User talk:Elcobbola/Archive5

The Fat Man will miss you
You were one of the good ones: brilliant, kind and more helpful than any admin. It's a pity you won't be around, but after many months of thankless toil, one deserves a very long break. Perhaps you will find yourself adequately refreshed to consider returning someday, but if not, perhaps I'll see you on Commons. It was always a pleasure working with you, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy 's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:EVula/Userboxes/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You say you're retired. I am sad. You're the best Fair Use expert I've ever seen. I'll be thrilled when you return. Be sure to let me know. — Rlevse • Talk  • 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. Hope you change your mind.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

15 minutes of fame
You're so famous! I received the "Elcobbola Image Reviewing Star" the other day (see here). Awadewit (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An Elcobbola barnstar? My, my, what ever has happened to this place in my absence. ;P  Эlcobbola  talk 19:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing good, well, except an Elcobbola barnstar :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're still around...
While you might not be up to fielding image requests, I was wondering if I could get your input on a problematic image, Image:Myst bluescreen.png; it's a composition of two separate images I made to illustrate an article. The game's developer, Presto Studios, ceased software development and closed down, leaving the game's publisher Ubisoft holding the game's reigns (thus under the Ubisoft license the screenshot is free use.) However I'm not sure what happens to the production shot. The image cannot be found at the original site which hosted the image, and so I'm unsure how the image should be licensed or if there's any individual author credited (unlikely). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While it may depend upon the contractual relationship between Presto and Ubisoft (in some such relationships, authors retain copyrights; in others, copyrights are contractually assigned to the publisher), the Ubisoft tag has several problems:
 * The original permission received from Ubisoft says: "User dürfen ... Bilder von unseren Spielen machen und einstellen" (emphasis mine). My reading/interpretation is that a production shot is not really a picture of the game and, therefore, not within the scope of the release.
 * The permission sentence "No evidence is given that Presto transferred copyrights to such images to Ubisoft" indicates a WP:V problem.
 * My principle concern is always that of misleading our readership. While it's possible the Ubisoft tag is applicable, my recommendation in the presence of what seems to be reasonable concern would be to use a non-free tag and rationale to avoid misrepresentation.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well look who's here :-) Now, I'll add some abuse, in the form of a German Request :-)  WP:FCDW/OtherWikis  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have emailed Herr Fuchs - or just kept to the Commons and let folks gradually figure out I hadn't retired there. Due date?  Same outline-esque format?  Эlcobbola  talk 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No due date, long planning horizon, since we don't even know who might add other languages. I'd ask Giano to add Italian, but he's embroiled in another admin-fueled dramafest. Same outline format, depending on what we get, we'll prosify it later.  (Nostros es mucha gente: I'll probably ask Karanacs to prosify it.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the counsel; I've elaborated on the issues in description and added two FURs and Non-free promotional tag. I'd give you your own barnstar, but that seems cliched somehow :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Not fer nuthin'
But it sucks that you're not around anymore. --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiny Thompson
I wonder if you're inviting problems to have me ask questions here. On this image: File:Tiny Thompson.jpg, for the Tiny Thompson article, at FAC now, has produced this information and I'm unsure how to advise the nominator. --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the copyright could have expired in 1985 if the picture was first published in 1957 (1985 - 28 = 1957) with a copyright notice that was not renewed. Odd that this image would be first published almost twenty years after Thompson stopped playing for the Bruins (1938), but I suppose it could have happened (20th anniversary article, perhaps?)  Several options:
 * Use PD-because and explain that the HHOF has explicitly stated the image is PD (Mr. Campbell's contact information would need to be included on the image summary page to satisfy WP:V)
 * Use PD-Pre1964 per my comment above (this is the only scenario I can think of that would lead to a 1985 expiration) and, again, include Mr. Campbell's contact information.
 * Continue to use the non-free tag/rationale. Mr. Campbell's information seems to be a bit sketchy and it may be most prudent to avoid the chance of misrepresenting the copyright status to our readership.  The image could easily be made to satisfy the NFCC.
