Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 August 23

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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Huey whittaker.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• sourced to spokaneshock.com, which claims all (c), no PD release Skier Dude (talk 00:13, 23 August 2010 (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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerry-Kurz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• sourced to portsbusinessdaily.com, claims (c) & which does not have PD release, Skier Dude (talk 00:15, 23 August 2010 (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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Wings 2002.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Watermark on bottom right corner says detnews.com, likely copyrighted photo. Mosmof (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2010 (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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tebow returns.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Derivative work of a (likely) copyrighted broadcast, since it's a photograph of a jumbotron footage. Copyright most likely belongs to the University of Florida athletic department or the game's broadcaster. Mosmof (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That photo is not from any broadcast. It's a photograph I took of the Florida Field in-stadium jumbotron showing a single frame of a live closed-circuit feed while Tim Tebow spoke to the crowd during the 2008 BCS championship celebration in January 2009. I can't possibly fathom how there could be any copyright issues here. Zeng8r (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. But even if this was a closed-circuit feed, any video display is, by default, copyrighted, and the copyright would transfer to any derivative image (say, a photograph of a screen image). --Mosmof (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So a single frame taken off a video board during a totally free and open to the public speaking event is "by default copyrighted" just because UF was considerate enough to set up a camera so those sitting far away in a large stadium could see the speaker? Please. As stated below in tremendous detail, Florida law outlines very narrow guidelines regarding the ability of state-run agencies to copyright anything. There's no way that a photo of a state-owned video board taken during a non-game setting would be a problem. However, I'm waiting for the overzealous wiki image police to complain about the Nike logo next. Good thing Tebow is holding the mike in front of the Gator logo on the other side of his jersey or all hell would break loose. Zeng8r (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Snideness aside, I'm curious about how Florida's state copyright laws affect works of the UF athletic department. I'm reading the last paragraph of Copyright status of work by the Florida government, which says, "There are various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed, such as allowing... certain universities[7] to secure copyrights in certain works." I don't think it's unreasonable to assume promotional works of the Florida Gators could fall into the copyrightable category. --Mosmof (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously? Athletic logos are copyrighted. Photos and video of game action is copyrighted. A photo of a public speaker at a free, informal university-sponsored event is not, even if the photographer used a video board as a zooming aid. This isn't anything like a "promotional work". Zeng8r (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obvious case. To the claims that this being a work of Florida, there's no proof of that. It's presumed it is. For all we know, there's an independent contractor involved, and for all we know that broadcast was copyrighted. We don't know. Zeng8r, the Nike and Gators logos are de minimis to the overall work, so there's no issue of them appearing in the work. Also, that this broadcast was shown in a public place, on a State of Florida owned jumbotron didn't clear it of copyrights. What we must have is evidence of who produced the broadcast (closed circuit or not is irrelevant). We don't have that evidence. Failing that, this must be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - universities are by and large exempt in Florida from the copyright status. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This is exactly the kind of small-minded crap that makes people leave this project. You people want to delete a photo taken at (to repeat myself, again) a free, public, open, university-sponsored informal celebratory event (again, NOT from a broadcast), held in a state with the most copyright-unfriendly laws in the country, just because of some mumbo-jumbo about a possible subcontractor running the camera hooked up to the in-stadium video board? That's actually pretty hilarious. Also, it's totally unrelated to any wiki policy that I've ever heard, but don't let that stop you. Go ahead, knock yourselves out. I guess everybody needs a hobby. Zeng8r (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Our policies on copyrighted material is rather clear. I'm sorry you don't feel that it is. If you feel you'd like to contribute to making it clearer, please feel free to start a discussion at WT:NFC. Until it is clear to you, take us at our word please rather than criticizing us as being "small minded". Let me give you an example. You can take a photograph of a statue in a square in downtown Anywhere, USA. The statue's been sitting there for 10 years. It's in a public place. And, just for conversation, let's say it's in THE most copyright unfriendly state in the U.S. Guess what? Your photograph is a derivative work of a copyrighted work and can't be cleared of copyrights without the owner of the rights to the statue consenting to it. Copyright law isn't easy to understand. But, it is what it is and it IS respected around here, whether you think it's small minded or not. