Commons:Deletion requests/File:Redacted hot air balloon festival.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:Redacted hot air balloon festival.jpg

[edit]

POINTy restoration of deleted image. Not uploaded in good faith (note, for example, description including pejorative "censorship" and "zealous") or with genuine expectation of being of educational value (COM:SCOPE). Copyrighted character also remains discernible. See also Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Vandalism#Unlawful_deletion. Эlcobbola talk 20:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Эlcobbola
Surely you must be joking by this nomination for deletion by the reasons that you allude.
First of all, I cannot see how you dare interpret my motives of uploading, despite the clear description that it is a parody. Parody, for your information, is a legitimate form of expression that ridicules certain situation in politics, art, religion, etc., and yes, even Common´s and Common´s practices, hence its educational value considering that Wikipedia is a social phenomena and therefore a target for parody. If you fail to see its educational value is an altogether different issue, for that is the result of your cultural capital and your lack of cultural awareness cannot be a criteria for deletion this image.
Just as you qualify the use of my legitimate vocabulary as pejorative, assigning a negative connotation to legitimate issues and my motives, I could then express the notion that your censoring acts are harassment and driven by racism. I see no legitimate reason as to why you nominated this image for deletion given that it is a legitimate artwork that expresses by way of parody the social phenomena of censorship.
As far as the image still being discernible, well, yes, but useless for any purpose. Besides, in this case, given the blacked out areas, this image now could fall within the de minimis #[[1]], hence not infringing on copyrights. Even if you continue in this ine of reasoning, then I invite you to wipe out millions of photographs that contain readable and usable logos and trademarks.
Blacking out images or text is a very common censoring practice, as you can see here #[[2]], and here #[[3]], and here #[[4]] and definitely here #[[5]].

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacking out areas is a acceptable method of avoiding cv issues, so is blurring. The file is very useful as commentary on licensing, and would do well to relieve the stress and frustration many people experience while trying to contribute here. Actually there is such a discussion right now on the Village pump. Making uploading and understanding copyright issues less stressful will help the project succeed and people less likely to give up ! Penyulap ☏ 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the level to which the images in category:spongebob squarepants are being policed, the balloon might use some extra fuzziness under the blanking out, ... for the sake of paranoia. Penyulap ☏ 18:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For courtesy (though undeserved), IMO this DR shouldn't be delete-closed, if it will, as long as Tomascastelazo is blocked. --Túrelio (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep. Others may wish to read the FOP for Mexico as I just did. It allows photographs of copyrighted works beyond just statues as long as the commercial value is not affected. A trademark/copyright template on the original image without the blacking would warn any future re-users about this issue the same as it does for personality rights. Judging by all the products for sale it may not meet TOO in the US as well. I Googled and couldn't find any copyright violation cases so the lawyers of the creator probably didn't want to fight a copyright battle because of the low creativity. According to Viacom they only have a trademark on SpongeBob not a copyright. There is a difference. "Nickelodeon and all related titles, characters and logos are trademarks of Viacom Inc. (NASDAQ: VIA, VIA.B)."--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find an email for w:Stephen Hillenburg so I sent one to Viacom to forward to him. He may give us a free licence for the original image which would save us further discussion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic about who owns the copyright to any given Spongebob image is faulty: just because Viacom claims a trademark on something doesn't mean that they can't also hold a copyright. The link you provide says nothing one way or another about who the copyright holder is. Even if it is Hillenburg, if he didn't design the balloon itself, then he doesn't own the (entire) copyright to it. A 3-D derivative of a 2-D work has novel creative elements that probably cross the threshold of originality. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canoe1967’s interpretation of the applicability Mexican FoP is also faulty, as it ignores transience. To apply FoP to a work not permanently installed implies that someone would not be able to take and freely license a picture of a painting hanging in their home, yet merely by temporarily moving the painting outside, photographing it, and then returning it indoors, they could freely license the image. Let’s give Mexican lawmakers more credit than the assumption of such a ridiculous loophole. The verbiage regarding visibility seems, rather, to imply a presupposition of permanent installation, which both resolves the scenario above and is indeed a fundamental tenant of FoP provisions in nearly every jurisdiction. Do we really believe that a British tourist, visiting Mexico, could bring a copy of Harry Potter, photograph every page while sitting on a park bench, and then upload those photos with a free license to the Commons? That is essentially what is being argued here. Even if this is truly what Mexican lawmakers intended, it ignores the issue of choice of law. To look at the forest instead of the trees: it does not seem rational to believe that Nickelodeon/Hillenburg/whoever owns the copyright would not be granted an injunction if this photo were used to sell a commercial product in the US. We need to consider re-users of our content and it is irresponsible (and almost certainly incorrect) to represent that Spongebob carries a free license. Эlcobbola talk 21:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SpongeBob is still protected by trademark for any commercial use of the image. The Harry Potty book would be protected by source country copyright and other Mexican laws about 2D literary works. Mexican law does not specify FOP for permanent works so we can assume that temporary display is FOP allowed. The balloon being a licenced aircraft would be the same as taking a photo of the Met Life Snoopy blimp. Do we have images of that allowed on commmons?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other intellectual properties (trademark) are not germane to the Commons. Mexican law also does not say "regardless of transience". It is silent on the issue, which means either is possible. I've explained why the "anything goes" opinion opens severe loopholes and implies a presupposition of installation. In the absence of an authority that clarifies the matter, COM:PRP compels the conservative interpretation. You miss the point about the book; images on the Commons must be PD in the US and the country of origin. Say it was an American with 50 Shades of Grey; what then? You really believe any work that makes a fleeting appearance in Mexico is fair game, regardless of what its origin country thinks? What OTHERSTUFF (Snoopy blimp) exists is irrelevant to this image. People upload all sorts of copyvios to the Commons; not all are caught promptly. Эlcobbola talk 21:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete all absent identification of all relevant copyright holders and confirmation that they've freely licensed their respective works. If these images are derivatives of non-free media, then the fact that they're legitimate parodies or satires on censorship is irrelevant; we don't host fair-use material on Commons. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright of the balloon creator doesn't matter because of FOP for Mexico. If we receive an email from Viacom or Mr. Hillenburg then we should be allowed to keep the original on commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, quite right. If the e-mail from Viacom and/or Hillenburg clears up the copyright and licensing issues, that should be sufficient to keep the image. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found File:Derivative Works Decision Tree.svg through Commons:Derivative works. It seems we can host it here as a derivative of a copyrighted work.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to any permission being required is to consider at what point it passes de minimus. Simply adding more blurring or blotting is sufficient. It's irrelevant if the Kernels secret recipe is written on the side of a balloon if it is blacked out. De minimus trumps originality, copyright, everything. Penyulap ☏ 17:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The WMF legal dept. weighed in here. The way I read it their logic would apply to hot air balloons the same way it does to costumes and we can therefore host it on commons in the original form without the black add-ons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, we need also take into account the WMF's later "retraction": Commons:Image_casebook#Costumes_and_cosplay. --Túrelio (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Canoe1967's logic is incorrect here, too. Not all costumes are created equal; there's a difference between this and this -- i.e., a difference between mere elaborate clothes and wearable sculpture (the latter's mask). Indeed, Masquerade Novelty Inc v. Unique Industries Inc, 912 F. 2d 663 (3rd cir. 1990) found that masks (i.e., sculptural clothing) were eligible for copyright. Similarly, Norris Industries Inc v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation 696 F. 2d 918 (11th cir 1983) found that belt buckles -- inherently useful articles -- were eligible for copyright because the decorative element (the fancy buckle) could be separated from and recognized independently of the utilitarian purpose. This is the seperability test the foundation’s retraction mentions. Looking like Spongebob is not necessary for a hot air balloon to be functional – it is a purly decorative aspect and, indeed, Spongebob can exist and be recognized independently of that function; see COM:UA. Эlcobbola talk 21:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should have WMF legal weigh in on hot air balloons. Category:Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has two images of Snoopy on the Met Life blimps. These are actually derivative works of copyrighted cartoons. They are still protected by trademark but I can't see how photographs of aircraft can be deleted for copyvio. User:Hahnw is one of the legal types at WMF. Should we email him for an opinion? User:Philippe is another one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope: No encyclopedic value High Contrast (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Redacted_hot_air_balloon_festival.jpg&oldid=801494515"