Review
(criteria) |
 Comment Although the file description indicates that this is a derivative work of the Flickr photo, there is no indication of what was changed or why it was changed. I see cropping, lightening of the background, and addition of a scale, which are all self-explanatory as to why, though I think they should be noted in the description. However, I also see removal of two instances of the NHL shield logo, removal of the NHL 2000 logo, removal of NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's signature, and removal of two (one full, one partial) instances of "In Glas Co", which I assume to be the name of the company that manufactured this puck. The NHL is (and has been for a while) headquartered in New York, and Bettman is a US-American, so I think US copyright law, not Canadian is generally applicable; based on that I think the NHL shield is PD-1923, the NHL 2000 and "In Glas Co" logos are PD-textlogo, and Bettman's signature is PD-signature. I think these should be restored, since I see no reason to require their removal and without them we have the oddity of a puck marked "official game puck" with no explanation of where/what league it's from; however, if these edits stand, they should at least be noted and explained. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything was removed in order to avoid such a long writings here but it seems that it doesn't work :))) I wonder, if I remove all letters and signs from the object would then all the people be satisfied. --MrPanyGoff 14:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, it's better to show things as they actually are, rather than a simplified form that some might wish them to take (which is why I usually prefer to see permanently located sculptures in situ rather than masked out). But others can, and often do, disagree... cmadler (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid ground of opposition. There is a requirement for description of what the image depicts but not the description of the methods applied or description of the previous variants. The description clearly says what is depicted. Once again, please stop to disrupt and start helping.--MrPanyGoff 19:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- To be completely clear, although I don't think it's necessary (nor beneficial) to remove the logos, that's not the reason for my opposition. My opposition is because this is a retouched photo, but the image page does not describe exactly what has been changed -- for me it is therefore not fully described. If it were fully described in this manner, I don't say that I would support it as VI, but I would no longer oppose it. cmadler (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one can have requirements beyond the original license. This matter is outside the VI project and should not be discussed here. Only the changes of the photos from Wikimedia projects has to be described. The original photograph is from an outside source. Its license allows variety of derivates. The author of the derivative works decides what to do with them and how to present them. The only conditions are: 1. To attribute the work. and 2. To publish it under the same or similar license. The license doesn't require to describe the changes. No one can have requirements beyond the original license. The information in the file published in this project clearly indicates that this is a derivative work, right? The information in the file published in this project clearly specifies its original source, right? The published file follows correctly the requirements of the original license, right? One more time: This is not a retouched file from Commons! Nobody can have additional requirements beyond the original license. Nobody can have requirements, regarding the donation, if it complies with the license. I insist that offensive and tedious discussion to take another direction. I insist newcomers to respect people who give gratuitous work of high quality. --MrPanyGoff 12:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Attention please! We have an unacceptable precedent. A photograph that meets all criteria of the VI project is opposed due to a personal requirement.--MrPanyGoff 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both perspectives are understandable. Legally and with reference to our rules there is no objection to this image is promoted. But there is an ethical problem. We can not say that we accurately describes an object if we remove the distinctive characteristics of this object. I think we're too self-censorship. This image has not posed a problem if it had not been retouched. And I will vote favorably to this solution. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
