Commons:Deletion requests/File:Catullus 9.webm
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.
License review failed, not freely license as per the YouTube link Eatcha (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting this. You will see all his other Catullus videos are freely licenced – I expect this is an oversight on his part so I will ask if he can edit and change. Please pause on deletion while I ask. JimKillock (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- This has been updated so I believe this can be closed. I've added the {{Licensereview}} call in case the bot can update the info. JimKillock (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
- I withdraw the nomination. // Eatcha (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- This has been updated so I believe this can be closed. I've added the {{Licensereview}} call in case the bot can update the info. JimKillock (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete per prp, as I am not sure that the framed images on the wall behind the speaker also have free licenses. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep, the framed art is clearly incidental background noise (COM:DM). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)- Keep, I hope; I agree the artworks ought to be considered as background noise. However I note there doesn't seem to be a Wikimedia copyright advice page on "incidental inclusion" except relating to freedom of panorama. The topic is just as important. Cases like this are extremely common – people film themselves at home or at work without thinking about the copyright in any artworks in their environment. Furthermore, copyrighted sounds such as music frequently drift into recordings; in most circumstances this won't infringe copyright due to it being incidental use. There will be limits however, and it is another complex topic, so Wikimedia needs to explain where those limits are likely to be found. JimKillock (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Following the link given by User:King of Hearts, the COM:DM (de minimis) page does in fact cover much or most of the "incidental use" question, but I would say not all aspects and in particular not relating to sounds. JimKillock (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- As a further point, the sound here isn't contested, only the background, so an alternative approach may be to edit the video, if guidance shows this crosses any line with incidental use.JimKillock (talk) 07:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- This one probably falls under scenario 4 of COM:DM. We do try to make simple edits when possible (e.g. cropping out copyrighted portions), but it's not a requirement for DM compliance unless the copyrighted element is very prominent and could plausibly be used to illustrate an article on it. Because it's a video, we can't crop without destroying the 16:9 aspect ratio. Blacking out copyrighted portions in an obvious manner is generally not done because it is unnecessary and makes the result look ugly; if someone can make it appear as if there was a blank wall behind him, be my guest, but it's going to be very tedious. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, it would be sub optimal. I would probably replace the video with something else entirely; either illustrative or the words in Latin. But is it work I can do without! JimKillock (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- This one probably falls under scenario 4 of COM:DM. We do try to make simple edits when possible (e.g. cropping out copyrighted portions), but it's not a requirement for DM compliance unless the copyrighted element is very prominent and could plausibly be used to illustrate an article on it. Because it's a video, we can't crop without destroying the 16:9 aspect ratio. Blacking out copyrighted portions in an obvious manner is generally not done because it is unnecessary and makes the result look ugly; if someone can make it appear as if there was a blank wall behind him, be my guest, but it's going to be very tedious. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
To summarize where we are: the licensing issue for the video as such is resolved by a change of license at YouTube, and has been reviewed. There continues to be apparent disagreement whether the pictures on the wall are de minimis or make this video a derivative work. Can we please continue the discussion, focused on that latter issue in the section following? - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Are the pictures in the background acceptably de minimis?
