Omnibus "why I removed a flag" thread
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
Figured I would start this thread since we can't actually put a reason on the removal itself.
First up: I removed a flag on Dorothy Denning on a claim for public domain because the image link and source is from the U.S. Navy (which can't copyright images).
(I don't intend to argue my removals and others can add new flags and ignore my reasons. I just want folks to know my reasoning.)
I removed flags from the Stormy Leather images after indicating that I represent Stormy Leather (Abby can confirm; we e-mailed when I added it as a venue) and give permission for the images to be used. This is my first time adding venue pictures, and I was unaware of the quarantine state until I went in search of a reason my pictures weren't "sticking."
As an aside (and perhaps this has already been discussed), a profile comment in addition to a flag might greatly increase (a) awareness of the copyright requirements and (b) the frequency with which corrections are made to the photos. I know it's an extra step, I'm just considering the fact that others might not be as stubborn as I am about researching the why and how of something that's not working for me :)
I would suggest that when folks who have uploaded an image remove a flag, it would be a good idea to edit the copyright information to include info such as "permission emailed to abby".
Otherwise, the image is likely to be flagged again.
I just removed a flag on a Venue photo (not sure the venue cause some bug keeps venues from being displayed on the quarantine page).
credit photo by Ryan Donovan
copyright public domain
photo by Ryan Donovan
Three of you flagged it for needing documentation of public domain status. However, if you click through to the uploader's account, his name is.... Ryan Donovan.
Removed a flag from Hartmann Von Aue. Image is in the public domain despite someone stamping "copyright" on a web page, since the artwork was created and printed around 1300.
Similar issue for Wolfram Von Eschenbach. The web page cited states the artwork was created in the 13th century ("schuf (wahrscheinlich) im ersten Viertel des 13. Jahrhunderts"). Even were they to assert they own rights to the artwork, it's not valid.
On a photo of Black Elk I removed a flag because the photo is sufficiently old enough that anyone claiming copyright (e.g., the Denver Public Library) is wrong.
And one on Dave Andrews. While originally stamped "All Rights Reserved" the photographer in the text of the page he agrees to release it per the license on Wikipedia.
I disagree on Black Elk. Please tell me how you would justify a public domain claim.
You know, I don't trust Wikipedia. There is absolutely no evidence on the Wikipedia page that the Flickr user released the rights. That so-called license is not "signed" by the photographer; there's no proof that he even knows about it. I have seen other such pages where there is a note that the license has been verified by someone, and that's missing here.
If there's a conflict between what the photographer says and what some Wikipedia person claims, with no verification, I'm going with what the photographer says.
Age of the photograph not the determining factor of its copyright status.
On the photo page on Flickr, the poster to to Wikipedia asked if he could release as free content on Wikipedia, and the photographer agreed. It's in the text of the Flickr page, not on Wikipedia.
Regarding Black Elk, if the photo was published before 1923 in the United States, it's public domain.
Just like I can grab someone's content on the internet and post it to my web page and restamp it with my own copyright, so can libraries like Carnegie Mellon and the Denver library. It doesn't mean my claim is worth the electrons it's printed with.
So I don't buy the Denver Library's claim for 1995+ copyright for a photograph published prior to 1910. The record from the Denver public library itself says that it is a postcard in their collection. Meaning it was published, and not them. They certainly don't own the rights.
Given that it was taken at least 13 years before 1923 and published, someone would have to contort the law pretty good to claim copyright.
Y'all don't have to agree.
Sorry. The Denver Library OWNS those photos and they can put whatever restrictions on their republication that they want.
if the photo was published before 1923 in the United States, it's public domain.
Okay. . . where are you seeing that it was published before 1923?
Given that it was taken at least 13 years before 1923 and published
AGAIN, tell me the publication date. When was it published? Where?
If you can't show that it was published prior to 1923, what is your public domain based on?
>16 Denver library doesn't own the photo. It owns a postcard that had the photo on it. That's what their own catalog entry for it says. I verified that the text accompanying the wikipedia entry is a copy of their catalog entry. It also owns the negative. But it was published, and not by them.
>17 you have a point. i don't have a copy of the postcard to verify. you don't have to agree.
I removed a flag from a photo of Charles Mathes as the uploader, lereveur, appears to be Charles Mathes.
the poster to to Wikipedia asked if he could release as free content on Wikipedia, and the photographer agreed
But LT is not Wikipedia. If I give you permission to use my copyrighted material, that does not give anyone else permission to use it.
