File talk:Roy Lichtenstein Whamm Original and Lichtenstein Derivative.gif

I cannot make head nor tail of the Image_copyright_tags page. There are dozens of links leading to dozens of pages each with dozens of links. It's bedlam. The best I could do was come up with a list of over 40 tags, each with its own specific usage criteria. If anyone feels that this images lacks the appropriate tag, then by all means let them add the appropriate tag. But I am afraid that I honestly lack the ability to follow the hyperlinked insanity of the WP: META pages; and my failing is not for want of trying.

So, I am removing the deletion tag on this image, as the person who added did so for the sole reason that it lacks tag 27-B/6 or whatever other copyright tag is needed for an image of images of works of imagery made 50 years ago. They seem to know what tag is needed, and despite earnest efforts I don't, so they can add it. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have failed to add an appropriate copyright notice to the image that was why it was tagged. However, it seems quite academic now as the image has been removed from the article and will be deleted as an orphaned fair-use article which is how I will tag it now. Please don't remove notices from file unless the issue has been dealt with fully. If you are confused you can ask questions at Media copyright questions. The burden of proof is actually on you to provide all the data needed and not expect others to tidy up after you. Cheers. ww2censor (talk) 05:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I must say this it is very disingenuous on your part to so quickly add a second unrelated deletion template to the image when you have not even properly discussed your reasons for adding the first tag. I am removing the tag an adding what I believe, after a very great amount of research, to be the appropriate copyright tag. Hopefully that will satisfy your first objection to the image.


 * As to the second objection, since I believe the Roy Lichtenstein article is well served by this image, I hope that it can be re-included in good time. Until then, I might ask that you at least not add any other tags with more reasons for deletion unless it is strictly neccessary, however many there might be. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't think you understand the how fair use works. The fair use rational justification is that it is being used in an article, so if a fair-use image is orphaned it should be deleted from this wiki per unused unfree images. The fair-use rationale only applies to an image that is being used, so it will have to be tagged again. Sorry ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)