Commons:Deletion requests/File:Darth vader grotesque.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.
Copyrighted work, no freedom of panorama in the United States. Kelly (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's a gray area; although it is a sculpture, it's on a building, which is permitted by United States Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 120. Cyraxote (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2010
Keep There is in fact FOP for buildings in the US, and this is a permanent part of building in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's right, however the question arises whether it's acceptable to depict this specific part of the building like this or whether it would only be free if the image showed a significant part of the whole building. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a part of a building, like any other decorative and essentially non-functional piece. It looks like it's carved right into the building. The only way how much of the building we showed would matter would be if the FOP for buildings didn't apply and we had to fall back on de minimis. I think the intent of the law is that we can take pictures of buildings and not have to worry about copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, in this particular case, I agree. I was only pointing out the problem that we probably shouldn't say that statues are free if they're just somehow connected to the building, like for instance these. (if they weren't old enough, of course). --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's a part of a building, like any other decorative and essentially non-functional piece. It looks like it's carved right into the building. The only way how much of the building we showed would matter would be if the FOP for buildings didn't apply and we had to fall back on de minimis. I think the intent of the law is that we can take pictures of buildings and not have to worry about copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's right, however the question arises whether it's acceptable to depict this specific part of the building like this or whether it would only be free if the image showed a significant part of the whole building. --PaterMcFly (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think it is reasonable to conclude that FOP on buildings applies in this specific inst. Chzz ► 16:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept per above. See also Leicester v. Warner Bros. (9th Cir. 2000). Trycatch (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