20> the poster to to Wikipedia asked if he could release as free content on Wikipedia, and the photographer agreed
You highlighted the wrong two words; Wikipedia won't use a work by permission that doesn't include the rights to commercially distribute, as per GFDL or several CC licenses.
Removed a flag from George Haven Putnam. The page opposite the author image in the link posted gives the publication date of 1915, and the page after that specifically says "Copyright 1915" which puts the image in the public domain in the US.
Assuming the copyright wasn't renewed.
(P.S. There's no image there; just that blue "?". )
Edited to add: the image is there if I click on the "?" on the author page. I expect this is related to the various other image issues that seem to be happening on the site.
To my knowledge, everything published pre-1923 in the U.S. is now public domain.
> 23 http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ is a fairly comprehensive list of US copyright law. As it says, stuff published before 1923 is unconditionally in the public domain.
I have unflagged BOB81's image of Elizabeth Taylor. It had been flagged because it's the actress, not the novelist, but both their books are listed on the author page. One day, I hope, we'll be able to separate the two, but until then it's appropriate that either one have her image on the page.
(Note: I also removed the word "incorrectly" from the disambiguation notice, which had read, "This listing incorrectly includes at least two Elizabeth Taylors." As presently set up, it is not technically "incorrect" for an Author page to include multiple authors with the same name. Annoying, yes. Confusing, yes. But not incorrect.)
On LK Hunsaker, i removed a flag because the uploader was LK Hunsaker.
I removed a flag from Biblioteca Sala Borsa because the web page does license the photo under a CC Attribution license (click on "Metadata" at the bottom).
I removed a flag from a photo of Henri Murger because he died in 1861 and the photo was taken in 1854. All unpublished works prior to 1888 are in the public domain in the US. If published, it would also be in the public domain.
Also removed a few other flags on some wikipedia sourced items where the item was a work of art from the olden days. I can't remember all of them now.
Removed a flag on count philippe-paul de segur. The artist died in 1841. McGill University's copyright stamp is specious.
Removed a flag on Louisa May Alcott. Since Alcott died in 1888, and the photo of her is well before her 50s (supposedly when she was 20, so 1852, but that could be wrong), it seems old enough to make it a near certainty that it is in the public domain. For copyright to still hold, the photographer would have to have lived another 50 years after taking the photo (say 1870 to 1924), AND not published it until after 1923. If it was unpublished, it's public domain since all unpublished works prior to 1888 are public domain. No, it's not 100% certain, but it's pretty dang close. (As always, y'all don't have to agree.)
Wait a minute...We've been flagging like mad, and we're still in August photos?
Wouldn't it be nice if we could page through the last 300 in quarantine (like we can page through the last 300 uploaded)?
I wish that all twice-flagged images would be automatically deleted after 120 days, since those photos have virtually no chance of ever seeing daylight ever again.
I removed a flag from the Henry Ward Beecher image which ultimately came from
from Charles de Montesquieu which has a link to the Wikimedia Commons page which says it's 18th century and which Tim Spalding uploaded
If you have an image that is flagged for poor sourcing and you have the source, you can re-upload it with correct sourcing. BOB81 is doing a lot of that right now.
Just because I work for someone doesn't mean that I can disseminate their copyrighted work. And in this case it's not even clear that the publisher owns the copyright. It looks as though it's the photographer who does, and there is no indication that she gave permission to use the image.
I removed a flag from a venue photo by Ryan Donovan because the uploader is ryan donovan. Though I removed the flag ages ago and it took me a while to figure out why I had done it. (See BOB81, we are making progress.)
>45 KingRat, you removed a flag from Charles Ludlum. However, NYPL was quite specific about what credit was required as a condition of permission and that photograph doesn't comply.
I was only flagging because of the unclosed link which was fixed. I don't know the NYPL rules and leave flagging for that to you guys.
"(See BOB81, we are making progress.)"
I'll bet you say that when you see a falling star: billions... :)
Well, I didn't actually remove a flag from the photo of Michael Dunnett, but did want to comment on KingRat's reason for flagging it: "the owner of the copyright is the photographer, not the guy who possesses the photo".
That seems accurate in this case, but it's not always true. If the photo is a work for hire, copyright may well lie in the person who hired the photographer.
I removed the flags from the photos of Second Hand Prose submitted by Randolph-Meaney, as he is the owner of the store, which he indicates is the copyright holder.
>50 that's true. this one didn't appear to be a work for hire so i didn't mention it.
Removed a flag from photo labelled "Property of Metaphysical Bookstore & Center" which I assume is for that bookstore. The uploader is Tim Johnson, owner of the store.
