Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/15

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

[edit] July 15

[edit] File:Number_13.jpg

1922 is not PD in UK Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment - well... yes and no. If it was published in 1922, then yes, it's PD. If it was published before 1939, or the author died before 1939, then yes, it's PD. However, proof would be nice... -mattbuck (Talk) 00:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Delete: to qualify for Commons, it has to be PD in US and UK, since the country of origin would very likely be UK if this photo was published. If the author is known, he has to have died before 1926; if unknown, the photo must be published before 1926 (or remain unpublished until 1993).[1] This is to comply with the URAA (UK's 70-year limits must expire before 1 Jan 1996). As Hitchcock was likely not yet a "big-shot" film maker in 1922, this photo would likely not be published. The quality of the image suggests it is scanned from a book, likely a recent publication that dug up those old photos from archives. Unless information is forthcoming to comply with those conditions, delete. Jappalang (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Found that the photo here is uploaded from http://labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html. This site was given the photo by Ray Ridley as early as 23 September 2006. Even its text is blatantly copied for the description here. Therefore, the earliest known publishing of this photo is 7 December 1949 in The Cinema Studio, which would mean copyprotection until 2019 in UK. Jappalang (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Look here: Hitchcock / by Francois Truffaut; with the collaboration of Helen G. Scott. Rev. ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, c1984. UCB Main PN1998.A3 H5731 1984, UCB Morrison PN1998.A3 H5731 1984 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.232.169 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) (UTC)

  I have no idea what you are trying to say. If you mean that the book states Hitchcock was filming Number Thirteen in 1922, that is a given and moot point to make. The issue is when was this photograph published and who took it, not over the plausibility of the photo. Jappalang (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep Photo from 1922, publication rights have expired, {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Light_bottle.jpg

Contemporary glass artwork. No freedom of panorama in Italy. See COM:FOP#Italy Teofilo (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry, as the uploader, if this is a copyright violation, but i thought that a w:light fixture, which this bottle is, as an utilitarian object could bee freely photographed. If this is not it might ok, it could also be useful to see this file from the same author. Tm (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to policy taken from another comment made by Teofilo on another DR. Could´t this Commons:applied arts#cars & chairs be applied in this case? Tm (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any information tending to prove that this light bottle is being used to provide actual lighting in the dark, rather than as a decorative object displayed as a work of art, as part of an art exhibition ? Teofilo (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a look at the Italian law and see what the Italian law says about this sort of works (it is difficult to kwow if the artist is Italian, or if the picture was taken in Italy, but considering this work as an italian work is the best guess we can do).

No I don’t have any definitive evidence only conjectural evidence and suppositions. The flickr page doesn’t provide a lot of information except a tag "light" and a album called lightning that have some light fixtures next to this one. The exif shows (don’t know why I doesn’t appear on commons) that this photo was taken in spot metering mode, that measures a exposure value taking into account only a small percentage what the sensor "sees", and with a d90 that as 11 exposure and focusing areas to select, and with a 200 ISO and an aperture of f/5.6 and without flash, this was taken at a slow speed and probably with some support (do to being sharp, with a tripod, steady hand or stabilized lens) and that might exclude an art gallery or a museum.

Also the areas that are overexposure seem that are coming from inside the bottle and that might indicate the presence of a light bulb, despite no electric cord visible. Despite this there is no context of where this was taken. It might be taken in Italy as this user only as an image taken in Germany, and be an Italian product. The question remains if this product is purely a utilitarian object or if this is a work of art, as this one’s. So I think that it might be prudent to view the Italian law about this. Tm (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If we use what is written in Commons:applied arts#cars & chairs, I think it is probable that the product is copyrighted, because sculptural features that can be identified separately from the utilitarian aspect are copyrighted. A lamp needs a lampshade or something to diffuse the light in order to provide lighting, without dazzling people's eyes. But there is no functional need to give it a bottle-shape. This bottle shape is the expression of the artist's aesthetic views. For example, a light could have a light diffuser with the shape of Mickey-mouse, and Mickey mouse would still remain copyrighted by Disney. (Unless scientists can prove that bottle-shaped lamps consume less energy, or help people with stress recover from stress, which would give it a utilitarian energy-saving or medical purpose) Teofilo (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If this as to be deleted, so be it to be on the safe side of Italian copyright law. I remember that once I so a light fixture, made by a designer, that was made inside a chicken ration dispenser, so that shape and format was "expression of the artist's aesthetic views" with no underlying utilitarian aspect (at least at first sight), so this might be the same case, and so as to be deleted. Tm (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The question that must be answered is What is this object?. If it's a lighting fixture, then it can be photographed without permission. If it is a piece of sculpture then it cannot. Unfortunately, just looking at the picture doesn't give enough information you to tell. --Simonxag (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I´ve uploaded a higher resolution file from the same source, and that higher resolution might answer some the doubts. Tm (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Keep level of creativity seems to be to low to me to talk of a sculpture --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep seems like a mass-produced lamp to me, you can buy a hundred at your nearest home depot or any similar store. Level of artistic expression I think is to low to qualify as original. Mass produced housewares don't hold same copyright status as an indivudal artwork, no evidence this isn't mass-produced. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 08:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Ordinary lighting fixture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Casta2.jpg

