Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 July 23

< July 22	July 24 >

July 23

File:Market Street Railway Model Car 642.jpg

derivative of non-free content, see c:COM:TOYS FASTILY 20:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square.jpeg

This is a copyright violation because there is no freedom of panorama in the UK or in the US for 3D works, unless the object is permanently situated in a public place. See c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg. I believe this can only be kept with a valid fair use rationale. —Guan aco 21:15, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guanaco: like File:Trump Baby Balloon closeup, 13 July 2018.jpg you mean? Although that file has quite a downside: you can't really tell the size of the thing. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexis Jazz: File:Trump Baby Balloon at Parliament Square (cropped) 2.jpeg is probably a good choice for fair use and limited resolution, with just enough background and a crowd for size comparison. —Guan aco 21:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but I'll try to make a better one. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s my photo. I took it. In a public place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 02:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And was the 3D artwork the subject of your photo permanently situated in a public place? BethNaught (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's that got do with with anything? The "Fuck Off Trump, You Absolute Prick" sign as documented here isn't "permanently situated in a public place" but I don't see any problems with that. More importantly, how does this feud fit into the whole ethos of "freedom" as espoused by Richard Stallman (who's certainly no Trump fan). No matter, as mentioned before I will tell everyone to use Flickr, Instagram, Picasa and Geograph because they're better and have a wider variety of pictures. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See below.
The sign consists of six common words simply written on a piece of card. One may question whether it reaches the threshold of originality. It would be hard to assert the baby balloon does not. In any case, that is a separate work and a separate discussion you can open if you wish.
Per the board's resolution, Wikimedia projects should assess freedom according to the Definition of Free Cultural Works. This requires the freedom to use the work, with only minimal restrictions such as attribution and copyleft allowed. I contend here that the legal freedom is not available for the baby balloon, because the FOP exception does not extend to it. Freedom does not mean "we let people do whatever they can get away with". Whether Stallman is a fan of Trump is irrelevant; this is a copyright issue, not a political issue.
Go ahead. BethNaught (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...there is no freedom of panorama in the UK or in the US for 3D works... This is categorically false. Only 2d works of art are restricted in this way, in the UK. This is not difficult information to look up. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your selective quoting misrepresents the law: there is UK FOP for 3D works, but only if they are permanently situated in a public place. Not the case here. BethNaught (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The allegation of a copyright violation is flat out inane, dancing into the insane. -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider copyright law insane, but that is what you have to address here, not users' sanity. BethNaught (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in case that wasn't clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UK FOP does not apply because the balloon is not permanently situated in a public place. Commons recognised that and deleted. Above voters seem to be straight-up ignoring this requirement. BethNaught (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source for that? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 §62(1)(b). BethNaught (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the Commons discussion. The balloon is a 3D work that is not permanently located in a public space and thus fails UK FOP. We should keep File:Trump Baby Balloon at protest in Parliament Square.jpg as non-free in Donald Trump baby balloon where it is already in use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Commons discussion. It's a 3D artwork in a public place, but it's not permanently located so does not benefit from the Freedom of Panorama provision of UK legislation. I do think speaking to the artists and asking if they would be happy to release their work under a suitable licence is going to be the way forward in this case. Nick (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a license is always the best way forward. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To all of you top-of-the-class lawyers here: Don't forget to hunt down all instances of what has been (and will be) sourced from WikiMedia & Wikipedia, like here, there, ... (and if you need a copy for doing reverse image searching, then here's yet another option, but do think twice before clicking that link; maybe you'll be violating copyright law by clicking it.). -- DexterPointy (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an argument against deletion. If anything, it illustrates our (moral) responsibility to reusers to ensure that material we provide is legally open for them to use, which is one reason why we need to be careful about copyright. Also, your snark is uncalled for. BethNaught (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more significant issue is offline (print) re-use. Wikipedia/Wikimedia has the benefit of DMCA and Safe Harbor protection as will many online re-users but offline re-users may not have such protection, they could end up with a bill for reusing a file that's not actually free, or could incur loses in having to destroy materials reusing content which is not actually free for re-use. The fact remains, one of the key aims of Wikipedia is to provide content which can be re-used, adapted, modified and built upon, we therefore need to be exceptionally careful we're not inadvertently providing a foundation to build upon that's going to get people into legal and financial jeopardy. Nick (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry to those who feel the above is an asinine and/or arcane rationale for deletion. But it seems to be correct. We can keep some version of the image, but it needs to be under fair use. GMG ^talk 12:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the piece of art after which it is titled is a small part of the image of a public event. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are implicitly referring to the de minimis rule. I do not consider that to apply here because the baby balloon is the central and main object of the photo. The title and description also show that this is the case. The inclusion is not "incidental", it is the main feature of the photo. BethNaught (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unfortunately Beth is correct. The balloon is both a large part of the image as far as real estate goes, and is an (the) essential element of the image. It doesn't rise to the level of "incidental inclusion" required by UK law. GMG ^talk 13:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense as non-free and delete all derivative works and orphaned revisions. The Commons discussion and c:COM:FOP#United_Kingdom are clear: the freedom of panorama in the United Kingdom only applies to 3D works when they are permanently situated in a public place. Being a balloon, that is not the case here. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and add a Fair Use (FU) rationale. Simple. At some point, "crowd on the day balloon was deployed" makes the image incidental to the overall scene. Montanabw^(talk) 15:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not permanently situated in public space and Relicense the derivative, Donald Trump baby balloon as fair use. L293D (☎ • ✎) 19:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we're being pedantic (and that seems to be the case here), then NOTHING can actually be on permanent display. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know that that is an absurd argument; if "permanent" required that something remain until the end of time, any legal criterion based on it would be impossible to prove, and accordingly not even the UK Parliament would make such an idiotic law, or if it did, it would have been repealed in the 30 years since. BethNaught (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the other delete arguments. This is really a no-brainer. If it does not fall in the fair use category, we can't keep it, period. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Commons discussion and Nick, et al. It is pretty cleared an artistic work and not permanently installed. You could also adjust it and go with fair use, as mentioned above. Killiondude (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]