Removed one from Marcus Clarke. The terms of service say they don't own the copyright, so they really have zilch to say about copying them. And it's in the public domain according to both the laws of Australia and the US.
Removed one from Bibliothèque publique de Westmount / Westmount Public Library ( Bibliothèque de Westmount / Westmount Library) as the uploader (wpl23things) works for the library (LT recognizes the claim).
The uploader for Montgomery County Memorial Library System - George & Cynthia Woods Mitchell Library also works for that library, but since she labeled the image public domain I'm going to leave my flag on it. (I left a private note for the uploader though.)
What about it? It's a profile photo. I'm not sure what you're asking.
Sorry; she added a venue photo, essentially the same as her profile photo. It has been pushed off the Quarantine page, but should be back soon.
Removed a flag from David and Lorraine Cheng Library - William Paterson University as LT recognizes the uploader's (kurtwagner) claim on the library.
Removed a flag from Jennifer Lawrence as the uploader is BrigidsBlest, an official LibraryThing author also known as Jennifer Lawrence.
Thanks. That information was not on the profile when I checked yesterday. Hence the flag.
Removed a flag from a venue photo submitted by wapld-public: photo on the profile seems to be of the same place.
Removed a flag from a photo of venue Idyllwild Arts, Parks Exhibition Center & Studios uploaded by kronelibrary as kronelibrary is recognized by LT as controlling that venue's entry.
Removed a flag from City Lights Bookstore photo uploaded by wilpotts as LT recognizes wilpotts claim on the venue.
Removed a flag from a venue photo submitted by LanOpCom: the photo is of Wood County District Public Library, the name on the profile.
As a test, I removed flags from two photos submitted by user timspalding: it (the test) was successful.
Removed a flag from Clement Clarke Moore because Cornell is wrong. They cannot hold a copyright on something published pre-1923.
But, as owners of the photograph, they can put restrictions on its use, and require that permission be obtained before it is reproduced.
>71 They can only do that through a contract provision. No contract between parties means they can't restrict it if the image is public domain.
71> No, they can't require that permission be obtained before it is reproduced. All they can do is prevent people from accessing the original; once copies are out in people's hands, there's nothing they can do about the reproduction.
Removed a flag from Westlife because the original source in this case *is* wikipedia user Jack Bhan, and he appears to have a good history (i.e., not posting copyrighted stuff).
Removed a flag from Victor Margueritte. Photo was taken in 1910 and published as a postcard, putting it in the public domain.
Re: Marcus Clarke (#54)
The source is the State Library of Victoria for the Wikipedia image and the State Library website says under their copyright page that
"If you wish to copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any material presented on this website you must get written permission from the Library and a fee may be charged. Unauthorised commercial publication or reproduction of any part of this website is specifically prohibited. For further information, please see the Permissions page."
I removed a flag from the Emma Lazarus image; it's definitely PD.
76> I don't think it's fruitful to repeat the same arguments everytime it comes up; you believe that libraries have a copyright in such things, and we believe that Bridgeman v. Corel and other cases have settled that they don't. Short of an executive decision, I don't know what to say.
removed a flag from the Electronic Frontier Foundation logo.
The EFF explicitly states on the following page:
Feel free to use these files in any way you like to promote EFF. You do not need to ask permission to use our logo.
Uploader should have linked to the page, but didn't. The EFF is well known for promoting free culture.
I removed a flag from the photo of Guy de Maupassant ages ago, but since it's popped back into the queue I'll explain it now. The same photo is published as the frontispiece to my edition of The Complete Short Stories of Guy De Maupassant published by the Walter J. Black Co. in 1903, making it public domain. I re-flagged though and will upload with my own documentation when I get a chance.
Uploader should have linked to the page, but didn't.
Many of these problems could be avoided if people would simply provide the proper links. An image may, in fact, be in the public domain, but if someone simply puts "from Wikipedia" (and they often don't put even that!), we can't be expected to spend time and effort figuring out where it came from
And just because a site's policy is "well known" to one person, doesn't mean that it's general knowledge.
>81 I know. I should be clear. I'm not criticizing folks who flag this. Half the time I don't even want to click through to wikipedia links myself because I don't want to unravel the stuff there. A lot of times it's just a link to another site from wikipedia. Why don't Shortride and other wikipedia uploaders just list *that* source?
I'm posting my de-flag reasons here mostly to add information. You can either decide my reason makes sense and de-flag, or decide my reason isn't good enough for you. Or decide while my reason is fine, it's too late, or that a flag should be left until the new info is documented in the copyright field, or however.
