Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 15
February 15
[edit]
- 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: Delete; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- File:AugustusWIKI.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Dubious uploader's own work. Image is web resolution, low quality and is found on many sites including here. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 22:18, 15 February 2014 (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 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: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- File:Bienvenidos a ceuta.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image is a photo of a billboard or sign. Therefore this image is a derivative of the original sign image. Unknown who original sign image copyright holder is but unlikely to be owned by uploader -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous and utterly anal. Are you suggesting photographs of government-erected "welcome to our country" signs are not allowed to be placed on Wikipedia? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that a photograph of a photograph is a derivative work. Derivative works keep the copyright of the original image. Therefore this photo's copyright is owned by the original creator of the photo on the sign. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- How do you propose to back that claim up? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- [1] "A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit....Article 35 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, states: 2. Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." As this work is permanently located on the streets of Ceuta, an autonomous city of Spain, I submit that no license is required here, thanks to Freedom of panorama if indeed there is a copyright on the original image. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination. With no description, and the file name being non-English, I did not look for a country-of-origin. You are correct about FoP, thanks for point out to me what I should have seen with it being from Spain. I've moved the image to Commons, and added a description and FoP template. Please look at Commons:File:Bienvenidos a ceuta.jpg to see if everything looks right. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't really know how one is supposed to tag these things, so can't say if it's correct, but thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination. With no description, and the file name being non-English, I did not look for a country-of-origin. You are correct about FoP, thanks for point out to me what I should have seen with it being from Spain. I've moved the image to Commons, and added a description and FoP template. Please look at Commons:File:Bienvenidos a ceuta.jpg to see if everything looks right. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- [1] "A derivative work usually requires a license from the creator of the work. However, in many (but not all) countries there is an exception in copyright law which eliminates the need for a license. We call this exception freedom of panorama (FOP), after the term used in German copyright law, Panoramafreiheit....Article 35 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996 of April 12, 1996, and amended by Law 5/1998 of March 6, 1998, states: 2. Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." As this work is permanently located on the streets of Ceuta, an autonomous city of Spain, I submit that no license is required here, thanks to Freedom of panorama if indeed there is a copyright on the original image. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- How do you propose to back that claim up? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that a photograph of a photograph is a derivative work. Derivative works keep the copyright of the original image. Therefore this photo's copyright is owned by the original creator of the photo on the sign. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous and utterly anal. Are you suggesting photographs of government-erected "welcome to our country" signs are not allowed to be placed on Wikipedia? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment This African city is quite well-known here in Europe in particular due to the Ceuta border fence, but maybe it is less known in other parts of the world. That said, if I find an image which clearly mentions a place name which I don't recognise, I always look it up on a map before nominating a file for deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2014 (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 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: Delete; deleted by Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- File:BohoWordLogoFinal3.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Image is a former theater logo, may be owned by uploader (see username) but unknown if the theatre is really releasing the image. Also looks to be clipart used in logo. Logo is replaced by current logo File:BoHo Theatre logo 2014.jpg -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 23:11, 15 February 2014 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.