Commons:Deletion requests/File:Discours-malraux-IMG 0939.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.
Malraux died 1976. Rama's claiming to be "I, the copyright holder of this work" with that grand license template is a bit too much. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep only a tiny portion of the text is visible, making the photograph acceptable by the de minimis doctrine. The subject of the photograph is the physical object, not the text. Rama (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a special admin subterfuge, see also File talk:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- ZOMG, admin subterfuge !!! Rama (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to be a special admin subterfuge, see also File talk:Kindle 2 - Front.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright paranoia. Esby (talk) 07:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Delete but the picture might be uploaded directly on the French Wikipedia as fr:Droit de courte citation (if the excerpt is short enough, say less than 5% of the speech. If not short enough, you may crop the picture to remove more text) or the English Wikipedia as "Fair use". Teofilo (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Where do you take the 5% value from? Actually the text being shown represents 7% of the overall text (either by counting words (200/2713 words) or characters (1202/16808 characters)) [1]. While this might qualify for 'droit de citation', this only applies to a textual version, not to a phograph of the text. Assuming de-minimis here is still the best practice/option. What's the point of saying it's a copyright infrigement when the text is freely available on the web from legal sources? Esby (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- From nowhere. Just a way of saying that "small" has to be seen in proportion of the text length rather than in absolute terms. If the excerpt is "only" one page but the full text is two pages, that makes 50% and it is too much although "one page" is not very much (But one page from a 500 pages book might be OK). The proportion in comparison with the quoting text must also be appreciated (that means that the Wikipedia article where it is inserted must be long enough). "freely available" : what do you mean by free ? "Gratuitement" or "sous licence libre" ? Teofilo (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Freely available does not necessarily implies a free licence, neither it implies the gratis aspect. You perfectly know what I meant here: You and I are not in position to estimate how the 'droit de citation' would apply here. This is just irrelevant as the subject of the photograph is not the oeuvra but rather the physical support, including the striked annotation. This is just copyright paranoia: Are we going to retouch the image and erase the words so we can show a version that does not infringe the copyright of the author, which might be especially be funny when the person watching the image is not talking french... No, since it would be an attempt to the author's moral rights, and no since it would be ridiculous, which is where de-minimis comes into play... Esby (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we were publishing a page of a published work, it would worry me less, but that annotation is exactly the type of unpublished copyrighted material that is protected strongly by copyright (cf. Salinger and his letters; more cynically, it's the stuff that sells new editions.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I also have some doubts when it is to consider as 'unpublished' a text that is exposed publically in a museum since a few years already. Esby (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- If we were publishing a page of a published work, it would worry me less, but that annotation is exactly the type of unpublished copyrighted material that is protected strongly by copyright (cf. Salinger and his letters; more cynically, it's the stuff that sells new editions.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Freely available does not necessarily implies a free licence, neither it implies the gratis aspect. You perfectly know what I meant here: You and I are not in position to estimate how the 'droit de citation' would apply here. This is just irrelevant as the subject of the photograph is not the oeuvra but rather the physical support, including the striked annotation. This is just copyright paranoia: Are we going to retouch the image and erase the words so we can show a version that does not infringe the copyright of the author, which might be especially be funny when the person watching the image is not talking french... No, since it would be an attempt to the author's moral rights, and no since it would be ridiculous, which is where de-minimis comes into play... Esby (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- From nowhere. Just a way of saying that "small" has to be seen in proportion of the text length rather than in absolute terms. If the excerpt is "only" one page but the full text is two pages, that makes 50% and it is too much although "one page" is not very much (But one page from a 500 pages book might be OK). The proportion in comparison with the quoting text must also be appreciated (that means that the Wikipedia article where it is inserted must be long enough). "freely available" : what do you mean by free ? "Gratuitement" or "sous licence libre" ? Teofilo (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete it seems a lot like trying to make a distinction between the physical object of the painting and what's painted there. Manuscripts also tend to get more protection from courts then published works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so: the present photograph would be a very poor document if the goal was to provide the text of Malraux' speech (unlike a photograph of a painting that provides the entirety of the painting). The aim of the photograph is to show how the speech was printed, bound, annotated, etc. There would probably be clearly no problem if it was the cover that was displayed, and I believe that, given the tiny proportion of the text featured, this more or less entails that there is no problem there either. Rama (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Oh, but this is just one photo out of a heavy book" - "Why would anyone complain - it is just one frame of a two-hour movie" - "Just a small corner of the painting won't matter". - "The whole thing is on the web."
- All this is not what de minimis is about. Admins know better than that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so: the present photograph would be a very poor document if the goal was to provide the text of Malraux' speech (unlike a photograph of a painting that provides the entirety of the painting). The aim of the photograph is to show how the speech was printed, bound, annotated, etc. There would probably be clearly no problem if it was the cover that was displayed, and I believe that, given the tiny proportion of the text featured, this more or less entails that there is no problem there either. Rama (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The discussion above confuses de minimis with fair use. De minimus is when the copyrighted thing (sculpture, painting, building, whatever) is only a small part of the photo. It is permitted on Commons, but doesn't apply here. Fair use is, among other things, the use of a small portion of a work in a review -- the same thing as "droit de citation", I would guess. Fair use is not permitted here because it is specific to the use of the copyrighted material -- we don't put images up on Commons with a tag "you may use this image only in a critical review or historical citation". Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is not much debate. The subject of the photograph, as Rama said is the manuscript. Sadly, it is impossible to show the manuscript without showing the text. It's not about fair-use, which is an american legal notion, and its supposed counterpart 'Droit de citation', which stricly applies to text and not photographs. It's de minimis, because the reader can know the state of conservation and the number of corrections that were done on the original document, This without understanding french. This is about the state of the medium the oeuvra is archived on, not about the oeuvra itself, hence the de-minimis. Esby (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the reader may not know French is a defense to copying a work in French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is just one rationale for de-minimis. The text content in itself does not matter, only what matters is its physical looking, I used the non-french example to clearly illustrate this point. Esby (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- The text is essential; a replica with different words would have no interest whatsoever. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, the fact the text and more importantly the manuscript is authentical is essential here, authentical supposes it was not altered. Esby (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- The text is essential; a replica with different words would have no interest whatsoever. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is just one rationale for de-minimis. The text content in itself does not matter, only what matters is its physical looking, I used the non-french example to clearly illustrate this point. Esby (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that the reader may not know French is a defense to copying a work in French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, clear and obvious copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 19:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
