Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25[edit]

Uploaded by User:Qasqass. No origin source was given, and no articles use this picture. (This user was indefinitely blocked on 20 July 2006.) --Hello World! 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User:Qasqass. No origin source was given, and no articles use this picture. (This user was indefinitely blocked on 20 July 2006.) --Hello World! 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jcrocker (notify). The copyright for this sculpture is presumably still held by the estate of Picasso. The consensus in Wikimedia Commons is that freedom of panorama does not extend to sculptures in the US (even those permanently situated in a public place)--unless Wikipedia editors have information not available to Commons editors, derivative works like this one need permission from the copyright holder of the sculpture. JeremyA 00:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and retag as fair use. I honestly have no clue what US copyright law is with respect to photos of 3d objects, but whatever it is, the image should qualify as fair use. BigDT 02:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok ... I looked it up ... and yes, a photograph of a three-dimensional work of art would be considered a derivative work and thus requires the permission of the copyright holder. I would still say this image is fair use, though. BigDT 02:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair use requires that you use less than substantially all of the work. Just edit the photo to depict about half the sculpture and it will qualify as fair use. P.S. I'm an attorney. sjhalasz 27 July 2006
          • I assume you are joking? BigDT 00:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This sculpture was commissioned by the city of Chicago[1], the Picasso estate does not own the copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting ... that would make the copyright question interesting ... I would still suggest retagging it as fair use (which it obviously qualifies for) unless/until someone can confirm whether it is PD. BigDT 23:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the city commissioned the sculpture does not mean that Picasso gave up his copyright. Usually when an artist sells or gifts his/her work the artist retains tha copyright on the work. I think that it is unlikely that the copyright holder is going to come after us, but 'fair use' is probably a better tag for this image (although that would entail making a fair use rationale for each article that includes the image). --JeremyA 03:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not in this case: Picasso explicitly donated the sculpture's design to the city of Chicago.[2] ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • That means that Chicago owns the copyright. It is still a fair use image unless Chicago has released it into the public domain. BigDT 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. According to [3], the courts ruled in Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago, 320 F. Supp. 1303 (N.D. Ill. 1970) that the city dedicated the statue to the public domain by general publication. howcheng {chat} 16:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Animamia (notify). no source- Shizhao 01:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mmmoo (notify). CV. from moonpans.com, Not GFDL- Shizhao 03:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Expatkiwi (notify). No source and license- Shizhao 03:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by AgentJamesBond007 (notify). UE and continually added to Private Pilot Licence and has no bearing at all on the subject matter. ChadScott 05:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by ZS (notify). OB by Image:072406111853 vcsboxart.jpg. Nominated image served as a placeholder for a cover art. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 09:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Uploaded by Twthmoses (notify). OB by a free image (Image:Odense coa.png) Valentinian (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have nothing against deleting my upload, if a better is found; I though would like to point out that none of the Danish municipalities CoA can be on Commons. Commons accepts only free material that can be use by anyone for any purpose. No Danish municipality (or county) CoA can be uses as you see fit. They are copyrighted registered trademarks, that in most cases (read the different municipalities copyright) explicit forbid commercial use. Twthmoses 15:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, and somewhat confusingly, that's not the way copyright law works. Trademark is completely different to copyright and is the fact that the image is trademarked and its usage restricted is actually irrelevant to its copyright status. There's a rather brief explanation given of this on the image description page for Image:Odense coa.png. The copyrighted image may be safely deleted. Hope this helps, TheGrappler 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not about the difference between copyright and trademark, this is about whether its legal to keep these images on Commons. I have no problem with the upload getting deleted, just to get it out of the way; I have a problem with it getting replaced with an image that I believe is a direct copyright violation. This is why this image is gettting deleted, right? - replacing a "fair use /logo" image, with a "free" image.