[edit]- Keep I for one think those images are de minimis. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Eatcha, JimKillock, and Jeff G.:
- Keep Noticeable, but not the focus (unless the man is talking about them; he's probably not). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete These are borderline for de minimis, and fall on the wrong side of the line for me. You could conceivably crop these out of the full-res video and sell a passable print of the result. They also occupy a lot of the frame and are in perfect focus; and they are in-frame for the entire video. The full images are visible for most of them, not just a part of it. It also seems likely that the videographer has placed these pictures there specifically to create a pleasing background for their video. Greater distance (smaller), out of focus, only on screen in part of the video, only parts of each image visible, and not so conspicuously placed and I would have been inclined to fall down on the opposite side of that line. --Xover (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that being able to make a crop of a copyrighted element does not imply that a work fails DM, e.g. File:Louvre Courtyard, Looking West.jpg. This particular restriction on an otherwise unfettered COM:DW is one that we have long accepted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- It does not automatically imply that, no, but in this particular case it crosses the line for me, especially in combination with the other factors. The essence of de minimis in copyright is that the use is so trifling as to be irrelevant. Since copyright functions primarily as a commercial right (a monopoly on commercial exploitation of the creative work), whether the use infringes the author's ability to exploit the work commercially is an essential factor to consider (similarly to the fourth factor in the fair use test). If only a part of the work (top left corner, say) is visible, and only for parts of the time (as the person in the foreground moves around), the possibility that it could be exploited in a way that harms the author's rights falls dramatically. But being entirely visible, in good lighting, in a perfect (flat) angle, from a stationary camera (technically indistinguishable from a scanner), throughout the video means it could easily be used to create art prints that compete with (and hurt the market for) the original author's work. The main reason it is borderline and not bright-line here is that the video resolution isn't quite high enough for any cropped screengrab to be acceptable quality for much more than postcard sized prints (if that), and the video itself cannot easily hurt the authors' rights (beyond a straightforward single instance of infringement).The Louvre Pyramid example is most likely not sufficiently trivial to fall under de minimis. Pei's copyrighted work is front and center and an essential part of the composition. Compare it with the exemplum from COM:DM: File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. The pyramid is visually toned down and melds into the non-copyrighted building in the background (it is of a similar colour and light intensity to the building behind it, and is entirely framed by that building). The photo composition is clearly trying to capture the entire Louvre courtyard and buildings, and the pyramid's inclusion is incidental to that. In the Western view you linked the factors are turned on their head: now the copyrighted pyramid is the central focus of the image, and this is emphasised by the contrast between it and the background (the dark sky), the lines of the buildings that draw the eye to it, the fact it is lit up, etc. This image composition clearly revolves around the pyramid and would not exist without it: the image is spectacular because the pyramid is there.Also compare the images in example #5 (the "Maybe" example) on COM:DM. File:Museu Valencià de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.jpg may (or may not) be acceptable under de minimis due to the copyrighted photographs being small, unclear, and at an angle. This is a situation with some rough analogues to the video under discussion, but where the included copyright portions are relatively large, in clear focus and lighting, and captured from a perfect 90 degree angle. They are not the central focus of the video, and the video could absolutely exist without the included images, but neither are they "visible, but not identifiable", "an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed", or "a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable". The videographer deliberately placed the subject in front of these pictures, presumably because they are an aesthetically pleasing background, and there is nothing inherent in the reading of one of Catullus' less ribald poems that necessitates the presence of these images.For comparison, see File:Catullus 16.webm (but don't look up the translation, and turn off the sound if you speak Latin; this is not one of Catullus less ribald poems!). There are tons of copyrighted works visible in this video, but except for the copy of Catullus' Works the subject is waving around they are all very small, only partially displayed, in the background, at an angle, not the focus of the video, and very obviously are incidentally included. The copy of Catullus being waved around isn't as obviously safe under de minimis but has other factors going for it (TOO, based on PD drawing, etc.). --Xover (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your example of File:Catullus 16.webm further goes to show that the author is just making videos in random places around his house. Intent matters a lot for DM, and there is no evidence that he placed the artwork for the purpose of making a pleasing background to his video; it appears that he placed them to enhance his TV viewing experience. And you keep on going off about art prints, but the resolution is far too small for that.
