Commons:Deletion requests/File:R1-R9 Truck Description Panel.JPG
This is a sign at a museum in New York. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in this case. Stefan4 (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - Yes, a sign at a museum. IT'S TEXT, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, not some Roy Lichtenstein painting!! You might as well ban the image of a STOP SIGN!!
Keep: Very frivolous request --moogsi(blah) 17:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)- Withdrawn, I guess the text is under copyright moogsi(blah) 17:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize other museum images in the commons have text in them, don't you? ----DanTD (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nope. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll get on to deleting all those other signs right now --moogsi(blah) 07:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize other museum images in the commons have text in them, don't you? ----DanTD (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, I guess the text is under copyright moogsi(blah) 17:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete: text is easily PD by {{PD-text}}'s definition (the nomination is nonsense), however this is an image of just text, with no other educational value, and is outside scope as excluded educational content. I reinstate my previous vote and use this one to cancel it, cos I don't actually have a strong opinion either way on this one. Even though it's enough to put someone into allcaps mode. --moogsi(blah) 07:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This looks way too long for {{PD-text}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface"... perhaps I'm being too strict with my definition of 'sufficiently creative' but I can't think of a more literal way to say any of this stuff. Can't we just agree with each other for completely different reasons? :) --moogsi(blah) 10:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This sign doesn't only contain facts, data and unoriginal information, but also creative choices about word order, word usage and sentence structure. For example, it says that "a truck is an assembly of many parts", and then the writer made a creative decision to list four examples of parts. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- "Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface"... perhaps I'm being too strict with my definition of 'sufficiently creative' but I can't think of a more literal way to say any of this stuff. Can't we just agree with each other for completely different reasons? :) --moogsi(blah) 10:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This looks way too long for {{PD-text}}. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete passes the threshold of creativity, which is quite low. It's not just a few words, but a few sentences. The sentences are nothing like "So-and-so was born in XYZ on April 5, 1954." but contain some creativity. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Something is seriously wrong with this whole goddamn deletion request! We're going to get to the point where we can't even take pictures of historical markers anymore!! ----DanTD (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the part about facts not being copyrightable mainly means that tables of facts (cf. wmf:DMCA OZTAM) can't be protected by copyright. However, if you put the fact in a sentence, then you make a creative choice when you decide which words to use. Deletion of historical markers is nothing new; historical markers have been deleted several times in the past. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing new perhaps, but nothing good either. Historic markers and signs can't possibly be an infringement on anybody's rights. This is not a work of art. All those things do is describe why a site is important. I can understand if you'd want to tag a picture of "The Four Seasons," by Joy Taylor for deletion (which is at Larchmont (Metro-North station)), but not a sign describing the mural. You'd probably tag an image of the old Mile marker on Mount Kisco (Metro-North station) if somebody tried to capture their own image of that. This is becoming as absurd as Daffy Duck in the old Warner Brothers cartoon "Boobs in the Woods," or if you want a real-life example, the MTA when they were trying to get all their subway bullets deleted!! ----DanTD (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the part about facts not being copyrightable mainly means that tables of facts (cf. wmf:DMCA OZTAM) can't be protected by copyright. However, if you put the fact in a sentence, then you make a creative choice when you decide which words to use. Deletion of historical markers is nothing new; historical markers have been deleted several times in the past. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: As per Stefan4 and Calliopejen1. Absent the permission of the creator of the original work, a derivative image such as this one is an infringement of the creator's copyright, whether the original work is painted, written, drawn or otherwise. Skeezix1000 (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
