Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18

File:TFMWNCB age 4.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user photo of indef blocked troll. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 18 August 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.

File:Deontez lockett in summer 2009.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user image. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:35, 18 August 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.

File:MusicToPicture.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned user image. The Evil IP address (talk) 09:49, 18 August 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.

File:TTC Musem Station.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely redundant to File:TTCMuseumStation.jpg, which has also a better quality. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:01, 18 August 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.

File:Kubrick-Eyes-Kidman-small.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet one more unnecessary non-free image used on Stanley Kubrick. We don't have to see how Mr. Kubrick looked like in the set of every film he directed. This is a casual picture that contains no useful relevant information. (Of course, during the course of this deletion debate, the regulars at the article will come out with two or three paragraphs about this specific photographic work and with a prose that can not be made sense of withou seeing the picture </rant>) damiens.rf 17:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is relevant commentary about this image, which was also included in the documentary film described, Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures. Kidman was interviewed for the film, and this photo relates to those interviews. Contrary to the rationale for its removal, the image is not meant to show "how Mr. Kubrick looked," but to support the commentary. Nor is it necessary to see the movie to make sense of the photo. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's not commentary at all about this image. Either relevant or not. --damiens.rf 20:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is no description of exactly what they were looking at or smiling about, or what they were thinking or saying. The photo, along with interviews with Kidman about Kubrick, are part of the documentary discussed in the section and image caption, and the photo supports that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A revised license for use as a film screen shot has been added.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

…But it's not a screenshot of a film, is it? —Bkell (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the image from the book, but the film shows the exact same photo during the interview segment with Kidman. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the picture in no way (not even minimally) enhances the reader's understanding of the text discussion Kidman's views about the movie, in any way which is required by WP:NFCC#8. This pushes the image too far into the category of "decorative" although the dividing line can be tricky.

On the one hand, User:damiens.rf has been on other occasions overzealous in claiming images are decorative, since the issue is NOT whether text alone can possibly explain what it is talking about, but whether text can explain the subject as well without the image. Here is where I think User:damiens.rf was mistaken about the image from the film Lolita which he earlier nominated for deletion. The question is not whether the image is necessary for understanding, or whether the text is sufficient, but whether the image enhances understanding. This is where in the Lolita-image discussion, User:damiens.rf was confused. (See WP:JUSTDECORATIVE. But here, I don't see how the Kubrick-Kidman image in any way at all enhances the discussion of Kubrick and Kidman's discussion about the meaning of the film. Here, I am afraid, the image really is "just decorative".--WickerGuy (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Compare WP:NFC#UUI, item 5, which gives as an example of an unacceptable use of a non-free image, "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war. Use may be appropriate if the image itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, an iconic image that has received attention in its own right, if the image is discussed in the article." Now, this is a picture of a director on a movie set, not a war, but the principle is exactly the same. We cannot use this picture just because its subject happens to be Kubrick and Kidman on the set. The article does not discuss this image itself, there is no commentary about this image, and this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. —Bkell (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image has now been through 3 different ~~licenses~~fair use rationales. The second ~~license~~fair use rationale was that it was a studio still would have been better. Studio stills are legally presumed to be for publicity purposes, and are presumed to be intended for as wide a distribution as possible. However, now it is a screenshot from the documentary Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures, the third rationale. With the latter ~~license~~rationale, I think it only very weakly fulfills WP:NFCC#8, and probably not enough for the strict standards of WP.
I think Wikiwatcher1 has made some marvelous textual changes to the article, but tends to not understand the more subtle nuances of WP's image-use policy, and on the talk-page for the article, I tried to warn him this would be very likely to be nominated for deletion, and was only persuaded when I checked out the legal status of studio stills, while the image still had its "publicity still" ~~license~~rationale. However, even then we had no direct proof that it was a studio still, only informed conjecture, which again I tried to warn Wikiwatcher1 was unlikely to fly.
damiens.rf I quite agree with you that "We don't have to see how Mr. Kubrick looked like in the set of every film he directed"- however, please stop assuming bad faith in discussions (especially when initiating them). Please reread WP:RIPPED. Do NOT speculate on editor's motives. While it is entirely true the User:Wikiwatcher seems to have a history of not understanding NFCC, you on the other hand have a history of not understanding how legit images are valuable to articles!! When initiating discussions, please avoid statements like "the regulars at the article will come out with two or three paragraphs about this specific photographic work and with a prose that can not be made sense of without seeing the picture". In the case of this very specific image, I will readily concede that cannot easily be done, but I don't appreciate your advance presumption that this is what I or anyone else would do. (Addendum: Also, it would be nice if you put up the deletion notice in the article as well as on the image page instead of leaving it to User:Wikiwatcher per instructions at Wikipedia:Image_deletion_policy#Deleting_images. I realize that's a recommendation, not a requirement, but it would be courteous.)

