Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 March 12
March 12
[edit]- File:Snake price.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- See Commons:COM:DW. Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- preposterous. This is clearly a utilitarian object. It is not a work of art but has a low threshold of originality – a simple photo of a bowl of soup with a typeface superimposed. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- And the photo is of a utilitarian object. Where is the copyrightable work, exactly?--Elvey (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm extremely pissed off with the nom, who goes around deleting people's images, often with specious arguments. In some cases, like this, it's not even borderline, so it's getting disruptive. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Ohconfucius: Someone needs to file a complaint at WP:ANI; there are also a ton of bright line violations, and actively refusal to follow proper procedure: I've reminded Stefan on numerous(diff) occasions (and there are more) that the rule is: "If the file is in use, also add {{pufc}} to the caption(s) on any pages where the file is used." He just flouts the policy. --Elvey (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The utilitarian object (the candle to the right) is not the problem. The problem is the non-utilitarian advertisement taking up most of the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- None of which is subject to copyright. Obviously Stefan didn't comprehend my comment. When I said "And the photo is of a utilitarian object." I was obviously not referring to a candle. My question remains unanswered. --Elvey (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The photo is a photo of a photo of a utilitarian object. Although you can take photos of utilitarian objects, you can't take photos of photos of utilitarian objects. Also, in some countries, you can't take photos of the utilitarian objects themselves – see [1] where Getty Images France was fined for images of two chairs. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oh. My. God. Of course you can take photos of photos of utilitarian objects. Such as photos of utilitarian objects that contain photos of utilitarian objects. A simple price tag of any size is not subject to copyright. The only thing that makes the sign more than that is a photo of a utilitarian object. My question remains unanswered. --Elvey (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The photo is a photo of a photo of a utilitarian object. Although you can take photos of utilitarian objects, you can't take photos of photos of utilitarian objects. Also, in some countries, you can't take photos of the utilitarian objects themselves – see [1] where Getty Images France was fined for images of two chairs. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- None of which is subject to copyright. Obviously Stefan didn't comprehend my comment. When I said "And the photo is of a utilitarian object." I was obviously not referring to a candle. My question remains unanswered. --Elvey (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The utilitarian object (the candle to the right) is not the problem. The problem is the non-utilitarian advertisement taking up most of the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Ohconfucius: Someone needs to file a complaint at WP:ANI; there are also a ton of bright line violations, and actively refusal to follow proper procedure: I've reminded Stefan on numerous(diff) occasions (and there are more) that the rule is: "If the file is in use, also add {{pufc}} to the caption(s) on any pages where the file is used." He just flouts the policy. --Elvey (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm extremely pissed off with the nom, who goes around deleting people's images, often with specious arguments. In some cases, like this, it's not even borderline, so it's getting disruptive. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- And the photo is of a utilitarian object. Where is the copyrightable work, exactly?--Elvey (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- preposterous. This is clearly a utilitarian object. It is not a work of art but has a low threshold of originality – a simple photo of a bowl of soup with a typeface superimposed. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The identical file (which I have speedied), uploaded by the same uploader, is currently tagged {{PD-because|Ohio State Government}}. {{PD-OHGov}} Does not exist; it was deleted. Elvey (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you feel it is non-free. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC) and other files from the same user relating JAE are from this source:[2] Horst Emscher (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2014 (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.
- File:Nakhonnayoklogo2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo design , not nesscarily uploaders to relicense. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- This was tagged as lacking permission, but the tag was removed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Not literate in the coding; thought the instructions said to delete code. Please instruct step-by-step on how to prove that the graphic is a free document accessible from its source site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5F00:27F:BDC3:16AA:B36:DA (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:PERMISSIONS. Please note that a file being available for download from the source does not automatically make it free to use. January (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- File:Eshragh Company.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Logo design, not necessarily uploaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Coverart- Not necessarily uploaders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- File:Sthreedhanam Wallpaper.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Title-card is not nessacrily uplaoders to re-license. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- as simple text, it is not covered by copyright, even though the uploader probably did not create it. I have removed that claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- There are plenty of colour effects, so this is presumably not {{PD-textlogo}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- as simple text, it is not covered by copyright, even though the uploader probably did not create it. I have removed that claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The calligraphy and creative use of colour may cross the threshold of originality. In any case the image is unused so there's little point in keeping it. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)