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It might be better to use pictures to explain. As I am reading this discussion the reasons it is here is because this image shows "only" the image of the screen. In other words if it looked like File:2009 Presidential Inauguration JumboTron Crowd Shot.JPG or File:Cleveland Stadium scoreboard and jumbotron.JPG it would be better received. I do feel though the concept that whoever was running the camera and/or the board operator who hit the button on the switcher to place the image on the screen would claim copyright is stretching it a bit. As an example you could look at File:US Navy 100825-N-0413R-120 Cmdr. Matt Graham, stationed in Bahrain, sends his family greetings on the JumboTron during a Boston Red Sox baseball game at Fenway Park.jpg - "This Image was released by the United States Navy" but nobody is questioning if there is a possible copyright claim by the camera operator, or anyone else at Fenway Park. One could, based on this discussion, ask "Well we know U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Shannon Renfroe took the picture of the jumbotron, but who shot the video that is being broadcast on it? Did they release their copyright?" Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this image is not really public domain, I am just pointing out how some of this discussion reads. And I have to point out, in regards to most "delete" opinions voiced here and why, that this image is exactly like File:JeffConine.jpg, File:BlueBand PSUformation.jpg, File:GeorgeStraitDallasStadium.JPG and similar to File:Oracle Arena JumboTron.JPG, File:SANY0138.jpg and File:Duke 2010 NCAA Champions scoreboard.jpg. In order to establish what is being said in this discussion applies to all like images, and to be consistent, all like images probably need to be be tagged/deleted as well. In thinking forward - other images that include a jumbotron in them and are licensed under a free license that allows anyone "to remix" should be tagged as well. Why? These license allow somebody to crop these images, that would include cropping to remove everything but the screen. If that happened the exact same discussion would be going on about those - and that would lead to a sub discussion about what is allowed on Wikipedia/Wikimeda in regards to images and their "remix". Food for thought. Soundvisions1 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've tagged all but the last three, for which de minimis applies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As previously noted, de minimis issues apply. If you take a photograph of a village square that includes a copyrighted sculpture, and that sculpture is copyrighted (and no freedom of panorama exists within the jurisdiction for the work) the holder of the rights to the sculpture can not claim copyright infringement. If instead, you take a close up photograph of the sculpture then the sculpture is no longer de minimis to the overall work. Then the rights holder CAN claim copyright infringement. In all the images you cited but three, the jumbotron broadcast is de minimis to the overall work (1,2,3). In the three cases where the jumbotron broadcast is not de minimis, all three are up for deletion. If I were to take a high resolution photograph that included, de minimis to the overall work, a broadcast on a jumbotron then I can claim rights. If I crop that image down to just the jumbotron broadcast, then I can't. It's important to understand this concept. Without it, confusion reins. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply/Comment: For me I do get the concept I it why I started off my comment above the way I did, using examples of a jumbotron that was part of the overall image, not the sole image. However it is very important to also understand the concept of "free use" in regards to the right to "remix" an image. Wikipedia stopped accepting images where no derivatives could be made - what is being implied in this discussion is an image such as File:Oracle Arena JumboTron.JPG can not be cropped to show only the jumbotron. That is not correct if one actually follows the license applied, as it is displayed on the image page. (You are free: *to remix – to adapt the work) Likewise there is nothing in the license that says a person is not allowed to replace whatever they want - say only the jumbotron image from here placed on the screen here. Wikipedias and Wikimedias (Where many of these images are now hosted) overall insistence is that images be "free", which includes the right to make derivatives. Or, another way to think about this, the main focus of File:SANY0138.jpg is the image (The image on the screen) and and anyone could crop it and use the relevant portion in an article about baseball. Ahh - but wait - *surprise* - I really couldn't, not because of de minimis, but because the actual license this image uses states "No Derivative Works" (and I have tagged the image for deletion). But most of the images correctly licensed for "free" use carry no such restriction, they can't in order to be accepted. And again I want to stress that I understand there is a difference between, for example, File:Rrslogo.jpg and File:Sound of the South Logo.jpg but I feel it also needs to be understood that unless a new or existing tag (Such as {{trademark}}, or a free use variation of {{Non-free film screenshot}} or {{Non-free television screenshot}}, or the "personality rights" notice found here: Image tag Personality Rights Warning) is also placed on these types of images the end user of these images is allowed to do whatever they want per the simple fact it says they can via the license. (And yes the full "legal code" explains these things in detail but it should also be pointed out in "brief" as well. One can not expect the causal passerby to get the concept of "de minimis" withing the right to "remix". So if an image can not be "remixed" because it would alter that concept in an image that does need to be explained on each image page were it is relevant.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not in the business of educating people about copyright issues vis-a-vis works used from here. It is incumbent on each user to decide what they can and can not use, which can verify by jurisdiction. What we do know is that an image taken of a football stadium showing a jumbotron doesn't carry rights other than those of the photographer. Anything copyrighted in the image would be de minimis to it. There's no question about that. How one decides to create and use derivative works is up to them. They are free to create derivative works. There's no special restriction or anything in that regard. But, a derivative work maker trying to obtain a 'free license' version of a sports logo is dancing around the law (or so they think), and in reality is rushing headlong right into the jaws of the law. We can't control their behavior. All we can do is say this work is free license, and derivatives are allowed. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply/Comment: We are wandering off to another topic, related to this, yes, but not going to change to outcome of this one image. Having said that - if Wikipedia and/or Wikimedia are acting as a "distributor" of these images than it is a responsibility to be "educating people about copyright issues" with the images. It may be as easy a modifying a template such as cc-by-sa-3.0 or cc-by-sa-2.0 or reflect the "With the understanding that" portion of the "human-readable summary". Unless you are meaning to imply the tags used currently on images are only placed there for editors/admins to see, and are not there to aid in the general public's understanding of how the images may be used, (i.e - use of tag with phrases such as Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document.... or You are free...to copy, distribute and transmit the work). I don't think you mean that but I wanted to be clear in case I was missing that *is* what you meant. While I do agree that once an image is placed on Wikipedia or Wikimedia and someone downloads it an editor or an admin "can't control" the behavior of the person/company that downloaded it. I feel, however, the need to point out that same scenario goes for any image, placed under any license, that is out there. This image aside, which, to be fair, I believe was taken by the uploader and placed here in good faith, Wikipedia gets images uploaded all the time from people who have no clue about copyright law, de minus, fair use or any other legal concept in regards to the internet or images - many honestly feel if an image is on the internet, purchased by the uploader on ebay, in a store, or on a street corner, part of a family collection or found laying in a drawer than it must be free to use. So while the comment about "What we do know" may be true for "us", it is not true for the general masses. I have no question in my mind that when Zeng8r stated that this photo is not from any broadcast. It's a photograph I took of the Florida Field in-stadium jumbotron... they honestly believed what you just stated above - an image taken of a football stadium showing a jumbotron doesn't carry rights other than those of the photographer. If they knew otherwise I doubt we would be having this deletion discussion. Look at the front end of the issue as well - when someone uploads a file that is not correctly licensed "we" try to educate them as to why that is, just as is being done now, oft times it is done via a notice placed on their talk page, such as {{Di-no_source-notice}} or {{Di-no permission-notice}}. The same courtesy should be extended to those who download a file that *is* properly licensed, I would say more so because Wikipedia and, especially, Wikimedia are now "distributors" (or sub distributors) of these images. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, I didn't read your latest. My apologies; I just feel this is becoming very meta-discussion like, and unimportant to the question at hand of this image. The fact remains that rights do not transfer when a photographer takes a photo of a broadcast. I can't take a picture of my television set broadcasting the superbowl and claim I have sole rights to the image. Neither can someone do the same for a jumbotron broadcast. The issues are the same. The original rights holder of the broadcast retains rights. Until such time as we can verify who the broadcaster is of this image, and verify that this rights holder has released rights to the image (or can't hold rights for some reason, like law) then this image is most emphatically not free. For the meta discussion, you might want to take it to WP:VP or WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Funny you say that because, for the most part, you responded to my post. But taking your words that you didn't - you should take note, at the least, that I said this:

