Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pozor, úchyl.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:Pozor, úchyl.jpg

[edit]
  • From what i understand it is a user created poster that user has <insert>some girls have</insert> printed and placed somewhere warning of the 'deviant' who ran there in the nude. I somewhat understand the NOPENIS policy, but this is NOPOSTERTALKINGABOUTPENIS i guess. <insert>Now the issue of possible copyright violation (not own work as claimed) also came up.</insert> Beta M (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  •  Keep @Beta M: Your description is incorrect. --Dezidor (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, i have tried to retype the text into google translate, and i thought that i got some basic understanding of what it says. Can somebody please summarise the text for those who don't speak the language? But this still has issues, as a self published image it's in the inappropriate format, there was no reason to print it out and stick it on the wall, PDF of the document would do... but then it's out of scope (most likely) as a text only document. If the document is labeled as own work, but actually is not, then it's a copyvio. Beta M (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, the flyer is a warning of a deviant, but made by five girls frightened by the deviant.--Ladin (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case it's a clear copyright violation. Placing your words on the tangible of paper constitute copyright in most countries. Photography of such a piece of paper doubtfully holds any copyright, but is an act of infringement if you try to distribute it. If we allow this, then we should allow all publicly displayed text to be photographed and placed here, which is illegal in the state of Florida. Beta M (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Dezidor has a point. --Packa (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Většinou bych řadu šjůových fotek smazal na potkání bez zaváhání, ale toto nezmiňuje žádná osobní jména a jako ilustrace to může být někde i vhodné. Působí to možná úsměvně, no tak je to asi z vesnice, tak čemu se lze taky divit :-) Tam holt nejsou wikipedisté, aby to napsali pořádně. (I mean, I would like to delete many ŠJůs pictures right now on sight but this one is not that bad - has no problem with personal data and can be theoretically used). --Aktron (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The photo can be used in other projects but just now really is used (i. e. uploaded, described and categorized) here at Commons. Your or my personal taste and interests (or even personal animosities) are irrelevant. The core question is whether this photo has any educational value. In my view, such photos documenting local conditions and serious social phenomena have an indisputable educational value. --ŠJů (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the autorship of the photo, I agree that the template {{Own work}} is generally misleading for photos. The authorship and rights of the photo should have their own fields and the authorship and rights of the photographed subjects should have their own separate fields in the {{Information}} template. At least a template {{Own photo}} should be used instead of the ambiguous {{Own work}}. Most of photographers labelling their photographs as "own works" are not the creators of the depicted landscapes, cityscapes or other subjects. Maybe, the rarely used template {{Self-photographed}} should be massively popularized. See Template talk:Own#Own photo etc.--ŠJů (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the depicted notice: the Czech Copyright Act is applicable to three main types of written texts: literary works, scientific works and databases. I suppose, this notice is none of this three types. The Czech terms "literární dílo" (literary works) and "literatura" (literature) usually mean only the artistic ones from written works. "Literární dílo" commonly means a form of artistic work. For example, see the definition "Literární dílo je umělecký text" (A literary work is an artistic text" ([1]). Also the Free Dictionary defines "literary work" as "imaginative or creative writing" ([2]), contrary to the "piece of writing" or "written material". Various warning or informational notices, schedules, legal or official documents, instructions, prohibitions etc. are generally not considered to be "literární díla". I suppose, the depicted text wasn't intended to be artistic. In addition, it wasn't created for the purpose of profit which could be able to be protected with copyright. Thus  Keep. --ŠJů (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC) The license field of the Information template contains (to avoid any misunderstanding) a statement "The depicted poster have no literary, artistic or scientific purpose, so it isn't a subject of copyright." If you feel a need to discuss the term "literary work" and their multiple meaning, please open a new generall discussion somewhere (Village pump...). --ŠJů (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If the poster of text is really non-copyrightable then i withdraw my nomination. But i request that the proof of that is provided (perhaps with a link to the law). Beta M (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, I would think this is copyrightable. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Czech Copyright Act use the term "literární dílo". Commonly, this term means "literary work" ("work of literature), not "whatever written text", as proved above with one Czech and one English source. The Czech Copyright Act doesn't spread the common meaning to all written texts. If somebody doesn't agree, please bring your arguments and citations supporting your interpretation of the Czech law. --ŠJů (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Some similar text could be copyrighted if it would be a literary work (or a part of some such work) but this one is apparently not an imaginative work but a practical warning without any literary aspiration. --ŠJů (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment A text can be copyrighted in the Czech Republic only if (among other conditions) it is “a unique outcome of the creative activity of the author”. The classification of copyrightable works to literary, other artistic, and scientific works is correct (and it is basically a historical classification taken from the Berne Convention), but you cannot deduce that a text which has a primary purpose of informing (and how can we be sure it is the case here?) cannot possibly be a literary work. A text can be both informative and a copyrightable literary work (e.g. journalistic texts), the purpose of creating a text is not relevant to its copyrightability. (And, once again: How can you be sure you know the author’s intentions? What if this was a part of an artistic street installation?) However, we can discuss whether this short piece of text is creative enough, artistic enough, unique enough, … I would be inclined to say this is copyrightable (it is not that short and I could easily imagine the picture spreading through social networks as a joke, which might indicate there is some “artistic” quality in it), but it sure is a borderline case. As for its acceptability here, I would say it might even be covered by the Czech FOP (if it was installed in public space, which it seems to), but once again, it is a borderline case. --Mormegil (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as violating the copyright of the text. I frankly don't believe what ŠJů has written about this not being "literature" and thus not being protected by Czech copyright law, and Mormegil's comment only confirmed this. I had the text translated by Google Translate, and this is definitely more than just a few simple sentences which we could say were below the threshold of copyrightability. Unfortunately, it also isn't covered by the Czech freedom of panorama, because “that exception is limited only to works permanently located in a public space” (COM:FOP), and a piece of paper attached because of a current event cannot be considered permanent, but is of a temporary nature. So the only option that is left is to delete the image. --Rosenzweig τ 16:11, 8 January 2012 (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:Pozor, úchyl.jpg

There is nothing about a warning that makes inherantly unliterary, and there's more than enough text on this page to make it copyrightable. This is not a schedule or anything of the like; in fact, the brief description given implies that it has story elements, that these girls tell about what happened to them.Prosfilaes (talk) 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep but under Commons:Freedom of panorama#Czech Republic. If an ice sculpture counts as "permanent", I think this one does too -- the work's entire useful lifespan is while it's on display in public. The "permanent" stuff is generally to protect exhibitions of works, which are planned to be taken down, and have the ability to be exhibited again. I tend to agree that that much text would be copyrightable, but I think this photo in particular is a different situation. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still, according to COM:FOP, the fact that we can make a photo doesn't necessarily mean that we can host a separate derivative work--the translation--on the work page. Even if we do keep it under FOP, the translation should be deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do práva autorského nezasahuje ten, kdo kresbou, malbou nebo grafikou, fotografií nebo filmem nebo jinak zaznamená nebo vyjádří dílo, které je trvale umístěno na náměstí, ulici, v parku, na veřejných cestách nebo na jiném veřejném prostranství; do autorského práva nezasahuje ani ten, kdo takto vyjádřené, zachycené nebo zaznamenané dílo dále užije. (autorský zákon, § 33/1)