Verdict I say if we can come up with more direct proof that this is a studio still generated for publicity purposes (its probable but we don't have direct proof), then revert to the 2nd license, and keep, else, delete.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear! However, at least one juror hold-out feels that since this particular image has been used in (at least) two different books by different authors, and was used during a documentary as an almost iconic photo, direct proof of its intended and actual publicity use has been shown. See also Film stills. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about me, that's actually NOT my position. I want to see "proof beyond reasonable doubt", not "preponderance of evidence", which right now is all we've got.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also while the article Film stills seems to bolster your position, the article Personality rights very much bolsters the position of Bkell immediately below, and especially so since the main point of these images is that they are an image of Kubrick (albeit working on a film) and an actor, rather than an image related to the production of the film. The ~~license~~ rationale required by WP for publicity photoes, requires that for the photo "a rationale must be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification", and I am not convinced that this image meets that criterion. So I'm leaning increasingly more towards Bkell's position. Striking my earlier verdict, but still abstaining from voting.--WickerGuy (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop using the word "license" in this way—the things you are talking about are not licenses. If this image were actually available under an acceptable license, we wouldn't be having this discussion. —Bkell (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely correct, and I have with strike-outs amended my earlier text. I am confused from an issue in a different article from last September in which there was discussion (in the correct sense) of which of several licenses to use when we had the photographer's permission to use the picture. Thank you.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the tags that have been added to this file's description page are "licenses"—they are tags purporting to explain why we can use this image despite the fact that we do not have a license to use it. From the point of view of Wikipedia's policies, an image is either in the public domain, has been freely licensed, or is non-free content. I don't think anyone has ever claimed this image is in the public domain or has been freely licensed—we all agree it is non-free content. So it doesn't really matter whether it has been released by the copyright holder for "publicity" purposes or whether it was just scanned from a book or whatever—it still must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria. The result of a discussion like this should not depend on whether it was released for "publicity" or not. —Bkell (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: If this is indeed a film still (and if we can establish pretty certainly that it is), and the information in Film still#Public domain is accurate, then perhaps this is actually in the public domain. I was not aware that this whole class of photographs is generally considered to be in the public domain, as established by case law. In this case, we need to change the file description page to clearly state the evidence and the reasons it is in the public domain, and remove all non-free tags. —Bkell (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article says "film still" but I think a more accurate term is "studio still". It's not a frame FROM the movie. It's a shot taken on the set of the film by a studio photographer of the production. In this case, even the second ~~license~~rationale (Whoops- did it again) used here (which I defended previously) is not the best. It's for advertising photos in general of ANY product, person, or event, not just films, and is a rationale for non-free images (say for an advertising image of anything from a rock concert to a car or a political rally.) But it is a rationale for non-free images. But, yes, by American law studio stills are legally presumed public domain, and both Wikiwatcher1 and I were both mistaken in concluding that made rationale "non-free promotional" the correct one to use. It remains a question than of whether or not the evidence that we have that this is a studio still is sufficient!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict, not a response to WickerGuy] Personally, although I have uploaded other public domain publicity images published before 1989 without a copyright, I'm not comfortable doing it with photos published after 1989, when the Berne Convention revised some of the rules. I see two potential risks: 1) The publisher of the source image may have made a mistake in their photo credits; and 2) It requires a copyright search online to make sure the photographer or studio didn't register a copyright within the new 5-year time frame.

