A note to article editor

You may just right the source of image at end of article as suggested. You may also delete the images from your article if you so choose. All that matters is that if any image is given in article, the source needs be given.

You may just right the source of image at end of article as suggested. You may also delete the images from your article if you so choose. All that matters is that if any image is given in article, the source needs be given.

Thanks all my doubts cleared.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

Its always safe to declare the image source at the end of the article.. I for one, though i use my own painted images, at the end of the article, I declare
Images by the author. Wiki commons is the most ideal resource for copy-write free images.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

You only need to give the source from where you copied the image.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

You only need to give the source from where you copied the image.

There area plethora of sites that offer images free from copyright. For example
http://www.morguefile.in/
is one of them.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

Even if the images are taken from public domain and are free, it is better to mention source of image at the end, especially here in boddunan owing to certain circumstances, it is the rule to do so, failing which articles are rejected.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

Even if the images are taken from public domain and are free, it is better to mention source of image at the end, especially here in boddunan owing to certain circumstances, it is the rule to do so, failing which articles are rejected.

True. Boddunan insists on the source of the image to be away from 'Copyright' complexities which put both the writer and the site in an embarrassing condition.As a member of this site it's advisable to honor the rules.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

Even if the images are taken from public domain and are free, it is better to mention source of image at the end, especially here in boddunan owing to certain circumstances, it is the rule to do so, failing which articles are rejected.

True. Boddunan insists on the source of the image to be away from 'Copyright' complexities which put both the writer and the site in an embarrassing condition.As a member of this site it's advisable to honor the rules.

I I would suggest not to use pictures even if these are on public domains and 'free to use' as you never know who owns the original copyright for them. Be very careful before uploading a pic with your work. The 'free to use' pics are not for commercial use and our articles do come under 'commercial purpose' since we are being paid for them.

My article got rejected for the same reason (I've resubmitted it with the source). But the thing is that the images I used was on public domain and that means it needs no attribution and can be used even commercially for free. Therefore, even the website from which I took the image is not the actual copyright holder because the image is copyright free!

Most of the time I use copyright free images. And for some images where the owner agrees to use the image with attribution, I do attribute.

Thanks.

Even if the images are taken from public domain and are free, it is better to mention source of image at the end, especially here in boddunan owing to certain circumstances, it is the rule to do so, failing which articles are rejected.

True. Boddunan insists on the source of the image to be away from 'Copyright' complexities which put both the writer and the site in an embarrassing condition.As a member of this site it's advisable to honor the rules.

I I would suggest not to use pictures even if these are on public domains and 'free to use' as you never know who owns the original copyright for them. Be very careful before uploading a pic with your work. The 'free to use' pics are not for commercial use and our articles do come under 'commercial purpose' since we are being paid for them.

Yes. I agree with you. One should not forget to see them clause," Free for commercial use or any purpose". There is nothing like using your own Photos and images. Or let the article go sans images or photos as this site doesn't insist on images or photos.

Even if it is protected by copyright and not like wiki commons which permits free use of its images. Even if source is mentioned for a copyright protected image is it not a violation, as it is done without permission. Can someone clarify please.

Even if it is protected by copyright and not like wiki commons which permits free use of its images. Even if source is mentioned for a copyright protected image is it not a violation, as it is done without permission. Can someone clarify please.

Certainly using a copyright protected image without obtaining permission is a violation.

Even if it is protected by copyright and not like wiki commons which permits free use of its images. Even if source is mentioned for a copyright protected image is it not a violation, as it is done without permission. Can someone clarify please.

If pictures used are found to be copyrighted then such articles are rejected until those copyrighted images are taken off. Here in boddunan, one can use only those pictures which are available to be used freely with the owner so mentioning clearly, as is the case with most images in Wikimedia commons. The only reason we insist for its source even if they are free, is to assure ourselves about its actual status and to avoid future hassles. I hope this is clear! :cheer:

I had submitted an article yesterday. It is approved by both editor and admin. But it is not published. I dont know the reason for that. Can any one help me out regarding this?.

Copy right of images are big issues and that is why as writers we should respect it and I think even giving link of image is not sufficient as there are different provisions according to creative commons of sharing images, what is author does not want to share that image at other sites but it has been shared, all these need to be clearly looked into before giving source of image and image itself. :whistle: :whistle:

I had submitted an article yesterday. It is approved by both editor and admin. But it is not published. I dont know the reason for that. Can any one help me out regarding this?.

Publishing an article takes time usually between 6-7 days after it has been approved. Also, this thread is not meant for this question hence locking it now.