January 28
File:Painting of Gen2 Honda Ridgeline.png
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is a derivative work from Honda press photos. The uploader is claiming it is a digital painting, but it looks like the photo has been run though some photoshop filters and some minor editing. However, this is a derivative work from a copyrighted press photo. See this file from Honda's Google+ account. Also compare the previous version of the image to this photo from Honda's Google+ account. Whpq ( talk) 05:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- What you are saying that any recreating, even a sketch or outline, that is based on a photograph of this new vehicle is a copyright violation? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. An example given to me be another wiki admin was that a redrawn map does not carry with it the copyright of the original map. If true, why would that not apply here? --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Derivative works -- Whpq ( talk) 14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- What you are saying that any recreating, even a sketch or outline, that is based on a photograph of this new vehicle is a copyright violation? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. An example given to me be another wiki admin was that a redrawn map does not carry with it the copyright of the original map. If true, why would that not apply here? --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom's findings (would fail WP:NFCC#1 if non-free). Steel1943 ( talk) 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:360 Digital Sketch of a 2013-2014 Honda Ridgeline RTL.png
- 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 F9 by Nyttend ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader is claiming these digital drawings as own work, but they are derived from copyrighted images. This image is a composite, and a review of the middle image shows it is derived from this file. Whpq ( talk) 06:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted as a blatant copyvio. You can't incorporate such an image into a new creation without the new creation being subject to the same copyright-based restrictions as the source. Nyttend ( talk) 04:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Honda Ridgeline CAD Drawing.png
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader is claiming own work, but this is a derivative from copyrighted material. Compare this image with the diagram from this Honda brochure (Word document) on page 2. Whpq ( talk) 06:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- After being educated from other wiki admins, such as "Stefan2" and others, I was under the impression that a derivative piece of work was okay to use. Since I used the Honda drawing, which I sighted, as a starting point to redraw a new outline of the vehicle to depict different information about that vehicle that there would be no sort of copyright issue. It's an outline of the vehicle which I redrew to present new info; how can that possibly be a problem? --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is not an outline of the vehicle. It is a copy of the entire image. --
Whpq (
talk)
15:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Look again please, there are a lot of differences for I did not like nor need the information that was depicted on the original drawing. I don't understand why it is wrong to use something someone else created as a starting point to produce something new to depict factual information. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Derivative works -- Whpq ( talk) 14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- Look again please, there are a lot of differences for I did not like nor need the information that was depicted on the original drawing. I don't understand why it is wrong to use something someone else created as a starting point to produce something new to depict factual information. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is not an outline of the vehicle. It is a copy of the entire image. --
Whpq (
talk)
15:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- After being educated from other wiki admins, such as "Stefan2" and others, I was under the impression that a derivative piece of work was okay to use. Since I used the Honda drawing, which I sighted, as a starting point to redraw a new outline of the vehicle to depict different information about that vehicle that there would be no sort of copyright issue. It's an outline of the vehicle which I redrew to present new info; how can that possibly be a problem? --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:2009-2014 Honda Ridgeline RTL-EXL-SE-Touring interior.png
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- This appears to be a replacement for File:2009-2014 Honda Ridgeline RTL with navigation interior.png which was a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 January 25#File:2009-2014 Honda Ridgeline RTL with navigation interior.png. Uploader requested deletion as the author and then uploaded this photo which replaced the one image identified as a copyright violation. The uploader has not specified the source of the images. Note that in the other file, the uploader had claimed to have taken all the images which turns out to have been false. Whpq ( talk) 06:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what to say other all three of these images were taken with my smartphone of the interior of my truck which I put into a collage to help with the article on the vehicle. I understand now that the first one I uploaded, which contained my photos and a heavily modified/updated version of a press photo may have been wrong, although not exactly certain why, but these are all of my own photos from my phone of my own vehicle which I am allowed to put in the public domain if I choose. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- You claimed that you took all the photos in the other image collage which turned out to be untrue. So given that, why should the claim that you took all these photos be accepted? I asked you to explain yourself in this message. But instead of responding, you deleted the message with an edit comment that didn't address anything. That is why this file is nominated for deletion. If you indeed took these photos, then yes you are entitled to release them in the public domain. -- Whpq ( talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what to say other all three of these images were taken with my smartphone of the interior of my truck which I put into a collage to help with the article on the vehicle. I understand now that the first one I uploaded, which contained my photos and a heavily modified/updated version of a press photo may have been wrong, although not exactly certain why, but these are all of my own photos from my phone of my own vehicle which I am allowed to put in the public domain if I choose. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Honda Ridgeline Multi-function Center Console.gif
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader is claiming own work, but the individual frames used to make the animated GIF appear to be copyrighted images from Honda. See this photo from the Honda site to compare with the animation. Whpq ( talk) 06:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:NRA Law Enforcement Marksmanship Qualification Badges-Bars.png
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- File:NRA Law Enforcement Marksmanship Qualification Badges-Bars.png ( delete | talk | history | logs).
