Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 October 4

:The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Kept. Shell ^babelfish 08:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks that the logos, etc., don't pass de minimus. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

::I went to the store. Bought some packages of candy. Laid them on the table. Took a picture to illustrate the product sold by the company. Same as someone who takes a picture of a Chevrolet Camaro parked on a dealer's lot or on a public road. Are you claiming that if my picture of a Camaro includes the "Chevrolet" badge, that it is copyright infringement????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 13:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:I'm inclined to think that this is simple enough packaging to not pass the threshold of originality (e.g. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc. Ets-Hokin_v._Skyy_Spirits_Inc]). IronGargoyle (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Your link goes to this case, where it was ruled:

::::"Skyy argues, in a nutshell, that the commercial photographs of its vodka bottle are not worthy of copyright protection. We disagree. The essence of copyrightability is originality of artistic, creative expression. Given the low threshold for originality under the Copyright Act, as well as the longstanding and consistent body of case law holding that photographs generally satisfy this minimal standard, we conclude that Ets-Hokin's product shots of the Skyy vodka bottle are original works of authorship entitled to copyright protection."

:::I am not a commercial photograhper, and the photo in question has been released into the Public Domain by myself.

:::So where the heck do we stand in the byzantine bureaucracy of Wikipedia on this subject? Because I'm not clear, at all, of 1) where this issue stands, or 2) what next steps are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 11:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

::::Exactly. The point of the link is twofold. It says that photographs themselves can be copyrighted or released into the public domain by their creator (you). The rest of the opinion goes on to state that the images (like the ones you took) in a very similar case are not derivative works (meaning you aren't infringing on the rights of the candy companies by taking and redistributing photographs of their products because those products are simply designed). IronGargoyle (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::So what exactly is the next step? Does Drilnoth have to do something because he initiated this? Or can some other member of Wikipedia do something? What exactly has to be done? When is this finished/resolved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmallowbunnywabbit (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::The discussion will continue for several weeks until another uninvolved administrator makes a determination about the image, based on the consensus of the discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2009 (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 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: resolved w/correct license added. Skier Dude (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Free-use license being claimed inappropriately for a book cover. Cirt (talk) 04:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:All a misunderstanding: I simply chose the wrong item from the pulldown list. For the record, it's a book cover like countless others, and I believe Wikipedia is justified in using my digital photograph of my copy of the book's front cover. This qualifies as fair use.

:I'm not trying to say that the book cover itself is free-licensed.

:Can anyone help me fix this? What am I supposed to say on the file page? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

::Disregard, as the user has removed the inappropriate tags from the image page, I will fix it. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2009 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

:The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree image 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: Kept. Retagged as pd-ineligible. Shell ^babelfish 09:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

being used as organizational logo, no source given, if legit, uploader would not be (c) holder, if not legit, no need for unofficial images here Skier Dude (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:I'm thinking this may be too simple of a design for copyright protection, per {{tl|PD-ineligible}}. IronGargoyle (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2009 (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 image 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: Kept - there are no apparent copyrighted parts of the image, unless it is claimed that the font is restricted in some way - Peripitus (Talk) 03:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Most likely a screenshot from a website, despite claim of self-made. Also, usage is redundant on WP where text can be used instead. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

::File is not a screenshot, but clearly a routine Powerpoint creation. It is also of value in other Wikipedia articles like guerilla warfare. Recommend keep.Mohound (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2009 (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 image 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 {{admin|Drilnoth}} AnomieBOT⚡ 04:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No evidence that image is out of copyright Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:42, 4 October 2009 (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.