F@h Image Permissions

[Jesse_V]

Hi, as some of you know, I'm working on the Folding@home article on Wikipedia. Right now one of my goals is to add more images. Not only will these images be helpful, but if there's any chance of the article becoming a Good Article or a Featured Article (meaning its one of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer), it must be "Illustrated, if possible, by images: 1) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 2) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions"

So, my biggest issue at the moment is to make sure that I get all the legality taken care of. In the process of selecting images for the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home) I have run across several that have caught my eye:
1) An image of v7 in novice mode: http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegrou ... stall7.png
2) FAHViewer displaying a protein in action: https://fah-web.stanford.edu/projects/F ... Viewer.jpg Turns out the protein it's simulating is "amyloid beta (Abeta) monomer mutant in water" which is neat because it's tied to Alzheimer's disease.

So, my question is, what images can I take? Perhaps there are others about v7's functions or other images on the F@h website. What ones are off limits? I'm hoping for an answer eventually by someone who has the authority to say things one way or the other. To get down to the semi-legal-speak that Wikipedia recommends that I use:

Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/) is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively edited by volunteers from around the world. Our goal is to create a comprehensive knowledge base that may be freely distributed and available at no charge.
Normally we ask permission for material to be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License. This means that although you retain the copyright and authorship of your own work, you are granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely — and even potentially use them commercially — so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely.
You can read this license in full at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... ed_License
This license expressly protects creators from being considered responsible for modifications made by others, while ensuring that creators are credited for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
We choose the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License because we consider it the best available tool for ensuring our encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images. This may or may not be compatible with your goals in creating the materials available on your website. Please be assured that if permission is not granted, your materials will not be used at Wikipedia — we have a very strict policy against copyright violations.
We also accept licensing of images under other free-content licenses. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... right_tags
With your permission, we will credit you for your work in the image's permanent description page, noting that it is your work and is used with your permission, and we will provide a link back to your website. Please explicitly state under which license you grant permission.
We invite your collaboration in writing and editing articles on this subject and any others that might interest you. Please see the following article for more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction

Thank you for your time.

Kindly,
Jesse_V

[VijayPande]

I'm happy to grant permissions for the use of those images in wikipedia, although for #2, it looks like we should get PantherX's ok as well.

[Jesse_V]

Thank you Dr. Pande for taking time out of your busy schedule to answer my post. I very much appreciate it.

If you don't mind, I'd still like some clarification on which images are permissible. These two images came off of the F@h website, and just so everything can be squared away right now, are the licenses for those two images unique or can it apply all images on the F@h website? Of course some of them are tied to some of the papers, or are from somewhere else, so those at least would be in a completely different category. However, at some point in time I may try to find an image that represents F@h, such as this one: http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegrou ... logoML.jpg I should have included it in the original post, but what is its status?

Thank you once again for your feedback. I for one am thoroughly impressed by your lab's work and I'll do my best to help out however I can.

Jesse V.

EDIT: word choice fix as suggested by 7im

[7im]

"Open" is the wrong word to use. Permissable in this specific instance (use on wiki) is more accurate.

Also, that logo in the second post is the old one. Use the newer blue one.

[Jesse_V]

"Open" is the wrong word to use. Permissable in this specific instance (use on wiki) is more accurate.

Also, that logo in the second post is the old one. Use the newer blue one.

Yes indeed. I stand corrected. I will edit the post with that change.

As for the logo, you mean the blue one that appears in the header of the main F@h site? Blue background and its says "Folding@home distributed computing" in white letters. It is very nice, and you're right it is actually better than the other one. I can't seem to isolate the image though. I've tried various means, but it's embedded somehow. Oh well, perhaps permission can be discussed anyway.

[7im]

The one with the spiraled arrows...

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegrou ... wnload.png

[Jesse_V]

The one with the spiraled arrows...

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegrou ... wnload.png

Right. I see that in many places on the F@h website. However, I liked the one that I mentioned on the main site better, as its more a static noun thing rather than a verb. I realize one of the indirect ideas of the article is to provide people with enough information to convince them to get involved F@h, but I just don't think that image is appropriate. In this case, I'm trying to find an image that will be used in the upper right hand corner of the article, something that represents F@h in a neutral way. So while I appreciate you pointing it out, I just don't think its the right choice. Thanks.

[codysluder]

How about using the "colored balls" image that's used as an icon for the software. It's too small and doesn't have the necessary resolution but I think somebody designed it as a bigger/higher resolution image. 7im: Do you know where to find those images?

[Jesse_V]

How about using the "colored balls" image that's used as an icon for the software. It's too small and doesn't have the necessary resolution but I think somebody designed it as a bigger/higher resolution image. 7im: Do you know where to find those images?

You mean this one? http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegrou ... old003.png
It's found on the Downloads page: http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Download

I've considered that but I don't think it really represents F@h. It seems to me that it's just a super-colorful molecule. Outside of F@h, it could be for anything.

Thanks though.

[VijayPande]

I'm happy to grant a general blanket permission for FAH images on our web site to be on the wikipedia page.

[PantherX]

I am happy to give my permission to use that image as long as I am aware of where it is being used. Please note that, if any images are used, inform me so that before updating the images, I will ensure that the names are same to avoid breaking any links during the updating process.

[Jesse_V]

I'm happy to grant a general blanket permission for FAH images on our web site to be on the wikipedia page.

Thank you sir. Once again, I appreciate it.

I am happy to give my permission to use that image as long as I am aware of where it is being used. Please note that, if any images are used, inform me so that before updating the images, I will ensure that the names are same to avoid a breaking any links during the updating process.

Acknowledged. Adding an image to Wikipedia involves uploading it to the Wikimedia Commons, where it becomes part of the public domain. Once there, neither of us will have control over where it goes. However, it is my understanding that a COPY is uploaded, so you don't have to worry about link errors. Wikipedia does keep track of what articles use a given image, and if the image is used elsewhere on the Internet we can all find it using a Google Image search using it as the criteria. Updating an image involves me downloading the image and uploading the latest version to the again, which should automatically update it in the article. In short, you don't need to worry about file names or anything. I'll likely noticed the update, so you shouldn't need to worry about that either unless you want to.

As an FYI, I am also considering a cropped version of this image: http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegrou ... go2007.png which I plan to use as the main image. It should represent Folding@home well in my opinion, just as Rosetta@home's article has their logo.