Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 October 30
| < October 29 | October 31 > |
|---|
October 30
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- No evidence of publication, which is a requirement for {{PD-India}}. Also no evidence of publication before 1941, which is a requirement for it to be in the public domain in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- File:Spanish Place Organ.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- As source, the uploader wrote "Taken at Spanish Place for Facebook page". I don't know if the uploader meant that the image was stolen from Facebook. Stefan2 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I own this photograph and operate the Spanish Place Facebook page. I took a series of photographs for use on the Facebook page and now have set up this wiki page using the same photographs. Is there a way I can stop people suggesting I do not own the photographs? Two have already been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPJT89 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no way to verify that you are the photographer. See WP:IOWN for instructions. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- File:Duck pond small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Overwritten file: two in one.
Files by Hcatexe (talk · contribs) need evidence of permission from the University of Exeter Business School, listed as photographer of that photo.
File by UofEBusiness (talk · contribs) is a duplicate of File:Business School Building One.jpg which is listed as unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- File:Sign dedicated to Captain Robert Robinson by Carmans River.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Panel artwork is 2D so not covered by FoP Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Software screenshot. It is unlikely that the uploader created the software as currently stated. Stefan2 (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am the uploader. I din't create the software, I don't belong to Plus500. I am a user of the software, and I took the scrrenshot from my phone while using the android app of the software. Thanks, tausif(talk) 11:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Deleted. Yintan (talk · contribs) was informed he needed to use OTRS (a simple process) and declined to do so. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- File:Yintan sept 2011.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Previously published at http://yintan.bandcamp.com/ and missing OTRS. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, it's not previously published. 1) I learn from my mistakes and 2) I don't lie. The photo I published on Bandcamp is a different file. This is a new version, based on the same photograph the Bandcamp file was based on, run through the same filters, but differently framed. There's more info on the left of the new image than on the Bandcamp version, proving that it's a newly rendered image, not a derivative or re-cropped version of the Bandcamp file. They are similar, yes, because they have the same "parent" but they are two different files. This one has never been published anywhere until today. Yintan 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Same photo, just a modified version of it. As both are based on the same underlying photo, OTRS is needed. See derivative work. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, because the underlying photo is not published anywhere and not in any domain (public or copyrighted). The two files are therefore stand-alone images that can be licensed anyway I see fit. Quote: "a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work". That's not the case here. From the US Copyright Office: "A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law." Again, that's not the case here. Yintan 23:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two images are obviously the same photo, and this image can not be used without permission from the person who made the photo at http://yintan.bandcamp.com/. Also, according to your quote, the requirement is prior creation, not prior publication. Although the quote tells that a typical example is a previously published work, it doesn't have to be a previously published work. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two individual images are based on the same photo. That's something else. The fact that I own that underlying photo is obvious, since the new file shows details the older Bandcamp file doesn't. So I must have the underlying photo otherwise I couldn't show those details. Furthermore, as I said, that photo is not copyrighted and not published, so the files aren't derivative works by any definition on the wiki. Yintan 00:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't play stupid. As a version of photo was published outside Wikipedia before this one was uploaded, you need to provide evidence of association with the original publication. Versions of image has been published at lots of other places, for example [1]. For what it is worth, 17 U.S.C. § 17 only requires that the original work is "pre-existing" (i.e. created earlier); it doesn't say say anything about a date of publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- We're going round in circles. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to prove the ownership of a photo that is so obviously mine. Life's too short. Yintan 01:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't play stupid. As a version of photo was published outside Wikipedia before this one was uploaded, you need to provide evidence of association with the original publication. Versions of image has been published at lots of other places, for example [1]. For what it is worth, 17 U.S.C. § 17 only requires that the original work is "pre-existing" (i.e. created earlier); it doesn't say say anything about a date of publication. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two individual images are based on the same photo. That's something else. The fact that I own that underlying photo is obvious, since the new file shows details the older Bandcamp file doesn't. So I must have the underlying photo otherwise I couldn't show those details. Furthermore, as I said, that photo is not copyrighted and not published, so the files aren't derivative works by any definition on the wiki. Yintan 00:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The two images are obviously the same photo, and this image can not be used without permission from the person who made the photo at http://yintan.bandcamp.com/. Also, according to your quote, the requirement is prior creation, not prior publication. Although the quote tells that a typical example is a previously published work, it doesn't have to be a previously published work. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, because the underlying photo is not published anywhere and not in any domain (public or copyrighted). The two files are therefore stand-alone images that can be licensed anyway I see fit. Quote: "a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work". That's not the case here. From the US Copyright Office: "A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law." Again, that's not the case here. Yintan 23:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Same photo, just a modified version of it. As both are based on the same underlying photo, OTRS is needed. See derivative work. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nope, it's not previously published. 1) I learn from my mistakes and 2) I don't lie. The photo I published on Bandcamp is a different file. This is a new version, based on the same photograph the Bandcamp file was based on, run through the same filters, but differently framed. There's more info on the left of the new image than on the Bandcamp version, proving that it's a newly rendered image, not a derivative or re-cropped version of the Bandcamp file. They are similar, yes, because they have the same "parent" but they are two different files. This one has never been published anywhere until today. Yintan 23:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't say where this was published, so the suggestion that the copyright holder failed to comply with copyright formalities can't be verified. Possibly below the threshold of originality. Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Keep. Whilst the logo's copyright status is uncertain, the photograph's key subject is the sign and not the logo, and to that extent, the logo's inclusion is de minimis. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Commons:COM:FOP#United Kingdom doesn't apply to 2D things such as the Cuban coat of arms. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a photo of a sign outside a public building in the middle of London which I took with my own mobile.... don't really see the issue here Sdrawkcab (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)sdrawkcab
- The problem is that you didn't draw the Cuban coat of arms on the sign. In Cuba, it seems to be subject to perpetual copyright (see Commons:Template:PD-Cuba). In the United States, the copyright has expired if it was first published before 1923, and in the United Kingdom it has expired if the artist died before 1943. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- File:TeslaTeamLogo.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Very dubious own work claim: appears on lots of other websites. Stefan2 (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.