According to acceptable licenses on Commons;

  • Republication and distribution must be allowed - failed
  • Publication of derivative work must be allowed -failed
  • Commercial use of the work must be allowed - failed

must not apply

  • Noncommercial/Educational use only – applies
  • Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses - applies

This image has failed near all criteria for being on Commons, thus I cannot agree with that it replaces an image on Wiki, where it is allowed to be located. I’m aware that maybe some will argue that this is a derivative work, and the very artwork is made by a 3rd person thus it is free. But this is not a derivative work; it is the exact reproduction of the CoA that failed all the above criteria, thus that 3rd person that made it has zero right or authority to release it to free use. I’m also aware that there are a lot of other logos, symbols and CoA on commons that likewise completely fails above criteria’s, and that is why I personally refuse to upload to common, as I see it as a massive copyright infringement hole. Just my 10-cents Twthmoses 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some COAs are allowed on Commons. See [4] for relevant discussion. howcheng {chat} 18:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable!! I don’t intent to do anything, and I consider the case closed from my point but the admin that deleted the image might want to start learning a little about CoA copyright. I have it in writing that Odense municipality CoA under no circumstance may be used for commercial use, and no such permission can be obtained. It is therefore 100% not be located on common, according to its criteria. Thank you for deleting an image that was legal to use here and now we are stuck with the use of an illegal image from commons. Thank you very much. Twthmoses 09:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Com org gov (notify). Image:Sams house.jpg obsoleted (OB) and replaced on the Sam's Town article by the identical but higher-resolution image: Image:Sam's Town promo.jpg. BrightLights 11:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Drugonot (notify). Non-free license that does not permit derivative works and no fair use criteria. ("NoDeriv" makes it a non-free license. This image template, as it stands right now, is malformed, though that will be fixed.)- BigDT 12:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by PJ Pete (notify). Distorted, poor quality. Arniep 13:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same for Image:Sandy Olsson1.jpg by same uploader. Images are also OF. -Nv8200p talk 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per nom and Nv8200p. Agent 86 01:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. As stated, horribly distorted and deprecated. ><Richard0612 UW 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ta bu shi da yu (notify). Obsoleted by image:Valancecrop.jpg ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Humanot (notify). UE OR CV: A fans proposed ideas for new Buffalo Sabres logos. Unencyclopedic. Used for POV contribs to related article. Also copyright notice embedded in image contradicts the license tag. ccwaters 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Jayz0r (notify). No licensing tag. This image was only used in a joke article (see its deletion page) and should be deleted. Dark Shikari 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. ><Richard0612 UW 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Bigcheesebebbs (notify). Provides no copyright info other than fair use tag with "Photo credit--Peter Rosenberg & Gal E. Naor" - I've tracked down and emailed this Naor before and they did not respond to any queries re: the status of this image. It looks professional, in that it had to be taken from the air, so I suspect a release of copyrights would be difficult Dwiki 22:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following four images were nominated for deletion on June 30, but their listings were wiped out by this edit and so the images were never deleted. —Bkell (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dr zubair7 (notify). Orphan, and unintelligible to the vast majority of English speakers. —Bkell (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Cat Woman1989 (notify). Orphan, with no description of what this image represents or why the subject is notable. —Bkell (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by BerserkerBen (notify). Orphan, obsoleted by Image:Lsd-structure.png. —Bkell (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no disagreement with its deletion what so ever; what bothers me though is that a picture that vulgar, disgusting and offensive to women and midgets could last that long on wikipedia. --BerserkerBen 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Pierre974 (notify). Unencyclopedic, Only used on User page. bdude Talk 07:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't it okay to have a freely licensed image of yourself on your user page? I thought it was. —Bkell (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the other hand, it is true that the only contributions of Pierre974 are this image and his user page. So that swings me towards Delete. —Bkell (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. No real reason to. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by User:Howdoustop85 (notify).

He says he got the image from therealblackwallstreet.com, there are several problems with this.

  1. The only image resembling this one on the above site is this one and it is a modified version, so it didn't come from that site.
  2. The single hasn't been released yet, so it wasn't submited for use/sale.
  3. Since "One Blood" is not an offical single (it's for airplay only) it will not be released on a vinyl, therefore it will not have a cover image (See Westside Story (song) for a similar situation involving the same artist).
  4. Since it is not the single, the fair use tag does not cover this image.
  5. I doubt a single cover would incorrectly spell the name of the album it is from (by using "Tha" instead of the proper "The").
Uploaded by Therearenospoons (notify). Request for deletion under CSD GC7, and CSD A3. -therearenospoons 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. howcheng {chat} 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Therearenospoons (notify). Request for deletion under CSD GC7, and for reason that I uploaded the incorrect unintended image. Thanks. -therearenospoons 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. howcheng {chat} 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2006_July_25&oldid=1049512997"