Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 November 7



File:Falling stars 2.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  05:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Falling stars 2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Uploader long gone. Photo of painting - artist only died in 2010 Paul Penczner  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:01, 7 November 2011 (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:Famas.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  16:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Famas.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Photo of 3D artwork.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:18, 7 November 2011 (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:FAU at demonstation.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  05:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:FAU at demonstation.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Source is from German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:FAU_Hamburg_2004.jpg) - the German version was deleted - log 00:38, 2. Feb. 2007 Polarlys (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Datei:FAU Hamburg 2004.jpg“ ‎ (unzureichende Lizenz) (Insufficient license)  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:58, 7 November 2011 (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:Kumar-birla.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  05:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Kumar-birla.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * On http://www.forbes.com/profile/kumar-birla/ there is a similar file with more "at the bottom". Meta data says "Copyright holder 2009 AFP". MGA73 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2011 (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:Permertersackergermanyconf.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  05:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Permertersackergermanyconf.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Description at Flickr source clearly says "copyright belongs to adidas". Mosmof (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2011 (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:Karkal.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  05:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:Karkal.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Text says: "Srinivas K. Hegde.screenshot from a DVD video". Who made this video? Is it free? MGA73 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2011 (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:Watering steam locomotive.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 discussion was: withdrawn. This is the sort of explanation that should go on all of your uploads, Centpacrr. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Watering steam locomotive.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * No evidence of permission - while this is from the uploader's personal collection, I have no information about who the photographer is and whether or not they have consented to the licensing given, or even if it's lapsed into the public domain or not. Basically, we need more complete information if we're to be able to use it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This image is from a group of photographs that were taken of the Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railroad in 1947 by the late Victor H. Rawstron (1919-1997) who both sold the original negatives and irrevocably transferred all rights to these photographs to me (the uploader) in 1989. The domain "BMLRR.com" also belongs to me (the uploader through my personally wholly owned dba "Cooper-Clement Associates") as does the webpage I created and maintain to which that domain name links on CPRR.org, our family owned railroad history site to which I am a principal contributor and which I have permitted to host the page at no charge. The page is an extensive illustrated history of the B&MLRR, a shortline railroad in Waldo County, Maine, opened in 1870 of which I was formerly a minority owner and am still the official historian. Centpacrr (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2011 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.

File:AHL Philadelphia Phamtons 2005 Calder Cup.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 ⚡  00:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * File:AHL Philadelphia Phamtons 2005 Calder Cup.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Derivative work of otherwise copyrighted video. What the image is illustrating is in fact the picture on the screen in the middle of that large unit.  Thus this is not the original work of the photographer, making this a derivative work of the video on the screen, likely owned by the team or the venue operator, and thus not free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I (the uploader) personally took this photograph from the TV broadcast booth at the then Wachovia (now Wells Fargo) Center in Philadelphia in which I was working on the telecast of this Calder Cup championship game and am thus (as the tag indicates) both the sole creator and copyright holder of this image. What is seen on the scoreboard is not the subject of the image which is the Phantoms' players leaving the bench to celebrate winning the playoff championship before a sold out crowd of 20,000+ part of which is also shown in the photograph. The scoreboard is included in the image to show that the game has ended and what the score is. What appears on the center of the scoreboard -- which constitutes less than 5% of the entire image -- is a live, transient CCTV picture of exactly what was happening (and depicted) on the ice immediately below it. It was seen only on the scoreboard in real time, is not a "copyrighted video" from a broadcast, was not recorded for later use, and no longer exists in any other form. With respect, I frankly find this to be a wholly unjustified, unconstructive, petty, and silly "possibly unfree" listing which does not comport with either the letter or the spirit of WP policy on derivative works and should thus be withdrawn without delay. Centpacrr (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You may have taken the photo of the scoreboard, but you did not shoot the video being displayed on the monitor. Realize that if you didn't shoot it, you aren't the copyright holder, and you just admitted that you didn't shoot the video being shown.  That's what makes this a derivative work.  Whether the image was recorded for later use is immaterial - it's still not yours to distribute.  If we digitally removed the non-free portion of the image (i.e. the image on the screen), making it no longer a derivative work, that would make the image acceptable.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * With respect, sir, that "argument" (as you will see below) is just pure unadulterated sophistry and does not remotely conform to WP precedent for such image files. You have offered no basis whatsoever on how you can have a "derivative work" of a "work" that doesn't exist and thus can not be "copyrighted". The less than 5% of the area of my photograph that you are complaining about is of what was at the instant is was taken a live, transient CCTV picture that "existed" for less than one-thirtieth of a second and electronically depicted exactly what was happening on the ice immediately below it. It was available to be seen only in real time on the scoreboard in the arena, was not from a "copyrighted video" (broadcast or otherwise), involved no copyrightable creative effort to produce, was not recorded (thus there is nothing to copyright), and no longer exists in any other form.


 * Whether or not you personally agree with that view, there are many similar long standing images hosted on Commons which are licensed as free such as those located here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. I was able to easily find all of these free files in about fifteen minutes by looking at the articles of just ten sports venues. Based on that I suspect that there are many dozens more which show exactly the same kind of CCTV images on the video screens of various arena and stadium scoreboards. As the hosting standards for these scoreboard images with CCTV content on Commons are far more restrictive then the standards for similar image files on en:Wikipedia, then clearly the Phantoms' 2005 Calder Cup image easily qualifies under WP policy as being non-derivative and thus I, as its creator, am free to license it any way I choose to.


