File:SchneiderWeisse.PNG
[edit]
- 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: Delete; deleted by Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SchneiderWeisse.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- 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:Caesium Auride.gif
[edit]
- 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: Delete; deleted as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Caesium Auride.gif (delete | talk | history | logs).
- A nonfree file that seems to fail WP:NFCC#1 (non-replaceability). Although possibly the only published image of it, the equipment and materials for making it seem easily available and the procedures are published and do not seem difficult or require unique skills or lab facilities. DMacks (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree this image is certainly replaceable. Has anyone even asked the author of the publication of they have another picture they can release freely? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I just updated caesium auride with the cite to the paper that contains this image (it may be in other refs, but this is the one that contains the image URL the uploader gave on our file description page). DMacks (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't dispute that it is replaceable, but I would not agree what making it does not require lab facilities. Cs forms an alloy with Au so getting just the compound CsAu requires the right circumstances and the compound itself and Cs are extremely sensitive to water. This is not a compound I would anticipate a non-chemist to find easy to make or to handle. Imagine someone trying to replicate the liquid ammonia photo using aqueous ammonia... EdChem (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify that I meant "unique" to refer to the "lab facilities" as well as to the "skills". Compare to File:Curium self-glow radiation.jpg that requires fairly unique facilities and ability/access even if the chemistry itself is known. DMacks (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If a replacement can be created by a chemist, then the file fails WP:NFCC#1. However, PUF is only for discussing whether the file should be marked as free or unfree, so the question on whether the file complies with WP:NFCC#1 or not is out of scope for this page. I have added ((subst:rfu)). --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the free replacement file? LL221W (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "One could plausibly be made" is the policy. Not "we don't currently have one". Not "we asked everyone who might have one and they said they either did not have one or were not willing to open-license what they owned". DMacks (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2015 (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.
- 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: moot for this board. There's no dispute that the file is unfree. Howver, the uploader (that's me) is now claiming fair use, so the file shouldn't be deleted, but rather discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review if anyone wants to. Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- File:View of central square in tolyatti, russia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- I'm sure the sculptor (whoever she is) didn't give permission. IIRC Russia does not have freedom of panorama (that may have changed, don't know). Therefore the file couldn't exist on Commons (as not being free in the polity where it was created) and, I guess, shouldn't exist on the Russian Wikipedia, from where I got it, unless under a fair use claim, but the Russian Wikipedia is no concern of ours, for the purposes of this discussion. I think that Florida law, or wherever our main servers are nowadays, is the operative law, and Florida does have freedom of panorama. Therefore we only need the permission of the photographer, which we do have, or at any rate have claimed. Whether he just got this photo off the internet and claimed he took it is another question, but not the question being asked here. Herostratus (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Florida either. See c:COM:FOP#United States. Permission from the sculptor is clearly needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. Herostratus (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's non-free. Freedom of panorama must be met in the country where the photo was taken. See c:COM:L#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup yup, I get it. I didn't realize (or remember) the freddom of panorama here in the USA applies only to buildings and not to artworks. An interesting side question is whether the white structure in the background (if the statue was cropped out) is a building or an artwork. Probably the latter, since AFAIK people don't work, dwell, play, eat, or otherwise reside in it, but IANAL and many lay people would probably call it a "building" if pressed.
- OTOH, it's a reasonable candidate for fair use, one reason being it's not reasonably possible to contact the copyright holder, or even know who it is. It might be the City of Tolyatti, the Samara district, the Russian Federation, the employer of the sculptor (if none of these), or some other entity. If the sculptor is dead, who knows how Russian estate law works? Not me for a start. So I'll now convert the rationale to fair use and close this thread, since it's now moot. If anyone wants to contest the fair use rationale, that's a different discussion. Herostratus (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (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.
