Image talk:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From WP:IFD:
- Image:Davos WEF Golden Calf.png -- OR CV -- this image is a scan of a newspaper clipping, it's an orphan and a copyright vio. --Wgfinley 19:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The clipping is fair use (citation for the purpose of criticism), it is not orphaned, the source is properly attributed, and I might still need it (or a crop of it, showing just the image) for the Anti-WEF protests in Switzerland, January 2003 article. And anyway, if you think something was a CV, list it at WP:CP, not here. Lupo 19:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- WP:CP is for suspected copyvios, this is an obvious one, not only is it a vio of an AP photo, it's a vio of the caption the newspaper used, it's plain and simple copyright infringement and I can see no reasonable case for fair use on this. --Wgfinley 21:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You might want to read my response to your notice on my talk page. I do not agree with your assessment. Nor do I agree with your interpretation of the roles of WP:CP and WP:IFD. BTW, it's a Keystone image, not an AP one. Not that it would matter much, but at least get your facts straight. Lupo 22:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Might want to look at it again before chiding me on facts -- image clearly credited: "Fabrice Coffini/Associated Press/Keystone" -- since Keystone is a European agency I'm assuming AP purchased the rights for use in the US, you got the image from a US paper, whatever the case, it's clearly marked AP. --Wgfinley 07:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You might want to read my response to your notice on my talk page. I do not agree with your assessment. Nor do I agree with your interpretation of the roles of WP:CP and WP:IFD. BTW, it's a Keystone image, not an AP one. Not that it would matter much, but at least get your facts straight. Lupo 22:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- WP:CP is for suspected copyvios, this is an obvious one, not only is it a vio of an AP photo, it's a vio of the caption the newspaper used, it's plain and simple copyright infringement and I can see no reasonable case for fair use on this. --Wgfinley 21:13, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
