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 ⚡ 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to File:Steve Rubell.jpg. One fair use file is enough per NFCC3 --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:29, 24 February 2023 (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 as F7 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to meet the requirements for PD-simple; File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg and File:CCP_Single_ILI_cover.JPG seem equivalent. Tanishism (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a lot of text on the former. I think a bit too much for PD-simple. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2023 (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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's being argued that such files are not PD-Simple, far too complex for that. Tanishism (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to fair-use [1] and EXTRACT the textlogo that is the magazine's logo into a separate file as ((PD-textlogo)). -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as a full page of text, it is subject to regular copyright (of a passage of text), instead of textlogo's PD-simple. -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the one who added the ((PD-textlogo)) tag as I'm unconvinced that a simple list of names is original enough to meet the ToO. However, I'm open to other opinions as our casebook doesn't have too many examples in this area. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it might be Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., since an API set of library function names would be like the index of journal articles on this journal's frontpage. That was determined to be copyrightable by US Federal District Court. SCOTUS found that Google met the fair-use standard for using the API though... so this should be a fair-use image in analogy -- 65.92.244.151 (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Damn. I transferred some similar covers to Commons a while ago. If the consensus is that this cover is copyrightable, then the files on Commons should probably be deleted. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Comment: I brought this up at Commons, and Clindberg pointed out that "[a] list of names in alphabetical order is not really copyrightable." He was referring to another file I uploaded there, but this one seems even more simple. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons as free: As far I can see, the front cover shows just names and credits. The expression of facts isn't that creative or original enough, and the Google v Oracle court case is related to mostly online use and distribution. Should be "((PD-text))". Well, it's part of a "literary work", but the expression is just facts in basic, simple font/typeface. George Ho (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to Commons - Nothing copyrightable. The list of editors is just a collection of facts and the design of the cover is just the standard generic academic journal cover design used by countless journals for the past 50 years. You have to have some sort of original creativity to be protected by copyright. It doesn't matter how much text is involved. Nosferattus (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2023 (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:Steve Rubell 54.jpg

File:Glaxo study Cover RANITIDINE-plus-nitrites-becomes-NDMA.jpg

File:American Journal of Mathematics (front cover).jpg