June 6
File:Upper Kolasin.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Upper Kolasin.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bosniaco ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image down to be moved to commons. However it does not appear to have a license for the base map, and I can see "(C) 2009 Cnes/Spot Image" near the bottom of the map. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - If you look to the bottom-right, you can see a cut-off Google copyright mark, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WATERMARK Google -- DBig Xray 17:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Scale model of a canal packet, Forks of the Wabash Museum, Huntington, IN.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Scale model of a canal packet, Forks of the Wabash Museum, Huntington, IN.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chris Light ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
3D object. Freedom of Panorama does not extend to such items in the US Ronhjones (Talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
17 U.S. Code Chapter 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
The United State Code of Regulation, 17 provides clarification on the derivative works architectural, (3-D object's?). Reviewing the language of this Chapter, it can be alleged that the image of model is a derivative work under the architectural work definition. Thus, a photograph is a derivative of the original, not a 'copy' of the original. This image would then meet the requirements of U.S. legal standards.-- Chris Light ( talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions
- A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
- “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. 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.
- architectural work
- An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.
- 17 U.S. Code § 120 - Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
- (a)Pictorial Representations Permitted.—
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
-- Chris Light ( talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - So, it's definitely not an architectural work, as it is not a building or part of a building. It could be considered a derivative of the original boat, but as boats are not typically copyrighted (nearly all transportation is considered useful as opposed to artistic -- at least in the US), whether it's derivative doesn't really matter. So the only real question is whether this is itself a creative work. A model like this is not useful in the legal sense so does not have that exception to copyright, and I think it would easily meet the threshold of originality. I did a quick search for information about this piece at the museum, but could not find out how old it is. Assuming it's not all that old, it's almost certainly copyrighted and thus, sticking with the terminology we've been using for illustrative purposes now, this photo is a derivative work (there is a photo copyright owned by the photographer and the copyright of the work it depicts -- you can provide a license for the former, but not the latter). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
June 6
File:Upper Kolasin.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Upper Kolasin.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bosniaco ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Image down to be moved to commons. However it does not appear to have a license for the base map, and I can see "(C) 2009 Cnes/Spot Image" near the bottom of the map. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - If you look to the bottom-right, you can see a cut-off Google copyright mark, too. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete WP:WATERMARK Google -- DBig Xray 17:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Scale model of a canal packet, Forks of the Wabash Museum, Huntington, IN.jpg
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
- File:Scale model of a canal packet, Forks of the Wabash Museum, Huntington, IN.jpg ( delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chris Light ( notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
3D object. Freedom of Panorama does not extend to such items in the US Ronhjones (Talk) 18:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
17 U.S. Code Chapter 1 - SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF COPYRIGHT
The United State Code of Regulation, 17 provides clarification on the derivative works architectural, (3-D object's?). Reviewing the language of this Chapter, it can be alleged that the image of model is a derivative work under the architectural work definition. Thus, a photograph is a derivative of the original, not a 'copy' of the original. This image would then meet the requirements of U.S. legal standards.-- Chris Light ( talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions
- A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.
- “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. 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.
- architectural work
- An “architectural work” is the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design, but does not include individual standard features.
- 17 U.S. Code § 120 - Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
- (a)Pictorial Representations Permitted.—
The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.
-- Chris Light ( talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - So, it's definitely not an architectural work, as it is not a building or part of a building. It could be considered a derivative of the original boat, but as boats are not typically copyrighted (nearly all transportation is considered useful as opposed to artistic -- at least in the US), whether it's derivative doesn't really matter. So the only real question is whether this is itself a creative work. A model like this is not useful in the legal sense so does not have that exception to copyright, and I think it would easily meet the threshold of originality. I did a quick search for information about this piece at the museum, but could not find out how old it is. Assuming it's not all that old, it's almost certainly copyrighted and thus, sticking with the terminology we've been using for illustrative purposes now, this photo is a derivative work (there is a photo copyright owned by the photographer and the copyright of the work it depicts -- you can provide a license for the former, but not the latter). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.