Commons:Deletion requests/File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

[edit]

Reason: The image seems to be of too high a quality to be a screenshot from this film. I think it's a wallpaper image from The Disney Experience which is copyrighted according to the full un-cropped version. Furthermore, if you view The Spirit of '43 here, the aspect radio doesn't seem to match and there are words which are too close to his bottom jaw that couldn't have been removed by just cropping. Pigby (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Pienso que si es tomado de la película debería quedarse pero si no parece tomado de la misma. Porqué no mejor sustituirlo con una imagen mas evidentemente tomada de la película.--Inri (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jcb (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of a copyrighted character. Please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif for a detailed explanation. Claritas (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment How is it a "completely different situation" ? The derivative elements of the work are still copyrighted, the original elements are public domain, ergo, the file itself is not in the public domain. --Claritas (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cartoon isn't in the public domain, however, because it contains derivative material from copyrighted works. Only the original authorship of the producers of the cartoon is in the public domain - the character of Donald Duck is not, and thus this image is not either. --Claritas (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - I repeat, this is not a derivative work is only a screenshot! A frame of a cartoon in public domain! So this screenshot is in public domain too! Angelus (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. That's not how copyright works. All "original authorship" created for the federal government is in the public domain, but as Donald Duck was created before the cartoon was, and has independent copyright protection, the whole cartoon is not in the public domain, no matter how it is distributed. It's a derivative work of a copyrighted character. --Claritas (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's irrelevant, as it's a derivative work of a copyrighted character. Imagine the situation in which you're an employee of US government creating a film, and I give you permission for you to use some footage, i.e. I waive my copyrights for your particular use. I still hold all the copyrights associated with my footage - I've simply employed my right to let you use it. --Claritas (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This catoon was not republished by a US government employee but was published for the U.S. government and it was distributed with the aim of being in the public domain, so all its frame are in the public domain! Angelus (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misinterpretation of an opinion??? What does it means???
Anyway, of course that's a proof! Have you read the article before responding?

This cartoon was created for the US Government, so it is in public domain, the only Donald Duck cartoon in the public domain.

— The Spirit of '43 - from en.wiki

Aquest film va ser creat per al Govern dels Estats Units, i com totes les pel·lícules fetes per o per al Govern dels Estats Units està al domini públic.

— The Spirit of '43 - from ca.wiki

Este cortometraje fue creado para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos, y como todas las películas hechas por o para el Gobierno de Estados Unidos está en el dominio público.

— The Spirit of '43 - from es.wiki

Het filmpje is betaald door de Amerikaanse overheid, om de belastingen op te krikken. Als gevolg hiervan is het een van de weinige Disney-producties in publiek domein, zoals alle werken van de Amerikaanse overheid.

— The Spirit of '43 - from nl.wiki

And please, also read here! --Angelus (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Per Angelus and Jebulon. Yann (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This file seems to be more likely a derivatve work of that "Spirit of '43"-movie than a screenshot. Besides, obviously "Walt Disney Pictures" made a mistake by placing this movie in the public domain as a governmental work. Now anybody could use Donald's face for free without restrictions. What a pity. --80.187.107.33 17:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...appears to me that this image is merely a lavish copy of the others which according to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. it is not enough to attract copyright protection in the United States.

— Tm (talk) 07:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
--79.37.146.85 17:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The word "lavish" in the Bridgeman quotation, should be "slavish". Please follow the link provided above to verify this. I verified the source of this image and corrected and elaborated the source information on the file page.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Ok you're right, so I write this other quote.

A slavish photographic copy of a painting thus, according to Nimmer, lacks originality and thus copyrightability under the U.S. Copyright Act.

— Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.

--79.33.146.181 18:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete - First, works created by the US Federal government are PD, but works created for the US government may be (and probably are) copyrighted (see en:Wikipedia:PD#U.S._government_works). Also, per the previous discussion (linked in the nomination), while the work itself (The Spirit of '43) might be PD, there is an underlying character copyright which remains, and based on recent cases, probably prevents the creation of many derivative works. Therefore, this is not really free for Commons purposes. cmadler (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Per file description. "The cartoon was created for the U.S. Government, so it is in public domain, the only Donald Duck cartoon in the public domain." Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) 15:41, Tuesday, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Kept The movie is PD in USA, therefore a screenshot is also PD. There may be restrictions on some derivative works. Yann (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files copied to wikilivres:Category:Donald_Duck. Yann (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

[edit]

The movie is not PD in the US, only _some parts_ of it are in PD in the US, but everything with Donald Duck is still copyrighted. Read the previous discussions about the problem (Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif) -- if the character is not free, it "poisons" every work with that character published later, making non-free even works that otherwise would be considered PD (such as this move, or the Mickey Mouse poster). The "screenshot" (of course, it's not a screenshot, but the closing admin failed to read the previous discussion) is a derivative work from the copyrighted Donald Duck character, and is not in the PD. There is no way the file can be not copyrighted. Trycatch (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read the discussion. And I think that the conclusion is wrong. Yann (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, explain why you think it's wrong. You disagree that it's not a screenshot? Derivative work from a screenshot -- it's possible, but it's certainly has too high resolution and is too clean to be a screenshot from 1940s. Or you disagree that copyrighted content "contaminates" all future releases with that content even by the same author/studio? I've cited at least three court cases (and there are much more of them) confirming that point of view in the previous discussion. You disagree? Ok, _explain_ why you think that my interpretation was wrong. It's not possible to argue about anything without arguments. Trycatch (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your decision would be correct if the "Spirit of '43" would have been the first appearance of Donald Duck. But it's not the case. Donald Duck first appeared in The Wise Little Hen from 1934 (and it's still copyrighted), the cartoon in question was published much later. Trycatch (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if we ignore the fact that this is clearly derivative work from a screenshot (not a screenshot itself) which is probably encumbered by character copyright, it is not at all clear to me that the film is truly in the public domain. It was stated by many editors in the above discussions that the film is in the public domain because it was created for the US government. However, the US Code states A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. (17 USC §101) This film is therefore clearly not a "work of the United States Government" for copyright purposes. It's possible that it's public domain for having no notice or if it wasn't renewed, but that would need verification. cmadler (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter that it was created for the government, but yes, it was not renewed, so the parts of the cartoon without Donald Duck are truly free. Trycatch (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not de minimis, because:
      1. This file depicts only one frame of the film,
      2. The frame depicted in this file shows Donald Duck,
      3. but as a major part, and
      4. Disney has never released comic characters into the public domain. --84.61.139.62 09:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - per my original rationale.--Claritas (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DR was open for one and half month last year, and one month this year, and yet, Trycatch didn't care to participate. And 3 minutes after I closed it, he reopen it with the same arguments. This is very rude, and disruptive of the deletion process, and it is not acceptable. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is quite simple:
  1. Is the movie is in the public domain? YES.
  2. Is a simple screenshot of the movie is in the PD? YES.
  3. Does it meet Commons' requirements? YES.

