![]() | This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
As the buildingis under construction, someone can just take a picture of it. Once construction is done, someone can take another picture. Etc. So we don't need to use this image, because we can take our own. There must be at least one wikipedian photographer in Chicago. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The foundation is under construction. The image on the main page does not exist to show whether a building is there or not, or to show a foundation, it exists to show the design of the building. Until the building reaches some sort of measurable height (maybe 10ish stories), the design can be shown using any free image. Until that time, all images are copyrighted by the architect, of which we have permission to use on Wikipedia (and, yes, I'm aware its still copyrighted, even with permission). Chupper 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Silly discussion. Of course there's no free equivalent and won't be until the building is constructed. The building is unbuilt. It's equally silly to argue that a photograph of a notable work of architecture does not add substantially to an understanding of the article. This is a textbook case of permissible free use. Once the building is built it will be a textbook case of replaceability. This discussion should not be had here on a proposal to delete specific images. Architects' renderings of buildings proposed or under construction is a common issue and should not be hashed out on a case by case basis. Wikidemo 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and I'm closing this debate with a decision that the image is not replaceable, since the building does not exist at this time. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For reference, this image was speedily deleted in December 2009 because an administrator stated that this image violated fair use rules. I contested this and discussed with other editors and administrators at the following locations:
See Talk:Chicago Spire for more information on this deletion and restoration and its possible impact on other articles with images of unbuilt buildings. DR04 ( talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: The image was restored after this deletion review by Admin:Spartaz. DR04 ( talk) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama has just placed a tag on this image stating its "disputed whether this image violates our non-free content criteria" because "a Free replacement does exist at File:Chicago spire.svg". This is now the third time this image has been nominated for deletion or has been deleted due to copyright violation allegations.
While Rama may feel he is correct, and has made it clear to me on multiple occasions that everyone else is wrong. A handful of administrators and users disagree with his assessment. In fact there are currently no other editors or admins on Wikipedia or at Commons that have stated his "alternative" is actually free.
Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. DR04 ( talk) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I see where Rama is going with this - he has dived into the grey area between simple shapes and images. Look here. So we need input on this - is this image created by Calatrava fair use? Is a shape of the building a free replacement (per commons:Template:PD-shape)? I'm inclinded to say is is not a free replacement, because its just a shape, but I may be wrong... DR04 ( talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me that this image is legitimate. Either the other image is a derivative of it, and therefore non-free, or it is not a derivative, and therefore not a decent illustration and wholly original research. It is looking like the other image will be deleted, so I can't see this being a massive issue. Once the building is completed, this image can be deleted. J Milburn ( talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: The result of the third dispute was to keep by Admin:Shell Kinney. DR04 ( talk) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin:Rama disputed the image's replaceability again here and again here. Due to previous consensus the tags were removed by Admin:Xeno. DR04 ( talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This file does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
As the buildingis under construction, someone can just take a picture of it. Once construction is done, someone can take another picture. Etc. So we don't need to use this image, because we can take our own. There must be at least one wikipedian photographer in Chicago. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The foundation is under construction. The image on the main page does not exist to show whether a building is there or not, or to show a foundation, it exists to show the design of the building. Until the building reaches some sort of measurable height (maybe 10ish stories), the design can be shown using any free image. Until that time, all images are copyrighted by the architect, of which we have permission to use on Wikipedia (and, yes, I'm aware its still copyrighted, even with permission). Chupper 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Silly discussion. Of course there's no free equivalent and won't be until the building is constructed. The building is unbuilt. It's equally silly to argue that a photograph of a notable work of architecture does not add substantially to an understanding of the article. This is a textbook case of permissible free use. Once the building is built it will be a textbook case of replaceability. This discussion should not be had here on a proposal to delete specific images. Architects' renderings of buildings proposed or under construction is a common issue and should not be hashed out on a case by case basis. Wikidemo 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and I'm closing this debate with a decision that the image is not replaceable, since the building does not exist at this time. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For reference, this image was speedily deleted in December 2009 because an administrator stated that this image violated fair use rules. I contested this and discussed with other editors and administrators at the following locations:
See Talk:Chicago Spire for more information on this deletion and restoration and its possible impact on other articles with images of unbuilt buildings. DR04 ( talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: The image was restored after this deletion review by Admin:Spartaz. DR04 ( talk) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Rama has just placed a tag on this image stating its "disputed whether this image violates our non-free content criteria" because "a Free replacement does exist at File:Chicago spire.svg". This is now the third time this image has been nominated for deletion or has been deleted due to copyright violation allegations.
While Rama may feel he is correct, and has made it clear to me on multiple occasions that everyone else is wrong. A handful of administrators and users disagree with his assessment. In fact there are currently no other editors or admins on Wikipedia or at Commons that have stated his "alternative" is actually free.
Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. DR04 ( talk) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I see where Rama is going with this - he has dived into the grey area between simple shapes and images. Look here. So we need input on this - is this image created by Calatrava fair use? Is a shape of the building a free replacement (per commons:Template:PD-shape)? I'm inclinded to say is is not a free replacement, because its just a shape, but I may be wrong... DR04 ( talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me that this image is legitimate. Either the other image is a derivative of it, and therefore non-free, or it is not a derivative, and therefore not a decent illustration and wholly original research. It is looking like the other image will be deleted, so I can't see this being a massive issue. Once the building is completed, this image can be deleted. J Milburn ( talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI: The result of the third dispute was to keep by Admin:Shell Kinney. DR04 ( talk) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Admin:Rama disputed the image's replaceability again here and again here. Due to previous consensus the tags were removed by Admin:Xeno. DR04 ( talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)