Commons:Deletion requests/File:IPad-01.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.
derivative works violation, image contains copyrighted elements such as the software with no evidence of permission from apple Terrillja (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely needs deleting from Commons. Could be added to Wikipedia if a fair use rationale was provided. Little Professor (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete not appropriate for commons. Andyzweb (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Neutral - Per Commons:de minimis and arguments presented at Commons:Deletion requests/File:IPad-02.jpg. The user interface software is not the "subject" of this image, but the iPad. However, from all the images in Category:iPad nominated for deletion this is the only one where a copyright argument can be made. Could as well be moved to :en etc and used under fair use in iPad and iBooks/iBookstore. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Have you viewed the image at full resolution? its a copyright violation, and it can't make claim of originality they are just not obscure enough and this image couldn't be reused freely Andyzweb (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Per de minimis, the amount of resolution and the amount of detail in cropped portions of the image is irrelevant. What matters is the total composition of the image. The fact that you can see UI does not make it the subject (read: main subject) of the image. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- You still have the covers of the books, which are most likely copyrighted or otherwise protected as well and you really can't tell me that those are not the focus of the image. I don't see why this is such a huge fight, we can delete these and upload them under fair use and be done with this.--Terrillja (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are many images like this. emijrp (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- You still have the covers of the books, which are most likely copyrighted or otherwise protected as well and you really can't tell me that those are not the focus of the image. I don't see why this is such a huge fight, we can delete these and upload them under fair use and be done with this.--Terrillja (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Per de minimis, the amount of resolution and the amount of detail in cropped portions of the image is irrelevant. What matters is the total composition of the image. The fact that you can see UI does not make it the subject (read: main subject) of the image. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep - As Per Petri Krohn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.60.62.100 (talk • contribs) 09:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete - As per Andyzweb --staka.talk 22:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Per Petri Krohn. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 16:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment Petri Krohn's vote was neutral? where do you get a keep vote from that? Andyzweb (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said
Keep because I agreed about what PK said about COM:DM. The subject is the iPad and not the book covers. -NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits) 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- I said
Comment how does Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple iPad Event04.jpg now apply in the context of this image can the argument of De minimis not be made in this context? Andyzweb (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete contains too much copyrighted content. -Nard the Bard 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Personally, I thought the image was supposed to focus on the interface and the iBooks software. fetchcomms☛ 23:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete - As per Andyzweb --Chmee2 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete - As per Andyzweb: there is simply too much questionable copyright violation Soggybread (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, contains too much copyrighted content to be considered a trivial violation of the law. Blurpeace 02:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)