Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mahmudiyah felons.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.
A source of simply "U.S. Federal Government" is insufficient for a collage of four separate photographs. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- So are you saying that even though all the individual photos are PD, the fact that they are displayed in a collage somehow invalidates the PD license? Can a simple arrangement with no artistic value added be subject to copyright? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying. Merely claiming that the US federal government produced each of these four images is insufficient. On the Commons page about essential information, it says: "the file description page needs to mention not only who generated the file/ image (which should already have been provided in the author= field) but where the file in question came from. This is known as its 'source' and it allows others to verify that the licensing is correct and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, for any purpose, even commercially. […] If you are uploading a file that originally came from an external website, you should provide at least a link to the web page (i.e., the url) on which the image or file is displayed (that is, not the web address of the file itself, but rather the web page containing the file). If that page does not also fully explain the freely licensed copyright status of the file, you should also provide a second link to a related page that discusses the website's content copyright, such as its terms of use." — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have added the url to the image source field. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, but Gulf News only credits "Photos courtesy: Macmillan". The courtesy listing is merely the person who send the image to Gulf News, not the source or copyright holder. Also, "Macmillan" ≠ "United States federal government". — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Macmillan merely created a collage out of PD images. Not sure what you're driving at. Each individual photo is PD. Only the assemblage into a collage is value added. I could assemble the same collage and upload and it would amount to the same thing. What specifically is your concern here? Can you cite any policy page regarding collages? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Regardless of their assemblage, this is four separate photographs each of which has its own copyright status for which evidence needs to be listed on the file description page. You may also want to read Commons:Collages; you may find it more explanatory. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- Macmillan merely created a collage out of PD images. Not sure what you're driving at. Each individual photo is PD. Only the assemblage into a collage is value added. I could assemble the same collage and upload and it would amount to the same thing. What specifically is your concern here? Can you cite any policy page regarding collages? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed, but Gulf News only credits "Photos courtesy: Macmillan". The courtesy listing is merely the person who send the image to Gulf News, not the source or copyright holder. Also, "Macmillan" ≠ "United States federal government". — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- I have added the url to the image source field. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I'm saying. Merely claiming that the US federal government produced each of these four images is insufficient. On the Commons page about essential information, it says: "the file description page needs to mention not only who generated the file/ image (which should already have been provided in the author= field) but where the file in question came from. This is known as its 'source' and it allows others to verify that the licensing is correct and the file meets the licensing criteria to be used by anyone, for any purpose, even commercially. […] If you are uploading a file that originally came from an external website, you should provide at least a link to the web page (i.e., the url) on which the image or file is displayed (that is, not the web address of the file itself, but rather the web page containing the file). If that page does not also fully explain the freely licensed copyright status of the file, you should also provide a second link to a related page that discusses the website's content copyright, such as its terms of use." — fourthords | =Λ= | 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no evidence here that these are US government photographs. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
