Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 September 15
September 15
- 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 Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- File:Bhagat Singh 1922.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This photo may not be in the public domain outside India, because it was taken when he was prison in 1927, not 1922 as shown on the file name. Diannaa (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This should probably get the same closure as Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bhagat Singh 1922 prison photo.jpg, so we should probably wait until that discussion has been closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This photo was deleted from Commons. From the discussion at Commons, it was not published before 1947, which in turn means that while it may be PD in India, it is not PD in the US due to the URAA. For it to be PD in the US the image should have been in the public domain in India by 1996, ie. published in India before 1941, which is apparently not the case. —RP88 (talk) 17:58, 15 November 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.
- 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: Keep. The Bible is not available for photography, and there's no consensus to delete the image. The image has now been tagged as Fair Use. Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
- File:Washington-bible.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- This photograph is of a book as a three dimensional object, so the rationale behind it being PD for being 2D and already public domain is flawed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- So why not just change it to the rationale for a 3-D object? Jack1956 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because photos of 3D object require permission from the photographer. There is no evidence that the photographer has granted any permission here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- So why don't photos of 2D works of art need permission from the photographer? Isn't use of it with a 3D tag covered by this?: "Per § 107 it is believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright. It is believed that the use of a picture to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Jack1956 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Replaceable fair use is what you're pushing for. This book appears to be open for public viewing, so a new picture could still be taken. 2D does not require permission as the US does not recognise sweat of brow as a rationale for copyright: the act of faithfully scanning a 2D object does not reach the threshold of creativity required for the US copyright law. 3D objects, on the other hand, take on additional considerations of angles, lighting, etc. which all help it pass the necessary creativity to draw a new copyright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- So why don't photos of 2D works of art need permission from the photographer? Isn't use of it with a 3D tag covered by this?: "Per § 107 it is believed that reproduction for criticism, comment, teaching and scholarship constitutes fair use and does not infringe copyright. It is believed that the use of a picture to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." Jack1956 (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Because photos of 3D object require permission from the photographer. There is no evidence that the photographer has granted any permission here. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- The Bible is not open for public viewing. As the Bible of a Masonic Lodge, and one of America's most important and precious documents, it is kept securely locked away. Because of its fragility it is not opened anymore including at any state occasions or lodge ceremony at which it may be used. The image therefore is irreplacable, especially as it shows the Bible open. Jack1956 (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:36, 17 September 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.