Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump baby balloon.png
| File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg | Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump Baby Balloon.jpg Trump baby balloon being flown over Parliament Square, photo is own work by User:Hammersfan. |
| File:Trump baby balloon.jpg | Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump baby balloon.jpg Trump baby balloon in a hangar from commondreams.org, not entirely clear who is the photographer. |
| File:Trump baby balloon.png | Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trump baby balloon.png - You are here! Balloon extracted from the above. |
Image also found in Crowdfunder, which is "All rights reserved". It is likely that Commondreams copied the images from Crowdfunder, and display them under the CC-BY-SA license. B dash (talk) 14:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep / Strong Keep - The background of the original photo has been deleted, and only the blimp itself is now in the photo. As is now, the current photo is a rudimentary reproduction of the motive, for which no copyright can be asserted to any further extend other than what falls under the motive. Since the blimp's creators have stated the blimp to be a medium of public protest, then the blimp's appearance in photos can not alone give rise to copyright claims. Whether or not the blimp itself (incl. blueprints) is copyrighted, is fortunately not a question, which needs to be answered here (WMF is much short on the technologies used on USS Enterprise, as depicted in the Star Trek series). -- DexterPointy (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as "all rights reserved" = copyvio. If there is definitive proof of copyright/permission for licensing, then the images can be uploaded again. Until then, delete is the only option. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - The message on the Crowdfunder webpage has now changed from "Back on Monday" (or WTTE) to "You'll need to contact the project owner directly about this. You can do this by clicking the contact project button at the top right hand side of their project page." When I clicked on the button I was asked to sign in using Facebook credentials, but I am not on Facebook. Can someone else who is on Facebook please just ask them? Until then I'm going to vote keep. nagualdesign 17:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Delete per COM:PCP unless permission is confirmed from both the photographer and the creators of the artwork itself. The balloon's design may be a public protest, but "The copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work" is explicitly not a valid excuse. FOP doesn't apply because it's not permanently located in a public place. Also, removing the background does not void the copyright of the original photo, as it is a 3D artwork as opposed to 2D copying. Guanaco (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm suggesting that we contact the copyright owner and ask them to confirm that they had agreed to license this image as CC BY-SA 3.0, as the Common Dreams article suggests. I'm not sure why this is being made so complicated. nagualdesign 19:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's not complicated, but unless someone does contact them, we have bupkes in the way of copyright provability. Which is why the image needs to be speedy deleted ASAP. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm suggesting that we contact the copyright owner and ask them to confirm that they had agreed to license this image as CC BY-SA 3.0, as the Common Dreams article suggests. I'm not sure why this is being made so complicated. nagualdesign 19:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: We've got to the stage now where no new arguments are being advanced, and I think it unlikely that new points are going to emerge. This is not an issue where consensus matters since it's an issue of English copyright law as applied by Commons policies, so it's perhaps fitting that a qualified lawyer closes this. The balloon is, as it stands, a copyrighted creative work, copyright applying by default. Any images of it hosted here are derived works of the balloon and whatever the copyright or licensing status of the images, it is the status of the balloon that is critical. On that, if its creator wishes to release the object itself with a suitable licence, fine, but that has not happened yet and per policy it is for the uploader or defender of an image to provide proof of its lack or copyright or acceptable licensing for hosting on Commons. As for freedom of panorama, the balloon lacks that degree of permanent location to benefit from the exemption- two things here: (a) could I go to a public place and view it right this minute? I doubt it, since it's probably in storage somewhere, and (b) Permanence cannot be determined ex post facto because that would require time travel, which is, per Stephen Hawking, impossible given the current state of physics. So it can only be determined at the time of situating an object. I'd argue that tethering an object such as a balloon does not constitute situating it in any permanent sense, and we do know that this balloon has been tethered in both London and Edinburgh, which would seem to militate against any degree of permanence. Therefore, on the grounds of (a) lack of appropriate licence from its designer, (b) lack of permanence so as to benefit from freedom of panorama and (c) on the basis of the precautionary principle, all of these images will be deleted unless and until appropriately released with an appropriate licence to Commons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
