Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mommy, what is waterboarding....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.
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as duplicate (Derivative) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work Sreejith K (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- Uhm, yes, it's a picture of a picture. The very essence of what COM:DW is about. --Vera (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but not every picture of a picture is a copyright violation. In this case the picture-within-a-picture is a poster with a photograph of a painting.
- Helpfully a source for the photo is provided. That web link no longer works, but it is available via archive.org [1]. Reading that page it seems that the photograph of the painting would not be copyrightable per Wikimedia's stance on that issue.
- This leaves the copyright of the painting to discover: The credit is to a "former prisoner", which isn't immediately helpful, but 2 minutes investigation shows that it is by w:Vann Neth (died 5 September 2011). I have not been able to find a date for the painting, but it is used (under fair use) on the English Wikipedia (w:File:Waterboard3-small.jpg) where it is noted the photograph of it was taken in 2005, so it must predate that. Cambodian copyright law lasts for 50 years after the death of the author, in this case 2061. However it does state the "author cannot prohibit … The use of work for the purposes of education, which is not for financial gain" [2] Article 25c (PDF page 17). Its use on the poster photographed in Washington, D.C. was clearly to educate and not for financial gain, so by my reading (IANAL) that poster was fine copyright wise.
- So the question comes down to whether the poster itself is eligible for copyright on the design - one line of text above and below an image doesn't strike me as being above the threshold of originality. Weak keep (I say weak because I'm not certain on several points).
- So in short, this is not a simple case. Mass tagging of images for deletion as derivatives without checking whether the work they are derivative of is actually under an incompatible license is not helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. DW. Commercial use of the work must be allowed. Undelete in 2062 -- Common Good (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
