Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 May 19

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⚡ 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PapihillsMap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Real source is not known to figure out if this is PD or copyrighted. Uploader has a history of wrong license uploads —SpacemanSpiff 09:33, 19 May 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:J!NX Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• I doubt if the image satisfies "simple geometric shapes"  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:26, 19 May 2012 (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: Delete. Artwork placed in public in the US after 1977 is not considered "published", so no copyright notice is necessary. What's more, even if it were considered published, it was after February 1989, meaning it does not need to carry such a notice, and is copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the author. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Keep as it appears this work was publicly displayed before 1978. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roger Morigi gargoyle, National Cathedral, Washington DC, USA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• 3D artwork in USA - no Freedom of panorama, sculptor still alive.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Morigi died in 1995 (^[1]) but that is not (opinion) really relevant. NO FREEDOMS in the USA does not include buildings or sculpture that is carved on them. Which is what this is. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, recently died - point taken, but still not greater than 70pma. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States says...

OK for buildings only {{FoP-US}}

For artworks and sculptures - not OK. - For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork

Thus we have 3D artwork less than 70pma. Sculptures on building are often allowed on Wikipedia and Commons as de minimis (see Commons:De minimis), but since the gargoyle is the focus of the subject that cannot apply in this case.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure sure what "70pma" refers to, but had the plans for the building been copyrighted it would have been in 1907, on June 10, when the architect's plans were "accepted by the Building Committee". ^[2] The fact that it took another 3/4 of a century to complete it is, (opinion) beside the point. Let it go. There must be other fish to fry. Carptrash (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"70 years pma" in copyright contexts means that a copyright expires 70 years after the author has died. The United States applies a term of 70 years pma for some works (and other terms for other works). Unpublished works created in 1907 are copyrighted for either 70 years pma or 120 years pc (120 years since creation) depending on whether it is a work for hire or not.

There are two interesting points to consider here:

• Buildings completed before 1990 are in the public domain in the United States. Does this include gargoyles attached to the buildings? What is the year of completion of this building? The above text suggests that it was made about ${\displaystyle {\frac {3}{4}}\cdot 100}$ years after 1907, which would be prior to 1990.
• Is Leicester v. Warner Bros. relevant here? See also
  Stefan2 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Stefan2. We are not (in my opinion) looking for more questions here, but answers. Put another way, do you think that this lawsuit (that I got a headache reading) is relevant? And if so, what does it point to? I also just emailed the National Cathedral to ask if they have an opinion. As I understand it (a HUGE opening for you wikilawyers to enhance my understanding) to be copyrighted someone would actually have to apply for a copyright? Well, life is supposed to be interesting. Carptrash (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Feller timeline, "8-30-89, Completed major stonework on west towers." ^[3] Which was the end of construction. Also, not that it matters, this is a gargoyle featuring Roger Morigi, not by him. All the gargoyle work, probably all the sculpture on the building, that I will be careful not to post any more shorts of any of the interesting work there, would be considered "Work for Hire" - which I believe raises other interesting issues and possibilities. Carptrash (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is 70 years, but that is for musical comp. and etc. this is a sculpture, meaning we cant have photos of planes trains and automoblies, stop making bull reasons why this file can be here because it can. NO EVIDENCE FILE KEPT Obtund^Talk 23:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

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⚡ 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Omarespino.png (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Suspicious file. In the source, uploader claims this is a "cropped photo that i took" - but this user has also uploaded File:OmarESPINOSA.png which is clearly the same image with a different crop, which he says was "sent to me personally" via Facebook. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The photo OmarESPINOSA.png is not the same as Omarespino.png, OmarESPINOSA.png was sent to me but omar told me it was on fb so going throuugh my 2009 files i found ones i took. Omarespino.png was similar but not the same since omar was next to the person in a different angle didn't want the other person in it i cropped the photo so omar's head was the only thing you could see Ericdeaththe2nd

• Please don't feel like you have to make things up to get your images to "stick." It's completely obvious that the two images are cropped from the same photo. If you didn't create the original source image, you don't automatically acquire the right to relicense it under whatever you think it should be - even if it was e-mailed to you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

please do not call me a liar, i know that the two images are similar but are not the same Ericdeaththe2nd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.53.223 (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:A clear face picture of Nelson Piquet S.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Obviously not out of copyright due to age. Eeekster (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (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⚡ 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dmitry Gordon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The same image appears in Russian WP - ru:Файл:Rus c2109-08b.jpg, which links to http://www.gordon.com.ua/, if one struggles with the translation -I did find http://www.gordon.com.ua/images/doc/c2109-08b.jpg, slightly tighter crop but still the same image.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:23, 19 May 2012 (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.