On 9/9/06, Anthony <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: Usually it's both since they're one and the same, but we actually want the copyright holder. It doesn't matter to us who took it, only who owns it, since that's who would be using the license that we have to know. Same with fair use images; we want to know the copyright holder, not some random website with the image (though that is helpful if it says who the copyright owner is).

Rory Stolzenberg wrote: Who owns the copyright is clearly more important than who owns the picture or who physically took the picture. Former copyright ownership should even be shown for PD images to help establish that they are in fact PD. Grandma's assignment could be a positive step forward, but asking her to do that doesn't help if grandma's dead. The problem could continue for another 70 years. While she was alive grandma was never concerned about who took the pictures in the family album, and the copyrights that might go along with those pictures. She never bothered to make a will, because she never had anything of monetary value. In the simplest posthumous situation grandma had two children, who are both still alive, but can't get along with each other on anything. One wants to protect what he believes to be the sacred memory of grandma by allowing nothing to be made public; the other considers it a celebration of grandma to publish everything. As the number of children and grandchildren increases things can only get worse. In fact, any one of the children (and any one of the grandchildren whose parent is deceased) can release the material without regard to the others' claims of copyright. Ec

On 09/09/06, Akash Mehta <draicone(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well, yeah. Closest I've come to this is e.g. uploading an image by [[:en:User:Arkady Rose]] (my girlfriend) to Commons because she can't be bothered creating Yet Another Login. I uploaded it myself and said it was by her and put there under copyleft-self (dual GFDL and CC-by-sa) with her permission. If some hardworking wikilawyer started claiming the image must therefore be deleted as a risk to the project (what if EVERYONE did this?) then I fear my legendary patience and calm might slip. - d.

On 9/11/06, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: I don't think it has been discussed, and such images have been deleted in the past - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Minneapolis_meetup_2005.jpg I guess such images are fair use if you never asked the person using your camera to license the image. Angela.

On 9/11/06, Akash Mehta <draicone(a)gmail.com> wrote: You are in a legal grey area. Why not? -- geni

On 9/11/06, Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'd say you don't have to ask for permission. If you came up with the idea, then you are at least a joint author. Anthony

On 11/09/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote: Yeah. Regular editors, we should be taking their word for it. I suppose the problem is if a reuser gets strife in a case where it turns out the author didn't give said permission, or doesn't think they did, and they've used it in print so that the obvious remedy of just taking it down isn't possible and there may be actual damages payable. To what extent do we need to ensure against this? Perhaps an added note on the reusers' FAQ as to the importance of checking for oneself. - d.