Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burr by Gore Vidal - first edition cover.jpg
File:Burr by Gore Vidal - first edition cover.jpg edit
This image is not the complete cover, just the front. We can't select portions of objects and declare them ineligible for copyright because the portion that we see shows only text. In this case, there is an image of Gore Vidal on the back cover. Postdlf should know better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Is this a joke? You can't be serious. We can only judge an image's copyrightability based on the content of that image itself, not based on what it doesn't contain (??), and this only contains two words and three names—it is completely ineligible for copyright under U.S. law. I also shouldn't have to state that it is standard practice to use a book's front cover to identify that book (check any online book seller, or any Wikipedia article on books), so complaining that the back cover is omitted is absurd. Postdlf (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- You aren't claiming that the image of the front cover is not copyrightable, you are claiming that the front cover itself is not copyrightable. This is simply not true. The cover is copyrightable and there is no reason to assume that it is not therefore copyrighted. Standard practice for identifying books has no bearing on claims of copyright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- What is this distinction you are claiming between an image of the front cover and the front cover itself, and what's the consequence you're claiming in that? The front cover is a two dimensional work, so a scan of it is just a slavish copy just the same as if we scanned a photograph or painting. And that front cover consists only of uncopyrightable, brief text (an article, a noun, and three names: "A Novel / Burr / Gore Vidal"), which therefore makes the cover uncopyrightable under U.S. law as being insufficiently original. That's not an assumption. That's why we have Template:PD-text. I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text on Wikipedia is written more clearly (or at least concisely) in that regard, but they appear to reflect the same principle. Maybe I should have used Template:PD-textlogo instead? Regardless, how you can make the bizarre claim you've made about copyright law given those templates is beyond me. Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to keep it simple. There really is no "front cover" shown here. A hardcover book such as this typically has a "dust jacket" which wraps around the book. You may consider the part on the front to be the "front cover" but the dust jacket covers both the front, back, and spine of the book, as well as folding inside the front and back covers. If the whole of the dust jacket contained nothing but text and simple shapes it would not be copyrightable (in the US). That would be extremely unusual, and is not the case here. Do you get it now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are trying to claim the content of this image is copyrightable solely based on content not actually included in this image. Which is not how it works. Postdlf (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is not what I am claiming at all. I am stating that design of the dust jacket is copyrightable and almost certainly copyrighted. You can't get around that by only showing the parts that suit you. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- From where did you get this phantom limb theory of copyright, such that omitted parts somehow remain attached to give the sensation of copyrightability to parts that do not have it? Postdlf (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- try reading PD text, or PD, or anything at all about copyright, how about COMMONS:TOO is an easy place to start. sheesh. Penyulap ☏ 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- "The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether or not a particular work can be copyrighted." The "work" here is the design of the entire dust jacket, not just a part of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) H5, I don't have a kilogram of hashish handy, I may need to go shopping before I can see the whole cover that you're talking about. <Peny leaves to go shopping> Back later !! Penyulap ☏ 18:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- "The threshold of originality is a concept in copyright law that is used to assess whether or not a particular work can be copyrighted." The "work" here is the design of the entire dust jacket, not just a part of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- try reading PD text, or PD, or anything at all about copyright, how about COMMONS:TOO is an easy place to start. sheesh. Penyulap ☏ 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- From where did you get this phantom limb theory of copyright, such that omitted parts somehow remain attached to give the sensation of copyrightability to parts that do not have it? Postdlf (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is not what I am claiming at all. I am stating that design of the dust jacket is copyrightable and almost certainly copyrighted. You can't get around that by only showing the parts that suit you. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are trying to claim the content of this image is copyrightable solely based on content not actually included in this image. Which is not how it works. Postdlf (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'll try to keep it simple. There really is no "front cover" shown here. A hardcover book such as this typically has a "dust jacket" which wraps around the book. You may consider the part on the front to be the "front cover" but the dust jacket covers both the front, back, and spine of the book, as well as folding inside the front and back covers. If the whole of the dust jacket contained nothing but text and simple shapes it would not be copyrightable (in the US). That would be extremely unusual, and is not the case here. Do you get it now? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- What is this distinction you are claiming between an image of the front cover and the front cover itself, and what's the consequence you're claiming in that? The front cover is a two dimensional work, so a scan of it is just a slavish copy just the same as if we scanned a photograph or painting. And that front cover consists only of uncopyrightable, brief text (an article, a noun, and three names: "A Novel / Burr / Gore Vidal"), which therefore makes the cover uncopyrightable under U.S. law as being insufficiently original. That's not an assumption. That's why we have Template:PD-text. I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-text on Wikipedia is written more clearly (or at least concisely) in that regard, but they appear to reflect the same principle. Maybe I should have used Template:PD-textlogo instead? Regardless, how you can make the bizarre claim you've made about copyright law given those templates is beyond me. Postdlf (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- You aren't claiming that the image of the front cover is not copyrightable, you are claiming that the front cover itself is not copyrightable. This is simply not true. The cover is copyrightable and there is no reason to assume that it is not therefore copyrighted. Standard practice for identifying books has no bearing on claims of copyright. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Except the entire dust jacket is not copied here, nothing in copyright law or Commons policy forbids cropping or partial copying, and copyright does not attach indivisibly to a work or object such that individual uncopyrightable elements included in a copyrighted work magically retain the copyrightability of the other elements even after they are separated out. We judge the copyrightability of an image file only based on what that image itself copies or contains, not at all based on what has not been copied. Postdlf (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this nomination just a troll, I mean, is this supposed to be a serious DR ? I would support a speedy keep.
Delicious carbuncle, DR is for having images that are capable of being copyright discussed, it's not a venue to abuse and torture welcome contributors in good standing. Wasting everyone's time is unhelpful. Penyulap ☏ 17:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Penyulap, I agree - wasting everyone time is unhelpful. Please stop doing it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I came up with the whole 'time wasting' thing, and what, repeating me, back to me, is supposed to impress me?. Right. Ok, I'm a bit busy right now, I'll put it on my list of things to do tomorrow, ('try to be impressed with witty come-backs that aren't witty'). Is that ok with you ? it wasn't urgent was it ? Penyulap ☏ 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep Per{{PD-Text}} as the nominator should know better. This is the same as saying that if I photograph the Eiffel Tower this is a copyright violation as the La Défense is located in the same city. Tm (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close of a textbook PD file. As a matter of fact, yes, you can crop PD elements from a copyrighted work and post them up a such. -FASTILY 20:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Burr by Gore Vidal - first edition cover.jpg edit
Even if it's only text, to my opinion it's real artwork (so protected by copyright laws). In particular, choice of fonts is an artwork decision. Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm11671 20:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: A font is almost always chosen and is just generally never considered an "artwork decision" eligible for copyright. FDMS 4 20:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