It seems to me unlikely that this drawing was made solely for the purpose of using it in Wikipedia. If the uploader made this as part of his job, we need the permission from his employer. If it was already published, we need to be sure that the book publisher is not already enjoying exclusive publishing rights. Teofilo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment The user has uploaded 2 pictures, this and a photo of a similar subject. They need to say who they are and how they came to hold the copyright on this material. Otherwise "own work" just sounds like naiveté from a new user. --Simonxag (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete I doubt "own work" of all of his images. --High Contrast (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Dep2.JPG

Electrical Lighting design, FOP only applies to buildings? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep What is copyrighted here; just some parade. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DisneylandMar6_051.jpg

Interior design - FOP only applies to buildings Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Has the depicted object character of creative work, which can be copyrighted? FOP refers to copyrights of art or similar creative work, not to industrial rights etc. --ŠJů (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

From the look of the image, it's a 'themed' design.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Nom withdrawn, Misunderstanding of US FOP. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem very educationally useful, but it is in use, so  Keep. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Hillburn-dreamer-1955.ogg

No evidence given to support no-notice claim Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So why did you transfer it to commons? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Barbie_warhol_popart.jpg

Possibly Derivative of Warhol artwork... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

1.  Keep - I don't think its possible to claim rights on a style, I made images like that also years ago, so it could be a derivative work of my old work also. I don't see the problem with this image. Huib talk 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Inspired in style by" doesn't make it a copyright violation. On the other hand, I'm not sure if this original art by a presumably non-notable artist is actually in scope for Commons. --Latebird (talk) 13:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

When I checked it, it was in use on 3 wiki's. Huib talk 13:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree ideas cannot be copyrighted, but I wonder about scope, too. Huib, can you remember how it was used? I can only see it on a talk page on en: now. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Delete of course! --Guil2027 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Fulla_in_box.jpg

Regardless of claims - Toy design Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems to be another of the frivolous claims by Sfan00 IMG, who specialises in this sort of thing. While apparently acting in good faith, he/she is a frustrated copyright lawyer, whose hobby is to look for problems where none previously existed. A sad use of a person's time on Wikipedia.--62.31.150.109 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete.--Guil2027 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reinstate at local project: Get this restored locally on enwiki, where the original uploader has suggested it may be fair-use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - Copyrighted toy design. One of the few cases where Sfan00 IMG actually turns out to be right, so the personall attack further above is entirely uncalled for. --Latebird (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Obviously protected by copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:MapaSBASE.JPG

I think that this photo is a {{derivative}} work of a poster of Subterráneos de Buenos Aires Sociedad del Estado (SBASE). Hence, it is copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RussianKeyboardSetup.PNG

Windows screenshot. Background from unknown source. Dereckson (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Are you worrying about those stars?? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Capture-2.png

AVRS (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bzip2-logo.png

AVRS (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Clarion1.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States - FOP not applicable to artworks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Keep I think murals and graffiti should normaly be no problem for our project. Who should claim copyrights for illegal actions? They should be accepted as a kind of decoration which can be found everywhere on trains, buildings ... And the authors intention is to publish his work and release it in a kind of PD. He could never reach a kind of ownership, IMO. If the owner of the decorated object tolerates Graffiti as a kind of decoration it should be accepted as a part of the architecture, too. --Mbdortmund (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete The work is signed "BD" (see flickr) and dated, but here the photographer cropped out the artist's signature and licensing it as own work. Apalling. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Clarion2.JPG

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States - FOP not applicable to artworks Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete Copyright violation of artistic work by Tania Esmeralda and Emily Butterfly; compare http://www.flickr.com/photos/phunk/2674609552/ /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:University_of_Glasgow.jpg

Possibly copyvio if from source given - http://www.gla.ac.uk/legal/copyright/ Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete In use only on a user page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:WillisWard.JPG

Can't find indication of CC-BY-SA release on source listed Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)