Wikipedia:files For Discussion 2021 July 29

< July 28	July 30 >

July 29

File:Art of Animation Hall.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: Textbook derivative of non-free content; there is no FOP for 2D works in the US. - FASTILY 23:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC) reply

Per COM:FOP US, there is no freedom of panorama in the United States for 2D artwork. ✗ plicit 03:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose This is a drastic misreading of that link, which explains explicitly how the copyright of this photograph belongs to the photographer, and links to the US code which specifically says so. Note that private property can be a public space, if said property is open to the general public, regardless of whether or not entrance conditions (such as the terms of a usage agreement, or the collection of a fee) apply. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC) reply

@ MPants at work: I believe Explicit's argument is agnostic of whether this is public or private land. The link he provided ( COM:FOP US) explains US Freedom-of-Panorama US exception for architecture, and then continues: For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. The above image is substantially just a photo of 2D artwork. So regardless of whether the image was taken on public or private land, the image is still subject to copyright restrictions. -- Elephanthunter ( talk) 16:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Elephanthunter You are categorically wrong that it is "substantially just a photo of 2d artwork": I can see a family, roads, sidewalks, planters, windows, and the profile of the building, all very clearly. The artwork in question collectively comprises less than 25% of the image.

It is a photograph of a building. The fact that the building has artwork on it doesn't change that, unless the photo is cropped to the artwork. Even then, it's debatable. The building was clearly designed to incorporate that artwork, making it arguably (and I'd bet money this argument would win) part of the architecture, the same way that trim paint would be.

Look at an image like File:Times square at night.jpg. Who owns the copyright? The photographer? Not according to your argument. Swatch? Maybe. Juicy Couture? Nelly? I mean, it's "substantially just a photo of 2d artwork", isn't it? Ads aren't exempt from copyright laws. Does the USPS own the copyright to File:Times Square New York City FLIKR 8 One Times Square looking up.jpg because it depicts mostly ads for the USPS?

Furthermore, when one finds the Disney World policy page, one can find that their only mention of guest photography is the prohibitions of:

Photography, videotaping or recording of any kind, or otherwise engaging in any activity, for unapproved commercial purposes.

Note the qualifier. In legal terms, this means photography, videotaping and recording of any kind which is not for unapproved commercial purposes is permitted. This is the "approval of the copyright holder of the artwork".

Also note how Disney doesn't try to claim the copyright on photographs of their park. Contrast that with The Disney World Photopass T&Cs, where they explicitly claim copyright to any photograph taken by their Photopass service (cameras pre-installed in the parks). The lack of such a claim in their policies is legally notable: They're tacitly, and legally acknowledging that photographs taken within the park are copyrighted by the photographer, not Disney. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC) reply