Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 December 30/Images

Images


 * Image:300px-Radiohead.jpg from, , and . —ShadowHalo 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Pallywood.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from and . The sources are just for the text used in the image description which is itself a copyvio! The image is patently a copyvio but I have not yet found an original source. -- RHaworth 06:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Olmec1.jpg I have placed the following on the Talk page for that image:
 * This image is almost certainly not in the public domain. Only the original sculpture would be in the public domain. A modern photograph of a three dimensional object is, as a photograph, subject to copyright protection. This is certainly a modern (post 1923 in the U.S.) photograph.


 * The original source of this photograph is not clear but it can be traced back (via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine) from the source cited (http://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/curriculum/lm15/olmec1.jpg) as far as these personal web pages: http://members.aol.com/fsln/gallery.htm and http://members.aol.com/fsln/gallery/olmec1.htm


 * This photograph should be removed from Wikipedia unless it is shown that it has been placed in the public domain or made available through some form of license.-- Blanchette 07:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Newstadiumdd+.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . Geo-Loge 08:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:RPalmer.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from LukeSurl 10:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Image:Summer Kelle.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) - Admittedly taken from . Uploader claims: "There is no copyright to this image, and is free to share." The website contains a notice "© 2006 Be-Seen-Here" and no indication of releasing anything under a free license; the uploader doesn't actually link to the image (just to the website's main page). - Mike Rosoft 12:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:TravelTen_blue_concession.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) Reason: My understanding is that a photograph or scan of a work protected by copyright violates that copyright. This image contains only a copyrighted work, so it would seem to fall foul. Joestella 17:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I object raising a few issues: it's listed on the wrong project (it's a commons image, so you'll need to follow deletion procedures there); secondly, what authorities do you rely on to draw the line between a new work and something that is merely a reproduction of an existing work; thirdly, I think we can validly move this to a fair use tag because there's just no other way to illustrate the concept of a TravelTen without depicting it as such. enochlau (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this is a copyright violation at all. Firstly, the image is not a scan of the ticket (which might be a copyright violation, but would fall under fair use anyway, so all that would be required is a license change), it's a creative setup of the ticket in a way which represents it without effectively "photocopying" it - I would posit that under Copyright law it is "substantially different" enough from the ticket's copy, represented as a creative photographic work, that it can hold its own copyright by enochlau. Secondly, however, I don't think there's any evidence that there are copyrights on the tickets themselves - this image and my ticket for Sydney's CityRail trains at Image:Cityrailticket2.JPG (which was removed from the page it was on) have "tax invoice" on the ticket. That's what they are - effectively a receipt. No one is suggesting that receipts are copywritten - in Australia at least they would be freely available for copying for tax & other purposes, and we aren't depriving the operator of any income by reproducing the ticket anyway. I'm also told "functional items" aren't copyright under Australian law, which this ticket would also fall under. I also don't see the difference between this photo and Image:London-underground-travelcard.jpg or Image:Nyc_transit_authority_token.png which have never been challenged as to their copyright status - so what's the difference here? I think the nominator should prove copyright, or else we could change the license to be fair use if owner copyright doesn't apply (because of unknown copyright status) - fair use is more than justified as it is a representation of the ticket for criticial or research purposes, and the operator is not being deprived of income by the representation of the ticket on Wikipedia (nor would they be by any reproductions off-site). JROBBO 02:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Joestella, if you're going to nominate it for deletion on the commons, please do it properly - you've only half done the nomnination - see the instructions in the template. enochlau (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't actually you. enochlau (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:Mountlavinia.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . —Bkell (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Intercon.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . —Bkell (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:Jc 03.jpg ([ history] · [ last edit]) from . MECU ≈ talk 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)