Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 October 2

October 2

File:Prometheus Society logo.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo for a "society" that does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, I doubt Wikipedia can claim fair use when its not actually in use. Polygnotus (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

export to Commons as PD-textlogo. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Queen of Hearts: What is the point of keeping it when the organization is not notable? Polygnotus (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Metropolis (1927).webm

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Procedural close, not a matter for FfD. If there is indeed a copyright concern from someone claiming to represent the distributor, then they need to go through the formal channel at permissions-enwikimedia.org. -Fastily 00:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous FfD for this file was closed yesterday as no consensus, but I'm reopening because of this comment from someone presumably representing the UK distributor. At this point at least, I'd still say that although Fritz Lang's work is under copyright in the UK and Germany, this version doesn't contain elements that would be copyrighted in the U.S. hinnk (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm fairly unfamiliar with these specific copyright laws, I don't know really understand how this applies. Wouldn't that just allow us to upload various BBC programs or anything that was made for release in the UK here and host it on US servers? That sounds like a giant loop hole copyright-wise to me and I don't really understand where or how this applies. Also, as I'm in Canada, does this make it viable for me to watch and use under these US copyright laws? I'm not really voting this yes or no, I just don't really get it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the first question, no. Generally speaking, works published by the BBC in the UK will be copyrighted in the U.S. for 95 years after first publication, even if that publication was outside the U.S. The U.S. used to require works meet a few other requirements, but many works whose U.S. copyright had expired for those reasons ended up having their copyright restored by the URAA in 1996. This actually happened with Metropolis from 1996 to 2022 and gets discussed in Metropolis (1927 film) § Copyright status.

Since this version obviously differs from the original release, the main question is whether the changes are eligible for copyright protection in the U.S. Wikimedia projects have usually used the interpretation that faithful restoration of a public domain work doesn't establish a new copyright (but things like new soundtracks, pan and scan, digital colorization, etc. can require copyrightable creativity). I think the last discussion of this was c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/06#Film restoration, new copyright?.

I can't really speak to the second question with any authority. My understanding from the Reiss Engelhorn Museum and National Portrait Gallery cases is that the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the U.S. and claims the right to host works that are in the public domain there. Seems safe to say it isn't legal for people outside the U.S. to redistribute works in countries where they're still under copyright. hinnk (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed response! I'm curious as well about a few other items with this. Are the subtitles also pulled from the Metropolis disc? I'm wondering if they are being re-applied here, or even if they were re-put back in by hand by someone else, would that also be potentially going on Eureka/MOC rights? Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so I think there may actually be an issue with the subtitles specifically. The subtitles came from a different source than the video, they were from a subtitle site that I think had them labeled as autotranslated, and then I had to make some corrections to it before creating TimedText:Metropolis (1927).webm.en.srt. I compared it against a copy with the English intertitles online (probably YouTube or Internet Archive) to make sure it wasn't the same, but after doing a reverse search on the text, I think the U.S. release probably uses a different translation and these may actually have originally come from English subtitles from one of the European releases. Based on that, I think we should delete TimedText:Metropolis (1927).webm.en.srt, and then (if the video is kept) I can work on putting together a different translation. hinnk (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:07-17-2016BatonRougeshooting.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. ✗plicit 14:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is stated to be a CCTV camera. In this case, c:template:PD-automated could probably apply. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo, keep as-is. The assertion made by PD-automated has never been tested in US court. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the non-free usage of the image. -Fastily 00:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:KAMU PBS npr logo.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file'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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with File:KAMU-TV.png on Commons and no longer used. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.