_ _    _ _____  ___   __                       
 __      _(_) | _(_)___ / ( _ ) / /_   ___ ___  _ __ ___  
 \ \ /\ / / | |/ / | |_ \ / _ \| '_ \ / __/ _ \| '_ ` _ \ 
  \ V  V /| |   <| |___) | (_) | (_) | (_| (_) | | | | | |
   \_/\_/ |_|_|\_\_|____/ \___/ \___(_)___\___/|_| |_| |_|

File talk:System of a down.jpg

In File talk:System of a down.jpg's article, we will be exploring a topic that has generated interest and debate in various spheres of society. Over time, File talk:System of a down.jpg has proven to be a figure/theme/date of relevance and importance, with multiple facets and aspects that deserve to be explored in depth. From its impact on popular culture to its implications in the social sphere, File talk:System of a down.jpg has been the subject of analysis and reflection by experts and fans alike. During this article, we will closely examine different aspects related to File talk:System of a down.jpg, with the aim of providing a comprehensive and enriching perspective on this topic.

RFC

I was wondering, doesn't this image qualify for Wikimedia Commons? It's just the John Heartfield artwork with a black background. Heartfield's "Five Fingers" is in the public domain, so there shouldn't be any problem just transferring this image to Wikimedia Commons under a title identifying it as Heartfield's art with a black background. The Black Album (Prince album) and This Is Spinal Tap (album) both use File:Solid black.svg (a Commons image) as a album artwork image, as both albums feature black, featureless covers which are ineligable for copyright, so uploading individual images for each article is redundant. If this image was uploaded with Heartfield identification, it could be used here as well as in the Heartfield article due to the fact that Heartfield's art is not under copyright. --WTF (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I see no reason why this ain't a derived work from Heartfield's "Five Finger", they took a public domain picture and changed its background, if I create my own derivation to look exactly their cover, but editing from the original work it is also free media, so this file should be moved with a good argumment on its file page. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 21:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Isn't a derivative of a PD work eligible for copyright? I think so. It doesn't take away the fact that the original is still PD, but it is modified, and there is no "license" to compel the artist release the derivative into the same "license", like the GPL does. It isn't a license at all. Otherwise, any original work that had even a single element of PD work in it could be considered PD, and I know this isn't true. We would essentially be stripping away every artist's right to use imagery that exists in the public domain and call the new product their own. This isn't featureless, it is an interpretation of a public domain piece. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah i'd tend to think that. It wouldn't do to end up with some copyright-holder complaining that their licensed pic' ended up at Commons. benzband (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
To add, if you make your own version of this picture using the PD source, then you have three additional problems: 1. You have violated the copyright holder of the original because yours is a hand made copy, which is still infringement. 2. It is no longer "The album cover" but is instead an amateur's rendition of the album cover, which is less valuable than the Fair Use version. 3. In order to make it not a copyright infringement, you would have to make it so different that it no longer resembled the album cover. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia