Commons:Deletion requests/File:1995 John Lennon..jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1995_John_Lennon..jpg

[edit]

Looks like it fails the De minimis policy. Consists of nothing but a collage of copyrighted images (which were certainly not original to Azerbaijan). Kaldari (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's a postage stamp! Already tagged with {{PD-AZ-exempt}} from its country of origin.
BTW, Kaldari, do you have the copyright information handy that you couild post here to defend your nomination? Radiopathy (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing on the stamp is by John Lennon himself. As it is one of the most famous drawings in the world, I didn't expect to have to prove this, but if you insist: [1][2]. Kaldari (talk) 05:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but "De minimus" means "minimal" or as in the Wiki definition...

is translated as "the law does not concern itself with trifles". Some technical breaches of the law are considered to be so trivial and inconsequential that a court may decide that they should not be treated as breaches at all. The concept applies to many branches of the law, but here we consider its application specifically to copyright law. If proved in court, de minimis can be a complete defence to a copyright infringement action.

Your argument is a non-argument... maybe should use a different legality for copyright infringement... —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.200.197.25 (talk) (UTC)

  • Comment Maybe this image was licensed to be used in the stamps, but there is no evidence the image is in the public domain in the United States and indeed no evidence Azerbaijan is the source country of the image, making the public domain status questionable. Unless there's better evidence I suggest caution, it's not proper for Commons to take up stuff that was moved from Western countries to places with small copyright lengths and then brand it as free on copyright expires there, often under very different conditions. I suggest a {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} notice is needed in any case. Hekerui (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that, I cannot see what it has to do with this stamp that always was free in its source country. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original work used doesn't have its source country in Azerbaijan because it's from the Imagine soundtrack. Hekerui (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say  Delete as still copyrighted in the U.S. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, I think Hekerui is correct. The stamp may be PD Azerbaijan, but the photo of and drawing by John Lennon were most probably not produced as works for the government of Azerbaijan; unless there is some evidence that the Azerbaijan postal authority obtained permission from the actual copyright holders, it would likely be a derivative violation. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I had closed this as keep in January. I cannot see what copyright foreign stamps can be in the US if they are PD in the source country. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the rule of the shorter term not applying to the U.S. (did I mention this ;) Hekerui (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rule of the shorter term is irrelevant here. A letter from Azerbaijan to the US is no copyright violation, printing this in a stamp catalogue in the US is no copyright violation, and I do not believe that blow-ups of this stamp to postcard format would be copyright violations. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We argue whether the work from which the stamp is derived is copyrighted. In the U.S. it is likely because of the rule of the shorter term. Whether anyone would sue over a letter is distinct from that question, especially since that stamp was likely licensed by the copyright holder. Hekerui (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the stamp itself is a copyright violation is irrelevant. It is probably properly licensed as far as I know. That does not mean, however, that the image is public domain in the United States. Lots of modern US stamps, for example, are neither PD nor copyright violations (they are licensed copyrighted works). For a work to be hosted on Commons it must be free in both the source country and in the US. There are no records of John Lenin's estate releasing any IP to the public domain ever, and certainly not for Lenin's most famous drawing (which is even trademarked). Without any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that this stamp contains material that is still copyrighted within the US. Kaldari (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the rule of the shorter term is irrelevant (the U.S. does not use it anyways). A letter using the stamp is no violation, correct, presumably Azerbaijan has a license to sell stamps that way and anyone can use those stamps. Showing it in a stamp catalogue should also be quite fine, under fair use. Blowing it up and selling postcards with the image on it... doubt that would be OK. That is beyond fair use I think. Not a cut-and-dry situation, as use of the unmodified image of the stamp should have pretty wide fair use possibilities, but I'm not sure it amounts to "free". And, of course, most any derivative work which removes the stamp context would be a definite violation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete: I shall assume in good faith that the Azerbaijan authorities obtained licences from the copyright holders of the Lennon drawing and photograph. Such licences most likely only permitted use of the images on the stamp and did not release the images into the public domain or permit the images to be used for other purposes, including modification and/or further distribution. Unless there is evidence of licences having the latter effect, I believe the images are still copyrighted in the United States. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, as per the nominator , likely derivative violation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete De minimis obviously does not apply (the drawing is an intentional prominent part of the design). The law in Azerbaijan may very well allow them to declare works which are copyrighted in other countries to be in the public domain inside Azerbaijan, but to be uploaded to Commons they must be free in both the source country and the U.S. Being derivative of a work first published inside the US, I believe US law will be more inclined to defend the US copyright of the original drawing than to respect a foreign law stripping the work of copyright. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't think it can be assumed that this is PD in the United States, although it certainly is in the source country. Jafeluv (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note also derivative works File:JohnLennon.jpg and File:JohnLennon1.jpg. Jafeluv (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated these files for deletion, referring to the discussion at this page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jcb (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1995_John_Lennon..jpg&oldid=346127931"