File talk:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png

=Discussion about copyright= There is a discussion at Featured_article_candidates/United_States_housing_bubble about the copyright of this plot using the data from Shiller's book. For reference, I've included this here. Frothy 14:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I still strongly protest Image:Shiller IE2 Fig 2-1.png as being a copyright violation being a replicate of Image:Barrons shiller 06-20-2005.gif. There are slight differences, but this is blatantly a derivative work. --Durin 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have Shiller's original plot in front of me, and, in spite of "slight differences", Barron's plot is essentially the same, whether or not we shoose to call it "derivative". It's the same data set that Shiller published—he represented it one way, and his plot is copyrighted, Barron's represented it in a slightly different way and their plot is copyrighted, I represented a slightly different way yet, and released the copyright on my representation. It's that simple. The fact that you can identify that it's a different representation of the same data is all that's necessary. Frothy 12:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you generated a new plot, with your own colors, format, etc. that would be one thing. In this case, the plot you generated is virtually identical to the copyrighted one. That constitutes a derivative work. No, you can not copyright fact. You can copyright the format of the presentation of those facts. Some companies have entirely geometric designs for their logos. You can't copyright a circle. But, the format of that circle with other geometric designs can create a copyrightable work. Such is the case here. What you've created is a virtual clone of the original copyrighted data. This makes it a derivative work, and as such the original copyright holders retain rights. --Durin 14:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A Cartesian plot of data is not copyrightable. For your argument to have force, there would have to be something distinctive in Barron's representation of this data that was copied, and there simply isn't. No one can copyright the representation "I used a red curve for such-and-such XY data and a blue curve for another." As you observed, the representations of the data are different, and therefore one's copyright does not apply to the other. Frothy 15:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll be placing your version of the image for deletion as a copyright violation sometime in the next week. There isn't any reason to be treading this deeply into grey area vis-a-vis copyright concerns. --Durin 02:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

=Software=

This is a nice looking plot. Could you tell what software was used to make it? -Blick 02:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'd also love to know what software was used to create this. Although, I don't think we'll ever find out because they were to busy arguing about copyright to do anything else. People on Wikipedia just get too damn up-tight with copyright issues. I believe Wikipedia would be a lot better if it wasn't for that.


 * Wikipedia's policies are ridiculous when it comes to image copyright. See the copyright dispute on Madeleine McCann's photo. As if Madeleine's family wouldn't wholeheartedly agree to that picture being plastered on every website in the world. Dandv (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)