File talk:Old Ark.jpg

15th Century manuscript. The copyright status is obvious when you think about it. 09:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some jurisdictions allow copyright to be earned by "sweat on the brow", i.e. people who scan and restore old documents can have copyright over the scans. Ever seen Wikimedia Commons' pageS on copyright? :D --ZooGuard (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For no practical purpose is your statement the case, and Wikimedia would have no problems hosting a scan of a 15th century manuscript as PD no matter who scanned it where.


 * (In the US, scans are definitely not copyright. Outside the US, no-one is stupid enough to take the issue to court, so anyone claiming either "it is" or "it isn't" really doesn't know what they're talking about. Wikimedia takes the "we think it's public domain. Do you feel lucky, punk?" approach (and given Wikimedia's ridiculous levels of copyright paranoia, that's a pretty confident statement). The last punk who felt lucky was the National Portait Gallery, and they privately admit they fucked up big time and still don't really understand how big time they fucked up; their competitors do, and are laughing their heads off while forming partnerships with Wikimedia.)


 * (Precis: if it's five hundred years old, you can not only ignore any such claims as utterly odious, but as legally ridiculous.)


 * - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I always think that it is good practice to say from where an image was obtained, even if it may be considered PD. In that way we may more honestly evaluate the provenance of an image. Pragmatically, I don't think that RW is going to get sued for punitive damages by hosting a low-res image which may be subject to copyright. However, ethically I think we hold ourselves to a reasonable standard, so we should establish good faith by indicating our source and why it may be considered PD. Then if challenged by a bona-fide copyright holder we can say sorry, we thought we had the right to use it but will delete it if that is what they want. 10:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, absolutely. But that's a question of credit and educational value rather than copyright. The two are separate issues and should not be conflated. I'd love to know the original source so we could track down a higher resolution scan! - David Gerard (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had no luck in tracing the origin of this image. The only source appears to be a site selling prints of it. It is a nice illustration. I'd love to see it in its original context. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)