The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Given that the cards uploaded will almost certainly be deleted for failure of
WP:FU, there is no reason to keep this template. --
tennisman03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The guidelines cite "uses that would almost certainly not be fair use under the policy", and give a Barry Bonds card as an example. It seems there should be some policy regarding "old" players, for many of whom there are few extant photos, other than old sports cards. While these cards were not "free", and have value today, the cards themselves are the property of their owners. The copyright holders have no claim to the cards and are not economically injured or restrained by use of the card in a Wikipedia article. On the contrary, use of the copyright owner's name in the caption or the article can be seen as a positive economic benefit to that owner.
SugnuSicilianu03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment/Questions Although the cards themselves are property of their owners, what does this have to do with the content (i.e., the images) of the cards, which is what the copyright applies to. Furthermore, how, as you claim, do "copyright holders have no claim to the cards?" I fail to see the rationale behind that. Please explain. Also, you brought up the fact that the cards have value, somewhat alluding to their "freeness." I would suggest that you look into the various meanings of "free" here:
Gratis vs. Libre -
Seidenstud03:33, 22 June 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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Given that the cards uploaded will almost certainly be deleted for failure of
WP:FU, there is no reason to keep this template. --
tennisman03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
The guidelines cite "uses that would almost certainly not be fair use under the policy", and give a Barry Bonds card as an example. It seems there should be some policy regarding "old" players, for many of whom there are few extant photos, other than old sports cards. While these cards were not "free", and have value today, the cards themselves are the property of their owners. The copyright holders have no claim to the cards and are not economically injured or restrained by use of the card in a Wikipedia article. On the contrary, use of the copyright owner's name in the caption or the article can be seen as a positive economic benefit to that owner.
SugnuSicilianu03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment/Questions Although the cards themselves are property of their owners, what does this have to do with the content (i.e., the images) of the cards, which is what the copyright applies to. Furthermore, how, as you claim, do "copyright holders have no claim to the cards?" I fail to see the rationale behind that. Please explain. Also, you brought up the fact that the cards have value, somewhat alluding to their "freeness." I would suggest that you look into the various meanings of "free" here:
Gratis vs. Libre -
Seidenstud03:33, 22 June 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 template's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.