 * Any of the three seem reasonable (PD-Pre1964, however, is probably a little heavy on OR), so I leave it to your and/or Maxim's judgment. Эlcobbola  talk 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This was my addendum to the image information. Any more advice? --Moni3 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, undo the edit? ;)
 * "the image was published some time in the early 1930s, and it is their understanding that copyright expired after 50 years" cannot be correct in the United States. There are only three scenarios for works published in the 1930s:
 * Published without notice: PD now and always has been; cannot be true if copyright supposedly expired in 1985.
 * Published with notice that was not renewed: would have fallen to PD no later than 1967 (1939 + 28 = 1967), which cannot be true if copyright supposedly expired in 1985
 * Published with notice that was renewed: earliest possible PD (assuming 1930 publication) would be 2025 (1930+95)
 * As I said above, the only possible scenario that would have the copyright expiring in 1985 is a 1957 publication with no renewal. If the HOFF is using a 50 post publication criterion, they are not correct that the image is PD in the US.  Эlcobbola  talk 20:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My head is going to explode. Srsly. I'm not an idiot, but there is just no way I'm supposed to know this. I take it back. I am an idiot. --Moni3 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Next to the famous Elcobbola, we're all idiots. I think he secretly enjoys watching us suffer.  There must be some way to drag him back in to the building, someone needs to figure out this man's weak spots and bribe him.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd wager you're just about one of the least idiotic people in the proverbial joint and, rather than wince, I'm ecstatic that someone is willing to suffer the barbs and frustration inherent to image reviewing. I hope you're not put off of image reviewing; this is just a learning curve.  United States law is, to steal a phrase from a venerable judge, "bonkers and bizarro" (I'm not even allowed to traffic skunks in my own state!)  If it helps to restore faith in humanity, the HHOF is probably operating on Canada law, which does have 50 year terms.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Elcobbola, I don't see why you need to bring up that incident. I've apologized to Moni3, and that wasn't your usual "clueless at images" outburst, it was more of me unfortunately venting my frustration at being unable to find a free image, or enough info for a non-free image that fully complies for NFCC. But thanks to you and Moni for helping out so much with a decent image and free image for the aricle.  Maxim (talk)  21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (2x EC) Apologies for any offense, Maxim. The link was not meant to reflect or criticize you (you merely had the misfortune of making the comment at the pertinent FAC), rather as an example of what is a very common occurrence.  I appreciate the difference between someone who is momentarily frustrated (it happens to us all) and someone who is habitually abusive and/or ignorant.  I realize you were merely the former.  Эlcobbola  talk 21:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - not to worry about hurting anyone's feelings, Maxim) I could be judged to be either extremely conscientious about detail and backing myself up with facts, or a complete coward when I don't delve into areas where I'm sketchy on information. So, yes, this is not an area I'm very comfortable working in. This particular FAC, however...the phone call to the HHOF produced incorrect information, from what I'm understanding from you. Public domain is probably not accurate simply because the curator there does not know what he's selling? So the license should be changed back to non-free, is that correct? However, the image had basically no rationale before. I'm hoping one can be improved to keep the image. Since the caption has some information about how the athlete played that was particular to him, is it possible that the rationale can be written to include that? Argh. I will send you a skunk if you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is complex. Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion, right?  If the HHOF says it's PD, is it WP:OR for me, as a mere Wikipedian, to say they're wrong?  Do we consider the HHOF a reliable source?  Surely it is for hockey information, but what about copyright assertions (see my competencies comment)?


 * To give Mr. Campbell (who I assume is Ontario-based) some credit, a Canadian photograph not subject to crown copyright is PD if it was created (yes, just created) before January 1, 1949. So, he may be correct in believing that this is PD if Canada is its originating country (and that might apply even if Canada is not the originating country, but I'm not familiar enough with Canadian law to say for sure).  We can't, however, use PD-Canada because, among other reasons, an image has to be PD in the US to be free on Wikipedia and the United States does not recognize the rule of the shorter term (it's a long explanation).


 * Frankly, I think non-free is the way to go, as it avoids the uncertainty and prevents us from unintentionally misrepresenting the image's status (although it is very likely to be PD in the US, too). General practice accepts use of an illustrative non-free image of a deceased individual in his/her article (so an acceptable purpose could be "facilitation of identification of the person ...") and this particular image has the nicety of a secondary purpose (illustration of a "distinctive style of goaltending").  Эlcobbola  talk 22:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Try this change. Your assessment? --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable to me, although you might want to check the "Replaceable?" field; I didn't realize there were Tiny Thompson riots. ;) Эlcobbola  talk 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not transparent, am I? No telling where I got that from... Sheesh. Thanks for the advice. --Moni3 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NFCC for Magazine cover
Image: File:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg for British empire, currently at FAC. If the image stays, the resolution is too high. My first concern is using the Newsweek cover as an illustration. My understanding is that the cover itself should be significant to the article. The article does not mention it, and I don't believe the cover conveys a message that words cannot. There appear to be alternatives to illustrate the Falkland Islands War on Commons. What are your thoughts on this? --Moni3 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I share your sentiments; very much a NFCC#8 problem. The uploader's name is so delightfully apt.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing permissions
This file, from Quark has me confused. Marked as PD US Gov, which is stated in the permissions on User:Aarchiba/Brookhaven_permission, but with the verification asks the Wikipedian to make sure the images won't be used for proprietary purposes. Why would someone ask that of a public domain image? I have a feeling this is similar to the two permissions I obtained from the Florida Archives and San Francisco Public Library that allowed me to use the image "one time only", despite the nature of Wikipedia. --Moni3 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ms. Koropsak, the author of the permission email is a "Public Affairs Representative". I'm concerned, therefore, that the prerequisite knowledge for copyright assertions may be outside of her scope (PA).  Indeed, an image that is "considered public domain" yet "[can]not be modified or digitally manipulated" is, as you know, contradictory.  It's not uncommon, however, for entities to attempt to assert control over PD works (often called, somewhat harshly, copyfraud).


 * The real question, then, is simply whether the image is actually PD. If it is, Ms. Koropsak's requirements of restricting derivatives and publication are invalid.  Frankly, I don't see any support for this being of federal authorship.  Per the source page:  "Brookhaven is operated ... by Brookhaven Science Associates, a limited-liability company founded by Stony Brook University".  Although BSS operates Brookhaven for the DOE, Brookhaven does not appear to be a federal entity.  PD-USGov only applies when the work was created by a federal employee during the course of his/her official duties.  The source doesn't contain information to support this and, per its description of the entities and their relationships, may even contradict it.


 * A similar issue came up at Featured article candidates/National Ignition Facility/archive2. The relationships between the DOE and certain laboratories can be complex and often sincere, thorough "leg work" is needed to determine whether an entity is truly federal.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Best wishes for the coming new year!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Question on FL nomination
Hi there,

I got to you referenced from one of the directors of the FL committee and I have a very important question to ask.

My self with a group of other editors have been working hardly in a set of articles that we would like to promote to FL (and potentially the whole thing to a featured topic). We managed to promote one, Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium); but when we started to work on the nomination of the other articles (specifically Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)), somebody claimed that there are too many non-free images on them and the whole process froze. We have since then prepared for nomination the countries Austria, Finland, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia and Monaco; while we continue to work on the other countries (we have good progress in Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, France, Spain, Vatican and Luxembourg for example).

The question is: what is your opinion about lists that have different non-free but properly fair-use images intrinsic in the character of the list? The images are not there to make the article look good or to illustrate the topic, they are the core existence of the article and without the images the article itself makes no sense. Can you please take a quick look at Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) for example and tell me your opinion on the usage of the images?

I do have a strong view about it and I think that we can still be within the guidelines of non-free images use in list articles. I am willing to have a discussion on each topic of that guideline if necessary. Can you please let me know what your opinion is?

I am trying to keep the discussion centralized for future reference. If possible, please reply here: User_talk:Miguel.mateo Thanks a lot, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Elcobbola,


 * Have you had time to think over this topic? I am willing to do your suggestions for Austria, but how about the other sections? How about the other articles?  I really need your honest specialist opinion.


