Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 23
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] July 23
[edit] Image:MichaelGelmanJoyCantilo.jpg
Source at Flickr shows 'all rights reserved'. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:UA_Flag.jpg
Apparently derivative of an image copyrighted by Ron Cobb, as mentioned in the image description. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:USS_Sulaco.jpg
Another derivative work of a copyrighted design. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CZUB_logo_on_CZ_75B_grips.jpg
Photo of a copyrighted logo. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Artist38.jpg
No proof that uploader is creator. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:EaglesOfDeathMetal.jpg
No evidence of {{PD-release}}. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AL unnamed.jpg
Listed as a copyrighted image. No rationale is given for its use on Wikipedia. Hux 09:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:AL - Pein.jpg
Listed as a copyrighted image, but no rationale is given for it's use on Wikipedia. Hux 09:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nicole_Wray.jpg
Supposedly a promo image grabbed from some image sharing site. I can find no evidence that this as actauly been released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. Sherool (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete if proper documentation cannot be provided. I highly doubt a promo image is going to be released onder a CC license. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Julian Schnabel by David Shankbone.jpg
Appears to be a 2-D photo of a 2-D work, and so a derivative work. Seems clear to me that the copyright should still hold. — (ESkog)(Talk) 22:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, in-copyright work, not incidental to the picture = derivative. Madmedea 15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. With the people and the escalators and much of the wall, it was actually a photograph of the people going up and how art is used in a public space. Just because a painting in a public space is predominant doesn't detract from the fact that, in reality, the photograph is of how art and public space interact, which is why the people going up the escalator are central to the photograph. Thus, not a derivative work. If the only thing in the photograph was of the painting, the arguments above would be more valid. --David Shankbone 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The artwork is not incidental to the picture - even if you do not consider it to be the subject of the picture - it takes up more than 50% of the image! Madmedea 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since we are making legal arguments as to the copyright-ability of the photo, is 50% a legal threshhold? --David Shankbone 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware there is no specific legal threshold to what is defined as "incidental" - and at the moment I can only find references to UK law not USA.[1] My argument is that a piece of art taking up 50%+ of an image is not incidental to the new image! However, works of art in public places in the USA are covered under the concept of "freedom of panorama", which has very limited application in the USA - to quote the WikiCommons guide "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." [2]. Madmedea 12:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is true. So, it would be a violation if I took a full-on frontal shot of the painting just because it was hanging in a public space. Here we have it at an angle that is handicapped from the position in which I took it, the lighting, which always plays a major role in photography, is not conducive to this being an "image of the image" and the surrounding use of people make this photograph more an image of art in public space and how interacts with its surroundings than about the piece of art itself, which is a pretty unnotable piece by Schnabel, regardless. That's neither here, nor there. But for the photograph, the artwork is incidental to the theme and idea, and to the photograph itself. This photograph could not even be cropped to form an accurate representation of the piece, given the lighting, the angle, and that there's a human in front of the piece of art itself. --David Shankbone 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- On first glance, I would have said that the people are incidental to this picture of teh artwork. (They're only in a small bit of the corner.) That it's being used as an example of the artist's work on the artist's wiki article speaks for itself. Calliopejen1 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is true. So, it would be a violation if I took a full-on frontal shot of the painting just because it was hanging in a public space. Here we have it at an angle that is handicapped from the position in which I took it, the lighting, which always plays a major role in photography, is not conducive to this being an "image of the image" and the surrounding use of people make this photograph more an image of art in public space and how interacts with its surroundings than about the piece of art itself, which is a pretty unnotable piece by Schnabel, regardless. That's neither here, nor there. But for the photograph, the artwork is incidental to the theme and idea, and to the photograph itself. This photograph could not even be cropped to form an accurate representation of the piece, given the lighting, the angle, and that there's a human in front of the piece of art itself. --David Shankbone 14:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware there is no specific legal threshold to what is defined as "incidental" - and at the moment I can only find references to UK law not USA.[1] My argument is that a piece of art taking up 50%+ of an image is not incidental to the new image! However, works of art in public places in the USA are covered under the concept of "freedom of panorama", which has very limited application in the USA - to quote the WikiCommons guide "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." [2]. Madmedea 12:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Since we are making legal arguments as to the copyright-ability of the photo, is 50% a legal threshhold? --David Shankbone 14:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- The artwork is not incidental to the picture - even if you do not consider it to be the subject of the picture - it takes up more than 50% of the image! Madmedea 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. With the people and the escalators and much of the wall, it was actually a photograph of the people going up and how art is used in a public space. Just because a painting in a public space is predominant doesn't detract from the fact that, in reality, the photograph is of how art and public space interact, which is why the people going up the escalator are central to the photograph. Thus, not a derivative work. If the only thing in the photograph was of the painting, the arguments above would be more valid. --David Shankbone 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:R_concepcion.jpg
No evidence that uploader is creator or that image is public domain. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- According to {{PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}} and {{PD-Philippines}}, it doesn't seem that works of the Phillipine govt are in the public domain. Calliopejen1 09:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
