The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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.
Delete since there is an identical version on commons. Different comments here seem to be worried about different issues. In the end, as long as the image is on Commons, there is no need for a duplicate here. Deleting the image here doesn't change the availability of the image for our use, or its actual legal status (whatever that is). If commons later decides the image is nonfree, it will be moved back here. Until then, the local version is redundant to the commons version, so deleting it is the best option. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk) 14:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The symbol was
discussed for over three months at Commons, and there is consensus that the symbol should be considered public domain since it was Prince's legal name and names cannot be copyrighted.
17Drew 02:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as
the discussion at Commons produced no reliable source which confirms that the artist's legal name was indeed at any time aforementioned symbol and that such an act would effectively release the image into the public domain. However, the current revision of the article
Prince (musician) actually cites
a source which explicitly states the contrary, that the artist's legal name remained his birth name (Prince Roger Nelson) at all times. The symbol has also been the subject of at least one
copyright dispute and originally appeared on the cover artwork for
a commercially released music album. Since Prince returned to his former stage name, the symbol has remained closely associated with him, essentially functioning as a logo. In that light, this image belongs on Wikipedia, as fair use material. -
Cyrus XIII 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Logos are not necessarily copyrighted.
The Coca-Cola logo, for example, is simply Coca-Cola in Spencerian Script. It can be trademarked but not copyrighted since fonts are not copyrightable. Only when a logo contains a graphical design can it be copyrighted, like the
Pepsi logo. This is one
glyph, and the discussion at Commons resulted in a consensus that one glyph cannot be copyrighted. If you disagree, then begin another deletion discussion at Commons rather than
circumventing that discussion and uploading a nearly identical file here.
17Drew 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Even if we do not consider fonts to be copyrightable, this does not change the fact, that the logo was was previously the subject of legal dispute and that it would subsequently be in our best interest to tread lightly and apply fair use, instead of making assumptions on the symbol's nature - which one may just as easily consider an original, graphic design (as opposed to a letter), given that it is no part of any alphabet or script. With regard to
WP:CON, another request for deletion from Commons will be made, yet I also believe in
WP:BOLD and prefer to fix a potential violation of
WP:FU when I spot it. I don't see how this should be considered pointmaking. -
Cyrus XIII 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It was not used as a graphic design; he used it as his name, claiming (truly or falsely) that it was his legal name, and the title of
an album (neither names nor titles can be copyrighted). This has already been discussed, and there was a consensus that the symbol should be considered free.
WP:BOLD makes reference to
being bold and then discussing if there is disagreement. Ignoring the consensus because you disagree with it falls under the … but don't be reckless. section.
17Drew 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you have a source which verifies that Prince ever claimed such a thing (seeing that we have sources which directly contradict this notion, as well as the copyrightability of the logo)? -
Cyrus XIII 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Here's an article from City Pages stating that it was used in a font and that he presented it as his legal name.
17Drew 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per (spirit of)
WP:CSD I8 (identical file on Commons) Will(
talk) 10:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep It was the Artist's name, and therefore in the Public Domain.--
Knulclunk 12:38, 18 October 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
we already have one nonfree portrait of this subject
Calliopejen1 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep. Image depicts not a person but the role he was playing in the theater that made headlines. The article discusses the issue specifically. --
Irpen 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep - Yes, I agree with this issue.--
NAHID 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak delete not so much because there's a free image available but because his role as Hamlet is only briefly mentioned, so there's nothing that is significantly enhanced by using this image.
17Drew 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
image does not contribute to readers' understanding more than words alone. we already have a portrait of the subject in his bio article (which says free but may not be...)
Calliopejen1 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep. Image depicts a notable unique historic event, not a person, and this event is discussed in the article. --
Irpen 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep - Ditto. --
NAHID 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
No one has explained how excluding this image would be detrimental to readers' understanding, the criterion from
WP:NONFREE. You can't even tell what's going on in the picture without the caption, he's just reading a paper. Yes, this can't be duplicated because it is historic, but that's true for every event in history.
Calliopejen1 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
1. no free equivalent: cannot prove a negative, but none found (and
Bayeux Tapestry images are not comparable); 2: commercial opportunities: image has been heavily cropped and filtered, should be ok here; 3. minimal: so long as minimal is not zero, yes; 4. previous publication: yes; 5. encyclopedic: yes; 6. media-specific: seems so; 7. used: yes; 8. significance: probably; 9. location: yes; 10. image description: credits source and image owner and includes a fair-use-in rationale. Seems like it should pass the
WP:NFCC tests.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The fact is that image is copyrighted and I am sure it would be possible to find a coin with William I's head on it and take a picture therefore the image is not fair use.
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It appears to me to pass all the fair-use tests: especially telling is the FUR comment that this was a depiction of William as he wished to appear, which is difficult to get in other ways.--
SarekOfVulcan 13:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It is not fair use as a Wikipedia user COULD go and take that picture themselves.
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The image doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding" of anything in the article.
17Drew 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The coin is in a museum, so the photo is replaceable. Regardless, according to the article, "no authentic portrait" of him exists anyways so it's not like it even helps us understand what he looks like.
Calliopejen1 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted - — Carl (
CBM ·
talk) 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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.
