Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philipp Lahm lifts the 2014 FIFA World Cup.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:Philipp Lahm lifts the 2014 FIFA World Cup.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work of modern 3D sculpture that is copyrighted by FIFA. The trophy was designed (1971) by Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga, who is still alive.

See also similar cases that were deleted: here (1), here (2) and here (3).

Fma12 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep - I understand why we delete the picture of the trophy taken elsewhere but to delete the image which was taken at its "sole purpose", the FIFA World Cup is beyond idiotic..yes pictures of the "CUP ITSELF" is copyrighted but it surely does NOT apply when taken at THIS event..There is a flaw in commons DW and it surely does not apply to this--Stemoc (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The trophy is clearly de minimis here. Yann (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The trophy is clearly not de minimis. The fact that the trophy takes up a relatively small part of the photo is irrelevant. The purpose of the photo is to show the trophy, which is further emphasized by the name of the file and its use in illustrating en:FIFA World Cup Trophy. Thus, its inclusion is not incidental. In fact, it fails Commons:De minimis#Guidelines on every single point. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @LX: Sorry, but your argument does not make sense. You mean that the designer of the cup could sue the photographer and reusers of this picture because it includes the cup? I bet you anything that you are wrong... Yann (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You're saying that COM:DM applies even though it fails COM:DM#Guidelines on every point, and it's my argument that doesn't make sense? Anyone can sue anyone. Whether or not they can win is hard to know before a verdict, but that kind of gambling is not our cup of tea. The Edvard Eriksen estate harassing people who publish photos of the Little Mermaid statues with some success is probably the best known example of copyright holders of sculptures going after photographers, so it's certainly not unheard of. A lot of people would get away with it based on fair use arguments, but that's not what we're about either. The fact is, this is not a free photo because its purpose is to depict a non-free work. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel your reasoning is as flawed as the Commons:DW, the sole purpose of that cup is the FIFA World Cup and pictures of players hoisting the cup after the main FINAL is where this DW rule does not/should not apply..if the pic was taken days before the cup, i would not have uploaded it myself beaus I'm aware of our DW rule. The picture of the cup on its own may fall under DW but as it stands, its not....the reason given by fma12 is actually very stupid, those pics which were deleted were taken 'outside' of the FIFA World Cup, our DW rules most definitely should NOT apply to the current situation..--Stemoc (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Stemoc, my reasons are not "very stupid" as you stated above. My reason is that there are rules in Commons and we have to follow them. Beyond your intentions when uploading this file (and the others that I nominated), I included links to previous DR which were derivative works (all of the files were supressed although in some cases the cup was displayed at a small size). I made the nominations by the certainty that the photos are copyvios. The only "very stupid" thing here is your attemp of defense: who said you that the deleted photos were taken "outside" the competition? I personally nominated some of those files and several photos had been taken inside of the World Cup. - Fma12 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're talking about there is fair use. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    firstly Fma12, you only nominated them after Argentina lost the FIFAWC final to Germany, might i also mention that you are an Argentinian? I hope you are being rational cause it doesn't seem like you are..Yes, in previous case the trophy was subject to commercialization and thus would easily falls under the Commons:DW rule but not in this case, i saw all the images that were deleted and they deserve to be deleted but not this ones, none for the FIFAWC Final, I'm sorry but you are just being silly and irrational here, the trophy on its own is subject to our DW rule but not in situations where the sole reason for the trophy was on display which in this case is the lifting of the cup after the final. Had the pic been taken a day after the FIFAWC, I Would have nominated it for deletion myself..I don't see Silvio Gazzaniga suing thousands if not millions of newspapers and magazines around the world for showing the picture of the German team lifting the cup..as i said earlier, our OWN policy in regards to this issue is "FLAWED" and LX, the image can't be used as 'fair-use' just because one small section of the image 'possibly' is non-free, that is again in my sense, stupid..either we change our policy on this or make an RfC to change our policy which does not take THIS into account..--Stemoc (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Stemac, the argument that I nominated the file because of the defeat of Argentina at the hands of Germany is, at least, ridiculous. I have been nominating many pictures of copyrighted trophies (not only the FIFA WC), even before Argentina lost the final to Germany. In cases like that, my passion for football is always left behind. - Fma12 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion discussions are decided based on copyright law and existing Commons policies (which includes Commons:De minimis). Policy changes should be discussed elsewhere. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @LX: Do you realise that you are actually alone against everyone else here? