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.
"Street installation with photos of the kidnapped - Iron Swords War 2023" distorted images
I understood your considerations, I would love to keep number 35 - I do think it has a unique artistic effect. The rest can be waived. Chenspec (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative works of copyrighted photographs. They contain non-free images in such a prominent manner that a de minimis claim is not applicable. I note that I have nominated for deletion only those that are undoubtedly copyright violations, although there are still some in this and other similar categories that deserve more detailed and careful analysis.
Not all of the images that are in the current discussion require the permission of the copyright owner because their use is marginal, that is - Commons:De minimis.
For example,
in these files the images are unrecognizable:
In my opinion there is no need to delete the files whose main element is not pictures of abductees. At the same time, the issue of the permanence of the posters must continue to be investigated, only for the files in which the images of the abductees are a central element that is clearly displayed so that its removal renders the file useless. Chenspec (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. De minimis doesn't work the way Chenspec claims it does. In fact, that page explicitly calls out "a small part of the area of the image, but central to its significance" as definitely not de minimis. My comment in the other DR applies here as well. I feel they've started with their conclusion; they want these files to be kept and are grasping at straws for evidence to justify that conclusion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the design and text of the posters already have approval presented in previous discussions. The question is only about the images, which are always smaller than the poster itself. There are also cases where the image is less than a quarter of the size of the poster, which itself occupies a small part of the large image displayed in the file - in my opinion, there is room to take into account the relative weight of the image in relation to the large file, regardless of the size of the poster. Chenspec (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply incorrect. If you removed the photo, would the file be in scope? The photo is the reason why the file exists. Look in the last section of the Guidelines table: "Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (e.g. it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless." - It doesn't matter how large the copyrighted element is as a percentage of the photo, it matters that the copyrighted element is the subject of the photo. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would like to mention that there is no problem with the posters themselves (which have permission from the copyright holders), which can have significance even without the image, because the names appear on them. Furthermore, they also have significance without the names due to their symbolic and general meaning, which is already known to the public, especially in Israel. Chenspec (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason to delete those files - they are on public display for over a year in many places in Israel, I see them daily, no one asks for copyright so why should they be erased?--Yoavd (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I don't see any problem with the posters, because those who put it on Wikimedia received the rights to the design and text. The pictures of the abductees - In principle, there is freedom of panorama representation in Israel, so everything outside is allowed to be published. The specific language of the law allows representation of a brick structure - architects and permanent displays (such as sculptures). The argument is that posters do not fall into this category because they are temporary. But... that's not the accepted method in Israel. They've been on display for a year or more, which crosses the threshold of permanence. Not all posters have images, or they do not appear as a central element (what is known as marginal use) - in general there is no problem of copyright.
For example, there is one picture that the posters have completely blurred - there is no reason to delete it.
And there are photos in which the face is very blurred, or very small in relation to the full photo - this is of marginal use.
There are also cases where the image does not process its value if the poster is taken down - like the pictures of Holon, there are posters near the mall and you can clearly see the mall which is an important building in the city, and the photo holds validity regardless of the poster.
If the name of the abductee is on the poster, then the picture is not essential, and the poster itself also has a general symbolic meaning beyond the name or the picture. Ehud Amir (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the October 7th, 2023, jenocide that Hamas did Israel and the mass kidnapping of 251 babies, children, men, women and elderly, more than a year has passed. So a year has passed since the beginning of the public campaign for their release, so the threshold of permanence is valid. Ehud Amir (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the whole gallery collectively would be wrong. Holding these photos against such standard should not result in their deletion. The "Kidnapped from Israel" campaign photos are not exactly temporary; unfortunately, they're all still out there in our streets for more than a year. Some of them are actually combined with other (permanent) exhibitions – such as yellow ribbons, chairs etc. – If a certain photo contains mainly contains a KFI poster, then it may not be protected under de minimis.
Regarding the majority of these photos, their subject (as can seen in the photo I attached here), the KFI posters blend with the other street art and graffiti, and is just a part of the Israeli street nowadays.
@The Squirrel Conspiracy, If you are a fan of legal arguments, Keep in mind that hard cases make bad law – consider this campaign as it is considered worldwide and domestically in Israel – as a civil protest. Applying this rule sweepingly may prevent Commons users around the world from sharing their view of their country under a protest or upheaval, that naturally will create a prominent graffiti and art, that you argue is copyrighted/able.
Do you consider the the posters shown at the Gilad Schalit page on the Deutsche Wikipedia a copyright infringement? Considering them as such would in fact make bad law and lead to a mass deletion of photos for unclear, unintuitive reasons that the ordinary user would not be able to follow. I chose them as examples since they're mostly the same in style and placement, but they didn't seem to make such controversy as the one surrounding the 7 October Israeli hostages.
I think the solution here is to filter out the photos that are intuitively a copyright infringement, by showing an individual poster. The rest are indifferent from a graffiti.
To demonstrate the inessentiality of the photographs of the abductees to the importance and meaning of the posters themselves, I am attaching here examples of a display in which posters appear with illustrations of anonymous shadowy figures without any photographs.
As you can see - while the importance of the photographs of the abductees may have been true at the beginning of the war, many things have changed since then and as of today - the photographs of the abductees are not essential to files containing images of the posters as the file will still be useful even if they are removed.
And to avoid any doubt - I am attaching the copyright clearance received for the design and caption of the posters:
I recommend reconsidering the approach to the subject in light of the current significance of the posters and their use in the public space Chenspec (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is sufficient for exactly what I wrote - the design and caption of the posters. If the photos of the abductees are not significant for the posters in general, and especially for cases where their use is marginal in relation to the file with the poster displayed in it (as I have detailed for each case individually), there should be no problem.
Again, I emphasize that arguments that could be seen as correct in the past regarding the meaning of the posters and photos of the abductees in the public space are no longer relevant. Therefore, I urge you to address the current situation.
Delete per nom. De minimis doesn't work the way Chenspec claims it does. In fact, that page explicitly calls out "a small part of the area of the image, but central to its significance" as definitely not de minimis. My comment in the other DR applies here as well. I feel they've started with their conclusion; they want these files to be kept and are grasping at straws for evidence to justify that conclusion. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Ticket:2023122710003649 contains permission regarding to the text and the design of the posters of w:en:Kidnapped from Israel.