File talk:Bob Dold.jpg

Concern re Copyright

An image at Rose Pest Control with a 2006 copyright, albeit with a little Photoshopping and cropping done, is very similar to this image in Commons. Thus, I am concerned over copyright. I note that the metadata for this image indicates the photo was taken in 2005 (in keeping with the 2006 Rose Pest copyright) while in the file history the source is listed as Dold for Congress (which didn't begin until 2009) and the author as one Philippe Melin, a Dold for Congress campaign worker from what I can find. It strikes me as odd that someone who worked for the 2009-2010 Dold campaign is listed as the author of a 2005 photograph. My presumption is to err on the side of caution. I'm no lawyer but my hunch is that unless the campaign purchased rights to the image from Rose Pest then the copyright remains with Rose, not Philippe Melin or Dold for Congress. I also note that the originally listed source and author have since been changed through an 03 Dec 2010 rv. Cardinal91 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The authorship of the image was originally listed as "Philippe Melin" due to a clerical error. This error was corrected when an affirmative statement (currently in the ORTS queue) was received from Bob Dold claiming himself as the owner of the image and unambiguously releasing the image into CC-BY-SA. What Cardinal91 does not state above is the image at Rose Pest Control is merely a thumbnail (133x200px) while this image contains the raw source. Another fact not mentioned is that Mr. Dold is the owner and President of Rose Pest Control. So even if Rose did own the original image from which the thumbnail was taken, he is certainly authorized to release it into the public domain. If he couldn't who could? Here is the text of that email, sent from Mr. Dold's campaign address to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

To permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the attached image of Bob Dold.

I agree to publish that work under the free license CC-BY-SA

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs, as long as they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.

I am aware that the free license only concerns copyright, and I reserve the option to take action against anyone who uses this work in a libelous way, or in violation of personality rights, trademark restrictions, etc.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the work may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

November 9th, 2010,

Robert Dold

Ronnotel (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying Ronnotel. By the way, I did not mention that Mr. Dold is a partial owner of Rose Pest because Rose and Dold for Congress are two separate legal entities and I do not know what sort of copyrights agreement they have between the two of them, if any. In other words, based on your original entries for this image Dold for Congress (first came into existence in 2009) was listed as the source of the image when based on the timeline you provided (2005) and the copyright clearly indicated online at Rose Pest's website Rose Pest is the apparent source. Based on FEC regulations and copyright laws Rose Pest Control can't just release their copyrighted material willy nilly even if the individual person in the photo is the same as the one in Dold for Congress. Cardinal91 (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

But how could a thumbnail (clearly a derivative work) appearing on a website affect the copyright of the source? That's an absurd argument and you could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by doing your homework before making such petty and outrageous claims. You leaped to three different conclusions in making your ridiculous argument. Next time you should make sure you have your facts right. I don't normally become so animated but your partisan animus is becoming tiresome. 166.137.137.71 12:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

@IP user - your only contribution to WP (animated or otherwise) is to complain that my legit abundance of caution re copyright issues is somehow "partisan animus"? LOL. This has nothing to do with partisanry and everything to do with basic copyright law. Copyrights pertain to content, not resolution (thumbnail or otherwise). The thumbnail photo copyrighted by Rose Pest Control in 2006 is clearly the same high resolution photo submitted to the Commons this year, 2010. The original submission to Commons in 2010 listed the Dold for Congress political campaign as a source (with a campaign worker as the photo's author) which was logically impossible given the timing of the Rose Pest 2006 copyright of that same image. I deal with copyrights literally every day and so voiced my concern again out of caution. Ronnotel has explained, clarified and corrected the file as best he/she could. Why do you feel a need to toss in unfounded accusations after the fact? Cardinal91 (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket 2010110910008892 added to the picture --Neozoon (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)