 * Thanks,
 * Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 *  Эlcobbola  talk 23:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I deeply appreciate your comments, I have replied again, could you please visit back at your earliest convenient time? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Elcobbola, I really would like to close this discussion, can you please comment back in the page written above. Your time and knoweldge on the topic are deeply appreciated. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Miguel.mateo, I don't know that I have anything more to contribute. We, apparently, have different interpretations of "understanding".  I do not better understand Austrian commemorative coins by seeing the front and back of every last version.  All that is necessary for understanding is a sampling to convey to the reader the general aspects of design and layout present in the series.  The current volume of images is superfluous.


 * To continue with the Haydn example, seeing the exact same image of Haydn ("I have never seen a portrait of Haydn like the one depicted in that coin") is not important, as we need only convey the general understanding of who/what is depicted.  Why is seeing the exact image necessary?  What is it helping us to understand?  You should probably note that the image's purpose of "Currency picture" is entirely insufficient.  WP:FURG requires a "detailed" and "specific" rationale.  WP:NFCC#10C, similarly, requires a "specific" rationale.  It's not possible to judge what this image is supposed to be accomplishing in the absence of this explanation.  You may find the "Purpose writing" section of this dispatch helpful.  Эlcobbola  talk 17:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for a detailed answer. For what I can see, from your angle, as long as the image is properly described and it does help to understand what is being described, you're ok with it. In that case maybe the Haydn coin is a bad sample, Finnish coins will be impossible to understand without seeing a sample. So I am guessing that as long as we are cautious about this topic, you're ok from the copyright point of view. Correct? Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unretired?
Are you back? Have you returned to us? Awadewit (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Me thinks Awa is hoping that she will be resuced from images-hell-at-fac soon...., but it's good to see you back! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not really back. As I'm getting en.wiki questions on the Commons, it seems silly to make people trek over there when I'm still happy to answer them and still reading en.wiki. The banner is gone so questions aren't "discouraged", but I am still retired. Эlcobbola talk 22:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What level of hell is image reviewing, I wonder? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image question
Hey. I'm trying to make Orval Grove an FA over at Featured article candidates/Orval Grove (the image review section will get you caught up on the issue). Anyway, I'm trying to prove that File:Orval Grove.jpg is PD, which means I need to prove the copyright was not renewed and that it was published. The only information i can find on the pic (as opposed to Burke's collection in general) is here. Apparently the only "copyright" is a stamp on the back, which I'm not sure counts. Can I find proof it was published anywhere? I haven't been able to. Should I change it back to fair use? Basically, at this point I'm no longer sure, if you can help me out that would be great. Wizardman 16:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Wizardman, I'm going to try to minimize my typical verbosity, so let me know if elaboration is needed:
 * Indeed this version of the image does not have a proper (or any) copyright notice (which, if you're curious, would be a "©", the word “Copyright” or the abbreviation “Copr.” with the year of first publication of the work and the name of the copyright owner - see USC 17 Chapter 4 §401).
 * The problem is that we don't know that A) this was published (a defined term - USC 17 Chapter 1 § 101) or B) if it was, that this was the first publication (i.e., if this same image had been published, say, a week earlier with a proper notice, it wouldn't matter that the notice is missing here). This is why "Photo was taken in the 1940s without a copyright notice" (emphasis mine) is not a correct rationale (creation being quite a different notion from publication, among other reasons).
 * Getting proof of publication or registration can be time-consuming and expensive. There are some searchable online catalogs, but I don't know of any that are authoritative or even comprehensive (most generally include only books, but you may get lucky). The US Copyright Office site only lets one search post-1.1.1978 works.  You probably have three options, two of which require some leg work: A) contact the George Burke Archives (or an administrator thereof) to see whether they have the information; B) physically go to the catalog in the Library of Congress (I think it's still in the James Madison Memorial Building) or pay ($150,- per hour) for the Copyright Office to do the research (which will only be factual, not necessarily conclusive); or C) claim fair use.  Эlcobbola  talk 19:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I think the archives are in the Smithsonian (or part of them) so they may have some information on the copyright. I could try contacting them/the archives to see if I can find anything. Thanks. (B I wouldn't be able to pull off, C I may end up doing if I find nothing.) Wizardman  05:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Is a drawing made from a photograph a derivative work?
I was wondering whether this drawing, made from this copyrighted image is a derivative work, and thus non-free. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It better be. Two of my, shall I admit, spectacular drawings were deleted from Commons for being derivative of copyrighted images. --Moni3 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My only question is that since the hieroglyphs themselves aren't copyrighted, perhaps the drawing can't be labeled a derivative, since it is obviously a copy of the "letters". Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I will preface with the fact that Elcobbola is much wiser in the ways of copyright than am I, but I don't buy that this is a derivative work: only a representation of a particular un-copyrighted hieroglyph. One could even argue that because the symbols depicted in the photograph are themselves not copyrighted, that the photograph would be ineligible for copyright protection because it's a faithful reproduction of a two-dimensional work. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be true if the glyphs were indeed a 2D work, but they are not (2D works don't cast shadows, as these engraved/recessed/embossed glpyhs are certainly doing in the photograph). Эlcobbola  talk 18:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's unquestionably a derivative work; per USC 17 Chapter 1 § 101:

