Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dictionary through lens.JPG

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.

File:Dictionary through lens.JPG

Dictionaries are copyrighted as a general rule. As the Internet has not been around for a period of time that would see this copyrighted definition being out of copyright, and failing any publication information, we need to assume that this photo is in fact from a copyrighted dictionary, and therefore it is clearly a derivative work. And hence, it needs to be deleted. Someone might also like to let WMF Legal know, as they have used this in their latest transparency report -- tell 'em Russavia says g'day :> 187.149.223.202 19:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there must be a perfectly logical reason for all this. WMF uses mysterious ways. In such obvious things like this make this mistake. I do not want to imagine the amount of crap that they commit secretly, for our own safety. --The_Photographer (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno The Photographer. We need to cut the WMF some slack sometimes. Although the blog post has the names of the WMF General Counsel and Senior Legal Counsel, do we actually believe that they wrote a single word of that report and or even looked at the contents before being published? Well, I guess we would expect that, given that they have put their names to the blog post. Because taking the work of someone else and slapping your name on it would be dishonest and fraudulent, wouldn't it? 189.133.124.98 20:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please IP, You should stop worrying about such matters, all of us must rely on WMF. With your legal opinions, you're smearing the image, send it privately as secretly as possible to protect you and your own safety. In addition, an IP user has no right to express opinions, you are obviously a puppet of Russavia. If you are Russavia, please stop, let WMF controlling us follow us all, then, we love WMF and do not care about these issues. You should learn to rely on good people, they do all this work without any monetary interest and always listening to the community. The legal issues are not a priority. --The_Photographer (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete? This looks like it is the Oxford Dictionary. That it is not credited, and has not been credited since 2006, is very annoying. This photograph doesnt include a substantial part of the dictionary as a literary work - due to the lens it cant be used to obtain a usable definition of a single entry. However it is the layout of information that is the focus of this photograph, and IMO this photograph does include a substantial part of the graphical layout, fonts, and decals of the dictionary. (I am pretty sure the Oxford uses fonts that are recent & copyrighted) If a literary work (presumably a dictionary, but not necessarily) was published that substantially used the same layout, fonts and decals, it would infringe the copyright of Oxford even if no passage of text was copied. However this photo is not a literary work, so I doubt that the copyright in the publishing decisions would be infringed by a photo like this which uses them as part of a sample of the work. I'd be interested in reading any decisions along those lines, as I have seen many 'sample of copyrighted work' photos on Commons, especially book spines/covers which would need to be reconsidered. While this photo is clearly derived, I expect that it doesnt infringe the copyright of the original, esp. not in the U.S. But even if it doesnt infringe the copyright, a similar photo of a public domain dictionary can be created, and should be created as a replacement, unless there is a very clear and universally accepted basis for why derivatives like this do not infringe the original. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and admonish WMF legal for completely missing the obvious. "A dictionary"... seriously? --SB_Johnny ^talk 02:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given that I have had photographs of things deleted like a Hasbro Inchworm toy in my garage, on the grounds of trademark violation, I cannot imagine how a photo of a published and copyrighted dictionary could be deemed "freely licensed". The Wikimedia Foundation's legal team should be embarrassed. All that cash floating around, and they couldn't find an attorney who knows something about copyright and licensing? - Thekohser (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Fonts are not copyrighted, so there is no problem there. Dictionaries, of course, are, and everything shown here has a copyright. It would certainly qualify as fair use in the right circumstances, but Commons does not keep fair use material. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]