Talk:Goodyear Inflatoplane
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Question concerning the copyright of this: The page this was copied from, http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/goodyear_xao.htm, says, at the bottom of the page, Copyright © 1998-2000 National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution (revised 10/9/01 D. Daso) This is an Air and Space Museum/Smithsonian Institution website. How is this material copyrighted? RickK 05:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Presumably the answer is in http://www.nasm.si.edu/help/copyright.cfm which includes: "All National Air and Space Museum web pages and content are copyright Smithsonian Institution. All banners, icons, logos and original graphics on the National Air and Space Museum web site are also copyright Smithsonian Institution and may not be used for any purpose.... Q: Is it true that all Smithsonian Institution images are public domain because Smithsonian is a federal government institution? A: No. Many images (as well as artifacts) in the Smithsonian collection have further copyright limitations attached to them. The fact that the Smithsonian receives partial funding from the federal government only affects whether images taken by Smithsonian employees are technically protected by copyright. It does not affect image ownership or usage rights, which the Smithsonian retains (i.e. even in the absence of copyright, Smithsonian still reserves all rights to image use)." I find the final statement slightly unusual.--Henrygb 22:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- Sounds rather over-reaching to me. However, this is the trick a lot of museums want to pull: they want to make it very difficult to determine the copyright status of items in their collection.
-
- Another thing I've seen done is placing restrictions on even out-of-copyright items through requiring contracts before access. IOW, you have to sign away your rights to freely copy an out-of-copyright document before you are allowed to see / copy it. I wonder if that's what that last sentence refers to? —Morven 22:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The work may have been created by a trust employee instead of a federal employee, in which case it would not enter the public domain automatically. The retention of rights to non-copyrighted items appears to be meaningless FUD. You don't get to retain rights to works in the public domain, except perhaps some limited moral rights. A contract to try to recapture rights to a public domain work is of no effect. That still doesn't prevent people from trying to mislead potential reusers by making bogus claims. In any case, as a text article, it's far more work to seek permission to use this (which would probably be declined if it's not in the public domain) than it is to rewwrite it, so it's not worth pursing. Jamesday 14:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
