Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/Images of recent scale models

< Commons:Deletion requests
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.

Images of recent scale models

edit

Models are work of art on their own right. Photographs of recent models (models of recent ships are particularly easy to spot) constitute possible, probable or downright copyright infringements, even if the model is not credited or dated. Rama (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold: A large proportion of model photos on Commons are canditates for deletion (must be deleted). This is the rason I have never uploaded a photo of a model. Unfortunately there is not a clear rule in Commons:Image casebook, it just redirects to Commons:Derivative works which confuses most users. I propose to keep listing model photos for deletion but not take any action before Image Casebook is updated with an explicit rule. An announcement must be made in Commons:Village Pump or even in Commons:Main Page so that no further model photos are uploaded. Sv1xv (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I can't quite follow the blanket statement: "It's a model, so it must be copyrighted art". A great many models are just faithful, if scaled down, copies of some other object, where the original itself is ineligible for copyright. We need to carefully evaluate the threshold of originality with the few cases that do more, eg. by presenting complete scenes, where the creator has actually added an interpretative element that doesn't just repeat the original. --Latebird (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conception of a model entails a choice of which detail to include and which to set aside, as well as choices of how to render these details. Models are thus not trivial and servile reproductions of the original, like reproductions of statues are. Rama (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Please note that many of these models are not recent at all. For example the last in the list - model of French submarine "Surcouf". The submarine was sunk in 1942, so no chance to spot and shot it today... Levg (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much to the contrary, Surcouf was built in 1929, which entails that the model cannot be older than 80 years. This figure is much too small to guarantee that the author of the model has died over 70 years ago -- it is in fact quite unlikely that this is the case. In this sense, it is thus a recent model.
The fact that we cannot photograph the original ship is a non sequitur. Rama (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of these are my photos :-) I understand the point and won't complain if these images are deleted. Honestly these copyright criteria are hard to understand, and despite having translated and researched many rules on Commons (including copyright rules), I am still unclear labout these. I still believe that the input of someone with actual knowledge in copyright / intellectual property laws would be beneficial at some point... le Korrigan →bla 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a fair quantity of my images, including some that I had detoured by hand, and I summarly deleted them myself because leaving them accessible scared the hell out of me. Rama (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I suspected you had to delete a few of yours too... shame. Don't you still think that actual legal advice would be helpful in these cases of derivative works? le Korrigan →bla 13:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unlikely that we will find a legal advice backed by assurances that I would be defended and covered in case of a lawsuit. As far as I am concerned, any other sort of assurance is worthless -- it just amounts to an encouragement to be cannon fodder. Rama (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I am somehow reluctant to take and publish photographs of models from museums myself, but I think, that they can not be copyrighted objects of art. The reason of a scale model is to copy an original to a maximum extent. It is not supposed to be an original object of art, like a sculpture. Pibwl (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Have a look at the files of the Category:Papenburger Werftsmuseum. The models of these ships are built to check the engineering drawings. That is the way to find out engineering mistakes in an early stage, not during the construction of the ship herself. [Saying that as former head of electrical engineering of a Shell petrochemical plant. In my time we built plants on scale before starting the real construction.] I cannot see why I am allowed to make fotographs of the original ships as a result of the engineering (the drawings will have copyrights) and not of the models. The same ships, built by the same drawings, but just on another scale, not 1:1 but say 1:100. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some models may be useful articles while those made after the ship in question was constructed are unlikely to be. In countries like the UK the very liberal FOP laws mean that this is unlikely to be an issue however I can see this being a problem in france.Geni (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. – There is certainly no consensus to delete here. It seems to me that more explicit policy is needed with regard to these kinds of models. At any rate, there's no point letting this request languish here forever; if the nominator (or anyone else) still feels compelled to request the deletion of these files, it's best done in a new request. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_recent_scale_models&oldid=130103936"