Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 August 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 August 20 1.1 Image:LesMis@Broadhurst.jpg 1.2 Image:DEWAR'S_Signature_.jpg 1.3 Image:White_Label_with_Gift_Box.jpg 1.4 Image:DEWAR'S_12_with_Gift_Box.jpg 1.5 Image:Ramble.jpg 1.6 Image:Splash_bottles.jpg 1.7 Image:Kenmore_bridge.jpg 1.8 Image:12_and_21_Year_Bottle.JPG 1.9 Image:Tab_04_03_004.jpg 1.10 Image:0888.jpg 1.11 Image:Td-01-01-07.jpg 1.12 Image:Dewarism_tommy.jpg 1.13 image:Quinn.jpg 1.14 Image:Nadjaslegs.jpg 1.15 Image:The whitlams band.jpg 1.16 Image:Corona can.jpg 1.17 Image:Creative Live! Cam Optia AF.jpg

[edit] August 20

[edit] Image:LesMis@Broadhurst.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted emblem/logo. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It is more or less a picture of the theatre the show plays at. Not just a snapshot of the logo. And the image can't be interfering with marketing interests.. --Alegoo92 17:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Use on Les Miserables page, basically just to show the sign, shows the real purpose/subject of the photo. The inclusion isn't merely incidental. Calliopejen1 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DEWAR'S_Signature_.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:White_Label_with_Gift_Box.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DEWAR'S_12_with_Gift_Box.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ramble.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD.  But|seriously|folks  08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Splash_bottles.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kenmore_bridge.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:12_and_21_Year_Bottle.JPG

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Tab_04_03_004.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:0888.jpg

No evidence that this image has been released to the PD. If fair use is argued, it's replaceable.  But|seriously|folks  08:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Td-01-01-07.jpg

Subject lived until 1930. Photographer could still be alive today.  But|seriously|folks  08:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dewarism_tommy.jpg

No evidence of publication date.  But|seriously|folks  08:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] image:Quinn.jpg

Based on their upload history [1] and that of some possibly related usernames, it seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder. ×Meegs 09:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This isn't a clear-cut case, but I tend to agree. Calliopejen1 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Nadjaslegs.jpg

Given that it's part of a Versace fashion ad, I doubt it's in the public domain, or that the uploader is the owner/photographer - AKeen 13:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The whitlams band.jpg

I see nothing in the source link that would indicate that this is a public domain image. It would also not fall under fair use, as a free substitute for the current use might reasonably be found. --Pekaje 13:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Corona can.jpg

There is some discussion as to whether or not this photo of a copyrighted brand name on a can of beer can be released under the GFDL. I think not because it would be copyright infringement in the same way as photographing pages from a book and releasing them under the GFDL would be. I think the image should be licensed as fair-use, because it is indeed irreplaceable. I also don't think the label is "3 dimensional" in the sense an editor was mentioning, but simply bent round the can, if this is of any relevance. Jackaranga 16:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly copyright is not my expertise, but I believe this image can be licensed under GFDL as it is an original work. The image is not of the logo, but of a beer can. Similar images such as Image:Pepsi Max can.jpg and those in Category:Mountain_Dew exist on Commons under related licenses. I believe these can be licensed as free images under copyright law which states 2D images of 3D objects are original works due to the creative input of the photographer. This is not dissimilar to a photographer capturing an image of a sculpture. The sculpture may be copyrighted, but the photographer's input creates a new copyright under which the photo falls. - auburnpilot talk 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with above. Brianga 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I think this more of a trade dress issue than a copyright issue. The inclusion of the logo is incidental. I think this image is OK as free content. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The photo can be released. However, it depicts a copyrighted work, the illustrations of labels on the beer can. You can't get around the copyright on a product packaging by taking a picture of it then releasing the picture; if that were true we could eliminate all copyrights just by taking pictures of things. The can itself iscontains a non-free copyrighted work. All you need to do is to add an appropriate copyright tag and a use rationale with respect to the product packaging, and the image is good to go. It's a lousy picture, though. Not sure why anyone would want to keep it.Wikidemo 11:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what I thought originally. But I am not sure, to be honest I've been having discussions about this kind of stuff on the commons too, and I think it's best to just wait for a court case and see what happens, it's too complicated anyway. In the USA if you take a picture of any 2D or 3D work which is in the PD, the photos has to be PD as well. However in France, and some Nordic countries the photo is copyrighted by the photographer. And this law is binding for American internet sites too, because of the bilateral copyright agreements. This is all so complicated though I think it's best to just let people do what they like and deal with any court cases as they come. There is no way of knowing anyway, and the likelihood of a court case is very small. We would need a group of international copyright experts, and even then they may not come to the same decision as a court would. Jackaranga 04:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The copyright belongs to whoever owns the rights to the PHOTOGRAPH, not the things depicted in it. This is obvious if you know anything at all about copyright law. But since I hate Corona, fucking delete it, totally. --75.63.48.18 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, if you take a picture of a city skyline and there are a dozen billboards in it advertising various brands, you don't need to gain permission from all those companies to release your photograph in whatever copyright scheme you want. Duh. --75.63.48.18 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

the two above are correct regarding copy-right law as I am a copyright lawyer for a major coorporation. But the quality of the picture seems to be very poor (gray) and I think it should be deleted.

[edit] Image:Creative Live! Cam Optia AF.jpg

This looks like a copyvio from http://www.creative.com/products/product.asp?category=218&subcategory=219&product=16425&nav=artwork and linked page http://images.creative.com/iss/images/corporate/artwork/lowres_AF_p1.jpg - unless the uploader is the copyright holder — Mike1024 (t/c) 19:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)