Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 11
September 11
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image claims to be PD, licensed GFDL CC-BY-SA-3.0. Myspace photo highly doubtful its free. εω (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be way beyond the standards of PD-textlogo, which is being abused on several TV station logos. Whatever the threshold of originality is, this is surely on the other side of it. Compare File:NBC logo.svg. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree, there are several users out there who consider this logo to be in public domain. User:Black Kite, an admin who has been removing NF logos from television stations, has considered this logo to be in public domain. You can't compare a peacock to a logo with overlapping coloured circles. May I also refer you to Wikipedia:MCQ#Public_domain_question? єmarsee • Speak up! 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Logo is Public domain as it is not original enough as typeface and simple geometric shapes can not be copyrighted. Please see this discussion. Powergate92Talk 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks to be a long way beyond. Overlapping geometric shapes are definitely copyrightable, otherwise I think we'd be claiming a lot of artwork as PD. A square is PD, a single word is PD, a single word in a square is PD. This is not PD. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A circle is a basic geometric shape. Just because you put a bunch of them together and add colors doesn't suddenly make it original. Also, you can't compare this to the NBC logo, because that isn't using basic geometric shapes. --Noname2 (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not talking about the Olympic rings here.
:^)The work (as a whole) is more than basic geometry or text. It consists primarily of translucent, overlapping circles around a pincushion shape. Does a logo have to be 3D or shiny to be copyrightable? For comparison, we currently have the NeXT (isometric cube) and PG&E (right triangle on square) logos under fair use. Though a bit more refined than the CHCH logo, they're both less complex (for instance, featuring only solid colors). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not talking about the Olympic rings here.
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Image is within the scope of {{PD-textlogo}}. — ξxplicit 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another abuse of PD-textlogo. The color scheme, shading, and organization of elements renders this more than just a typeface. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a logo has color doe's not make it copyright please see Template talk:PD-textlogo. Powergate92Talk 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What, exactly, on that talk page is relevant to this discussion? All I see is one thread where one person makes some claims. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On that talk page a user says "it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations." So just because you add color and shapes to a logo doe's not make it copyright. Powergate92Talk 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What, exactly, on that talk page is relevant to this discussion? All I see is one thread where one person makes some claims. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another abuse of PD-textlogo. The "45" logo doesn't match any typeface I've ever seen. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it back to non-free. Powergate92Talk 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the discussion was: keep. File licensed as a non-free image. — ξxplicit 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another abuse of PD-textlogo; the background image clearly represents a copyrightable work, even though the text on the front doesn't. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it back to non-free. Powergate92Talk 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Image is within the scope of {{PD-textlogo}}. — ξxplicit 22:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another abuse of PD-textlogo. A logo which is stylized to look like text doesn't automatically create a "typeface". (ESkog)(Talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Any logo with purely text, no matter how stylized the text. May I refer you to Wikipedia:PD#Fonts? Any attempt at creating a character should be considered to be a typeface. єmarsee • Speak up! 04:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The CW logo is not stylized it is in Script (typefaces). Powergate92Talk 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link points to a type of font. Did you mean to point to a specific typeface? (ESkog)(Talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the link for the typeface Script (typefaces)#Casual scripts. Powergate92Talk 17:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a type of typeface. Which font do you believe this is specifically? Just because they represent letters, doesn't mean they're a font. Are you going to argue this is PD, just because it's a letter? J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the link for the typeface Script (typefaces)#Casual scripts. Powergate92Talk 17:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link points to a type of font. Did you mean to point to a specific typeface? (ESkog)(Talk) 17:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clear example of {{PD-textlogo}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark as non-free - {{PD-textlogo}} seems wrong here, owner certainly asserts copyright, too. — neuro(talk) 11:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do they assert copyright on the logo? IronGargoyle (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1960s press photo from indystar.com - PD-self license is unlikely to be correct. dave pape (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Album cover being used in article about the artist fails WP:NFC#Images #1. Also has no licence or fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Since no claim of fair-use is made; sculpture retains copyright. Shell babelfish 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depicted sculpture is probably copyrighted. The USA does not have freedom of panorama other than for buildings. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While I worried this would raise suspicions, and I even emailed the school, it's probably fine. Maybe I'll get a response soon, but the sculpture is a representation of their logo, the way many schools have a statue of their mascot, or businesses (like eBay) have their logo out front.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This sculpture is the school's logo, and is frequently used to represent TJHSST. I can't see the school having a problem with our depicting it here. At the very least, its appearance on an article about the school should count as fair use. Jesin (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the copyright holder of the sculpture is happy to release it under a free license, that's great, just send it into permissions-en@wikimedia.org. It would be very unlikely to meet our fair use criteria like WP:NFCC#8, as the article is about the school, not the statue. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what drives me a little nuts about this process: there isn't going to be a copyright holder. Who would send that email? The school principal? The county board? The governor? The people who first designed the school's 2D logo in the 80s? Maybe the students who built the sculpture of that logo in the 90s? The factory that manufactured the steel beams? Take my eBay example, do the workers hired to put together that 3D version of the logo have a copyright to it now? And is part of the problem that this only shows a little corner of the school, and if I could get one that showed more, would that change the equation?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be the students who built the sculpture, and possibly the people who designed the school's 2D logo if they are similar. You are welcome to tag the image with an appropriate fair use rationale; see the image on Atomium for suggestions. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what drives me a little nuts about this process: there isn't going to be a copyright holder. Who would send that email? The school principal? The county board? The governor? The people who first designed the school's 2D logo in the 80s? Maybe the students who built the sculpture of that logo in the 90s? The factory that manufactured the steel beams? Take my eBay example, do the workers hired to put together that 3D version of the logo have a copyright to it now? And is part of the problem that this only shows a little corner of the school, and if I could get one that showed more, would that change the equation?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 05:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I don't know who put it together, whether it was students or hired immigrant labor, but you're again missing the issue. How can you ask "if they are similar"? Did you not look at the article? Here's the logo again. Atomium is not a good example. That has a known, organized, copyright holder. If you fear that this would need a fair use template, then add it. I don't think it does, nor did the other commentator, but go ahead. Further, I totally disagree that this would fail WP:NFCC#8, and my question there about if this included more of the school is relevant. How would you even have an article about a welcome sign?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photograph of a back album cover. Cover does not look simple enough to be considered PD. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page Tróndur Bogason was deleted per PROD. In addition, there is no source, author, or media description on the file, making it difficult to know whether this might be an unfree file. Cnilep (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Bogi (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC) No problem, I can upload it again. I have the authors blessing to use the picture. I will try to add details about the picture next time I upload it in order so satisfy the verifyability of the picture[reply]
- 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.