Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 July 7

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image is being licensed as {{PD-self}}, but I do not believe that simply taking a photograph of a copyrighted logo means that you now are the copyright holder and there is no indication that the uploader/photographer is the original copyright holder. Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I contributed this image, seven years ago, my understanding was that three-dimensional objects were not subject to copyright, that this only applied to two-dimensional representations. Since that time several editors have argued that three-dimensional objects, such as cloth patches, should be treated as two-dimensional objects. If that is still the prevailing thought then this should be re-licenced as "fair use" and retained. - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used in a gallery, which is not an option for fair use images. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was easy enough to address -  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: This is not really what Diannaa was referring to. See my comment below in Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 July 7#File:One-O-Wonder.JPG for a more specific explanation. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:One-O-Wonder.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• Similar to reasons given in File:NighthawkCrest.jpg above, the act of taking a photograph of a copyrighted image does not mean that you now are the copyright holder and can license the image as {{PD-self}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchjuly (talk • contribs) 10:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC+9)

At the time I contributed this image, seven years ago, my understanding was that three-dimensional objects were not subject to copyright, that this only applied to two-dimensional representations. Since that time several editors have argued that three-dimensional objects, such as cloth patches, should be treated as two-dimensional objects. If that is still the prevailing thought then this should be re-licenced as "fair use" and retained. - Ahunt (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's being used in a gallery, which is not an option for fair use images. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was easy enough to address -  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt: Not "fixed". The free licensing of the image, not how the image is being used in the article, is what is being discussed here. This cannot be resolved by changing how the image is displayed or marked-up within the article.

I'm pretty sure that Diannaa's comment was made in reference to your above suggestion that relicensing the image as "non-free" would resolve things. The problem with your suggestion is that non-free images are not really allowed to be used in galleries or in a gallery-like way (i.e., for "decorative" purposes) as Diannaa points out per WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#8. Non-free images require the contextual significance of the image be established for them to be used per NFCC#8. Right now, the use of this image is simply "decorative" because it is not the subject of any sourced discussion within the article itself. So, if it were licensed as "non-free", it could be removed (per NFCC#8). - Marchjuly (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I meant. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aware of the greater arguments here, I was only dealing with the one single issue that the possibly unfree image was in a gallery, which was easy to fix. We still have to decide the fate of the image itself, of course. - Ahunt (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your "fix" would not really be a fix at all if the image was non-free. Changing the format used to display the image from "gallery" to something else does not make the image's use any less decorative and provide the "contextual significance" it needs per NFCC#8. If you want to re-license the image as non-free and use it in the article, then adding sourced discussion about the image itself to the article is what is going to give it the "contextual significance" it needs. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: keep. The image is likely in the public domain. — ξ^xplicit 06:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bazaar57fn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This seems to suggest that the April 1957 issue of Harper's bazaar has its copyright renewed.

(Renewal registration for: B00000643634 / 1957-03-25. Title:Harper’s bazaar. Vol. 90, no. 2945, Apr. 1957.) Deadstar (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1957 copyright was originally held by Taffy's of California but was never renewed and fell into the public domain after 28 yrs. The image is now in the public domain and Taffy's of California no longer exists. Schmausschmaus (talk)

Here's my reasoning: On the image it states "originally published in Harper's Bazaar, April 1957" so I presumed they were the ones with the copyright; ie they did a photo shoot of which the image is part. The whole of the magazine was renewed, which would include this image, and as such would only be available for Fair Use. How do you know the image copyright was held by Taffy's of California? Deadstar (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I have misunderstood something, the photograph is covered by the renewal of the issue of Harper's Bazaar, at least unless the picture has its own separate copyright notice in which case it might have to be separately registered and renewed. From what I have understood, the renewal of a magazine generally covers everything in the magazine, except for advertisements and previously published material. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note left on my talkpage:

"One last comment. The page and image are not from Harper's Bazaar strictly speaking. They were promotional flyers for Taffy's after Taffy's had commissioned the photo. Harper's Bazaar subsequently published the photo and text ("featured editorially in Harper's Bazaar") but with Taffy's permission. The photo and text belonged to Taffy's. 19:09, 7 July 2015 Schmausschmaus (talk)"

@Stefan2: This is what you were saying too. Based on that - Are we happy to say it's likely in the PD per license given & I can move the image to Commons? Or do we need some type of proof (which could be impossible to come by)? @Schmausschmaus: How do you know the image was commissioned by Taffy's of California? Deadstar (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A note left on my talkpage:

When I was working on the article I had access to archive materials. The image is a Taffy's of California flyer; it is not from a magazine. Harper's Bazaar did later publish the cotton in the evening image as a bonus for the full page ad. The full page ad Taffyhbfn.jpg in those days cost $5,500, about $50,000 in today's money. Taffy's then sent the cotton in the evening image and text, which they owned, to the magazine which included it in their content gratis. That was the way fashion mags worked in those days. Schmausschmaus (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2015

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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:John-bridgeman-photo-of-art.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of permission from the named creator, who died in 2004. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

c:Commons:Freedom of panorama could apply here if the issue was the sculpture aspect, but the issue is whether the uploader even has the license for the image. This would have been better marked as {{npd}} (no evidence of permission, delayed deletion). – czar 07:21, 29 July 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Czar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bridgeman Girl by a Pool.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No claim that the uploader is the creator; nor otherwise evidence of permission from the creator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 7 July 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Both images were deleted in July. Diannaa (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rimstock building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Rimstock Plc. Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Two copies of the same file, inconsistent source, author and licensing information. Since we don't know what's correct, we don't know whether we have sufficient permission for this or not. Note that the uploader also claims that this is a logo, which it quite obviously isn't - it's a photo of a building! --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.