Regretful Oppose, despite enormous historical significance. The quality is way too low for FP status, I'm pretty sure there must be a better transfer somewhere - no-one transfers a film at this low quality. --
Janke |
Talk 08:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Support without prejudice This is here now, and its historical; if a better version is located then I would move for a delist and replace, but we can cross that bridge when if/we get there.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 11:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Did a little sleuthing, there is better quality available; take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY2EyLEGsyA Looks like this candidate is picked from that 2008 restoration, which may be copyrighted. Thus it may be a copyvio. IANAL, so let the ones in the know find out, and if it is a copyvio, then Speedy Close. --
Janke |
Talk 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
If you don't have better arguments, please stay aside. How do you know it is a restoration? Anyway, that wouldn't give a new copyright. There is obviously no reason to speedy close this nomination.
Yann (
talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
How do I know it's a restoration? I watched that Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions), and from the discussion on that page, it is pretty apparent that they did the restoration. As for speedy close, I said if. --
Janke |
Talk 21:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
A
previous deletion discussion held that it was "not settled in US courts whether restoration renews copyright." and the file in question was kept. I still disagree, but we do have precedent for keeping the film. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 23:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I think this is different. It is reconstruction of the full-color film from 3 one-color films. So it doesn't involve any creativity, it is just a mechanical process. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
My point was simple: even if this is a restoration, consensus on Commons is that it can be kept. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
There's surely a difference between "there's a consensus on Commons that we can keep this" and "this is definitely free". We can legitimately demand quite a high standard at FPC, I think.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I think we don't talk about the same thing. Restoration as "repairing a damaged work" is not an automated process. It may require creativity, and a lot of artistic skills. So the copyright on that is a legitimate question. But I don't think there is restoration in that sense here. These films needed a special projector for "projecting a black-and-white film behind alternating red and green filters". So to create a digital version, and since these projectors do not exist anymore, merging this is needed, but it is a mechanical process, without any creativity. See
Kinemacolor for the details. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
There is definitely a creative element involved in a restoration of this kind, namely, the choice of separation colors. They can be anything from red to orange, and blue to green. (Yann: Please note that there are only two colors, not three...) They will give different final color results, i.e. a creative aspect. Furthermore, why feature a lower quality video, when a better one is available on YouTube? See the link in my first comment. For these reasons, I still stand by both my Oppose and Speedy Close. --
Janke |
Talk 11:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Janke: I don't know where you see a better video. The one you link is 320x240, as this one is 640x480. Here, it is, just for you:
File:A Visit to the Seaside - S.webm.
Yann (
talk) 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
OK, I see now. You did the upload, and it's actually a part taken from the Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions) I mentioned. Downloaded from YT, and uploaded to Wiki it has been re-sized and re-coded, and is thus less sharp. BTW, you asked: " How do you know it is a restoration?" - well, you must have known that, since you linked to the YT restoration demo! Note to others: This is a fragment of a YT restoration demonstration video by DeBergerac Productions (see link above), and for that reason I consider it a copyvio. --
Janke |
Talk 09:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support –
Jobas (
talk) 16:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:A Visit to the Seaside (1908).webm --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 18:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Regretful Oppose, despite enormous historical significance. The quality is way too low for FP status, I'm pretty sure there must be a better transfer somewhere - no-one transfers a film at this low quality. --
Janke |
Talk 08:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Support without prejudice This is here now, and its historical; if a better version is located then I would move for a delist and replace, but we can cross that bridge when if/we get there.
TomStar81 (
Talk) 11:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Did a little sleuthing, there is better quality available; take a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY2EyLEGsyA Looks like this candidate is picked from that 2008 restoration, which may be copyrighted. Thus it may be a copyvio. IANAL, so let the ones in the know find out, and if it is a copyvio, then Speedy Close. --
Janke |
Talk 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
If you don't have better arguments, please stay aside. How do you know it is a restoration? Anyway, that wouldn't give a new copyright. There is obviously no reason to speedy close this nomination.
Yann (
talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
How do I know it's a restoration? I watched that Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions), and from the discussion on that page, it is pretty apparent that they did the restoration. As for speedy close, I said if. --
Janke |
Talk 21:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
A
previous deletion discussion held that it was "not settled in US courts whether restoration renews copyright." and the file in question was kept. I still disagree, but we do have precedent for keeping the film. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 23:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I think this is different. It is reconstruction of the full-color film from 3 one-color films. So it doesn't involve any creativity, it is just a mechanical process. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 01:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
My point was simple: even if this is a restoration, consensus on Commons is that it can be kept. —
Chris Woodrich (
talk) 03:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
There's surely a difference between "there's a consensus on Commons that we can keep this" and "this is definitely free". We can legitimately demand quite a high standard at FPC, I think.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I think we don't talk about the same thing. Restoration as "repairing a damaged work" is not an automated process. It may require creativity, and a lot of artistic skills. So the copyright on that is a legitimate question. But I don't think there is restoration in that sense here. These films needed a special projector for "projecting a black-and-white film behind alternating red and green filters". So to create a digital version, and since these projectors do not exist anymore, merging this is needed, but it is a mechanical process, without any creativity. See
Kinemacolor for the details. Regards,
Yann (
talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
There is definitely a creative element involved in a restoration of this kind, namely, the choice of separation colors. They can be anything from red to orange, and blue to green. (Yann: Please note that there are only two colors, not three...) They will give different final color results, i.e. a creative aspect. Furthermore, why feature a lower quality video, when a better one is available on YouTube? See the link in my first comment. For these reasons, I still stand by both my Oppose and Speedy Close. --
Janke |
Talk 11:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Janke: I don't know where you see a better video. The one you link is 320x240, as this one is 640x480. Here, it is, just for you:
File:A Visit to the Seaside - S.webm.
Yann (
talk) 22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
OK, I see now. You did the upload, and it's actually a part taken from the Youtube link (by DeBergerac Productions) I mentioned. Downloaded from YT, and uploaded to Wiki it has been re-sized and re-coded, and is thus less sharp. BTW, you asked: " How do you know it is a restoration?" - well, you must have known that, since you linked to the YT restoration demo! Note to others: This is a fragment of a YT restoration demonstration video by DeBergerac Productions (see link above), and for that reason I consider it a copyvio. --
Janke |
Talk 09:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support –
Jobas (
talk) 16:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Promoted File:A Visit to the Seaside (1908).webm --
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 18:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply