Knowledge:Non-free content review/Archive 57

3652:'s page to identify her, that would be a very simple, very straightforward NFCC#1 failure, and that would be removed without discussion. But when you are talking a character, the argue put forth is that the poise and attitude are elements that a free image can't capture, and these are parts that need to be seen in context of a notable article on that character (#8). As that is a subjective call, we cannot just use NFC to remove the image (Otherwise we will be back to the days of BetaCommand where everyone was against harsh implementation of NFC). There has to be discussion, and in the past when there has been discussion about these images, consensus favors keeping them. I do want to stress that this is not opening doors, because the use is only being justified in one situation: when the character is notable enough to have their own standalone page, and this only justifies one single image for that page. As long as we are allowing cover art in the same manner, this is not an unreasonable consensus. -- 4820:

to be one of them, perhaps you should simply let the process function as it is designed to. Then we'll see. But what is of more immediate concern, is your clear disinterest in that proper process if the outcome is not to your predetermined liking. You have made it very clear that you have no interest in proper WP procedure. Your only interest, as you have repeatedly expressed, is just to exclude this image from this project - by any means necessary. You've launched every bizarre claim you could think of: largely based upon no law and supported by no logic; to reach your conclusion. That behavior is shameful. For an admin, it is the kind of behavior that leads to a review of that status. But in the interim, I recommend that you refresh yourself on

4406:

Whether the documents are originals or copies is irrelevant; as that has no bearing in copyright law. This was made very clear when the producing/issuing agency itself asserted no copyright claim in its release of the image; and further expressed its disinterest in any future disposition and reuse of the image it had released. So the problem for that argument: is that you cannot assume or assert a copyright claim; when the only agency that possibly could, has expressly declined to do so. That is likely, as has already been explained, because they realize there is no basis for a copyright claim they could legally assert. Moreover, under US Copyright law, the image would have had to have been released with a

4520:

either in Texas or US Copyright law, that definitively supports your claims: then you certainly haven't produced it. But I invite you to do so now. Errant speculation time is over. In the absence of ANY contrary evidence, there is nothing more to argue here. So per the OTRS ticket which is already on file: this image is already and immediately available for use on this project. Whether you can successfully persuade enough editors to, like you, ignore the facts and reject it, is another story. But the legal question is already settled. There is no legal, rational, objective, or fact-based impediment to the use of this image on this project. Or anywhere else for that matter.

3277:. I have chosen to go with promotional artwork (posters and DVD covers) in all cases. I think this is much better than us choosing a screencap from our own taste. In this case, if you google image Olivia Pope Scandal poster, there is basically a chose between the profile and the frontal of her head only. I am perfectly willing to swap out the current image for a frontal promotional image from the network. I don't think we should get into choosing how to depict her from among various screencaps, but if that is preferred let me know. There are certainly many screencap images that arise from the aforementioned google image search.-- 3424:'s image is a promo shot provided by the BBC). Most shows today still provide these. If there is only promo material that has text or the like, cropping that out is fine - the image here in question this would be a bad choice because it is just her face in profile and gives very little. Just scanning around for Olivia Pope, however, I see several possible promo images floating around from ABC, so one of those should be used. Only if there is no promo image, then pulling an image from a screenshot can be done with the care of editors to chose one that all believe is representative of that character. -- 4642:"There are several ways to investigate whether a work is under copyright protection and, if so, the facts of the copyright. These are the main ones: 1 Examine a copy of the work for such elements as a copyright notice, place and date of publication, author and publisher. If the work is a sound recording, examine the disc, tape, cartridge, or cassette in which the recorded sound is fixed, or the album cover, sleeve, or container in which the recording is sold." 4106:, I can follow the line of the term "Smugshot" to describe exactly how he looks in that photo, and how it relates to how he is taking this otherwise serious charge; these are sources that are now there as opposed to when this NFCR was first opened. As such, as long as sourcing beyond what is there presently (about the viral nature of the image) specifically about how people see Perry's attitude towards this charge, then this should be okay. -- 31: 4611:, that they are letting that be licensed under a free license or putting it into the public domain. The fact that some people have chosen to profit off the photo is an issue between them and the department - the department could easily opt to sue them for that, but there's also fair use aspects that those people might be in the right. But that's not our issue. This image is not under a free license, and thus will be treated as non-free. -- 4263:. But again, as the agency has already self-released the image, that question is already answered. Any opposing argument would have to make the nonsensical (and unproven) claim that the local agency had voluntarily self-released the image - only to then appeal to the Attorney General to rule that it does not have to release the image - after it had already released it. Effectively, asking the AG to reverse time: 1008:

that the SVG code of an SVG file is a separate copyright from the image it produces, and if this was the case that the user created their own SVG file, they would need to make sure they put the SVG code as a free license even if the image it created was non-free. Here, because the initial logo is free, there is zero reason for use to have anything non-free related to this. --

