< October 23 | October 25 > |
---|
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Erroneous Nomination. When following the
listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext
" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=
", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=
". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at
WT:FFD or at my talk page.
AnomieBOT
⚡
08:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: - Delete - fails NFCC#8 (does not significantly add to reader's understanding) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete. There are a few arguments for keeping. One is that the image qualifies for the waiver of the Crown copyright. However, the "provided" items basically give a license of ND, not allowing derivatives. That keeps the image non-free. Second is the claim that there is an exception for items on permanent display in public view. This is the UK's version of panoramafreiheit, or freedom of panorama, and is intended to allow you to take a photo in a public place without worrying about the copyright implications of all the little bits of creative expression that you might capture. It's not there to place into the public domain anything that gets tacked to a wall somewhere. Once again, the image remains non-free. Third, the uploader claims that they own the rights to the photo. If that is the case, they should upload the photo itself (not the stamp) and send documentation to OTRS for the copyright release. So the remaining argument is that it's fair use. However, the article has an image that is free use and more than adequately illustrates the subject. The stamp itself is simply being used as decoration, and redundant decoration, at that. It would be problematic if we always used stamps to illustrate the people pictured on them, and especially so since this one isn't even needed. The argument about WP:NFCC#8 remains and the image is deleted for that reason. kmccoy (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Further reasoning is for it to qualify as fair use is there is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.
It is also clear under UK law that the Crown copyright is waived and no formal licence is required in this instance as stated on the The UK Government web site regarding Waiver of Crown copyright. From the web site:
(Some Crown copyright material is waived. This means that although Crown copyright is asserted no formal licence is required to re-use. The waiver applies to specific categories of material where it is in Government's interests to encourage unrestricted use.)
The only conditions required are the following: You may re-use waiver material free of charge without requiring a formal licence provided that it is:
I believe that I have met all these conditions and would ask that the file in question be removed from the deletion list forthwith. Sincerely, ( Hbkitty ( talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)) reply
(As with many other countries the UK defines an exception to copyright infringement for artistic works on public display. Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 states that it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.)
This stamp is displayed in the museum in Grytviken so therefor this exception clearly applies.
( Ice Explorer ( talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete. While the use of nonfree images for identification of dead individuals is occasionally considered acceptable, it is not the case with images of stamps. The fair use rationale given in the stamp template explicitly disallows this, with "It is believed that the use of postage stamps ... to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." (emphasis added) This makes the fair use rationale and corresponding arguments below invalid. kmccoy (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: keep. Image embellished, more suitable for inclusion. — ξ xplicit 02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep I cropped the image and photoshoped it removeing background and foreground element. Request reassessment.-- IngerAlHaosului ( talk) 07:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC) reply