Commons:Deletion requests/File:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

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:“홍대거리가 마비” ... 유앤비, 성공적인 버스킹 -UNB (디패짤).webm

as per discussion here. Yann (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging participates of the undeletion request and the file's talk page: Puramyun31, Stefan2, KTo288, Majora. revi has disabled these notifications, so I will contact him in a message shortly.

I read up on both performance rights and and performer rights (related or neighboring rights). First, performing rights is defined as "the right to perform music in public. It is part of copyright law and demands payment to the music’s composer/lyricist and publisher." This does not apply here, as the clip has been muted, and would be non-free otherwise. That leaves performer rights as the closer applicable term in this instance. It defined as follows:

Under the Rome Convention (Art. 7), performers have the right to prevent:

• the broadcast or communication to the public of their performance, unless this is made from a legally published recording of the performance;
• the fixation (recording) of their performance;
• the reproduction of a recording of their performance.

The WPPT extends these rights to include the right to license:

• the distribution of recordings of their performance, for sale or other transfer of ownership (Art. 8);
• the rental of recordings of their performances, unless there is a compulsory licence scheme in operation (Art. 9);
• the "making available to the public" of their performances (Art. 10), in effect their publication on the internet.

This is not confined to choreography. It could be Adele just standing there belting a song, so the definition is broader than what was mentioned in the undeletion request. From my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong here, this appears unrelated to copyright. I can only really think of two situations where these rights appear to have been employed, both being Beyoncé-related: her unflattering Super Bowl photo, particularly this one, and videos of her falling down a flight of stairs during a concert.

The definition and reach of performer rights would be a lot more restrictive if the community really deem it a copyright issue, which would call for the deletion of any type of singing performance (given that the video is muted), regardless of whether said performance includes dancing or if the singer is standing, sitting, or even laying immobile on the floor, whether it be a video or photo. This would also appear to allow for performers and record labels to request take-downs on Commons over unflattering photos. Sounds like a slippery slope to me. This does not appear to be a copyright-related issue and, personally, I'm not seeing that the conclusion here is to disallow content as in this particular upload. ℯxplicit 06:40, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I have no idea whether this should be deleted or not, but the Korean Copyright Law (article 64 defines performer's right as 'neighboring rights' and article 65 states 'neighboring rights shall not be construed to be related as copyright.') seem to be in a position that performer's right is NCR. The reason I have no idea if this file should survive is - the dance, is the dancing motions copyrightable? Is it just 'neighboring rights'? — regards, Revi 06:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Keep If dancing itself is a non-copyright related act, then only fixation of it is copyrightable (such as the video), and the video is available under the free licence. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 04:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Delete Unless there is any evidence to support the such a performance is not copyrighted under local law, I'd assume it is, so has to be deleted. No FOP in Korea. --Krd 13:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Keep @Explicit: @Gone Postal: @Krd: per my mention at previous discussion, ( "en:Related_rights#Performers", According to this South Korean copyright law page (Article 64)(in english), it is defined in a separate manner to "copyright", so it seems to be Non-copyright restriction as Commons defines (Article 65: 이 장 각 조의 규정은 저작권에 영향을 미치는 것으로 해석되어서는 아니 된다. The provisions of each Article in this Chapter shall not be construed as affecting copyright. ), though it is mentioned in "coryright law" (South Korean copyright law also define "database rights (Article 91-98)" which is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons). The rights relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons ("author's economic right") only refers to something that is defined Article 16-22. (Author’s Moral Right (article 11-15) is considered a non-copyright restriction on Commons) According to the COM:NCR page, "non-copyright related restrictions are not considered relevant to the freedom requirements of Commons or by Wikimedia, and the licensing policies are accordingly limited to regulating copyright related obligations. ) the performance-matter is non-copyright related act. Therefore it cannot be a reason of deletion. Puramyun31 (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Deleted: The youtube video is deleted, the license here not confirmed yet. There is no chance ever to get it confirmed. --JuTa 18:47, 9 December 2018 (UTC)