Commons:Deletion requests/File:2022 Tangshan restaurant attack surveillance video.webm

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:2022 Tangshan restaurant attack surveillance video.webm

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Wcam as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Is security camera footage copyrightable in China? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: Security camera footage is almost certainly copyrightable in China:

《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》第四条第十一款：电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品，是指摄制在一定介质上，由一系列有伴音或者无伴音的画面组成，并且借助适当装置放映或者以其他方式传播的作品

In English:

Regulation on the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 4(11): Cinematographic works and works created by methods similar to producing movies refer to those that are created by shooting on some medium and that consist of a series of frames of images, with or without accompanying sound, and can be screened with the aid of devices or transmitted by other means

The 2020 amendment of the Copyright Law revamps "cinematographic works and works created by methods similar to producing movies" to the broader concept of "audiovisual works" as a type of works that enjoy copyright protection.

--Wcam (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: No legal decision to back up that surveillance video is PD in China. COM:PCP applies.--Larryasou (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep:it's not cinematographic works and works created by methods similar to producing movies. The content comes from surveillance cameras without any intelligence condensed in it. --Yinyue200 (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you already removed this video from the article, so possibly delete? QiuLiming1 (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I have not found any relevant judicial precedents. Probably should be deleted. Yinyue200 (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep: A report by People's Daily Online[1] mentioned that the originality element is a key element for judging whether a short video is a work within the meaning of copyright law. According to the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law, as long as the work is independently created by the author and reflects his individuality such as choice, selection, arrangement, and design to a certain extent, it should be considered original.
  • Short documentary type: It is also a short video recording the natural world. If the video reflects a certain theme, such as "a corner of the beach at different times of the day", even if the camera angle does not change, it also reflects the video producer's views on different times of the day. The selection and editing of the picture has a certain originality. However, short videos formed by continuously recording tens of seconds or minutes of beach with the same shot may belong to the recording of pure natural scenes and not be original.
  • Easy-to-share type: Because this type of short video is either a collection of life scenes, and does not reflect the producer's choice, arrangement or design, it is usually difficult to identify it as a work in the sense of copyright law.
People's Daily is one of the largest state media in China.
--Yinyue200 (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This video in question actually contains enough amount of originality elements regarding choice, selection, and arrangement. The video consists of two clips from different cameras, and it is clear the editing process involves the choices of using the feed from which cameras, and where to begin and end each clip. Other than editing, the installation of these cameras also involves choices of the locations and angles of installation. Overall this video contains enough elements of originality thus should warrant copyright protection. Also I don't see any reason why security camera footage would not fit the definition of "cinematographic works and works created by methods similar to producing movies" in the statue I provided above. --Wcam (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete --Yinyue200 (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: ：我有一点疑问：这篇报道中有这么一段话：（1）短纪录片型：同样是记录自然界的短视频，如果视频体现了某一主题，如“一天中不同时段的沙滩一角”，即便是镜头角度未发生变化，也体现了视频制作者对一天不同时段的画面的选择和剪辑，具有一定的独创性。但同一镜头连续录制数十秒或数分钟的沙滩而形成的短视频，则可能属于对纯粹自然界画面的录制而不具有独创性。那如果我获得了原始监控视频的文件，自己进行剪辑的话，那是否就可以保留了呢？谢谢！--Shenzhiming88 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
除了剪辑部分的著作权外，拍摄部分的著作权仍然无法避免。我认为原始监控视频仍然符合中国著作权法中「电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品」的定义，即指摄制在一定介质上，由一系列有伴音或者无伴音的画面组成，并且借助适当装置放映或者以其他方式传播的作品。另请参见这里的讨论，就大多数国家的著作权法而言，难以将监控录像视作不受著作权保护。 Wcam (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
我去看了看讨论，争议焦点是原创性吧，是否符合类电作品的定义并不是核心。即使符合类电作品，原创性不够，显然还是不可以的啊。不知道为什么您总是强调其符合类电作品的定义，我个人认为删除或不删除关键不在这里。
此外与其认为这个是类电作品，其更应该符合录像制品的定义。如果说这个按录像制品的话，只享有邻接权。 Yinyue200 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcam: 录像制品是指电影作品和以类似摄制电影的方法创作的作品以外的任何有伴音或者无伴音的连续相关形象、图像的录制品。个人同样认为，与其说是类电作品，不如说是录像制品。而录像制品似乎只有邻接权。而邻接权人除表演者以外，仅享有财产性权利。但是关于邻接权与著作权的关系，我并不是很清楚，好像邻接权属于广义的著作权，但是和著作权又有区别。 Shenzhiming88 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
就录像制品邻接权而言，根据著作权法第四十四条：录音录像制作者对其制作的录音录像制品，享有许可他人复制、发行、出租、通过信息网络向公众传播并获得报酬的权利，这就很明确维基共享资源不能收录，因为任何人再出版和再分发该内容需要得到权利人的许可，与自由内容（COM:L）的定义不符，除非录像制作者将其制作的录像制品以自由版权协议发布，而这个视频是没有自由版权协议的。 Wcam (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
原来如此，那就删除吧，很抱歉我关于版权的知识十分浅陋。 Shenzhiming88 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:2022_Tangshan_restaurant_attack_surveillance_video.webm&oldid=863614700"