But even though copyright searches are easy, there are still variables that could allow for errors, such as how the photo was titled or described. And even though a wrongly declared PD publicity image in WP wouldn't harm anyone, allowing others to use it commercially would be a problem. My preference would be to rephrase or relax the use of non-free promotional photos so that "critical commentary" about the "photo itself" is not required. Requiring "relevance" to the text for such publicity stills should be fine. With a low-res image used for non-profit education in WP, there will never be a problem. Relaxing the requirements would fit well with recent fair use law conferences. Just some thoughts. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing—one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, our fundamental principles, is that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." We do not have our non-free content policies just to keep us out of legal trouble—we have them to ensure that this project we are working on can be redistributed and modified freely, for any purpose, by anyone. That's why it's so important for us to be certain about the copyright status of our images. If we can definitely establish that this image is in the public domain, then that's great; we should explain why it's in the public domain, so that if we or any reusers of our content are ever challenged about it we have a solid defense, and then we should feel free to use it as much as we like. But if we can't establish that it's in the public domain, we cannot be satisfied to just leave it in some kind of copyright "limbo"—we must treat it as if it is completely non-free, and it must satisfy all ten points of the non-free content criteria, including WP:NFCC#8. This is because content that is not provably free is contrary to the founding principles of Wikipedia, so we limit its use as much as we can, using it only when it is absolutely necessary to do so. This image would be great to have in the Kubrick article if we know it is free, but it is not so crucially necessary to the article that we would need to include it even if it were not free. That's the point of WP:NFCC#8, and that's why we require a rationale explaining why each use of a non-free image is so essential to the article it's used in. We require more from our non-free images than that they are simply "relevant" to the text—we require them to be crucial to the text. Being the direct subject of commentary in the text is a typical way that non-free images are crucial to the articles they are in. —Bkell (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Re: If we can definitely establish that this image is in the public domain . . ., is the issue. The problem, or solution (depending on how we look at it,) is that proving an image is public domain is not done by pointing out some affirmative act, or showing some documentation. A PD item is never declared, except by some judge after a court case. PD is simply taken as a given, and reasonable presumption, when there is no proof of copyright. As for publicity stills being called a "class," that's one way to put it. When a legal expert for the film industry, with many others, state in a RS that "publicity photos taken to promote a film actor or other celebrity were not usually copyrighted and were intened to remain free . . .", the meaning is clear. But when a WP editor (anyone with access to the web) simply decides they don't like, or understand, the statement, and adds tags doubting the source, nothing is clear. If there is consensus that the few images in question can be reasonably tagged as PD, I'll revise them. Although I'd probably add the PD file to En/WP, instead of the Commons, and leave it low res.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In wikiwatcher's defense, most of the images in Ciment's book that are taken directly from a movie have copyright notices. The studio stills in Ciment's book simply have no notice of any kind.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"PD is simply taken as a given, and reasonable presumption, when there is no proof of copyright." Alas, I wish it were that way. Unfortunately, since 1976 (see Copyright Act of 1976), works do not have to have copyright notices to have copyright protection, so the presumption actually goes the other way—works are presumed to be copyrighted unless there is sufficient evidence that they are not. I agree, this seems backwards, but as I understand the law, that's the way it works. —Bkell (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NO WONDER the information about copyrights on Film still supports Wikiwatcher1's position, since he was the one singlehandedly adding that to the article. --damiens.rf 15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's an interesting observation. But the information in the article has been added with what seem to me to be valid, reliable sources. Are you claiming that this information is incorrect or misleading? If what the article says is correct, it doesn't matter who added it. —Bkell (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Damiens' blitz-tagging the word "expert" in Film still, obviously