I am writing a book about a proudct and i saw that on
I am writing a book about a proudct and i saw that on abother book someone took images from wikipedia and in the photo references he says:"photo is sourced from wikipedia and is in public domain"or"photo is by the department of ..... and is in public domain"or"photo by xxxxx guy licenced by creative commons"so are these images mean all of them are free to be copied and displayed in a book without permission as long as you cite the source?so when is it public domain or when is it creative commons and what do they mean briefly, as far as me being able to use in my book and asking permissions?
I am interested in making a derivative work of the following
I am interested in making a derivative work of the following type of image... http://www.loc.gov/resource/pga.01013/ Then selling it. I know the U.S. Government can not own copyrights. And I know any such copyright would have long ago expired. I also knowthat public domain images usually come with no strings attached. But there are some documents in the Public Domain which DO have restrictions. Is this just such a case? Am I barred from selling my derivative work with the attached image? Thanks.
If I take a picture of a building and put the building in a
If I take a picture of a building and put the building in a movie as an animation or graphic render do I have to ask permission to do so? Ex. Creative commons photos with CC0 license I believe I can use but would I have to ask the building/location owners too?
With regard to Creative Commons licensing as used on Wiki
With regard to Creative Commons licensing as used on Wiki Commons Images site, What is the difference between 'use' and 'build upon'? If I include Attribution+ShareAlike images (with no modification) in my commercial site hopefully that doesn't mean that I have to share my site's assets under Attribution+ShareAlike. It wouldn't make sense. What are your thoughts?see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license
Dear respected Madam I would like to get the copy right of
Dear respected MadamI would like to get the copy right of an article in Wikipedia under the title of "War in Afghanistan" if you help me it will be highly appreciated.The article is!DonateHome | ContactNot registered yet?AboutTimelinesBlogDonateVolunteerSearch this timeline onlyHome » Timelines by Topic » Topics » Governance » Foreign Policy » War in AfghanistanWar in AfghanistanProject: War in AfghanistanOpen-Content project managed by blackmax, Ryeadd event | referencesPage 1 of 7 (694 events)previous | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | next1973-1979: US Starts to Provide Support to Islamists Opposing the Soviets in Afghanistan
I have a question in relation to copyright.I received one
I have a question in relation to copyright.I received one of those infamous "extortion" letters from Getty Image after allegedly finding just one image that it does not like despite what I believe were reasonable efforts on my part to determine ownership of the image (at least at the time the decision was made by me to publish the image online).As a rough letter of acknowledgment of the matter and my need to investigate the claims, is there anything you would recommend I should include (or remove) that you feel is relevant in this introductory letter to help give me the time I need to check on a few things as well as determine what is a reasonable compensation given my present circumstances should I find I have breached copyright?To Whom It May Concern:Thank you for your letter dated 13 November 2014 notifying us that our website <> (herein described as <>) may be in violation of an image copyright allegedly represented by Getty Images (The Image). To clarify, I am responsible for making decisions regarding the content published on <> and, therefore, I will handle any issue regarding the possible violation of an image copyright on this website.With regards ***** ***** matters, I too take seriously the importance of protecting the copyright of any content owned by others. I am not in the business of blatantly going about ripping off licensed images in the hope that no one will discover them for commercial gain. As you probably know by now, a total of 1,139 images (consisting of 630 JPEG, 477 GIF and 32 PNG formatted files) is currently published on <> as at time this letter was written of which the U.S. company Getty Image has managed to discover only one image that may be in violation of the Copyright Act. Given the exceedingly low number involved in this matter (in fact, only one), I think Getty Image would agree that this would constitute sufficient evidence to support the view that the presence of this image, if proven to be in breach of copyright laws, is no more than an unintentional act on my behalf. Furthermore, what is not apparent in this circumstance is that I have applied what I believed to be at the time the image came to my possession reasonable efforts to determine if the image was likely to create possible concerns under the Copyright Act. This includes a search of hundreds of images at Google Image and Yahoo image, using the Digimarc technology available in Adobe Photoshop for invisibly embedding certain types of information to help identify an image as being under commercial license and owned by someone else, and looking at the metadata information of images for any clues that will assist web managers such as myself to determine its ownership. Even to this day, these methods have not provided any further information I would need to make a determination as to whether the image in question for this matter would constitute a possible breach of the Copyright Act.And if the image had been held by Getty Image at the time, I was not able to determine from various commercial photo sites whether the image in question was owned by anyone. I should also note that there is no tool on the company web site for members of the general public to use to determine the copyright situation of images in their possession other than the brute force method of searching numerous images in the hope that one image may be discovered to perhaps look similar enough to warrant further investigation.While the above efforts are not meant to be an excuse for my decision to use the questionable image, it is important for people at Getty Image to know that not all individuals deliberately and knowingly go about using copyright material for their own commercial gains. I am one of those individuals.<> is foremost an education web site. It receives free information from various members of the public and certain researchers to assist with its unique approach to education using the left- and right-side of the brain, as well as the positive emotions needed for storing and recalling the essential knowledge from human memory. We first strive to get the big picture first which, in turn, often helps to discover new insights for determining how the rest of information should be refined, explained and presented on <> (i.e. the right-brain). The next level is to obtain detailed and relevant information needed to support the big picture (i.e., the left brain). Finally, in order to enhance the rapid learning and recognition of the essential knowledge contained within the information, a necessary means of heightening the positive emotions is employed. Thus explaining the purpose of the image in relation to this matter.While <> is working towards selling new and original educational products to the global community, there is no expectation <> will make a profit at the present time or in the foreseeable future until sufficient cashflow is available to promote its activities. At the present time, that cashflow is not available at time of writing this latter.Now to the matter of the alleged infringement of the Copyright Act in relation to one image on <>.As a gesture of good-faith, and until this matter is properly resolved, I have decided to cooperate with Getty Image by removing the questionable image from <> since 21 November 2014 (the date when I received your letter). In the meantime, I will conduct further investigations into this matter to determine what has happened, and whether any improvements can be made on my part to avoid another similar situation occurring in the future.In due course, you will receive written notification of the outcome of my investigations and whether a reasonable compensation offer needs to be made to Getty Image (assuming any profit has been made by <> in the past).I will require 14 days from the date of this letter to carry out this work.If you require further information, you may do so via the email address of <>, or by written correspondence through the standard mail system.
question about http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ I
question about http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/I want to understand the scope of this license.Some background: I'm a web developer / technologist who runs his own business. I'm on the fence about moving forward and invest time, money, energy with a side-project to build a robot.http://www.inmoov.fr/Now, I fully understand that (according to the website) the 3d models (that a user can use to 3d print the parts) are bound by this license, but how far does it go? For example, if I were to offer services to help a client implement a custom version of this robot, I'm guessing I could not charge for the parts or the printing of the parts, or assembly of the robot, but writing custom software that would control the robot. Does this automatically fall under the Creative Commons license by association? Or no?