- Per user request as my brother, Elvir, wants the picture of himself taken off immediately. -- Radoncic ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Possibly, if you are not sure give it the benefit of the doubt. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that it's an unfree image, but fair use has been claimed. -- RG 2 06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet the criteria for non free content for images - no fair use rational. [[ Guest9999 ( talk) 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]]
- Delete unless a Fair Use Rationale is added. If one is, switch this !vote to Keep. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Possibly, if you are not sure give it the benefit of the doubt. Shows relevant event. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that it's an unfree image, but fair use has been claimed. However, delete, as our use of the image in question infringes on the copyright holder's commercial opportunities, as The Liberal profits from disseminating news stories and photographs. The photo itself is not particularly notable, nor is it discussed in the article -- rather, the content of the photo is discussed. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy #2 and Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images #2. -- RG 2 06:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Possibly, if you are not sure give it the benefit of the doubt. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image description page makes no claim that it is a free image; fair use is claimed. But delete this as a replaceable non-free image of a living person. -- RG 2 06:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Free image available and in Anna Politkovskaya. Orphaned fair use now. -- RG 2 06:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- May delete. Still busy with trying to get permission. - PietervHuis 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This image is from the Russian Wikipedia. However, I couldn't use the image from the russian Wikipedia right away, so I had to upload it again to the English Wikipedia. - PietervHuis 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it's already on commons at Image:Могила Анны Политковской.JPG - no need to have a separate copy on english wikipedia. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader removed PD-self unexplained but used the image page like an article. Jusjih ( talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unused image, terrible quality -- Icarus ( Hi!) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Same as above: unused, terrible quality --
Icarus (
Hi!)
06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - That's fine, seeing as a better replacement was found. Mshake3 ( talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This image is a picture of the creator and his brother, used on an article about himself which is currently up for speedy deletion. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 08:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- On the one hand, it overwrote an image of the same title. On the other, I don't think that image was used anywhere. Go ahead and delete, especially since the uploader of the new image has been indefinitely blocked. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphan: This is an instrumental recording of "O Canada", which appears to have been copied from Spanish Wikipedia by a bot. The image's page lists Emijrpbot as the uploader, but no such user account exists here. The file is unused on English Wikipedia, and there are already several recordings of "O Canada" on English Wikipedia, both vocal and instrumental (see
O Canada). —
Ka-Ping Yee (
talk)
11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If this is a free recording, shouldn't it be moved to the Commons? *** Crotalus *** 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Interrobang² ( notify | contribs).
- The description is wrong, it is too small to be used for any good, and it is being used on one page, out of context. 88.110.122.176 ( talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might be right about that but it none of that violated the fair-use rational. You use of this delete mechanism (fair-use) is flawed, keep the picture, provide reason why it violates fair-use, or find another rational.19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted Fails WP:NFCC #8. - Nv8200p talk 13:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might be right about that but it none of that violated the fair-use rational. You use of this delete mechanism (fair-use) is flawed, keep the picture, provide reason why it violates fair-use, or find another rational.19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- This was uploaded with a GFDL license, but is clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show, with a caption below it. Phirazo 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This was uploaded with a GFDL license, but is clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show, with a caption below it. Phirazo 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Musical overdose ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, unencyclopedic Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What does orphaned mean? and why is it unencyclopedic? It shows who he is and I've got emailed permission from him to use it. Otherwise what would you suggest be put in its place? Musical overdose ( talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Orphan" means it isn't used in any articles. It's "unencyclopedic" because the encyclopedia article on this person was deleted. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Gutierrez, although that may leave you with more questions. . .) – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
- probably originally for userpage, now Orphaned and Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by SOy_OSKuRiToHeh ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, no description to tell where this is. Anyone have more information about this photo? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, it's Querétaro - I withdraw the deletion request and will mark as move to commons. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (likely the logo of the uploader's restaurant [whose article was deleted]) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Finalseraphim ( notify | contribs).
- appears to be a non-free screenshot Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Quadarockz ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, and no sources for any of the component images Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Funhistory ( notify | contribs).
