Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janisjoplin.png
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.
Pretty clearly a derivative work. I see no reason to assume that the original is public domain, unless this depends upon some law with which I am not familiar. J Milburn (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- If it is really her passport, then the picture has been published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice, which should make it PD ({{PD-US-no notice}}). --Eusebius (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Not according to our definition of published- this Commons policy page links to the EnWP page on PD; this page quotes a US law on the subject saying- "Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. Under these definitions, a passport photo certainly cannot be considered "published". J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This image is derived from File:Janis_Joplin_Passport.jpg, so if the license on that image is correct and validly applied, then this image, File:Janisjoplin.png, is OK. However, while the original source Sérgio Savaman Savarese / savaman at Flickr has apparently licensed a photo of the passport as CC-by-2.0, that photo is clearly a derivative work of the passport itself and the photographer who took the original passport photo. While the passport to which the photo has been attached is a work of the US government and as such clearly PD, as Milburn mentions, I don't think we can use the presence of a photo in the passport as an instance of the photo itself being published. I think we need to consider deleting both. —RP88 11:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete it and use this one [1] as 'fair-use', a lot better. See the copyright terms [2]. There's a Green's work in the article "Jefferson Airplane" too. 201.17.85.216 03:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- The copyright terms say the Greene image cannot be used by even non-profit organizations. Whatever we do, we need to insert a better picture than that semi-abstract, high-contrast image that's there now. That's decorative, and does not give you a true, encyclopedic picture of the appearance of this article's subject. --207.237.230.157 21:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept, as the passport is {{PD-US-no notice}}. Kameraad Pjotr 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
this probably could be speedied - it's a crop of a deleted image, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janis Joplin Passport.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Delete According to present US law at least, passports are not "public records" (source). And presumably hotel clerks etc are under "explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents". So a passport photo would not be regarded as published. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
