Template talk:Hastak: Difference between revisions
Suki Brits (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Deceptitran (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I think as-is is reasonable for the moment. It's not like the template is difficult to change as we learn a correct, different phrasing. | :I think as-is is reasonable for the moment. It's not like the template is difficult to change as we learn a correct, different phrasing. | ||
:more at issue here is the weak language. "Gosh mister, we THINK we can do this, if it's alright with you." No, you ASSERT your rights- "We DO have a complete right to se this image under fair use!" The prior invites somene to tell yout o pull their images juzt 'cuz they feel like it- the latter says "You have to make a case that this excedes fair use, because up to a point we ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in using your images." -[[User:150.253.70.55|150.253.70.55]] 22:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) | :more at issue here is the weak language. "Gosh mister, we THINK we can do this, if it's alright with you." No, you ASSERT your rights- "We DO have a complete right to se this image under fair use!" The prior invites somene to tell yout o pull their images juzt 'cuz they feel like it- the latter says "You have to make a case that this excedes fair use, because up to a point we ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in using your images." -[[User:150.253.70.55|150.253.70.55]] 22:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) | ||
::I copied the wording from Wikipedia; if "it is believed" is good enough for them, I figure that it's good enough for us. I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like to avoid making assumptions about legal phrasing as much as I possibly can. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 20:08, 7 April 2006 (PDT) | ::I copied the wording from Wikipedia; if "it is believed" is good enough for them, I figure that it's good enough for us. I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like to avoid making assumptions about legal phrasing as much as I possibly can. --[[User:Suki Brits|Suki Brits]] 20:08, 7 April 2006 (PDT) | ||
True. I refered to wikipedia's phrasign for the general fair use template, which si a mish-mash of their general-purpose and franchose-specific ones. You can revert is if you like. -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Copyright Law Question == | |||
Okay, this has been bugging me for awhile- people are slapping this template on images which says "One of these two companies own it and we don't, we're using it only in this legally recognized capacity." | |||
That's really a copyright ''disclaimer'', where you make it clear you're not asserting ''you'' own the image. It's not a copyright ''notice'' saying who ''does'' own the image. | |||
A copyright notice lists the holder, and the ''year'' that copyright dates from. The holders prefer ''both'' to be listed for 2 reasons. | |||
# So someone whishing to reproduce that image in a non-fair-use manner can contact the identified holder in order to pay them. | |||
# The year controls how long it is until their copyright on this image lapses. | |||
Now, I always thought we were ''required'' to list the ''actual'' holder and the year the copyright stems from, and the <nowiki>{{hastak}}</nowiki> template was just boilerplate to go ''above'' that, explaining that this use falls under fair use. | |||
Am I wrong? Are we not required to do that? Or is this template ''just'' a copyright disclaimer, and we're not actually including copyright information on pictures? -[[User:Derik|Derik]] 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:13, 24 March 2009
Is "Takaratomy" how they wish to be referred to? Given the two-line logo we've seen, I'd have guessed "Takara Tomy," or "TakaraTomy," or maybe even "Takara-Tomy." But I'd definitely have thought that "Tomy" would still be capitalized.--G.B. Blackrock 15:10, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
- I think as-is is reasonable for the moment. It's not like the template is difficult to change as we learn a correct, different phrasing.
- more at issue here is the weak language. "Gosh mister, we THINK we can do this, if it's alright with you." No, you ASSERT your rights- "We DO have a complete right to se this image under fair use!" The prior invites somene to tell yout o pull their images juzt 'cuz they feel like it- the latter says "You have to make a case that this excedes fair use, because up to a point we ARE COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED in using your images." -150.253.70.55 22:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I copied the wording from Wikipedia; if "it is believed" is good enough for them, I figure that it's good enough for us. I'm not a lawyer, so I'd like to avoid making assumptions about legal phrasing as much as I possibly can. --Suki Brits 20:08, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
True. I refered to wikipedia's phrasign for the general fair use template, which si a mish-mash of their general-purpose and franchose-specific ones. You can revert is if you like. -Derik 15:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyright Law Question
[edit]Okay, this has been bugging me for awhile- people are slapping this template on images which says "One of these two companies own it and we don't, we're using it only in this legally recognized capacity."
That's really a copyright disclaimer, where you make it clear you're not asserting you own the image. It's not a copyright notice saying who does own the image.
A copyright notice lists the holder, and the year that copyright dates from. The holders prefer both to be listed for 2 reasons.
- So someone whishing to reproduce that image in a non-fair-use manner can contact the identified holder in order to pay them.
- The year controls how long it is until their copyright on this image lapses.
Now, I always thought we were required to list the actual holder and the year the copyright stems from, and the {{hastak}} template was just boilerplate to go above that, explaining that this use falls under fair use.
Am I wrong? Are we not required to do that? Or is this template just a copyright disclaimer, and we're not actually including copyright information on pictures? -Derik 02:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
