File talk:Atta in airport.jpg

Where did this photo come from? I don't know if that falls under the scope of the talk page, but it's an interesting question. Aren't airport security videos classified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.160.120 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it's security camera footage. Copyright (at least on a single image, not on compilations etc) requires "expression of a thought, idea, concept" (etc.). No one to take this picture, no one's "idea to express," no copyright. KenThomas (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[Forwarded from en:File talk:Atta in airport.jpg by Athaenara (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)]

Comment about copyright ineligibility (copied from the description page)

See Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 22#Live feeds and en:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 September 22#File:Atta atm.jpg for further comments about copyright ineligibility in reference to this and similar images
--Pilettes (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Don't bother. Both of the above discussions were decisively concluded when someone cited a U.S. District court case, Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman, and pulled out some great quotes. These words of gospel have since been sprinkled liberally throughout Wikipedia to justify the use of {{PD-ineligible}} tags on surveillance video. All would be right with the world, and Southwest Casino and Hotel Corp. vs Flyingman would be right on point, if only the case had ever been heard!
• You see, boys and girls, this "gospel" was not uttered by the court, but by the defendant in that copyright infringement case. Making matters worse, those arguments were never decided – instead, the plaintiff's case fell apart after a separate tribal court ruled that the tribe owned the video, not the casino.
• To date, therefore, this question has not been tested in U.S. courts. In the English Court of Appeal, on the other hand, in the case of Hyde Park Residence Ltd v. Yelland (2000) that court treated images from a security camera videotape as copyrighted.

Grolltech (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• The argument above is a reasonably strong argument for not considering automated surveillance video made in Britain as public domain. However, the British case is likely to have little persuasive power under US copyright law, under which this image would be judged, and where there is a Constitutional requirement of creativity (en:Feist v. Rural). Here, the reasoning of en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is more apposite in holding that faithful digitization of a preexisting two-dimensional public domain image does not evince the creativity required under Feist to result in copyright. Here, the addition of a third dimension changes the analysis not at all. The possibilities for the necessary creativity could be said to lie in the angle of the surveillance camera (think of creative camera angles in a Hitchcock film), but here it is functional so as to capture passersby on a public sidewalk, not creative, and functional elements have long been held not to be creative. Creativity might be said to lie in the fixation itself (think of a photographer choosing that perfect moment to snap the shutter), but here the fixation was continuous or at fixed intervals. The phrase "slavish copying" has been used to describe the work done in Bridgeman. What could be more slavish than an automated surveillance camera? Could an artist use an automate camera creatively? No doubt, but that is not this case. As to the argument that we should only include images in Wikipedia where there is a settled court case, note that Bridgeman, itself, is settled law only with respect to the en:Southern District of New York and yet we rely upon it everywhere else. (en:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute) Why? Because we judge the reasoning to be sound. 24.151.50.173 16:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)