Commons:Deletion requests/File:Estamos bien los 33.svg

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:Estamos_bien_los_33.svg

[edit]

The depicted sentence is copyrighted in Chile. 84.61.153.119 19:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This image of text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship. Facts, data, and unoriginal information in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright." Veriss1 (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Actually, José Ricardo Ojeda is really seeking copyright protection for this simple text. See here. We need more info on whenever he actually suceeded in this or not, but the claim exist and it's in the news. We may discuss (both we and real lawyers) if this should be done, and the consequences that this jurisprudence may set in Chilean copyright law, but if copyright protection is given that would be the end of the story here in Commons Belgrano (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to what extent can copyright law be taken? You are correct in saying that if he copyrights it, it simply cannot be stored on Commons, but is it actually possible to copyright a sentence you've written? Wackywace (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep No, according to most legislatures (or, to be precise, according to all I know of), it is not. One might get trademarks on a sentence or a phrase, but not copyright. Also, even if this were copyrighted, it could still be quoted in a matching context. For news agencies, even less restrictive laws apply, so for wikinews this is ok like 3 times to keep. --PaterMcFly (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think many of you are missing the point -- PD-text applies only to "common property without sufficiently creative authorship". That does not mean that very short writings cannot be copyrighted -- Ogden Nash comes to mind,
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker" (Reflections on Ice-Breaking) only seven words, but covered by US copyright.
The subject is also seven words, a model of brevity. As for creativity, in the seven words it communicates the Five Ws
Who -- all 33
What -- all are well
Where -- in the shelter
When -- a few minutes ago, when the message was attached to the drill
Why -- is omitted, but it's obvious
I wouldn't want to bet which way a Chilean court will rule -- or even a US court, for that matter. If I were the judge, I would rule in favor of copyright and given the current world view of the miners, I suspect that I'm not alone in that.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 18:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment see "w:de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Botschaft#Odd cross-wiki behaviour by someone in Germany; sometimes includes edit-warring and disruptive page creation" for a discussion of the nominator's edits. This is the latest in a number of IPs to be blocked on en and de.wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's history seems to be irrelevant -- we have several experienced editors weighing in on both sides of this discussion. This is an important discussion, because some of our editors believe that short texts cannot be copyrighted and others, including me, believe that they can, if sufficiently creative. Therefore we cannot just dismiss this because we don't like the nom.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One point here: Normally, the intention of copyright is to protect one's artistic work. So, maybe one could protect a single phrase if it was for instance for an advertisement campain or something similar, where the creator possibly had a hard time thinking about it (=being creative). The phrase we're talking about here was mostly done in a hury and originally not with the intention of creating artwork. --PaterMcFly (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, "artistic" has nothing to do with it. Any written work is covered as long as it is not trivial. If a child writes an essay for school of only two or three sentences, it will have a copyright. As I point out above, this is a wonderful model of brevity -- only seven words and it answers all the questions. And who of us is to say it was composed rapidly? -- they knew for hours that the drill was headed their way -- but even that doesn't matter, brilliance does not always take time.     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction, in the U.S. anyway, is between factual information and creative authorship. Nobody has suggested that there is any creative authorship in the factual sentence in question. A telephone book isn't trivial, but it famously can not be copyrighted in the U.S. I have no idea about Chilean copyright law. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chilean Copyright Office has declared the text (C). Therefore, deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Estamos_bien_los_33.svg&oldid=85650236"