Talk:Three scientists share 2015 Chemistry Nobel Prize for DNA repair research
Image
editI'm not sure about using a photo of the guy who announced the award because I think he is peripheral to the event i.e. it could have been anyone who made the announcement. I would support having photos of the three winners but if that's not possible, I'd prefer the image of DNA repair since that is the area of research that they won the award for. Thoughts? Green Giant (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've switched it round, but I'm a little unsure regarding the licensing. AFAICT it was published by a US Gov't agency and so somebody slapped a template on it on Commons. But, it was supplied to them by a university. The quote from the permission field does seem to imply strongly it is suitable for Commons but it's a little murky to me. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Checking Flickr. Nobody is uploading it in the license that we need. :(
14.139.242.195 (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)- It's not a Flickr image. It comes from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), a branch of the National Institutes of Health, which is a research agency of the US government. The person credited for the image submitted it to the NIGMS newsletter which made clear that all content is free of copyright and encourages reuse. Combined with PD-USGOV makes it acceptable for Commons, so I've done a license review for future reference. In short, as a Commons admin, I'm happy with its license status. Green Giant (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, but surely it was donated to NIGMS (or, donated into the public domain, depending on semantics) rather than created by NIGMS? Making it PD-author rather than PD-USGOV? I'm satisfied the image is freeI wouldn't pass on copyright if I wasn't, just trying to wrap my head round exactly what route it took to get there. :P BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was created with support from NIGMS, which doesn't specify the extent of support. I think it might be a stretch to look at it as a contractual arrangement because it depends on the actual agreement and funding (something we are unlikely to be privy to). However, I went with the statement on the newsletter which says its content is copyright free and we have to assume that Ellenberger was aware of that statement when the image was submitted. I've added archived links to show the wording around the time it was published, although it would have been much more useful if the page had been archived closer to the exact date. By reviewing the license, I'm just making a statement that I've looked at the website and it appears to say what the uploader has claimed. Whether license reviewing would be legally effective is something that has not yet been tested, but it is a bridge Commons will have to cross when we get to it. Green Giant (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well... Given that it's clearly free, I doubt anybody is going to litigate based on exactly how it became public domain. :P Thank you for all your work in general helping us dig around on Commons. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It was created with support from NIGMS, which doesn't specify the extent of support. I think it might be a stretch to look at it as a contractual arrangement because it depends on the actual agreement and funding (something we are unlikely to be privy to). However, I went with the statement on the newsletter which says its content is copyright free and we have to assume that Ellenberger was aware of that statement when the image was submitted. I've added archived links to show the wording around the time it was published, although it would have been much more useful if the page had been archived closer to the exact date. By reviewing the license, I'm just making a statement that I've looked at the website and it appears to say what the uploader has claimed. Whether license reviewing would be legally effective is something that has not yet been tested, but it is a bridge Commons will have to cross when we get to it. Green Giant (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, but surely it was donated to NIGMS (or, donated into the public domain, depending on semantics) rather than created by NIGMS? Making it PD-author rather than PD-USGOV? I'm satisfied the image is freeI wouldn't pass on copyright if I wasn't, just trying to wrap my head round exactly what route it took to get there. :P BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's not a Flickr image. It comes from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), a branch of the National Institutes of Health, which is a research agency of the US government. The person credited for the image submitted it to the NIGMS newsletter which made clear that all content is free of copyright and encourages reuse. Combined with PD-USGOV makes it acceptable for Commons, so I've done a license review for future reference. In short, as a Commons admin, I'm happy with its license status. Green Giant (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Checking Flickr. Nobody is uploading it in the license that we need. :(
Review of revision 3881358 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 3881358 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: After cleanup this is now a nicely understandable report on some reasonably complex science. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 3881358 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: After cleanup this is now a nicely understandable report on some reasonably complex science. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |