Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 September 17

< September 16	September 18 >

September 17[edit]

File:Jim Gary - Colts Neck 9-11 Memorial Garden - 83d40m - 2p.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

photo of non-free sculpture, not necessary in article on town in which it appears Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - municipality developed the garden on municipal property for its fallen citizens and contracted a famous native son to create it with the sculpture as the centerpiece of the entire garden. Has great significance to the community. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a reader looking for information about the town it is not necessary to see this particular sculpture (I'm sure there are a number of nonfree public artworks in the town, and none of the rest of them are shown). See WP:NFCC#8. Typical images in an article about a town would be main street, cityscape, parks, mayor, etc -- plenty of free photos available or which could easily be created, so no need to use nonfree photos. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my point exactly, this is a park created at the municipal center of the town, that is why it is significant. License has been given. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know the sculptor? Has he released his rights under a free license? If so, you will need to have him follow the process at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates . (By the way, my point about parks is that there could be a free image of the park used instead of this one. If the permission/copyright issue is resolved, though, this image would be equally usable.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sculptor is dead (please refer to the article for confirmation, I would hope that reading the articles ought to be part of determining relevancy, but evidence for that is missing). The park is public property and this portion of the park was set aside for a public monument that was commissioned with public funds, so the owners are the citizens of the community and it is maintained by their government. Governments do not hold copyrights. Note the title of the image. It is an image of the memorial garden in the municipal park. My point about the garden in the park is that it is a public monument commissioned to honor its unusual number of victims of 9-11 and they chose a popular native son to design the garden. The community is quite proud of its park that is the center of the town and contains all of the municipal buildings and where it honors its residents and their activities. The photograph shows a great deal of the park, from a vantage point near the 9-11 garden. Do you intend for me to believe that you do not allow images of public monuments or parks?

Where is the release for File:Vietnam Memorial Fair Park 3.jpg ? Where is the release for File:Vietnam Memorial Wall (2083029082).jpg ? I find no releases from the sculptors of these works on public property.

Where are the sculptor permissions for File:2004-09-07 1800x2400 chicago picasso.jpg or File:Eagle by A.Calder.jpg ? Certainly Picasso and Calder have not supplied them!

My time for WP is rather dear, I don't have the luxury you seem to have to challenge images posted and vetted a decade ago when I had a different computer (twice removed, in fact) and a different camera (any posted from Picasa software originated from that discarded camera). What were you doing on August 4, 2006 and where is the proof? I do not even have a scanner as you imply I use. Who authorizes you to make decisions based on allegations you make without factual evidence and generalize others? You are taking down image after image, without any factual basis. I do not intend to feed what I think is a spree of bullying behavior. Only WP suffers. Now I am having difficulty responding to some of your notes because of odd slowing of my computer as I try to respond. That compounds the issue. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule re pointing to other images, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The issue is that there is not "freedom of panorama" in the United States so a photo of a copyrighted work (even if erected in a public place) implicates the copyright on the artwork itself. Governments can in fact hold copyrights, or it is possible that Gary himself still holds the copyright (it would depend what the contract for the commission stated). A photo of a park itself (not of an artwork in it) does not raise this issue because a park is not copyrighted, whereas an artwork is. Re the specific images you identify:

File:Vietnam Memorial Fair Park 3.jpg - this is a borderline case. It is not clear to me that any copyrighted expression is visible in that photo (just three walls with names in alphabetical order), though the issue is might be debatable.
File:Vietnam Memorial Wall (2083029082).jpg - even if we assume that the elements of this work visible in the photo are creative enough to be copyrighted, I believe that there is consensus that this is a US federal government work and thus cannot be copyrighted (there is a special exception in US copyright law for the US federal government)
File:2004-09-07 1800x2400 chicago picasso.jpg - the sculpture was published before 1978 without a copyright notice and is therefore public domain.
File:Eagle by A.Calder.jpg - the sculpture was published before 1978 without a copyright notice and is therefore public domain.

I don't intend to attack you -- I have only nominated a relatively small number of your images for deletion, and I have been working to improve the sourcing for the rest. What computer and camera you were using in 2006 is not relevant to this discussion, so I'm not sure why you bring that up. BTW you reference scanning here and elsewhere so I assumed you had a scanner... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

http://www.sarasotagov.com/InsideCityGovernment/Content/MunAud/MunAudImages/100_0077.jpg

File:Municipal auditorium 83d40m art show.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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. This is a slightly cropped copy of an image to be found at http://www.sarasotagov.com/InsideCityGovernment/Content/MunAud/MunAudImages/100_0077.jpg which appears to confirm the government origin of the image, and to deal with the copyright issue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source insufficient to verify copyright status Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..............................

Retain - source: image from government document about itself - government documents are copyright free. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@83d40m: Can you identify the source more specifically? That is not sufficient to verify the copyright status. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will provide tomorrow. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a copy of a photograph in the public domain created by a local government in Florida (please see licensing data) Florida has an extensive public records law and it is noted for the license if you will examine it. This issue was thoroughly explored during my posting of public documents from Florida. All local governments are considered part of the Florida state government. State laws covers them all.

There ought to be some record in WP about such legalities, why should it be argued time and time again?

_ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk)

I agree that Florida has an extensive public records law, but we need evidence that this image was created by a local government in Florida. All images on Wikipedia need to have a verifiable source. Where did you get this image from? A website? Somewhere else? It is particularly necessary to have an image source because your other image uploads have demonstrated a misunderstanding of Florida law -- i.e. that anything that comes from a Florida government archive is public domain (which is not the case, because images taken by others -- and thus for which others hold the copyright -- can be included in such archives). Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was able to find the image on this government website for Sarasota, Florida. — ξ ^xplicit 04:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Detroit.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, possibly out of scope. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Seshat - papyrus headdress - bent rod - Karnak Temple.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no stated source, and this user tags pretty much everything as own work even when it isn't (see related CCI) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retain - Will create any missing data. Please identify what else needs to be provided for this image upload dated 2007 to make it conform with current standards. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you created this photo given that the vast majority (if not all) of your Egypt photos were not taken by you. Where did this image come from? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply tomorrow. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is another image from my camera edited in Picasa. You have no evidence for your allegations, where is your authority to make such personal judgments and then use them to exclude the works of other editors? _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@83d40m: So you visited the Karnak Temple and took this photo there? I want to confirm because you have tagged many images as "own work" that are not in fact your work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Onondaga Formation.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete PAR (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.