Not a copyright status with which I am familiar:

Found on an author image: "Copyright: pubic domain" *

* I'm not posting the link. Not out of any risk of embarrassing the uploader, but because it's not actually an image of the author and I'm flagging it for that reason.

I see that some members are using the url addresses where the photo is found in the block for copyright information.

Two questions
Does one have any relationship to the other? Noting where it is found seems to me not really addressing a copyright question at all.

Sometimes the link is to a commercial site. That seems spammy to me, though so far, it's not being used deliberately as such. I'd like some discussion of this and hopefully some staff feedback.

I can provide examples if needed.

>2 2wonderY:

Does one have any relationship to the other?

No, absolutely not. I do try to include a link to where I found the image, as I think that is useful information, but it's not relevant to copyright status (except insofar as going to the site might help you find out the copyright info). I put that in the "description/credit" box.

Unfortunately, it's not always easy to determine copyright, particularly as there are a lot of sites (particularly blogs) that use copyrighted images without so indicating. I try to find the original source of the image, but often without success.

Sometimes the link is to a commercial site.

I don't think that's necessarily spammy. I frequently find author images on newspaper, magazine, and publishers' sites (which are, obviously, commercial). No reason not to use those and provide the source of the image.

>2 2wonderY: If the image is one that was created and is already used for the purpose of promotion and advertisement, like a book cover, one might reasonably expect that its illustrative, non-harmful use to represent the item, person, entity or whatever will be tolerated even if technically it *is* a (probably not explicitly licensed) reproduction of a copyrighted work.

Most venue pictures would come from the venue's website, which is already on the page.

I would think that if the link is spammy, something would also be otherwise wrong with the picture.

>4 Jarandel:

I may be wrong, but I don't think >2 2wonderY: was suggesting that the images not be used, just that the copyright information (where known) should be included.

>6 lilithcat: Right.

There are two corporate authors, performers, where the link goes to ticketing sites, and those logos that have been added are transitory on those sites at best.

>7 2wonderY:

I see the ones you mean. That's odd, as casaloma isn't a newbie, and it's not as though the Glyndebourne Festival doesn't have their own website. (Indeed, their logo isn't on the ticketing website.) I think this must just be a cut-and-paste error. I've been known to do that!

There's another further down the page where he did the same thing. I sent him a note on the Glyndebourne, but I don't want to seem like I'm hassling him, after noticing the other.

>1 lilithcat: public domain
It's not a copyright status, but it is an indication of the license and justification for use on LibraryThing. Saying literally "Copyright: Public Domain" is obviously nonsense, but just "Public Domain" in the Copyright field makes sense, if it's true. (Some people think "found on the internet" = "public domain" which is maddening.)

2> URL where image was found
I do that - when there's no obvious indication of copyright status, or I know I'm posting what's presumably a publicity photo that's copyright but still acceptable to use. E.g. https://www.librarything.com/pic/6812434 where I don't know if the photo is copyright by the agency, or the photographer (or who the photographer is), or the author. It is a way to at least acknowledge the source of the image. (The site is copyright by the agency, and I have included them in the Credit field.)

Even when the copyright status is known, I'll include a link to the source, in the copyright field because it makes no less sense than the Description/credit field and doesn't look ugly on the author page.

Personally, I think there should be separate Description, Credit, Copyright, and Source fields.

If you don't like the URL in the copyright field, what would you suggest for https://www.librarything.com/pic/6812434? (I suppose I could repeat "David Higham Associates", under the assumption that since they claim copyright on the site, they own the copyright on the photo. But I don't think that's necessarily true.)

I use the first field for the author's name. When I know the identity of the photographer, I add it there as well, after a slash mark.

>10 r.orrison:

I think you missed the point of my original post. Read it again - carefully!

Some people think "found on the internet" = "public domain" which is maddening.

That drives me right up the wall.

I suppose I could repeat "David Higham Associates", under the assumption that since they claim copyright on the site, they own the copyright on the photo. But I don't think that's necessarily true.

You're right, it's not a given. The copyright might well be with the photographer.

>12 lilithcat:
No, I'm sure I wasn't sure what the point was :-) That's why I addressed the two possible meanings I saw: either literally "Copyright: Public Domain" which I agreed is obviously nonsense, or just "Public Domain" in the Copyright field which does make some sort of sense. Or is there some third interpretation of your message, which I'm still missing?

>13 r.orrison:

is there some third interpretation of your message,

Yes, I was pointing out a rather unfortunate typo.

*facepalm*

>15 r.orrison:

Something similar happened to a friend of mine. His title included the word "public", but when his office ordered business cards for him, well, guess what they said!

I think any job title with "public" in it would be made better by that typo! I've just googled "job title public" and the possibilities are endless. I think my favourite is "public survey assistant".

Topic of the month, if not year