Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:JA8956 (aircraft)

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:JA8956 (aircraft)

[edit]

In each case, the whole aircraft is covered with copyrighted material, so DM cannot possible apply. I note that the last DR that included some of these images was closed as Kept by a non-Admin in violation of Commons rules. ("Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." [Emphasis added]

.     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nomination. Jim, I think you did a good job with nominating images that have clearly copyrighted material, and excluding the handful where it's actually de minimis. A lot of the other images in Category:Pokémon Jet should also be deleted; the previous deletion nom was, as noted, improperly closed. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:ANA B747-400D(JA8956) (4960399530).jpg where a similar file was separately deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep and can we stop claiming Commons:Deletion requests/Pokemon Jet was improperly closed - it was not, Jdforrester is an administrator and has been working diligently on Commons for a very long time, demonstrating significant knowledge of copyright legislation and our policies.
The artwork argument is nonsense, frankly. Every aircraft that is not in bare metal/composite, clear lacquer or a single solid colour has some form of artwork on the fuselage of what is otherwise a utilitarian object.
British Airways commissioned Landor Associates to design a new livery which was rolled out from 1984 (much missed, I should add) which was then replaced by the Ethnic tails. There was significant originality in both those liveries, particularly in the Ethnic tails.
Air New Zealand has a complex fern design forming their livery, and other than British Airways and a handful of legacy carriers, most airlines have complex artwork for their livery.
Artwork, whether it's Tintin, Pokemon or the airline's own livery is there for one thing and one thing only, it's advertising. Aircraft don't need logos and colour schemes, a plain white paint job is all they need to protect the fuselage.
We're in danger of differentiating between aircraft/airline livery artwork and comic or other promotional artwork and I see no applicable differentiation that can support this in law.
The images themselves are being generated for one reason - to record a utilitarian object in the process of trying to record each aircraft registration or MSN number. Nick (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to seeking advice from WMF about this, as I do recognise there's a difficult on squaring de minimis inclusion of copyright artwork which covers such a significant portion of a utilitarian object.
There's a very significant difference between basic airline livery (some examples: 1 2 3 4 5) and these jets. Standard livery is generally simple geometric patterns, large color swaths, and small logos (many of which are PD-shape anyway). The Pokemon jets are full-aircraft artwork, unambiguously copyrighted. There is a file available of this aircraft in a non-copyrightable livery; that is a utilitarian photograph that has no copyright issues. With that present on Commons, there is no need for images where a copyrighted artwork takes up a large portion of the frame. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're having to pick very obvious examples which would never qualify for copyright or where the copyright has long expired to try and illustrate the issues surrounding livery artwork copyright - what about 1 or 2 and where do you begin drawing the line with this or things like this and this ? Nick (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Four of those are fairly simple geometric patterns, limited to a small portion of the airliner, or both. No question that they're acceptable. The G-EUPA photo is more questionable, but even then it doesn't cover the whole aircraft. That's vastly different from the Pokemon jets, where complex artwork of unambiguously copyrighted characters covers the entirety of the fuselage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: I don;t agree with the decision, but in view of the recent UnDR of similar aircraft images, I think consistency calls for keeping these. Therefore the DR is withdrawn by nom. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:JA8956_(aircraft)&oldid=230762165"