Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 19: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Delet |
|||
Line 722: | Line 722: | ||
*:See also [[#Corralesx.jpg]] <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''— ''BQZip01'' —'''</font>]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]</sup> 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
*:See also [[#Corralesx.jpg]] <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''— ''BQZip01'' —'''</font>]]</span> <sup>[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]</sup> 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''', fails [[WP:NFCC#2]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''', fails [[WP:NFCC#2]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' because of NFCC#2. We may not be able to find a free image, but we can certainly find an image whose copyright is not held by a company (such as the AP) whose entire business model is based on selling the rights to reprint their photos. – [[User:Quadell|Quadell]] <sup>([[User_talk:Quadell|talk]])</sup> 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:File:Bernardini.jpg|Bernardini.jpg]]==== |
====[[:File:Bernardini.jpg|Bernardini.jpg]]==== |
Revision as of 17:48, 26 May 2009
May 19
Shadows 2.jpg
Shadows 3.jpg
Note: WP:ANI discussion on deletions
Deletions below proposed by User:Damiens.rf are the subject of an Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents discussion thread Wikipedia:ANI#Deletion nominations of images valid within articles. There has been some discussion that they are possibly disruptive but no consensus to remove them or box the sections below as yet. Interested parties are recommended to discuss meta-implications there and only comment on specific nominations below. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 08:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Gabrielle Scroll.PNG
- Decorative screenshot. Damiens.rf 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- This illustrates Gabrielle's role as a bard.
- Delete Uh.... image does not add much to understand the role that Gabrille is playing as a bard.... it's a hand writing on a scroll, no bard-specific stuff, no commentary of what alphabet she is using, or on why she uses that pencil and not something else.... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Enric. — BQZip01 — talk 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Protector-Niven.jpg
Dj-ash.jpg
Robert Longo Sleep 84.jpg
- Billwhittaker (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork. No release by the artist is given. There is no Panoramafreiheit in the USA allowing the reuse of copyrighted artworks on public display, see WP:FOP. Sandstein 14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep This is a work of art owned by the U.S. Federal government, and as such it is public domain. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Not so. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S. government photographs, "Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States". It does not seem that Robert Longo created this artwork while in the employment of the federal government. Rather it is likely that he was commissioned to do so, which is not the same thing; this means he retains the copyright even though the government owns the sculpture. Sandstein 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. U.S. law makes no distinction between commissioned work and work by employees. Having worked for the feds as a contractor I can assure you that they own all copyrights to work produced under commission. The page you cite is a red herring, it makes no distinction about commissioned work. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- But if the U.S. government does own the copyright as a result of the commissioning contract, then the work is not in the public domain and cannot be used by us unless the government releases it under a free licence. This follows from USC 17 §105: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." In other words, the issue is whether this is a "work of the United States Government", i.e., the work of a government employee, which it is not. Sandstein 14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- What you cited refers to registered copyrights. Can you name a single instance when the feds invoked a copyright on a federally-owned work of art other than postage stamps? If you are correct in your broad interpretation, that we should assume that all Federal images and works are copyrighted (unless proven otherwise), Wikipedia should remove all Federal images and works; good luck with that. Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a copyright expert, but as far as I can tell that provision refers to all copyright, registered or otherwise. I am not aware of the problems other categories of government works may pose, but they are not discussed here. The application of pertinent law to this case seems straightforward enough. Sandstein 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that you agree that the U.S. Government owns the copyright. The question is now does this fall under public domain? There is widespread agreement that federal works and images are public domain with very, very few exceptions. These exceptions do not include public sculpture. This should, therefore, be the end of the discussion. All the best, Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep If it's owned by the US Gov't, it's public domain. Even if the artist was commissioned by the gov't, his rights, along with the work itself, become the property of the gov't when transfer of the work is made to the gov't. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 06:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- That isn't true. If it were, every book in the Library of Congress would be PD...they aren't. — BQZip01 — talk 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep What? Is it even possible to assert copyright over the photos made to a sculpture that is publically exhibited in a public place?.
The only copyright should be that of the photographer, and he has given it up. This should be labelled as Public Domain, period.Well, in the US you can do that commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. Anyways, the sculptor transferred the work to the US federal government. From Work_of_the_United_States_Government#Works_produced_by_contractors it seems that all the copyright goes to the government unless there was a special clause in the contract. Looking at the Smithsonian entry on the sculpture I don't see any indication that there exists any such clause. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC) - Keep -- per Naval's research on the Smithsonian's classification of the artwork, the exhibition in public space, the work for gov't, and the granting of the rights by the photographer. It seems at this point the burden of proof is on showing that someone believes that this photograph could abuse a copyright
- Delete. I agree with Enric Naval's interpretation of the FAR regulations, but I disagree with his conclusion. This much seems clear: the sculpture is almost certainly under copyright, whether the copyright is owned by the United States Government, the United States Post Office or Robert Longo. Because there is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in the United States, a photograph of the statue is an infringing work. It gives me great pain but I do not see any way around that. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Again, it has been demonstrated that the Feds have not established copyright on this item. If you believe that all Federal works are copyrighted unless proven otherwise, then get busy deleting the hundreds of thousands of maps in Wikipedia derived from Federal USGS sources. Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot tell who currently owns the copyright on this piece based on the information that has been presented here, but it appears to be quite likely that it is not in the public domain, contrary to your claims. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Refer again to the Smithsonian entry on the sculpture, no mention of copyright there. If you are going to assume that all Federal works are copyrighted, even when a good faith effort finds no evidence of copyright, then, by this logic, all Federal works are copyrighted. My point about the maps is urgent- almost every US map on wikipedia is derived from USGS sources, much of this data is from contractors. Are you proposing that every USGS map used as a basis for a Wikipedia map requires iron-clad proof that it is not copyrighted? Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I am not very familiar with the Smithsonian database, but I can't find any database entry which explains the copyright status for a work of art. Can you point me to an example of a Smithsonian database entry which describes a work as being under copyright protection, so I understand what to look for?
- The rule of thumb for identifying public domain works by the U.S. government are pretty clear-cut in most cases. USGS maps are in the public domain because they are produced by Federal employees in the course of their official duties for the government. That clearly does not apply to this work. I'm disappointed by your disingenuousness, Bill. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Refer again to the Smithsonian entry on the sculpture, no mention of copyright there. If you are going to assume that all Federal works are copyrighted, even when a good faith effort finds no evidence of copyright, then, by this logic, all Federal works are copyrighted. My point about the maps is urgent- almost every US map on wikipedia is derived from USGS sources, much of this data is from contractors. Are you proposing that every USGS map used as a basis for a Wikipedia map requires iron-clad proof that it is not copyrighted? Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I cannot tell who currently owns the copyright on this piece based on the information that has been presented here, but it appears to be quite likely that it is not in the public domain, contrary to your claims. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. The US Government can't create copyrights, but it can own them. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please read ALL the discussion before chiming in. It has been established that the feds have made no copyright claim on this item. Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Since Longo created the work, Longo holds the copyright unless he has explicitly transfered the copyright to another entity. I don't see any evidence that he transfered the work the U.S. Government, but even if he did, the U.S. Government is capable of holding copyrights that were transferred to them. Here I quote from "The Public Domain" by attorney Stephen Fishman: "Works created for the federal government by independent contractors--meaning people who are neither U.S. government officers nor employees--can be protected by copyright.... The copyright could be owned either (1) by the contractor who created it, or (2) by the U.S. government if it required the contractor to assign his or her copyright to it." – Quadell (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep...but...Delete Pretty clear-cut case, though I understand the confusion. A sculpture created at the behest of the U.S. Government is not automatically PD unless it was created by a Government employee in line with his/her duties. A perfect example of this is any U.S. military plane. Just because the government owns the plane, the design is still copyrighted by the company that created it. Other entities cannot reproduce the aircraft (without getting a license) without violating the copyright. The same goes for software: just because the company produces it for the military doesn't make it PD. That said, this image could certainly be included at a lower resolution in Longo's article and replaced with an appropriate tag/FUR. It should be removed from the rest of the articles as a violation of WP:NFCC#3. — BQZip01 — talk 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)- I'm gonna retract this one a little since Longo isn't primarily known for this work (as a matter of fact, it's pretty obscure), so I don't think this is the appropriate image to include. — BQZip01 — talk 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Per Quadell. Garion96 (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, it seems likely to be deleted in its current form (but you can't say I didn't put up a good fight!). However, if I follow User:BQZip01's advice and reduce the dpi (to screen resolution, I assume) and remove it from all other articles and tag it properly, is it likely to survive another (inevitable)copyright challenge? If so, what is the proper copyright tag to put on this reduced image? Thank you, Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Such an image would need a {{Non-free 3D art}} tag with an appropriate {{FUR}} (Fair Use Rationale) added to it. Please realize this is not one his prominent works and, IMHO, shouldn't be on this encyclopedia. But if it is going to be included, it is required to have this tag. Best Wishes... — BQZip01 — talk 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
VK cover May 2007.jpg
White Dwarf 2nd issue.png
White dwarf issue 67.jpg
Wigan v Bath 1996 match programme.jpg
White dwarf 237.jpg
Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg
Willie Gillis on K.P..jpg
What a catch.jpg
Willie Gillis in a Blackout.jpg
Willie Gillis in Church.jpg
Double Trouble for Willie Gillis.jpg
Willie's Rope Trick.jpg
Willie Gillis New Year's Eve.JPG
Willie Gillis Generations.jpg
International_university_International_Group.jpg
Utrazlogo.jpg
Megamix(BritneySpearsVideo).gif
JET cover 1952-02-14.jpg
Shae-marks-venus.jpg
Shamrockfujitapridemag.gif
Sienna Guillory Esquire.jpg
SlyFamilyStone RScover.jpg
Source-1-.gif
Sports Illustrated 02SEP1968.jpg
SopranosVanityFair.jpg
Symington-usaf.jpg
Symington-1960.jpg
Templer time.jpg
Time 11-26-1951.jpg
Time New York Blackout.png
TheMagsaysayStory.jpg
Time cover-Joseph Hazelwood Exxon Valdez July 24 1989.jpg
Time magazine.jpg
TimeJimMoran.jpg
TimeCover-May31-1954.jpg
Time-melott.jpg
ToscaniniTime1948.jpg
Trevor hoffman si cover.jpg
Tyson Vega Video.gif
Tyson Cane.JPG
X360halowars.jpg
Yott.jpg
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Decorative non-free magazine cover. We don't have to see the cover to understand the band was on the cover. Damiens.rf 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The magazine cover proved to be a critical junction in the band's career - without it the band is unlikely to have had the critical success that it had. It is an important illustration and adds to the overall article. Dan arndt (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Simply stating they were featured on the cover and that it led to further success is enough. We don't need to have the picture to show that information, but citing it is apropos. — BQZip01 — talk 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Consider WP:FUC #8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. My reading of the article is significantly increased because I can see with my own eyes that NME declared 1985 was the year of The Triffids, the visual impact is far more effective than reading text claiming the same. I believe any casual reader would have their understanding of The Triffids enhanced by keeping the NME cover. Without the image the NME declaration is lost in the article's content: its importance would be significantly blunted and understanding would be lost.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep per Dan arndt. This cover was highly significant in the band's history, thus is an important item to feature in the article - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, decorative fair use and replaceable by free text. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
William Levitt TIME cover.jpg
Desmond Tutu and Brad Pitt.jpg
Desmond Tutu Quilt.jpg
Eagle Medallion.jpg
EastEndersAreHere1985.jpg
Fangoria covers in gallery
- LetsDoThisRight (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Fangoria1.gif
- Fangoria2.gif
- Fangoria3.gif
- Fangoria4.gif
- Fangoria5.gif
- Fangoria6.gif
- Fangoria7.gif
- Fangoria8.gif
- Fangoria9.gif
- Fangoria10.gif
- Fangoria11.gif
- Fangoria12.gif
- Non-free magazine cover used to decorate a gallery. Damiens.rf 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all of them, they are all in a gallery of non-free images, in Fangoria#Image_Gallery. No significance assigned, fails WP:NFCC big time.
No need to vote separatedly on each image, they are all in the same identical situation and they should have been grouped together.I refactored all the nominations into a group nomination. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC) - Delete All Fails WP:NFCC - especially the gallery they are displayed in. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all textbook example of what not to do with copyrighted images on Wikipedia. Fails WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — talk 03:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Giant Palouse Earthworm.jpg
Napalestinian.jpg
Corralesx.jpg
MartinezNearPerfection.jpg
Mike Holovak.jpg
Thompson.png
Antoine_Bussy.gif
060405 prehistoric dentistry vlg9a hmedium.jpg
Pat Dobson.jpg
Nicole Brown Simpson.jpg
- NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Again, press agency photos CAN be fair use under some circumstances. In this case, Nicole Brown Simpson is dead, so no free use images can be produced. Sf46 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Keep what sf46 said. — BQZip01 — talk 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, fails WP:NFCC#2. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete because of NFCC#2. We may not be able to find a free image, but we can certainly find an image whose copyright is not held by a company (such as the AP) whose entire business model is based on selling the rights to reprint their photos. – Quadell (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)