Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:37, 17 June 2007

Revision as of 00:49, 18 June 2007

Line 630:

:Even that is not necessary. If you notice the copyright on the BIS document, it states: "Bank for International Settlements 2005. All rights reserved. Brief excerpts may be reproduced or translated provided the source is stated." Given that the Basel 2 Framework is 300 pages, the ECAI definition I used is brief, and the ECAI description is cited verbatim in numerous other government documents (for example, by the Committee of European Bank Supervisors (http://www.c-ebs.org/pdfs/GL07.pdf), and the State Bank of Pakistan (http://www.sbp.org.pk/press/2005/Criteria_of_ECAIs.pdf), the language included in the article most certainly fits the definition of fair use. Keep in mind that the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision is a group of governments, not a private entity. The "report" you note is not a private document such as an article, but rather a set of regulatory principles that member governments have agreed to incorporate into their own laws and regulations. "External Credit Assessment Institution" is, therefore, a defined term. In fact, it is term defined by the very language to which you object. No entry on ECAIs could accurately define what it is without citing this language. It would be a bit like defining what a security is under the US Securities Act of 1933 without actually being able to quote the Act itself. An interesting exercise, but fundamentally flawed and legally unnecessary. [[User:Epstein's Mother|Epstein's Mother]] 06:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

:You would be best to take your request to [[Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...]] where someone will double check the licence and restrictions under which the BIS document can be reproduced, and if it's found to be suitable for incorporation, it would be included. I understand your point about the US Securities Act, but as a work of the US Federal Government, it is released into the public ___domain and thus ineligible for copyright protection. The Bazel Committee could, in future, change or restrict the terms of use for their work and we could unwittingly have a further copyright violation, which is why we need content to be released under the GFDL licence as it protects us from any impact of future licence changes. I've got quite a hefty work schedule over this weekend, so I can't promise I'll be able to assist further, though I will try and help if I have time. [[User:Nick|Nick]] 10:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)"

== Field guide published by the USGS ==

I posted this over at the help desk at commons, but since there is a lot of potential material to be mined from this source, I want to be doubly sure. The [[United States Geological Survey]] operates the National Wildlife Health Center, which publishes several fact sheets and pamphlets, and also the [http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/publications/field_manual/index.jsp Field Manual of Wildlife Disease — General Field Procedures and Diseases of Birds], which is a wealth of photos of diseases in birds. There is usually a photo credit, but it is to the same two or three people consistently, and from doing a google search I know for absolute certain that at least one of them is an employee of the USGS. I am nearly 100 percent certain the images are in the public ___domain since it is a publication by a federal organization, but I am likely to use a lot of these photos, and I want to be sure. Thanks. --[[User:Joelmills|Joelmills]] 00:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)