Commons:Deletion requests/File:Claude Debussy - clair de lune.ogg
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.
The legitimacy of this upload, claimed as PD, has been questioned here and on File talk:Claude Debussy - clair de lune.ogg, which merits an evaluation. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Copyright subsists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. Accordingly, there are two potential copyrights: 1) the original composition (i.e.,original written sheet music) and 2) the contemporary audio recording. The composition is acknowledged to be PD due to age (Debussy died in 1918). The contemporary recording, presumably, was uploaded relying upon the declaration at musopen.org, the source, that "We provide recordings [...] to the public for free, without copyright restrictions". I, however, consider the related OTRS ticket invalid because it was processed by the file's uploader (no impartial check) and does not appear to contain contact info for the purported musopen.org representative (no means for third-party verification). The noticeboard comments reference the "artist", presumably the performer, which is not necessarily the person who fixed the performance into a tangible medium - the latter would be the copyright holder. Currently, I don't see that we've been provided evidence that the musopen.com declaration or distribution is incorrect. If this is to be deleted, we require something more substantive than "years ago musopen.com incorrectly and inexplicably published [the track]". Please use the procedure at COM:OTRS to provide this substantiation. Until then,
Keep. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do we really know enough about the performance and recording to determine that there are no performers' rights in play? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Convention. Indeed, per that wiki article, "in the United States, there is no federal statutory right in unfixed works such as performances, and no federal exclusive right to record a performance". Given the presence of a DMCA policy at the musopen source, I infer that its jurisdiction (and thus the recording) is the United States. Even if the recording was not first published in the US, performers' rights are generally construed as moral rights, which would fall under Commons:Non-copyright restrictions per typical Commons practice. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I actually needn't infer - "Musopen is a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible non-profit charity" [1]. Эlcobbola talk 16:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Convention. Indeed, per that wiki article, "in the United States, there is no federal statutory right in unfixed works such as performances, and no federal exclusive right to record a performance". Given the presence of a DMCA policy at the musopen source, I infer that its jurisdiction (and thus the recording) is the United States. Even if the recording was not first published in the US, performers' rights are generally construed as moral rights, which would fall under Commons:Non-copyright restrictions per typical Commons practice. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do we really know enough about the performance and recording to determine that there are no performers' rights in play? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep People uploading the file to Musopen agreed that they are the copyright holders and to release it as PD. I do not see it any different than photographs uploaded to flickr. So unless we have some specific concerns about specific files, I think we should keep them. --Jarekt (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a rather risky comparison, as you should be aware about Commons:QFI and Commons:License laundering. Images imported from Flickr to Commons should get the scrutiny as "direct" uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what if the person uploading the file to Musopen was not the copyright holder? It's the same as license laundering, as Túrelio notes directly above me, if someone uploaded to Musopen without the consent of the actual creator of said work. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a rather risky comparison, as you should be aware about Commons:QFI and Commons:License laundering. Images imported from Flickr to Commons should get the scrutiny as "direct" uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Posted to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard and awaiting further input from an agent. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know the ticket number? I don't see any tickets containing keywords Claude, Debussy, Clair, Lune, or Musopen in 2014. Эlcobbola talk 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Assuming OTRS ticket numbers are basically timestamps, the email was sent Saturday, April 19, 2014 at 9:18 AM TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know the ticket number? I don't see any tickets containing keywords Claude, Debussy, Clair, Lune, or Musopen in 2014. Эlcobbola talk 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per OTRS noticeboard and ticket there is no sufficient permission to keep the file Krd 11:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)