Nag Hammadi/Talk

< Nag Hammadi

HomePage | Recent changes | View source | Discuss this page | Page history | Log in |

Printable version | Disclaimers | Privacy policy

If it's Nag Hammadi, the picture is undoubtedly under copyright. Copyright in photgraphs of art objects (with the exception of buildings or sculpture displayed out of doors) and manuscripts belongs to the owner, not to the photographer. I'm an art historian - I have to pay for the right to publish any pictures I use. Soooooo... (Oh, and, if it's Nag Hammadi it may be a folio, not a scroll. Codex = book, made of pages.) --MichaelTinkler

Michael: The Nag Hammadi manuscripts aren't copyright -- they were written 2000 or so years ago. On the other hand, photographs of them might be. So the manuscript isn't copyright, but the photograph would be. If you can find the MSS and manage to photograph it yourself, you'd have no problems, though I doubt the owners of the MSS would be too keen for you to do so. -- SJK
Yep, as I said. Photos are a separate copyright from the MSS. However, any and all translations are under copyright, as we keep reminding BF. --MichaelTinkler
It's not on the Wikipedia server, so I don't think copyright is an issue. But it's Wikipedia policy not to use pictures on other servers without permission, and I doubt we have permission. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 1
Linking to another site to use their pictures without permission is a copyright violation, I believe. I removed the link. --STG

I suppose I'm being naive here, but how the heck could linking to a site on the Web be a copyright violation?

It's not linking to another website that is the problem, but using a copyrighted image. On Wikipedia, all we have to do is type in a link to any image on the web, and it shows up on our page. For example:

example removed

This image of old Sigmund Freud is public domain, but if it was not, this would constitue a violation of copyright. --STG
Why? It's just a link - nothing has been copied. I don't think it would be copyright violation under UK law, at least. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned it doesn't really matter, as we're not supposed to use inline images on other servers without permission anyway, regardless of copyright. (You do have permission for the above image, don't you?) --Zundark, 2001 Nov 1
I'm not totally sure about all the legalities of linking images in this way, but we are using the image which would be legally questionable at the very least. Lee Daniel Crocker is our unofficial copyright guy; maybe he could give a better answer. (As for Freud, there's no copyright on the image; it's public domain.) --STG
As far as Freud is concerned, you are missing the point. The image is on a Sonoma State University server and uses Sonoma State University bandwidth every time someone views this page. This is against Wikipedia policy, and you should remove the image if you don't have permission from the University. --Zundark, 2001 Nov 1
Point taken. :) --STG