For instance, you de-flagged Lorine Niedecker uploaded by balcan that I had flagged. I'd love to know the reason because I could very well not know something about the uploader or the source that means I should remove my flag as well.
Removed a flag from a venue photo submitted by user sherzig; she says she's an "Academic librarian" at a "University library in the Midwest", I assume St. Ambrose University Library (one of her favorites).
I don't think that the removal of a flag should ever be taken as a recrimination, and do think that if someone wants to check out an unlinked image, just for kicks (with no compulsion for any other member to do the same thing), it should be alright.
Hmmm, and LT recognizes her claim to control the venue. I missed that. I removed my flag.
Removed a flag from Jane Bullard uploaded by user spurgeon because spurgeon appears to be Jane Bullard.
Removed flag from Boileau because the artist has been dead for longer than the existence of the United States.
Removed a flag from the James L. Hamner Public Library because LT recognizes the uploader's (beauchat) claim to the venue.
Removed a flag from Increase Mather because the source is documented: John van der Spriett.
Removed a flag from T. Byron Kelly as the uploader is LT Author T. Byron Kelly. (There's a second one that's a duplicate now.)
82: Fair enough. I'll try and link to the original page in the future.
Removed a flag from Kate Bush. Wikipedia source is an ezboard/yuku forum where the picture taker explicitly released the photo under the GFDL. Here's a link to the specific part where she/he does the releasing.
I removed flags from Paolo Mottura and Alessandro Carretta because the uploader said "autorizzazione ricevuta" (i.e., "permission received") in the copyright field.
Removed a flag from venue Beaufort County Library - St. Helena Branch and Beaufort County Library - Lobeco Branch and Beaufort County Library - Hilton Head Branch and Beaufort County Library - Bluffton Branch uploaded by halle77, as halle77's claim to represent the library is recognized by LT.
If it really breaks you up, you can remove your flag and then tack it back on.
Yeah, but sometimes flags don't seem to be counted when you do things like that so I decided against trying to fix it.
Count the number of flags on Louisa May Alcott. Five people have flagged, one has removed, total flags = three. I had deflagged and then reflagged.
I'm not sure what situations it doesn't count and which ones it does.
Are you sure only one flag was removed? Because I know that sometimes the reasons for flags disappear, but I've never had a problem with reflagging.
>98 It depends on which you do first--flag or deflag. If you deflag first, you can reflag all you want, but you will never count as a positive (but you can make it so that you don't count as a negative). If you flag first, you can deflag and reflag (or just deflag), but you will never count as a negative, just as a positive or neutral depending on your ending position.
I just wish that the reasons wouldn't disappear, and that the flag details would be a continuous record of the flag history of an image.
That smiley face looks a bit impish: you're kidding, right?
Message edited on the pretense that I know how to spell.
I removed a flag on Rose Wilder Lane, which says copyright Sunset Magazine @1920, which means that the copyright has expired in the US.
Removed a flag from Ivan Tavčar. The painting is pre-1888. A claim of a 2006 copyright by a gallery is specious.
Removed a flag from a photo of Freeman Public Library because uploader controls the venue.
now you tell me
Wouldn't it be nice if the venue names stayed after flagging? I get these dreams...
And I clicked through to see if that one was controlled, but didn't even notice the picture displayed.
Removed a flag from Bejamin J. Mancine, Flagger noted the "Bejamin" was misspelled. That's something that should be taken care of through combination, not image flagging.
>111 But it has. The 'Bejamin J. Mancine' is a subordinate author page. There is already the same image for 'Benjamin J. Mancine'. It's not exactly a duplicate, but it is not necessary at all.
> 111 & 112
Do either of you see that photo on the author page? For some reason, I'm seeing a black rectangle. When I click on it, though, I see the image. Weird.
>113 I'm seeing the black rectangle now. But, like you, I see the picture by clicking through. Very strange.
Removed a flag from Hesiod. Hogarth's engraving is well out of copyright so any copyright assertion by a university library is reaching.
Have you guys noticed that the 'view larger' link isn't working on some recent photos?
I hadn't noticed that there was a 'view larger' option. . . but now that you point it out, I get the same problem on those two examples.
The "view larger" button stopped working several weeks ago for new user-submitted venue photos. I can bracket the date a little:
It still worked on August 10, 2008:
But it stopped working before August 28, 2008:
Perhaps significantly, Tim announced that some changes were made regarding cover images during this time frame. Maybe we're seeing a side effect?
Removed a flag from James Ussher. Well out of copyright (from the 17th century) so any copyright claims are specious.
Removed a flag from Robert L. Eichelberger as the source document is a product of the U.S. government (War Dept.) and therefore PD.
1. Removed a flag from Janet Fitch as the source page releases the photo for general publicity. (Something that is allowed in the LT guidelines.)
2. Removed one from Gottfried Wilhelm, Freiherr von Leibniz as the painting is from the 17th century and thus any claim of copyright by a museum is BS.
3. Removed a flag from Boethius as the painting is from the 14th century and thus any claim of copyright is BS.
Removed a flag from John Aubrey as the supposed copyright holder's claim of copyright is based on scanning a public domain book and claiming copyright.
Removed a flag from the venue Harrye B. Lyons Design Library - North Carolina State University Libraries as the uploader kedewitt is recognized by LT as controlling the venue (e.g., they represent the library).
Removed a flag from Alexander von Humboldt as the painting was made in 1843, putting it in the public domain.
Removed flag from John Lewis Gaddis photo.
Removed a flag from Suetonius 15th century woodcut. Well out of copyright.
Removed a flag from George MacDonald Fraser because christiguc got permission from the publisher. The flagger's reason got cut off, but I suspect he was confused by the publisher letting the Washington Post use the photo in an obituary.
Removed a flag from Vladimir Ivanovich Dal because the image is pre-1888 and thus public domain in the U.S.
Removed a flag from Bob Dylan uploaded by jglassow. The link in fact does document the work is a product of the U.S.I.A., part of the U.S. federal government and thus public domain. (It would have been better to just link to the NARA documentation rather than Wikipedia, but it's the same information.)
Removed flags from two photos submitted by fulfillmentforum, as Jard DeVille seems to be the founder of The DeVille Institute.
And fulfillmentforum is a LT Author for Jard DeVille. I didn't click through to the uploader's account until I saw your flag removals. I removed mine now too.
Removed a flag from Gustav Landauer uploaded by Jonangus as the image was a postcard published in 1913 (pre-1923).
Stephen Edward Stratton and member liberryn2 seem to be the same person.
>137 But the picture is now a duplicate anyways, so we might as well flag it to erase it.
Oops! I always forget to check on that. Are you sure the flagged one isn't just a little nicer?
Flagged and then remembered to check the uploader on T. Byron Kelly again. The uploader is T. Byron Kelly. So I removed my flag.
Removed a flag from Adlai E. Stevenson from the DoD via Shortride. Defenseimagery.mil ID number for the photo is HF-SN-98-07460. It's PD.
I'm removing a flag from the photos that readerviews uploaded because Readerviews is a publicity service for publicists, authors, and publishers. The LT user is supposedly the managing editor of that company. If they are given publicity material to support their clients, they should know what the copyright status is. I'm planning on treating them basically as I would an author uploading the photo, since they are acting for the author/publicist/publisher.
>142 Huh. I always thought it was just another blog site. Good to know.
Removed my flag from the remaining image uploaded by readerviews.
Removed a flag from G. A Bredero. If image is from 1619, then republishing in 1999 doesn't give the republisher a copyright.
Removed a flag from P. Langendijk uploaded by henkl as the engraving was created by someone who died in 1780, and thus the image is in the public domain.
Removed a flag from Ron Hale-Evans uploaded by rwhe as rwhe is LT Author Ron Hale-Evans.
Removed a flag from Thomas Moore. The reason given was that the author page was for the living Thomas Moore, not one of the dead ones. Except the author page lists works from multiple Thomas Moores including the one in the image. Some day Tim'll get disambiguation done.
Removed a flag from Poliziano. The image was taken from a book published in 1910. The web site's copyright notice doesn't give them a copyright.
Removed flag from a photo submitted by adamedwardste, because I think that he may control the venue.
I removed a flag each from the Emile Gaboriau and Fortuné du Boisgobey photos I submitted as I have cited sources showing both were created and published well back in the 19th century (see posts in this group).
>150 I agree and removed a flag also. I thought I checked before flagging and he didn't control the venue at that time. We moved in too quick! ;)
The best way to do this is to enter a link to the sources in the credit or copyright line of the photo when you upload it. Most people aren't going to hunt up threads in this group when quarantining photos.
Agreed, but I wanted to make sure there was no question, and the copyright field would not let me enter that much text. I linked to these talk posts there instead, the next best option I could see.
You don't need to enter the full text. Just enter a link to the source site's page that has the necessary info.
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.