Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 29: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 223: Line 223:
* The copyright we should concern ourselves with here is the copyright in the notes of the music, rather than copyright in the image which is an entirely conventional representation of the notes and contributes no creativity. The question here is, does showing the notes significantly add to the understanding a reader gets from the article, to an extent that justifies the copyright taking. I'll defer to anyone with more expert knowledge, eg someone from WikiProject Music on that. My guess is: it might. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
* The copyright we should concern ourselves with here is the copyright in the notes of the music, rather than copyright in the image which is an entirely conventional representation of the notes and contributes no creativity. The question here is, does showing the notes significantly add to the understanding a reader gets from the article, to an extent that justifies the copyright taking. I'll defer to anyone with more expert knowledge, eg someone from WikiProject Music on that. My guess is: it might. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] ([[User talk:Jheald|talk]]) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Jheald is correct about the copyright. An excerpt from the score will always add to the information in any article about music. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Jheald is correct about the copyright. An excerpt from the score will always add to the information in any article about music. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': I disagree with Jheald about the weighting of copyright concerns for the sheet music as an image and for the musical substance. He is quite right in saying that these are two separate issues, but to my knowledge it is not true that the image could attract no copyright. Musical typesetting is enough of a creative act to create separate copyright on the typeset sheet – that is the reason why sheet music editions even of classical old masters are typically copyrighted by their publishers. I agree that our fair-use claim is good enough to allow an image in principle, but I would prefer it if somebody could re-engrave it to make at least that part of the copyright situation free. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 10:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


====[[:File:Bfilov.jpeg|Bfilov.jpeg]]====
====[[:File:Bfilov.jpeg|Bfilov.jpeg]]====

Revision as of 10:45, 6 June 2009

May 29

File:Justdancesheet.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).
  • It seems very unclear as to how this non-free image substantially increases readers' understanding of the article. The vast majority of Wikipedians probably can't read sheet music to understand it. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:This image is used to give the chord progression of the song. The article passed its GA review and the reviewer obviously didnot see any problem with it. The chord progression as described in the article is supported by this sheet music from the reputed Musicnotes.com and enhances the readers understanding by showing them how a progression is arranged. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:It is useful to have the specific details shown on the sheet music as well as being able to hear them (if one's ear is that attuned) in the song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.118.182 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Surely sheet music is redundant to actually hearing the song? There is already a sample. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, NFCC#3. – Quadell (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copyright we should concern ourselves with here is the copyright in the notes of the music, rather than copyright in the image which is an entirely conventional representation of the notes and contributes no creativity. The question here is, does showing the notes significantly add to the understanding a reader gets from the article, to an extent that justifies the copyright taking. I'll defer to anyone with more expert knowledge, eg someone from WikiProject Music on that. My guess is: it might. Jheald (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jheald is correct about the copyright. An excerpt from the score will always add to the information in any article about music. DGG (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree with Jheald about the weighting of copyright concerns for the sheet music as an image and for the musical substance. He is quite right in saying that these are two separate issues, but to my knowledge it is not true that the image could attract no copyright. Musical typesetting is enough of a creative act to create separate copyright on the typeset sheet – that is the reason why sheet music editions even of classical old masters are typically copyrighted by their publishers. I agree that our fair-use claim is good enough to allow an image in principle, but I would prefer it if somebody could re-engrave it to make at least that part of the copyright situation free. Fut.Perf. 10:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]