  I have no question in my mind that when Zeng8r stated that this photo is not from any broadcast. It's a photograph I took of the Florida Field in-stadium jumbotron... they honestly believed what you just stated above - an image taken of a football stadium showing a jumbotron doesn't carry rights other than those of the photographer. If they knew otherwise I doubt we would be having this deletion discussion.

  Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't matter what he thinks. It really doesn't. What matters is the image was taken of a jumbotron broadcast, which is the focus of the image, making it non-de minimis. We don't know the copyright status of the image, who created the broadcast, or who holds rights. That's all that matters to the determination of the status of this image. The uploader thinks it is free, but that doesn't make it free. Barring introduction of evidence showing this broadcast was released under a free license, it isn't free. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Argh: Yes, it matters in the context of what was/is being discussed - but you did not read that part per your own admission. Without knowing anything or reading anything, yes - you are 100% correct in your assessment that this image shows only the image on a jumbotron and is therefor "non-de minimis". And I already agreed with that part in my first comment and displayed images to illustrate the "non-de minimis" vs "de minimis" concept. The point(s) after that was to illustrate there is a much larger issue that underlies this but, as I pointed out in the reply you did not read, we are wandering off to another topic the more we discuss it. The templates and how far Wikipedia/Wkimedia, as a distributor of these images, should go in an attempt it educate users is indeed an issue for another forum such a village pump. Your idea of discussing a freely licensed or PD image that has been "remixed" at WT:NFC is a interesting idea I may take up at a later time though. Soundvisions1 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you believe that a non-copyright holder's assertion that something is free trumps a copyright holder's right to their works, we have nothing further to discuss. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That was uncalled for - and not even sure where it came from. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yes, it matters in the context..." referring to the user's belief that it is free. Your words, not mine. I'm not making it up. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahh, I see how you could feel that based on your later comment but remember there is an earlier portion of this thread you stated that you did not read. So a brief recap of the discussion between us seems needed. Hammersoft said Wikipedia is not in the business of educating people about copyright issues vis-a-vis works used from here..., What we do know is that an image taken of a football stadium showing a jumbotron doesn't carry rights other than those of the photographer., and All we can do is say this work is free license, and derivatives are allowed. Soundvisions1 replied to those comments: Wikipedia gets images uploaded all the time from people who have no clue about copyright law, de minus, fair use or any other legal concept in regards to the internet or images..., So while the comment about "What we do know" may be true for "us", it is not true for the general masses, said that when Zeng8r did the upload most likely they honestly believed what you just stated above and when someone uploads a file that is not correctly licensed "we" try to educate them as to why that is so we should also do the same for downloaders as Wikipedia and, especially, Wikimedia are now "distributors" (or sub distributors) of these images. Hammersoft replied: Honestly, I didn't read your latest. and The fact remains that rights do not transfer when a photographer takes a photo of a broadcast. Soundvisions1 replied with a "summary" comment from the unread reply that Zeng8r most likely honestly believed what Hammersoft had earlier said and If they knew otherwise I doubt we would be having this deletion discussion. Hammersoft replied: It doesn't matter what he thinks. It really doesn't. Soundvisions1 replied: Yes, it matters in the context of what was/is being discussed - but you did not read that part per your own admission. Hammersoft replied by implying that Soundvisions1 felt that a free image licensed by a non-copyright holder does not trumps a copyright holder's right to their works and ...we have nothing further to discuss. Soundvisions1 replied that comment was out of place and uncalled for and Hammersoft replied with a quote from a reply to a reply about a reply that wasn't read which was a reply to a comment Hammersoft made. *phew*. This is starting to feel like an episode of Three's Company. No wonder this is confusing. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

last comment It's quite obvious that discussions on this page are dominated by the same (very) small group of editors, many of whom I recognize from spouting similar hardcore (and usually highly dubious) copyright-obsessed rhetoric in similar discussions across this project over the years. Obviously this small group goes hunting for anything that they don't like, post it here, and then back each other up, sometimes while openly admitting that they're ignoring clear arguments against deletion. (The repeated "I don't have the desire to read all that, but I'ma go ahead and delete your photos, m'kay?" further down this page is just classic.)

As it is, this process and the resulting "consensus" is pretty much a farce. If I cared strongly about this particular photo, I'd be really pissed right now. As mentioned, this kind of wikilawyering is one of the best ways to drive valuable contributors away. Zeng8r (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I got as far as "spouting similar hardcore" and stopped. If you can't make an argument without attacking your fellow contributors, please refrain from posting. Such arguments fall flat; they don't help your position. In fact, they make it worse. I'm sorry you hold your fellow editors in such disdain, but such regard has no impact on whether an image is deleted or not. I recommend you refactor your arguments into cogent elements directly related to the image itself. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you were paying attention, fellow editor, you'd know that I actually tried that. Of course, actually reading the arguments of anybody you disagree with seems to be a serious weakness for many of the regulars to these discussions. ("I got as far as..." how typical.)

I repeatedly stated facts and they were repeatedly ignored. For example, I repeated multiple times that the image did not come from a broadcast, yet various members of the self-proclaimed Copyright Squad kept saying that the fact that it came from a broadcast made it obviously deletable. Hello? I also repeatedly pointed out that Florida has unique copyright laws regarding state-produced intellectual property, and referred to the extensive discussion of the subject further down the page. Of course, the response both here and down the page was the classic "I don't have a desire to read all that". Nice.

