Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 1

< June 30	July 2 >

July 1

File:Bluesbrothersjail.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--not discussed critically. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:BenjaminFranklinBridge cropped.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Keep and tag for move to Commons. Diannaa (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low resolution crop of now deleted image.Orphan Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment image was not deleted. After checking commons, found it was uploaded to commons at a different name File:Benjamin Franklin Bridge from DUKW.jpg . -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons usable resolution, and cropped to the bridge, to emphasize the bridge. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Identifed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Whaam! text balloon.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: No consensus (and moot, since it exists on Commons) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have the full piece of art this was extracted from (its notable and that is not going to go anywhere) and it is just text which is repeated in the body, there is zero need for a separate image of the text. If the text needs to be seen (arguably not), just enlarge the main image, no need to add add'l non-free. MASEM (t) 13:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wasn't a similar image contended to be PD because it was only text, or would be after the bit remaining is cropped out? -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this crop is so that I can have an image for the main page if I can get this promoted for the 50th anniversary of its debut on September 28. A copy of this was speedily deleted at commons. When I explained the situtation it was relisted for further debate at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg. It is not needed here, if it is going to be allowed there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you trimmed it to just the text as it appears in the art - which if it stood on its own would be ineligible for copyright due to the threshold of originality - the fact that we know it is a crop of a larger image makes it a copyrighted derivative work. Meaning it will not be hosted on commons, and it must meet NFC here (and thus if you were trying for a TFA, you wouldn't be allowed to have that image for the TFA blurb). --MASEM (t) 14:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If something is not eligible for copyright, it's not eligible for copyright -- it doesn't matter what it's been derived from.

On the other hand, there could be an argument that the letter-forms are hand drawn in a 1-off way, so passing the threshold of originality. Jheald (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - No, because the derivative work (the cropping) is copyrighted; if it was the case that, say, TonyTheTiger created the image with those words himself without cropped from the picture, that would reasonably fail ToO since there was no creativity in creating the original work. But as a crop of a definitive copyrighted work, that derivative work retains its copyright, and arguably the act of cropping is not sufficiently original to create yet another copyright on top of that ([1]). Otherwise, I can take your argument and say that by finely "chopping" up a copyrighted work into small pieces that - if they were otherwise created from scratch would be ineligible for copyright, like brief text sections of a larger work - we could effectively recreate an copyrighted work as a completely free work simply by this process. And that doesn't fly. The "originality" test here is on (presumably) Tony's action, since that's the original part of this work and that's above and beyond the the copyright inherited from the copyrighted work. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - More so, per US law, because this is a derivative work, only the copyright holder has the implicit ability to do so [2], meaning that any derivative works we create are copyrighted to the original work's copyright holder, and we can only use them following fair use (read: Non-free) provisions. And NFCC#1 is pretty clear this is duplication of existing content that can be removed. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:File name.ext

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising-mt_papandayan_02.jpg 180.214.232.87 (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:Uprising-mt papandayan 01.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising-mt_papandayan_02.jpg 180.214.232.87 (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.