Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Museum Fortuna statue, with copyfraud notice.jpg
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.
File:British Museum Fortuna statue, with copyfraud notice.jpg[edit]
The label (specifically, the artwork of the camera) may be copyrighted. A version with that artwork cropped out is already available at File:British Museum Fortuna statue.jpg. Mike Peel (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- This DR should be considered controversial and should stay open for at least 7 days. The simple camera icon in the sign may be such a very small component of the photograph that it is de minimis. The camera icon is unlikely to be the property of the museum and some searching may reveal its use elsewhere, it may well be copyright free or be on a suitable licence for reuse. --Fæ (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Keep Some quick research shows the camera icon to be free clipart, very widely used. Now uploaded to File:Camera-pictogram.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Fæ: Their terms of use do not look like they are compatable with CC-0. Please can you double-check this? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm reading the words "public domain" as compatible with applying CC0, certainly a different PD license may be better if someone would like to suggest it. There is no indication in the terms that the source website owners created this icon (in fact they state they did not) or are the people that originally released it, consequently their request for non-competitive use or attribution is not legally meaningful. They are responsible for ensuring that their current use and release on this clipart image is legally correct. Other websites that host this same image and other format versions of the same icon, make various copyright claims, however we are well aware of how public domain imagery gets recycled this way for profit, we see this happen with Commons content all the time. The choice of freeclipartnow as a source is partly due to their straightforward statement about copyright and the fact they have been running since 2007 - in fact the icon has a date of release at freeclipartnow of "2008/03/26 04:20", in internet terms making it medieval. It could be that other sources are even clearer, I don't see the point of investing a lot more volunteer time in research on this icon unless it becomes a matter of significant doubt, rather than hypothetical. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Having previously heard the words "public domain" used in contexts that are well-meaning but legally incorrect, I'm not convinced by this argument. However, I trust the commons community as a whole to have a much better understanding of copyright than me. So let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- The alternative source on the image page, later but still 6 years old and so stable in internet terms, gives a license of CC0, and even links to the Creative Commons site to explain what it means. There's not much potential for ambiguity in those circumstances. It could all be deliberate lies, but there would be no obvious motivation and that could be said about 90% of what is on Commons, so it's not significant doubt as we normally understand that concept. The image has been around freely, or at least declared as public domain, and stable for 9 years with no attempted take-down; even though the process for removal is clearly explained in the website terms for both sources linked. --Fæ (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- The alternative source at [1] that you've added looks more reliable, and there are more images on commons that use that as a source than the other. So this reduces my concerns. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- The alternative source on the image page, later but still 6 years old and so stable in internet terms, gives a license of CC0, and even links to the Creative Commons site to explain what it means. There's not much potential for ambiguity in those circumstances. It could all be deliberate lies, but there would be no obvious motivation and that could be said about 90% of what is on Commons, so it's not significant doubt as we normally understand that concept. The image has been around freely, or at least declared as public domain, and stable for 9 years with no attempted take-down; even though the process for removal is clearly explained in the website terms for both sources linked. --Fæ (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Having previously heard the words "public domain" used in contexts that are well-meaning but legally incorrect, I'm not convinced by this argument. However, I trust the commons community as a whole to have a much better understanding of copyright than me. So let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm reading the words "public domain" as compatible with applying CC0, certainly a different PD license may be better if someone would like to suggest it. There is no indication in the terms that the source website owners created this icon (in fact they state they did not) or are the people that originally released it, consequently their request for non-competitive use or attribution is not legally meaningful. They are responsible for ensuring that their current use and release on this clipart image is legally correct. Other websites that host this same image and other format versions of the same icon, make various copyright claims, however we are well aware of how public domain imagery gets recycled this way for profit, we see this happen with Commons content all the time. The choice of freeclipartnow as a source is partly due to their straightforward statement about copyright and the fact they have been running since 2007 - in fact the icon has a date of release at freeclipartnow of "2008/03/26 04:20", in internet terms making it medieval. It could be that other sources are even clearer, I don't see the point of investing a lot more volunteer time in research on this icon unless it becomes a matter of significant doubt, rather than hypothetical. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, absolutely de minimis and perhaps that should have been considered by the nominator first. seb26 (talk) 13:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep The icon is free, and de minimis anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Yann and Seb26: Reading COM:DM, it says in an example "if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis". In this case, the subject-matter clearly includes the notice (it's mentioned in the filename!), so I'm not sure than de minimis applies. Otherwise, if nothing was lost by cropping it out, then we don't lose anything by just keeping the other version. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Mike Peel, The copyright notice as a whole may not be de minimis (although it could be, as it is incidental in the picture), but the icon is certainly de minimis. The icon could be blurred, it wouldn't change anything. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Yann and Seb26: Reading COM:DM, it says in an example "if the poster is entirely incidental to the overall subject-matter of the photograph, the copying may be considered de minimis". In this case, the subject-matter clearly includes the notice (it's mentioned in the filename!), so I'm not sure than de minimis applies. Otherwise, if nothing was lost by cropping it out, then we don't lose anything by just keeping the other version. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, per the above. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, per the above. Leutha (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, per the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, per above · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, per the above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Keep the image in questions is even smaller here than at Commons:Deletion requests/File:British Museum 2nd century bronze jug, with copyfraud notice.jpg given the argument about both being over that same image these two should have been bundled together, Gnangarra 02:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Kept: as per consensus. Daphne Lantier 17:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