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    From Commons:Deletion requests: "Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." In this case, "everyone" consists of you, the uploader and three redlinked users with less than 300 edits of combined Commons experience (one of which restated a previously refuted argument and one of which offered no arguments). I'm sorry, but a 5–2 headcount doesn't change the fact that COM:DM#Guidelines says what it says, and you're not going to bully me into pretending it doesn't (but thank you for removing the bit about everyone thinking I'm out of my senses). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you forgot NickK which is an experienced user, and who made good arguments, and previous DR about the same issue. De minimis is always a bit subjective, and not back and white, that's why opinions of others count. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did overlook Nick. Sorry about that. A bit subjective, yes. That's why COM:DM lists multiple criteria, if you follow those rather than emotion, this isn't even close. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if we follow criteria, we get a one really close criterion: Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.. Here the copyrighted work is a trophy, the larger work is "Philipp Lahm (or German team) lift the FIFA World Cup trophy". It is completely impossible to picture the whole German team celebrating without picturing the trophy, and the focus is clearly not on the trophy (it is too small) — NickK (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry that is not the case, there were plenty of opportunities to capture the team celebrating prior to the award of the trophy.LGA talkedits 05:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably you have not watched the final. It is impossible to picture the team (all 23 players) celebrating prior to the award of the trophy, as Philipp Lahm as the captain is the last to arrive, and he does not join the team before receiving the trophy. Prior to that the team is lined up on the stairs, where it is impossible to picture them. Thus this photo depicts the very first moment the whole German team is celebrating, with all 23 players pictured including Philipp Lahm. If you know any other images (incl. non-free) depicting all players prior to award of the cup, please provide links to them — NickK (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Clearly de minimis. --DerHandelsreisende (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've already stated, Commons' policy on de minimis is at Commons:De minimis, and this fails Commons:De minimis#Guidelines on every point. Simply repeating that this is de minimis without bringing any new arguments to the table does not make it so. Please remember that deletion discussions are not a vote, and as explained at Commons:Deletion requests, consensus can never override Commons Policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. You cant change my opinion. --DerHandelsreisende (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. The goal of the photo is not to show Philipp Lahm lifting a work by Silvio Gazzaniga, but to show celebration on the occasion of obtaining the trophy designed by no matter whom. This photo would have a value had the trophy been designed by any other artist or even had the trophy been blurred. This is exactly similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Spain with cup.jpg and completely different from Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK MK Man Ming Sporting Goods WorldCup.jpg, where the cup was the only object — NickK (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who decided to use the photo as an illustration for en:FIFA World Cup Trophy clearly disagree. A photo with the trophy blurred would be fine, but I suspect it would not get much use... I agree that this is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Spain with cup.jpg, but I disagree with the outcome of that deletion discussion, which completely ignores COM:DM#Guidelines. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything that DR is possibly the best reason to keep pics like this since the focus on the trophy on that DR is slightly much bigger and yet it fulfills our de-minimis criteria perfectly, as i said earlier, the article is about the "2014 FIFA World Cup", its pointless to upload all images of the world's 2nd biggest event and not be able to allow an image of someone hoisting the trophy associated with it which isn't really the focus of the picture, the team celebration is..again, if it was just the picture of the trophy, i would agree with the DR but it looks like good sense had prevailed in previous DR relating to this and I hope it continues..LX, I feel you have more problem with the "cropped" version of this image than this image itself. I did not make the cropping , I chose not to, someone else did on the enwiki as they wanted to use it on the Main Page, I may agree with the deletion of that cropping as its is the centre of focus but not this full version--Stemoc (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not think that the fact that image of X can be used for illustrating a copyrighted object Y can be the reason for deletion. Try looking at the classical case of en:Louvre Pyramid: images of Louvre featuring the Pyramid were systematically considered as legal (as DM), although cropping the Pyramid only would be considered illegal (as it would be an image of a copyrighted work). Similarly to the article en:FIFA World Cup Trophy, this is not really a great illustration, but at least it seems to be a legal one — NickK (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You say it yourself the aim of the photograph is to depict the award of the work of Silvio Gazzaniga so that works presence can not be considered COM:DM in the resulting image. LGA talkedits 05:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    according to that article u keep linking "FIFA's regulations now state that the trophy, unlike its predecessor, cannot be won outright: the winners of the tournament receive a Bronze replica which is gold plated rather than solid gold" <in that case, that trophy in the picture is "not" the work of "Silvio Gazzaniga" but a "knock-off" so now i seriously doubt that DW actually applies to clones of the trophy which was not directly created by Silvio but by someone else..--Stemoc (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The point of the photo is to depict the German national team celebrating their victory at the football world championship, not to depict Mr Gazzaniga's piece of art. --RJFF (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is demonstrably false, as it is used to illustrate en:FIFA World Cup Trophy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    uhm, it was added to that article because the only image on that page of the trophy was deleted because of the DW and there needs to be some sort of 'image' to represent the trophy on the wiki, even if its barely in the picture and that picture was used as there was no alternatives as they were all deleted.. your reasoning here is moot..--Stemoc (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is used to represent the trophy, which means that the point of the photo is to depict the trophy. De minimis is not a magic loophole for illustrating articles on copyrighted works. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is wrong to assert that the point of the photo is to depict the trophy. The point of the photo is clearly to depict Philipp Lahm with the German team. If you replace the trophy with some other award for the victory, the photo would make sense, if you replace Philipp Lahm and the German team with 23 random guys, the photo would be useless. Which means the point of the photo is to depict Philipp Lahm and the German team. Just the same way as in File:Louvre at night centered.jpg the point is not to depict Louvre Pyramid, although it is clearly visible — NickK (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it is being used to illustrate the trophy in the article on the trophy. If anything is incidental here, I'd say it's Lahm... —LX (talk, contribs) 09:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't prove anything, as shown by the Louvre Pyramid example. The fact that this image is included in the article about the trophy does not change in anyway the fact that it is de minimis. As for LGA's comment above, it is just ridiculous. Not really worth commenting. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Louvre Pyramid example" is a very poor one, primary because there exists a explicit french case law allowing for "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" when related to architectural works and secondly US copyright law allows for photographs of buildings. There is no way, to quote the policy, the trophy as depicted could be "such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required". I have no doubt that if you placed this image on a t-shirt and sold them in either New York or Berlin FIFA would have no hesitation in taking to the courts to protect there IP therefore this image does not meet the Definition of Free the WMF Licensing policy requires of us. LGA talkedits 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This French court case is not special to French law. It exists in all law. That's exactly what de minimis is about. And regarding your T-shirt, I believe you don't know what you are talking about. It is completely ridiculous, same as your argument above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep ---dam- (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a vote. If you have any actual arguments to bring to the table, please do so. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The image is taken to depict the team holding Mr Gazzaniga's piece of art, it is not COM:DM and unless FIFA consent to licencing the image with a commons compatible licence we can't keep it. FIFA guard their IP very tightly (see Nico Rosberg: World Cup helmet changed after Fifa objection). LGA talkedits 00:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but Nico wasn't actually using the REAL trophy on his helmet, it was a "derivative work" ..not the real thing..there are laws on derivate works..what FIFA copyrights is people using the trophy's image to 'commercialize' their own product, yes that applies to the formula one which is one big billboard of commercials/product placements, it doesn't really apply to the event in question..I think most of you are reading this 'out of context' sponsors of FIFAWC over the decades have been allowed to promote/use the images but we are a non-profit/non-commercial organisation and we are not selling some product so IP Laws don't apply..--Stemoc (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly the WMF which runs commons is a commercial organisation, secondly the WMF Licensing policy requires commons only to host works that have a Free Content License. This image contains at its very heart a work that is protected by FIFA and as such this image does not meet the WMF requirement of free works, no amount of wishing can change that. The image was framed on purpose, to include in it, and to capture, the protected work, therefore it's inclusion can not be considered COM:DM. With regard to the sponsors' use of the trophy, one can reasonably assume that they pay large sums of money to be associated with the event and in return FIFA will allow them to use the image of the trophy under licence, that licence would not be one that comes close to commons compatible. LGA talkedits 04:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The FIFA statement ends by If anyone could use the Official Marks for free and create an association with the 2014 FIFA World Cup™, there would be no reason to become a Commercial Affiliate. Firstly, these rules are already violated by the very fact of existence of Category:FIFA World Cup 2014, as both FIFA and World Cup are trademarked by FIFA exactly the same way as the cup is. Secondly, these situations (Nico Rosberg's helmet and this photo) can in no way be compared, as Nico Rosberg used the depiction of the cup in the design of his own helmet (something that is reserved to the abovementioned Commercial Affiliates), while this image depicts 23 players, coaches and a number of other people with the cup. There