< February 23	February 25 >

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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This file is being used to illustrate a list of songs on an article that is mainly about a film. The fair use rationale says it will be in an infobox but the infobox already contains a movie poster. This image is not necessary for the list of songs. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2014 (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 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack cover is near-identical to the main movie poster File:Aeon_flux_poster.jpg, and thus fails NFCC#3a. MASEM (t) 04:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8, per MOS:FILM#Soundtrack. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (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 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. There are too many copyrights conflated here. The discussion here and on commons shows that it is an artwork in a country with no freedom of panorama. This image is from a page (c) D&S Promotional Marketing but given its size the original is from somewhere else, where more layers of copyright may reside. Someone could take a free image of this that would at least leave us with only the (c) of the artwork itself - Peripitus (Talk) 11:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this page suggests that there has been an edit war about the copyright status of the file. The image has sometimes been listed as free and sometimes as unfree. According to Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peachoid water tower (Gaffney, South Carolina) 001.jpg, the water tower is copyrighted and isn't architecture and therefore isn't covered by ((FoP-US)). This means that a completely freely licensed image can't be created. However, that is not a reason to upload an image without permission from the photographer, which seems to have been done here. Instead, the article should contain an image with two copyright tags - a free one for the photographer's contribution and an unfree one for the water tower - and we seem to be missing a free licence for the photographer's contribution. Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the claims on the (local) file is the significance of a photo from a certain historical era, and the article does make some commentary about that. This all supports the fair-use of the photographer's work (can't go back in time to make a freer one) regardless of the freeness of the subject itself. I adjusted some tagging/commentary on the description page to clarify that point. I have no position on whether the article does or could make significant enough commentary on the historical context itself to justify that image, rather than a modern one that is photographer-released of the unfree subject. DMacks (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: IMHO, I would categorize the discussion here on Commons as a debate about the license of the images of the Peachoid, not an edit war. In that discussion, editors made the point that the Peachoid is a sculpture with a registered U.S. Copyright (VAu000051231 / 1982-12-06). In that case, it was argued that an image of this Copyrighted sculpture is a violation of the Copyright, unless there is a clear proof that the sculpture itself if in the public domain. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate copyrights here, and a separate copyright tag is needed or each of them:

The water tower: User:Jameslwoodward noted that the water tower was constructed before 1991, and that buildings weren't protected by copyright before that date (actually 1 December 1990). This implies that some part of the water tower is a sculpture or some other kind of work of fine arts. However, in the case Leicester v. Warner Bros., we learnt that you can take photographs of sculptures and other works of fine arts which are embodied in a building (and inseparable from the building). It is possible that you can't take photographs of artworks embodied in buildings constructed before 1 December 1990. Note that the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act explicitly only applies to buildings constructed on 1 December 1990 or later, and that act defines both ((FoP-US)) and ((PD-US-architecture)). User:Elcobbola suggested that a water tower isn't a building as it isn't habitable. I think that it is unclear whether a water tower is habitable or not. A greenhouse is, as far as I have understood, "habitable" under US law, although greenhouses generally are used for other purposes. Same with outhouses.
The photograph: In the fair use rationale, it says that the photograph isn't replaceable because roads have been constructed around the water tower. However, the article doesn't contain any critical discussion about what the surroundings look like, so a photograph showing any other surroundings than the ones seen on this photograph would serve the same purpose. The photograph should therefore be replaced by a different photograph of the water tower. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I supplied sources in my comment at the Commons discussion; I wonder whether they've been consulted. Indeed, the notion of habitability is expanded upon in the Circular: "The term building means structures that are habitable by humans and intended to be both permanent and stationary, such as houses and office buildings and other permanent and stationary structures designed for human occupancy, including, but not limited to, churches, museums, gazebos, and garden pavilions." Comparison of water towers to greenhouses seems nonsensical. You may be conflating the mere ability physically to enter a structure with genuine habitability (a fundamental intention for a non-trivial duration of physical presence). Note, for example, that dams, tents, and even mobile homes are not considered eligible building designs. (Circular 41). As a thought experiment, ask yourself what humans are intended to do inside a greenhouse. Tend plants. What are they intended to do inside of a water tower - particularly this one? Drown? Эlcobbola _talk 21:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I make no comment on the photographer's copyright. Since I spend almost all my time on Commons, where fair use is forbidden, I know little about it. It is completely clear to me, however, that the water tower itself has a copyright and that any image of it infringes. Эlcobbola has stated most of the arguments very well, so I need not repeat those. I will add that this is not an artwork embedded in a structure -- the structure itself is the artwork, so it does not fit through that loophole. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add to User: Jameslwoodward's comment, not only is the structure itself the artwork, but that artwork is a Copyrighted sculpture. The Copyright is (VAu000051231 / 1982-12-06), the name of the work at the U.S. Copyright office is “Peachoid” and the Type of Work is “Visual material”. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2014 (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 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2014 (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.

February 24

File:Various Artist Soundtrack to 4.3.2.1.jpg

File:Graeme Revell - Aeon Flux Soundtrack.jpg

File:Peach2.gif

File:Home Page Reader Splash.png