File talk:Chicago Spire.jpg

Replaceability, first dispute

As the buildingis under construction, someone can just take a picture of it. Once construction is done, someone can take another picture. Etc. So we don't need to use this image, because we can take our own. There must be at least one wikipedian photographer in Chicago. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

The foundation is under construction. The image on the main page does not exist to show whether a building is there or not, or to show a foundation, it exists to show the design of the building. Until the building reaches some sort of measurable height (maybe 10ish stories), the design can be shown using any free image. Until that time, all images are copyrighted by the architect, of which we have permission to use on Wikipedia (and, yes, I'm aware its still copyrighted, even with permission). Chupper 18:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image is used in the main infobox at the top of the article, not lower down where the design is discussed. There is already another nonfree image used to illustrate the design. It would be possible to write a valid rationale for putting this image lower down, removing the other nonfree image, and replacing the infobox image with a free one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another nonfree image used to illustrate a much earlier design, not the newest design - please read the fair use carefully. Does Wikipedia policy state anything regarding where nonfree images should be placed? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I might not be aware of this. It is just my understanding that placement isn't an issue with non-free content... Chupper 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the role of the image in the article is an important factor in deciding whether or not the image is replaceable. For example, you can't use an image of a magazine cover just to illustrate what a living person looks like. You can use it in a section about how that particular magazine cover was widely discussed when it came out (e.g. Demi Moore). — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the images to put a free image in the infobox and the nonfree one in the design section. I would be satisfied with that use of the nonfree image, since it directly complements the text around it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to see what an admin says re: the topic. I feel the site image in the infobox does nothing for the article and would only benefit the gallery or construction sections. If an admin will allow the image to be used where it has always been (at least until at least part of the building has been constructed), then lets put the copyrighted image back in the infobox. Otherwise, I'll use the old render in the infobox. Chupper 21:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silly discussion. Of course there's no free equivalent and won't be until the building is constructed. The building is unbuilt. It's equally silly to argue that a photograph of a notable work of architecture does not add substantially to an understanding of the article. This is a textbook case of permissible free use. Once the building is built it will be a textbook case of replaceability. This discussion should not be had here on a proposal to delete specific images. Architects' renderings of buildings proposed or under construction is a common issue and should not be hashed out on a case by case basis. Wikidemo 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use in the article has changed substantially since the tags were placed. Originally the image was in main infobox of th article, a replaceable use. Now it's lower down. I agree that this use in the design section is fine - only an architect's rendering illustrates the architect's design. Also, the term "silly" isn't particularly helpful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I still feel, based off my interpretation of Wikipedia policy, that the use of the copyrighted image in the infobox (at the top of the article) is fair use and does not violate the first criteria of non-free content. We'll wait for an admin to decide whether or not it should be deleted and hopefully he or she will comment on the location issue that CBM has brought up. Chupper 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, and I'm closing this debate with a decision that the image is not replaceable, since the building does not exist at this time. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion in December 2009, second dispute

For reference, this image was speedily deleted in December 2009 because an administrator stated that this image violated fair use rules. I contested this and discussed with other editors and administrators at the following locations:

User: Rama's talk page, currently found at User talk:Rama#File:Chicago Spire.jpg
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Wikipedia:Deletion review

See Talk:Chicago Spire for more information on this deletion and restoration and its possible impact on other articles with images of unbuilt buildings. DR04 (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The image was restored after this deletion review by Admin:Spartaz. DR04 (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 10, 2009, third dispute

Rama has just placed a tag on this image stating its "disputed whether this image violates our non-free content criteria" because "a Free replacement does exist at File:Chicago spire.svg". This is now the third time this image has been nominated for deletion or has been deleted due to copyright violation allegations.

Note: I should note that I was incorrect about something - Rama tried to undo the changes of fellow administrator for the second time by throwing up a speedy deletion tag, but to prevent this possible wheel war, Xeno, put up the current tag. DR04 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first time in 2007 an admin decided it should be kept.
The second time was within the past 24 hours - Rama's deletion was undone by another administrator.
And now Rama has tagged the image to be deleted again.

While Rama may feel he is correct, and has made it clear to me on multiple occasions that everyone else is wrong. A handful of administrators and users disagree with his assessment. In fact there are currently no other editors or admins on Wikipedia or at Commons that have stated his "alternative" is actually free.

Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. DR04 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally reccomend holding off deciding this until commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chicago spire.svg IS CLOSED, as the decision here turns upon the outcome of that Commons debate. –xeno^talk 15:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. If the commons image is determined to be free, then this image does have a free alternative and should be deleted. DR04 (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. –xeno^talk 15:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I see where Rama is going with this - he has dived into the grey area between simple shapes and images. Look here. So we need input on this - is this image created by Calatrava fair use? Is a shape of the building a free replacement (per commons:Template:PD-shape)? I'm inclinded to say is is not a free replacement, because its just a shape, but I may be wrong... DR04 (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion is also taking place here -Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#The grey area. DR04 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear to me that this image is legitimate. Either the other image is a derivative of it, and therefore non-free, or it is not a derivative, and therefore not a decent illustration and wholly original research. It is looking like the other image will be deleted, so I can't see this being a massive issue. Once the building is completed, this image can be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a massive issue only to the nominator, who seems somehow to have created an entirely novel Fair Use policy in which this image cannot be kept because the architect created more than one image of the finished building (yes, that is the basis of his argument - he believes that if an image is replaceable by another non-free image then it cannot be used), but the derivative based on the architect's drawing can be kept under s120 because it is an image of a constructed architectural work. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. At first I thought you meant that if a free equivalent exists that the non-free should not be used (which is correct) - but yes, I think I saw that, and his argument was if two non-free images exist, none of them can be used. An argument I have never heard of before, and frankly, seems very inaccurate and quite silly. I have to admit I'm completely confused regrading Rama's intentions here. They make no sense to me. At first it seemed as if he was was worried about the legal liability that Wikimedia had regarding these non-free images and that this image did not fall under that fair use category. This, I thought, was similiar to the argument made by User:CBM above (the first dispute in 2007) which I disagreed with, but could definitely understand. However it seems as if Rama has done a complete 180° as now he is defending the use of his "free" work which, currently, appears everyone else sees as a copyright violation at the Commons page. Uber-conservative policy on this image one second, and uber-liberal policy on his image the next. I don't understand it. DR04 (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The result of the third dispute was to keep by Admin:Shell Kinney. DR04 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 17, 2009 - 4th and 5th dispute

Admin:Rama disputed the image's replaceability again here and again here. Due to previous consensus the tags were removed by Admin:Xeno. DR04 (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]