4603:"A work that is created and fixed in tangible form for the first time on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death." No markings or registration required. So this photo, clearly post 1978, has an automatic copyright. 3232:. The character does not differ in appearance from the actress - has no significant costume, or makeup. Therefore there's nothing educational here that cannot be portrayed with putting the actresses's image with the caption "Kerry Washington, who portrays Olivia Pope". And indeed that's what was on the article until this image was very recently uploaded. It adds nothing. 4695:

from creation, whichever is shorter." Works are automatically copyright, and no registration notice, or any other action is required to secure the copyright. Conversely, very specific affirmative actions are required to release a work into the public domain, or other free license, and those have not been done.

4895:

is the copyright law that applies to all published works, and there's not a mention of any need to register or have markings on it, and this been a long established point that everyone else knows; in the US if you put something in a tangible medium, it is copyrighted unless you specifically put it to

4819:

menu for every function they perform. Nor can they assert ownership of the photos, or other work product, they produce. So your claim that the photos are "for hire" is patently ridiculous. Wedding photographers are "for hire." Cops who shoot mugshots are not. As to your "experts", as you don't appear

4779:

Finally, regarding your 3rd link; as I've already explained to you, having the Travis County website exhibit a copyright notice only applies to material appearing exclusively on the Travis County website. Further, some material reprinted there might already be copyrighted by someone else. However, as

4559:

I have repeatedly asked you to provide some (any) proof that would legitimize your claim that this image is protected by copyright. But you've offered nothing. Instead, in the absence of anything tangible, now you'd like to "investigate" the OTRS? As your link shows, the Commons decision was based on

4541:

at determining free licenses; but as that discussion points out, there might have been a followup message from the department that I can't see. Everything else out there points to the fact that Texas' PIA does not automatically release material into the public domain. I am trying to see if I can get

4462:

of works created by TX government, and that does not work for a free license, because they are still holding onto the copyright of the original work in a non-free manner. And you are 100% wrong about the copyright claim; per updated US law, any work created after 2002 is automatically assumed to have

4069:

Yes, that's why this page "Non-free content review". Fair use images are perfectly acceptable as non-free content, especially when there are no other images related to the Indictment of Rick Perry. A portrait of Perry will not work, because this article is not a biography. The mugshot, or shall I say

3935:

The "identify the mugshot" argument is plainly invalid. The mugshot isn't the subject of the article. It in no way functions to identify the indictment, which is the subject of the article. The argument just goes beyond any reasonable limit. A few years back, editors tried to use the same argument to

3889:

I didn't say it was needed as "evidence", so I'm puzzled by that comment. The image is iconic and has historic significance. The fact that it doesn't look like a mug shot is a major part of the reason it is so iconic. Concerning the spin off article: several editors involved in the Rick Perry article

3845:

about that mug shot that suggests it even is a mugshot (even though I know it's one) - he's far too posed and happy for a typical mugshot making its value even less. (I'm also confused why there's a separate article as the Perry article is far below any size concerns for article length, it feels like

3034:

Knowledge policy for non-free images is much stricter then fair-use, so generally you can only use such a non-free image to identify the person in the infobox of their own article, if they are deceased, or in an article where there is specific commentary about the image itself, not the subject of the

2288:

Hi guys. I would suggest you leave it as a non-free use, but, I can't confirm the a copyright on this work as I live no where near Philadelphia and won't be there anytime soon and wasn't able to be "that close" to the work as I was in the past with other pieces. I'm not familiar with him copyrighting

1986:

Photographs of fixed art in the US are not covered by freedom of panorama. This was installed in 1976 so one has to prove that there was no copyright resigstered for the work to assure it has fallen out into PD. (If there was, it's copyright for 95 years from '76). So the switch to the non-free tag

1007:

If they did a straight EPS (which is a human-readable machine language) to SVG (also a human-readable machine language) with a conversion tool from Illustrator, there's no way they can claim copyright on the source since they did no work at all. It is possible (however case law is not firm on this!)

