_ _    _ _____  ___   __                       
 __      _(_) | _(_)___ / ( _ ) / /_   ___ ___  _ __ ___  
 \ \ /\ / / | |/ / | |_ \ / _ \| '_ \ / __/ _ \| '_ ` _ \ 
  \ V  V /| |   <| |___) | (_) | (_) | (_| (_) | | | | | |
   \_/\_/ |_|_|\_\_|____/ \___/ \___(_)___\___/|_| |_| |_|

File talk:Triconegravir1 big.jpg

In today's world, File talk:Triconegravir1 big.jpg has become increasingly important. Whether in the field of health, technology, education or any other field, File talk:Triconegravir1 big.jpg has captured the attention of experts and the general public. Over the years, we have witnessed how File talk:Triconegravir1 big.jpg has evolved and become a key issue in our society. In this article, we will thoroughly explore all facets of File talk:Triconegravir1 big.jpg, from its history to its current applications, with the goal of providing a complete and detailed overview of its importance in today's world.


PUF discussion

This image (as well as some others related to resophonic guitars) comes from Lubos Bena's web site. I got permission to use these images: see Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission/Lubos Bena. Neurolysis (talk · contribs) claims this permission is not specifically GFDL because the reply doesn't make this explicit, rather only an informal "you can use this in your encyclopedia" which might not include third party rights etc. I was under the impression that it was, because this is the permission I asked for, and the boilerplate message explains at some length what this entails. The permission email is also not logged in OTRS as far as anyone knows, because the permission predates it. Some discussion has already taken place on my user talk page. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt the request for permission process, even though it has been superseded by a new system (OTRS). The e-mail sent to the copyright holder makes it clear that GFDL is the license type that is being agreed to. The copyright holder transparently agrees with these boilerplate terms. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
We have nothing that will stand up legally here. That is the issue. — neuro(talk) 16:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you a lawyer? I'm certainly not, and thus I'm not qualified to speculate on the potential legal defenses that successful requests for permission provides us versus OTRS; but it strikes me that Wikipedia is free for philosophical and not legal reasons. We can always respond to a take-down notice if we get one. Is there any reason to doubt the veracity of the request for permission? Any history of copyright violation? No to both. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I e-mailed the copyright-holder asking for an explicit GFDL release to be sent do permissions-en. I'd ask that we give him a suitable period of time to respond before deleting the image, if that's the verdict. – Quadell (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There has been no reply, so we'll have to go with the information we have. – Quadell (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'd say this is free. The copyright holder was asked "I am specifically seeking your permission to use these images... we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License... With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website." We have to assume the copyright-holder read the e-mail that he responded to. He was told we can only use it if he agrees to GFDL terms, and he said he gave approval. Yes, it's not as explicit as we'd like, but I think the plainest reading is that he gives permission to use it under the terms specified. – Quadell (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia