Commons:Deletion requests/Obama wins
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.
Obama wins
[edit]
These images appear to be correctly licensed by the creator of the photograph, but do they infringe USA Today's copyright? – Wdchk (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. All that's really recognizable at this pixel resolution are ● the headline: non-infringing because short phrases are not subject to copyright protection in the first place, ● the USA Today logo itself, ● a photo with nearly indiscernable subjects recognizable only if you are already aware of what the accompanying article is about. Interesting question, but the chances of copyright infringement are minuscule. This comment is submitted by uploader RCraig09 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- Question for admin: If you're leaning toward deleting, would it help matters if I uploaded a replacement image with everything on the newspaper blurred out to be unrecognizable, except the words "Obama Wins"? Please indicate if you think this approach would solve any perceived copyright problem. RCraig09 (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutral I would see USA Today to be de minimis in this particular case due to the resolution. There are only two things which can be argued to be not de minimis: the photograph on the front page and the layout of the front page itself. I see the former to be just this side of de minimis, but the latter I am unsure about (this does not mean that I think that it is not, just that I am not knowledgeable enough to do anything but bring it to the attention). Sinnamon (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Observations to Sinnamon: The 'layout' issue might depend on whether the layout is sufficiently original (in the copyright sense) to qualify for copyright protection in the first place (or if other newspapers had previously used a substantially similar layout). Separate issue: I'm not sure what you mean by "just this side" of de minimis -- clarification might help the admin. RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- I meant that it is de minimis, but just barely. If layout is not the issue, then my vote can be considered to be a weak keep. Sinnamon (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Observations to Sinnamon: The 'layout' issue might depend on whether the layout is sufficiently original (in the copyright sense) to qualify for copyright protection in the first place (or if other newspapers had previously used a substantially similar layout). Separate issue: I'm not sure what you mean by "just this side" of de minimis -- clarification might help the admin. RCraig09 (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)