File talk:Aralica.jpg

message: Discussion moved from User talk:Mir Harven#Image copyright and User talk:Ellmist#Image:Aralica.jpg.
Thank you for uploading :Image:Aralica.jpg, and thank you for stating the source. However, its copyright status is unclear, so it may have to be deleted. If it is open content or public domain, please give proof of this on the image page. If the image is fair use, please provide a rationale. Thank you. --Ellmist 06:14, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...frankly, I dont know all the stipulations of GNU free license. I can only attest that this is from the site www.hercegbosna.org, where it was taken from in a perfectly legal way- and the aforementioned site obtained it in a perfetly legal way ca. 2 ys ago (frankly, I dont remember the source, but I guess it was Croatian Academy of Arts & Sciences, which has no copyright restrictions with regard to it visual content). This is as much as I know. Best Mir Harven 08:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it boils down to public domain. Pics and other similar material from the Internet presentation of institutions like Croatian Academy or various institutes are for free. My site, www.hercegbosna.org, has freely downloaded virtually zillion images from state-sponsored institutions in Croatia. Essentially-they dont give a hoot. Best Mir Harven 21:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm...I think I know what's troubling you- but this is, IMO, resolved. I'll repeat: the Aralica.jpg was obtained in a perfectly legal manner from the site www.hercegbosna.org, which operates on a perfectly legal basis. The point is, I'd say, that the notion of legality is different here, in Croatia, and there where you write from. It can be succinctly summarized thusly: there are *no* uniform Internet legal procedures across the globe. Period. As I see, you referred to the notions of photos as artistic (or intellectual, whatever) property and the necessity of explicitly stated public domain status. Here, ordinary photos of a person (or anything similar) have no artistic nor intellectual anything about them- they're just free for use for everyone (exceptions are, for instance, art or portrait or landscape photographies, Helmut Newton-kind etc. Otherwise- it's just free pic and nothing more). The other thing is public domain. Well- if it isn't explicity stated it *is not* public- it is free. That's the way it works. Sorry if I haven't answered your questions satisfactorily (from yoir POV), but, it only points out to (at least for me) interesting cultural difference: what is a perfect legal procedure for you, for me is a Kafkan bureaucratic nightmare. And it cannot be reduced to GNU license arguments or anything similar- simply because they are not universal with regard to legality of Internet material in particular countries. Various countries, various legal systems re copyrighted material. If you're not satisfied, feel free to write to the source and check it. Best Mir Harven 09:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. I'm glad you e-mailed the Academy, just to settle the dispute. Best Mir Harven 21:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, cool. Best Mir Harven 22:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright