Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 21
January 21
January 21
- - uploaded by Analogue Kid (notify | contribs).
- This has been previously considered at this PUI debate, and then reconsidered at DRV. The argument that this is not copyrightable (which has been advanced) does not hold water; there's lots of prose text and some design features, all of which would be under copyright. The question is who holds the copyright for a Monroney sticker. (Please remember that image use policy clearly states that the burden of proof is on the uploader to establish that an image is free from copyright, not on this forum to establish that it is not.) That question has not been answered at the previous discussions, and without it we have no source and we cannot even begin discussing whether this is allowable as exempted non-free content. Chick Bowen 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - the image is clearly not free, any more than a photo of another corporate document would be, but must be (c) VW US. It's clearly something that has been designed and has original thought and effort, even though it is just a mass produced document. The argument that this does not have significant original content to be copyrightable I'm sure would come as a surprise to those who spent all the time designing the content and layout. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Rather than go back and forth on an unknown copyright status, I am instead going to make a fair use claim as there is no "free" alternative available and it definitely helps to illustrate the subject in question (certainly much better than a picture of the guy who wrote the law).--Analogue Kid (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm confused. Why on earth to you need this particularly image. Why can't you just use an image of the Monroney sticket by someone else? Or have you ascertained that no one has or is willing to release a Monoroney sticker under a free license and if not how can you claim it's irreplacble? P.S. Indeed since the law has apparently been around since 1958, isn't it possible that there are stickers who have never had their copyright renewed or whatever? Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry for your confusion. The image in question is off of my car taken with my camera. I don't see how using somebody elses would be better. Remember that people don't have to declare something copyrighted for it to actually have a copyright. If you can prove that there are free images available, then please do! But otherwise, fair use is appropriate here.--Analogue Kid (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alternate album cover that is, except for the colour, identical to the main image. It is replaceable with text noting the colour change (fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate. As it is such a similar image it does not add significantly to reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and is excessive use of non-free content (WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alternate album cover that is, except for the colour, identical to the main image. It is replaceable with text noting the colour change (fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate. As it is such a similar image it does not add significantly to reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and is excessive use of non-free content (WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 06:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The image can be replaced by the simple text "The French release used the same artwork, with the background and text printed in shades of red" - simply replaced with a piece of text and no need for the image. How does replacing the image with this text significantly decrease reader's understanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Kaptincapo (notify | contribs).
- Alternate album cover that is, except for the colour, identical to the main image. It is replaceable with text noting the colour change (fails WP:NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate - text in this case). As it is such a similar image it does not add significantly to reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8) and is excessive use of non-free content (WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:NFC criteria. Criteria #1 is met as album covers are generally not replaceable with a free image. Two images is clearly minimal use under criteria #3, and criteria #8 is met as the alternate album covers cannot be adequately described textually, therefore, the image significantly increases the reader's understanding.--2008Olympianchitchat 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- The image can be replaced by the simple text "The Special Edition Cover used the same artwork, though in pale blue" - simply replaced with a piece of text and no need for the image. How does replacing the image with this text significantly decrease reader's understanding ? - Peripitus (Talk) 10:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- orphaned, watermarked - watermark verging on advert (G11) Skier Dude (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Summary says "Photo by Kathy Doucette". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Summary says "Photo by Jeffrey Long". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Summary says "Vic Reinhart has released the photograph". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Summary says "Photo by Vic Reinhart". Uploder uses the "I, the copyright holder of this work..." with a CCL. Skier Dude (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Wpcourtney (notify | contribs).
- no source given for underlying map image Skier Dude (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Notmyhandle (notify | contribs).
- Alternative cover for A Calculated Use of Sound which is identical to the top infobox image except for the colour. Can be replaced by the text "for the Re-release the original artwork and text was kept, with the colours change from black and red to white and black" - as replaceable with a free alternate it fails WP:NFCC#1. Removal of the image does not damage reader's understanding as the free text, and existing non-free image convey the same information (fails WP:NFCC#8) and the extra image is not necessary (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 10:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Alternative (european release) cover for A Beautiful EP which is identical to the top infobox non-free image except for the colour. Can be replaced by the text "for the European release the original artwork was kept, though it and the text moved, with the colours change from yellow to pale pink" - as replaceable with a free alternate it fails WP:NFCC#1. Removal of the image does not damage reader's understanding as the free text, and existing non-free image convey the same information (fails WP:NFCC#8) and the extra image is not necessary (fails WP:NFCC#3a) Peripitus (Talk) 10:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Cleared as filed (notify | contribs).
- This Image does not show Senator James M. Tunnell from Delaware, but Senator Thomas A. Wofford from South Carolina. I noticed this because I translated the article about Wofford into German some days ago and wanted to do the same now with the Tunnell article. It is obviously not the fault of the uploader because, however, the pictures in the Biographical directory of the Congress show the same picture on both pages. I discovered the correct image of Tunnell here in the Library of Congress and will upload it to Commons within the next hours. Scooter (this one) 12:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully this won't be too controversial. The creator has a rather dubious history, both in image licensing (I can't see what particular tags they used however) and in general and the image is not used at all anymore (it was used in a rather dubious userbox). I have the nagging feeling I've seen this in a clipart collection. And while that isn't evidence and it's definitely possible they created this image, given the history I don't know if we can AGF and given that it's unused seems best to me to just delete it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Note that this editor has had quite a few images that they uploaded as "self-made" deleted as copyright violations. Black Kite 15:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hero_of_Time_87 (notify | contribs).
- Image is not a work of the U.S. Congress, but a private photo they are using. See this. Kelly hi! 14:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually it is, since it is on the personal website of Senator Burris himself, who is now a member of the Congress. He obviously prefers the current photo until an official Senate one is made, so leave it be. "....posted on the official websites of a member of Congress." (See http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm as well as www.supportburris.com) Both his official Senate webpage as well as his private campaign use this photo, so that pretty much lays this discussion to rest. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - previous versions of this photo have been deleted, both here and at Commons - see File:RWBphoto.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Roland Burris of Illinois.jpg. Image was also discussed (and deleted) at the admin noticeboard here. Kelly hi! 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- None of the previous versions made note of the fact that the photo is used on his official Senate page or his campaign website as well. There is no argument here. (See http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm as well as www.supportburris.com) Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see where the misunderstanding is coming from, but unfortunately the copyright still lies with the original photographer even if a copy of the photo appears on a federal government website. No doubt Mr. Burris will have his official portrait taken soon enough and this argument will become moot. Kelly hi! 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, that's incorrect in this case, as the US Senate has seen fit to take possession of the photograph and use it for Senator Burris' personal page on their website. Unfortunately, there is no argument here that the US Congress has also taken possession of the photo as it is the only official photograph of Senator Burris. This argument is moot I'm afraid as the photograph meets the conditions of the license. Once again, "....or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress." (See http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm as well as http://www.supportburris.com) Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see where the misunderstanding is coming from, but unfortunately the copyright still lies with the original photographer even if a copy of the photo appears on a federal government website. No doubt Mr. Burris will have his official portrait taken soon enough and this argument will become moot. Kelly hi! 15:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
- None of the previous versions made note of the fact that the photo is used on his official Senate page or his campaign website as well. There is no argument here. (See http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/senators/one_item_and_teasers/burris.htm as well as www.supportburris.com) Hero of Time 87 (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