- admitted copyvio Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep--I created this image--it's entirely my own work--but it's based on the official seating chart published by Cirque du Soleil. I don't believe it's a copyright violation because it's only a scaled-down version of the original for purposes of discussion on the Quidam page to clarify the differences between their published chart, & what people attending the show can actually expect. My understanding is that this is not a copyright violation, & I don't know where you see an "admission" of a "copyvio".-- Funhistory ( talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I said it was an admitted copyvio because you just scaled down an existing seating chart. It really looks like that is what you did, considering new large numbers are just pasted over old smaller numbers - a strange sort of formatting if you were creating the image from scratch. Since someone else could make a similar image from scratch conveying the same thing, this is replaceable fair use. If you'd like to just use the outlines of the shapes that's one thing but here they've colored them in distinctively, added labeling, etc. Since you shrunk all that down, it's still a derivative work of the original. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should I redo it & upload a new version with formatting that gives it an even more different look (it's hard to make a 3-digit number look dramatically different, but maybe I'll italicize it), or should I just wait till you delete this one & give the new one a slightly different name? Also, let me know what colors you'd like the shading to be--do you have a favorite color? Since it's my own work, I can make whatever pleases you, though I can't change the basic seating arrangement & stage since that's the way the real thing is.-- Funhistory ( talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think Calliopejen's concern is that you took a work authored by somebody else, scaled it down and redid the numbers. Doing so does not make this your own work, but rather a derivative work, which falls under (and fails, in this instance) the fair use criteria. If you wanted to illustrate the seating for this event, you would have to create your own diagram from scratch (IE draw everything yourself by hand without using any portion of the original work). The article could survive without the seating chart, so this might be a lost cause already. Lastly, I would ask you to plase not be a dick when responding to concerns from other editors. This weakens your point and makes any further dialogue unhelpful. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would submit that sarcasm & ludicrousness are more civil than profanity & obscenity, but I appreciate the fact that you were just being your true self.-- Funhistory ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Biglobiglo ( notify | contribs).
- derivative work of mural, and UK FOP does not apply to murals [2] Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=delete){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=history){kind=link}
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Ue Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Sean_gorter ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Clipperton ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, not enough info in description to determine encyclopedic use Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Kiwiaussiemike ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, not enough info to determine encyclopedic use Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, derivative work of copyrighted image Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no longer needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebwite ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by HouseOfScandal ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, claimed "non-copyright" because a press release, but that's highly doubtful Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Several pictures included in the overall one are clear copyright violations (e.g.: Brancusi, Hagi, Comaneci). Dahn ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is author's own work, it's obvious it's not violating nothing Adrianzax ( talk) 10:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean you took the photos of Brancusi, Hagi and Comăneci? If you didn't, then it's a derived work and yes, that means it's a copyright violation
bogdan (
talk)
11:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The authors of the original pictures with Brancusi and Comaneci are dead or not requesting any kind of copyright for their pictures.
Adrianzax (
talk)
11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the authors license the images under a license compatible with Wikipedia, you are not supposed to use them. see
Wikipedia:Image use policy. BTW, just because the author is dead doesn't mean you can use their works as you please. Let me remind you that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
bogdan (
talk)
12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The 2 pictures from the colage you're talking about are a derived work from the original. The image as a whole is my own work . The authors of the original these 2 pictures are either dead or not requesting license for their work. Adrianzax ( talk) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the authors license the images under a license compatible with Wikipedia, you are not supposed to use them. see
Wikipedia:Image use policy. BTW, just because the author is dead doesn't mean you can use their works as you please. Let me remind you that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
bogdan (
talk)
12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The authors of the original pictures with Brancusi and Comaneci are dead or not requesting any kind of copyright for their pictures.
Adrianzax (
talk)
11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The authors of the original pictures are dead for more than 50 years and any copyright claim is irrelevant.
Mario1987 (
talk)
13:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gheorghe Hagi is only 42 years old. He would have been around -8 years when the photographer died. bogdan ( talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The picture of Gheorghe Hagi is not disputed for licensing, this picture dosn't exist in the web and no one can claim the licensing because it's made by me or my friends. Adrianzax ( talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The photo of Năstase is from some random website:
http://www.americatoday.com/sports/tennis/nastase.jpg
bogdan (
talk)
14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- And they have licensed this picture or they require their aproval for using the picture? NO...
Adrianzax (
talk)
14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Adrianzax, even that site has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the screen. Dahn ( talk) 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- And they have licensed this picture or they require their aproval for using the picture? NO...
