Talk:No. 112 Squadron RAF

message: I was going to delete the image as it appears to be a copyright violation, the IWM website says it is copyright 2003 and Wikipedia is not one of the allowable uses. Any comments ? MilborneOne (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original photo wasn't taken in 2003 and the Wikipedia image is significantly different from the image on the negative — by me using picture editing software — so I don't believe it is copyrighted under UK law. You will find that many museums/libraries/galleries try this stunt of claiming copyright, when they don't have a leg to stand on, legally speaking. Grant | Talk 12:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that you tweaking it in photoshop then gives you the rights to the image, I think it is up to you to prove it is not copyright. MilborneOne (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True - altering a copyright image with photomanipulation software just creates a derivative work, which is also protected by the copyright of the original owner. What we need to see here is that (a) the copyright of the photo belonged to the Crown in the first place (and not to, for example, a journalist, or privately to a member of a ground crew) and (b) that it was published in a book, magazine, or some other format anytime in the time since the photo was taken. --Rlandmann (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: For a crown copyright item, it needs to be shown that it was first published more than 50 years ago. If on the other hand it sat in some archive unused and has only just been made available then it is still copyright. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify that statement - if it was then published it seems that copyright runs from that point. the question is whether a photograph is an artistic work. If unused then expiry after 50 (ie 1993) GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: just for the record, the edits of 82.70.225.100 were by me. And the logic of reverting all the way back and editing just to end up a fraction away from my last edit escapes me. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent editing  

message: Ok, on the main page today it appears that they state that this squadron was the first to use the sharkmouth emblem on aircraft, and it cites some random and unknown source (Crawford 1977 p. 14.) at the bottom of this article to back it up. But then in the article it says Inspired by the unusually large air inlet on the P-40, the squadron began to emulate the "shark mouth" logo used on some German Messerschmitt Bf 110s.  Pretty ridiculous that a gaff this bad made it on the main page.  What might be meant to be said is that the whole squadron adopted it, whereas it was pilot's choice on the BF110s, is this what is meant? this should be clarified and backed up with real sources.
--216.110.236.243 (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the "gaff" or "crap" is supposed to be. The details for Crawford are listed in the "References". Neither DYK nor the article is saying members of 112 Sqn were the first to use the shark mouth on aircraft; they say the squadron was the first to use it on P-40s. Grant | Talk 08:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shark mouth