File talk:Original Ed Thorp Trophy.jpg

Comments moved from file page
The comment below was originally posted to the file's main page; I have moved it here. Levdr1 lp /  talk  15:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Here, you do not seem to understand how copyright truly works. So long as an image is given the true source of where it came from, and who the true taker of the image is, it is fine to use the image unless they themselves or the owner of the item make a statement against it.  You don't have to bring up your own taken image in order for the image to be used, as many on the website are taken from other websites, including characters such as Homer Simpson, Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny are seen in here.  Considering the trophy is no longer used, the odds of this occurring are very slim.  Thus, the image does not have to be taken down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapper930 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - I strongly suggest you review WP:NFCCP, specifically the first criterion: "no free equivalent". Could you conceivably create or obtain a free equivalent w/ respect to this photo's copyright?  Yes, you could, so in my view, this file violates Wikipedia's own non-free content policy.  Feel free to ask me any questions you may have, but know that if you don't address the concerns I've raised, this file will most likely be deleted- just like File:Thorp Trophy.png was deleted just two days ago, and for the very same reasons detailed at that file's (now deleted) talk page.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  15:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you would like to go to that option, I will. The Packers Hall of Fame is a Hall that costs money to visit.  Thus, one would have to pay to get the picture in the first place.  With this one as the image is credits the original site and the owner, it does not violate any terms and does not need to be deleted in any way.  It could be replaced if a better image is to be found, but it does not need to be removed.Tapper930 (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - For several reasons, some with legal considerations, Wikipedia enforces a higher standard for non-free fair use claims. One of the criteria detailed at WP:NFCCP is that no free equivalent exists or could exist.  You could conceivably take a new photo of the trophy.  Alternatively, you could receive permission from the author of this photo.  Failing either of those two options, the file will almost certainly be deleted.  The "no free equivalent" requirement isn't optional; it's part of a strictly enforced site policy.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As I would still be posting their item that I took a photo of, it would still be copyright violation, and it would in fact be a greater copyright violation that I could be violating, as I could be, practically, claiming the item to be my own. Even if it were worded in a way that people saw nothing of that, I would need the permission of the corporation to post the image, as it is not my item.Tapper930 (talk) 04:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - If you were to take a new photo of the trophy, then yes, there would still (presumably) be a copyright attached to the trophy design in the new photo. However, given that a free equivalent of the trophy design (presumably) cannot be either created or obtained, then such a photo could potentially be uploaded as a derivative work according to Wikipedia's policy on non-free content criteria (including but not limited to WP:NFCCP: "no free equivalent").  This file, however, has not one, but two copyrights attached to it: 1) the trophy design (presumably no free equivalent); and, 2) the photo itself (possible to create or obtain a free equivalent).  I know it may seem confusing, but whoever took this photo still owns a copyright for it, even if the photo contains a (presumably) copyrighted design like the trophy.  That's not to say the photo's author can freely publish the photo; he/she is still bound to respect the copyright of the trophy design in the photo.  Again, there are two copyrights to consider here, and that's at least one too many given the case.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  09:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This is not to say that is isn't confusing, but that you are adding to the confusion. Due to the fact that the item itself is not used, they would not have what you call for as the first copyright.  It is stated that non-free content may be used if free content is not able to be obtained.  Since you must pay to get the image, and cannot simply take an image off the street, there is no free content.  There is the question of the second copyright, which, as I have stated, is covered with the statement in the description.  If the statement need to be fixed, that may be done.  However, there is no need to delete the image due to a "non-free content criteria".Tapper930 (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - Could you or someone else conceivably take a new photo? Yes.  Could you or someone else conceivably ask for and receive permission from the author of this photo?  Yes.  I don't recall the part of WP:NFCCP which states "no free equivalent except when a user isn't willing to put in the work necessary to create or obtain a free equivalent".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  03:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * - To clarify, the "free" in "no free equivalent" refers to free content (as Wikipedia is free content). "Free" does not refer to the cost of creating or obtaining such content.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  20:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * From the "free" content, as I have stated, the only one that would truly have to be done is to ask. However, by giving them credit, I believe that solves it unless they would like the image taken down.  If so, the image does.  Until then, it is fine to stay.Tapper930 (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - No, "giving them credit" is not the same thing as receiving permission from the author. So, no, it's not "fine to stay".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think that you don't understand how the copyright works in this case. As I have stated, there are numerous images, such as Homer Simpson.  Due to the fact that this is a non-profit website, the work has to simply credit the original taker of the photo, and the rest is fine.  However, if the original owner wants it down, they can ask, and it will have to come down.  This is why it works.Tapper930 (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - Per the non-free content guideline: "The use of non-free content on Wikipedia is therefore subject to purposely stricter standards than those laid down in U.S. copyright law." So no, it's still not "fine".   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  07:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You keep coming back to this, and they are two separate things. Due to the fact that it is an image, and can not be optioned in any other means, it is fine that it is posted here with the source of the image also posted, until the owner ask that it be taken down. Tapper930 (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - I'm sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you've talking about, or how it relates to Wikipedia's standards for uploading non-free content. Perhaps you could link to the relevant policy and/or guideline which supports your position.  Until then, at least in my view, this file needs to go.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  08:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As a photo is not free to obtain, and would have to be asked to even post the photo obtained on wikipedia, it is thus not a non-free content. Following that, the image falls under acceptable us 8 among non-free content images, as it is an image of an item with iconic status.  Thus, if the taker of the photo is credited in the description, the image did not have to be removed unless the organization or the taker would like it to be, due to the fact that the site of wikipedia is a non-profit.Tapper930 (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - The file has been deleted. Unless you can link to a specific policy or guideline which supports your position on uploading non-free content, there's really nothing left to discuss here.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  09:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I realize that the file has been deleted, which is why my sentence was in the past tense. This is why I would like to put a new one up if possible-which I have seen happen before-due to the facts I have listed above.Tapper930 (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