a not-so-subtle way of undermining the heavily cited copyright details, I assume he will discuss it, as the copy-pasted tags require. On the other hand, he might want to try the easier and more logical method of doing his own research to confirm the sources, ie.Now in an updated and expanded third edition, The Complete Film Production Handbook by film production expert Eve Light Honthaner is a comprehensive, resource packed instructional reference . . ., cited in Amazon. Or state the basis he is questioning the leqal expertise of the author of "Film Study and the Copyright Law," who is also the author of dozens of books. I'm not sure who Damiens considers an "expert," if anyone, but this kind of defacement of numerous citations, considering his comments above, and lacking AGF in his rationale, is clearly unwarranted and should be reverted. In any case, he needs to talk to justify the blitz-tagging soon. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, User:Damiens.rf has a semi-valid point on the discussion of the Modine image, where he writes "This is not a class of images generally accepted as Public Domain on this project and the community is yet to establish how do we verify if an image is really a never-copyrighted publicity still". (Emphasis added-WG). This may indeed by legally public domain stuff, but he also makes a true and valid point WP has no set policy on this kind of image. On the other hand, Damiens' tags on the Film still article are utterly meritless and ridiculous, and I have reverted them, and have left him a very unfriendly note at Talk:Film_still#Ridiculous_and_tendentious_tagging.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After an edit-war over at Film still, I have put in footnotes the credentials of the main three authors cited, that were pointlessly challenged by User:Damiens.rf. (Just barely avoided WP:3RR on that one.--WickerGuy (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of WP setting policy on publicity stills might be tricky since WP policy can't supersede the law. I think a policy of simply "following" the law, or legal guidelines created by real-world experts, is the best option. One example is the last paragraph in Film_still#Fair_Use, which proposed legal guidelines re: the burden of proof. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, as far as it goes, but somewhere WP policy overtly states that on fair use, it is stricter than the law. I'm not so sure what it says about proving public domain, so you might be correct there. Just thinking out loud, as I have done many times is this discussion (I can't think of any WP debate I have been in wherein I changed my mind so many times in such a short period of time.)--WickerGuy (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking out loud myself, it's possible that the "burden of proof" issue might be part of the solution to this dilemma. For instance, WP policy could consider "publicity (or film) stills" as a "class" of images that experts and cases state, were not usually copyrighted and were intended to remain free . . .. One Film still expert put it bluntly: ""Publicity photos have traditionally not been copyrighted." Hence, WP policy could rely on that clear fact and define the "burden of proof," requiring proof of copyright rather than proof of public domain (presumed.) In other words, a publicity photo would be considered public domain unless proven otherwise. It would fit with all the legal precedents, and give WP policy on the topic a valid foundation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, a question for Wikiwatcher1: These legal precedents you refer to, and that are mentioned in Film still#Public domain—do any of them specifically apply to publicity materials produced after 1976, when copyright notices were no longer required for works to have copyright protection? For example, I read the ruling of the federal appeals case linked in the article. That case was about publicity materials for The Wizard of Oz, which was produced in 1939, when copyright notices were required. The crux of that case seemed to be that these materials were put into general publication without a copyright notice, and that's why they are in the public domain. Because copyright notices haven't been required since 1976, though, that argument seems not to apply to more recent publicity materials. —Bkell (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should really let Ww1 answer the question, but note two things, the second more relevant 1)Mast is quoted about revisions as of 1989 according to which studios have a five-year limit to assert copyright studio stills, though in practice most studios do not do it. But more important, 1) please see the one paragraph and citation added to the article by outside party (not Ww1) at [1]. According to this publicity photoes of the stars themselves are usually not copyrighted, but "Production Stills" taken on the set are indeed copyrighted!!! Same article says "In 1988, the U.S. joined the Berne Copyright Convention which states that no formalities are required to obtain a copyright, so therefore no copyright notice is required nor is registration with the Library of Congress."

