See talk page of image and above dispute (from Oct. 19); the reverting user is engaging in edit warring over this image. Like the previous image (Oct. 19), this one's Nobel Prize image (and design of that image) is not in the "public domain" either. The Nobel Foundation clearly states its registered trademark and copyright "proprietary rights" pertaining to all images and design of images of its Nobel medals. One must post detailed fair-use rationales pertaining to these "unfree images" which are definitely not in the "public domain" and are being used in "derivative works" in photographs of the medals that are extremely close to the images protected by the trademarks and copyrights owned by the Nobel Foundation whose notices are clearly displayed on its website nobelprize.org. --NYScholar 08:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC) [Originally placed in October 20 heading (my time); moved here for locating properly; fixing template on image page to match.] fixed. --NYScholar 16:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Not the case; the medal was first struck before 1923 and was registered and copyrighted before then, invalidating the claim. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But ((PD-US)) doen't apply when it was not first published in the USA. Here Sweden was probably the first country it was published in. // Liftarn

Perhaps ((PD-US-1923-abroad)) might be a better tag. But I hope you don’t mean the design of the medal is not PD in the US. Template:PD-US/doc shows the classes of works which are PD in the US. The design of the Nobel Prize medal, first published in 1902 in Sweden, falls under the 5th class. --teb728 06:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated my talk page with links to sources pertaining to revisions of U.S. Copyright Code (Title 17) that relate to "protection of designs," automatic renewals of copyrights, copyrights of work for hire (commissioned designs), and so on. These are complex laws with many notes and qualifications. (Here's the link.) --NYScholar 07:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [added link. --NYScholar 07:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Would anyone like to read over the new fair use rationale I've added to the image page? I think we can use this under fair use, personally, because it's really a design that can't be duplicated, and the medal's design is relevant to the articles on the prizes themselves. Note the OTRS ticket which doesn't put this under a free license, but implies that the Nobel Foundation has no real concerns over our use of this design for promotional purposes only, so long as the rights for the original image belong to them. This isn't a copyleft license, but I think it further cements the fair use rationale for this image. Ral315 » 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that and made editing changes to format and presentation (no reference to "I" in a "fair use rationale"; title of sec. is "Fair use rationale": see other images for format models). I've added editorial interpolations asking for a direct link to the e-mail correspondence text that you are citing; to verify the interpretive claims being made in the "fair use rationale", one needs to be able to read the text of the e-mail message. Without being able to see that text, there is no way to verify these claims. Please provide a link to the text of the e-mail correspondence (the e-mail sent by the Wikipedia Foundation and the reply sent by the Nobel Foundation that was received), along with the exact dates of that correspondence (both message sent and reply received). That correspondence link to the numbered correspondence needs to be part of the "fair use" rationale. Thank you. --NYScholar 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One does not refer to "copyleft" etc. in such a fair-use rationale; for what GFDL is, that is already linked in the notice in Wikipedia editing pages: "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted." The presentation of these images must follow this policy and not provide inconsistent and inaccurate templates/tags on the image pages. --NYScholar 17:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Copies [of GFDL-licensed content] may also be sold commercially, but if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100) then the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient." conflicts with the proprietary rights to the Nobel Prize (R) Medals of the Nobel Foundation provided in its website (already cited). --NYScholar 17:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current image page (as "cleaned up" by Shell) is accurate and suffices. --NYScholar 18:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote that comment, another user added a "public domain U.S." template tag, which I still think is inaccurate and misleading. Please see the related talk pages of the Nobel Prize (R) images. At Shell's suggestion, I've posted a query in the "Wikipedia Media Copyright" questions page (I'll add the link in a moment). --NYScholar 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions: Nobel Prize (R) Medal Images. --NYScholar 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Being treated as a fair use image. -Nv8200p talk 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as GFDL. Source say: "Site contents © by Eastern Roads. This is not an official site run by a government agency." Rettetast 10:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshow from the pay-per-view broadcast of UFC 77. east.718 at 17:01, 10/21/2007 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission is not specific enough. Garion96 (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you need, I am not sure if I still have the email or not, but it was sent to me by a member of Graham's staff who knows I am a Wikipedian with the request that I upload the picture and put it on his page. - Jord 15:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no indication of public domain release at source website ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]