File:Roxie mitchell.jpg
[edit]File:Late roman army.svg
[edit]File:Late West Roman army.svg
[edit]File:Bodil locket.png
[edit]File:Brownschickenmass lg.jpg
[edit]File:ChuckGobbler.jpg
[edit]
- 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. The copyright status of the cover image provided seems ambiguous at best, and considering that this has come down to a free/non-free discussion (and probably should have been brought up at WP:PUF instead of here), it seems most prudent to err on the side of caution and delete the image, without prejudice against re-upload by any user or restoration by any admin should the copyright status be confirmed with absolute certainty. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Stover at Yale book cover image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TCO (notify | contribs | uploads).
- The given link does not appear to support this, on what basis do you believe this to be the 1911 edition? Fasach Nua (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There may be a problem with your browser. The link I gave shows a scan of the 1911 edition's cover, and offers downloads of the book in a variety of formats. The cover is identical to this image.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's just a small indication but if you rightclick on the image and hit properties, abebooks labels it original coverTCO (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image TCO is talking about refers to this. As I've said on TCO's talk page, that appears to be a copy that has its original dust jacket. Many books of that era had a reduced, monochromatic version of the illustrated cover etched into the binding. The size and movement of the person on both this image and the Abe books dust jacket are identical.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image has the text "Cover image for Stover at Yale" in the metadata, it is not labeled "original cover", as far as I can tell the 1911 publication indicates the text not the image, and the image is not included in the pdf Fasach Nua (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, Manybooks.net is reputable and the cover listed respects copyright and corresponds to that edition. Given that the dust jacket cover shown on AbeBooks is identical, I see no reason to doubt that the image is indeed the cover of the 1911 edition, and falls in the public domain.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If verifiable proof is obtained that this image is PD, and not just simple supposition, this image would be a valued addition to the project, however that has yet to be providedFasach Nua (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what further proof you're looking for. Multiple reliable sites show this image in the context of the 1911 edition, and searching the U.S. copyright office yields nothing. Do you have any verifiable proof that this particular image is not in the public domain, that it's the cover of a later edition and that copyright exists?
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is with those making the assertion that the image is PD to WP:PROVEIT, we do not start from the position that all images on the internet are the 1911 cover of this book unless definitive proof is provided otherwise Fasach Nua (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've already said, Manybooks and Abebooks present this image as the cover of the 1911 edition. SunCreator pointed to a cache of images on Manybooks that are clearly reproductions of the original covers. I don't know what further proof you're looking for (I could easily say, "I went to a local library and found a 1911 copy of Stover at Yale that had this cover."), but if multiple reliable sources show this art in the context that it's the 1911 cover – and I haven't seen any other image presented as a possible alternative cover – then I'm inclined to believe that this is indeed the 1911 cover.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not possible to verify if it is in the public domain, indeed we cannot even verify what it is an image of Fasach Nua (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an image of a book; the title is visible on the cover. It reads "Stover at Yale", along with the author's name. This is also visible on the spine, along with the publisher's name, "McClure Company", at the base of the spine. This is very clearly the 1911 edition, and the artwork is in the public domain.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! please provide a third party reliable source to support your statement and I will strike my delete Fasach Nua (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's visible on the book's spine. I don't know what other kind of source you're looking for to prove that there is no copyright.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Googling for original editions is leading me to all kinds of in period reviews and even sales reports. Will help my article. this always happens! Get sent off to research and find other stuff that helps a different part.
2. FN was not the bad guy if the image is legit. I really thought I had misbehaved. TCO (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the book covers in this folder look old. This and this are in a similar style. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for FN. BTW, I know you get a lot of grief, so I'm not badgering you, but I do want to understand precisely your points.
1. Do you consider Manybooks to be an RS or not? (It's fine if you think they are not good enough, but I want to know if your object is to the site quality, or just that you have not clicked some of the links given, like the directory of original covers on that site.
2. Is the angled shot an issue? I'm thinking of going to another city (trip) to verify at a library that has the original edition. I don't want to solve that issue and then find my trip in vain if there is an unsolvable issue because the angled shot is disputed. So please give your object now, if there is one.TCO (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no opinion on whether Manybooks is a reliable source or not, as it makes no assertions regarding the original publication of this image, I therefore see no reason to research into the providence of the site. I have no issue with the angled image, this was the subject of a previous FFD and I am prepared to accept the outcome of that discussion. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (2.) Thanks!
- (1.) OK. Again, I'm not trying to disagree, just want to make sure that you've looked at the same screens I have, and then just understand the specific objection (honest, I will be fine taking your judgment, this isn't some set-up to pin you down). When I look at this link, http://manybooks.net/original_covers/j/johnsono/ I find this wording at the top of the page, "Index of /original_covers/j/johnsono". When I click on the three files:
johnsonoother05stove..> 21-May-2006 14:28 6k
johnsonoother05stove..> 25-Dec-2008 04:02 1k
johnsonoother05stove..> 16-May-2006 05:20 45k
...they are all the red book cover. And the site also advertises itself as a repository of "free books". Is that labeling explicit enough assertion? And it's fine if it's not, of if now you look at the site and don't like it. Just want to make sure we've looked at same things and then understand your object. Thanks in advance!TCO (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (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.