Commons:Deletion requests/File:UiltjeDeJong.jpg
Passport photos are as copyrightable as any other photograph. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep This photograph is made in the Netherlands. Dutch copyright law (Auteurswet 1912 http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886 ) would normally apply. But Dutch passport photographs are not protected by copyright, because they have no original character and are therefore not “works of literature, science or art”.
- Literature (in Dutch):
- https://www.charlotteslaw.nl/2015/11/heeft-ap-het-auteursrecht-op-een-pasfoto/ Blog Charlotte’s Law: (my transl.) “Because no creative choices are made, and these photographs are driven by technique, copyright doesn’t apply for these [=police and passport] photographs.”
- http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/foto/internet/ Article from Ius Mentis 2012 (“mechanical photographs are not copyrighted”)
- http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2013:2477 (jurisprudence: Endstratapes-arrest 2008 “no original character no copyright”)
- http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBHAA:2010:BN0985 (jurisprudence: Ringfoto-arrest –“normal passport photograhps have no copyright, original photographs have”)
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jan_Blaton_Polish_physicist.jpg (Wikimedia Commons, Polish passport photograph, “ineligible for copyright, […] contains no original authorship”. Vysotsky (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete Vysotsky is (mostly) correct regarding modern passport photographs. However, we have no evidence that this is in fact a passport photograph (the source states that it is a Passfoto and those can be coyrighted) The photograph doesn't seem to meet the criteria listed here regarding passport photograhs so we cannot assume that this photograph is a passport photograph taken by a very strickt protocol. Natuur12 (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment
- Criteria for Dutch passport photographs in the eighties were different from the mentioned modern (2007) criteria), so this argument isn't very convincing.
- Does the Frisian Wikipedia have other copyright rules than the Dutch Wikipedia?
- Pasfoto (Dutch) = passport photo(graph) (English).
- Copyright doesn't apply to Dutch passport photographs (see above). Vysotsky (talk) 11:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please see my reply at Commons:Deletion requests/File:JoopZwart1960.jpg. Perhaps we should continue the debate there. Frisian Wikipedia doesn't care about copyright. A lot of their local uploads are in fact copyright violations. Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment This is not a creative photograph, but a standard, mechanical, passport photograph. I cited (Ringtone arrest, in which the judge makes a clear distinction between creative and mechanical passport photographs). I gave the Ringtone-arrest as evidence (pro-PD) in my first contribution. Two of the sources I cite are official Dutch court verdicts. I uphold my original stand: this photograph (made in the Netherlands) is ineligible for copyright under Dutch law and therefore in the public domain. Vysotsky (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't argue that mechanical "passport" photographs are not PD in the Netherlands (I have read those court cases several times before you even cited them) but I do argue that this photograph is not a mechanical "passport" photograph. Plus the work needs to be PD in the US as well. Natuur12 (talk) 00:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment On a related US case ("no protectable elements in this photograph"), see: Courtcase Portland (Oregon). There are other (e.g. Polish) passport photographs in Wikimedia Commons with the notion "ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain". Vysotsky (talk) 12:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's a different issue. This court case is not about the treshold of originality of photographs. Natuur12 (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and with notice that there is no indication this is a passport photograph, it's not full frontal, neutral face. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
