Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pi-Seattle.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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.
This is a FlickrLickr image but US FOP does not cover statues or works of art, only the exterior and interiors of buildings. Leoboudv (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Just the letter π. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete And a painting of a tree is just a tree? No, that reasoning doesn't hold water. Besides, it was apparently a temporary installation only. Lupo 07:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Lupo is quite right. The pi sign is the dominant feature of the photo. DeMinimis cannot apply here. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if Mike Godwin says that a photo of Dali on the stairs of some museum was not a copyright problem for several reasons, I do not believe that Lupo or Leoboudv have more expertise on American copyright than an American lawyer. I do not see how this thing could be copyrighted. Would it be copyright infringement if I erected a large π in my backyard? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course not. But you own Pi sculpture in your backyard would be copyrighted (unless you'd release it into the public domain), and you would own that copyright. It's a sculpture, and it could have been done in a myriad of ways and forms, all still recognizeable as π. It's the sculptor's creation and the sculptor does have a copyright on it. He doesn't have a copyright on π as an abstract concept, nor one on the representation of π as two vertical bars topped by a horizontal bar. But he has one on his particular realization of this concept in the form of his concrete sculpture. Lupo 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Pieter, which declaration of Mike Godwin are you referring to? COM:FOP#United_States states unequivocally that freedom of panorama doesn't apply for artworks in the US, ans I agree with Leoboudv and Lupo that the threshold of originality is met here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to this. Also that was about a photo of stairs with some art on it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is very unfortunate that Mike (or MichaelMaggs) does not mention the "multiple paths" to his conclusion. As is, and as MichaelMaggs puts it, our policies don't allow this picture here. The Foundation should officially take position on this. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was referring to this. Also that was about a photo of stairs with some art on it. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if Mike Godwin says that a photo of Dali on the stairs of some museum was not a copyright problem for several reasons, I do not believe that Lupo or Leoboudv have more expertise on American copyright than an American lawyer. I do not see how this thing could be copyrighted. Would it be copyright infringement if I erected a large π in my backyard? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That was Mike Godwin. Admin Michael Maggs says the image must be deleted here after I asked him about this DR. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete It's a modern artwork & there's no FOP in the US. --Simonxag (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Clear copyvio as there is no FOP for sculptures in the US. For good measure, the image has also failed Frickr review. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
