Fichier Diskussioun:Ielebou w2.jpg

Any ideas?

Hi! Looking at this photo Fichier:Ielebou w2.jpg I wonder who the author is.

The license is a "Creative Commons" attribution license so you MUST attribute the author. But who is the author? Sadly Cornischong is no longer active so we can ask.

I'm thinking if I'm the author of a picture and I give permission to upload the photo to Wikipedia with a cc-by-sa license I would expect that my name is on the page. And If my name is not on the page Wikipedia is not attributing me properly and therefore breaking the deal we made.

And if I do not care about attribution I would not give permission to a cc-by-sa license but a PD license. Sadly in some countries you have to attribute the author even if the license is PD so we should mention the author if at all possible.

So now I'm wondering if we can conclude that this photo does not have proper attribution or license? And if so what we should do about that? --MGA73 18:55, 24. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

This is a scan from an X-ray picture done somewhere in an hospital. Generally the author is not known because every medical working in an X-ray department is able to make this pictures. So it is never attributed to someone. As Cornischong got the picture from MB to scan it, I think permission is logical, in the terms that X-ray pictures in Luxembourg are private property of the patient, because he is the person who payed it. --Les Meloures 19:55, 24. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

The author is the one that took the picture and he/she has the copyright unless you agree otherwise. If you go to a photographer you normally only buy a copy and not the right to sell copies of the photo. But it may be different in Luxembourg as you say so lets just asume that the patient has the copyright. Why should someone whis to be attributed as "MB"? I mean who will know who "MB" is? Perhaps it is just me but I find it strange that someone says "Hi Cornischong. Here is my x-ray photo. You may upload it to Wikipedia with the license "Creative Commons Nummnennung-Weidergab ënnert de selwechte Bedingungen 3.0 Lëtzebuerg" but you shall attribute it to "MB"". --MGA73 20:48, 24. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Les Meloures. After all, M.B. or MGA73 or Otets etc. are all only pseudonyms, though valid as "by". --Otets 07:27, 25. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

En X-Ray picture is not a work of a photographer. The employee of the hospital pushing on a button to get the image has no copyrights for that picture. The only one who may have a copyright is the person to whom the X-ray picture belongs, in this case M.B. I think that M.B. is a person close to Cornischong so he got this picture for publishing. But if it seems not clear enough you may put it on the deletion-list. --Les Meloures 22:05, 24. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are pseudonyms but you can link them to a spesific account on a spesific website. And we can all at any time choose to post our real name on our userpage if we want to. My point is just that I find it unlikely that someone would choose an attribution license and not give a name to attribute. So I was wondering if it was Cornischong and not MB that has choosen the license.

When permissions are not given in writing se do not know if the permission is a:

1. I hereby give permission to upload my picture (that I took myself) with the license xxx. I know and accept that it means that everyone can use the photo for any purpose also outside Wikipedia and also for commercial purpose.

2. Yeah it is my photo. Do with it as you like.

3. Yes it is my photo and you are allowed to use it on Wikipedia( because Wikipedia is non-commercial and I like Wikipedia).

The first permission is the best because we are sure that user knows what it means to release a photo under a free license. The second is a bit more extreme ind informal but probably ok. The third one is not ok because user does not realise/accept that photo can also be used outside Wikipedia. Even if the user does not say what is inside the ( ) we should be carefull to make sure that it is not what author means.

That is why I do not like permissions that are not specific about what the permission is valid for. On Commons there are examples of standard permissions and it could be translated and used for future use on lb-wiki. --MGA73 08:57, 25. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

If you allow my intrusion: There is no "copyright" on an x-ray picture (as Les Meloures said already); the only rights possibly associated would be personality rights (i.e. if the subject is identifiable, cf. medical secret) - which is not the case here. Furthermore, adding a word is not so much creative "copyrightable" work either. For me, therefore, this is "PD-Schëpfungshéicht" and nothing else.

But thanks to MGA73 reminding us that we should consider translating the standard permissions and upload texts. Whoever has time to do so ... (I decided to devote the coming Weeks to the WML-connected pages, where there's still a lot to do, as well). Best wishes, --Zinneke 09:26, 25. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

Well, not sure that we can conclude that x-ray pictures are PD-Schëpfungshéicht because you can claim that not everyone can take a x-ray. As far as I know you need an education to take x-ray pictures and you probably have to make the patient sit in a special way and perhaps adjust "the camera" etc. I like the idea better that the X-ray picture belongs to the patient (work for hire) and that the patient gave permission to upload to Wikipedia (with a "funny license" but still a valid license). :-) --MGA73 10:27, 25. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

This discussion goes in the the way that Cornischong had no permission to upload. If he had no permission did he steal the X-Ray original, to make a scan??? Otherwise I can't explain how he had the possibility, some one must have given him this picture.

On de:Wiki some pictures like this are declared self-made. Datei:Rö-Thorax-Pneumektomie-li.jpg Datei:Röntgenbild.jpg. Quietly impossible to believe, as in the technical way you must have a person sitting in the X-Ray camera and another who is the operator. There is no discussion about. Very strange or don't you think. ???

Please see also this picture on commons File:Madura foot x-ray.JPG, is the uploader a doctor working in that hospital, or is it a picture of his own foot, and how did he do the X-Ray without an operator?

--Les Meloures 11:08, 25. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if you read it as I said that Cornischong has stolen the X-Ray. That is not what I'm trying to say.

I do not know who the authors of the other x-rays are - it could be "the doctor" and it could be "the patient". But I'm sure you can find copyvios on Commons and if you are good at finding copyvios you are most welcome - we need all the help we can get. But I do know that de-wiki has a different view on when something is "PD-Schëpfungshéicht" so not all files on de-wiki can be moved to Commons.

The question who has taken the picture and how many do we need to take a photo? I'm not sure I understand your point. I assume it is done the same way as if you are going to a photographer or a painter or a sculptor to get your picture, painting or statue. We have someone that wants to buy an x-ray, a photo, a painting or a statue. (S)he goes to a x-ray operator, a photographer, a painter or a sculptor and sit as "a model" while the operator/photographer/painter/sculptor works. When it is done the customer pays for the work and get the photo/painting/statue.

First question: Who has the right to the photo/painting/statue - is it the person who created it or the customer? The problem is that some people think that if they have bought a photo or a painting or a statue they have full rights to do with them as they want. That is not always true. You often just buy one copy but not the right to make new copies. (We have allready talked about who owns the rights for x-rays in Luxembourg and if there even is a copyright.)

Second question: Who gave the permission (the customer or the creator)? That is ofcourse only interessting if we even need a permission.

Third question: What is the permission valid for? Is it "for Wikipedia" or is it "for everyone" and is it for commercial purposes etc.

I'm sure that Cornischong has asked and have a permission. But what question did he ask? Did he tell MB that the photo can be used for commercial purposes outside Wikipedia? Or did MB know that allready? That is what I was trying to ask about. As you can see here Kategorie:NC-Bild Cornischong Cornischong has thought that NC is ok for Wikipedia so I do not think it is a stupid idea to give it a thought what was asked and said. But again if you or anyone else thought I was saying that Cornischong was stealing I'm sorry about that. --MGA73 21:56, 25. Jul. 2011 (UTC)

In oder to solve this problem i propose to delete this picture. We can get another with clear definitions. --Les Meloures 22:32, 25. Jul. 2011 (UTC)