Commons:Deletion requests/File:Chérif Kouachi.jpg
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.
As given by Lucas' speedy nomination: "As written in the image's metadata, this photo was shot by the "Judicial Police of Paris", there are no evidences that it is in the PD or automatically taken." That speedy nomination was reverted, proper procedure would have been to change to a regular nomination instead. Geogene (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep I already answered you why this is in the public domain, and that neither speedy nor this request is appropriate.- French copyright law says that originality and creativity are needed for a copyright (French droit d'auteur) to exist. Criteria for ID pictures are very strict, and there is no place for creativity, even if taken by a photographer. Please see [1] or [2]. This is the exact opposite of what is required for a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)*
- According to [3]: In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint"). Please explain why you feel this image should be allowed on Commons when this image: [4] is used as an example of something that cannot. Geogene (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems you haven't read or understand the requirements I linked above. This isn't a work of art. This isn't a selfie either, where you can choose the pose, head ware, hairdressing, light, background, etc. Here you can choose nothing. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- No creativity possible at all? Are you sure? Not even the humblest amount? As your own link shows, you can choose background as long as it's non-white and a light color. That allows some creative freedom--a small amount of freedom, but not the zero freedom that your argument requires. And just because you cannot imagine creativity existing within these requirements does not mean that no creativity at all is possible. Someone may be more clever than we are. Geogene (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's very clear that you don't understand what copyright is about, and copyright law even less. Copyright law is not physics. You need to read a bit more about all that before coming arguing here about semantics. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is clear is that you can't discuss this without personalizing the dispute. Further, when someone tries to make a complex subject simple ("it's not physics") it makes me wonder whether they fully understand it. I'm sorry that this is not as simple as you want it to be. Geogene (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have been on Commons for more than 10 years, since the very beginning. I don't think I need to prove anyting, but you are new here, and keep puting irrelevant information. So, it is quite normal to question your understanding of copyright law. Sorry, if it sounds harsh, but this is reality. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even if it were true that this is not copyrightable in France, merely being in public domain in France does not make it public domain in the US Commons:Hirtle chart (where the Commons servers are). Further, the US 'threshold of originality' for photographs is extremely low, and examples of artistic expression include selection of the camera model, selection of the lens, type of film (color scheme), background, and timing of the shot (e.g., Kisch v. Ammirati & Puris Inc, and references therein [5]). While there's only limited flexibility in choosing some of these parameters in an ID photo, I'm not convinced that each ID photo is what would be considered "slavish reproduction" of anything. In SHL Imaging v. Artisan House, Inc. [6] defendants asserted unsuccessfully that some photos they used weren't copyrightable because they dictated to the photographer lighting, positioning, and angle of the work. But because they weren't physically present at the shoot and because the photographer used his own equipment (presumably within their standards) the work was sufficiently creative. Finally, here is a Commons precedent for deleting works that are not sufficiently creative to be copyrighted in their origin countries but may be sufficiently creative in the US: [7]. Geogene (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Generally, French copyright law is much more restrictive than US law, specially regarding originality and creativity. So if it is not under a copyright in France, it is certainly not also in USA. The case you cite above is based on a special provision of Swiss copyright law, which doesn't exist in France, so it is not relevant here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- On the matter of the the Swiss photo...you seem to be wrong. It is displayed and the case discussed in the context of 'threshold of originality' here: [8] (English Wikipedia). As for whether the standard of originality is lower in France than the US, cite please? Geogene (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Generally, French copyright law is much more restrictive than US law, specially regarding originality and creativity. So if it is not under a copyright in France, it is certainly not also in USA. The case you cite above is based on a special provision of Swiss copyright law, which doesn't exist in France, so it is not relevant here. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Even if it were true that this is not copyrightable in France, merely being in public domain in France does not make it public domain in the US Commons:Hirtle chart (where the Commons servers are). Further, the US 'threshold of originality' for photographs is extremely low, and examples of artistic expression include selection of the camera model, selection of the lens, type of film (color scheme), background, and timing of the shot (e.g., Kisch v. Ammirati & Puris Inc, and references therein [5]). While there's only limited flexibility in choosing some of these parameters in an ID photo, I'm not convinced that each ID photo is what would be considered "slavish reproduction" of anything. In SHL Imaging v. Artisan House, Inc. [6] defendants asserted unsuccessfully that some photos they used weren't copyrightable because they dictated to the photographer lighting, positioning, and angle of the work. But because they weren't physically present at the shoot and because the photographer used his own equipment (presumably within their standards) the work was sufficiently creative. Finally, here is a Commons precedent for deleting works that are not sufficiently creative to be copyrighted in their origin countries but may be sufficiently creative in the US: [7]. Geogene (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have been on Commons for more than 10 years, since the very beginning. I don't think I need to prove anyting, but you are new here, and keep puting irrelevant information. So, it is quite normal to question your understanding of copyright law. Sorry, if it sounds harsh, but this is reality. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- What is clear is that you can't discuss this without personalizing the dispute. Further, when someone tries to make a complex subject simple ("it's not physics") it makes me wonder whether they fully understand it. I'm sorry that this is not as simple as you want it to be. Geogene (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's very clear that you don't understand what copyright is about, and copyright law even less. Copyright law is not physics. You need to read a bit more about all that before coming arguing here about semantics. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- No creativity possible at all? Are you sure? Not even the humblest amount? As your own link shows, you can choose background as long as it's non-white and a light color. That allows some creative freedom--a small amount of freedom, but not the zero freedom that your argument requires. And just because you cannot imagine creativity existing within these requirements does not mean that no creativity at all is possible. Someone may be more clever than we are. Geogene (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems you haven't read or understand the requirements I linked above. This isn't a work of art. This isn't a selfie either, where you can choose the pose, head ware, hairdressing, light, background, etc. Here you can choose nothing. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- According to [3]: In practice, it depends on the work in question, but this has left the bar quite low for many works where an artistic intent can be shown. For an art exhibition, a man placed the word paradis with gold lettering above the bathroom door of the old dormitory of alcoholics at a psychiatric facility, and termed it artwork; the French courts agreed with him that it was copyrightable based on the aesthetic choices made ("affixing the word 'paradise' in gold with patina effect and a special graphics on dilapidated door, the lock-shaped cross, encased in a crumbling wall with peeling paint"). Please explain why you feel this image should be allowed on Commons when this image: [4] is used as an example of something that cannot. Geogene (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Christoph_Meili_1997.jpg){kind=link}
Comment Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo identitie-Said Kouachi.JPG for more arguments on a similar case. Yann (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Per Yann. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