5163:

From what I have understood, the copyright law of the Philippines is largely identical to the copyright law of the United States (but subject to some exception). This may mean that the threshold of originality is similar to that of the United States. However, Knowledge only cares about the copyright

4873:

Texas state law. AND received confirmation from the involved agencies in Texas; on the state and local level. So that attack strikes me as just petty and hypocritical. As to AGF, I only respond to statements and actions. No need to assume anything. Finally, despite the current support for the image,

4794:

Yes it does. If you are employed by a company and you create something for that company, that is a work for hire. So the person behind the mug shot camera here, an employee of the department, created that work for hitre. At this point, you are clearly in the wrong about copyright. There are experts

4658:

it has gone on long enough and I'm putting an end to it. I have contacted all the prevailing authorities in Texas to get a final answer on whether or not the image is copyrighted. They are unanimous that it is not. So I am obtaining the requisite communications and sending them to OTRS. The image is

4585:

would run afoul of that copyright? But all we hear is crickets. Still you persist: with nothing in support. If you are unable to provide any sources defending your claims - especially with all the sources that defeat it - then you don't need to change your mind. You just need to recuse yourself from

3799:

As we have free imagery of Perry, we do not need the mugshot to identify him. We don't need it as "evidence" that he has been criminally charged. The only way that this image could be used is if the mugshot itself was specifically the subject of discussion ,which it is not. I also note how far away

2674:

Does not meet NFCC#1, there is no reason to use a non-free image when a free image can be easily created by an editor using freely available libre and gratis content. Furthermore, for an image that is 3,756 × 2,787 pixels large and sized at 18.6MB, this is hardly "minimal use" as required by NFCC#3.

2226:

Reading that PUF, I believe that was closed wrong. We are always to take the extremely careful route of not assuming free unless proof is given, and the fact whether there was a copyright notice installed alongside the work to start was never resolved in that discussion. The close to keep as free is

718:

I believe this is a family photo which was provided to the press when she went missing, so unless there is evidence of a transfer of rights I think the copyright probably belongs to her parents. There will never be a free image unless her family decide to release more family photos of her. The photo

5486:

Unnecessary soundtrack cover - the soundtrack does not appear to have any notability outside of its connection to the film, and while the cover imagery is different, it's still not necessary. (Also, as I've come to see, the Film project typically has started removing the tracklisting of soundtracks

4919:

With copyright it is always better to assume that images are unfree in the first instance and that all rights have been reserved. With this particular image the reply from the county official seemed pretty conclusive that it was not in the public domain but was made available to pretty much anybody

4606:

If that is the extent of the ORTS statement, then no, that does not put the work into the public domain. The department still owns their copyright on the original work. We require free works to be free of any copyright issues, and because the original can still be copyrighted, that doesn't work for

4519:

So unless and until you are able to produce something beyond your own speculation; and what has been your record of misreading, misstating and misinterpreting, or just simply ignoring, the prevailing laws; there's really nothing more to add. If you have, what you believe is, concrete evidence found

4365:

of the works when requested, and only to the personal use of that copy, and as such, if the agency still holds a copyright on an item requested, then the copy remains copyrighted. In other words, it's not 100% public domain or free as we need it to be. Constrast this with California, that says all

4323:

There is, of course, a clear distinction between "public record" and "public domain." However, your definition of "public domain," which you assert is when: "the state has relinquished all copyrights," is incorrect and misstates the legal principle. When certain government-produced work is excluded

3987:

Not a comment on this specific image, but public record and public domain are two very different things when it comes to US law. Items that are public record are accessible by the public and/or made available to the public. Items in the public domain are available for use for any purpose by anyone.

