Wikipedia Commons in, e.g., Imperial War Museum to illustrate exhibits. If the images that these two users have posted cannot be in Wikipedia Commons because they present "fair use" claims or for some other reason, can that be explained more clearly. If these "PD" licenses are correct, could you explain precisely how they are correct and why the images cannot be placed in Wikipedia Commons with licenses there? That might not be clear to other Wikipedia editors/users as well. I do not consider this matter in the context of Edit warring so much as in the context of information that would be helpful to have on image pages that would not mislead readers and users in the future. People upload images to Wikipedia and often have them deleted. Some positive examples of how to handle such a situation as this one in the project pages would be most helpful for everyday Wikipedia users/editors. Thank you. --NYScholar 19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your editing summary history refers to a "trademark" date; the copyright law in question refers to date of "copyright" ("creation" and/or "publication") regarding "copyright duration" pertaining to the images of the designs of the created medals (minted works of art--medallions); their images are copyrighted by the Nobel Foundation (which is the "author" of those designs, transferred to them by the engraver/designer in 1902, when the work was made) and also trademarked by the Nobel Foundation (I don't know the date of the first registered trademark; it is not stated); what is stated in the history of the medal is in the article that I cite posted on the Nobel Foundation Nobel Prize (R) Medals webpages. If one wants additional information, one will need to do additional research; I provide only the link to that article, which uploaders like David.Monniaux et al. may have drawn upon in their statements about the medals in their image pages (e.g., name of the designer/engraver etc.). The matter of "fair use" pertains to "copyright" in the image page; not to "trademark"; David Monniaux's ref. to "fair use" pertained to the "copyright" status of his own photograph; he can only claim copyright on his photograph, not on the content/properties (intellectual properties) which it depicts. His edited image is a Derivative work (derives from copyright-protected content [as well as registered trademarked content] belonging to the Nobel Foundation). That's why "fair use" comes into play at all. The reference to the written "permit" and the correspondence from the Nobel Foundation (the ticket no.) is in that context. --NYScholar 19:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever tried bringing this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions or to Wikipedia's legal counsel? The fact is that numerous Wikipedian's I know to be knowledgeable in copyright law disagree with your interpretation and have continued to do so for a full year. It would help your case incredibly if you could find a way to make your points succinctly; in all that prose, your point is easily lost. You also do not cite anything other than "work for hire"; others have disputed your claim and you have provided no evidence other than your own assertion. [ Shell ^babelfish 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]

"...you have provided no evidence other than your own assertion": Not true at all: :I provided a link to the featured article in nobelorg.org describing the work as commissioned from the designers; that is hardly my own assertion. Please read the linked article. That Nobel-Foundation featured article is currently accessible from my own talk page, via the Nobel Prize (R) Medal sources that I linked. (I've also linked to it in this image page as the source.) It is absurd to state that I am making this up (simply "asserting" it!). All the information that anyone has cited about what these medals are comes from nobelprize.org; they simply do not give their source, as I have done in the image page (for that reason: to document it with a verifiable reliable source--Wikipedia policy: WP:V#Sources; WP:CITE--as in articles. Others have taken the information about who designed the medal for the Nobel Foundation from the same article without giving their source. --NYScholar 20:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "commissioned" works (in the sense that the Nobel Foundation clearly describes]], it falls under Work for hire#Copyright duration. (That is a Wikipedia page, not my "own assertion"; the external links go to U.S. copyright code. --NYScholar 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that after I referred to this work as such, Jheald made undocumented edits to the article Work for hire; I've tagged the page with the "missing citations" template since just noticing that. I stand by my description of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal images and their designs as work that the Nobel Foundation commissioned from its designers and the Mints that made them; the gold medallions are described in considerable detail in the article that I have linked as my source in the image page and elsewhere. It is available for all to read on nobelprize.org. It is featured by that website for the Nobel Foundation; as such it is an official document of the site and authorized by the Foundation. What more do you want? --NYScholar 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You're so funny. The edits I made to that article are one thing that are systematically sourced. :-)

You might like to explain your theory of corporate authorship to Deutsche Bahn. I think they'd be interested.

Regarding U.S. Law, 17 USC 101 sets out quite clearly when a commissioned work may be considered a work for hire: viz. if the work is for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, and then only if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them. A design for a medal falls into none of those categories.

