Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 March 30
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
March 30[edit]
File:Dorotheea Petre.jpg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dorotheea Petre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 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.
File:Brickfair2011buildingstrains.jpg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 3D artwork located in US - no Freedom of Panorama in US for such an image Ronhjones (Talk) 17:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The United States has a law restricting photography of copyrighted artwork in public indoor locations. This photograph displays no artwork, only a children's toy. Would my photographs of food be illegal if you presume they were taken inside? Is a plate of food considered art? Also, this isn't copyrighted artwork, it's a row of buildings as part of a children's toy. And the location isn't even public, people have to wait and pay to get in. Also, the image is published under CC Attribution 2 on the source page, so if anything, your dispute is with the source uploader, not the middle man.-- ɱ (Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone hand made those buildings, and FoP only applies to full size ones, not miniatures. I cannot influence what the Flickr user puts up - plenty do put up a wrong license. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said the image didn't apply based on a claim that the lego can stand as a 'building' legally. Yet you never responded to my claim that this is legal based on the fact that these toys aren't copyrighted art, and this isn't a public location. Also, I'm posting this image saying that it is copyrighted CC Attribution. That's what the uploader marked it as. And I am able to upload any image marked as CC Attribution (or various other copyrights), that's what Wikipedia allows. I don't care if one nation or another claims that the source uploader can't mark it as such. The uploader did and I'm just putting that image on Wikipedia marked with his stated copyright.-- ɱ (Talk) 19:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We still cannot accept images when the Flickr uploader puts a CC license on the image that is incorrect. It does not have to be in a public location - the creator of a 3D object has the copyright automatically when he has made it, and it applies to all locations (in the US) until 70 years after his death - in other places the copyright is lost because it is in a public location (e.g any sculpture in a public place in the UK). Ronhjones (Talk) 21:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the creator of a 3D object has the copyright automatically when he has made it"? Are you seriously saying that anyone who makes a lego creation is therefore placing it under a copyright? If I build a lego house right now, I put it in copyright without even doing anything? Then tell me, which copyright am I putting it under? Share-alike? Public domain? All rights reserved? One has to publish something under a specific copyright for that item to be copyrighted, it cannot simply come out of thin air. Also, all of this applies to artwork, which this is not. A children's toy is not a sculpture, nor a painting, nor a photograph. It falls under no definition of artwork.-- ɱ (Talk) 21:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one put anything "under copyright" any more, those days of having to add "(C) Joe Bloggs" to ensure that you had the copyright are thankfully long gone with URAA, Any artwork has automatic full copyrights to the creator, and it can apply to toys. But here, what the artwork is made of is not in question, someone has spent many hours creating the objects, (s)he deserves the copyright. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:51, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "the creator of a 3D object has the copyright automatically when he has made it"? Are you seriously saying that anyone who makes a lego creation is therefore placing it under a copyright? If I build a lego house right now, I put it in copyright without even doing anything? Then tell me, which copyright am I putting it under? Share-alike? Public domain? All rights reserved? One has to publish something under a specific copyright for that item to be copyrighted, it cannot simply come out of thin air. Also, all of this applies to artwork, which this is not. A children's toy is not a sculpture, nor a painting, nor a photograph. It falls under no definition of artwork.-- ɱ (Talk) 21:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We still cannot accept images when the Flickr uploader puts a CC license on the image that is incorrect. It does not have to be in a public location - the creator of a 3D object has the copyright automatically when he has made it, and it applies to all locations (in the US) until 70 years after his death - in other places the copyright is lost because it is in a public location (e.g any sculpture in a public place in the UK). Ronhjones (Talk) 21:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said the image didn't apply based on a claim that the lego can stand as a 'building' legally. Yet you never responded to my claim that this is legal based on the fact that these toys aren't copyrighted art, and this isn't a public location. Also, I'm posting this image saying that it is copyrighted CC Attribution. That's what the uploader marked it as. And I am able to upload any image marked as CC Attribution (or various other copyrights), that's what Wikipedia allows. I don't care if one nation or another claims that the source uploader can't mark it as such. The uploader did and I'm just putting that image on Wikipedia marked with his stated copyright.-- ɱ (Talk) 19:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone hand made those buildings, and FoP only applies to full size ones, not miniatures. I cannot influence what the Flickr user puts up - plenty do put up a wrong license. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The United States has a law restricting photography of copyrighted artwork in public indoor locations. This photograph displays no artwork, only a children's toy. Would my photographs of food be illegal if you presume they were taken inside? Is a plate of food considered art? Also, this isn't copyrighted artwork, it's a row of buildings as part of a children's toy. And the location isn't even public, people have to wait and pay to get in. Also, the image is published under CC Attribution 2 on the source page, so if anything, your dispute is with the source uploader, not the middle man.-- ɱ (Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peh. Lego toys cannot be called 'art' under legal definitions. It doesn't matter how long someone's played with it.-- ɱ (Talk) 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that the photographer made the house models. See Commons:COM:TOYS and Commons:User:Elcobbola/Models. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to fairuse any photo of the BrickFair would be restricted. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these creations were made by people who agreed to exhibit them and allow the attendees to photograph their works. It is inherent in registering for the event to allow people to photograph and use these photographs to display and make copies, etc. Thus, if the builders are submitting their works into the public domain, the photographer has the right to photograph and publish them under a Creative Commons license. And thus I have the right to upload this specific CC image to Wikipedia.--ɱ (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a link to that policy, then the photo will be fine, if not, then it should be converted to a fairuse image. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these creations were made by people who agreed to exhibit them and allow the attendees to photograph their works. It is inherent in registering for the event to allow people to photograph and use these photographs to display and make copies, etc. Thus, if the builders are submitting their works into the public domain, the photographer has the right to photograph and publish them under a Creative Commons license. And thus I have the right to upload this specific CC image to Wikipedia.--ɱ (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Ma-kok.jpg[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: Cropped off label. Dianna (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ma-kok.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not sure if the copyrighted product packaging shown is de minimis or enough to make this a derivative work. Kelly hi! 17:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you can always crop the photo. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:P. F. Changs.jpg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:P. F. Changs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Not sure if the statuary is prominent enough to make this a derivative work. Kelly hi! 17:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say, in this case, the statuary is clearly the subject and focus of the photograph. Sionk (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does Leicester v. Warner Bros. apply here? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Nancy Sexton.jpg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nancy Sexton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 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.
File:Ashrafi Esfahani2.jpg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ashrafi Esfahani2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Sourced to Panoramio but without any link. I've found it here, but it was uploaded to Flickr a few days earlier, so Flickr is probably the original source. Unfortunately, both Flickr and Panoramio list the file as "all rights reserved" which is not free enough for Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Ashrafi Esfahani1.jpg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ashrafi Esfahani1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Sourced to Panoramio, but there is no link to Panoramio, so it can't be verified if the image is free to use or not. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Fazlollah.jpg[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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Fazlollah.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Sourced to Panoramio, but there is no link to Panoramio, so the licence claim can't be verified. The uploader has uploaded many images from different Panoramio accounts, claiming that the uploader is the author. No reason to assume own work here. Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.