Delete since there is an identical version on commons. Different comments here seem to be worried about different issues. In the end, as long as the image is on Commons, there is no need for a duplicate here. Deleting the image here doesn't change the availability of the image for our use, or its actual legal status (whatever that is). If commons later decides the image is nonfree, it will be moved back here. Until then, the local version is redundant to the commons version, so deleting it is the best option. — Carl (
CBM ·
talk) 14:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The symbol was
discussed for over three months at Commons, and there is consensus that the symbol should be considered public domain since it was Prince's legal name and names cannot be copyrighted.
17Drew 02:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, as
the discussion at Commons produced no reliable source which confirms that the artist's legal name was indeed at any time aforementioned symbol and that such an act would effectively release the image into the public domain. However, the current revision of the article
Prince (musician) actually cites
a source which explicitly states the contrary, that the artist's legal name remained his birth name (Prince Roger Nelson) at all times. The symbol has also been the subject of at least one
copyright dispute and originally appeared on the cover artwork for
a commercially released music album. Since Prince returned to his former stage name, the symbol has remained closely associated with him, essentially functioning as a logo. In that light, this image belongs on Wikipedia, as fair use material. -
Cyrus XIII 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Logos are not necessarily copyrighted.
The Coca-Cola logo, for example, is simply Coca-Cola in Spencerian Script. It can be trademarked but not copyrighted since fonts are not copyrightable. Only when a logo contains a graphical design can it be copyrighted, like the
Pepsi logo. This is one
glyph, and the discussion at Commons resulted in a consensus that one glyph cannot be copyrighted. If you disagree, then begin another deletion discussion at Commons rather than
circumventing that discussion and uploading a nearly identical file here.
17Drew 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Even if we do not consider fonts to be copyrightable, this does not change the fact, that the logo was was previously the subject of legal dispute and that it would subsequently be in our best interest to tread lightly and apply fair use, instead of making assumptions on the symbol's nature - which one may just as easily consider an original, graphic design (as opposed to a letter), given that it is no part of any alphabet or script. With regard to
WP:CON, another request for deletion from Commons will be made, yet I also believe in
WP:BOLD and prefer to fix a potential violation of
WP:FU when I spot it. I don't see how this should be considered pointmaking. -
Cyrus XIII 04:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It was not used as a graphic design; he used it as his name, claiming (truly or falsely) that it was his legal name, and the title of
an album (neither names nor titles can be copyrighted). This has already been discussed, and there was a consensus that the symbol should be considered free.
WP:BOLD makes reference to
being bold and then discussing if there is disagreement. Ignoring the consensus because you disagree with it falls under the … but don't be reckless. section.
17Drew 06:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you have a source which verifies that Prince ever claimed such a thing (seeing that we have sources which directly contradict this notion, as well as the copyrightability of the logo)? -
Cyrus XIII 16:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Here's an article from City Pages stating that it was used in a font and that he presented it as his legal name.
17Drew 16:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per (spirit of)
WP:CSD I8 (identical file on Commons) Will(
talk) 10:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep It was the Artist's name, and therefore in the Public Domain.--
Knulclunk 12:38, 18 October 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
we already have one nonfree portrait of this subject
Calliopejen1 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep. Image depicts not a person but the role he was playing in the theater that made headlines. The article discusses the issue specifically. --
Irpen 19:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep - Yes, I agree with this issue.--
NAHID 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak delete not so much because there's a free image available but because his role as Hamlet is only briefly mentioned, so there's nothing that is significantly enhanced by using this image.
17Drew 20:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
image does not contribute to readers' understanding more than words alone. we already have a portrait of the subject in his bio article (which says free but may not be...)
Calliopejen1 18:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep. Image depicts a notable unique historic event, not a person, and this event is discussed in the article. --
Irpen 19:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
keep - Ditto. --
NAHID 20:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
No one has explained how excluding this image would be detrimental to readers' understanding, the criterion from
WP:NONFREE. You can't even tell what's going on in the picture without the caption, he's just reading a paper. Yes, this can't be duplicated because it is historic, but that's true for every event in history.
Calliopejen1 21:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
1. no free equivalent: cannot prove a negative, but none found (and
Bayeux Tapestry images are not comparable); 2: commercial opportunities: image has been heavily cropped and filtered, should be ok here; 3. minimal: so long as minimal is not zero, yes; 4. previous publication: yes; 5. encyclopedic: yes; 6. media-specific: seems so; 7. used: yes; 8. significance: probably; 9. location: yes; 10. image description: credits source and image owner and includes a fair-use-in rationale. Seems like it should pass the
WP:NFCC tests.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 23:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)reply
The fact is that image is copyrighted and I am sure it would be possible to find a coin with William I's head on it and take a picture therefore the image is not fair use.
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It appears to me to pass all the fair-use tests: especially telling is the FUR comment that this was a depiction of William as he wished to appear, which is difficult to get in other ways.--
SarekOfVulcan 13:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)reply
It is not fair use as a Wikipedia user COULD go and take that picture themselves.
Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The image doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding" of anything in the article.
17Drew 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The coin is in a museum, so the photo is replaceable. Regardless, according to the article, "no authentic portrait" of him exists anyways so it's not like it even helps us understand what he looks like.
Calliopejen1 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)reply
Deleted - — Carl (
CBM ·
talk) 14:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply