Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hhof hart.jpg

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.

Image:Hhof hart.jpg

Same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cricket World Cup trophy.png; in violation of Commons:Derivative works.--Thugchildz 07:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

 Delete per nom.--Thugchildz 23:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep In Canada, where the photograph was taken, "it is not an infringement of copyright for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work a 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". [1] The trophies are on permanent display in the Great Hall of the Hockey Hall of Fame, a public place. -Aude (talk | contribs) 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is neither permanently situated there nor is the museum a public place.--Thugchildz 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Copyright Act doesn't define "public place", but it's defined and interpreted elsewhere in Canadian law, such as "The law recognizes private businesses as public places if they are open to members of the public, even though only persons with an interest in the goods and services of that store actually enter." [2] Similar laws in other countries, such as New Zealand, expressly define public place to include "premises open to the public." [3] And the trophy is on permanent exhibit there. Anyway, to be very clear on this and stay away from grey areas, I am seeking permission to allow these photographs to remain here under GFDL or compatable licenses. They expressly permit photography at the HHOF [4], so I think it's very likely that they would give permission. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

They permit photography in a lot of places, doesn't mean that it takes the copyright off the copyrighted work that is there. And does it say anywhere that its on permanent exhibit there and that it doesn't have a copyright?--Thugchildz 04:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

 Keep merely some industrial product, nothing wrong with pictures (drinking vessel → industrial machine made utility article → not copyrighted) --LimoWreck 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If it was merely some industrial product than no one would be interest in it like this and this clearly isn't a drinking vessel, from dictionary.com- drinking vessel noun a vessel intended for drinking and this clearly isn't intended for drinking and per Commons:Derivative works- Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted. Even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain). And the photograph can not be public domain because By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That's why you won't be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so. It must be deleted.--Thugchildz 03:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

COM:DW#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F --LimoWreck 17:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And what was the point of that? This clearly doesn't fall into any of that and is quality art work in a 3d object.--THUGCHILDz 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One must be really slow to understade if one doesn't grasp the meaning of that link. You know how these things are made ? Extrusion, pressing, molding, blending, whatever industrial routine you like. Have a look on the Wikipedias. You can buy blank cups in a store here, freshly rolled out machines. Just do request to engrave some text on it; and there you go, another cup for your local poker club, cycling club, scouts tournaments or whatever you like. That's what COM:DW#Isn.27t_every_product_copyrighted_by_someone.3F_What_about_cars.3F_Or_kitchen_chairs.3F_My_computer_case.3F is about. --LimoWreck 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You can do whatever and buy whatever but if the engraving is your idea that that's copyrighted to you and if they(industry) makes the cup and it was their idea, then its copyrighted to them; no matter how many copies are made. No matter what just putting a link without explanation doesn't help either way.--THUGCHILDz 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly copyrighted and is not a drinking vessel or dish! This, without a doubt qualifies as a sculpture and is copyrighted. Delete.--THUGCHILDz 02:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The NHL has replied back to me. They don't object to the images being used on Wikipedia, but they are unwilling to allow the images to be licensed as GFDL or similar license. I explained reasons behind why we use free licenses, and suggested reducing the size of the images to no avail. Since we can't use image that are "permission only" for Wikipedia, I would simply like the image deleted now. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Keep, at least for now. The trophy appears to be a permanent exhibit at the museum (it appears in the virtual tour) and falls within Canada's FOP provisions. It's not relevant whether the museum is willing to license the image or not as the FOP provisions mean it does not own any copyright in it. The image may not be free in the US, though, so may need to be deleted later if the WMF Board decides that all FOP images must comply with both local and US practice. --MichaelMaggs 15:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)