And? It says we can make a photo, painting, drawing or film, not that we can make a literary translation of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the bold parts of the citation are bold only as a decoration? Do you think that the translation isn't "other form of expression of the work" and "next use of the work"? --ŠJů (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what the bold parts of the citation are because they don't come through in Google Translate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep because the depicted work is neither a literary work as a type of artwork in sense of the Czech Copyright Act nor "literary work" as "production in the literary domain" in sense of the Bern Convention. As I mentioned in the undeletion discussion, also the National Library (as the registration authority) and the Ministry of Culture (as a legislative gestor on field of copyright) hold the common European intepretation that not every printed or written text but only some of them fall under copyright, depending on their literary or scientific nature. The depicted text is obviously utilitarian and practical, without any creative or artistic aspirations. length of the text is irrelevant – as I mentioned, also a book with more than 1000 pages of text can be non-literary and non-scientific text. — As regards FOP, the criterium "permanently located" is always relative and vague - nothing is realy and absolutely permanent, all has its lifespan. It's truth that this notice contains no date and no time limitation and we have no indication that the authors intent to take it away. If we interpret "permanently located" as "located for indefinite (unlimited) time", we can consider this notice as permanently located, independently on the fact whether and when it will become really removed, dropped down, perished or carried away by the wind. --ŠJů (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you on FOP (obviously), in general, a literary copyright is granted based on the word choice involved -- anything above short phrases usually qualifies. Do you have any examples from the Czech Republic or anywhere else in the EU where a substantial amount of prose was ruled non-copyrightable because it wasn't artistic? I would take even a couple paragraphs here as the "creative activity of the author" -- someone else is free to word the same idea in their own way, but usually it's only if there are limited ways of expressing that idea (or a single way) that copyright is denied. A book of 1000 pages would almost have to be copyrightable, unless it is something perfunctory like a telephone number listing. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that copyright law is very inconsistent. In reality, some forms of works are copyrighted ad absurdum (non-artistic photos, automatic camera records, simple advertisements etc.), some appropriately, some very rarely (ordinary applied arts in landscape architecture etc.). However, the length or large of the work have not a direct relation to their creative or artistic character and copyrightability. --ŠJů (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the translation on the page, that's literature. They're telling a story; that's what literature is. We can quibble about the corners of the copyright act, but this, IMO, falls right in the center of it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a question whether a simple descriptive utilitarian text is "imaginative or creative writing" enough to be a literature in sense of copyright. Maybe, a real literature is characterized by some degree of fiction or stylization or an intentional (not only unwitting) imprint of author's personality. Can you link some relevant definition of literature or literary work? --ŠJů (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a story. I see no evidence that any court in the world has quibbled about "some degree of fiction or stylization or an intentional (not only unwitting) imprint of author's personality"; the last would remove copyright from Nancy Drew and similar mass-produced series.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is any source of your definition that every story is a literature? Every court in the world have to explore whether the text is creative and whether is really literary if the relevant law limits copyright to such works. --ŠJů (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your second sentence in this context. The way I understand it, virtually every sufficiently long collection of words qualifies for a copyright. You're the one who want to limit copyright to certain works. The first definition at Wiktionary is "The body of all written works".--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Long text = literary work?

Rosenzweig objected to my undeletion request and I agree with him that I misunderstood part of your deletion rationales. He wrote about "text translated by Google Translate" – I supposed that he has in mind the discussed text of the Czech Copyright Act, not the photographed text. It was my mistake and I'm apologying to him.

However, we have a problem what is and what isn't a literary work in sense of the Czech legislation and Bern convention.

The opinion of Rosenzweig's and some others is that "few simple sentences" are not a literary work and any longer text definitely is a literary work. I can see no base for such interpretation. Also very small text can be a literary work, and a very large text can be not a literary work in sense of the European copyright law. My example with the timetable book was a very illustrative proof of my interpretation and of the interpretation of the main Czech authorities on the field of copyright. However, this case documents only the fact that the text length itself don't base the evidence that the text is literary one.

