User talk:89.240.107.104

March 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page File:PinkFloydWallCoverOriginalNoText.jpg has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page File:PinkFloydWallCoverOriginalNoText.jpg. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with to File:PinkFloydWallCoverOriginalNoText.jpg. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Tb hotch Ta lk 00:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to File:PinkFloydWallCoverOriginalNoText.jpg, you will be blocked from editing. Tb hotch Ta lk 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war&#32;at File:PinkFloydWallCoverOriginalNoText.jpg. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

The picture is a photograph of the album cover (I have the album!). Therefore it has to have a FUR template, otherwise the picture cannot be used in the article. If you take out the template, then the picture would have to be deleted. The lines may be straight, but the vertical ones are not dead square.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. As long the material does not change, i.e. the threshold of originality remains the same, it could be from any source. No claims can be upheld by any parties. It is simple geometric shapes. The marginal blurring of the angles is irrelevant. In fact a new high res image should be uploaded without fear. I could stay here all day citing US, EU, and UK cases but you kids don't and won't listen. 89.240.107.104 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A high resolution photo could not qualify as fair use. Maybe you should blame Pink Floyd for taking a picture of a wall. P.S. we are not kids, I'm probably older than you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the whole point. The image is not fair use, it's in the public domain as whilst qualifying as a trademark it is not copyrighted or COPYRIGHTABLE as it is made up of simple geometric shapes. Hence it does not pass the threshold of originality required, regardless of its provenance, be it photo, design etc. I feel like I'm arguing against a wall. This place is going to pot. 89.240.107.104 (talk) 03:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just like this photo: File:NoLineU2Promo.jpg, It is just a photo in B&W of the Sun reflected on the water. Originally it wasn't for the album, but U2 bought some rights and put it on their music album, so the image is a copyright as a music cover. Tb hotch Ta lk C. 05:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't care if the image is copyrightable or not - it does not matter. What matters are the facts...
 * Someone took a photo/scanned an album cover.
 * They uploaded the image here (in low res) - and not Commons - because it was a photo of an album cover
 * They added a "Fair Use" template as is required for all photos of album covers.
 * The image was added to the article (as the fair use template requires)
 * Thus if is is copyright, the editor did the correct thing, and if it isn't then no harm is done, Wikipedia is not going to get the Florida lawyers licking their pens.  Ron h jones (Talk) 21:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)