Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 April 27



File:Peter McPheresons CD Cover.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 ⚡  21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Peter McPheresons CD Cover.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is an album cover, Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2013 (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:Raashid Alvi.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 as F9 by AnomieBOT ⚡  19:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Appears to be similar to the attempt to avoid detection of copyright violation as was done with File:Raashid Alvi,Main Entrance,The Parliament of India.jpg. Eeekster (talk) 09:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Image squashed at 50% - then found instant copyvio - image deleted and user blocked.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 17:37, 27 April 2013 (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:Suspect1and2.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 ⚡  00:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Suspect1and2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Question whether public domain licensing is appropriate. Related to discussion of File:The-tsarnaev-suspects-fbi-photo-release.jpg and File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is the same as above with the slight wrinkle that this image is a later time stamp version. We almost certainly do not want to include every second of a video, even if this is public domain, but since it was already uploaded from last week and not deleted, I thought it should be listed with the others. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One thing that is notable about this version is that it includes slightly better views of runners in the marathon for anyone who would want to make use of it for that purpose. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Argument for public domain status, copied from other discussion: The argument for considering automated surveillance video made in the US as public domain/ineligible for copyright is essentially that under US copyright law, under which this image would be judged, there is a Constitutional requirement of creativity (Feist v. Rural). Here, the reasoning of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is apposite in holding that faithful digitization of a preexisting two-dimensional public domain image does not evince the creativity required under Feist to result in copyright. Here, the addition of a third dimension changes the analysis not at all. The possibilities for the necessary creativity could be said to lie in the angle of the surveillance camera (think of creative camera angles in a Hitchcock film), but here it is functional so as to capture passersby on a public sidewalk, not creative, and functional elements have long been held not to be creative. Creativity might be said to lie in the fixation itself (think of a photographer choosing that perfect moment to snap the shutter), but here the fixation was continuous or at fixed intervals. The phrase "slavish copying" has been used to describe the work done in Bridgeman. What could be more slavish than an automated surveillance camera? Could an artist use an automated camera creatively? No doubt, but that is not this case. As to the argument that we should only include images in Wikipedia where there is a settled court case, note that Bridgeman, itself, is settled law only with respect to the Southern District of New York and yet we rely upon it everywhere else. (National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute) Why? Because we judge the reasoning to be sound. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is free of encumberances, it should be moved to commons. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no legal basis for anybody to claim copyright on this image. It's a surveillance video.  These are not copyrightable.  Speed close this please.  No plausible argument can be made that the image is copyright.  Notice that the FBI released this to the public in hopes that it would be widely copied and viewed.  The FBI would not encourage illegal copying, obviously. Jehochman Talk 23:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is arguably a fair use claim the FBI could make posting one or two images from a surveillance video and would not be infringing copyright. We just can't license these as PD-USGov as they were not generated by the FBI. I'm tending to agree surveillance videos aren't copyrightable, though. --M ASEM (t) 23:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if the video is subject to copyright I think a good fair-use claim can be made for this image. It is a single low resolution still shot of historical significance.  CoolMike (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were used in an article, discussion at File:Two suspects wanted by the FBI for the bombing.jpg would support your position, but, as it stands now, it fails WP:NFCC. 24.151.50.173 (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2013 (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:Cécile Kyenge.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 ⚡  21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Permissions at http://www.camera.it/leg17/69?testostrumenti=1 do not bestow public domain status. Eeekster (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2013 (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.