I suspect then that in spite of the fact that these photos in Michel Ciment's book have no copyright notice (while the film frames DO have CR notice), this may in fact then be copyrighted material.-- WickerGuy (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try, but note that it looks like there's not yet any absolute answer, with most of the conclusions implied. Most of the following is also redundant from the above discussions.

But overall it seems like all the references still support and rely on what Gerald Mast originally wrote in 1979, after the new copyright law took effect: That one of the two "specific issues which the new law explicity fails to address—and which are the two most important problems facing film research and teaching today—are: 1) the legal restrictions on using individual production stills or frame blow-ups from whole films in publications," (Quarterly Review of Film Studies, 1979) His opinion about "publicity stills," as opposed to "production stills," was not affected or undermined by a more recent article in Cinema Journal in 2007, relating to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. It also appears that the most recent conference about this subject was back in 1993, which also quoted Mast (also footnote #12 in Film still)

"According to the old copyright act, such production stills were not automatically copyrighted as part of the film and required separate copyrights as photographic stills. The new copyright act similarly excludes the production still from automatic copyright but gives the film's copyright owner a five-year period in which to copyright the stills. Most studios have never bothered to copyright these stills because they were happy to see them pass into the public domain, to be used by as many people in as many publications as possible."CMS

What seems the most relevant issue beyond this is that "production stills" are not what we're worried about, since WP already allows for non-free screenshots with a number of templates. And according to Creative Clearance, which defines "production stills," they are - - (drum roll)- -not the same as "publicity photos." That organization furthermore clearly separates the "older publicity stills" (usually not copyrighted) with "newer publicity stills:"

Newer publicity stills shot for a specific film or television program may contain a copyright - if they do you are required to clear them with the owner of the copyright, usually the film or television company that produced the program. (emphasis added)

(OR alert!) By implication then, if a "newer" publicity still does not contain a copyright in its source, it could likewise be "considered public domain," as the older ones are. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes have been made to U.S. copyright law since Gerald Mast wrote his essay; in particular, the United States joined the Berne Convention in 1988, as WickerGuy has pointed out. I thought that 1976 was the important date, but it seems the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 made some significant changes. The relevant section of the current U.S. copyright law, I think, is 17 USC 405, "Notice of copyright: Omission of notice on certain copies and phonorecords":

(a) Effect of Omission on Copyright. — With respect to copies and phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner before the effective date of the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the omission of the copyright notice described in sections 401 through 403 from copies or phonorecords publicly distributed by authority of the copyright owner does not invalidate the copyright in a work if —

(1) the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively small number of copies or phonorecords distributed to the public; or

(2) registration for the work has been made before or is made within five years after the publication without notice, and a reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies or phonorecords that are distributed to the public in the United States after the omission has been discovered; or

(3) the notice has been omitted in violation of an express requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner's authorization of the public distribution of copies or phonorecords, they bear the prescribed notice.

Subsection (a)(2) here is where Mast is getting his "five years" from, I think. However, all of this is irrelevant to the image currently under discussion, since it applies only to works created before 1988. (The image under discussion here was taken when, 1998 or 1999?) As far as I know, since 1988, copyright notices have not been required for copyright protection, so we cannot assume that the lack of a copyright notice is evidence that the work is in the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the 5-year window for registration is more general, and applies to more than just phonorecords. What the Berne Convention did was to expand more copyright protection to various other countries to keep the rules in sync. But phonorecords, like visual media, can be made into small segments, ie. "production stills" from a movie. And they are both made for commercial purposes. So whether the work is an audio or video for-profit creation, a "production still" or audio clip had specific copyrights. But a "publicity still" was created and intended to be given away freely. They were an important means for assisting the original product, the movie or record, to be publicized and sold, and the producers are still "happy to see them pass into the public domain," said Mast.

Another OR alert! The last thing a film or music company would want to see happen, it would seem, would be to frighten publications and limit publications' willingness to publish publicity photos, along with press releases, where they're often included. Could you imagine seeing a movie or record press release, sent to thousands of media outlets, with a warning copyright notice saying that the text is protected, that infringers will be prosecuted? Publicity photos, like press releases, for copyright, are probably the exception that makes the rule.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that section I quoted applies to more than just phonorecords—that's why it repeatedly refers to "copies and phonorecords." The word "copies" is defined to mean, "material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." So "copies" covers everything that is not a phonorecord.

Your link explicitly says that "registration is not a requirement for copyright protection." The five-year registration window allows copyright holders to register their works with the Copyright Office, which will "establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate," but even with no registration the copyright is still valid (though without registration it may be more difficult for the copyright holder to establish the necessary prima facie evidence to start legal proceedings).

As for the argument that "the copyright holder would want us to use this image," please read WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED. An assumption that the copyright holder would want an image publicly disseminated, or that the copyright holder probably wouldn't sue anyone for using it, is no evidence that the image is actually in the public domain. Remember, our collection of freely licensed images here is regularly used by many people all over the world—copied, modified, redistributed, etc. These reusers trust that the copyright status of our content is properly indicated. We cannot tag an image as being in the public domain based on a guess or an assumption. As I said before, if we cannot put forth strong evidence that this file actually is in the public domain (because either it was never under copyright protection, its copyright protection has expired, or the copyright holder has explicitly released all rights), we must assume it is non-free content.

