Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flickr-spoogman-cc-by.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Although this is located in a public place, there is no evidence that the graffiti artist owned the copyright, or that this was an official work by a Rockstar representative. Graffiti artist cannot give up rights they do not have. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Dunno, I can't imagine that being there if it wasn't a true advertisement from the company. Not the kind of thing people tend to paint for the heck of it. The corporate logo is at the bottom right, it looks like.
Keep
- It is certainly plausible, but without proof that it is free it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion. Further, there are several reasons I don't think this was done by Rockstar. The logo you point out in the bottom corner is not the correct logo for this game. The game was published by Rockstar (yellow logo) and developed by Rockstar North (blue logo), whereas this logo is orange-red, closer to Rockstar Toronto (see the list at en:Rockstar Games). They would not paint their own logo wrong. It's an iconic logo, and there is no reason a graffiti wouldn't include it on such a large piece, just as I doubt they paid this guy to get it tattooed. Second, there is no copyright info, which seems unlikely for a corporation as large as Take-Two (parent company). I realize that isn't a firm case against the image, but there certainly isn't a firm case for, and that's what we need to keep it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here is another one that looks more official http://www.flickr.com/photos/givingkittensaway/71677368/ having the correct logo color and a URL, but there is still no real evidence that this was officially licensed. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 01:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, to me those look like they are right out of the same advertising campaign. Near-identical painting here. I think the odds those are by unassociated artists to be much too low for deletion. It's a more than reasonable assumption to me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Does it matter if a Graffiti is legal or illegal? According to the German law it's protected by law because of FOP. (See license box, same like coins and stamps etc). We have lots of other graffitis. Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it matters. If legal, it's a mural, and FOP is the only reason we can keep it. I am presuming this is located in Germany for my "keep" vote -- if not, it changes to a delete. If illegal, and the painting is derivative of an existing bit of official artwork, then it's an issue because of the derivative work status. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Delete It's very clearly a derivative work of the copyrighted art of the game. A simple google image search for "grand theft auto san andreas" shows how extensively the girl (in the same pose, same colors, etc.) is used in the game's art. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Except that because of Commons:Freedom of panorama, the derivative work aspect is not an issue. At least if this photo really is from Germany. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: The Flickr image is All Rights Reserved. The image is derivative of a copyrighted game and we have no way of knowing whether it was authorized or not. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