- Uploader is claiming these are paintings of badges. However this looks like the application of photoshop filters to a photograph similar to what was done for Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2016_January_28#File:Painting_of_Gen2_Honda_Ridgeline.png. Whpq ( talk) 06:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- What you are saying that any recreating, even a sketch or outline, that is based on an image is a copyright violation? That makes no sense to me. An example given to me be another wiki admin was that a redrawn map does not carry with it the copyright of the original map. If true, why would that not apply here? --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Derivative works -- Whpq ( talk) 14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- What you are saying that any recreating, even a sketch or outline, that is based on an image is a copyright violation? That makes no sense to me. An example given to me be another wiki admin was that a redrawn map does not carry with it the copyright of the original map. If true, why would that not apply here? --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Drawing of Honda Ridgeline Frame.svg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader is claiming to have created the drawing but it is clearly derived from this Honda brochure images on page 14. Whpq ( talk) 06:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I clearly stated where the drawing were derived from in the sourcing section. I spend a lot of time recreating and even "free drawing" things to recreate a representation this vehicle unique frame to help with a ongoing dispute about this vehicle's structure. I do not see how this is a copyright violation. Look at the lack of detail in my drawings compared to the original work; it would have taken twice the time I put into making these if I tried to copy very whole and rivet, which I did not do. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Derivative works -- Whpq ( talk) 14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I clearly stated where the drawing were derived from in the sourcing section. I spend a lot of time recreating and even "free drawing" things to recreate a representation this vehicle unique frame to help with a ongoing dispute about this vehicle's structure. I do not see how this is a copyright violation. Look at the lack of detail in my drawings compared to the original work; it would have taken twice the time I put into making these if I tried to copy very whole and rivet, which I did not do. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Honda VTM-4 Torque Control Structure Diagram.svg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader is claiming to have created this diagram modeling it after Honda's published information. As can be seen from the above nominations, these diagrams are likely to be derivative works or incorporate copyrighted material. Whpq ( talk) 06:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I painstakingly created this diagram based on published information such as
http://www.ridgelineownersclub.com/images/articles/VTM-4-operating-modes.jpg and used that layout and technical information to create a new diagram, which some updates and tweaks, for it does a good job of graphically layout a complicated issue. Copying the layout and using the technical information provided to create a new vector graphic for use on Wikipedia is allowed, or should be, for it has nothing to do with a copyright issue. Facts and facts and reusing a basic layout to depict those facts is not something I would ever thing could be copyrighted. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Derivative works -- Whpq ( talk) 14:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I painstakingly created this diagram based on published information such as
http://www.ridgelineownersclub.com/images/articles/VTM-4-operating-modes.jpg and used that layout and technical information to create a new diagram, which some updates and tweaks, for it does a good job of graphically layout a complicated issue. Copying the layout and using the technical information provided to create a new vector graphic for use on Wikipedia is allowed, or should be, for it has nothing to do with a copyright issue. Facts and facts and reusing a basic layout to depict those facts is not something I would ever thing could be copyrighted. --
McChizzle (
talk)
15:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Honda Ridgeline tailgate and In-Bed Trunk animation.gif
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Uploader is claiming to be the creator of the animation, but the underlying frames appear to be copyrighted images from the manufacturer. See this http://www.cars.com/honda/ridgeline/2006/expert-reviews car review] and look for the tailgate in the sidebar of related images. Clicking on the tailgate pops up a larger box which credits teh photos to the manufacturer. Whpq ( talk) 06:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Arthur Morris playing career.jpg
- 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 Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- The stated source only says "CRICKET: Arthur Morris" but there is no information about the age, so the assertion that the copyright has expired in Australia can't be verified. The article Arthur Morris uses the image caption "Morris in his cricket whites, c. 1947" but there is no way to verify this statement. There is also no information about the copyright status in the United States. If the unsouced 1947 date is correct, then this is only in the public domain in Australia but not in the United States. Stefan2 ( talk) 12:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{
dfu}} or list it at
WP:FFD.
AnomieBOT
⚡
13:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- This file currently has a fair use rationale but a public domain copyright tag, so it is unclear if it is meant to be indicated that the file is free or unfree. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Confused. I think I just saw this kind of situation (tagged both as free and as nonfree) nominated at FFD the other day. What's the point of bringing this here if we now take such images to FFD? Or if they should still be brought here, what's the point of sending them to FFD?
Nyttend (
talk)
04:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- PUF is for changing free tags into non-free tags while FFD is for changing non-free tags into free tags, I think. I'm disputing the PD tag and think that it should be changed to a non-free tag. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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.