 * As for this PUF listing, again with respect it is exactly this kind of niggling pettifoggery and incessant wikilawyering that is represented by this manifestly ill-conceived and time wasting listing that drives editors such as myself and others away from continuing to be willing to contribute to Wikipedia and trying to help build the project. (Gratuitously and unjustifiably accusing other editors of "vandalism" and "edit warring" doesn't help build the project either.)


 * The bottom line here is that extensive precedent demonstrates that the WP community does not consider this image to be derived from non-free material. Now of course I don't expect you to "change you tune" on this, but that's just the way it is. It's really time for you to withdraw this ridiculous listing and stop wasting any more of my time on it -- as well as wasting any more of yours. Centpacrr (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your argument can be summed up as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. When you say the video was not recorded, I would add, "That you know of," to that.  As mentioned, if you really were interested in showing the scoreboard, we could digitally remove the infringing image and be done with it.  As for the other images, those will need to be reviewed, but they are otherwise out of the scope of this discussion.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As I predicted, I did not expect you to "change your tune" on this no matter how much WP precedent and consensus is against you. I suppose you could spend the next month or two pettyfoggingly trying to impose your personal views and nominating for deletion every one of the dozens of image files on Commons and en.Wikipedia that show CCTV content on a video scoreboard instead of just accepting that you are apparently the only editor on the project who holds this extraordinarily narrow interpretation of what constitutes a "derivative work". However as shown above precedent in the form of the the large body of similar images on the project clearly shows that the long established consensus of the community is that images that contain CCTV images on video screens are not considered to be "non-free derivative works".


 * As for whether or not this single frame of random video was recorded and retained, yes I actually do know that its was not. Even if it were, however, WP precedent and the established consensus of the community still mitigates against your interpretation of it making this image a "derivative work". I have worked in professional hockey for more than forty years (over 3,000 games) spending more than 25 of those working in televising professional hockey games as well as those in other sports. In that capacity I have worked closely with the "Arenavision" staff at the Wells Fargo Center since that building opened in 1996 and know exactly what they do (and don't do) with this type of video. Now I suppose you are going to say that because I actually do know from "first hand knowledge" and "personal experience" this should be rejected as "original research" and instead I should rely on uninformed speculation in the matter, but that would be an equally empty argument so don't even bother making it.


 * I repeat for the last time that the bottom line here is that extensive precedent demonstrates that the WP community does not consider this image to be derived from non-free material and unlike yourself I accept that judgement. That being the case, again it's really time for you to withdraw this ridiculous listing and stop wasting any more of my time (and Wikipedia's server space) perpetuating this nonsensical exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Derivative work is still derivative work, and that's the bottom line. Whether the other images are de minimus or more than that is another story, and not germane to this discussion.  Also, if you're going to talk experience, I believe I can confidently say I have more experience on how this encyclopedia works, having been editing for about 17 months longer, and having made roughly 80,000 more edits.   So don't go there.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't bother to even read my comment above. The "experience" I was referring to was in televising sporting events (my profession) and how "Arenavision" systems work in sports arenas. It had absolutely nothing to do with editing Wikipedia. Raw numbers of edits, however, strike me as being a completely meaningless measuring stick in building WP, especially when the vast majority of yours seem to be dedicated exclusively to removing content and hectoring other editors who dane to disagree with you about anything. Virtually all of my edits (except for those in forums and on talk pages) are used to contribute new material to the project as opposed to unilaterally deleting the contributions of others.


 * "Derivative work is still derivative work, and that's the bottom line" is also a completely meaningless "argument" here. Not only have you failed to define what you mean by this, the vast number of images existing on Commons and elsewhere affirmatively demonstrates that the clear consensus of the community  is that the inclusion of CCTV images on scoreboards does not constitute making such an image a "derivative work". No matter how much you don't want to accept that, WP is governed by community consensus not the whims of single editors. That being the case, I repeat (hopefully for the last time) that it's time for you to withdraw this ridiculous, ill conceived, and pettyfogging listing and to stop wasting any more of my time (and Wikipedia's server space) perpetuating this nonsensical exercise. Centpacrr (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing doing. I am not withdrawing this nomination, since I know I'm right, and as I have stated my arguments on this matter, I don't see the need to waste my time arguing with you about it.  You're going to throw two or three paragraphs below this saying that I'm wrong, wrong, wrong, and what an "utterly" (your favorite word, apparently) horrible person that I am for being so wrong as you see it, but I'm not arguing with you about this one anymore.  I have made my case, and I can now rest it.  Good day to you.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Concluding comment

 * Your apparently still do not understand. This is not about you as a person, it is about your actions and oft demonstrated pattern of refusing to accept (especially unacceptable for an admin) the consensus of the community when that does not precisely comport with your own exact interpretations of WP guidelines, policy, and/or your personal editorial views. (See here for a third party summary of this which I see that you promptly deleted with the telling edit summary of "Don't speak down to me.".)


 * As that other editor observed just today (as seen in this now deleted earlier form of your talk page) about your adamantine approach to other Wikipedians who may disagree with you about anything: " ...your dogged refusal to listen to experienced editors with a long history in that article - and your inability to address other people's arguments in the matter - combined with your unilateral decision to act using admin powers in such a way that other editors could not fix your mistake ...and all this despite strong prior consensus was (as I said) an egregious abuse of admin power ..." as well as " Admins are the servants of editors - not their masters - and they are held to a higher standard of accountability. "


 * One need not look beyond your last comment in here posted immediately above this one to see examples of all of these behaviors on your part. Res ipsa loquitor.  Centpacrr (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2011 (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.