Commons:Deletion requests/File:Club-Tijuana.jpg
This file was initially tagged by Glorious 93 as Logo. Additional: No speedy deletion: See history, license review passed. Wdwd (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment This is cropped from a Flickr photo of a billboard in a stadium in Mexico. Per Mexico FOP rules Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Mexico#Freedom_of_panorama seems to be ok if I understand correctly. Other comments? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: Yeah, this is a peculiar one, because it contradicts everything we were taught. Consider a complex Mexican logo downloaded from a website along with a photo of the logo displayed on the side of a building, cropped and color-corrected to look exactly like the original (this one is close but not quite). We have three possibilities here, none of which make sense:
- Neither is allowed. This seems reasonable but is unsupported by the legal text: nothing in COM:FOP Mexico suggests that there is an exception preventing these kinds of works from falling under FoP.
- The photographed logo is allowed, but the original is not. This defies our very understanding of copyrightability that underpins COM:PD-Art, in that substantially identical images cannot have a different copyright status by virtue of their provenance.
- Both are allowed. This reminds me of {{PD-US no notice}}; if a logo appears on storefronts before 1978 without a copyright notice, then the whole thing is PD (even copies of the logo that were distributed by other means). However, I am unaware of any support for this interpretation in Mexican jurisprudence.
- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Infrogmation: Yeah, this is a peculiar one, because it contradicts everything we were taught. Consider a complex Mexican logo downloaded from a website along with a photo of the logo displayed on the side of a building, cropped and color-corrected to look exactly like the original (this one is close but not quite). We have three possibilities here, none of which make sense:
Deleted: I don't think we have a certain decision here as discussion above showed it. Per my understanding, it would be unfree. Yes, it seems to be covered by FOP, I would be more certain if it is a big photo with a small logo in a corner (supported by DM principle). But when it is a main object on the photo, I still believe that the logo would be protected as such loophole could be widely exploited just by painting copyrighted materials somewhere in the public place and making new photos again. I suppose that court practice would have prohibited that if existed. --rubin16 (talk) 09:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Restored and DR reopened as per this discussion. This seems to be allowed. Yann (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
- It seems this is indeed allowed by the law: "works visible from public places". The logo is still protected: "provided that normal commercialization of the work is not affected [...] and without altering the work". The "loophole" thus cannot be exploited for selling competing copies or the like. For us, the question is not so much about legality of the file (it seems unproblematic), but whether we regard the file free enough.
- We do allow images that include non-free artworks (which may not be cropped out) and images of free artwork protected by moral rights. I think we treat moral rights as if they were non-copyright restrictions, although they aren't, and we could do similarly with the Mexican limitations. It is then up to the re-user to consider the limitations, clearly stated in {{FoP-Mexico}}.
Keep The logo was installed by the team representatives, in an open-to-the-general public place (i.e. their stadium). Unless {{Not-free-US-FOP}}'s clause is enforced ("The current policy on Commons is to accept photos of artwork and sculptures that are covered by freedom of panorama in their source country. This policy may change in the future, depending on the outcome of community discussions and new case law"), it is valid to have these FoP cases. Tbhotch™ 23:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)- Comment Other medias with the same issue were deleted, so we need to be consistent. Yann (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted or through a DR? Was there some reasoning apart from that above? We might want to undelete the other ones if this is kept, while deleting this one because others were (perhaps erroneously) seems wrong. Also this file was deleted, but deemed to be worth reconsidering. –LPfi (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am trying to sum up all concerned DRs here: COM:AN#Application of FoP in Mexico. Yann (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted or through a DR? Was there some reasoning apart from that above? We might want to undelete the other ones if this is kept, while deleting this one because others were (perhaps erroneously) seems wrong. Also this file was deleted, but deemed to be worth reconsidering. –LPfi (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per conclusion of previous DR. The discussion on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_90#Multiple_users_misunderstanding_the_meaning_of_%22freedom_of_Panorama%22 did not come to a clear conclusion about such situations as this. --Ellywa (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [1]. Yann (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=775038773#File:Club-Tijuana.jpg){kind=link}
