313::::Hi, the question here is was the image taken white the person was on duty. If it was an image of a bunch of soldiers playing football on base, I'd tend to agree that this would belong to the person who took the image. However, this image was taken by a soldier, during deployment, and is of an artillery piece in action, which would indicate to me that they were on duty, and that the image was taken while they were under the employment of the army. Since the image was taken while they were working for the army, the image becomes the property of their employer, similar to how a web designer does not own the copyright to work that they did for a company while they were working for that company. My tagging was based on some other images that I had seen which were also personal flickr images and were imported here:
451:
own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty. (S.REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56-57) (1976) "A government official or employee should not be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at his own volition and outside his duties, even though the subject matter involves his government work or his professional field.") For further discussion, see
Tresansky, John O. Copyright in Government Employee Authored Works. 57 30 Cath. L. Rev. 605 (1981).
34:
611:
speak of. I really dont care what the copyright is. i just wanted as many people as possible to enjoy my photography. im a medic i work trauma day in and day out. photography is my stress reliever it keeps me from going crazy. I just want people to enjoy my photography and if my name is at the bottom that i took it thats all i care about. heres me about to load the M777:
414:, since it was taken by the same person and tagged pd-usgov-army by another user on commons. Perhaps this needs to be clarified somewhere what official duties entails. Does an image taken while on patrol count as "on duty" if you are not an army photographer? I mean you aren't employed as a photographer, but you are working on taxpayer time, so what is the deal there?--
450:
An officer's or employee's official duties are the duties assigned to the individual as a result of employment. Generally, official duties would be described in a position description and include other incidental duties. Official duties do not include work done at a government officer's or employee's
368:
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Perhaps, without further hard evidence, since no one seems to know for sure, we should just defer to the license this user released the image on flickr? I'm not sure which is worse, releasing someones personal photo into the public domain or adding a CC-BY stipulation to an
239:
Well personally I support it, as quality is decent and EV seems great. It is a different howitzer than the above referenced M198, though admittedly of the same caliber. We don't have a "scope" concept here similar to the the
Commons version of Valued Pictures, so it's possible to have more than one
610:
I got to take this picture because a friend of mine knew people over at the field artillery unit on my FOB. It had been a dream of mine to load and pull the lanyard of a
Howitzer. heck im a sucker for big guns! after i got to do that I took this photo on my time. clinic was over we had no traumas to
457:
So if his official duties as a medic do not include taking pictures of howitzers then the copyright still belongs to him. If he is taking pictures on taxpayer time that is a discipline issue, not a copyright issue. But I don't think we can assume even that much; maybe he is doing it on whatever free
671:
I don't know if the creator is still watching, but I don't quite get the dimensions on this image. It looks odd at this size when there's no apparent reason for the crop of the height (this camera takes fullsize images at 3648×2736) - in fact if there was more height then the smoke wouldn't have to
348:
I would say the question is more like, was the image taken as part of the person's official duties -- in other words, was the photographer employed by the army to take photographs? In contrast to someone taking a personal photo with their own camera during a tour of duty. The photographer's user
353:
says he is a medic and the EXIF data indicates it was shot with a Canon Point & Shoot, not a professional SLR like you would expect a military photographer to use, so I tend to think this is a personal photo. I doubt soldiers' personal photos are required to be in the public domain.
444:
A "work of the United States
Government," referred to in this document as a U.S. Government work, is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. (See 17 USC § 101, Definitions.56)
571:
I'd say it's a valid point, even in the sense that it indicates that a better shot of this subject is quite acquirable. It's pretty common to compare noms to existing FPs of similar subjects, e.g., a new butterfly nom to existing butterfly FPs.
272:
I have a copyright question. This image came from flickr and was licensed there under CC-BY. However, this was changed to PD-USGov-Military-Army. Is this right? There is no evidence that this photo was "made during the course of the person's
689:
Outstanding image. Opposing on the grounds that we already have an existing FP of a different towed artillery piece is like opposing the next high quality image of an insect on the grounds that we already have a FP of a bug.
380:
I think it's better to protect someone's rights that might not exist than to deny someone's rights that might really exist. I changed it back to the CC license. Maybe
Jonathan can clarify it for us.