But in any case, whether it is a work for hire or not, if it was published before 1909 it is no longer protected by copyright in the U.S. [10].

You accept, that is the basis of the law here? Jheald 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be uploaded to commons because it may or may not be out of copyright in countries other than the US; you'd have to look at Common's rules for more information. Shell ^babelfish 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at Wikipedia Commons and its rules; they don't deal with "fair use" items, accordiing to other administrators who have commented from time to time on various images; this image has a claim of being within "fair use" provisions of U.S. copyright code by its uploaders (plural). That is why it is not a Wikipedia Commons-eligible image. That also means that there are copyright restrictions on its use in Wikipedia (which needs review). --NYScholar 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(some kind of editing delay going on?)

The "author" in the case of the design of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals is the Nobel Foundation; scroll up in Works for hire; description of "author" relates to "commissioned" works (no matter what date they were "created" and/or "published"), whether they are "commissioned" or "work for hire"--the "designer" is not the "author" as far as "copyright" goes when he has been paid for his work and his rights to the design are subsequently listed as "proprietary rights" by the organization/corporate entity in its registered trademark and copyright notices (as is the case with the Nobel Foundation): not my assertion; that of the organization/corporate entity in its posted notices for "Copyright and trademark"; already linked. (Shell deleted some of the information that I had provided on an earlier version of the image page; it's still in my talk page, where I may add more if needed. I had quoted exactly from the Nobel Foundation's notices. Scroll up as well.) --NYScholar 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

See comments of 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC) two paragraphs above. Jheald 02:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of faulty pd in the U.S. template

As per administrative review. Will return to post link to the comment. --NYScholar (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Typographical error

[1]There is a typographical error in the PD notice that needs correction (I'm not doing it, however). [2] Compared to the earlier notice that Jheald had placed, there is a big diff. between a (C) symbol with a line crossing it out and a (C) symbol without that. It indicates that copyright still pertains (as the Nobel Foundation claims). --NYScholar 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [2 points; numbered them. See below. --NYScholar 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)]

It indicates copyright may still pertain somewhere, but not in the United States. Jheald 21:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I was making more than one point. The typographical error to which I was referring is in spelling of the second instance of the word released: "has been released under the free license 'all rights relaesed'." I'll leave it to you to edit. --NYScholar 22:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale required for each use of this image in Wikipedia

Please see the fair use rationale. I've restored the previously-deleted source in the general Fair use rationale section. A separate fair-use rationale is still required for each separate use of this image in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Correspondence with Wikipedia Foundation

Cites "implication" of qualified specific-use "permission" received in writing; but the text of the correspondence is not public in Wikipedia. Have asked for a review at Wikipedia:Media#Copyright questions and elsewhere. Review pending. In the meantime have cited relevant information pertaining to the correspondence item no. listed. Please stop deleting the relevant references/sources. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The information and links deleted from the earlier version of the image page's "fair use rationale" by Butseriouslyfolks includes the ticket no. link supplied by Shell, as well as other information posted by the Nobel Foundation. As a copyright review is going on about this and related images, this information needs to be accessible for reference by others considering it. Please see "diffs between version 167764524 & old id=167763623 for the links and information that have since been deleted. Thank you. --NYScholar 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you might add it as a separate note in a separate section, as an additional reason why we can use this image. You might also add that it can be freely used & modified in the UK, per the UK's freedom of panorama law. But neither are part of the use-rationale, which is meant to apply whether or not WP re-users have had contact with the Foundation. Jheald 03:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed non-free use rationale

The non-free use rationale for this image was extremely convoluted and included references to permissions and potentional lawsuits. If we had permission, it would be a free image, and no non-free use rationale would be necessary. Also, probability of suit is not how we determine whether images can be used here. So I fixed the rationale to bring in into conformity with others at Wikipedia. Please discuss here instead of blindly reverting. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks  02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This might work better; I don't know. For such guidance, I posted the images in the Wikipedia Media Copyright Questions page, as Shell suggested earlier. One thing that I don't understand is the ref. in "Warning" in the tag. As the article does exist in Wikipedia, I wonder what that refers to. Could you explain? --NYScholar 02:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. When I first posted it, the article name was enclosed in [[]]'s. The rationale template is formatted to take the article name in plain text, and it generated the error message when it couldn't find an article named "[[Nobel Prize in Physics]]" (with the brackets). So I fixed it. -- But|seriously|folks  03:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing that. --NYScholar 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image caption

I added a more accurate caption (in the use of the image in the article Nobel Prize in Physics) describing what is being depicted. --NYScholar 03:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize (R) Medals

According to the article about their history featured in the official website of the Nobel Foundation (see Nobel Prize in Physics#External links, where it is listed), the "Swedish medals" (four of the five Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895 and first presented 1901, with the medals first given in 1902) were changed in 1980 to a different gold plating (24 carat gold-plated instead of 23 carat, etc.). The medal depicted in the photograph that this image is based on was minted (created) and presented in 1947. The three-dimensional object (the gold medalliion) photographed at Appleton Tower at the U of Edinburgh is thus a differently-minted medal than current ones (from 1980 to present). Please read the article for more information about what this photograph depicts (the front side of that 1947 Nobel Prize (R) Medal for Physics to Appleton, whom the Tower is named after). I still don't see how this medal or the design of the front side of it is "in the public domain in the U.S." as the template tag claims. That part of the image page still needs review and correction as deemed. Someone with actual legal expertise needs to review the templates on the image page for accuracy of their claims. Thanks. --NYScholar 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC) [corrs. --NYScholar 01:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]

Here's the q. from the article cited:

Up to 1980 the "Swedish" medals, each weighing approximately 200 g and with a diameter of 66 mm, were made of 23-karat gold. Since then they have been made of 18-karat green gold plated with 24-karat gold.
Today the "Swedish" medals are cast by Myntverket - the Swedish Mint - in Eskilstuna and the Peace medal by Den Kongelige Mynt - the Royal Mint - in Kongsberg, Norway.

--NYScholar 01:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC) [1 carat = 200 milligrams] --NYScholar 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For tags for potential use in this image page, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. --NYScholar 01:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC) It includes the more-appropriate "PD-Self" template tag, which pertains to the actual image that is being described and/or licensed (not the Nobel Foundation's trademarked and copyrighted properties): e.g., see {{PD-self}}

• The other "public domain in the U.S." template tag is inappropriate and should be deleted immediately from this image page (in my view of this matter). --NYScholar 01:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, this image may need two tags -- one for the underlying rights in the medal's design and another for the photographer's rights. But if they are both PD, it doesn't much matter. -- But|seriously|folks  01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please provide an actual source to document claim that "the design of this medal was published in the U.S. ... before 1923." I have seen no source to verify that claim. The medal in the photograph was minted in 1947 and presented in 1947. Its front side is minted from a design completed in 1902 (and its image is still currently the registered trademark and copyrighted property of the Nobel Foundation, according to all its notices); but the medal itself was minted in 1947. How could this medal (or its "design") have been "published in the U.S." "before 1923" "or elsewhere" "before 1909"? It was not minted until 1947. Sources to document the "publication" of this "design" of this medal? If you are referring to the minted medal (the "three-dimensional object"; that was not minted until 1947 (Appleton's medal). The template tags need to pertain to the actual image that the image page describes (the photograph of the medal on display when DM took the photograph at the Appleton Tower at the U of Edinburgh): and that object was minted in 1947. --NYScholar 01:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC) (added some info.) --NYScholar 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Swedish medals" (which include this one) have always been minted in Sweden (not the U.S.). I don't see how the U.S. has anything to do with the "proprietary rights" relating to these Nobel Foundation-authored (still) medals. The only thing that DM (the original uploader) has any claiims to is his own photograph, and those claims are qualified in his own presentation of it, as subject to possible other legal conditions (trademarks and copyrights of others). He cannot "release" those into the "public domain"; I've provided the appropriate template tag for his image (his photograph as scanned and uploaded to Wikipedia and then edited by other uploaders who re-uploaded it after they edited it.)--NYScholar 01:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of faulty pd in the U.S. template

