Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 November 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 21 November 23 >

Contents

[edit] November 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Image:Mbta-logo.svg

Moved from WP:FUR#Image:Mbta-logo.svg, see closing comments at bottom

I have removed this image from this article whie a fair use review has been requested, because it is claimed to be ineligibe for copyright, while I believe it to be a logo that is protected by trademark. In addition, I have used the image Image:MBTA Logo.jpg to replace it, and it is properly marked. Please review this status, and if possible, remove it from all articles except the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority article, or delete the image. --AEMoreira042281 15:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Trademark and copyright are independent. I can trademark something like "C brand widgets" but if I just use a plain C as my logo then the logo likely won't be copyrightable. As to this particular logo, more discussion is needed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind though that many trademarks are simply letters noted in a certain way. Look at the Berkshire Hathaway logo. --AEMoreira042281 19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, something can be trademarked without being copyrightable. But our nonfree media policy is only concerned with copyright, not with trademark. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The Non-free logo template, however, on Wikipedia, does cover trademarks. --AEMoreira042281 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This does look simple enough, though I've never seen a good guideline on how to tell if something is. Also note that if the logo was published before 1989 without a copyright notice and was not registered, it is in the public domain, no matter how complicated it is. That's why images like Image:New Jersey Turnpike Shield.svg are in the public domain. --NE2 05:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

However, I would like to see where it says this, specifically. If necessary, I may contact the T directly for guidance. --AEMoreira042281 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved from WP:FUR. I am actually slightly concerned by section 3 of the MBTA's web site's terms of use. [1] Does this mean that the MBTA actually is claiming copyright of a T in a circle? FunPika 01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this logo was around before 1978 without copyright notices, so even if the logo was extremely complex, it would be in public domain regardless. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph #3 here: www.mbta.com/customer_support/terms_of_use/ appears to indicate that this image cannot qualify under the tags used. As such, this image should absolutely be deleted, as per reading of the MBTA's official website terms of use, as there is already an image used in two articles that meets the standards of WP:NFURG. Thank you. --AEMoreira042281 05:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

If this logo was around before 1978 without a copyright notice, and/or it is too simple, then it is ineligible for copyright regardless of what a terms of use decrees. This is exactly what happened with the New Jersey Turnpike shield. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 16:20, 02 December 2007 (GMT)
However, copyright is not claimed. Trademark protection, which is IRRESPECTIVE of copyright, is claimed, and is valid in perpetuity so long as the entity exists, presumably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AEMoreira042281 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you are applying the policies meant for copyrighted, not trademarked images to the trademarked images. FunPika 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the users here are being a little too ignorant, and need to stop making assumptions and start reading the rules. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Logos#U.S. trademark law and Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Trademarks, the whole issue of trademark usage is explained. Trademark simply protects the usage of a certain logo, not the creation of the logo itself. Logos such as Image:Current ATV Logo 2.jpg are complex and are therefore subject to copyright, but logos such as Image:Los Angeles Times.svg lack threshold of originality, and therefore cannot be copyrighted. The above links should be able to explain this in further detail and put an end to this dispute. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Not deleted - If this were a JPEG downloaded from their website, ok, kill it, but the fact is, they can't stop anyone in the world from putting a T inside of a circle just because they use it as their logo. Trademark is independent of copyright. If we were to upload this image to Commons, they would take it in a heartbeat. The Microsoft logo is in Commons and it's far more complex than this one. --B (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Image:Jack Lynch Tunnel Southbound Approach.jpg

Image description lists a copyright holder without any further details; given site doesn't shed any extra light. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:L_6a59fd6d4b859ada8da20d1c3acaf508.jpg

Hard to believe uploader's claim that he/she took this photo. Looking at his talk page, numerous images were uploaded and deleted for various reasons. Nv8200p talk 03:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Pflipsen.jpg

No evidence of free use from the source site. Jusjih (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LVstationNickleplate.jpg

Unsure if it is old enough to be in PD. Jusjih (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't think so. According to the website where it came from, it was taken in 1964 and "original photo of PA RR Station owned by Donald Spittler". Somewhere else I've found he was still alive in 1987 so it's clearly not old enough. Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Yungdolk.jpg

No evidence in PD from source site. Jusjih (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Norge-odne.GIF

The source site does not have clear copyright permission for this derivative works. Need better evidence. Jusjih (talk) 04:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Findley.jpg

Summary states that the image is used with permission. No evidence of CC license Rettetast (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shakira_beyonce_hot_dance_pic1390.jpg

Screenshot probbaly from a copyrighted work. Nv8200p talk 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MINAR.jpg

Watermarked with copyrighted web site. No evidence uploader hasright to release as GFDL Nv8200p talk 13:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Spoke with uploader in the IRC help channel, and requested he post details here. Ariel♥Gold 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

i updated the summery of the image according to template you provided in my talk page. also remove the water mark and did some image enhancement, i email the author of the image to send to a conformation email that he give me the permission to post this image on wikipedia Faraz Ahmad (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Once you receive that email, please forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org so that they can record it in the m:OTRS system. Please also note that the letter needs to say something like "I agree to distribute this image under the CC-BY-3.0 license", not just "Wikipedia may use this image." --B (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:LSD-Promo2.jpg

No evidence uploader is copyright holder and has rights to release image under the GDFL. Nv8200p talk 14:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

> Photo is a band promotional picture freely distro'ed on their myspace, facebook and other pages. It has been used on many fan sites or gig posters. I confirmed with the band via email today it is public domain and can be on wiki. Hollywoodnorthreport (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Image-Jen.jpg

Most likely copyrighted promo image. Nv8200p talk 14:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Formidable Sydney Boom (AWM P00444-047).jpg

Has public domain tag, but states that commercial use is restricted. Since this pic is on the front page at the moment, haven't tagged it directly--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DocDeath.jpg

No evidence uploader has rights to release as GFDL. Nv8200p talk 16:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Don_Photo.jpg

No evidence uploader has permission to release under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 16:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RonPaul.jpg

Uploader states permission is "Unaltered use permitted" and several free alternatives exist. — 209.77.205.9 (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Agreed. This has been deleted several times already. --Tom (talk - email) 22:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree. The statement by the IP above is incorrect and it appears there is also animus against this photo. Uploader states clearly on image page that permission was received by email to enable any use, superseding the web notice alluded to. I had thought we had finished the job this time in terms of ability to upload and use this photo. (Refactored ...) After more research, I see no reason against delisting this photo and restoring the "Copyrighted free use" template, particularly because the uploader, Borisblue, is an admin, and the lister is an IP. So that's what I did. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I am readding the PUI template. First of all, indisputable proof will not be available until Borisblue forwards his email correspondence to OTRS. He may be an administrator, but that doesn't mean he interpreted the correspondence correctly (not to slight him, we all make mistakes). There is still a question of whether or not this is a freely-usable photo. Maybe the photo studio that took the photo claims a copyright to it, for example. --Tom (talk - email) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright is claimed by the Ron Paul campaign on their website, and I got the permission from them. permissions@wikimedia gave me the ticket Ticket#2007111910015184 if that helps. Borisblue (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not deleted --B (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Doogtoons.gif

No evidence uploader has permission to release image under GFDL. Nv8200p talk 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved. Correct tag & FUR have been added. SkierRMH (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:The_Blue_Riband_Trophy_of_1935.jpg

A trophy of 1935 cannot be PD-old-100, but I wonder who designed it, so comments are requested, though fair use may be possible. Jusjih (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)