Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Quasiturbine with carriages.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image.

Disputed fair use
It's all very well to say that it's replaceable, but what with?

The only way to produce a replacement would be to redraw this one, or to redraw a similar image from the promotional literature produced by the inventors of this device. Redrawing (unlike rephrasing) is still a form of copying, and strictly speaking, still won't produce an image that is licensable under the GFDL. Andrewa 06:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not true. Information itself can't be copyrighted, only the presentation of said information. I can't copy a Rand McNally map and sell it, but I can make my own map of the same area and sell that. A newly-drawn diagram containing of this turbine would absolutely be able to be licensed under the CC or GFDL. &mdash;&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's true what you say about information and presentation, but I think there may be a problem even so. You can make your own map of an area, and it's not necessarily a copy of any other map. Even if it were drawn using only one particular copyrighted map, that's not necessarily a problem. But if it were done from one particular copyrighted map, and presented exactly the same information as the original map, that would be a problem, even if the new map had been drawn freehand rather than traced, say. Do you follow the parallel here?


 * So yes, I can easily draw a new image presenting this information. But it seems to me that this will then present a far worse copyright problem than the one posed by this non-free image. Interested in other views of course. Andrewa 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, then if I wrote an article with only one source, it would also be a copyright violation. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  02:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's exactly the point... there's a difference between the way text and images are treated under copyright law. That's part of the reason we can (and do) treat images differently to text when it comes to copyright. Lists are treated differently again... if you copied a list, even if you rephrased each and every entry, that could still be a copyright violation.
 * This may not seem very logical, and IANAL, but as I understand it that's the way it works. Arguing that images should be treated like text is irrelevant of course, the question is how they are treated, and they are treated quite differently. Andrewa 12:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you're wrong. This is a diagram, after all. If your interpretation was correct, the first person who graphed, say, the price of candy bars from 1950–2000, would own the copyright, and nobody else would ever be able to make a graphical representation of that data. That's just not the case. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that doesn't follow. But, if you come across say a pie chart of the price range of candy bars in 1950, you can't just redraw that chart and say it's now your original work.


 * There are some fuzzy lines here, that's the whole problem. How original is original? You'd probably get away with the pie chart, because nobody can prove you copied it. If the presentation is an obvious thing to do (as is your example of the graph, I think) then it's certainly not copyrightable. If the presentation is original, then it is.


 * Take a step backwards. We're not discussing whether Wikipedia could be successfully sued for using this pie chart (or the Quasiturbine diagram); It's hypothetical, as it's highly unlikely in either case that anyone will even try. What we're after is, how do we make Wikipedia most useful, for free, under the GFDL.


 * The case for deleting this image rests on the assertion that it can be easily replaced. It's useful, encyclopedic content. You are claiming that a redrawn diagram would be a suitable replacement.


 * In that nobody else has bought into this discussion, I'm inclined to have a go at redrawing the diagram on the strength of your opinion. But I think this discussion should be preserved so that we don't need to reinvent the wheel if (as I predict) the redrawn diagram turns out to be even more of a problem.


 * What parameters do you think I need to keep constant in the redrawing? The shape of the rotor segment faces is critical to the operation of the machine, according to the inventors, and this shape is documented nowhere else that I have seen. I don't know whether the wheel sizes are critical or not. Lots to decide. On the one hand, we are losing content and even introducing error if I change too much; On the other hand, we violate copyright if I change too little. A can of worms. But let's have a go, if you say it's so easy. Andrewa 00:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A new image could be created and released under a free license. Therefore this image is replaceable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.