As per administrative review. Will return to post link to the comment. --NYScholar (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the comment: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 22/Images; also alerted to in in my talk page; see current exchange and/or User talk:NYScholar/Archive 16 (scroll down). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[The only part of that comment that I don't agree w/ is the ref. to "derivative work"; the image has been highly edited and it still looks a lot like the image of the front side of Nobel Prize (R) Medals presented on the Nobel Web (with copyright notices relating to them); the photographs of medals on display still look like they derive from those copyright-protected (as well as trademarked) designs/design marks. I agree that the fair use rationales (which I helped to write) are necessary. See also: Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Nobel Prize (R) Medal images. --NYScholar (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)]

Derivative work

The images of the front side of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals for Physics, Chemistry, Literature, and Physiology or Medicine are the same as the image featured on this image page (the front side of a Physics medal from 1947). They are not distinguishable from it [though the physical medal composition of gold changed post 1980]; they may be different in fact, but in appearance they look much the same (despite the edits to the image); the edits themselves make the work what is referred to as a "derivative work" in the Nobel Foundation's website notices. They prohibit editing their images and there is no way in Wikipedia to verify that this image is not one made from their website (even if it weren't). A photograph of a Nobel Prize (R) medal on display is a derivative work in terms of the design being a design over which the Nobel Foundation asserts its "proprietary rights" (as well as being its "design mark" (registered trademark); in putting such medals on display, there are some waivers that museums and other exhibiting venues generally attain prior to exhibition. It is not known how this process relates to this particular medal on display in Appleton Tower (acc. to the photographer David Monniaux); however, in originally uploading his photograph, he clearly asserted that he was doing so within the "fair use" provision of U.S. Copyright legal code (Title 17, sec. 107, plus revisions). [The links to the U.S. government Copyright Office circulars that relate to this image are on my current talk page; some are from the Library of Congress as well.] I do not think that he [DM] objects to his photograph being considered a "derivative work" based on the design of the medals. Claiming "fair use" in the "rationales" addresses these circumstances (which are rather complex). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC) [some clarifications in brackets; will be away. --NYScholar (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)]

What's your point? Monads (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See the editing history of the image page. --12.10.239.130 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this discussion balanced?

Please don't take this personally - it's not meant in that way. Some stats might explain why I ask the question though.

16 editors have contributed to this discussion so far and there have been 222 edits in total. 160 of those edits (72%) have been made by one editor. In addition, approximately 19372 words have been used, 15115 of which (78%) come from one editor.

As a passer by who is (I think) objective in as much as I don't have a strong opinion either way, this doesn't seem to me to be a particularly balanced discussion Monads (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for discussions in talk pages of images or any other talk pages to be "balanced." What's your point? How does it relate to Wikipedia's editing policies? --12.10.239.130 (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is about the image page and about making improvements to it. Please see the editing history; the above "drive-by comments" are not relevant to improving the image page; the issues discussed earlier deal with problems in the image page. --12.10.239.130 (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is clearly stated. I wasn't implying that the discussion should be balanced or implying anything that I didn't explicitly state. I'm sorry, I didn't realise it wouldn't be relevant. Thanks Monads (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Developed rationale for use of image in Nobel Prize

Given the requirements of the image page, I have developed a non-free/fair-use rationale for the use of this image in the article Nobel Prize (it parallels the rationale already given for Nobel Prize in Physics. --12.10.239.130 (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Transparent background

Could someone perhaps upload a .png version with a transparent background? --haha169 (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

done. Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.png. Hidro (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is silly.

I don't understand the point of having a hyperlinked image of the prize in each laureate's page next to their name. What makes this prize so special that it has placement priority over all of the other information on these pages, effectively drawing attention away from more important details, including the article itself? What makes the prize so special that only this prize is included as a hyperlinked image, and not, say, one for an Academy Award? It's not like this is a prize handed down from the heavens that distinguishes the human from the divine. The fact that there is a "controversy" section in this article that includes arguments about how some people should have gotten the award and others shouldn't have further suggests that this prize lacks the absolute authority in moral labeling that the placement priority of the hyperlinked images seem to suggest. I always thought Wikipedia was starting to overload on the number of useless little attachments one could add to an article, and now I'm convinced that this hyperlinked image means things are going a bit overboard. I suggest it should be taken down, or at least moved to a more suitable place in the article and as a simple text hyperlink. --216.165.62.185 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)