Being a derivative, however, does not necessarily make a work non-free ("a derivative work, and thus non-free"). This image, for example, is a derivative work, but, as it is a derivative of public domain works, it too is PD. Moni's drawings, conversely, were derivative of a work still under copyright (Mulholland Drive) and, thus, indeed non-free.

The question of File:Ahk-glyph2.jpg is more complex, as it is a derivative of a copyrighted derivative of a PD work (fun!). Whether or not this drawing is non-free depends upon the extent to which it incorporates the original artistic additions from the photograph (choice of angle, lighting and subsequent shadows, etc.), as those would be the only copyrightable elements (the glyphs themselves being PD). Ultimately, this is a question on which reasonable people could disagree; you might find Judge Kaplan's summary judgment in Bridgeman v. Corel helpful/enlightening. Эlcobbola talk 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost article on non-free images
You "recently" wrote an article on non-free images (22 September 2008). Given your indepth discussion on the topic, I'd like to hear your take on this RfC, if you would be so kind? You don't need to weigh in (unless you want to), but your thoughts might prove quite useful. Feel free to respond on my user talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 00:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Эlcobbola  talk 15:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can just respond here for the sake of simplicity. That is an interesting take and I think many of the logos (including my own alma mater may meet those criteria. If I understand you correctly, they are NOT copyrightable because they are simply arrangements of letters in a certain font, BUT those that contain images may be copyrighted and trademarked. In that case we may simply have a massive case of mislabeling. — BQZip01 —  talk 20:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll, of course, note that File:Texas AMU logo.png uses ® instead of ©. There's a reason for that. ;)  Be careful to stay away from words like "simple"; typeface is not necessarily  ineligible for reasons of simplicity (i.e. failure to meet threshold of originality) but, rather, because it is a useful article.  This is an important distinction that people have already failed to grasp.  Useful articles may contain substantial complexity, originality and creativity, but, as long as that artistic input cannot be separated and recognized independently from the utilitarian function, they are still ineligible.  This is why I used the example of a car, as it is an easier situation for most to comprehend.  Consider, for example, all the artistry in the design of this headlight.  Despite that, however, this headlight is not eligible for copyright because that artistic input cannot be separated from the utilitarian function.  Same situation with typeface.  As a counter-example, this letter would be eligible, as certain artistic elements (flowers) could be separated and recognized independently of the letter's utilitarian function.  And yes, a logo of text and an image would likely be copyrightable.  I'm only referring to pure typeface.   Эlcobbola  talk 22:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mind if I quote you on that? (Geez that is so much easier than what my brain was trying to formulate...) — BQZip01 —  talk 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review
Sandy need an image review at the Jack Kemp FAC, which is my nominee. Can you come take a look.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize, but I'm no longer doing article reviews. If, however, there is a particular image or a question regarding "general" policy or copyright law, I'd be happy to try to answer it.  Эlcobbola  talk 15:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And now for another pesky "is this image free?" question
The image in question: File:Dr House.png. I'm assuming the uploader actually created the image himself using the magic of fonts. This sort of goes beyond what I was asking earlier about the Marathon logo, where if it consisted on nothing else than a font it could be free... but would this still qualify when the logo in question contains more than just a font? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a legitimately grey area and the "real" answer is not something I'm really able to provide. My reading would be that the presence of the box and line make this image, as a whole, more than mere typeface and, thus, not ineligible per the Marathon discussion.  One could possible argue (although I don't believe I would) that a relatively simple combination of elements which, on their own, would be ineligible (typeface and simple geometric shapes) would make the resulting image ineligible.  Threshold of originality in the US, however, is quite low, so I'm not convinced this would fail to meet it - especially when the non-typeface elements have shading.  I would recommend the conservative approach of claiming fair use to avoid misrepresentation of the copyright status.   Эlcobbola  talk 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the reply. (Damn grey areas :P) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

