Commons:Deletion requests/Courtesy images from Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes
|
Courtesy images from Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes
[edit]- File:Pogonomyrmex sp males.png
- File:Pogonomyrmex sp hybrids.png
- File:Volvocales.png
- File:Flatworm sex.png
- File:Pseudobiceros bedfordi 3.jpg
These images were extended by the courtesy of their authors to John Whitfield for use in his paper Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes. All are stated "Photo Courtesy of ...". Whitfield published his paper in PLoS under the CC license. However, the courtesy given by a photographer for his or her work to be used is not a permission for the text author to release their works under a CC license. Furthermore, http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183 states "All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License." (emphasis mine) --Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Jappalang (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- keep. [1]. --Snek01 (talk) 10:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- What they said does not seem to be enforced. I emailed them, asking:
In John Whitfield's Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183), the photographs are stated as "Photo Courtesy of <so and so>".
I believe in common parlance that this phrase means the authors gave him permission to use their works for his particular article only.
Did Whitfield secure written permission to license their works under Creative Commons as stated by your publication?
http://www.plosbiology.org/static/contact.action
http://www.plosbiology.org/static/figureGuidelines.action;jsessionid=93E88DAAAA6E0A79535F87C4A5F936EC.ambra02#ccal
Their reply:We expect authors that are using the works of others in papers that we are going to publish to have obtained the proper permission before doing so. I think they are also expected to communicate the fact that this permission will result in the publication in an open access/CCAL environment.
Do you believe that John Whitfield has not obtained permission, and/or has contravened copyright in some way?
So it seems they do not check with the author if the photographers had consented to their work licensed in such a manner. Note that if the photographers allowed their works to be CC-licensed then Whitfield should have used attribution wording compatible with the CC requirements (explanation or a link) and not the words commonly given for "permitted to use for this publication" (i.e. "Photo courtesy of ..."). Jappalang (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)- I received further e-mail and am withdrawing this DR because of it. Principally, they clarified that:
-- Jappalang (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Everything we publish in PLoS is under the CCAL license and we require the author of all manuscripts to sign an agreement acknowledging the placement of all materials in the public domain under the CCAL license. Whitfield did sign this agreement like all other authors who publish in PLoS.
This article was published almost six years ago and so the terminology we used at that time to cite images from other people was (as in Figures 1 and 2 of the first attachment) "Photo Courtesy of Nico Michiels." Today, we use a slightly different terminology to cite images from other people (as in the second attachment) – "Image Credit: Sławomir Staszczuk" – but both mean that the images are under the CCAL license.
- I received further e-mail and am withdrawing this DR because of it. Principally, they clarified that:
- What they said does not seem to be enforced. I emailed them, asking:
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)