Like I said, I don't particularly care too much either way about this particular photo; it's the process that's rotten. Don't pretend that these discussions are anything more than a foregone conclusion. A small group of copyright zealots back each other up to create "consensus" and then delete whatever they feel like. It's pretty pathetic, imo, and, like I said, it's an example of the petty wikilawyering that drives valuable editors away from this project. Zeng8r (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2010 (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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GeorgeBirimisa-5-20-06.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• uploader uploaded with another person's name as the author, thus "I, the copyright holder of this work," likely doesn't apply. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2010 (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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:George-b-for-web.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• uploader uploaded with another person's name as the author, thus "I, the copyright holder of this work," likely doesn't apply. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2010 (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 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Birimisa Gay Games 1990 photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• "Photographer unknown; copyright George Birimisa 2009." Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2010 (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 discussion was: withdrawn pending OTRS email. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim Gary 83d40m Triceratops NJ200911postrztnminusm.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• this is a derivative work of 3D architecture Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have tagged thirteen images I have uploaded, some of which are long-standing. It will be more than thirty-two hours before I can begin to respond to your assertions of doubt that repeatedly use the premise "possibly" or fail to understand that freely available publications and freely available resources of governments that are created by, released by, distributed by, or published by them using public funds such as tax payer dollars are copyright free. They are public documents which have no claim for private rights. Governmental agencies and entities, their photographers, national archives, county archives, and municipal archives do not claim copyrights.

I shall address each item in turn as time allows.

Regarding this image of Triceratops silverina, I took this photograph last Fall and altered a copy of it today for use here, I am the creator, just as stated. Wikipedia allows editors to upload images they have created and are willing to release. I challenge you to ow me an image in the commons from which you believe this was derived.

"3D architecture" is meaningless to me, how about using terms that have to do with photography? Of course, a sculpture is 3D, a photographic image is not. Please explain what you mean.

When I am able to get back on-line, I will begin to address your wholesale assertions. ----83d40m (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have two weeks to respond, so you're fine with that, take your time if necessary. Also, federal government works are public domain, but this is absolutely not necessarily the case with state and local works, or with others countries. 3D architecture: all I mean by that is you took a photo of someone else's work: you cannot claim that photograph as under your own copyright. The person that created that architecture owns the copyright. Please check out commons:COM:DW. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat from above: "Regarding this image of Triceratops silverina, I took this photograph last Fall and altered a copy of it today for use here, I am the creator, just as stated." I am the copyright owner of the original photograph and of the edited version I uploaded. I altered my own photograph to remove a person in it and uploaded it. You must explain to me why you persist in stating that it was created by someone else—without any grounds to make such an assertion.

Regarding the items from state, county, and municipal governmental sources and their related agencies, committees, and institutions, you obviously do not have any knowledge of Florida law regarding freedom of information even though it is covered thoroughly in this encyclopedia. I shall educate you below.

Since you now have grouped many together I shall address them first with one discussion, however the one that you failed to include among the governmental derivations also relates to the same public document use rights, a state university being included among those subject to Florida public document regulations and freedom of information laws. I am grateful that you now have grouped them together. Because of that I feel no need to repeat the same lengthy explication for each, please let me know if you expect me to address each individually. ----83d40m (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am receiving notices that this image is about to be deleted. It needs to be attended to.

I repeat for the third time: "Regarding this image of Triceratops silverina, I took this photograph last Fall and altered a copy of it on the day of upload for use here, I am the creator, just as stated." I am the copyright owner of the original photograph and of the edited version I uploaded. I altered my own photograph to remove a person in it and uploaded it. There are no grounds to delete it and the file summary requires no change. ----83d40m (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not debating that you took the photograph. I'm debating that you own the copyright to the photograph, because you took a picture of someone else's work of art. In the United States, if you take a photograph of someone else's work of art, even if it's in the public square, that person can claim copyright violation. As such, unless Jim Gary's estate releases the rights to the photograph, or unless Mr. Gary donated the object into the public domain, it's not a free image. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph was taken at Jim Gary's home with full permission of his publicist and studio director as well as the executrix of his estate, both of whom were present and knew that it would be published. ----83d40m (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that does complicate things a bit, the only question being would they have been OK with the license on that image. I don't believe this is process-wonking, it's a valid question. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have been OK ? -- feel free to contact them through the official site -- they know the name I use as an editor here -- ask them what you want regarding the permission for the license to use the image here. There is e-mail access through the Jim Gary site. ----83d40m (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll withdraw this nomination... if you could send them an email, and follow with instructions on {{di-no permission}}. I realize you'd like for me to do it, but the generally we prefer the uploader to do it, just because it eases the process. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2010 (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 discussion was: combined into discussion below: #Possible derivative uploads by User:83d40m. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map Seagate campus 83d40m University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Since when has USF been in the business of publishing "copyright free" documents? Never, to my knowledge. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the documentation provided at the next item, Possible derivative uploads by User 83d40m, which follows immediately on this page and discusses the freedom of information laws for Florida.

