Commons:Village pump

‎Policy violation by admin Ecemaml
← Older revision
Revision as of 06:26, 24 March 2013
Line 781:
Line 781:
 
--[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|talk]]) 02:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Tomascastelazo|Tomascastelazo]] ([[User talk:Tomascastelazo|talk]]) 02:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

−
: DRs are sometimes closed pretty quickly when it's obvious (one way or the other). I don't know your prior history, but you raised both scope and copyvio questions. Both are pretty obviously within scope; the fact that no articles currently use them is not relevant. The copyvio angle would normally be very possible but both photographs are covered by [[Commons:freedom of panorama]] so that is definitely not an issue either. So, I'd say that was a fair speedy-keep. It does look like you were angry over a deletion of a (from the looks of it, if the Google cache is accurate) really nice photograph. That one (if it's the Spongebob balloon with others in the background) is unfortunately on the borderline of copyright, not really for something like Wikipedia articles (it'd easily be fair use if the article was discussing that balloon in particular, and maybe even just the event) but in other situations it's an issue. Those are never fun to discuss -- it is definitely a valuable photograph, as are photos of statues, but the "free" requirement does mean we need to be able to use these photos e.g. on a postcard, and that is where the owners of a character copyright would likely have a case. It's not quite as straightforward as a photo of a statue (since there are explicit court rulings on those), but it's still a rather gray area and somewhat similar. I don't think there are many uses of that photo which would be a problem but there may be a few. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|talk]]) 06:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
+
: DRs are sometimes closed pretty quickly when it's obvious (one way or the other). I don't know your prior history, but you raised both scope and copyvio questions. Both are pretty obviously within scope; the fact that no articles currently use them is not relevant. The copyvio angle would normally be very possible but both photographs are covered by [[Commons:freedom of panorama]] so that is definitely not an issue either. So, I'd say that was a fair speedy-keep. It does look like you were angry over a deletion of a (from the looks of it, if the Google cache is accurate) really nice photograph. That one (if it's the Spongebob balloon with others in the background) is unfortunately on the borderline of copyright, not really for something like Wikipedia articles (it'd easily be fair use if the article was discussing that balloon in particular, and maybe even just the event) but in other situations it's an issue. Those are never fun to discuss -- it is definitely a valuable photograph, as are photos of statues, but the "free" requirement does mean we need to be able to use these photos e.g. on a postcard, and that is where the owners of a character copyright would likely have a case. It's not quite as straightforward as a photo of a statue (since there are explicit court rulings on those), but it's still a rather gray area and somewhat similar. I don't think there are many uses of that photo which would be a problem but there may be a few. You might have a case though on the Mexican version of "FoP" which does not seem to have a "permanently located in public" requirement as many countries do. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|talk]]) 06:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 

 

 
= March 24 =
 
= March 24 =

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=93179603&oldid=93179478