File talk:YiffyGuideToSaferSex.pdf

Reason for deletion?
Sorry, just came in the middle of the movie for this one. Why are we slating this file for deletion? Spirou 02:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wrote the rationale on the Images for deletion page, but I'll repeat it here: License does not permit derivative works, which is not allowed to be hosted here --Rat 03:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant? The file is a PDF, not an image. -- Sine 04:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the policy applies to all types of media. --Rat 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a derivative work. This is a copy. Mere transformation into another medium does not change the work in any significant way and is therefore no different from (say) putting it into a photocopier.
 * In the US, the appropriate law is the 1976 Copyright Act, which says that a copy is a "material object . . . in which a work is fixed . . . and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." Changing the device with which does not change the fact that it is a copy. This fulfills both the letter of the license and (I believe) the intent. It is why you cannot copyright a particular scan of a famous painting - the "idea" has not changed, and therefore it is not a derivative work, but a copy (and freely reproducible by others if the initial copy has expired). --GreenReaper(talk) 05:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Somewhat shorter: there can be no derivative work without a creative act. Scanning a page and using an automated process to turn it into a PDF is not a creative act - as opposed to turning it into a web page, fixing the typos, rearranging the images and colouring them in would be. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Should be more clearer. I'm not saying it is a derivative work, I'm saying that the license doesn't allow allow derivative works to be made. ( from the PDF: "as long as no alterations are made" ). That kind of license(a NoDerivatives license) isn't allowed here as the page quoted earlier shows. Why? I think it's because it's against the wiki way to have a file you can't change.
 * None of this is takes away from the possibility for fair use though. If someone wants to quote from it or screenshot some reasonable part for the purpose of commentary, that's perfectly acceptable. --Rat 05:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that it was something to do with the ability to create thumbnails of images. Of course now I can't remember where I read that (probably in some of Wikipedia's lengthy bumf). That shouldn't have any relevance to a PDF...
 * Perhaps there is someone at Wikia who could be asked for clarification?
 * By the way, the pamphlet was distributed as a PDF, or at least intended to be; the PDF I uploaded is a copy saved from a website. No scanning involved, to my knowledge. -- Sine 18:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct on the PDF availability angle; Hence my curiosity on why the deletion of the document in the first place Spirou 21:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The format or method or creation isn't the issue for me. The file contains images so the image use policy should apply. The image use policy says that image licenses that don't allow the file to be modified aren't allowed here. --Rat 22:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm
It stretches the images when uploaded. Thoughts?-Spirou 04:01, 16 August 2011 (EDT)