Commons:Deletion requests/File:LD-process.PNG
Description states that permission was given by the author of the book but no ORTS is filed. This user has previously not been able to prove the provided permission as shown at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot profile rolling.JPG. Wizard191 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned that permission was underway, and indeed I did sent a message to the book company (for several images). However, since it has been a quite old book, they haven't been able to retrieve the book and could thus not give me permission by the author. If you provide me you mailadres, I would forward you the mail sent. Regardless, since I modified the images extensively anyhow, little remains of the original image, and I would thus believe that it could be considered as own work (it was only based on an other image, an not a duplicate). If you nonetheless require additional image changes, or if you would like to see the text changed, ... please state so and I'll work on it.
KVDP (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Even if the publisher "gave permission for use at Commons", that would be unacceptable. You need to learn the difference between the minimum licensing for use on Wikipedia, and the minimum licensing for use at Commons (which must also be free enoguh to permit re-use outside Commons). As the simplest counter-example, a literal "permission to use at Commons" wouldn't even include permission to use on Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have had problems with the OTRS-procedure due to the creators not providing a good explication of what they give permission for (I thus always request permission under a specific license). What would be the best way to proceed then, could the image be suitable for publication at wikipedia alone ? Also, there is the issue that the image has been modified, so I'm not entirely sure whether permission is strictly required, I requested permission and added the line just to be sure, but this option will no longer work, as Marshall Cavendish has been unable to retrieve the book. In the case that more graphical modifying is required, what do I need to change extra (its already quite modified).
KVDP (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- For the sake of clarification, can anyone point to the relevant policy for "derivative work" in this context, to clarify what would be needed so that this can be regarded as a "clean slate" creation by KVDP, encumbered by no copyright restriction other than his own?
- The original book image does not involve significant creative input (I'm aware of UK law making this somewhat of an irrelevance). It is by and large a generic steelworking process, drawn with components of a generic steelworks. How far do we have to get from a book image before a "Commons created" image is as free from others' copyright as this publisher's image was for them? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the original image looked like, but from my analysis of it it appears that it's a scan of the book image with English descriptions added, but I could be wrong. Wizard191 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of a copyrighted book, no suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