- As for the Louvre, if the pyramid weren't there, then it would be the cityscape of Paris in the background. The composition shows leading lines from the wings towards whatever is in the center; it would have been reasonable to take such a shot even if the pyramid weren't there, so the pyramid is not essential to the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- It does not automatically imply that, no, but in this particular case it crosses the line for me, especially in combination with the other factors. The essence of de minimis in copyright is that the use is so trifling as to be irrelevant. Since copyright functions primarily as a commercial right (a monopoly on commercial exploitation of the creative work), whether the use infringes the author's ability to exploit the work commercially is an essential factor to consider (similarly to the fourth factor in the fair use test). If only a part of the work (top left corner, say) is visible, and only for parts of the time (as the person in the foreground moves around), the possibility that it could be exploited in a way that harms the author's rights falls dramatically. But being entirely visible, in good lighting, in a perfect (flat) angle, from a stationary camera (technically indistinguishable from a scanner), throughout the video means it could easily be used to create art prints that compete with (and hurt the market for) the original author's work. The main reason it is borderline and not bright-line here is that the video resolution isn't quite high enough for any cropped screengrab to be acceptable quality for much more than postcard sized prints (if that), and the video itself cannot easily hurt the authors' rights (beyond a straightforward single instance of infringement).The Louvre Pyramid example is most likely not sufficiently trivial to fall under de minimis. Pei's copyrighted work is front and center and an essential part of the composition. Compare it with the exemplum from COM:DM: File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. The pyramid is visually toned down and melds into the non-copyrighted building in the background (it is of a similar colour and light intensity to the building behind it, and is entirely framed by that building). The photo composition is clearly trying to capture the entire Louvre courtyard and buildings, and the pyramid's inclusion is incidental to that. In the Western view you linked the factors are turned on their head: now the copyrighted pyramid is the central focus of the image, and this is emphasised by the contrast between it and the background (the dark sky), the lines of the buildings that draw the eye to it, the fact it is lit up, etc. This image composition clearly revolves around the pyramid and would not exist without it: the image is spectacular because the pyramid is there.Also compare the images in example #5 (the "Maybe" example) on COM:DM. File:Museu Valencià de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.jpg may (or may not) be acceptable under de minimis due to the copyrighted photographs being small, unclear, and at an angle. This is a situation with some rough analogues to the video under discussion, but where the included copyright portions are relatively large, in clear focus and lighting, and captured from a perfect 90 degree angle. They are not the central focus of the video, and the video could absolutely exist without the included images, but neither are they "visible, but not identifiable", "an unwanted intrusion to the image subject which unfortunately cannot easily be removed", or "a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable". The videographer deliberately placed the subject in front of these pictures, presumably because they are an aesthetically pleasing background, and there is nothing inherent in the reading of one of Catullus' less ribald poems that necessitates the presence of these images.For comparison, see File:Catullus 16.webm (but don't look up the translation, and turn off the sound if you speak Latin; this is not one of Catullus less ribald poems!). There are tons of copyrighted works visible in this video, but except for the copy of Catullus' Works the subject is waving around they are all very small, only partially displayed, in the background, at an angle, not the focus of the video, and very obviously are incidentally included. The copy of Catullus being waved around isn't as obviously safe under de minimis but has other factors going for it (TOO, based on PD drawing, etc.). --Xover (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that being able to make a crop of a copyrighted element does not imply that a work fails DM, e.g. File:Louvre Courtyard, Looking West.jpg. This particular restriction on an otherwise unfettered COM:DW is one that we have long accepted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. Your claim, Xover, that one “could conceivably crop [the pictures] out of the full-res video and sell a passable print of the result,” is false, as is evidenced by the maximum-resolution JPG preview image available here. Even when enlarging the images to fit my (smaller) screen, the quality is so reduced as to be entirely unfit to replace the originals; and by enlarging them to the size of wall prints, the quality would only deteriorate further. This situation is not indistinguishable from a scanner, owing to the glare of the lighting on a number of the prints, and, of course, the low quality of the images. As for the other video, the only copyrightable image is that on the cover of the book he holds; the spines of the other books are not eligible for copyright. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Kept: I believe it is DM case anyway, not a main object of the photo, lower quality, included non-intentionally. --rubin16 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)