209:
I suggest you do, the current FP has higher encyclopaedic value and better composition. I doubt this would pass in contrast, however you can leave it to process if you wish, it's your decision. —
515:
277:
duties." The argument goes that I guess any private photos you take while during a tour of duty become PD? Is that correct, or should we revert the copyright tag back to CC-BY?-
735:
Jjron i had just bought the camera i was not familiar with all its settings. I had put my camera on the wide screen setting because it looks great on my desktop. thanks
557:. Since that image illustrates a different gun, I don't think that's an addressable concern. I suggest that all commenters with this rationale reconsider their !votes.
772:
458:
time he is given. And it's not like snapping a pic with a point and shoot is a big waste of time anyway. I could see your point if he was doing a long exposure on a
514:
Yes, I think that new versions are supposed to be uploaded with a different name so that we can compare them? There seems to be a parallel nomination happening at
481:
assuming copyright can be sorted out. Shame the angle isn't quite as good as the other FP, but I think it's still good enough to illustrate the article it's in.
762:
672:
be cutoff at the top. I'd like to hear an explanation, but the awkward looking crop along with other reasons given above, inclines me towards opposing. --
462:
trying to be Ansel Adams of
Afghanistan while someone is bleeding out on a gurney in the clinic, but I don't think that's what's happening here! :-)
240:
FP for similar subjects. The nom'd image is in a separate article as well so I'm not sure it's diluted too much by the existence of the other FP.
17:
767:
136:
221:
181:
72:
I find the quality of this photo superb and I think a picture at such a close range and with such good timing must be unusual.
640:
is quite fascinating. Check it out if you have some time (personal opinion, of course). Best of luck to our soldier overseas.
218:
498:
Shouldn't mid-nomination edits be mentioned on this page? An edit was made and I don't see any indication of that here.
171:
695:
321:
Apparently the army has an account on flickr too. Go figure. If this was wrong, I will certainly offer my apology. --
49:
598:
562:
166:
Don't we already have a featured picture that is very similar in subject matter and composition to this one? --
184:? Yes, it's quite similar and I hadn't seen it when I nominated this picture. Shall I withdraw this? — Martin
545:
167:
132:
741:
620:
124:
691:
318:
314:
215:
45:
745:
725:
681:
662:
634:
Some more input would be nice now that the copyright issue has been resolved by the copyright holder.
624:
602:
581:
566:
549:
530:
506:
490:
471:
427:
389:
375:
363:
334:
304:
283:
264:
249:
225:
196:
175:
156:
108:
736:
719:
656:
615:
350:
86:
594:
558:
420:
327:
541:
467:
385:
373:
359:
281:
245:
128:
486:
210:
33:
435:
708:
677:
645:
577:
257:
53:
525:
516:
Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list#File:M777 Light Towed
Howitzer 1.jpg
415:
322:
299:
289:
191:
151:
103:
57:
756:
463:
381:
370:
355:
278:
241:
78:
41:
500:
482:
117:
612:
459:
411:
61:
540:
The existing, similar, FP is better in several aspects (such as lighting etc).
673:
573:
521:
295:
187:
147:
99:
369:
otherwise PD government image (assuming we choose the wrong license here)?-
637:
144:
Agree - I'll have a think about how to incorporate it. — Martin
518:
and the change was due to a comment there. — Martin
703:Promoted Image:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates
32:
773:Featured picture nominations/March 2009
28:Photograph of a M777 howitzer in action
7:
636:I'll also point out that the user's
763:Ended featured picture nominations
24:
182:File:4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg
593:. Illustrates the subject well.
410:Someone should also check out
120:in the caption wouldn't hurt.