File:001instantthisbillboard.jpg
I was wondering what you think of the information on this image description page. Has the user actually released the image? For example, the source field says "donated to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia" - is this superseded by the GFDL and CC licenses (did the artist know what he was doing with those?). What role is this phrase playing - "Photograph © 1978 Courtesy of John Fekner Estate 2008"? Can we safely assume the artist is the user, since they have the same name, or do we need more proof? Can this person's art even be placed under copyright? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My answers will be out of order of your questions, but it should make the most sense this way:


 * Typically when a user is a "professional" artistic/photographer, their user page will contain some degree of discussion/presentation of their work (e.g. several example images, galleries, links to external sites, etc.) It's certainly curious that the uploader has not done this, but, in cases where the user name matches the author name, we generally assume they are the same person in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.  It's nice, for example, that an external source establishes the use of "Fekner" as a moniker (see the address here).
 * Licenses almost always (if not always) supersede comments in the summary. "[D]onated to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia", after all, is not "donated exclusively to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia".  Although the implication of that phrase may be that the uploader did not realize that GFDL/CC allows reuse anywhere, licenses are not revocable and the assumption that uploaders of "self-made" images know what they are doing when selecting a license is necessary for the image aspect of the project to function.
 * "Photograph © 1978 Courtesy of John Fekner Estate 2008" isn't troublesome. Remember, GFDL/CC are copyright licenses.  Images so licensed are still under copyright, their authors have merely waived certain protections afforded thereby.  Copyright is binary: a work is either PD or it isn't.
 * Merely stenciling letters (e.g. this Fekner work) would indeed probably not be eligible for copyright. The problem with File:001instantthisbillboard.jpg, however, is that it is a derivative work of the billboard.  Fekner no doubt added the "instant this instant that" phrase - he may have even taken the photograph - but I very much doubt he is the author of the billboard itself.  The image on the billboard would not be ineligible for copyright and, as such, the copyright holder of the billboard would need to consent to the GFDL/CC license for this image's tag to be valid.  Эlcobbola  talk 22:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much - I really appreciate it. Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 ACC Championship Game
Elcobbola, would you be able to resolve the OTRS question on Featured article candidates/2008 ACC Championship Game? Or let me know if I should hold up promotion on that? Thanks so much, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like Stifle added OTRS tags on 22. January; I checked the ticket, and everything looks in order. I would note, however, that File:2008ACCCGFinal scoreboard.JPG is a derivative work and cannot be so tagged without the permission of the display's author.  I only had a quick glance at the FAC, but I didn't see an image review.  Maybe I missed it?  There are a few problems (e.g. the aforementioned derivative, no copyright holder [NFCC#10A] on File:ACCChampgame.png, etc.) that should probably be addressed.  Эlcobbola  talk 00:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ec; I'll flag this at WT:FAC as needing review. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)