Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 July 5

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.

[edit] Image:Babbpressbook-b.jpeg

Derivative of a copyrighted publication. Nv8200p talk 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Guy sticks copyrighted publication on table, photographs it (at an angle, badly), uploads the result under GFDL. Somebody else downloads it, runs it through a graphics program, cropping extraneous junk, brightening up the colors, and reuploads it, again of course under GFDL. Where's the beef? -- Hoary 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As the nominator indicated, it is a derivative work of a copyrighted publication - derivative works attract the same copyright status as the original work. This image is therefore a breach of copyright. Madmedea 18:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the NYT books page. The top story as I type this is about the book Unchecked and Unbalanced. The first half of the story is here, and this first part contains three photos. One of these three is of the book. The photo of the book is even captioned: Lars Klove for The New York Times. Despite the fact that the NYT bothers to caption the photo (one that could have been taken by any Joe Blow with just about any camera costing more than $50, and not something that shows notable artistry or craftsmanship), it does not bother to say that the photo is courtesy of the New Press (publisher of the book) or that it incorporates a design whose copyright belongs to the New Press. Thus I tentatively infer that even the rich and lawsuit-prone NYT, itself based and with a website based in the litigious US of A, thinks that its own photos of copyright works are its own. What am I missing here? -- Hoary 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC) .....lightly edited for clarity 11:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And more. It's conceivable that Badlydrawnjeff was wrong in releasing his photo of that pressbook under GFDL. (I don't believe it, though. Persuade me.) But I'm sure that the notion that "derivative works attract the same copyright status as the original" is quite wrong, unless perhaps "derivative works" has a very odd meaning (and if it has, pray divulge it). Consider this multiple reproduction of a Campbell's soup can (conspicuously incorporating a presumably copyright label) at MoMA (which can be presumed to be very clued in about copyright issues) would not be marked © 2007 Andy Warhol Foundation but instead © 2007 Campbell's Soup Co. Want the reproduction of something two-dimensional rather than convex? George Eastman House probably knows what it's doing too: here's a photo of a church notice that has a similar relationship to the notice that BDJ's photo has to the press handbook, yet we read nothing about the intellectual property of the church and instead simply "copyright, Aaron Siskind". And so on. -- Hoary 11:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC) .....lightly edited for clarity 11:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Because this image is not just a straight-on view of the book cover, there are two copyrights in play here. One is the copyright of the photo itself, which is held by yourself (since you cropped the original). But because the main subject of the photo is a copyrighted work (the book cover), then this photo can be considered a derivative work of the cover. The Warhol work of the soup cans presumably incorporates the Campbell's soup can under fair use, or it may be possible that the design of the can is not copyrightable because it lacks any real creative elements (apart from the seal in the middle). The church notice itself is definitely not copyrightable, meaning there is only one copyright -- that of the photo. So in other words, you have the authority to release the image itself under the GFDL, but you have no such standing to do the same for the book cover. If the photo was of a living room and the book was sitting on the coffee table in view of the camera, but not the main subject of the photo, then freedom of panorama would apply. As an example of a similar case, see Image:Pikachu ThnksgvDayParade.jpg. Hope that makes sense. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you have a point, though "fair use" (as far as I understand its legalistic sense) is hard to discern in the straight-on depiction of a single can of soup (conspicuously featuring a label with creative elements) that you'll find within the WP article on Andy Warhol. BDJ indeed did not have the right to release the design of the pressbook cover under GFDL (which I'm sure was anyway not his intention). But you [personally] also say that "you [personal? impersonal?] have the authority to release the image itself under the GFDL", which is just what BDJ and I did, with a result that got up Nv8200p's nose. So I'm confused. What is it that you suggest?

While you're thinking about it, my own very tentative "IANaL" proposal is to scrub the GFDL notice for the (poor) photo of the cover of the pressbook and replace it with a FU notice for the cover of the pressbook: a FU notice that argues the importance of an image of this pressbook to the article, and says nothing whatever about BDJ's (or my) role in creating this particular image of it (reconsidered as no more creative than slapping the pressbook on a scanner). How does that strike you?

Meanwhile, Image:Pikachu ThnksgvDayParade.jpg confuses me too. Under "Summary", we read Creative Commons Attribution-2.0 for the image, fair use for the Pikachu likeness. Under "Licensing", we read This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. If it's unlicensed, then what does "Creative Commons Attribution-2.0" mean? (Or maybe "This work" is supposed to be the blimp. Or maybe it's not this atypically three-dimensional blimp but the two-dimensional set of vectors that constitute this pokemon.) -- Hoary 00:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

By "you" I meant you, User:Hoary, since you cropped BDJ's original one, although now that I think of it, you (User:Hoary) don't have any choice but to license the image under the GFDL because that's what the GFDL requires for derivative works. Anyway, your suggestion is a good one. There's no need to point out the dual copyright, since that concept is pretty confusing to most people. As for the Pikachu image, the template just contains boilerplate text which doesn't really apply 100% to the image being depicted (it's meant to apply when the entire image is non-free). If I could customize it, I suppose it would say, "The Pikachu likeness is copyrighted and unlicensed." howcheng {chat} 06:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the amiable response. I'm coming to think that problems arise here from a certain contradiction: (a) We're supposed to take all of this very seriously as we choose which of several templates to slap on, yet (b) if seriousness means more than paying lipservice it quickly leads to mystification. Where lawyers may be watching, I hesitate to say that from now I'll concentrate on paying lipservice, but I don't mind saying that I'll tend to choose the path of least expected resistance. -- Hoary 07:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing changed to {{non-free book cover}}. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 1 August 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 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.

[edit] Image:A teendanceordinancelol.jpg

Apparently an album cover, but tagged {{PD-self}}. —Angr 15:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Image simply retagged. Author has history of copyvios. The Evil Spartan 15:54, 10 July 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 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.

[edit] Image:Ns-CoatOfArms.jpg

Saya Not PD-Non Public ShakespeareFan00 17:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Licensing changed to {{non-free symbol}}. howcheng {chat} 17:25, 1 August 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 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.

[edit] Image:Delian_games_2006.jpg

Originally nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 29, but discussion moved here to determine licensing. Email sent to creator to clarify. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand from the history that it has now been moved to public domain. Is this correct? If so, good. I assume the necessary change will filter through to my user page? Thanks Dwsolo 19:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo

No, I have no reason to believe that User:Galassi, who made that change, has the authority to do so. howcheng {chat} 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why? The owner of the image, who gave permission for its use over 12 months ago, can be contacted here dillonford [at] newmusicclassics.com Perhaps you could contact him for confirmation? He has written several times already but the people at Wikipedia appear not to have received his communications. Dwsolo 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)dwsolo

Email confirmation received and forwarded to OTRS. howcheng {chat} 06:34, 6 July 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 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.

[edit] Image:Psoriasis severity.jpg

Uploader claims PD-self, but source website reserves rights. Videmus Omnia 19:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)Withdrawn nom, I mistakenly thought this was a graph downloaded from the Foundation's website - it was so professional-looking! Sorry about the misunderstanding! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have created and uploaded Image:Distribution of psoriasis severity.svg to replace this item - Fosnez 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The image was created by me. The image used by Foznez uses the same information. What is going on here. What rights are the National Psoriasis Foundation reserving? --Batrobin 16:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• oppose deletion. self-made chart from uncopyrightable raw scientific data. -Nard 17:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-self}} approved. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 1 August 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.