3867:

the mugshot, there's nothing that requires the user to read it. Now I will say, if you can find a free photo of people demonstrating at large that just happen to include pictures of the mug shots, then that's a way to include it better in a de minimus manner (as long as the posters/tee-s aren't the

4694:

you conveniently left off the part of that law that completely contradicts your point. "For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years

4033:

Are you kidding me here? There is no legitimate copyright or BLP concern here, or any compunction outside of Knowledge for reproducing this image. This is an only-on-Knowledge thing, and a disservice to the idea of creating a 💕 if we cannot take a basic fair use like this and use it in an article

3916:

The indictment is iconic as the first indictment of a Texas Governor in nearly 100 years. He has a pretty good public campaign going on right now dismissing the indictment and this mugshot photo is an important aspect of his perspective. There are an overwhelming number of sources connecting his

3584:

I've tried to push for one, but consensus disagrees; they feel live action characters need a shot of a notable character on that's characters page despite the arguments that free images the actors in costume could be free replacements, because of the poise and attitude aspect. I think we could be

2178:

Agreed - the balance of probabilities strongly suggests that this this file is non-free even though there is an obscure reason why it might be possible that it is. Furthermore, as mentioned, the fact that lawyers representing the artist have previously (successfully) filed DMCA takedowns for other

2160:

Because the route to show the slim chance this is free requires working very tightly within what is required in copyright law, and that we know that the agencies representing the copyright holder are legal hawks, then it is better for us to assume non-free unless we have the crystal clear evidence

1827:

To show bootlegged/unlicensed NES games which had radically different cards, a picture of the game mostly on it's side - the label still in shot but very askew, could be made and in that situation the cover art would be not a problem in a de minimus manner (the cart shape is not copyrighted), so a

2087:

to have the same Fair Use rational - to illustrate the article about the artwork it features. As to your point that there is an "apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted", I don't know how the sculptor could assert their copyright any more strongly. What makes you think they have not?

4838:

You've had several people tell you you are flat out wrong in your analysis of US copyright law. These are people, like myself, routinely involved in evaluating if images can be used freely or not. Further, you clearly missed the above where I said that there is now sufficient support to use this

4503:

It is plain to see that you are one of those editors who tenaciously, albeit stubbornly, holds on to your positions long after all the evidence has clearly pointed to the opposing view. So be it. But that alone is not, or shouldn't be, sufficient to prevail in this case. I've given you more than

4405:

So in reality, the law specifically prohibits the kind of differentiation between private and public requestors that you claim it promotes. That claim is also illogical. As news agencies and others, routinely request, obtain, reproduce, reuse and re-release documents obtained per the Texas PIA.

4301:

There is a huge difference between "public record" and "public domain", from the terms of a free license. Material on public record means that the public cannot be restricted from accessing the material but the state can still maintain copyright on that material. That is not the same as public

4285:

So no legal impediment whatsoever exists to WP using the image: either according to State of Texas law, or U.S. copyright law. That question is settled. Fair use doesn't even apply here, as the image is already entirely within the public domain and a public record not subject to copyright by an

3786:

has been the subject of significant media coverage in the context of the recent indictment, giving it contextual significance as required by NFCC#8. Perhaps most importantly because it directly relates the fair use doctrine in US Copyright law, the image in it's miniscule repreoduction does not

3365:

which removes the promo stuff. We would allow this as this image carries a poise and attitude associated with the character that cannot be readily created by a free image (we cannot expect someone to stop a celeb on the street, dress as the character in question and then drop into the character

4718:. The burden of proof lies with those who want to use a work to prove that it is freely usable, not those that know that copyright is automatically applied to almost everything except Federal government works, and that "released to the public" is not the same as "released to the public domain" 4370:

In sum, Texas may be a state that requires specific statutory authority before copyright authority may be enforced, but it is possible that a court might find that the default rule applies, meaning that state works are generally copyrightable. In any event, where copyright has been authorized,

3637:

To be clear, if we allow that a non-free image can be used, even when there's a free image of the character, simply to capture "the poise and style", we open the door to almost any fair use claim. And we are not respecting the principle of being a 💕 with certain educational exceptions. If the

4632:- How do you define either the author's life or death, when the author is not a person, but an agency? Once again you simply cherry-picked a section you thought supports you, with no thought to its practical implication or application. You would have done better to read the very first page of 4008:

I agree; after some sleep I read the statement again and concluded that the crucial elements are that they don't give permission and that the photos are public record. This is no different to any photographer who sells their photos but clearly retains the rights to themselves, except that the

3260:

I don't think any one of us should be the arbiter of what image captures the poise and style of that character. Whatever ABC uses as their promotional image should be what we go with. That is pretty plain and simple. As Masem has stated, there is a long-established custom of allowing a single

3242:

It has been argued in the past that if a live-action character is notable, a single non-free image can be used to show what that character looks like assuming that the image is capturing the poise and style that that actor presents the character as, which a free image of just the actor cannot

4568:

contradicts your claim. The Texas agency, which produced/released the image, made no copyright claim. The Texas AG, the state's chief law enforcement agency, made no copyright claim. Both agencies - staffed by expert attorneys and even representing opposing political parties - have universal

2051:

Especially if lawyers for the original artist are fighting copyright claims, we should not presume just due to their installation dates and apparent lack of notice that these are uncopyrighted. Better to play it safe with tagging non-free until we can clearly assert that they should be PD.

