Commons:Deletion requests/Models of the Philae lander

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.

Models of the Philae lander

Photographed in Germany:

• File:Philae ESA Model 1.JPG
• File:Philae ESA Model 2.JPG
• File:Philae ESA Model 3 closeup.JPG
• File:Philae ESA Model closeup feet.JPG
• File:SpaceProbe Philae.gif
• File:Philae model at event Commissioning of the Rosetta lander Philae 1.jpg
• File:Philae model at event Commissioning of the Rosetta lander Philae 2.jpg
• File:Philae model at event Commissioning of the Rosetta lander Philae 3.jpg

Photographed in France:

• File:Maquette de Philae atterrisseur de la sonde spatiale Rosetta DSC 0150.JPG
• File:Maquette de Philae atterrisseur de la sonde spatiale Rosetta DSC 0156.JPG

These photographs are of static models of the European Space Agency Philae lander. Unlike NASA, ESA works (such as publicity models) are not public domain, so while the actual vehicle would probably exempt as utilitarian (like cars are), its derivative models would probably be copyrighted as works of art. As there is not a lot of consensus on how to handle physical models on Commons, I'm bringing this here for comment. The images from France, however, seem straightforward as there is no freedom of panorama in France. The FOP issue is not relevant for the German photos. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

For the images taken by me (France) : FOP <== copyright/work of art. It sounds very very strange for a technical model. --Pline (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The current information in the image casebook seems to indicate that models (even models of uncopyrighted useful articles) are copyrightable in the US and therefore not accepted on Commons unless the model itself has been freely licensed.

From what one understands, German FOP requires that a work be permanently installed and that the photo have been taken from a public space...does this apply to the models photographed in Germany? If so, then the first set of photos can probably be tagged with {{FoP-Germany}} + {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. --Gazebo (talk) 08:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the models were only in place for a special event, though I of course could be mistaken. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read better (extract 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions) : Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article. There are no design feature in the model of Philae, it's just a dull copy of the real spacecraft which is by far not an artistic object. --Pline (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Pline's reading of the ruleis incorrect. The rule he cites definitely applies to the spacecraft itself, but it does not apply to the model. In the USA, and most other countries, all models have copyrights, whether the original object did or not -- for example, a model of a human is clearly a model of something without a copyright, but the model clearly has one. See User:Elcobbola/Models for further discussion. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok then you are on the way to suppress about 50% of the iconography of the articles about aeronautics, astronautics, etc.... --Pline (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)