Commons:Deletion requests/File:Redacted hot air balloon festival.jpg
+
← Older revision
Revision as of 21:37, 19 March 2013
Line 28:
Line 28:
:::Canoe1967’s interpretation of the applicability Mexican FoP is also faulty, as it ignores transience. To apply FoP to a work not permanently installed implies that someone would not be able to take and freely license a picture of a painting hanging in their home, yet merely by temporarily moving the painting outside, photographing it, and then returning it indoors, they could freely license the image. Let’s give Mexican lawmakers more credit than the assumption of such a ridiculous loophole. The verbiage regarding visibility seems, rather, to imply a presupposition of permanent installation, which both resolves the scenario above and is indeed a fundamental tenant of FoP provisions in nearly every jurisdiction. Do we really believe that a British tourist, visiting Mexico, could bring a copy of Harry Potter, photograph every page while sitting on a park bench, and then upload those photos with a free license to the Commons? That is essentially what is being argued here. Even if this is truly what Mexican lawmakers intended, it ignores the issue of [[Commons:Fop#Choice_of_law|choice of law]]. To look at the forest instead of the trees: it does not seem rational to believe that Nickelodeon/Hillenburg/whoever owns the copyright would not be granted an injunction if this photo were used to sell a commercial product in the US. We need to consider re-users of our content and it is irresponsible (and almost certainly incorrect) to represent that Spongebob carries a free license. [[User:elcobbola|'''Эlcobbola''']] [[User talk:elcobbola|talk]] 21:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
:::Canoe1967’s interpretation of the applicability Mexican FoP is also faulty, as it ignores transience. To apply FoP to a work not permanently installed implies that someone would not be able to take and freely license a picture of a painting hanging in their home, yet merely by temporarily moving the painting outside, photographing it, and then returning it indoors, they could freely license the image. Let’s give Mexican lawmakers more credit than the assumption of such a ridiculous loophole. The verbiage regarding visibility seems, rather, to imply a presupposition of permanent installation, which both resolves the scenario above and is indeed a fundamental tenant of FoP provisions in nearly every jurisdiction. Do we really believe that a British tourist, visiting Mexico, could bring a copy of Harry Potter, photograph every page while sitting on a park bench, and then upload those photos with a free license to the Commons? That is essentially what is being argued here. Even if this is truly what Mexican lawmakers intended, it ignores the issue of [[Commons:Fop#Choice_of_law|choice of law]]. To look at the forest instead of the trees: it does not seem rational to believe that Nickelodeon/Hillenburg/whoever owns the copyright would not be granted an injunction if this photo were used to sell a commercial product in the US. We need to consider re-users of our content and it is irresponsible (and almost certainly incorrect) to represent that Spongebob carries a free license. [[User:elcobbola|'''Эlcobbola''']] [[User talk:elcobbola|talk]] 21:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::SpongeBob is still protected by trademark for any commercial use of the image. The Harry Potty book would be protected by source country copyright and other Mexican laws about 2D literary works. Mexican law does not specify FOP for permanent works so we can assume that temporary display is FOP allowed. The balloon being a licenced aircraft would be the same as taking a photo of the Met Life Snoopy blimp. Do we have images of that allowed on commmons?--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
::::SpongeBob is still protected by trademark for any commercial use of the image. The Harry Potty book would be protected by source country copyright and other Mexican laws about 2D literary works. Mexican law does not specify FOP for permanent works so we can assume that temporary display is FOP allowed. The balloon being a licenced aircraft would be the same as taking a photo of the Met Life Snoopy blimp. Do we have images of that allowed on commmons?--[[User:Canoe1967|Canoe1967]] ([[User talk:Canoe1967|talk]]) 21:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
−
:::::Other intellectual properties (trademark) are not germane to the Commons. Mexican law also does not say "regardless of transience". It is silent on the issue, which means either is possible. I've explained why the "anything goes" opinion opens severe loopholes. In the absence of an authority that clarifies the matter, COM:PRP compels the conservative interpretation. What OTHERSTUFF (Snoopy blimp) exists is irrelevant to this image. People upload all sorts of copyvios to the Commons; not all are caught promptly. [[User:elcobbola|'''Эlcobbola''']] [[User talk:elcobbola|talk]] 21:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
+
:::::Other intellectual properties (trademark) are not germane to the Commons. Mexican law also does not say "regardless of transience". It is silent on the issue, which means either is possible. I've explained why the "anything goes" opinion opens severe loopholes and implies a presupposition of installation. In the absence of an authority that clarifies the matter, COM:PRP compels the conservative interpretation. You miss the point about the book; images on the Commons must be PD in the US ''and'' the country of origin. Say it was an American with 50 Shades of Grey; what then? You really believe any work that makes a fleeting appearance in Mexico is fair game, regardless of what its origin country things? What OTHERSTUFF (Snoopy blimp) exists is irrelevant to this image. People upload all sorts of copyvios to the Commons; not all are caught promptly. [[User:elcobbola|'''Эlcobbola''']] [[User talk:elcobbola|talk]] 21:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
{{vd}} all absent identification of all relevant copyright holders and confirmation that they've freely licensed their respective works. If these images are derivatives of non-free media, then the fact that they're legitimate parodies or satires on censorship is irrelevant; we don't host fair-use material on Commons. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 11:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
{{vd}} all absent identification of all relevant copyright holders and confirmation that they've freely licensed their respective works. If these images are derivatives of non-free media, then the fact that they're legitimate parodies or satires on censorship is irrelevant; we don't host fair-use material on Commons. —[[User:Psychonaut|Psychonaut]] ([[User talk:Psychonaut|talk]]) 11:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
/image%2F0119748%2F20140527%2Fob_5bc3f3_alfred-molet-timbre-postal-01.JPG)
/https%3A%2F%2Fassets.over-blog.com%2Ft%2Fcedistic%2Fcamera.png)
/image%2F0119748%2F20140527%2Fob_49a920_alfred-molet-timbre-postal-01.JPG)
/image%2F0119748%2F20140511%2Fob_63b87d_carte-02.jpg)