- Still no link to a policy or guideline? Ok. Your assertions are meaningless if you can't back them up. Levdr1 lp /  talk  08:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have given you one in the previous comment from April 6th-


 * "As a photo is not free to obtain, and would have to be asked to even post the photo obtained on wikipedia, it is thus not a non-free content. Following that, the image falls under acceptable us 8 among non-free content images, as it is an image of an item with iconic status.  Thus, if the taker of the photo is credited in the description, the image did not have to be removed unless the organization or the taker would like it to be, due to the fact that the site of wikipedia is a non-profit."


 * However, if you would still like the link to this one, here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content.Tapper930 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - You're not quoting a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but rather your own unsupported assertions. Let me know when you find something on this site from a relevant policy or guideline on uploading non-free content that supports your position.  Until then, the file will almost certainly remain deleted.   Levdr1 lp  /  talk  09:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * As I left the link in the final comment that led to the page I was referring to, and the description of my statement was, if read and followed, able to be lead to the policy, I don't see what the problem is here. However, if you insist that I post the actual policy, then:


 * Non-free content that meets all of the policy criteria above but does not fall under one of the designated categories below may or may not be allowable, depending on what the material is and how it is used. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, and depending on the situation there are exceptions. When in doubt as to whether non-free content may be included, please make a judgement based on the spirit of the policy, not necessarily the exact wording. If you want help in assessing whether a use is acceptable, please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. It may also be useful to ask at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content; these are places where those who understand copyright law and Wikipedia policy are likely to be watching.


 * Acceptable Use


 * Images


 * 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance:
 * Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate.
 * Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used if they meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance. Note that in the case the image is from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary, it is assumed automatically to fail the second test of "respect for commercial opportunity".


 * Due to the fact that the trophy image is of iconic status, it is suitable to be posted up on the wikipedia site.Tapper930 (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * - Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is an iconic image. As such, File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg is an appropriate example of uploading non-free content for use in an article. I hope that helps, though I'm a bit skeptical given how long this thread has dragged on, so I think I'm done here. If you have more questions/comments/concerns, feel free to contact the administrator who deleted the file, or you can seek assistance at the WP:Village Pump, WP:IMAGEHELP, etc.  Levdr1 lp  /  talk  09:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)