Adrianzax (
talk)
14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The photo of Năstase is from some random website:
http://www.americatoday.com/sports/tennis/nastase.jpg
bogdan (
talk)
14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- As there's no doubt that the image is a copyright violation, I deleted it. See: Wikipedia:Speedy deletions#G12 bogdan ( talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per user request as my brother, Elvir, wants the picture of himself taken off immediately. -- Radoncic ( talk) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Possibly, if you are not sure give it the benefit of the doubt. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 21:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's no doubt that it's an unfree image, but fair use has been claimed. -- RG 2 06:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, does not meet the criteria for non free content for images - no fair use rational. [[ Guest9999 ( talk) 15:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)]]
- Delete unless a Fair Use Rationale is added. If one is, switch this !vote to Keep. GeeJo (t)⁄ (c) • 16:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Possibly, if you are not sure give it the benefit of the doubt. Shows relevant event. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 21:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is no doubt that it's an unfree image, but fair use has been claimed. However, delete, as our use of the image in question infringes on the copyright holder's commercial opportunities, as The Liberal profits from disseminating news stories and photographs. The photo itself is not particularly notable, nor is it discussed in the article -- rather, the content of the photo is discussed. See Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Policy #2 and Wikipedia:Non-free content#Unacceptable images #2. -- RG 2 06:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Possibly, if you are not sure give it the benefit of the doubt. - Mafia Expert ( talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The image description page makes no claim that it is a free image; fair use is claimed. But delete this as a replaceable non-free image of a living person. -- RG 2 06:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Free image available and in Anna Politkovskaya. Orphaned fair use now. -- RG 2 06:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- May delete. Still busy with trying to get permission. - PietervHuis 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pietervhuis ( notify | contribs).
- CV Possibly unfree image. Strothra ( talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This image is from the Russian Wikipedia. However, I couldn't use the image from the russian Wikipedia right away, so I had to upload it again to the English Wikipedia. - PietervHuis 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I deleted it because it's already on commons at Image:Могила Анны Политковской.JPG - no need to have a separate copy on english wikipedia. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader removed PD-self unexplained but used the image page like an article. Jusjih ( talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unused image, terrible quality -- Icarus ( Hi!) 06:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Same as above: unused, terrible quality --
Icarus (
Hi!)
06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - That's fine, seeing as a better replacement was found. Mshake3 ( talk) 16:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This image is a picture of the creator and his brother, used on an article about himself which is currently up for speedy deletion. Lilac Soul ( talk • contribs • count) 08:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- On the one hand, it overwrote an image of the same title. On the other, I don't think that image was used anywhere. Go ahead and delete, especially since the uploader of the new image has been indefinitely blocked. — C.Fred ( talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphan: This is an instrumental recording of "O Canada", which appears to have been copied from Spanish Wikipedia by a bot. The image's page lists Emijrpbot as the uploader, but no such user account exists here. The file is unused on English Wikipedia, and there are already several recordings of "O Canada" on English Wikipedia, both vocal and instrumental (see
O Canada). —
Ka-Ping Yee (
talk)
11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If this is a free recording, shouldn't it be moved to the Commons? *** Crotalus *** 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Interrobang² ( notify | contribs).
- The description is wrong, it is too small to be used for any good, and it is being used on one page, out of context. 88.110.122.176 ( talk) 15:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might be right about that but it none of that violated the fair-use rational. You use of this delete mechanism (fair-use) is flawed, keep the picture, provide reason why it violates fair-use, or find another rational.19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted Fails WP:NFCC #8. - Nv8200p talk 13:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might be right about that but it none of that violated the fair-use rational. You use of this delete mechanism (fair-use) is flawed, keep the picture, provide reason why it violates fair-use, or find another rational.19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- This was uploaded with a GFDL license, but is clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show, with a caption below it. Phirazo 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- This was uploaded with a GFDL license, but is clearly a screenshot of a copyrighted TV show, with a caption below it. Phirazo 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Musical overdose ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, unencyclopedic Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What does orphaned mean? and why is it unencyclopedic? It shows who he is and I've got emailed permission from him to use it. Otherwise what would you suggest be put in its place? Musical overdose ( talk) 16:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Orphan" means it isn't used in any articles. It's "unencyclopedic" because the encyclopedia article on this person was deleted. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Gutierrez, although that may leave you with more questions. . .) – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- probably originally for userpage, now Orphaned and Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by SOy_OSKuRiToHeh ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, no description to tell where this is. Anyone have more information about this photo? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, it's Querétaro - I withdraw the deletion request and will mark as move to commons. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 22:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (likely the logo of the uploader's restaurant [whose article was deleted]) Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Finalseraphim ( notify | contribs).
- appears to be a non-free screenshot Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Quadarockz ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, and no sources for any of the component images Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Funhistory ( notify | contribs).
