Talk:Félix d'Hérelle/Draft

David Tribe has nominated the version dated 22 Jun 20072007 of this article for approval. Other editors may also sign to support approval. The Biology Workgroup is overseeing this approval. Unless this notice is removed, the article will be approved on Jun 25, 2007.

-->

David Tribe has made no more than typographical adjustments to the page and is not an author. However he is expert in the field and teaches senior year college courses in this topic. But the author is more expert than David Tribe

URL pointer first set at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/F%C3%A9lix_d%27H%C3%A9relleDavid Tribe 23:39, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Images

Unless it is something about French copyright law, or something else, Image:D'Herelle,_Eliava,_Makashvili.JPG and Image:Older_d'Herelle.jpg would not seem to qualify as {{PD}} (Public Domain) images. Help me out here, someone please. ---Stephen Ewen 14:26, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

These photos are old and the provenance is murky. The former was taken at the Eliava Institute in the Soviet Union, which I am pretty sure did not even HAVE copyright law at the time. It was published in Science 25 October 2002:Vol. 298. no. 5594, pp. 728 - 731 DOI: 10.1126/science.298.5594.728 and credited COURTESY OF A. SULAKVELIDZE who is Alexander Sulakvelidze, a founder of Intralytix Inc. The latter is reproduced in many places without any indication given for its source. ...said John J. Dennehy (talk) (Please sign your talk page posts by simply adding four tildes, ~~~~.)

Okay, but don't you think we should avoid outrightly calling photos "Public Domain" when we lack the authority to do so? Probably public domain does not equal public domain.

• Image:D'Herelle,_Eliava,_Makashvili.JPG - I will email Intralytix about the image.

• Image:Older_d'Herelle.jpg - this should be tagged by an editor with

{{Provenanceunknown-fairuse-editor
|editor name=
|workgroup name=
|article name=
}}

See {{Provenanceunknown-fairuse-editor}} for what the template says.

Ideally, File:Older d'Herelle.jpg/Permission should contain documented attempts to locate the copyright holder; David or John, perhaps you can make a statement there saying simply that the image is reproduced in many places without any indication given for its source, so there has been no lead to even try to follow.

Stephen Ewen 00:49, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Correction (and apologies for any of my own unsigned comments), but it is likely the "unsigned" comment was not mine but John 's, the main author. Not a major issue anyway, but trying to keep the record straight. Thanks for welcome advice on copyright too David Tribe 01:19, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Oops. Thanks, I fixed the signature. I have also emailed Intralytix to just simply get permission to use Image:D'Herelle,_Eliava,_Makashvili.JPG, or find out with more certainty is its status. The other image still needs tagging by an editor with {{Provenanceunknown-fairuse-editor}}. Stephen Ewen 01:51, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Another image issue

Sorry to be stickler about these things, but I hope you see the value in it. Image:Gamma_phage.gif is not actually a {{cc-by-2.5}} but is used in the PLoS journal article under fair use(hence the language on the image page, "Photograph courtesy of Vincent Fischetti and Raymond Schuch, The Rockefeller University"). PLoS, like Citizendium, uses images under a wide variety of terms, while trying to use them most under CC-by-2.5. Like it states, "All journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License."

So, what needs doing is:

• An editor needs to use {{Fairuse-editor}} on the image upload page of Image:Gamma_phage.gif. To use the template, place

{{Fairuse-editor
|copyright holder URL=http://www.rockefeller.edu/
|copyright holder name=Vincent Fischetti and Raymond Schuch
|editor name=
|workgroup name=Biology
|article name=Félix d'Hérelle
|source country=United States
}}

• A fair use rationale needs to be added to the image page addressing:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

• Alternately, an editor can just give me the okay here and I will do the busy work for them. :-)

Stephen Ewen 02:24, 22 June 2007 (CDT)