It is very difficult to decide what text can be and what one isn't a literary work. I mentioned a case of the timetable book which was affirmed to not be a literary work, but most of other timetable books have their ISBN and are handled similarly as literary books. We can discuss whether the text become "literary" (artistic) only by intention of its author, or whether also unintentional and secondary literary qualities can make from any text a copyrighted work. Can be this toast copyrighted? However, in case of the warning notice discussed here, I see neither intention nor some evident creative or artistic qualities. --ŠJů (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the toast cannot be copyrighted -- it is not the result of human authorship. However the photo of the toast can be copyrighted. In the case of a timetable book -- that is a listing of data, and yes, those are different. There is no creativity in the data itself -- they are facts -- and there are limited ways in which that data can be presented. Once you get into the area of writing sentences however, it's not the same thing -- there is inherently creative expression in the words and tone you choose, and that kind of thing. w:Idea–expression divide has some info on this, though that may be more of a U.S.-centric view. But I'm not aware of any EU case where significant (i.e. more than a sentence or two) amounts of prose were ruled uncopyrightable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just recently, a Slovak regional court has ruled newspaper articles are not universally eligible for copyright protection, as they might not be creative enough. But this was hardly the final decision in the case. See e.g. [3] --Mormegil (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mormegil: It's a dismal situation that clearly defined law has no weight and we must to wait for courts decision that the law is really valid and not its current absurd misinterpretations and extrapolations. --ŠJů (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Clindberg: Try to tell to some timetable designer that his work is not creative! Timetables are not a description of natural facts but a design. A timetable contains not only numbers but also many texts, facts, has a multiple structure of a form as well as of the content etc. and this structure is an output of very creative and very qualified work. However, this creative work is considered neither as artistic (literary) nor as scientific. Just as a simple warning notice. Btw, ways how a timetable (the traffic order) can be presented are not more limited than how the meeting of girls and a suspected man can be. You are right that there is a distinction between pure facts and their expression. Facts are not copyrightable and that's why non-artistic, non-creative text are also not copyrightable and not counted as literary works.
If you are of such opinion that a work which is not intentionally artistic isn't copyrightable but an emphasizing of its unintentional value can by copyrightable, I can agree with you. The notice isn't a literary work but my or your analysis of this notice can be my or your copyrightable artistic or scientific work. --ŠJů (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may be coming from a U.S. bent, but a work's artistic or commercial value is of no consequence to the U.S. determination of copyright. A baby's scribble is just as copyrightable as a masterwork painting -- mentioned pretty much that way in the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines. I have little doubt that that much text would qualify for U.S. copyright. It is entirely possible that the Czech Republic is different, but places where it differs from the EU norms is where we usually like explicit court precedents. The English translation text does not look all that different from the laws of other countries, frankly, but obviously different countries can take similar wording and end up with a completely different set of judicial precedents and theories. The Slovak case mentioned by Mormegil above is rather interesting, I have to admit. That may well indicate a different threshold of originality for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Whether an EU court may overrule (as one recently did on the UK's overly low threshold) is another matter. That will be a good one to follow. If those rulings are upheld (or are not further challenged in higher courts), the language in those rulings would seem to be the basis which should be used. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have a lot of shared judicial history I'd guess, so I could see applying the rulings from one country to another in the absence of similar cases in the other country. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, the wording of U.S. law and European law can be similar but the Bern convention as well as the Czech act imply that "literary work" is "work of literature" in common sense. From the European view, U. S. copyright law (as well as patent law) intepretation can appear exaggerated ad absurdum. Not every creativity or originality is covered by copyright - only the artistic and the scientific, and individually and inconsistently some others (as databases or software) which exceed the basic definition. Unfortunately, European iudicature engages usually only in commercially interesting cases, not in theoretical ambiguities in which nobody has his financial interests. That's why many inconsistencies and discrepancies were never decided. Btw, using a common sense, there is no meaningful reason for a surmise that the five girls can have some real interest in exclusive copyright to their warning notice.
I agree with you that a grade of the artistic qualities is irrelevant. Bad artistic works made by bad artist are protected equally as artistic works of a genial artist. However, a footprint of a genial artist is an artwork only if it is intended as an artwork. Even a practical utility text written by a writer is not a work of literature (until somebody approach it so, just as the "holy toast" above). --ŠJů (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - To me, it seems clear that the text is copyrightable. The idea that only a "work of literature" is copyrightable would mean anyone could just copy scientific papers from Czech journals, since they're clearly not literary works. Since that hasn't happened, and people a lot more clever than us will have been poring over the laws for years, I think we can assume that there is no such loophole. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pozor,_úchyl.jpg&oldid=72861769"