Fastfission (talk | contribs) |
William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) VFD wmc / GQ |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:Finally, those works that were created ''before December 31, 1978, but never published'', are now protected for the longer of life of the author plus 70 years or until December 31, 2002." |
:Finally, those works that were created ''before December 31, 1978, but never published'', are now protected for the longer of life of the author plus 70 years or until December 31, 2002." |
||
Since all of those photographs were published in 1912 (I scanned them myself out of a first edition), they clearly fall under the first category: works published before 1923, i.e. in the public domain. I of course agree they should be moved to commons at some point but I find that pretty time consuming personally so I haven't done it yet. (Commons hadn't launched when I created the page). --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC) |
Since all of those photographs were published in 1912 (I scanned them myself out of a first edition), they clearly fall under the first category: works published before 1923, i.e. in the public domain. I of course agree they should be moved to commons at some point but I find that pretty time consuming personally so I haven't done it yet. (Commons hadn't launched when I created the page). --[[User:Fastfission|Fastfission]] 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC) |
||
== VFD wmc / GQ == |
|||
You're welcome to vote how you please on VFD, of course. I'm not trying to change your mind. You've voted on the mistaken assumption that it was autobiog, but so what. However I don't like your gratuitous insults to my user page - please stop that kind of thing. |
|||
Oh, and if you think that "patently obvious statemnt global environment change is supported by the scientific community" - thats great. I agree. But where are you in helping keep the skeptic nonsense of the global warming pages, then? If you look at the history of [[global warming]] and related pages you'll find that your assertion of the patently obvious is *not* acceepted by some vociferous wikipedians - and we could do with your help in keeping the pages sane. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 2005-07-01 10:22:34 (UTC). |
Revision as of 10:22, 1 July 2005
At page load, it was -- T in UTC
(see W3C Date and Time Formats)
Please leave your message at the bottom of the page. Duncharris 16:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
|
Archives
Archives of old discussions:
Category:Pseudoscience
I'm currently feeling like we ought to perhaps scrap the pseudoscience category alltogether and replace it with a list. In thinking about it the other day I hit upon a logical problem with my stance on it and think that in the interest of intellectual honesty and NPOV it might be best to do it as such. Here's the question I pose. I'm still sifting through my thoughts on it, though. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Fastfission 30 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken in thinking that they are copyvio. According to our own Copyright FAQ, and this wonderfully straightforward page about copyright, in the U.S.:
- "Any work published on or before December 31, 1922 is now in the public domain.
- "Works published between January 1, 1923 and December 31, 1978, inclusive, are protected for a term of 95 years from the date of publication, with the proper notice.
- But, if the work was published between 1923 and December 31, 1963, when there used to be a (non-automatic) "renewal term," the copyright owner may not have renewed the work. If he or she did not renew, the original term of protection (28 years) would now be expired and these works will be in the public domain.
- After 1978, the way we measure the term of protection changes. It is no longer related to a date of publication, but rather runs for 70 years from the date the author dies (called, "life of the author" plus 70 years). Further, publication is irrelevant. Works are protected whether they are published or not.
- Finally, those works that were created before December 31, 1978, but never published, are now protected for the longer of life of the author plus 70 years or until December 31, 2002."
Since all of those photographs were published in 1912 (I scanned them myself out of a first edition), they clearly fall under the first category: works published before 1923, i.e. in the public domain. I of course agree they should be moved to commons at some point but I find that pretty time consuming personally so I haven't done it yet. (Commons hadn't launched when I created the page). --Fastfission 1 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)
VFD wmc / GQ
You're welcome to vote how you please on VFD, of course. I'm not trying to change your mind. You've voted on the mistaken assumption that it was autobiog, but so what. However I don't like your gratuitous insults to my user page - please stop that kind of thing.
Oh, and if you think that "patently obvious statemnt global environment change is supported by the scientific community" - thats great. I agree. But where are you in helping keep the skeptic nonsense of the global warming pages, then? If you look at the history of global warming and related pages you'll find that your assertion of the patently obvious is *not* acceepted by some vociferous wikipedians - and we could do with your help in keeping the pages sane. William M. Connolley 2005-07-01 10:22:34 (UTC).