User talk:Mghabmw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd like to delete obsolete entries, so- 7 days from the last entry in a topic, the topic shall be taken off unless it's deemed to be current.

[edit] Copyright problems with Image:Barnstarpinstripes.png

This is a derived work incorporating several copyrighted elements. See Image:2008 MLB All-Star Game Alternative Logo.svg and Image:ALE-NYY-Logo.png. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Parody#Copyright_issues read that before leaving copyright infringement issues. Mghabmw (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I responded at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 January 10/Images --ChrisRuvolo (t) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your edit to my user page adding a Mets barnstar. FYI, I'm not a Mets fan and haven't made any Mets edits. Creating a Yankees barnstar with similar elements would be perfectly fine. It is the use of trademarked and copyrighted non-free elements that was problematic. Cheers. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This clearly is a valid parody, but parodies are "fair use" claims. This image doesn't pass our non-free content criteria, and can't be used as non-free -- and it's not a free image. So, alas, it cannot be used here. I have to delete it, sorry.--DO11.10 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a parody, in whatever form, is, by very definition, a derivative of someone else's work. The law states that: "The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based on that copyrighted item" therefore, if you create an unauthorized derivative of a work someone else has created you are violating their right to solely create derivative works. So unless you have permission from the copyright holder to use bits of their work in your barnstar montage, using it violates the owner's copyright.

Your version is copyright-able by you, but your rights "extend only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material." So by creating a parody you don't gain any rights to the bits that you didn't create.

To summarize, you created an unauthorized derivative, and thus cannot grant GFDL (or any other license) on the bits of the parody that you did not create, because those rights still belong to the copyright owner.

Now, this is where fair-use comes into play. "An unauthorized derivative can escape liability via the defense of fair use." But fair use just allows you to use a copyrighted work, it doesn't grant you any special rights to the original work. Since you cannot re-license material for which you do not own the copyright, the image, as a whole, cannot be free, and would have to be claimed "fair use". The problem with claiming fair use is that your image fails a number of non-free content criteria. Namely, it isn't encyclopedic; isn't used in any articles; doesn't increase a readers understanding of anything; and is used solely outside Wikipedia article space. Because it fails the criteria, the image cannot be used as non-free. If you want to make a barnstar montage I would suggest that you use only material for which you have been given permission to create derivatives (e.g. GFDL, creative commons, public domain, etc..) I hope this clarifies the situation for you. Please let me know if you have further questions. --DO11.10 (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Joemccarthyhof.png}

Thank you for uploading Image:Joemccarthyhof.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BillDickey.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BillDickey.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Hi there! I don't know if you do requests, but I am the coordinator of the Philadelphia Phillies WikiProject. I'm also a Photoshop novice and know nothing about how to create one of these ribbons to substitute for our "Fightin' PhilStar" barnstar (see here). I was wondering if you'd be willing to help us out; I noticed that you did ribbons for the Yankees and Red Sox. I have a design in mind, just no idea how to implement it. So let me know if you'd be willing to help out on my talk page (squawk box) below, and we'll go from there. Thanks so much on behalf of myself and the project! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)