Commons:Deletion requests/File:ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5246).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:ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5246).jpg

• File:ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5246) (cropped).jpg

The photograph is of a model to which the photographer is unlikely to have copyright permission. The photograph was taken of a temporary installation.The source is given as "Own Work" while the focus of the photograph is the model, which is unlikely to be the photographers work. Stgpcm (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Delete per nom. This is a model, not a utilitarian article. I added DW File:ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5246) (cropped).jpg, already tagged.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 06:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Keep A photo of a model shown to the public, within a public airshow. The model may be the property of a company, but the photograph copyright belongs to the photographer, who can claim it's his own and put it in wikimedia if he wants. No photo interdiction in Airshows at my knowledge. Would lower drastically the attendance if it was forbidden. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Marc Lacoste: The design of this model is copyrighted by Reaction Engines Limited. Please read DW.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: DW states: Unless you have authorization from the copyright holder: I think showing a model at a public airshow with no photo interdiction implies it will be photographed and reused. There is no placard near the model stating "please do not photograph". And I'm not sure it would not fall within the utilitarian article anyway: this is an aircraft model, not a work of art intrinsically. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Marc Lacoste: You seem to be describing non-copyright restrictions. The depicted vehicle is a work of applied engineering and design, both of which are forms of art. The fact that the model doesn't fly, but just sits there looking pretty, makes it non-UA.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  NO. If you could just claim all your engineering was a work of art, then there would usually be no patents, nobody would ever file a patent they would just claim everything as art, and nobody would be able to copy your engineering till well after your death. That's not how it works. 'The law is not an ass'. Engineering stuff isn't copyrightable, nor is it a 'work of art'. Photos can be, but only to the extent there's a creative step beyond the engineering.GliderMaven (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  copyright law includes an exception for taking photographs of copyright items for personal use Stgpcm (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Stgpcm: Yes, that's called "Fair use". We don't allow that here. If you want to use the file on English Wikipedia, please read WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 17:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: Sorry, that comment was directed at @Marc Lacoste: who appeared to be suggesting that allowing photographs was equivalent to waiving copyright. I should have made that clearer - relying on indent alone was foolhardy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stgpcm (talk • contribs) 18:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Delete Classic model copyright. Extensive fair use and implied usage rights, but not actually Free.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment @Stgpcm: {{Own work}} of course only applies to the photograph. I'm not an expert in copyright matters, when it comes to these kind of models. So, I guess it's best to let those, who are one, decide about the deletion request. --MB-one (talk) 09:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @MB-one: In that case, please do not upload photos of nonfunctional models unless you are sure that the models are free enough for us.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Jeff G.: I do not intent to upload any of those at least until this case is resolved. --MB-one (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Delete  Keep By placing the model on public display the owner tacitly cedes that it may be photographed. The copyright that concerns us is the photographer's copyright on their image, not anything on an object on public display. The photographer has licensed the image to us. Seriously, probably 90% of the photographs on the Commons depict copyrighted objects for which permission to photograph is implicit in their public display. This AfD really has to be a non-starter or all hell will break loose. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  @Steelpillow: We are absolutely concerned with the copyrights of objects on public display which we photograph. What gave you the impression we weren't?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  By "public display" I mean an object which may be freely seen by any member of the public. Consider I take a photo of a street view. The post box, the street lights, the vehicles, the clothes people are wearing, are all subject to copyright. So I walk into a show where public are permitted to take photographs. Every exhibitor knows that and the exhibit their copyrighted wares in full knowledge and consent that this will happen. Millions of images here come under that description. That is what I mean. But now I think about it, how do we know that this was not a trade exhibition, at which only licensed journalists could take photographs? That is not what I meant here by "public display". If that is the case, then the rationale for this AfD should be made clearer and I will change my vote. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  Most of those things are not subject to copyright. Street lights, vehicles, clothes, none of those things are subject to copyright, at least not in the US. If there is a picture on the clothes, the picture may be subject to copyright, and we delete those unless it's a minor part of the photo. See COM:UA and COM:DM.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  OK, I guess the "permanent panorama" is the bit I missed: this is definitely not a panorama. I am changing my vote. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Keep No. It's an engineering model, not a work of art. Because it's not a fictional aircraft, it's intended to do something, there's no major creative step in the shape of the model, it's a shape that has to do something, so it would be covered by patent law, not copyright law. Patent law permits reproduction of all the information for societal benefit. If everything about patentable information was also copyright, or works of art, that would completely nullify patent law. But the whole point of patents is to release information into the public domain prior to the patent expiring. So engineering models are not usually copyright, or works of art, unless there is a significant creative step, that could be separated from the shape of the model. I don't see anything like that here.

If anyone owns the IP of the photo, it's the person that took the photo, there's defacto a creative step in photography.GliderMaven (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not an engineering model, @GliderMaven: . It exists purely to convey the appearance of the object. Stgpcm (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

On that basis it would still be illegal to take a photograph of Concorde, or a model of Concorde, because the shape would be copyright for 70 years after the death of the designers. Real world says: no.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

A Concorde is a utilitarian object, and thus is not subject to copyright. A model of a plane is copyrightable; see https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/703_F2d_970.htm .--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The aircraft and its shape is utilitarian, and thus not subject to copyright. The model is only copyrightable to the extent that the any utilitarian aspects are separate from the utilitarian.GliderMaven (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@GliderMaven: Now you're making even less sense. So Senior Federal Circuit Court Judge Bailey Brown was wrong in deciding GAY TOYS, INC. v. BUDDY L CORP., 703 F.2d 970 (6th Cir. 1983) in favor of the copyright holder of the infringed work?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Keep this is an engineering model, not a work of art. Engineering models can be patented, however they are usually not copyrighted.--Atomicdragon136 (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright attaches the moment an idea is fixed in a tangible medium of expression.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Not if it's purely an engineering thing, not everything in the world is copyright, it requires a significant creative step. Even photographs aren't always.GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not an engineering model; but even if it were, @Atomicdargon136: "include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned". Design Patents make it easier to protect the design aspects UAs, but are complementary to copyright. Stgpcm (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely IS an engineering model, Reaction Engines Limited engineered an aircraft to go with the engines they designed, and came up with a shape determined by standard aerodynamic equations.

And the key phrase here is: "insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned". The entire skin of this aircraft are mechanical and utilitarian aspects that are determined by standard aerodynamic equations and other engineering considerations. Patent law only stops you manufacturing the item (if it's even patented).GliderMaven (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It absolutely is NOT an engineering model. It is not functional. This model's sole purpose is "merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information" Stgpcm (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, but only to the extent that there's been a creative step above and beyond the shape of the aircraft, that you copied. So if you copied the exact way it's assembled or made and started selling it, that would be a violation of copyright. Or if they'd have made a cutaway so you could see inside, that's clearly creative presentation. But that doesn't apply here, they haven't done anything creative in making the model, it's a bog-standard model showing the engineered shape.GliderMaven (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

---

Deleted: This is a very long discussion for something that is absolutely and completely established on Commons. The object is a model. Models have copyrights. A photograph of the model is derivative work and may not be kept on Commons without a free license from the model maker. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)