Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 August 1



File:Abida PArveen at event.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Abida PArveen at event.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * File:Abida Parveen.jpg was deleted as a duplicate of this file. According to File talk:Abida Parveen.jpg, "it is on Facebook and nothing on Facebook is copyrighted". Material on Facebook is copyrighted, so if this is somewhere on Facebook, then the uploader needs to follow the instructions at WP:CONSENT. Stefan2 (talk) 11:01, 1 August 2014 (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:Basit Jehangir sheikh( Center) With Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto .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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  16:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Basit Jehangir sheikh( Center) With Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto .jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It appears to me a possible unfree image -because the source information given is, "Camera". All I found on web is re-using this image giving credit to Wikipedia. Also note that, uploader has been found on multiple occasions uploading copyvio images. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  18:01, 1 August 2014 (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:Lemurs Park.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  02:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Lemurs Park.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * This is a sign, does FoP apply? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a picture, taken by me, of an advertising sign and its surround, cropped (which is why Author is Picasa), taken from a public place (i.e. the road) so quite legal. It is not an exact copy of the sign, nor a work of art, so I dont see why its is a problem. There is no suggestion that public signs are copyright and its only a picture. From what little I understand FoP does not apply to the UK. Also this an advertising board showing an entrance to the site, not an architectural structure. Unless stated otherwise pictures taken in public places are allowed. I did send an email as requested and thought this was clear now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 16:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there is no FOP for signs like this in the UK, you may not take photos of signs created by other people than yourself, unless you have permission from the person who created the sign. The stuff on the sign is a copyrighted artwork. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As a new user, I find this very frustrating. This is in Madagascar not UK, but also note that Wikipedia states "In general under the law of the United Kingdom one cannot prevent photography of private property from a public place". Otherwise anything designed can be classed as art (clothing, posters, cars, statues, buildings, machines, headstones ... even a dead cow if someone calls it art!) would be invalid. If there was a sign saying no photographs or copyright than that may be different. Signs appear outside many buildings and appear here, on TV, and shown in Google's street-view! Unless there has been a test case the law, it is unproven but I think its highly unlikely it is an infringement, especially a UK post of a holiday picture from Madagascar.

Personally identifiable information (PII) and photographs of people is another issue. If you are going to have rules as to what should and shouldn't be photographed, it should be clearly stated under terms and conditions. You cannot expect each contributor to understand these complex issues. Even what I can find in Wikipedia is unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 10:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mentioned UK above, so I assumed that the sign was in the United Kingdom. In Madagascar, things are a lot simpler: you can't take photos of anything made by living or recently deceased people. English Wikipedia nevertheless accepts photos of buildings in Madagascar (ignoring that these pictures are unlawful in Madagascar), but everything other than a building is strictly forbidden here. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I can find no reference to pictures of objects taken in Madagascar being forbidden, but if true then I must accept this picture is probably not allowed. Our tour company and guide never advised us not to take photos, rather just the opposite. We had photo stops at famous landmarks, sites and buildings. The only restriction was not to take photos inside the rooms of the Kings palace. No photos of any object anywhere seems a very harsh and unbelievable rule, so do you have anything to support this. I am trying to support the efforts of the Lemurs park! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyright law is very simple: unless there is an explicit permission to do something, it is not permitted to do that. The copyright law of Madagascar contains a small exception which allows you to create holiday pictures for your own use, but not to upload them to Wikipedia. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The rule states: "an image of a work of architecture, a work of fine art ...". This is not a work of "fine art", not signed or attributed to an artist. Nor is it a public exhibition. It's prime purpose is a sign to a park entrance, partly obscured and distorted. It think your stance is extreme and unreasonable. If taken literally, then many pictures of sites from Madagascar, France, Italy and many other countries would also have to be removed from Wikipedia. The rule is aimed at art, not everyday objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 08:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A sign is a work of fine art if it meets the threshold of originality, which this sign does. This is a public exhibition as the sign is shown to people who walk nearby the park entrance. Plenty of pictures from France and other countries are deleted all of the time. For example, several pictures of French chairs were deleted from Commons because of this court ruling where the French supreme court found photographs of two different chair models to be infringing the copyright of the chairs. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said; I feel this is an extreme view, not taken by TripAdvisor, Flickr, and not in the interests of Wikipedia, press and information freedoms, and a disservice to the park itself (for which I am trying to create a page). This is a further erosion of what is the west should be public domain. There can be no copyright claim if no artist is identified. I am not even sure if Wikipedia or myself would be liable, at the server is in the US, and no US or UK laws are being infringed. Also, "exhibited" must have a threshold greater than simply being outside an entrance. The image of the sign is already in the public domain as it appears on other websites. People who share their holiday photos (on the WEB) should not be criminalized, I am not expecting to be extradited to Madagascar. It is simply a sign, albeit nicely made. I feel further discussion on FoP and this being fine art is pointless, so perhaps you can suggest how I can move on. Is an alternate "fair use" license acceptable? Would a lower resolution be acceptable? Should I edit out the lemur? Should I credit Lemurs' Park (artist unknown)? What can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Exhibited" means that it is located at a place where humans can see it, for example in a park, along a street or inside a museum. This sign is at a place where humans can see it. If you think that the law, as it is written, is an extreme view, then that's your opinion, but you still have to follow the law. Placing a sign on websites does not put the sign in the public domain. It doesn't enter the public domain until a long time after the death of the person who created the sign. The file does not satisfy WP:NFCC, so no fair use copyright tag works. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

We agree art exhibited in public (as well as private) places is protected. It is the interpretation of what is art, what constitutes a copy, whether something that can be copyrighted is therefore copyrighted, the need for a ruling FoP, and what is an exhibit I disagree with. A 2D photo of a 3D object is not a copy (whereas the copy of a chair was). Exhibit has a different meaning to display, and is normally associated with art. An artist could answer how many exhibits they have, but how may exhibits do you have! It is a deliberate act to show their work, not simply something being seen. Not every object is copyrighted art, although anyone can claim anything is art. I would suggest it is for the artist to make a claim that their work is art. We disagree on where to draw the line and unless there is a court ruling on a test case in Madagascar, we will never know. I dont believe any court would ever make the interpenetration you are (for this photo), especially as the intended use is non-profit, to help Lemurs' Park and to educate. Nor would a ban on all photographs of "objects" be justified. FoP is not a law that enables photography. FoP guidance for a country is to clarify the law, so FoP is irrelevant here. Laws prohibit, not enable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurreyJohn (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To find out what art means, read this court ruling where it is declared that File:EDGE magazine (logo).svg. Other countries may have slightly different definitions of the word "art", but it won't differ that much. This sign is clearly art in all countries.
 * To find out what constitutes a copy, read for example the court ruling in Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening, where it was decided that a quote of eleven words from a newspaper article sometimes constitutes a copy of the newspaper article, although the entire article of course is a lot longer than eleven words. Alternatively, read this court ruling, where it is decided that a photograph of a chair is a copy of the chair.
 * You can't take photos of copyrighted stuff regardless of whether it is exhibited or not. We therefore do not need any definition of "exhibition" as it does not affect the copyright status of the photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2014 (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:Kristen Spees fro Congress, November 2014.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: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  22:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Kristen Spees fro Congress, November 2014.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * EXIF: "Copyright holder Scott Rokis Photography" Eeekster (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2014 (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.