5373:

or {{PD-art|PD-logo}} (in the case of a photo of the cover) may apply. (Though the cover image in the article seems to have a round crease, it might be that the cover was part of a package in which a vinyl record was stored over time as opposed to the crease being an artistic effect.)

2938:

We have plenty of free images of other famous people that classify into that article; while I will no doubt agree that Anne Frank is also one of the more predominate names in there, we don't need her image when we have so many free examples already, and hence why it should be removed.

4346:

That is the practical definition of public domain. The producing/releasing agency has explicitly stated that it has no interest in the re-use purposes of the released material. That is as clear a confirmation that this image is in the public domain as anyone could reasonably expect.

4250:

Therefore, the question isn't whether WP must obtain permission for it's use. That's a desperate reach; and little more than "reasonable sounding" nonsense. That legal question is already settled, given that the agency in question has already released its public record (the image).

4421:"incurs no liability for actual or statutory damages under section 504 for any infringing acts committed before receiving actual notice that registration for the work has been made under section 408, if such person proves that he or she was misled by the omission of notice." 4390:

Those arguments and their conclusions are factually incorrect across the board. That link is just generic, reference info. It has no force of law and claims none. It also does not discuss any particular state laws, or even reference any. In fact, it even concedes:

3760:, I think the mugshot's presence does neither significantly increase a readers understanding of the article, nor would it's omission be detrimental to a readers understanding of the article. It would be a different thing in an article about the mugshot itself. -- 3224:. So to have an "encyclopedic purpose" the image would have to tell us something about the character which cannot be conveyed in words or with a free image. That would have to be "what the character looks like". However, we have a valid free image of the actress 578:

Without the 'handwriting' style letters almost certainly ineligible for US copyright in my opinion. If the handwriting is regarded as an artistic element, that might push it above TOO as I don't think the writing could be considered de minimis on this cover. --

4864:

As the 2 of you are the only eds. I have interacted with on this issue. But as I've also said, it really speaks volumes when you accuse me of being "flat out wrong" in my analysis of US copyright law when, between us: I am the only one who has actually quoted

4747:. The image was released in tangible, non-electronic form as well, not just on the website. So that section does not apply. Your second link also suffers from the same lack of thorough review. You conveniently missed the 3rd word in the 1 sentence: "A county 3638:

character had distinctive dress or costume, I'd understand. But "poise"? That will vary through the show. What's next "shade of lipstick"? We do need to judge on a case-by-case basis, but we also need to err on the side of *free* and set a fairly high bar.--

4812:

That is your most transparent - and desperate - leap to date. Sworn officers generally process arrestees: which includes the intake process of booking, fingerprinting and photographing. Officers and staff are not paid, as you seem to believe, from some

2199:

which was seeking overt proof that the artist claimed copyright on the work. The decision back then was to leave the file as a free image, not a Fair Use one. I would like to challenge that decision and re-open the discussion. Can that be done here?

4892:, and interferes with how WP handing imagery and the like and can become disruptive. You linked to a subsection of copyright law that specifically talks about works (and specifically audio works) before the Berne Convention date, which this isn't. 3574:

Sorry, no. It is certainly not resolved. I can see no justification for a non-free image here. This is a 💕 - there are criteria and they need to be strictly applied. There needs to be a high "no alternative" bar to non-free images. It is not met

4136:

No, it should be okay (by my assessment, that is) as long as you get these in at some point, and make sure the rationale for use is focused on how people have called this a "smugshot" to show what I mentioned that have come up during this week.

3787:

diminish commercial opportunities in any way. Sheriffs departments are not in the business of portrait photography. In fact, a PAC is using a high resolution version of the same image to print on T-shirts as part of a fund raising effort.-

4562:"Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." 4344:"Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the requestor." 4743:- which this is not. Travis County is anything but fictitious. Also your other links demonstrate the same lack of understanding of the laws you cited. Regarding your first link, you conveniently ignored that the section only applies to 3936:

justify the use of nonfree magazine covers in biographies which mentioned the covers. That argument was shot down virtually every time it was made. Images don't need to be "identified" this way everywhere they happen to be mentioned.

