User:MichaelMaggs/Cut and paste

#

May be allowed on en W as fair use

{{PD-US-1923-abroad-delete}}

For FPC

:*<small>{{comment}} Please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader.</small>

Bot requests

Please read [[Commons:Bots#Information on bots]] and add the requested details to the bot's page. A good example can be found [[User:HersfoldOTRSBot|here]]. --~~~~

OTRS

I am afraid that authorization to use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not considered free enough for an image to be hosted on Commons. The image needs to be licensed for all uses, including commercial uses: see [[COM:L]] for details. Also, for an image like this, the permission that has been granted by the copyright holder would need to be formally recorded in our [[COM:OTRS|OTRS]] system so that a permanent record of the permission can be kept. Please ask the copyright owner to send the permission to '''''permissions-commons@wikimedia.org''''', mentioning by name the image in question, and also the specific licence/permission that is being granted, for example {{t|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. The email must be sent from a domain which can be identified with the copyright owner (eg if the copyright is owned by a company, from the company's domain). Lists of permissible licences can be found [[Commons:Copyright tags#Free Creative Commons licenses|here (Creative Commons licences)]] and [[Commons:Copyright tags#GNU Licenses|here (GFDL licences)]]. If you would like to let me know when the email has been sent, I will check whether the permission sent is OK, and if it is will happily undelete the image for you. --~~~~

Commons:Email templates

Deletion

Appeal

If you would like another admin to review my decison you can appeal at [[Commons:Undeletion requests]].

Low quality but in use

Any image that is in use is by definition in scope: see [[Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project]] - "''A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough''."

Nice and mellow

Don't forget to keep nice and [[Commons:Staying mellow|mellow]] :) --~~~~

Perpetual copyright (Royal printing prerogative)

The UK Copyright Act 1775 established a type of perpetual copyright under which the King James Bible was allowed to be printed only by the Royal printer and by the printers of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. This provision was abolished by the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, but under transitional arrangements (Schedule I, section 13(1)) these printing rights do not fully expire until 2039. However, images of King James bible pages are allowed on Commons since electronic copies do not infringe this printing right.

Consent

This photograph was taken in a private place where the subject has an expectation of privacy. The subject's consent is therefore needed as set out in the policy [[Commons:Photographs of identifiable people]]. It is not enough that the subject knew that the photograph was being taken: what is needed is explicit consent to its being released under a free licence allowing it to be publicly posted here.

Archiving

<div class="delh"> '''''This discussion is now closed and archived. Please do not modify it. Further comments can be made on the main talk page, at [[Commons talk: Project scope]].''' ''<br/><br/> </div>

File in use

When a file is in use, as this one is, Commons is not the place to discuss its accuracy. See [[COM:PS#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose]] and [[COM:NPOV]]. If you consider the file to be wrong, please upload a better version under a new name and persuade the communities of the individual wikis who are currently linking to this file to use yours instead.

A media file that is in use, as this one is, on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose and is in scope. See [[COM:PS#File in use in another Wikimedia project]].

User warnings

== Your uploads == Please do not ignore the warnings above. If you upload any more images that you do not own the copyright on, you will be blocked. Please read [[COM:CB]] for the the type of thing we allow here. --~~~~

==Images from the internet== Sorry, you can't upload images from the internet unless they have been released under a free licence. The website you have quoted says "all rights reserved". Please read [[COM:CB]] and [[COM:L]]. --~~~~

Performers' Rights

Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg

Non-active and historical page templates

{{Historical}} and {{Inactive}}. The latter is more for inactive WikiProjects, {{historical}} is what I've been using when I come across old proposals and the like. It's nice because it allows you to customize the message (like to give a reason why it's inactive or to direct people to a more current page).

Also {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}

The US case of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits

In a US Court of Appeals case, a photo of this bottle was held not to be a Derivative work, and as a result infringed no copyright.

In the case of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000), the US Court of Appeals had to decide whether straight-on photographs of a Skyy Vodka bottle, similar to the one pictured, were Derivative works such that the photographer had infringed any copyright in the bottle and/or label. It was held that:

1. The bottle itself was a "useful article" with an "intrinsic utilitarian function", and hence could not attract copyright protection. The Court said "The Skyy vodka bottle, although attractive, has no special design or other features that could exist independently as a work of art. It is essentially a functional bottle without a distinctive shape".

2. As to the label, copyright cannot be claimed in a "print or label consisting solely of trademark subject matter and lacking copyrightable matter. Although a label's "graphical illustrations" are normally copyrightable, "textual matter" is not -- at least not unless the text aids or augments an accompanying graphical illustration. The label on Skyy's vodka bottle consists only of text and does not include any pictorial illustrations".

3. There was no need to decide whether the label was copyrightable as the photographs were "based on the bottle as a whole, not on the label. The whole point of the shots was to capture the bottle in its entirety". Since the shots were of "the bottle as a whole -- a useful article not subject to copyright protection -- and not a shot merely, or even mainly, of its label", the Court held that the photographs were not derivative works.

Note the words "merely or mainly". This case does not sanction the hosting on Commons of photographs which are merely or mainly of copyright-protected product labels. The fact that the label consisted only of uncopyrightable text was a fact important enough for the Court to note, and it cannot be assumed without argument that the decision would have been the same had the label carried a clearly-copyrightable graphic design.

This was a US case, and the decision is not applicable to similar photographs taken in other countries.

Enough

Enough.

[[File:Ambox octogon stop.svg|20px]] '''Enough.'''