Now, there are some restrictions because of the content of the file. But there is nothing in the requirements which says that there should not be restrictions. This request is trying to add new requirements under the disguise of a DR. This is not the right process. First create a general discussion (I think a request for comments is appropriate), then the DR can be examined again. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept Closing as per above: no new arguments, the file is allowed under current Commons' requirements. Do NOT open the DR again without new arguments. Thanks. Yann (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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.

File:Donald_Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped_version).jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation. 84.61.139.62 11:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete per extended discussion above and multiple incorrect closures. --Claritas (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Per reason of admins above who kept it. --Wiki13 19:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment No new valid reason added for deletion. --79.22.195.4 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep speedy. I cannot judge the legal details, but reopening the same request time after time with the same arguments is wasting resources. No reason the fourth discussion will come to a more correct conclusion than the three earlier ones. Wait at least until there is new material to found the decision on, people have changed or people can be expected to have changed their minds (obviously wrongly closed requests will fulfil those criteria, but the decisions above are obviously not obviously wrong). --LPfi (talk) 06:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge mixup with this images, with a lot of them being deleted and a few being kept. --Claritas (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi. The earlier ones were closed in this way, because of some misunderstandings. Later the admin who kept this picture, nominated a bunch of similar pics himself. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"per previous dicussions"? it should be {{Vd}} then. See Category:Disney characters deletion requests -- all of them were deleted, except this one. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment To the closing admin -- there is a more or less general consensus that the pictures like this are copyrighted, read e.g. Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/02#Disney characters deletion requests, and so on. "Kept" results for this particular picture were nothing more than a small fluctuation. --Trycatch (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments made above for character-related deletion are wrong — multiple Looney Tunes cartoons fell into the public domain due to technicalities such as failure to renew copyright, and now those cartoons are republished all the time for profit. That wouldn't be the case if the appearance of characters such as Bugs Bunny caused the cartoons to remain in copyright, and if they were still in copyright, Warner Brothers would be able to file lucrative copyright infringement lawsuits against the other publishers — thus it's not possible for the appearance of a character to save copyright here. And since there's no evidence that copyright was ever renewed for this film, it's irrevocably in the public domain, even if it began as a copyrightable work. Trust the corporate lawyers for the video companies that reproduce cartoons like Falling Hare without royalty when they assume that PD really is PD. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "if they were still in copyright, Warner Brothers would be able to file lucrative copyright infringement lawsuits against the other publishers" -- and that's exactly what they do. See e.g. Warner Bros. v. AVELA [2] (it was throughly discussed in the previous DRs on the same topic). Really, read the previous discussions, for starters this, this, and this. --Trycatch (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per consensus. INeverCry 18:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Donald Duck - The Spirit of '43 (cropped version).jpg

[edit]

I can't believe this file was kept after so many deletion requests! This is derivative work of the copyrighted character design of Donald Duck, and besides, it had been used in films before "The Spirit of '43". All those who've kept this file on the basis of the FILM's copyright, without considering the underlying copyright on the CHARACTER - are real fools. The time is long overdue for this file to be deleted for good. SethAllen623 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I understand your frustration, please make your point without disparaging others. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome. But I am not here to disparage other editors; I am instead here to address copyrighted content that is a derivative work of a copyrighted character design, and have it disposed of as soon as possible. Those are two separate copyrights we're dealing with here: copyright on a design, and copyright on a film. If the design and earliest appearances of a character are copyrighted, then the later appearances and redesigns of that character are copyrighted as well. The same goes for music in a film: Music does not go into the public domain with any films that use it. These are separate copyrights.
Commons exists to provide free media that can be used anywhere, by anyone, for any purpose. This file, like many other "cartoon character derivative works" that I and other editors have ordered deleted recently, is in direct violation of United States copyright law as was decided in Stewart v. Abend. --SethAllen623 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Let's say that I were to post on my userpage the following message "All my text contributions on Commons are in public domain", would this mean that this discussion is now in public domain? Of course not, only my additional element is. The discussion as the whole is under CC-BY-SA license and is copyrighted by several individuals who didn't release it to the public domain. The same here. All the additional elements except the Donald Duck have fallen into the public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Derivative work of the copyrighted artwork Donald Duck. We've deleted lots of images of Donald Duck and other characters for that reason. --Stefan4 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Consensus -> delete. -FASTILY 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Donald_Duck_-_The_Spirit_of_%2743_(cropped_version).jpg&oldid=801415878"