Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erich Kaestner cropped.jpg

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:Erich Kaestner cropped.jpg

Derivative of File:Kästner-Passage.JPG which is possibly not allowed under Panoramafreiheit, see Commons:Freedom of panorama#Germany. --cmadler (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete Copyvio, alas. --Aʁsenjyʁdəgaljɔm¹¹⁶⁷¹ 13:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about this one. Does just cropping a photo create a derivative work? If someone were to take a photo that was closely framed around the publicly-displayed image, that would seem to be acceptable under Panoramafreiheit, does cropping really make a difference? I feel a lot more confident that the other image (black and white, with the border removed) is clearly a derivative work, but I'm dubious about this one, I just wanted to raise the issue and get some opinions. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Keep. I think there's a missunderstanding here. Making derivatives of works of panoramafreiheit is allowed (the law says: Pictures may be used for any purpose). In this case, it would even have been possible to take a whole new picture with just the face in it. Article 62 just sais that it is not allowed to change the work itself. As we're not doing that, there's no problem. --PaterMcFly (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps our explanation of Panoramafreiheit needs to be changed, as it states "Still, the right to modify the works and to produce derivative works requires the permission of the original copyright holder. (§ 62)" (emphasis added). cmadler (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

 Keep. There's really a missunderstanding here. Making derivatives of works of Panoramafreiheit is allowed. Es ist nach den deutschen Gesetzvorschriften zugelassen und erlaubt. See: Commons:Freedom of panorama - Germany It is possible by § 59 of the Urheberrechtsgesetz (the most comprehensive German copyright law act) to take pictures of works that are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. Keep it!--85.130.44.190 19:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Comment Requested feedback at Commons:Freedom of panorama. This is a difficult question with great implications for policy. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 Delete for me. The resulting work is not really a derivative of the photograph; all expression specific to that photograph (and showing the original work in its public context) has been removed. The result is a direct derivative (or rather, really a copy) of the original graphic work. You can create a wide array of derivative works using the photograph... but not to the point where you are just copying the original. I'm not sure about Germany, but many freedom of panorama laws do not allow works "which can be used for the same purpose as the original" or something to that effect, i.e. a sculpture of a public sculpture, or a photo of nothing but a public photo. This, to me, is the same thing. Copyright is about expression, and the resulting image here is to me a straight copy of someone else's expression. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

 Keep Disclaimer -- I don't read German, so this is based on experience and translation.

We are confusing three different types of derivative work here.

(1) Some direct derivatives -- a new cast of a sculpture, or a copy of a building -- are not permitted without license from the creator. This is the aspect that the sentence quoted above addresses.

(2) A work created under Panoramafreiheit, which is a derivative work and is permitted. This includes reproduction by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography.

(3) A work (such as the subject of this debate) which is derivative of a work in category (2). This is also permitted, provided, of course, that the license for the category (2) work permits it.

In response to Clindberg, I note that this image would certainly be permitted under Panoramafreiheit if it were the original image and not a crop. As I note above, you may, in Germany, photograph a public photograph or paint a public painting under Panoramafreiheit.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I don't see that type of clause in the (English translation of) German law, so this may well be OK. The original upload was actually a straight crop, and later had its perspective fixed to essentially make it seem like a direct, head-on shot. Same disclaimer for me -- I can't read German either, and don't have any practical experience with their copyright environment, so I may just be applying some U.S.-style prejudices here. Still seems a bit wrong to me, but by the letter of that law, it does seem OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

•  Delete: the whole point of "freedom of panorama" is to allow photographers freedom to take images in public space. The copyrights of objects captured in those images are waived from the photographs, but still remain in force. Copyright laws would not suffer the recreation of a copyrighted statue from a series of photographs taken from different angles simply because the act of taking photographs of a public installation in the UK does not violate the copyright of the owner. Terminator 2's poster does not lose its copyright simply because it was pasted on the wall of a building in the US. We should be clear on what "freedom of panorama" entails. One can modify the image (photograph) but the derivative work produced should not be a reproduction of the copyrighted work (or its derivatives). I see FoP akin to the concept of Commons:De minimis; copyrighted subjects in permitted photographs (that fall in either category) should not be extracted and claimed to be in the public domain (the subjects are still covered by copyright) or released under the permission of the photographers (they do not have the authority to release the copyright of the subject). Jappalang (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  To add on, per my view above, this image is a derivative of a photograph of a copy of the copyrighted 2D artwork (that is on the wall of building), rather than the derivative of a photograph of the building itself. The crux of the matter here is the subject of the image. Jappalang (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, remember this is Germany, not the USA or the UK and we need to adjust our thinking for German law, which reads (in translation):

"Article 59 (1) It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies."

It seems clear to me, therefore, that you can reproduce this work, notwithstanding its copyright. You can photograph it, sketch it, make postcards of it, whatever -- even paint a copy on another wall. I don't see how we can reach any other conclusion. "Works" covers everything -- this is certainly a "work". The fact that this image is a crop and perspective correction of the original photograph is irrelevant -- such edits are a common part of photography.

Article 62 is quoted above as not permitting this, but we need to read the whole article, which certainly permits -- at (3) -- the creation of a derivative work at a different scale by photography:

"Article 62 (1) Where the use of a work is permissible under the provisions of this Section, no alteration may be made to the work. Article 39 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis.

(2)(omitted, not relevant)

(3) With respect to works of fine art and photographic works, conversion to a different scale and other alterations of the work shall be permissible to the extent required by the method of reproduction."

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 15:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, you are right. Germany does provide FoP for all works, even 2D works of art, permanently installed in the public, provided the works are not unauthorized reproductions. The case laws in http://www.fotorecht.de/publikationen/grassofa-pp.html (read via Google translate) seem to support this. I do have to ask though: is this painting on the wall a derivative of a photograph (which we would then have to consider if the painting is an unauthorized derivative). Jappalang (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked the photographer and uploader of the very first shot of this wall-"painting" about the painter or other source information, but he didn't know. --Túrelio (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Kept. Avi (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)