Commons:Deletion requests/File:Installation Disc Microsoft Works & Microsoft Money.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.
The CD is likely fine, but the booklet is copyrightable B (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @B What if the big graphic in the center of the booklet cover was obscured? Brianjd (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: Obscured meaning put the CD on top of the booklet so you can't see the artwork and retake the picture? That would likely be fine. Obscured meaning use MS Paint to put a black box over the artwork? That's probably fine from a copyright standpoint, but that would reduce its appropriateness in an encyclopedia article. I think a better option would be to crop it to the CD. Also (and again, nothing to do with copyright) I think the software used to edit the photo may have reduced its color depth or something. As a general suggestion for the uploader (having nothing to do with copyright) they may want to try re-taking a picture of just the CD, in a well-lit room, with no flash, and a white background (like a piece of typing paper). --B (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- @B Careful use of paragraphs would make your comments easier to read.
- I agree that obscuring the artwork using the CD would probably give a better picture, but an edited picture is better than nothing (also remember that Commons is not an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not its only sibling project). An edited picture also gives us the option of going back to the original picture when (if?) the copyright expires. Brianjd (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Currently in use at de:Microsoft Works, de:Microsoft Money, en:Microsoft Works, en:Microsoft Money, fr:Microsoft Money, fr:Microsoft Works, zh:Microsoft Money and zh:Microsoft Works. So maybe that’s why you mentioned use in an encyclopedia? Anyway, it is up to those projects to decide if they still want the picture after any necessary editing. Brianjd (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Cropping to the CD is a fine option – but that should be done as a separate file. Any changes made here should be the minimal changes required by copyright. Brianjd (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- That seems overly pedantic. en:Microsoft Money has had four edits by humans in the year 2022. It is highly likely that changes to this image would go unnoticed for a long period of time. Blacking out a large section of the photo would be wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. That absolutely should not be done. And if it were done and the image continues to be used, it's not because someone is making a decision to accept the image - rather, it's simply because nobody has noticed it. --B (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @B This is the way things are done. When in-use files are nominated for deletion because of factual inaccuracies, we quickly reject such nominations as COM:INUSE. This should be the same.
- If people are worried about this, they should raise the issue at central forums on other projects, like I did at ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers/Archive/2022#交尾. Brianjd (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're proposing a change that makes the image completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article - putting a big black box over the bulk of the image - and then saying that because nobody anywhere notices that change, it must be okay. In no world is that appropriate. The image is of such poor quality that it's barely worth using as it is and if you look really really closely at the pages you linked, you will see that in all but one of them, the most recent edit was the uploader of this image adding the image to the article in question. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the image from any project and is certainly not an indication that a redacted version would be desirable. These are lightly-edited articles and nobody is very likely to notice a change for months. Don't introduce crap into lightly-edited articles. --B (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- @B The images were added by the uploader? Then I guess it’s fine, since the uploader said below it’s fine to remove them. Brianjd (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- You're proposing a change that makes the image completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia article - putting a big black box over the bulk of the image - and then saying that because nobody anywhere notices that change, it must be okay. In no world is that appropriate. The image is of such poor quality that it's barely worth using as it is and if you look really really closely at the pages you linked, you will see that in all but one of them, the most recent edit was the uploader of this image adding the image to the article in question. That's hardly a ringing endorsement of the image from any project and is certainly not an indication that a redacted version would be desirable. These are lightly-edited articles and nobody is very likely to notice a change for months. Don't introduce crap into lightly-edited articles. --B (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- That seems overly pedantic. en:Microsoft Money has had four edits by humans in the year 2022. It is highly likely that changes to this image would go unnoticed for a long period of time. Blacking out a large section of the photo would be wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. That absolutely should not be done. And if it were done and the image continues to be used, it's not because someone is making a decision to accept the image - rather, it's simply because nobody has noticed it. --B (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Brianjd: Obscured meaning put the CD on top of the booklet so you can't see the artwork and retake the picture? That would likely be fine. Obscured meaning use MS Paint to put a black box over the artwork? That's probably fine from a copyright standpoint, but that would reduce its appropriateness in an encyclopedia article. I think a better option would be to crop it to the CD. Also (and again, nothing to do with copyright) I think the software used to edit the photo may have reduced its color depth or something. As a general suggestion for the uploader (having nothing to do with copyright) they may want to try re-taking a picture of just the CD, in a well-lit room, with no flash, and a white background (like a piece of typing paper). --B (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader of the photo and I'm sorry for the late reply as I was away for some days. Because I saw the entries of many music albums which show their lyrics booklet covers, I thought that it would be fine if I uploaded a photo of an installation disc of a computer program with its booklet. Now I understand the rule that "the CD is likely fine, but the booklet is copyrightable," I agree that you may take those photos down and I'll later upload new photos only with the CD, not just for this Microsoft Works but also for Microsoft 3D Movie Maker and The Magic School Bus in the same batch. HilldeFirst (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @HilldeFirst: Certain projects, notably the English Wikipedia, allow materials under a claim of fair use. So CD covers and the like are fine when uploaded to the English Wikipedia in accordance with their non-free content policy. But they can only be uploaded directly there - they cannot be uploaded to Commons. (The exception to that rule is that if you are uploading something that is only text and simple shapes - then it is ineligible for copyright protection and can be uploaded here.) --B (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
- @HilldeFirst There are lots of other reasons something might be free (it might be too old, not meet copyright registration or renewal requirements, be a copyright-exempt government work, be dedicated to the public domain or freely licensed, etc). Any of those things may also be uploaded to Commons if they are educational. But being too simple to be copyrighted is probably the reason that is most relevant here. Brianjd (talk) 07:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep current revision; 
Delete previous revision. Brianjd (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)- Obviously the new version is fine - the old version just needs to be deleted. --B (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Kept: per crop. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
