Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Plaques in Vancouver

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:Plaques in Vancouver

COM:FOP#Canada doesn't apply to literary works.

Stefan4 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the "literary" content of these is minor enough to not qualify for copyright protection on that basis, but I would not be speaking from any particular knowledge of Canadian copyright law. Does anyone here have any idea if any similar question has ever arisen in a Canadian court, and what that court has ruled? - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several sentences long sounds enough to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I transferred some of these from en-wiki that I thought OK as they are definitely not a flat 2D image (which would not be allowed), but are 3D in nature - being cast by liquid metal, you cannot make a 2D image. Canada is like UK (where I am), anything that is 3D in design in a public place is FoP. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2D or 3D doesn't matter since it's text. FOP only applies to art, not to text. There are also a few similar images which are currently up for deletion at en:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 22. --Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If the text is the issue, can't the text be "clouded out" or possibly cropped off, and still keep the COV Heritage Building logo and the name of the building? --Moisejp (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that you only can take photos of artistic works if they are works of artistic craftsmanship. While a metallic plaque probably counts as a work of artistic craftsmanship, the art drawn on the plaque does not. Thus, you would have to remove the logo too. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The heading for this deletion proposal is "COM:FOP#Canada doesn't apply to literary works." Well, how about a link to what IS specified about literary works in Canada, and whether there is a definition there that encompasses this case. Also, the link actually does include (if you scroll up) "Sometimes, a literary work is a part of a sculpture or is presented on a publicly accessible plaque. It is usually understood that the particular presentation of the work falls under the panorama freedom." Where does it say that this is not true in Canada? --Moisejp (talk) 03:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That is just a generic section which applies to some countries but not to all countries, without further specifying which countries it applies to. Some more specific text from the COM:FOP#Canada section: "The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs." This is a sign, so FOP does not apply in Canada. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Some people above are arguing that it is 3D. I'd agree that it could be considered 3D. Also, you're changing your arguments. Above you wrote "2D or 3D doesn't matter since it's text." Now you're saying that 2D vs 3D is an issue. --Moisejp (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter so much whether it is 2D or 3D. It only matters if it is a work of artistic craftsmanship or not. A 2D work is usually not a work of artistic craftsmanship, and a 3D work is usually a work of artistic craftsmanship, but there are exceptions. Signs are specifically listed as not being works of artistic craftsmanship. A work of artistic craftsmanship has to have two features: it must be artistic, and it must be a work of craftsmanship. In what way is the text artistic? According to en:craftsmanship, a work of craftsmanship is an "item[] that may be functional or strictly decorative, including furniture, sculpture, clothing, jewellery, household items and tools or even machines such as the handmade devices of a watchmaker". In which way is the text an "item that may be functional or strictly decorative"? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think any evidence has been presented so far that clearly and unequivocally shows that these plaques, particularly the Heritage in Vancouver plaques, which by some people's judgment can be considered 3D, fall under the Canadian standards of what must be deleted. --Moisejp (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to COM:FOP#Canada, "The freedom provided by the quoted section does not apply to typical two-dimensional works such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs." In which way is this not a sign? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the exceptions is reproduction in a photograph of an architectural work. The plaques in question are clearly affixed to the building, but it is isn't reasonable that merely being affixed to a building removes what would otherwise be copyright protection, or every poster ever affixed to a wall would receive a copyright exemption; that argument doesn't prevail. The definition in the law of "architectural work" is "any building or structure" which doesn't conlcusively clarify whether an affixed plaque is covered. I'll suggest a test: any elements present in the architectural drawings are part of the architectural work, while items not specified in the drawing are outside the definition. While I do not have access to the actual relevant drawings, the thought experiment is adequate. We certainly don't expect the architectural drawings to include a poster of an upcoming concert. Getting to the point at hand, we don't believe the drawings would include a plaque from an external agency.

There is another exception for sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, that is permanently situated in a public place or building;. Although the plaques are permanent, and certainly the creator of the plaque would argue that they are examples of artistic craftsmanship, I don't believe this exception applies. We often talk about 2D versus 3D, but it is important to remember that the dimensional aspect is not in the law, it is our (dare I say) synthesis of the law. Rather than debate whether the raised letters on the plaque make it technically a three dimensional object, we should review what the lawmakers were trying to distinguish. They were generally giving copyright protection to words (and other things) and wanted to carve out an exception, so that people wouldn't be prevented from taking and using pictures of buildings. They explicitly exempted buildings, and then, to make sure that no one got around the law by erecting some art object in front of or in the building, they specifically included such sculptures in the exemption. In that context, it isn't so much a technical definition of whether it is 2D or 3D, it is whether the object, not part of the building itself, is there as an art object. A permanently situated sculpture clearly qualifies, but an informational plaque is there primarily for information, and only incidentally is it artistically designed.

That we cannot take a picture of the plaque itself does not mean we cannot take a picture of a building with a plaque. If the material subject to copyright is a de minimis portion of the total image, and not the central focus, it is permitted.

(As an aside I see that the Commons FOP section notes that Body Shop Yonge.jpg qualifies for FOP, arguing that it is a qualifying " non-sculptural work". I think the argument is not exactly right. I think the test I suggest above applies. Although "The Body Shop" is text, it is likely to be part of the architectural drawings of the building, and ought to be considered part of the building, therefore part of the Section 32.2 (1)(b)(i) exception, not part of the Section 32.2 (1)(b)(ii) exception.--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The fact that these contain text overrides everything else. There are only nine countries (including Germany and Spain) where FOP covers text and Canada is not one of them. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Plaques in Vancouver

Files in Category:Plaques in Vancouver

Navigation menu

Search