Talk:The Book of the City of Ladies.html

Books portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

WikiProject Middle Ages

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

copyright of image

http://meta.wikipedia.com/upload/The_Book_of_the_City_of_the_Ladies.png

This image is owned - I know it's horrible, but it's true - by some library somewhere. People who print it pay them money. The way copyright works on art objects is like this (pretty much - I'm far from expert, but I am an art historian whose department employs a professional visual resources person full-time who lectures us all the time):

If a museum or library owns a painting or sculpture, they control photography rights - no matter how long the artist has been dead. So, they control photography rights strictly, which is why some museums allow NO photography and the few that allow photography don't allow flash (it's not because they care about environmental degradation - they just don't want you to get a decent shot). If you want a DECENT reproduction, you have to buy it from them. If you I want to publish an image in a journal, they retain copyright and only sell me the right to reproduce their picture.
In the case of architecture, exteriors are fair-game fair use, but only for the photographer. Photographs taken by other people, of course, are theirs unless specifically released.
In the case of sculpture displayed outdoors, see architecture.
prints are a slightly funny category - they DO pass into public domain, because they are printed. Thus Dover can sell the complete Dürer prints, but not his paintings, and thus the image on the Canterbury Tales page is fine, I think.

This is not much fun, but it's the way the world works. My institution owns more than 120,000 slides, most of which are now scanned, but because of copyright issues the images have to stay inside the campus network. --MichaelTinkler

This is good information - should it be moved to some meta page? --justfred

Actually, this is not true. The image falls under the {{pd-art}} tag and can be used. All the manuscript images on Wikipedia are "owned" by someone, but they can still be used. {{pd-art}}

Stbalbach 15:23, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

nonfiction?

this work is listed as nonfiction; allegory is not exactly "nonfiction" and most allegories are described as "allegorical fiction". ?? anyway i've listed this under feminist fiction; but haven't changed the other nonfiction listings, but am raising it here. --lquilter 00:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Language

It is rather sad to have an article on a literary work which does not indicate what language it was written in. john k (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)