Commons:Deletion requests/File:Entropa v science centru Techmania.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.
Derivative work of the Entropa work of art. Located inside a museum so COM:FOP#Czech Republic doesn't apply. Hard to argue de minimis given the file name and the fact that it could be cropped if the Techmania Science Center hall was the main focus of the image. –Tryphon☂ 16:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Could be cropped" isn't a valid argument against "de minimis". The copyright would be infringed by that who cropp or extract some detail, not be general photo.
- Btw, the exact wording of Czech Copyright Act should be taken into consideration, not some general impressions. The Czech law says "náhodně v souvislosti se zamýšleným hlavním užitím jiného díla nebo prvku" (accidentally in relation to intended main use of an other work or element). Inasmuch as the Entropa is depicted in closed angle, it can be believed that the main goal of the photo isn't to reproduce the Entropa but depict the global situation and arrangement in the exhibition hall.
- Is this photo of the exhibition hall with Entropa a "rozmnoženina" (duplicate) of the Entropa? (Czech copyright act does not restrict "derivative works" but only "rozmnoženiny"). Not every depiction must be a "rozmnoženina". Czech copyright law is not touched by such derivative work. § 2/4 of the Czech Copyright Act says that a derivative work is a subject of copyright, but this concerns about rights of the author of the derivative work, not rights of the author of the original work. "Tím není dotčeno právo autora zpracovaného nebo přeloženého díla." - Right of the original work are not touched by the derivative work. --ŠJů (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- About the "could be cropped" argument, I meant it the other way around: if the image really was about the hall, the Entropa could be cropped out (I completely agree with what you said about de minimis otherwise). It wasn't included by accident, or just because there is no way to show the hall without including the Entropa; it's the main focus of the image. –Tryphon☂ 11:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that some work is accidentaly depicted on a photo does´t mean that such part of the photo can be cropped out. If you cropp all accidental elements from a photo, the resultant photo will be unrealistic and devalued. "Accidental" doesn't mean "redundant" nor "removable" but rather "fungible" or "arbitrary". An interpretation of the word "náhoda" ("accident" or "random" or "occurence" are possible translations but not exact equivalents, as well as "arbitrary" for the adjective "náhodný") is very arduous problem - "náhoda" is a relative term and an absolute "náhoda" doesn't exist. But the Copyright Act interprests it enough when it distinguishes "zamýšlené hlavní užití" (the intended main use). It can be supposed that "náhodný" means such element which can not be the intended main use. However, the word "zamýšlený" (intended) makes the law criterium subjective. On photographer can taken such photo with one main intention, and another photograph can taken (or another person can use) the photograph with utterly different main intention. Let's to rename the photo and change the description to emphasize that it's a photo of the Techmania exhibition hall (incidentally with some people and with the sculpture Entropa), not a photo of Entropa (incidentaly in Plzeň Techmania Centre). No need to injure composition and entirety of the photo. --ŠJů (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, those blue pipes are too simple to be copyrighted and in fact, the whole construction is derived from plastic model frames. The designs of "countries" (which is definitely protected by copyrights) is hard to see, hard to make any derived work and those are "de minimis". --Pan BMP (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
