Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pide with minced meat.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.

As mentioned on Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Pide_with_minced_meat.jpg, this file looks like it was photographed off of a menu or a store display (the initial upload particularly). That would mean we need a license for the original photograph, not this one. This also goes for File:Pide rotated.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source

 CommentFreedom of panorama: Pide in lower left corner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarang (talk • contribs)

 Comment - Sarang, that's one hell of an extension of freedom of panorama: by that measure, as long as I get slightly more than the subject in question in, I could photograph any item at all (say, every page of a book, as long as I get a bit of the desk underneath in) and claim copyright on a zoomed-in version of the page. This would render copyright null and void practically everywhere with FoP rules. That seems something very unlikely to stand up in court! Trey Maturin (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Normally... those clauses usually say something to the effect that a use in this situation can not affect the normal exploitation of the original work -- so if we are basically making a copy of the original photograph, then it is used for the exact same purpose (as opposed to showing it in its public context), and would therefore not be OK. Commons:Freedom of panorama#Further_derivative_works alludes to this. Sort of like for a de minimis work -- that photo may be OK, but a crop which focuses on the part which was de minimis before would no longer be OK. However, I do not see that clause exactly in the German law (though it may be in other articles of the law I'm missing). It still feels to me like it would be a problem, since there is really no derivative work any more -- the crop in question is basically a direct copy of the original poster, with the copyright status of the photograph of it now being irrelevant. The FoP situation does mean this is not a slam-dunk violation, but usually this type of use of a FoP photo is a problem. I'm just not as sure on the exact situation in Germany. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:PRP. JuTa 18:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]