Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fake ticket, Fare Strike Movement.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:Fake ticket, Fare Strike Movement.jpg

[edit]

Photographer was not creator of ticket, and does not have the right to release an image of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC) -mattbuck (Talk) 11:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifies for {{PD-textlogo}}, in my opinion. NW (Talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - ideas ("Class: Cattle Truck" etcetera ) are ineligible for copyright, the rest is simple text. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:27, 5 November 2010 (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:Fake ticket, Fare Strike Movement.jpg

[edit]

Although this is boilerplate text and a fairly basic design, the British threshold of originality is much lower than this, and thus a copyright can be assumed to have attached to this work. Under the precautionary principle, it should be deleted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep. The nominator has made an incorrect assessment of the British threshold of originality, based on an apparent misreading of this case, wherein the court specifically enunciated the presence of unique font elements in a logo as a basis for originality. The nominator has not shown that the British Rail tickets at issue contain anything other than standard fonts in an arrangement entirely dictated by the function of a rail ticket. Furthermore, the nominator has individually nominated dozens of similar files for the exact same reason, when the proper approach would have been to make a single nomination of all files, so that discussion could have been kept in a single place. In order to avoid disparate results, if one of these is kept, they should all be kept. Ideally, the nominator will withdraw these multiple discussions and file a single discussion. BD2412 T 20:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except all of the files have different design elements, and all of them have different degrees of originality. Running them as a set would confuse the issue. Several of them have pictures and other elements which are clearly copyrightable even in the US. All of the files have to be examined as individual images. Furthermore, you clearly haven't read the nominations, since 6 or 7 of them had different wordings owing to the conditions of the tickets.
    • You state that this ticket only consists of "standard fonts in an arrangement entirely dictated by the function of a rail ticket", yet fail to explain why the layout is as it is (if the layout was "entirely dictated by the function of a rail ticket", how could it differ from ticket to ticket?) or the wording used. You also fail to discuss the use of color. There is a degree of originality in these tickets which is even greater than in the "Edge" logo (deletion request here for interested editors/admins). A note on the above deletion discussion: it predated the Edge case. I doubt it would have turned out the same if we'd had it as precedent. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The vast majority of the files are very similar. To the extent that there were differences, you could have nominated them in groups. Your legal analysis is the wrong way around; a work is not protectible unless design elements can be shown to be original and nonfunctional. The information that appears on a train ticket is the information that has to appear on the ticket for the ticket to be usable by everyone who interacts with it. The arrangement is not markedly different from tickets for comparable purposes that have existed all over the world, for decades. For future reference, I would suggest that you do what I have done, which is to graduate from a law school in a common law country, and then practice in the field of intellectual property for several years, and handle actual copyright cases addressing actual copyrightability issues. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @BD2412: , one can disagree without being disagreeable, and one does not need to have a PhD in copyright law to be a Commons user, nor to make a reasoned argument. You disagree with the rationale, that's fine, say it without being condescending. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any appearance of condescension on my part is directly in response to the conduct of the nominator in some of the series of 90+ nearly identical discussions that he has initiated on these images (see, for example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Metrolink ticket (7422025804).jpg). Unfortunately, that is a consequence of having so many discussions on highly similar issues. A participant can either participate in one, with the resulting danger that a closer will mistake the editor's lack of response in the others as a lack of comment on them, or make the tedious effort to post in all, with commentary that addresses issues that may only have been raised in one of the discussions. BD2412 T 15:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fake_ticket,_Fare_Strike_Movement.jpg&oldid=169257641"