Commons:Deletion requests/File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG

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:1829_half_dime_v2_obv.JPG

According to Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet, pictures of coins has its own copyright. So unless this photo was taken by the original uploader, this image is a copyright violation. Sreejith K (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the unnamed photographer gets copyright of photos of public domain coins. Otherwise, I wouldn't have copied it to Commons. Delete on Commons unless the photographer is found and consents. By the way, I also copied a few other photos to Commons which may suffer from the same problem, both here and on English Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar files which I uploaded without knowing about this:

I guess that all of them should be removed unless the photographer can be identified. Can they all be handled in a group here, or do they need individual listings? Note that some of them have descriptions or permission fields stating that photos of 2D objects are free to use, but if I've understood things in this discussion right, coins are not 2D objects. Again, I'm sorry for the trouble I caused. Apparently, copyrights are more complex than I thought. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally uploaded a few of these back in 2007. IIRC, back then non-artistic photos of 3D non-copyrighted works were permissible, but that ceased being the case soon thereafter (never mind that paintings with anything more than the thinnest veneer are just as 3 dimensional as a coin face). All of these should be replaceable by U.S. Federal government works from the U.S. Mint, if that's not already where they came from. 2007 is a blur to me, and numismatics isn't my thing. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image that is in the header, it came from http://www.coinfacts.com/half_dimes/capped_bust_half_dimes/1829_half_dime_varieties.htm User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 20:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need to start looking at the other images and see where they come from. I gave you a notification, but that was more of a procedural thing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 23:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1792 half dime, there is an image at http://www.usmint.gov/kids/coinnews/funFacts.cfm?funFactID=20 that could be used instead of what we have now. Not the best picture in the world, but it has an identified source and from the US Government. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion after the file was deleted.

Please add new comments below this notice.

Comment: Looks like I'm late to the party. (Deletion log indicates it was deleted by Zscout370 as a copyvio.) Once we're sure we're done discussing things, someone needs to affix the {{DeletionHeader}} and {{DeletionFooter}} tags.
I'll take the opportunity to direct attention to a discussion we had over at Wikipedia:en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Heads_on_shots_of_otherwise_public_domain_coins_shouldn.27t_be_copyrightable. The basic idea was that right now, under policy/guidelines that are essentially common to Commons and the English Wikipedia (and perhaps elsewhere), we follow Bridgeman v. Corel (U.S. law) narrowly and say that photos of public domain paintings that merely reproduce the image are not creative works, and thus have no independent copyright. (That's {{PD-Art}}, which was supported by the WMF counsel.) That decision implies that paintings are two-dimensional, but as we know, paintings frequently have at least some texture to them—a lot like coins. It's clear that the photography of a coin, just like the photography of a painting, sometimes involves a modicum of creativity (in particular the choice of lighting, position, etc.), and sometimes does not. I think the legal parallels between these two situations merit a more harmonious treatment than we currently offer (PD paintings always OK, PD coins never OK without licence/PD).
So maybe for future cases, we should amend the guidelines and call for talk page discussion and consensus based on the preponderance of the evidence as to whether a photo of a public domain coin was sufficiently creative—remember, mere labour is not sufficient to earn copyright protection in U.S. law. (We already make judgments about the validity of licence, the age/publication history, etc. to similar standard—the de facto practice is quite permissive, even when we can't prove the photographer owns the copyright to a "own work" image).
Another possibility is that the English Wikipedia could diverge from Commons on this topic, similarly to how it permits fair use images.
I'm open to continuing this discussion elsewhere, once we close this subpage down. TheFeds 05:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons deletion requests take a while, unless it is a obvious case. For this one, some of the images in questions do not have a source at all and most were ripped from the Internet. In the case here, those images are deleted quickly by myself or another admin. We do also follow Birdgeman v Corel here at the Commons. But we have a lot tighter copyright claims here at the Commons than at en.wikipedia so these coins will most likely be deleted. However, I found some coins on the US Mint website and those images can be used on the Commons without any issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, we have emails from Wikimedia's General Counsel that coins are 3D objects and do not fall under Bridgeman see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content/Archive_25#Photographs_of_ancient_coins User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of what Mike Godwin (WMF general counsel at the time) said in the link above, he was asked "This question requires some legal advice. Are images of ancient coins such as [1] copyrightable by the person taking the photograph? If not, are they public domain? There are many such images (almost identical except different coins) on en.wikipedia.org, and their disposition is unclear.", and replied "The short answer is: yes, they are copyrightable by the person taking the photographs." My impression of that short answer is that Godwin is saying such photos are often copyrightable, not always copyrightable—I think it's fair to say that the special cases are reserved for the long answer he never gave. (After all, he couldn't have meant that all photos of PD coins are always copyrightable, because we're also discussing photos of coins taken by the U.S. Gov't which are definitely PD.)

Refer also to the big analysis by MichaelMaggs (talk · contribs) at Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_Darwin_Online#Legal_issues; this was the genesis of {{PD-scan}}. I'm essentially suggesting that we operate in a similar way, whether the coin was scanned, photocopied or photographed without apparent artistic motive.

Let me offer this quotation from the Bridgeman case decision: "In this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create 'slavish copies' of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality — indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances. [emphasis added]" TheFeds 07:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With Bridgeman, it was going from a 2D to 2D. A coin is 3D, so the way we have it here (and from some decisions) going from 3D to 2D generates a new copyright. The ones that are public domain due to it being a US Gov't photo, those are fine. We just need to Google the images and see what exists. There is also Flickr we could look at. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 08:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm advancing the proposition that because many styles of painting have considerable texture (i.e. upon inspection you'd have to concede that they are 3-D, and that a photo of them does not capture this), and yet are considered 2-D, it may be reasonable to consider many coins the same way.

The usual reading of Bridgeman implies that painting is inherently a 2-D medium—and as such, all photos of PD paintings are PD. I wasn't suggesting that we necessarily have to go that far with coins. I think the option to discuss individual photos of coins on a case-by-case basis is a valid way to proceed. It allows us to follow the logic of Bridgeman, while recognizing the uncertainty that exists because Bridgeman referred to paintings (and did not rule on the wider applicability of those principles to other media). TheFeds 01:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is how I prefer to deal with images in a deletion request and I agree with the remaining images there can be a discussion about them. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 01:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Deleted by Zscout370 Captain-tucker (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:1829 half dime v2 obv.JPG

File:1829_half_dime_v2_obv.JPG

Navigation menu

Search