|This is the discussion page for Lbstone.
Gidday Brandon, this is a good idea, and will be a great resource, hat's off to you! I think I've got all the data and migrated it from the wiki Brandon, but I may have missed soemthing (but I don't think I did) - any way it may be safe to take down the currently we are moving data tesxt from the main page if you want.. Cheers --Cameron 21:19, 27 Oct 2004 (EDT)
Brandon - someone (18.104.22.168) has started using images from external sites within camera pages to illustrate the camera being described. While this is a visually atractive it is not in the spirit of the "free doc licence" as these images belong to, and are copyrighted by someone else. Contibutors should be encouraged to upload images of cameras that they have taken themselves but not taken from other sites without permission. Regards - Martin --Mhtaylor 10:51, 5 Nov 2004 (EST)
Martin, I agree fully. I'll set it up so that we can do photo uploads and do this the right way. --Lbstone 11:01, 5 Nov 2004 (EST)
I have a question: if the img was stored on a free host (like www.250free.com), its "correct" put link of image here for ilusrate?
ps.: sory about my english.
--Ed Villas 09:39, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)
I think that would be OK as long as you took the photograph in question or got permission from the owner to use it. You cannot just download other people's images to a new location and start using them from there. It's not just about theft of bandwidth but it's about theft of intellectual property.
--Mhtaylor 10:30, 16 Nov 2004 (EST)
Images from original advertising
Is it considered OK to insert images scanned from original advertising documents (not current ones, typically pre 1980s) ?
Typically the company having issued the documents, either doesn't exist any more, or doesn't care about them being rediffused, and it is common practice in collectors' books and websites, when no picture of the actual thing can be easily obtained.
--Rebollo_fr 17:19, 15 Dec 2005 (EST)
- That's a really good question. I think the short answer is, no it's probably not okay, since they're still copyrighted. We may want to look into "fair use", though to see if it applies in this case. I'd like to know if a precedent has already been set that we could refer back to. It's possible that it's not okay, but nobody really cares, so it's kind of okay. --Lbstone 13:43, 15 December 2005 (EST)
- I have investigated a little and found a page about copyright explaining that all the works published before 1989 with no copyright (c) notice were public domain (in the US at least). The original material I have (manuals and advertising) do not have copyright notice. Usually there is the name of the company, maybe the code number of the publication, but no "copyright" word nor (c) sign. (My manual for the Rollei SL35 is more explicit : "Reproduction autorisée avec indication d'origine" = "Reproduction allowed with mention of origin".) So maybe it is ok, but we would have to investigate a bit more. --Rebollo_fr 21:05, 15 Dec 2005 (EST)
I have heavily reorganized the category naming scheme, the main reason was to get rid of the word "cameras" in each and every category name, that I had introduced earlier but whose drawbacks I could plainly observe. As a normal user cannot move a whole category, I browsed through the pages to reindex them, and could not suppress the deprecate categories. Could you please have a look to give your opinion and suppress the uncategorized categories? Note that there is debate about "Japan" vs "Japanese cameras" and so forth, the discussion is at Camera-wiki.org:Community discussions. --Rebollo fr 11:21, 6 March 2006 (EST)
Thanks for the surprise! --Rebollo fr 13:05, 6 March 2006 (EST)
Thank you for your confidence in me. No rejoicing, because I regret the circumstance that prompted it. And thank you for your own good (tedious) work a bit earlier (while I was asleep). Hoary 18:44, 24 June 2006 (EDT)