- admitted copyvio Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep--I created this image--it's entirely my own work--but it's based on the official seating chart published by Cirque du Soleil. I don't believe it's a copyright violation because it's only a scaled-down version of the original for purposes of discussion on the Quidam page to clarify the differences between their published chart, & what people attending the show can actually expect. My understanding is that this is not a copyright violation, & I don't know where you see an "admission" of a "copyvio".-- Funhistory ( talk) 02:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I said it was an admitted copyvio because you just scaled down an existing seating chart. It really looks like that is what you did, considering new large numbers are just pasted over old smaller numbers - a strange sort of formatting if you were creating the image from scratch. Since someone else could make a similar image from scratch conveying the same thing, this is replaceable fair use. If you'd like to just use the outlines of the shapes that's one thing but here they've colored them in distinctively, added labeling, etc. Since you shrunk all that down, it's still a derivative work of the original. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should I redo it & upload a new version with formatting that gives it an even more different look (it's hard to make a 3-digit number look dramatically different, but maybe I'll italicize it), or should I just wait till you delete this one & give the new one a slightly different name? Also, let me know what colors you'd like the shading to be--do you have a favorite color? Since it's my own work, I can make whatever pleases you, though I can't change the basic seating arrangement & stage since that's the way the real thing is.-- Funhistory ( talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think Calliopejen's concern is that you took a work authored by somebody else, scaled it down and redid the numbers. Doing so does not make this your own work, but rather a derivative work, which falls under (and fails, in this instance) the fair use criteria. If you wanted to illustrate the seating for this event, you would have to create your own diagram from scratch (IE draw everything yourself by hand without using any portion of the original work). The article could survive without the seating chart, so this might be a lost cause already. Lastly, I would ask you to plase not be a dick when responding to concerns from other editors. This weakens your point and makes any further dialogue unhelpful. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 22:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would submit that sarcasm & ludicrousness are more civil than profanity & obscenity, but I appreciate the fact that you were just being your true self.-- Funhistory ( talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Biglobiglo ( notify | contribs).
- derivative work of mural, and UK FOP does not apply to murals [2] Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Ue Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Sean_gorter ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Clipperton ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, not enough info in description to determine encyclopedic use Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Kiwiaussiemike ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, not enough info to determine encyclopedic use Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, derivative work of copyrighted image Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no longer needed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebwite ( talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- - uploaded by HouseOfScandal ( notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, claimed "non-copyright" because a press release, but that's highly doubtful Calliopejen1 ( talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Several pictures included in the overall one are clear copyright violations (e.g.: Brancusi, Hagi, Comaneci). Dahn ( talk) 00:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is author's own work, it's obvious it's not violating nothing Adrianzax ( talk) 10:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean you took the photos of Brancusi, Hagi and Comăneci? If you didn't, then it's a derived work and yes, that means it's a copyright violation
bogdan (
talk)
11:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The authors of the original pictures with Brancusi and Comaneci are dead or not requesting any kind of copyright for their pictures.
Adrianzax (
talk)
11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the authors license the images under a license compatible with Wikipedia, you are not supposed to use them. see
Wikipedia:Image use policy. BTW, just because the author is dead doesn't mean you can use their works as you please. Let me remind you that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
bogdan (
talk)
12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The 2 pictures from the colage you're talking about are a derived work from the original. The image as a whole is my own work . The authors of the original these 2 pictures are either dead or not requesting license for their work. Adrianzax ( talk) 12:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless the authors license the images under a license compatible with Wikipedia, you are not supposed to use them. see
Wikipedia:Image use policy. BTW, just because the author is dead doesn't mean you can use their works as you please. Let me remind you that copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of the author.
bogdan (
talk)
12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The authors of the original pictures with Brancusi and Comaneci are dead or not requesting any kind of copyright for their pictures.
Adrianzax (
talk)
11:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The authors of the original pictures are dead for more than 50 years and any copyright claim is irrelevant.
Mario1987 (
talk)
13:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gheorghe Hagi is only 42 years old. He would have been around -8 years when the photographer died. bogdan ( talk) 13:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The picture of Gheorghe Hagi is not disputed for licensing, this picture dosn't exist in the web and no one can claim the licensing because it's made by me or my friends. Adrianzax ( talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The photo of Năstase is from some random website:
http://www.americatoday.com/sports/tennis/nastase.jpg
bogdan (
talk)
14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- And they have licensed this picture or they require their aproval for using the picture? NO...
Adrianzax (
talk)
14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Adrianzax, even that site has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the screen. Dahn ( talk) 15:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- And they have licensed this picture or they require their aproval for using the picture? NO...
Adrianzax (
talk)
14:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The photo of Năstase is from some random website:
http://www.americatoday.com/sports/tennis/nastase.jpg
bogdan (
talk)
14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- As there's no doubt that the image is a copyright violation, I deleted it. See: Wikipedia:Speedy deletions#G12 bogdan ( talk) 16:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)