Commons:Deletion requests/Fremont Solstice Parade images with Batman character

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.

Fremont Solstice Parade images with Batman character

[edit]

User:Belgrano tagged these with {{copyvio|Derivative work: People with costumes of copyrighted characters Batman and The Joker}}. I disagree, and have retagged them with the delete tag to open discussion.

The only possible copyright issues here I see are the Batman logo (which we could probably alter by Gaussian blur) and maybe the points at the top of the cowl (though without the logo they'd be hard to pin down: I doubt they could be considered copyrighted in their own right). The Joker character is far enough from the comic that there is certainly no copyvio: you wouldn't even know it was meant to refer to the Joker without context, it's almost equally close to Angus Young. As for the Batman character, I would argue that the costume is well within the range of legitimate parody. There is clearly an unambiguous reference to the comic book character (especially through appropriation of the logo which, if people consider it a problem we could blur) but if that were removed, nothing here seems to me to be an issue. Yes, again, the reference is clear, but parody is well protected under copyright law. Mad magazine in the 1950s came a lot closer to copying the Batman character than we are here. - Jmabel ! talk 07:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • By the way, User:Belgrano did not inform me of this on my user talk page. If I hadn't checked my watchlist, I'd have had no chance to dispute this. Given that I've uploaded over 10,000 images and done a great deal of other work here, I'd expect the courtesy of someone considering I might have something to say. - Jmabel ! talk 07:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Photos of dressed up people. People cannot be copyrighted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete because of the creative design on the yellow background. Teofilo (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete As stated in the deletion requests, those are Derivative works. Right, people can not be copyrighted, but costumes of characters from popular culture wich are not in public domain can. Batman's copyright belong to DC Comics, wich still employs the character for commercial purposes, and this kind of images infringe their copyright. Besides, even if copyright was not a problem, wich educational purpose can we realistically expect those photos to have, or in wich wikipedia article could they be used in? Private photo collections fall outside the Project scope Belgrano (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the one dressed like the Joker, he may not resemble the comic book character or the one by Jack Nicholson, but he does resemble the version from the recent movie. And with wich legal background do you justify this strange statement of parodies being beyond copyright law? Belgrano (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One cannot copyright one's appearance, one's make-up style, hair fashion or choice of glasses, see Lordi for an extreme example. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not actually how the Batman character dresses, as you will see by comparing it to actual Batman images. In scope as illustration of cultural tradition of costuming at event. Also agree with JMabel that only potentially copyrightable detail is the bat silouette logo, which is incidentally included in the image and IMO at most would require a "trademark" template, and I think even that would be on the overcautious side. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Certainly costumers making parody reference to Batman character, but AFAIS not actual reproduction of any copyrighted material. -- Infrogmation (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Belgrano asks several questions and raises several issues. Let me try to address two of them here.

  • On the parody question: Belgrano asks "with wich (sic) legal background do you justify this strange statement of parodies being beyond copyright law? I didn't say that. I said, "parody is well protected under copyright law", not beyond the law. "Well protected" may have been an overstatement, but "protected" is accurate: certainly accurate enough that there was no justification to mark these as unambiguous copyvios and try to get them deleted without even a discussion. It's a gray area in the law. Take a look at http://www.publaw.com/parody.html, which I believe is a pretty good summary of the legal situation (I'm not a lawyer, but my father was a publisher and I grew up pretty immersed in copyright law).
  • Outside of the copyright issue, Belgrano asks "in wich (sic) wikipedia article could they be used...?" That's irrelevant. Commons is not only a repository of images for use in Wikipedia (and if it were, I probably wouldn't bother contributing to it very much). The criterion is merely that it be "realistically useful for an educational purpose" (see Commons:Project scope). I think that a festival on the order of the one of which these photos are part is well worth documenting. I've done photo documentation of at least a twenty different festivals of various sorts in the Seattle area over the last 15 years or so, and have also been finding and uploading public domain materials for similar festivals in the early 20th century. If such materials don't belong, then this is the first time someone has raised the issue, after I've uploaded over 2,000 such images. If documenting such things really isn't within Commons' scope this is awfully late to bring it up. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link you have given explains that in some cases parodies are rejected as copyright violations, and in others are accepted under the "Fair use" legal figure. But if you are such a longtime contributor, you should should already know that both ways lead to speedy deletion, as fair use is never allowed in Commons. As for educational purposes, there's no need to host such copyright violations in order to document the spring parade of Seattle if there are already other ones that do the same thing and do not infringe anyone's copyright Belgrano (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is not allowed on Commons is fair use of entire images. Every time we have an image of someone who happens to be wearing a t-shirt with an even slightly visible design, we are in fair use territory. Every time we blur out an image, even if it is unrecognizable in the result, it is technically a derivative work, and some fair use considerations apply. Every time a book jacket is visible - even carried in someone's hand as an extremely incidental part of a photo - fair use considerations apply. The question isn't whether we allow any fair use: it's where we draw the line. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teofilo raises the issue of the creative design on the yellow background, which I actually think is a more relevant issue than Belgrano's. I'd have no problem doing a Gaussian blur or even taking that to a uniform color to remove that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Belgrano for purposes of comparison: would you see an equal problem with a picture of a gay pride parade in which someone was dressed as Pippi Longstocking? - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever that "line" is marked, is a discussion for somewhere else. Unauthorized fan art that resembles beyond doubt a copyright work (not just the logo, the batman mask and cape are also recognizable) would always fall in the side of deletion. Belgrano (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you point me to a specific policy to that effect? (Not saying there isn't one, just that I don't believe I've had the issue arise before: I was photographing a parade, not looking for fan art.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, is it at all clear that there are copyright (as opposed to trademark) claims that can be made for the basic Batman outfit? I know that is not the case for Superman: many early Superman cartoons, for example, are now in the public domain, because they were issued early enough that copyright had to be explicitly renewed, and it was not. - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Fan art. Basically, any attempt to adapt a copyrighted thing into another medium (or another work in the same medium) while trying to resemble the original work and wich is done by someone unauthorized to do such adaption (namely, a "fan") is considered to be a copyright violation. Clearly, costumes are just another one of the endless types of fan arts we can find. By the way, nobody accuses you or those guys of being criminals, they dressed like Batman because they thought it was fun, and you took them photos because you though it was another thing from the parade worth being photographed. But still, a copyright violation remains a copyright violation.
And try to remain on topic. Cartoons going into PD by becoming old enough and copyright renewals are other topics that have nothing to do with those photos of guys dressed like Batman and the Joker Belgrano (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of Commons:Fan art, because it's not an area I normally work in. Yes, it does seem like you are probably correct, then, at least assuming we would rather err on the side of safety. Clothing makes a particularly tricky area here (because there is extremely limited copyright protection for clothing) and I'm still pretty confident that we'd be legally OK if we did the Gaussian blurs I've mentioned above, but given that policy I won't argue the issue further. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Just for the record: I still vote to keep, possibly with Gaussian blurs added, but I understand the argument against. I think these have documentary value. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as Kept per (narrow majority of) discussion. No new comments for more than 2 months. Reopen or create new request if their are additional relevent points not discussed. -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Fremont_Solstice_Parade_images_with_Batman_character&oldid=725806149"