By the way, the idiom "the exception that proves the rule" doesn't really apply here, as far as I can see. You probably just meant to say that you think publicity photos are exceptions to the rule. But so far I haven't seen any good evidence for the claim that publicity photos are somehow treated differently from other creative works under U.S. copyright law. —Bkell (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep illustrates commentary. Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

… What commentary? There is no commentary about this image in the article at all. —Bkell (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is mentioned as one published by multiple sources, noted on the image description page, as relating to the documentary discussed in the Death section. That film is in the caption. Would it be speculative commentary to call it a "cheerful candid moment on the set of Eyes Wide Shut? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed. In addition to Michel Ciment's book on Kubrick, Paul Duncan's book on Kubrick gives copyright notice for all the film stills and absolutely none at all for the studio stills.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Alex Walker's book--WickerGuy (talk) 15:29, 25 August 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.

File:Piti map.JPG

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused JPEG map claiming to show the location of Piti, Guam; however, the highlighted area is actually Santa Rita, Guam. —Bkell (talk) 18:37, 18 August 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.

File:Maniglao map.JPG

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused JPEG map showing the location of Mangilao, Guam, except that "Mangilao" is misspelled. Superseded by File:Guam map Mangilao.png. —Bkell (talk) 18:42, 18 August 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.

File:Tamukclassring002.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Identical to File:Tamukclassring001.png except for the file format and the fact that this image lacks a transparent background. —Bkell (talk) 20:23, 18 August 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.

File:Kubrick-Metal-Modine-Ciment-small-1.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more excessive unnecessary non-free picture showing nothing more than Stanley Kubrick directing a movie. damiens.rf 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The rationale that the image is "one more excessive unnecessary" picture is not supported by selective targeting, but by dealing with those others. A quick review of almost all of the non-free Stanley Kubrick images will show that they are not actually about Kubrick, but descriptive of various films. This one, at least, shows Kubrick at work on the film discussed, and some might assume is obviously much more relevant and of value to that section than the others. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you have to tie in specific details of the image to specifics in the article text per NFCC#8--WickerGuy (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8; compare WP:NFC#UUI item 5. This image is not discussed in the article, there is no commentary about this image, and it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. —Bkell (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike the other image from this article proposed for deletion today, this still has the publicity photo license, instead of the new screenshot license. We need stronger proof that this is a studio still, rather than presuming it is probably one. Such stills are legally generally considered public domain. As with the other image
Verdict if we can come up with more direct proof that this is a studio still generated for publicity purposes (its probable but we don't have direct proof), then keep, else, delete.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "licenses," and the outcome of this discussion should not depend on whether it was released for "publicity purposes" or not. See my comment above. —Bkell (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: If this is indeed a film still (and if we can establish pretty certainly that it is), and the information in Film still#Public domain is accurate, then perhaps this is actually in the public domain. I was not aware that this whole class of photographs is generally considered to be in the public domain, as established by case law. In this case, we need to change the file description page to clearly state the evidence and the reasons it is in the public domain, and remove all non-free tags. —Bkell (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at #File:Kubrick-Eyes-Kidman-small.jpg--WickerGuy (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information in Film still#Public domain was added by the uploader of this file and has never been properly discussed by the community. This is not a class of images generally accepted as Public Domain on this project and the community is yet to establish how do we verify if an image is really a never-copyrighted publicity still. --damiens.rf 15:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Slowking4: 7@1|x 18:57, 22 August 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.

File:100k kasteel beau.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, very likely to be non-free, as this is a photograph of a mural. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:44, 18 August 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.

File:8 AZNPRD BHHS.JPG

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, some sort of high school science project by the look of it, no description, no evidence that this is free use. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:48, 18 August 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.

File:13 KINKI BHHS.JPG

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, some sort of high school science project by the look of it, no description, no evidence that this is free use. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:49, 18 August 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.

File:1319nm Nd YAG EVLA Left GSV.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what this is supposed to be. Description isn't useful, uploader blocked for being a spam only account. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:50, 18 August 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.

File:1319nm Nd YAG EVLA.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what this is supposed to be. Description isn't useful, uploader blocked for being a spam only account. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:51, 18 August 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.

File:1321 WP201.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an uncropped version of File:WP201.jpg, there's no reason to keep it. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:52, 18 August 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.

File:133Pamiri1...jpg

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image of a named minor. Maybe a userphoto, donno. No article on the person, so this isn't going to be used in any encyclopedic context. Uploader is inactive. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:58, 18 August 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.

File:1337 total.png

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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snippet from Runescape, if I had to guess. No encyclopedic value. Being used in a userpage that is itself up for deletion for being nothing more than a Runescape friends list. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:59, 18 August 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.