2289:

his work directly on each piece. Oldenburg did copyright all of his work, though, or at least, his estate claims it. We have been had hiccups with his works on Commons before, as you can see with this email between his estate and WMF

4920:

that asked for it. Gaijin's link is also fairly strong evidence that the county holds copyright to all such images taken by their officials unless there is an explicit statement that something has been released to the public domain.

1585:

The Lauren Barnigan cover song would be notable on its own (though as per our convention cover songs are kept with the original save in unique cases), so this cover is fine. The cover of the other covered version is not appropriate.

4173:

This is just so much ado about nothing; and the fact that the mugshot image was removed from Commons represents nothing more than a sad win for the POV pushers over common sense and the law. In Texas, there is something called the

2100:

I would recommend adding that copyright registration number if we know it exists to the file page. (I do not know if we have a template for that and if we don't we should have one and encourage editors to use it for such works).

1027:

Good question and good reply. I had not thought to check to see if the meta data could even tell whether this was done with automation or was a hand made SVG file. Excellent points for future reference! (if the meta data can show

6440:

I would agree - though to cause minimal disruption, the new version of the poster can be uploaded over this one and the rationale changed; as this is a notable show, that single poster is appropriate for an identifying image.

4795:

on free licenese both here and on commons and we've all come to the same conclusion - this is a copyrighted work, which may be used under non-free terms if it meets the criteria, but will never be classified as a free work. --

3962:

Texas booking photos are public record and are released upon written request. We do not give permission to use the photos but simply release them to the public. What is done with the photos once they are released is up to the

6420:

which I believe violates minimum use. Also, the rationale is invalid. This was carelessly added to the article under fair use. I suggest it be deleted as I am removing it from the article to add a fair use rationale for the

5145:

Phillipines is a mixed-law country and commons offers no specific advice on their TOO, so we should assume the worst - that it is non-free. Thus it's use on the extra pages outside the main station page is inappropriate.

3212:

This clearly fails the criteria for a valid fair use claim. "No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose"

4087:

The image is not "iconic" or of "historical importance", but there is commentary about the image. Is that commentary sufficient to overcome copyright and BLP concerns? Not in my opinion, but others certainly disagree.

969:

EPS to SVG is a fundamental conversion akin to simple calculation or a strict 2D reproduction and thus you cannot claim copyright on the final work. The original logo is clearly PD-text and thus the final is PD-text.

3383:

I have never been told to avert the promotional text in the chosen image. Is that general policy? If so, shouldn't we crop her image from a promotional image rather than make our own choice on which screen cap to

1758:, the non-free cover art already appears in the article. To illustrate the different colors of cartridges, the label could be blacked out or blurred to create a free image, which can serve as a replacement under 2161:

that it absolutely is in the public domain. It does not sound like we have this, so let's treat is as non-free. The image still can be used (the sculpture notable) but just limited pretty much to that page. --

4395:

The Texas PIA is the only state access law in play in Texas. But the claim, that the Texas PIA is only applicable for personal use requests, is provably false. As the Texas Attorney General's Office states:

6503:

with the other poster with the valid rational and the proper attribution to the copyright holder. If I can locate the photographer I will add that as well. The "TV card is now orphaned as well as invalid.--

3349:

I can understand that if there's no free image that can convey the same information. Here there is. So whatever has "been argued" I'd like to know how this can meet the strict criteria in this particular

4444:- any suggestion that we must just "assume" a copyright: exposes itself as being simply specious and frivolous - with no basis in the law; facts; policy; practice; or for that matter, logic or reality. 3902:

It is really impossible to say with any reasonable authority that this two-week-old image is "iconic" or has "historical significance". Short-term social media bubbles don't establish those qualities.

1945:

This image was taken in 2009. The PD tag was incorrectly places as it is trying to refer to the sculpture that is the subject of the image. I've been creating this article in the last couple of days

5487:

that wholly consist of original scores as the titles typically are useless, this would qualify, leaving the few paragraphs about the actual release, making the album cover even more unnecessary.) --

3825:

in the indictment article that discusses the mug shot. The confusion may come from the usage of the mug shot in the infobox, which is somewhat awkward. The mug shot probably should be moved to the

1710:, the image is used to illustrate the different visual appearance of unlicensed games. In this role, the image is replaceable by a free image with the non-free label blurred or blacked out. 4874:

I'm still updating the OTRS. Just in case people are inclined to revisit the issue again later. Nothing more to say. But as I'm sure you want it, you're more than welcome to the last word.