75:Articles this image appears in
1:
292:to comment on this. — Martin
768:Featured picture nominations
438:would seem to be the answer:
789:
746:21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
625:12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
603:05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
582:13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
567:05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
550:04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
531:13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
507:23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
491:18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
472:03:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
428:02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
390:01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
376:22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
364:22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
335:18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
305:14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
284:13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
265:01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
250:00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
226:12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
197:08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
176:08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
157:22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
109:20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
50:Operation Enduring Freedom
726:02:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
682:14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
663:05:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
42:M777 Light Towed Howitzer
454:
65:
46:10th Mountain Division
698:) 03:30, 6 April 2009
441:
36:
351:User:Jonathanmallard
116:Some mention of the
94:Support as nominator
44:in service with the
431:per Fletcher below
338:per Fletcher below
168:Grandpafootsoldier
66:
641:
529:
303:
195:
155:
141:
127:comment added by
107:
780:
749:
722:
716:
714:
711:
659:
653:
651:
648:
635:
628:
519:
503:
425:
418:
332:
325:
293:
261:
185:
145:
140:
121:
97:
788:
787:
783:
782:
781:
779:
778:
777:
753:
752:
739:
737:Jonathanmallard
724:
720:
712:
709:
707:
661:
657:
649:
646:
644:
618:
616:Jonathanmallard
501:
424:
421:
416:
331:
328:
323:
259:
122:
87:Jonathanmallard
54:Charkh District
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
786:
784:
776:
775:
770:
765:
755:
754:
751:
750:
744:comment added
718:
700:
699:
687:Strong Support
684:
655:
638:Flickr gallery
632:
631:
630:
629:
623:comment added
595:Mostlyharmless
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
559:Mostlyharmless
535:
534:
533:
493:
475:
474:
440:
439:
422:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
329:
310:
309:
308:
307:
290:User:Terrillja
267:
252:
233:
232:
231:
230:
229:
228:
202:
201:
200:
199:
161:
160:
159:
111:
90:
89:
84:
81:
76:
73:
70:
58:Logar Province
48:in support of
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
785:
774:
771:
769:
766:
764:
761:
760:
758:
747:
743:
738:
734:
731:
730:
729:
727:
723:
717:
715:
704:
697:
693:
688:
685:
683:
679:
675:
670:
667:
666:
665:
664:
660:
654:
652:
639:
626:
622:
617:
613:
609:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
589:
583:
579:
575:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
542:Noodle snacks
539:
536:
532:
527:
523:
517:
513:
510:
509:
508:
505:
504:
497:
494:
492:
488:
484:
480:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
461:
456:
455:
453:
452:
447:
446:
437:
434:
433:
432:
430:
429:
426:
419:
413:
409:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
374:
372:
367:
366:
365:
361:
357:
352:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
337:
336:
333:
326:
320:
319:
315:
306:
301:
297:
291:
288:I have asked
287:
286:
285:
282:
280:
276:
271:
268:
266:
263:
262:
256:
253:
251:
247:
243:
238:
235:
234:
227:
224:
223:
220:
217:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
198:
193:
189:
183:
179:
178:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
158:
153:
149:
143:
142:
138:
134:
130:
129:Noodle snacks
126:
119:
115:
112:
110:
105:
101:
95:
92:
91:
88:
85:
82:
80:
79:M777 howitzer
77:
74:
71:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
732:
706:
702:
701:
686:
668:
643:
633:
607:
590:
554:
537:
511:
499:
495:
478:
449:
448:
443:
442:
407:
405:
404:
317:
312:
311:
274:
269:
258:
254:
236:
214:
211:Vanderdecken
180:Do you mean
163:
123:— Preceding
118:Muzzle brake
113:
93:
37:
27:
740:—Preceding
619:—Preceding
460:view camera
96:--— Martin
62:Afghanistan
757:Categories
260:Sophus Bie
417:Terrillja
324:Terrillja
733:Comment.
710:ωαdεstεr
669:Comment.
647:ωαdεstεr
512:Comment:
496:Comment:
464:Fletcher
412:this one
382:Fletcher
371:Andrew c
356:Fletcher
279:Andrew c
275:official
242:Fletcher
137:contribs
125:unsigned
38:Original
742:undated
692:Leivick
621:undated
608:Comment
591:Support
555:Comment
502:Spencer
483:Terri G
479:Support
270:Comment
255:Support
237:Support
164:Comment
114:Comment
83:Creator
728:(UTC)
538:Oppose
69:Reason
721:«talk
674:jjron
658:«talk
574:jjron
349:page
40:- An
16:<
696:talk
678:talk
599:talk
578:talk
563:talk
546:talk
526:talk
522:MSGJ
487:talk
468:talk
436:This
423:talk
408:Note
386:talk
360:talk
330:talk
316:and
300:talk
296:MSGJ
246:talk
192:talk
188:MSGJ
172:talk
152:talk
148:MSGJ
133:talk
104:talk
100:MSGJ
52:in
759::
713:16
705:~
690:--
680:)
650:16
642:~
614:.
601:)
580:)
572:--
565:)
548:)
524:·
489:)
470:)
388:)
362:)
298:·
248:)
213:∴
190:·
174:)
150:·
139:)
135:•
102:·
60:,
56:,
748:.
694:(
676:(
627:.
597:(
576:(
561:(
544:(
528:)
520:(
485:(
466:(
406:*
384:(
358:(
302:)
294:(
244:(
222:φ
219:ξ
216:∫
194:)
186:(
170:(
154:)
146:(
131:(
106:)
98:(
64:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
