Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Facial Hair comic.jpg
as per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SpockIcon1007.gif might be a COM:DW, not covered by COM:DM since this is an essencial part of the cartoon. Hit me, sue me, punch me. I agree with every decision you make here & if someone is really sure we should undelete the other one too if this discussion here ends in such a way. [[ Forrester ]] 00:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but this does look like a delete. It's probably valid fair use, but there's no fair use on Commons. Powers (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- You can be sure: I am also not happy about it.... [[ Forrester ]] 23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at COM:DM, I can't see how this would qualify. Can we remove the bottom third and cure the copyright problem?--Chaser (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do we want that? [[ Forrester ]] 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- It would solve the problem but (despite being freely licensed) I'd want to consult with the author first before taking such action. Powers (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do we want that? [[ Forrester ]] 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Leonard Nimoy with pointy ears is not copyrightable. -Nard the Bard 21:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why not? [[ Forrester ]] 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Commons:Fan art. -Nard the Bard 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Which I think supports the analysis that while Leonard Nimoy is not copyrightable, the image becomes so when you add pointy ears and a Starfleet uniform. Powers (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Commons:Fan art. -Nard the Bard 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Strong keep. This is the WikiWorld comic, specifically made in cooperation with the Wikimedia Foundation, and placed under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 License. It is an original artistic work, involving gentle parody. The fact that it parodies the real world does not make it ineligible for copyright, otherwise the entire Oeuvre of Weird Al Yankovic would be copyright infringement. --GRuban (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Parody is protected as a fair use of copyrighted content. (See w:Parody#Copyright issues.) We don't allow fair use on Commons. Powers (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just because the work is a parody, doesn't mean the artist doesn't own the rights to it. And owning the rights, he can license them under CC-BY-SA. Or are you saying otherwise? That because it's a parody, he doesn't own the work? Or he does own the work, but can't put it under a free license? That's a novel interpretation of copyright, as well as silly. Using a parody in your work doesn't suddenly mean you can't license that work. It's his work, just Weird Al Yankovic's songs are his songs, and if Weird Al were to put his songs under a CC license we could similarly use those.
- Not to mention that also already have plenty of parody images.
-
parody of Playboy -
parody of Conservapedia -
parody of Free Willie movie (says so outright) -
parody of the Windows logo (says so outright) -
parody of Intel logo (says so outright) -
parody of Warhol painting, which was itself a fair use of Campbell's soup can -
parody of Space Invaders
- But that's just for example; the real point is that a parodist is fully as much an artist, and has full rights to his work, including the rights to release it. --GRuban (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Making a parody may create a work which creates a copyright, that's right. But it's a COM:DW if the thing that is spoofed was copyrighted. As a matter of fact the question is: Can Spock's ears be copyrighted. Since the context of that usage clearly refers to Star Trek it may be assumed to be a reference that is not trivial. But i'm not that sure. [[ Forrester ]] 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not an absolute case, "does it use it or not", it's a matter of how it's used. For example, look at our text articles in Wikipedia. Many of them involve quotations from other works: interview statements, book excerpts, etc. The quotations are fair use within the articles. But the articles as a whole are fully GNU FDL, even though they include those quotations.
- Another example is a photo of a t-shirt that I recently argued delete on. The tshirt had a frame from a movie on it. If the photo included a person wearing that t-shirt as part of a crowd, or otherwise not focused on the tshirt or movie frame, the photo would have been fine. If the photo was of the person, but prominently displaying the t-shirt, it would have been debatable. But as it was, the photo was cropped to focus on the frame on the t-shirt, so I argued it was essentially a photo of the movie frame. It got deleted, I suspect to a large part because of that argument.
- In this case, the cartoonist is making a drawing of Nimoy as Spock (2 Spocks, actually, from a specific Star Trek episode), but that is not the focus of the cartoon. The focus of the cartoon is clearly the Wikipedia article on beards. Spock is an iconic, but almost incidental, illustration. Spock is a limited quotation in an encyclopedia article. The work as a whole is properly freely licensed. --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Certainly a de minimis argument is much more compelling as a reason to keep the image than arguing that "parody is protected". The examples you posted above (mostly) do not contain copyrighted content, so there is no need to appeal to the parody allowance of fair use. (An exception is that "hacker inside" logo, which I am about to nominate for deletion.) Of course, as you said, it's not an absolute case -- de minimis is in many respects a judgment call, and that's why we have these discussions. But your original "parody" argument is a non-starter. Powers (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