A state university falls under the same laws because it is an institution that is an arm of the state. Since it is in Florida, it must conform to the freedom of information laws of the state. All of the documents and images it releases, publishes, or broadcasts are openly accessible by the public following the state laws and, by her own laws, the state has no legal right to proscribe how they are used.

If you have seen a document, photograph, or record published by USF that bears her copyright, please advise me, it needs to be reported to the Attorney General of the state. The campus design process of Florida state colleges and universities is an open process, held with open and public meetings, and all of the documents developed in that process are public documents that fall under the laws noted in the following topic. ----83d40m (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find this to be a bit of a stretch. You can find such a copyright simply by going to http://www.usf.edu/index.asp.

While I appreciate your earnestness, I think you have to realize the implications of what you're saying. Does every professor who does work for USF have to release that work into the public domain? How about students who work for said professors? I really don't think that argument would hold up in court. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have failed to follow the discussion regarding the other governmental agencies that followed below. This map is part of the new campus design project that was a public process and is a public document. It is distributed freely after being printed with state funds. The documentation that resolves the other images clearly states that even if stated erroneously, there is no copyright on public documents produced by a state university. Please read the details on the template that should be used with this image.

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a State of Florida "public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf," and does not fall into any of the various categories of works for which the legislature has specifically permitted copyright to be claimed. See Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner. In brief, the "Florida public records law ... overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption."

The legislature has never granted an exemption for this map. ----83d40m (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite hard to determine the author, actually, seeing as you listed the authorship as "self-made". Can you please update this? If it was done publically (i.e., not by the state of Florida), then we can likely tag it with the same exemption as below. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be tagged with the same exemption as those below. I do not know what you are asking me to do. I have asked for guidance about how to use the pd-flagov already and no one has responded -- now my files are being deleted... which you told me would not happen until resolution occurred... not very reassuring. ----83d40m (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Receiving no response, I have changed the data at this file page in an attempt to circumvent its deletion. You will have to review this. I find that I can not access the planning charrette image from the New College of Florida article that already has been deleted, so I am unable to attempt any change to its data that might follow your direction. Further direction for that one is needed. ----83d40m (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2010 (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 discussion was: relisted - see the subpage discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/Florida uploads by User:83d40m. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2010 (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 discussion was: withdrawn. Upon reviewing further examples of PD-textlogo on commons, I see this is probably free. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PMCLogo 2003 PMS293 300px.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I disagree this is PD-text; the letters have odd markings on them, and aren't in a font I recognize at all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — The font type is irrelevant, even if the font was specially made for this image. The fact of the matter is that the image is just stylized text and therefore does not meet the threshold of originality. Regardless, it might need a trademark template. – Zntrip 01:04, 27 August 2010 (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 discussion was: Speedy Deleted as an unambiguous copyvio

File:24Palestinians.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The images that comprise tis montage are most likely copyright violations, so this is a derivative work of copyrighted files. For example, the Ahmed Yassin photo is from islamonline.net. A perusal of the uploaders talk page shows a disregard for copyright issues as well. Avi (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the people who are in picture are all public figures and you can see the pictures anywhere in palestine.. plus the pic wasnt taken from islamonline.. islamonline has taken it from somewhere else ... i see its a free licence pic !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadi.kabajah (talk • contribs) 08:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was provided by the person who created the montage image and uploaded the now deleted copyright violation. A perusal of the above editor's history shows at best a distinct lack of understanding of, and at worst a willful disregard for, wikipedia's copyright policy. -- Avi (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for reply that shows your intellectuality Avi, the images used in the montage picture are used in wikipedia, for each person in his/her own page , maybe some has newer images, but i didnt violate copyrights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.9.78 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unless proper source information (as in, who took the photographs and which news agency published them, not "I found this picture at ___.com") can be provided for each photograph, the copyright status for this image cannot be verified. It's up to the uploader to provide complete source information for each picture that makes up this montage. Mosmof (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted I should have realized. I was the one who uploaded the fair-use image of Said, which was clearly used in this image. This was not a possible copyvio, but an unambiguous one, so speedy deleted as such (F9). -- Avi (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2010 (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.