Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 May 26



File:Pele San Diego.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

This is a nice photo of a 3D sculpture, but the photo does not seem creative enough to be transformative, and it was apparently not taken by the sculpture's creator. So I question whether the photographer has the right to license it under the dual free licenses shown. Avenue (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As the uploader and photographer, I have no strong feelings about its possible deletion (it is outside of my usual Iowa realm); however, it is the best image of Pele (deity) in WP, and the article will be the poorer for its deletion. I appreciate the notice, however. Perhaps it can be salvaged by reducing the resolution and adding a tag with an appropriate  (Fair Use Rationale)?Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I reduced the res by 90%, tagged it as non-free art as best I could figure, removed extranous image pages. Hope it passes. Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:JDean.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I had tagged this as missing permission, then uploader removed the tag and changed the licensing to PD-self. This seems to be unlikely as the description page indicates that the image comes from a press kit. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Bert and Ernie Married.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

Could someone check this out. I see two possible problems. One, it may violate copyright as a deriviative work; and after reading Fan Art I'm also worried about libel concerns. There have been cases of copyright holders of cartoon characters suing over inappropriate/unauthorised use of their characters, and I suspect the same could happen here. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding my last point, here is a link to legal action over the unauthorised use of Tintin (character) by Australian cartoonist Bill Leak. I'm not sure where this leaves us, but I think it deserves looking at. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So whats the issue? Worries about Sesame Street suing Wikipedia because it shows bert and ernie getting married?!  C T J F 8 3 Talk 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a delete . We've had several previous images that have been deleted because they are based on costumes of copyrighted characters. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now keep as fair use/parody. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care for the image myself, but I'm not sure the case for deletion is as clear cut as it seems. These costumes are very much not on-model; it's clear enough who they're supposed to represent, but they are clearly produced by a third party (i.e., not a Sesame Workshop licensee).  More importantly, however, Wikimedia legal counsel Mike Godwin is on record as saying that pictures of costumed characters are allowed, even on Commons: see commons:Commons talk:Deletion requests/Images of costumes tagged as copyvios by AnimeFan and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Star Wars images (in the latter, Godwin specifically said costumes are not copyrightable but the images were deleted anyway because Lucasfilm asserts such a copyright).  So even if the designs of the costumes themselves are infringing on the character copyrights held by Sesame Workshop, there is no "costume copyright" upon which this photograph can infringe.  Powers T 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This photo is clearly protected by the First Amendment. The use of trademarked images for parody has long been recognized as First Amendment-protected activity, and upheld consistently by the U.S. Supreme Court, at least three of these cases are described in WP articles: Irving Berlin et al. v. E.C. Publications, Inc., Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin, Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. It is highly dubious that the CTW trademark holder could sucessfully argue that this diminishes their product; its political parody status is clear cut. Bill Whittaker (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To quote from the Berlin v. E.C. decision: "we believe that parody and satire are deserving of substantial freedom -- both as entertainment and as a form of social and literary criticism. As the readers of Cervantes' 'Don Quixote' and Swift's 'Gulliver's Travels,' or the parodies of a modern master such as Max Beerbohm well know, many a true word is indeed spoken in jest. At the very least, where, as here, it is clear that the parody has neither the intent nor the effect of fulfilling the demand for the original, and where the parodist does not appropriate a greater amount of the original work than is necessary to 'recall or conjure up' the object of his satire, a finding of infringement would be improper." Bill Whittaker (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, parody is a valid reason for making fair use of copyrighted content, but this image is not being claimed as fair use; it's being claimed as completely free. Powers T 12:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, one of the points of the court decisions was that the creator of parody owns the parody; therefore the uploader owned this image, but he chose to make it public domain, therefore it is free. Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see nothing wrong with my image. No copyright violation.  C T J F 8 3 Talk 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rationale Added. Okay, I added a rationale for non-free use to the image file. (I can't believe that I'm fighting to save a damn photo of a puppet wedding.... but it's the principle of the thing. I don't want to see WP slip into a timid cycle of self-censorship.) Bill Whittaker (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this photo is derivative. The costumes of Bert and Ernie are clear to people who know who the characters are, but the "Just Married" sign, the tux and gown, and the bikini-clad female in the background give this image further political context. The stunt itself is a statement on gay marriage. The image is of the stunt, not the characters of Bert and Ernie. --Moni3 (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with dfu or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Cadbury_Canada-Caramilk.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Claimed GFDL, but it's just a scan of a commercial image – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Manchester City.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not the uploader's work, neither is it the arms of Manchester City football club as he claims. See here for comparison. It looks as though the uploader has started with this and photoshopped it. Badly. But it certainly isn't all his own work. pablo hablo. 22:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to support deletion per WP:OI. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Deeds Grass-roots.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo of copyrighted materials; arrangement doesn't seem to me to amount to enough creative contribution to claim copyright. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * taking pictures of my belongings is not considered appropriate on Wikipedia? Shock to me. Bigvinu (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I own several CDs, but I don't own the copyright to their cover art just by buying them. Unless you created those campaign materials, or have a release from the person/organization who did, then you can't relicense them. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But, if for instance the article was dealing with CD collections, taking a picture of a group of CD covers may be acceptable, would it not? Bigvinu (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends. If none of the cd covers are visible other than as small low res portions of the whole image, might qualify as de minimis and be ok. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a derivative work; see Copyrights. If you don't own the copyright to printed matter like flyers or posters, that doesn't change when you take a photo of them. You didn't create the printed material that is clearly the subject of the photo? You can't claim "I created this work entirely by myself."-- Infrogmation (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Christian Bale Tuxedo.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

Out of scope. This page is for listing images which are marked as free use where there is a doubt that they are actually free. Images marked as fair use where there is a dispute as to whether the image qualifies as fair use go to WP:NFR or are tagged.

The image is from a newspaper publication. Possibly owned by those photo sites. Meaning, its not a free image. Also, the image is licensed as a "screenshot". Note: This image, previously uploaded, was deleted by User:Peripitus for WP:COPYVIO. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  22:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See also the following (all uploads by User:Boxing245) - 58.11.71.170 (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * + Possibly unfree files/2009 May 24
 * + User talk:Boxing245 for previous history of image copyright problems
 * + deletion of tag by uploader - 21:59, 26 May 2009


 * File:Boxing Match.jpg - see http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/73132017/Bongarts
 * File:DanielCraigOO7.jpg
 * File:Rachel Dawes and Harvey Dent.jpg
 * File:The Penguin in Lego.jpg
 * File:Catwoman in Lego.jpg
 * File:Bane in Lego.jpg
 * File:Clayface in Lego.jpg
 * File:Harley Quinn in Lego.jpg
 * File:Joker in Lego.jpg
 * File:Mad Hatter in Lego.jpg
 * File:Poison Ivy in Lego.jpg
 * File:Two-Face in Lego.jpg
 * File:Scarecrow in Lego.jpg
 * File:Man-Bat in Lego.jpg
 * File:Ridler in Lego.jpg
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.