< June 19	June 21 >

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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scott McGregor photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Seems to come from a screencap of his appearance on a TV show, see http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/NinaMyers/PDVD_008ScottMcGregortemptationcaps.jpg

Therefore it is clearly not "self made". Fences&Windows 01:54, 20 June 2010 (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 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MullerWaterboard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

No evidence of permission, the source given does not verify that the content was released under a Creative Commons license. I had previously discussed the issue with the uploader in April 2010, but nothing has happened since then. — ξ ^xplicit 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to Explicit for his diligent follow-up. The source contacted both the news organization website that originally posted the video from which the still in question was taken (NBCMiami.com) and the subject of the still (Mr. Muller)--(see User talk:ElijahBosley) and neither replied. The video originally was distributed without restriction as news, published at NBCMIami.Com, then stills from the video republished on the Huffington Post website without restriction, also as news. There has been no objection to re-republication despite notice and an opportunity to comment to the creator and the previous publisher. Absent any asserted claim to copyright restriction, Wikipedia has done all it can do to verify and ensure free and fair use.ElijahBosley (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was the original source of this video? It's here, but it gives no clue on who the filmer or uploader was. NBCMiami's terms of service for user uploaded content are a non-exclusive license to the content (the copyright holder could allow others to reproduce it), but its terms of service prevent copying: your 'release' on their behalf of this still under a Creative Commons license is basically a lie, as you have no authority to do this. You might be able to claim fair use, but that's something else entirely. Fences&Windows 19:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "basically a lie" is an unfortunately provocative choice of words, inconsistent with Wikipedia:Etiquette. Perhaps on mature reflection the editor who typed the remark, doubtless in haste, will see fit to revise it; for myself I see no reason to trouble about it further other than calling it to the editor's attention.ElijahBosley (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you authorised to act on behalf on Huffington Post or NBCMiami? Did you have permission to release the image under a Creative Commons license? If not, these two edits were deception:[1][2]. I'm not making a personal attack, I'm calling a spade a spade. Deceptively claiming to be able to release copyrighted content under free licences is not acceptable. Fences&Windows 15:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the source of the still photo in question--me, myself and I. It is my perogative to release my work under a generous Creative Commons license. I used the program Grab to take pixels from a video which had been thrown out to the general public as a publicity stunt by a Chicago radio personality and later picked up and broadcast by the two news organizations in question, on opposite sides of the country, neither affiliated with the creator of the video. I used another program called GraphicConverter to reshape the pixels, and to crop, clarify and re-color the changed image. Then I posted the resulting new artwork with a caption, also of my own creation, and with an open license. In the unlikely event that news websites who republished a video not of their making, released for the sake of publicity by a third party, should attempt to claim an exclusive copyright let them try: they will fail. As to one particular editor's unwillingness to retract unnecessarily shrill verbiage? In the course of time such behavior will leave that editor ignored, friendless, and alone. I have had enough experience of the other type of editor, the cheerful supportive type, who thinking she sees a problem offers helpful ways to fix it, and if she finds she erred, admits it--I have seen heartening examples enough, that so I am not discouraged about the future of Wikipedia. We are all volunteers after all, and the way to keep volunteers working is to be nice to them.ElijahBosley (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand that the news agencies don't own copyright, then you shouldn't have claimed that they were able to release the screengrab under a Creative Commons license. Your argument keep shifting. As you now admit that they don't hold copyright, you'll hopefully understand that the person who shot the video holds copyright. We don't know who that is, but that doesn't give you the right to assume that the video is in the public domain. The video appearing on various sites could mean they sought permission, or perhaps they used it without permission. What other websites do is of no concern to us. Taking a screengrab of a video does not assign you authorship over that screengrab, regardless of the slight image manipulation. A derivative work can only be released under a free license if the original work was under a free license. See Derivative work: you cannot claim copyright as your changes were "rote, uncreative variation on the earlier, underlying work." You are allowed to claim fair use, but you didn't do that. Just admit that you were wrong and stop trying to shoot the messenger. Fences&Windows 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a response reducing perjoratives and increasing cogent argument. Much better. Though try to avoid the word "you." Wikipedia editing properly concerns only a file, and not the person posting it. Arguing about "the file" or "the photo" or "the license description," is perfectly valid: say, "the file lacks documentation," or "the license description does not seem appropriate." To say "you" failed to document or "you lied" is like two dogs staring in each others eyes, and both are going to start growling. I will leave it at that and address the question of crediting to NBCMiami.com. Credit where credit is due. The Huffington Post credited NBCMiami.com for breaking the story, and I have done the same. Crediting a news organization and referring to their website, is not the same as (in fact the opposite of) acquiescing in an exclusive copyright. I might further note the principle of credit where credit is due is strongly encouraged by Wikipedia cf.wikipedia:citing sources. Whether or not failing to give credit would be plagiarism is beyond the current discussion; just as a student writing a term paper should diligently footnote even when material is reshaped as this was, a footnote is decorous. If every reference meant an admission that copyright royalties are owed, then the articles I have contributed would be so expensive I could not take the vacation for which I am about to leave, which I regret will preclude continuing this discussion. Well, regret may not be quite the right word. Perhaps rather than tracing the history of each pixel in the image and deciding whether it is sufficiently changed to qualify as original artwork--a more constructive endeavor would be in my absence to continue efforts to contact the Chicago radio personality "Mancow" to ask whether he has any objections to Wikipedia's use of the image he released freely as a publicity stunt. My guess is he'll say something like "Sure, go ahead. That's Mancow's Morning Madhouse spelled M-A-N-C-O-W. Oh, by the way I was fired last February (which is why its hard to get hold of me) but I am still looking for syndication."ElijahBosley (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence from http://www.nbcmiami.com/terms/ that the image is released under the stated license, need to follow WP:PERMISSION and get an appropriate release into the WP:OTRS system. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2010 (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 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; file description pages have been modified to reflect outcome of discussion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hostmaster Decanter Red.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

Glassware design - May well be uploaders photo, but no further information on the designer of the glassware shown Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional -

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The glassware was manufactured in the 1930s. The successor company, Dalzell-Viking Glass, went bankrupt in 1998.[3][4] With this in mind, the copyright might theoretically still reside with someone (a bank?), but there would be a clear fair use justification for all of these images as no commercial infringement is possible as this glassware was manufactured over 70 years ago by a defunct company. Fences&Windows 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I agree with the fair use arguments that Fences and Windows makes, I want to make two general points here. First of all, I think these are likely to belong to the "functional objects of daily use" exception. Second of all, even if these works were copyrightable, their copyright has expired. None of them has a copyright notice, so they would be in the public domain per ((PD-Pre1978)). IronGargoyle (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per IronGargoyle. I did not check all of the images but "functional objects of daily use" can be kept. Only reason to delete would be that photos are not taken by uploader. In that case the images would have to be deleted since they are replacable. However, uploader has to choos a free license. --MGA73 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the uploader needs to choose a free license needs to choose a free license. I love how I sometimes miss the forest for the trees like that. I left a message on the uploader's talk page. It looks as if the uploader may have left Wikipedia in disgust over our image rules, however, so if the uploader doesn't reply in a couple of days, someone might want to send an e-mail. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2010 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 20

File:Scott McGregor photo.jpg

File:MullerWaterboard.jpg

File:Hostmaster_Decanter_Red.JPG