Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 May 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< May 15	May 17 >

[edit] May 16

[edit] Image:Shearer poster.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted work - the image is being used to show Alan Shearer, but it uses a copyrighted banner. Mosmof (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a blatant case of copyright paranoia. A copyright protects commercial rights, it is quite clear that by photographing a large banner (you can't even pretend it's similar to a poster) with trees in the way and the stadium visible through the cloth, you cannot use that photograph in a commercial sense to the detriment of the copyright owners ability to do so, who own the original artwork used to make the banner, which is obviously of much higher quality and value. This is a valid free use imho, applying deriative work to this is clearly completely over-zealous. MickMacNee (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between a poster and an outdoor banner other than the size? Freedom of panorama doesn't apply to temporary displays like this. It would be free use if the banner's appearance was incidental, but the photograph is clearly being used, not to show the stadium, but the contents of the banner. That it's partially obscured doesn't make its purpose any different if, say, you were to upload a digital version of the banner. Seems like a clear cut case of derivative work. --Mosmof (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Blatant derivative, the main focus of the image is the copyrighted banner. As mentioned if this would have been a full photo of the Stadium with the banner taking up a minor part then it might be ok, but as it is the image is a copyvio. Lokal _Profil 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you have blatantly missed the point, and do not understand what copyright law is for. I never mentioned freedom of panorama, specifically because that is not the defense. So please explain to me how a public photograph of this banner diminishes the copyright holders ability to commercially exploit the original image. You can't, you are being copyright paranoids. You are clearly mistaken if you actually think this photo is the same as "a digital version of the banner". Perhaps you need an eye test, or a course in law. MickMacNee (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you have blatantly missed the point, and do not understand what copyright law is for. - I beg to differ. I like to think I was subtle about it, but I guess that's a matter of opinions.
I never mentioned freedom of panorama, specifically because that is not the defense. - Fair enough. I mentioned it because it's the only realistic justification for an image that prominently features intellectual property. Forget I ever mentioned it, then.
So please explain to me how a public photograph of this banner diminishes the copyright holders ability to commercially exploit the original image. You can't, you are being copyright paranoids. - I won't explain it, because commercial interest has little to do with whether this image is a derivative work. Copyright infringement doesn't have to involve commercial gain or loss.
You are clearly mistaken if you actually think this photo is the same as "a digital version of the banner". - Fortunately, that's not what I think. I wrote that the purpose was the same. Big difference. The quality is lower and it's a weeeee bit obscured, but the point of the photograph is to reproduce the banner.
Perhaps you need an eye test, or a course in law. - And perhaps you need to be WP:CIVIL. --Mosmof (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"commercial interest has little to do with whether this image is a derivative work. Copyright infringement doesn't have to involve commercial gain or loss" - This is a total representation of copyright paranoia, you absolutely do not know the difference between the letter and the purpose of copyright law. "The point of the photograph is to reproduce the banner" - of course it is, why take it otherwise? Are you suggesting the what must be millions of people that did are devious law breakers? Or that the copyright holders made a mistake by allowing this banner to be displayed in public? Your arguments are patently a joke, a complete nonsense in the world of common sense, as opposed to the world of image paranoia that you appear to inhabit on wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the what must be millions of people that did are devious law breakers? - Of course not! That would be silly. Those millions of people who photographed the Shearer banner did so for their own personal, private use. Now, publishing the photograph to essentially reuse the banner's contents would be a whole another matter.
Your arguments are patently a joke, a complete nonsense in the world of common sense' - Speaking of common, there's a helpful explanation of derivative works at Commons here. It's pretty much what I've been trying to explain to you, but I think it does a better job. There's a more thorough explanation here - those pages are meant for Commons uploaders, but the basic idea applies to English Wikipedia uploads as well.
FWIW, I'm not arguing for deletion per se. I imagine it could be tagged as a fair use image, but it definitely shouldn't be used at the top of the Alan Shearer per WP:NFCC#1, and its use in Newcastle F.C. is probably not valid, per WP:NFCC#8, since the discussion is about the message and content of the banner, rather than about the notoriety or controversy of the banner itself.

I hope this helps you understand image copyright policies better. --Mosmof (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete, invalid use of derivative work and no case to make out fair use as the image is replaceable. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:InterContinental_Hotel_-_Jeddah.jpg

Permission claimed, but no OTRS link. Kelly ^hi! 05:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:PEI2008.jpg

possible Derivative work belonging to the Province of Prince Edward Island, owner of the copyright--Angela2109 (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons image, not on Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 15:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:NS 1998 SAMPLE.jpg

possible Derivative work belonging to the Province of Nova Scotia, owner of the copyright--Angela2109 (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Commons image, not on Wikipedia. Kelly ^hi! 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:92-94 Ford Tempo.jpg

possible Derivative work belonging to Ford Motor Company, owner of the copyright--Angela2109 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on the entry immediately below. Kelly ^hi! 15:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image is on Commons - cannot be dealt with here. Stifle (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:96-00 Dodge Caravan.jpg

possibe Derivative work copyright belonging to Chrysler Corp.--Angela2109 (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That image isn't on Wikipedia, it's on Commons. Are you saying the car is copyrighted? I think you might be mixing up copyright with trade dress. Kelly ^hi! 15:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Sivaji-ganesan.jpg

No evidence the GFDL license is correct from the source page given. Polly (Parrot) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AISER Logo1.jpg

Sdrtirs (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Newport_Bridge.jpg

OTRS permission claimed, but no OTRS link. Kelly ^hi! 17:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AbxazeTi-1-.jpg

Sdrtirs (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Adventures in Synthetic biology.JPG

Sdrtirs (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the source site is under a cc-by-sa-2.5 license there is nothing (that I could find) indicating that this comic is under that license. 00:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Charles Aznavour 60x95.png

Sdrtirs (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:GregUniverseMap2-779832.jpg

No evidence from the source page of a CC license. Polly (Parrot) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Artists impression.jpg

Image is marked copyright Jozef Gatial a professional illustrator - no evidence that uploader is Jozel Gatial, edit summary has Author as AriS which is not the same as uploader either, uploader had not uploaded other artists impressions MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Marines2.jpg

Image appears to be an exact copy of [1] from [2] no evidence it is released into the public domain - geocities may not be original source but appears like other images from this uploader as not self made MilborneOne (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ignimbrite in field.JPG

Does not appear to be the uploader's property to release Stifle (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The image is mine. i took the photo, the camera specs of the photo are the same as the camera specs for all other images I have uploaded, because it is my camera. What do you require as proof? Russjass (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, bad listing by me. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Viraatlengthy.jpg

Delete as copyvio. /Lokal _Profil 00:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking through the users uploads they all seem dodgy at best (all except one are nominated at PUI for good reasons). Probably just as well to delete the unused Image:Mumbai-kk3.jpg based on this. /Lokal _Profil 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Farkhor.JPG

Google Earth image — MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Evlut.png

Considering that it is identical to fi:Kuva:Suomen evankelis-luterilainen kirkon vaakuna.svg which is the official version this is clearly a derivative of a copyrighted image. Might be ok as fair use though. Lokal _Profil 22:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)