Talk:65th Infantry Regiment (United States)/Archive 1

Hello there, I wrote the article at first as the "65th Infantry" and then rewrote it as "The 65th Infantry Regiement". As you will notice they are both identical. The only difference is that I hadn't finished the first version. My mistake, however the first version is now a redirect. The 65th Infantry is commonly known in Puerto Rico and all over as "The 65th Infantry Regiment" (La 65 Infanteria) and not as the U.S. 65th Infantry Regiment. My uncle served in the 65th during the Korean War and if he or anybody else were to look up any information in Wikipedia about the 65th they would search under The 65th Infantry Regiment as it is commonly known. That is why I reverted the title back to how it was. I hope you all understand. Tony the Marine

Copyright Infringement of Photos
You list the following INCORRECT information regarding the copyright status of some of your photos: “This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.”

As the producers of the documentary film THE BORINQUENEERS, we can tell you that is not true. Just because the person depicted in the photo is a government employee DOES NOT make the photo it a “public domain” work. We suggest you review the U.S. copyright laws by visiting this link: http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html. “A work is not in the public domain simply because it does not have a copyright notice. Additionally, the fact that a privately created work is, with permission, included in a U.S. Government work does not place the private work into the public domain. The user is responsible for determining whether a work is in the public domain.” Also:  “Simply because the Internet provides easy access to the information does not mean that the information is in the public domain or is available without limitations. Copyrighted works found on the Internet should be treated the same as copyrighted works found in other media.”

Some of the photos that you use in your articles were obtained from our websites at either Borinqueneers.com or prsoldier.com without our permission or the permission of the photo copyright holders – as is clearly stated in our websites. Please aware of this for the future. Borinqueneers 15:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your concern, however I do not agree in your assertion that there is a "copyright infringement of the photos". Yes, the images were obtained from the websites which you mentioned and once uploaded the source of said images were properly posted. It is a pity that such a big deal is being made about the images of people we both have dedicated or time and efforts to honor as they deserve. Now let's examen the license which Wikipedia provides for these types of images:

"'This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain'"

3.0 U.S. GOVERNMENT WORKS
3.1.1 What is a U.S. Government work?

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.
 * The images were taken while the subjects in question were members (employee) of the United States Army in their military uniforms by another member (employee) of the United States Army, hence the United States Government.

2.3 Ownership of Copyright
2.3.1 Who can hold copyright? Copyright ownership may be held by any person or institution. Typically, the author of a work owns the copyright in the work. However, under the U.S. Copyright Law, for a work made for hire, that is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of employment or a specially ordered or commissioned work, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author.


 * The copyright holder is the person who took the image which in this case was by an employee or member of the United States Army during the course of the person's official duties for a Federal institution which in this case was the United States Army. No effective transfer of copyright can be made in the U.S. for U.S. Government works, because they are not eligible for copyright protection under the U.S. Copyright Law.

2.4.2 Can the published version of a U.S. Government work that has been published in a non-government product be posted on a public Web site?
It depends. If the publisher has made original and creative contributions to the published work, the publisher may have some rights.


 * In the photos which were published the publisher (Borinqueneers) did not make original and creative contributions to the published work.

3.2 Government Works Included In Non-Government Works
3.2.1 May another publisher or individual republish a U.S. Government work and assert copyright?

A publisher or individual can republish a U.S. Government work, but the publisher or individual cannot legally assert copyright unless the publisher or individual has added original, copyright protected material. In such a case, copyright protection extends only to the original material that has been added by the publisher or individual.


 * In this case since Borinqueneers obtained their images from a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, which was taken or made during the course of the person's official duties, as a work of the U.S. federal government, Borinqueneers cannot claim the image as a legally assert copyright.

source: [http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.html. "Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright"; Issues Affecting the U.S. Government]

Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

==RESPONSE TO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

I am all for honoring the veterans of the 65th Infantry Regiment but LEGALLY. As a production company, we followed the law. If the photos belonged to a veteran or their family, we obtained a written Photo Release permitting us to use the photo either in the film or in the publicity of our film. Many of these photos were taken by the veterans with their own cameras - not in an official capacity of the U.S. Government - and, as such, they are the copyright holders. Or they went to private photo studios and purchased their photos, so the photos belong to them. Other photos obtained by private sources such as the newspaper El Mundo, etc. were taken by their photographers and, as such, they are the copyright holders. We also signed Photo Release forms for them. ONLY photos obtained in the National Archives or other public sources taken by the U.S. Army Signal Corps are "public domain" taken by Army photographers who were working in that capacity for the U.S. Government. In fact, when you go to the National Archives they clearly state: "Some of the images in which you are interested may be copyrighted. It is the user's responsibility to identify the copyright owner and to obtain all necessary clearances before making commercial, broadcast, or other use of this material." (Source: http://www.archives.gov/research/order/restrictions.html). The Archives has many material of wartime video or photos that they are NOT the copyright holders to. The Internet is wonderful thing but just because a photo is on a website, it does not give people the right to copy it for use elsewhere. We clearly state this is prohibited. You are opening yourself up to legal recourse when you do this by the copyright holders. I have my Photo Releases, do you? Neither did you ever contact us to obtain permission to use these photos. As a general policy, we do not give permission but we might have been able to orientate you as to whether the photo in question was in "public domain". I suggest you review the copyright laws or consult a copyright attorney and change the text for the copyright notice that you have posted. Borinqueneers 7:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you the copyright holder of these images? I dont think so. The images are in public domain because the images where "taken or made during the course of the person's official duties." Wikipedia is not non-profit organization so we dont need a photo release form from families members. Its really a shame that you making such a big deal about the images of veterans, it really doesn't motivate me to buy or see your production when you are trying to make legal threats towards a volunteer that wants to tell the story of these heroes. Instead of legal harassment you should concentrate in other things, maybe you should get a PR/marketing consultant. --Jmundo (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The person who creates a work is the owner of the copyright – in the case of a photograph it is the person who trips the shutter. The only exception to this rule occurs when a work is created by an employee as part of his or her job duties or when a work is created under a written “work-for-hire” agreement. The U.S. Army Signal Corps were Army photographers and any photographs or videos they took were “public domain” as government employees.  This “public domain” rule does not apply to the personal photographs taken by the soldiers themselves, family members, newspaper reporters and any other individuals who have taken photographs of anyone in a military uniform.  We obtained permission to use these photographs from the copyright owners to post on our website.  We posted a noticed prohibiting the copying, reproduction or distribution of these copyrighted photographs by anyone else.  Some of these photographs were illegally copied from our website.  As such, this site is in violation of copyright laws.  "Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights." (Source:  http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html) Borinqueneers (talk) 8:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making legal threats
Please stop making legal threats. As you have stated "The person who creates a work is the owner of the copyright – in the case of a photograph it is the person who trips the shutter.", regardless of who has the possession of said image and regardless if the image was taken of the subject by someone else with the subjects own camera. You claim to have permission to use these photographs from the copyright owners to post on your website, however you do not own the copyrights, only those who tripped the shutter and it is obvious that the images were taken by an employee or member of the United States Army during the course of the person's official duties for a Federal institution which in this case was the United States Army and that original and creative contributions to the published work were not made by said website. You own the copyrights to the material written on your website, which none was used, but not to the images, unless the copyright owner transferred said rights to you, which is not the case since you claim that you only have permission for their use. If anyone were to take legal action of the photos of "Juan Cesar Cordero Davila" and "Pedro Rodriguez" or any other image, which in some cases were taken fifty years ago, it would be the copyright holder himself. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Credibility and integrity
User: 67.82.148.157, has been very valuable with his contributions to this article, however the constent change in the number of persons who perished in the Korean War, which ended in 1953 is creating a sense of confussion which will lead readers to question the credibility and integrity of the article. The figures of those "killed in action" have been stated as "551", "589", "610", "619" and now "630" without stating an explaination or reliable source from where these numbers came from. I would appreciate it if User: 67.82.148.157 would state the proper Military source as to the exact number of casualties (KIA) (without including those who my have died after the war was over.) that the 65th Infantry suffered. The total of the Puerto Ricans who perished in the Korean War from the four branches of the U.S. Armed Forces was 756 and their names can be found here. Thank you Tony the Marine 07:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"Puerto Rico Regiment" or "Porto Rico Regiment"?
To all those who may be interested: When the 65th Infantry was founded it was named "Porto Rico Regiment" by the "Americans" and not "Puerto Rico Regiment". The intention of United States was to change the name of the island in general from "Puerto Rico" to "Porto Rico", since the latter would be more easier to pronounce in the English language. However, popular resistence to the change overruled and the islands name was restored to Puerto Rico and the regiment was renamed the "65th Infantry Regiment". So, what may have seemed as a misspelling was not. Cheers! Tony the Marine 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Issues
1) "and on November the Regiment" on November--what day or did you mean in November? 2) The mass courtmartial section comes out of nowhere. It seems tied to the Korean War, but there is no smooth transition.Sumoeagle179 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed both concerns. I have intergrated the "Mass Courtmartial" sectio into the "Korean War" section thereby providing a smooth transition. Tony the Marine 18:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is better. Now ref 5 is well formatted, but most of the other web refs aren't. Suggest making them look like ref 5.Sumoeagle179 19:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only did I fix the refs. with the retrieved dates (How is it possible that I did not see that mistake? It must be my age), I also unbolded the captions in the images. Tony the Marine 22:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Hello. I have partially reviewed this article and have concluded that it does not meet any of the "quick-fail" criteria. Because of this, you'll be glad to know that I will be reviewing the article fully shortly. I will leave all comments, if any, here. Happy editing! -- Ag ü  eybaná  01:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Complete GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned):
 * a (tagged and captioned):

Passed. Congratulations! -- Ag ü  eybaná  22:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Moddesto Cartagena
Somebody neads to write more about Modesto Cartagena. He is the most famouse and decorated Purerto Rican soldier ever, and is a heroe for many young puerto ricans. 71.180.248.216 (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) marcos darcy


 * Marcos, somebody already did, me. If you would like to read the article which I wrote about him go here: Modesto Cartagena. If you would like to learn more about the Puerto Rican military heroes which I have written about, I invite you to check my User Page. I hope that you enjoy Wikipedia. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)