3869: 3473:

Many sites that cover entertainment will include photo credits. You can also go to the show's page on the broadcaster's website which usually will have files and media kits. (eg like here :

4324:

from copyright law, that is not the same as relinquishing its copyright. Something must first exist, before it can be relinquished. If it does not exist, it cannot be relinquished. Per the

2923:

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. According to these conditions, the copyright policies are not broken. Is it OK to use her because there's uncertainty about this.

3782:

The image is iconic and can not be replaced by another image of the subject. There is only one mug shot of the Governor thus NFCC#1 does not apply. This specific image is unique in that

3917:

mugshot to his feelings about the indictment and his mugshot is unique. To try to explain in words his appearance and how it represents his feelings would be inadequate.--v/r -

4628:

First, I am hardly mistaken about US Copyright law. I just quoted it and provided you the link. However, you have again misinterpreted that law. As it states that copyright is:

4896:

the public domain. You cannot continue to argue against that, that's flat out wrong. (And I speak for the others at commons that have also identified the work as a problem). --

1957:. If you look at the file page's history you'll see that it originally had a Fair Use rationale but it was lost along the way when a different version of the file was uploaded 2956:

That's not what I'm asking. Don't avoid the question and answer what I'm asking. Does her use on that page qualify as fair use? I provided reasonable arguments that it does.

1953:

rules apply... Since the US doesn't have FoP for public art, this image needs to claim Fair Use to be used in the specific article about the sculpture that it represents -

5178:

True, but it should be tagged PD-USOnly as this certainly would fail "Sweat of the brow" tests in UK and similar countries. (It is below the TOO in the US for certain) --

4371:

disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act does not impede the ability of the agency to place use restrictions on the record consistent with the U.S. Copyright Act.

3261:

non-free image. Quite often the promotional poster is the image that is used on WP. I am the main author of five other characters from currently running television shows:

4373:

So unless there is something in the criminal records side of the Texas law that puts all mug shots in the public domain, we have to assume this is a copyrighted photo. --

3960:) was received at OTRS regarding the original Commons image but there was insufficient information about licensing. More information was requested. The reply is that in " 4154:

In fact, I just helped by increasing the rationale strength on the image page. You'll still need to add the sourcing for the article, but I am in no doubt they exist. --

4367: 3800:

this looks like a typical mug shot and actually looks like Perry was posing for a potrait photo - eg similar to the other free imagery we have. So it is not allowed. --

3841:

You don't need the mugshot as evidence of his indictment - that's what citation sources are for. A free image of Perry does sufficient for this point. Again, there is

4638:"It is important to realize, however, that this circular contains only general information and that there are a number of exceptions to the principles outlined here." 6387: 6267:

would have to be only on the "Disney Channel" article. That image is (or was) almost all of "Disney Channel" articles. In some cases, the logo could meet (i think)

4506:

From the Texas Attorney General's Office; to US Copyright law; to the Texas PIA statutes; to the written declaration / OTRS ticket already directly submitted to WP

3648:

The problem is that this is an issue that deals with NFCC#1 (nearly objective) and #8 (subjective). If it were the case we were talking this picture being used on

445:

I see that A as possibly having enough originality as it seems to be an eagle with clawed feet...but again, it is so simple it could be consider geometric shapes.--

6485:. OK, if I can override the file I will do so, but think we only need one poster so the other should be deleted. It is the same poster just doesn't say Spike TV.-- 2631: 4537:

is the contents of that ORTS, then no, that's nowhere close to the allowance you're claiming it says, as outlined by the admins replying there at commons who are

3689: 2249: 103: 3474: 5790: 4302:

domain, where the state has relinquished all copyrights on the material so that all users can use, share, and modify the work (as is the case in California). --

3129:

Screenshot of (copyrighted) film. This image is neither used, not usable, in any article; it was uploaded to make a point in a talkpage dispute. Hence it fails

2196: 2118:

It does not matter if copyright was registered or not. The only thing to find out is whether there was a copyright notice there before 1978. I assume that both

4517:

definitive. While you have failed to meet your burden to overcome a single one of those proofs with any kind of opposing or evidence-based proofs whatsoever.

514:

Consensus is that there is currently not enough information to show whether the image is copyrightable. Therefore best course of action is to keep non-free.

94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2991:

Khazar, are you asking about "fair use" or Knowledge policy? It might qualify as fair use on some other site, but that is irrelevant on Knowledge. The use

1967: 1946: 4339: 3957: 2145:

On the other hand, if the notice was there when the sculpture was installed 1976 but was removed at some point after 1977, then the image is unfree. --

1949:

so I've been looking at all their artworks. I note that most of his public sculptures are located in the USA and all are still copyrighted. Therefore,

3093: 4916:, if you are sending anything to OTRS about this issue, please add the ticket number 2014082810013198 in the subject line, so it doesn't become lost. 2472:

It's fine on the make CCHJ page, and it might be okay on the one season page where the new logo was introduced, but not on the rest of the pages. --

1962:

I note that another, equivalent article, of a different sculpture by the same artist that is also in the USA uses Fair Use for its lead image (see

6037:

Technically it does fall within the allowances that we make for alternative covers, but it's also an editorial decision to include both or not. --

3965:" I don't think there is any point in sending more emails but I'm not sure if this statement makes such photos "public domain" or not. Any ideas? 3366:

role). Note: this is from consensus in the past on character images, one I don't agree with but found best difficult to convinence otherwise). --

1874:

Consensus is there is not enough information currently to ascertain the copyright status and therefore it is best to keep it as non-free. Cheers,

6417: 4780:

regards your burden of proof contention, you also conveniently ignored that I have already expressed the intent to provide OTRS with that proof.

2035:(and implied requested deletion for the other two similar images in the same category]] as it falls under the same FoP rules but has been put on 562:

Probably...not sure. Could be simple typeface and geometric shapes but it is a little small to tell if there is any real design elements in it.--

4052:

free content for a 💕, and there's plenty of existing free images of Perry that suitably show what he looks like in context of this article. --

2999:

because free equivalents are available that would "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Knowledge policy is intentionally more stringent than

2069:

The clothespin sculpture has a copyright record from June 1976 (GP112935, see online database), the fair-use tag appears to be necessary here.

1411: 987:

Could the SVG source be copyrighted by the uploader? I assumed copyright in the SVG source is independent of the copyright in the work, no. --

5743:

Agreed, no need for the ones that are near duplicates (just color and language change); and the old logo is not part of discussion/context. --

3872:

includes the copyrighted photo of Trayvon in a hoodie, but as part of the protest signs, and so we consider that de minimus and okay to us) --

5878: 4182:"applies to information of every “governmental body.” “Governmental body” is defined in section 552.003(1)(A) of the Government Code to mean: 5471:

There is the soundtrack cover. However, purpose of the cover is questionable because the film is the article's subject, not the soundtrack.

3229: 1488: 1374: 1280: 1135: 227: 6526:

had a truly invalid rationale and the wrong license. I have removed all the incorrect information and the image is no longer being used.--

4572: 4839:

image under NFC allowances because of sourcing about the "Smugshot", so you're not assuming good faith by what people have told you. --

3552: 3507: 3451: 3394: 3323: 3287: 2797: 2692: 4652:

As you feel so strongly about this, you're more than welcome to do that at your expense. However, while you would have this continue

3362:

particular image, no, it fails, due to being more a show promo piece. On the other hand, someone might replace that with this image

2688: 2384: 505: 47: 17: 193:

Agreed, in this case. The tables are simple and have little content and seem to almost be made to show the non free badges/seals.--

3733:

makes it seem that only non-BLP images are quantifiable for fair use. My question to ask; is this an appropriate use of fair use?

3243:

directly convey. I don't think the poster image here is the best choice, but a single non-free would be generally allowed here. --

1806:

Yes it would - plenty of free images are made by blurring out non-essential, copyrighted parts. But there's another option too. --

6523: 6482: 4771:

No explicit mandate is implied. By the way, "and for the record," not everything on Texas state websites is copyright protected.

3262: 2720: 951:

I believe the summary states that the original file was not an SVG and that the uploader had to convert it using adobe photshop:

4399: 4124:

Sorry, I had meant to add those sources a week ago - but it's been a tough week at work and I just got over a head cold.--v/r -

6189: 4744: 4710: 3941: 3907: 6240: 6220: 6181: 3176: 6411: