Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cameron Balloons

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.

Files in Category:Cameron Balloons

[edit]

The depicted balloons likely incorporate copyrighted material due to either (1) being of an artistic shape or (2) having images or artwork on the outside. It seems unlikely that FOP would apply to hot air balloons that are not permanently installed (also, there is the question as to when FOP covers a 2D image applied to the outside of a 3D object as opposed to a 3D sculpture.)

Some of the images do have OTRS tickets; however, it is not clear as to whether these tickets cover the artistic elements of the balloons or whether the OTRS tickets only apply to the licensing of the photos; from what one understands, for a photo of an artistic object to be freely usable, it is often the case where both the photo and the object must be freely licensed or out of copyright.

Gazebo (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to need to go much much larger on this DR. But, I would wonder whether these are inelgible on the grounds that they are vehicles. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Copyright rules by territory and checking the original act under Canadian law, the FoP terminology and practice seems to mirror UK practices. As such many of the images listed are copyright ineligible as they are not faithful reproductions of 2D works, nor works of "artistic craftsmanship" but mainly inflated scale parodies of other objects.
The COM:FOP sentence If they're left in public space for their natural lifetime, they are considered "permanent" is relevant, as balloons for people to fly in are intended to be used in a public space when not hidden in a storage box. Consequently their natural lifetime and purpose is for display in a public space, albeit they are intended as machines for transport.
Anyway, it is complex and UK FOP tends to be interpreted generously by the courts, presumably the same situation applies in Canada, otherwise lawyers would be queuing up to demand money from every vehical with any sort of livery on it. Certainly the following haphazard selection (I do not have time to review all these) would appear  Keep to me: --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a reproduction of a sculpture or design, neither are the small balloons in any apparent design, they appear spaced by colour, effectively white noise.
    This is not a reproduction of a sculpture or design, neither are the small balloons in any apparent design, they appear spaced by colour, effectively white noise.
  • A cube with standard lettering on it, therefore copyright ineligible.
    A cube with standard lettering on it, therefore copyright ineligible.
  • What? You would have to show this was an infringement of someone's copyright. It looks like a purpose made craft.
    What? You would have to show this was an infringement of someone's copyright. It looks like a purpose made craft.
  • Not a copyrighted design or faithful reproduction of anything, it is intended to look like a real animal.
    Not a copyrighted design or faithful reproduction of anything, it is intended to look like a real animal.
  • Fun figure rather than a faithful reproduction.
    Fun figure rather than a faithful reproduction.
  • COM:De minimis.
    COM:De minimis.
  • Not a faithful reproduction of the 2D promotional works.
    Not a faithful reproduction of the 2D promotional works.
  • Not a faithful reproduction of the original 2D works (Barclay's advertising). Pretty much in the same way as someone on a fun run in a bad Bart Simpson costume would not be a faithful reproduction of the cartoon series.
    Not a faithful reproduction of the original 2D works (Barclay's advertising). Pretty much in the same way as someone on a fun run in a bad Bart Simpson costume would not be a faithful reproduction of the cartoon series.
Why spam? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last entry on the w:Stowell disambiguation page. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Balloons are expensive, customs shapes especially so. Most of them are commercially sponsored. Why should we regard a Stowells advert shaped like a wine box any worse than an Action Man toy or a house-shaped mortgage advertising balloon? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Mass deletion is certainly out of line, per DR comments. If you still believe that some individual files are copyrighted, nominate them individually. Materialscientist (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Cameron_Balloons&oldid=139128398"