is no way to reserve this usage to Commercial Affiliates, as this would mean that hardly any photo from the event can be published (for example, even File:Shkodran Mustafi20140714 0012 (cropped).jpg is, according to your theory, illegal as the word FIFA is subject to the same restrictions as the cup). The point of COM:DM is exactly about such cases: there is a copyrighted work pictured, but it is in such context that it can't violate any restrictions — NickK (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You should re-read the first line of COM:DM, where it outlines what the point of DM is  : "de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles") De minimis use of a copyrighted work is such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required." the appearance of the copyright work in this image is not trivial, it was captured on purpose with the intent of showing it, therefore it can not be regarded as de minimis. LGA talkedits 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per NickK and others. Yann (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2014 (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:Philipp Lahm lifts the 2014 FIFA World Cup.jpg

[edit]

User:Yann in my view erred in both commons policy and law with the closure of the previous DR. The inclusion of the copyright work (the trophy designed Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga) is neither trivial or incidental in this picture, its inclusion was a result of a deliberate and conscious decision of the person taking the image to included it so therefore "de minimis non curat lex (The law does not concern itself with trifles) does not apply. The area of copyright law that does apply to the inclusion of the copyright work in images of this nature is 17 U.S.C. § 107 the fair use provision which specifically covers works of this nature when it says "... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright" and that is exactly the use this image is being put to on the projects. However it is the expressed requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation that commons does not host works that require the reliance on such fair use provisions, we therefore need to move this image to projects that allow fair use and delete it from commons. LGA talkedits 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I do not read previous discussion but I doubt that the image was kept because of "reliance on [] fair use provisions". I also looked at the image before reading your argument and was surprised to hear that the reason for deletion is "inclusion of the copyright[ed] trophy designed [by] Italian artist". I was surprised because I did not noticed any trophies, so I went back to the image page and sure enough there is a nondescript blurry blob held by one of the players. It is hard to spot since many other people also hold their arms up and many hold other objects, like phones, hardly anybody looks at the trophy. I zoomed at it and it is quite blurry, not something that could be cropped and used to illustrate the trophy. The way I see it it is quite minor part of the image and fits requirements of de minimis. I doubt the photographer made "deliberate and conscious decision [] to included it". Assuming he noticed it at all, it is a photo of a team and if one guy on the team holds a trophy than there is no way to exclude it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were a minor part (which I will come back to) the trophies name figures in the filename, the description and on two of the tagged categories as well as being used to illustrate the trophy on multiple projects, those are four of the six tests used to determine that de minimis does not apply. On the subject of it being a minor part it is the focal point, the majority of those in the image are looking at the work, it is a key component, it is neither a trivial or incidental part of the image all of which go to show it is not de minimis. LGA talkedits 04:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which two categories? You seem to be mixing 2014 FIFA World Cup (competition) and FIFA World Cup trophy. I do not see any trophy-related categories, but I do see two categories related to the competition. This completely normal: the image depicts the team celebrating their victory in the competition, thus there is nothing strange in adding it to categories related to the competition — NickK (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Speaking of fair use provisions is pretty funny if you use the regular definition limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work: in this case even COM:FOP will become fair use as this is literally an exception to the exclusive right (i.e. this exception allows us to take pictures of otherwise copyrighted objects). However, this is irrelevant to the discussion. I do not see what new arguments were brought by User:LGA here compared to the previous discussion, as this discussion was not based on fair use provisions, it was based on COM:DM. This case clearly corresponds to the provision Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable. (see example with the team logo): the image depicts 23-man German football team celebrating which was impossible to picture without the cup (due to the nature of the ceremony Philipp Lahm was the last to arrive). I do not see what new arguments were brought to this nomination, and I do not see how this discussion can result in anything else then reiteration of previous arguments — NickK (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it is in "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)." category, if you look at the six test for when DM does not apply it passes all of them. LGA talkedits 06:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep--Stemoc 05:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Kept, no new and valid arguments have been provided so any further discussion is moot. Don't re-open DR's just because you don't like the outcome of the previous DR. --Denniss (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Philipp_Lahm_lifts_the_2014_FIFA_World_Cup.jpg&oldid=726570510"