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.
non-trivial (abstracting) work by (probably) another person depicted: the model of the submarine. The photographer seems to have been in a museum on that day. @The uploader/photographer: Did you only photograph it or did you also construct the model? Of course, if the model is PD - eg. if the person who created the model did it during his duties and was a US government employee - this photo would be also okay. --Saibo (Δ) 03:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC) @uploader and just for info: Commons:Derivative works is the policy page explaining this. --Saibo (Δ) 12:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the link, - nothing but a restatement of your private feud with Mike. Taking it here was pointy but pointless. NVO (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, the the object would be considered a sculpture, so would have copyright. Unless there is FOP for indoor museum displays in the country where this photograph is taken, the photo would be considered a derivative work, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one cared to invent FOP for "indoor museum exhibits" in general. The concept applies to works of art and other protected intellectual property, not any museum object. But if the consensus of the asylum decides that scale models are indeed works of art, so be it. If this DR goes to where it's heading now, house rules must be amended to reflect it. NVO (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has copyright been interested in art? Everything I've read, judges have successfully dodged any responsibility for judging things to be art or not, and copyright has been provided for some very non-artistic things. In this case, this is as copyrightable as any doll house; what is shown, what is not shown, the design of the little bits, it's all copyrightable. It was carefully and creatively made.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The country of origin does not use the concept of copyright, and the complete body of court decisions (checked the database a week ago) is exactly four. Four cases that were actually resolved, all because these were political trials brought during local elections (these must be resolved, unlike true civil cases that are normally settled out-of-court). If American laws allow anyone to copyright someone else's things, it's great but irrelevant to the subject. NVO (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it doesn't list the country of origin, if it came down to that, I'd use the worst of France, the US, the UK, Mexico and the Ivory Coast, since that should about cover it. If this was done in Russia, then all those Soviet era court cases are still precedent. If there are only four cases, then we must look at how copyright law is treated internationally, and assume that local law follows the same general twists and turns.
If you're referring to someone else's things as to the submarine, then long-standing laws world-round have let people copyright other people! Portrait artists have long got copyright for their paintings.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the deleting admin. Please provide explicit rationale for deletion: is it because models of submarines are sculptures? is it because it was taken indoors? or, perhaps, because the laws of some other country allow some else to copyright the thing? Thank you for setting the precedent, NVO (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a hard one. With deference to NVO's comment, I'm not ready to be the closing Admin. There are several issues here:
The copyright in the photograph itself. I assume that we are all OK with the fact that it is the uploader's own work and therefore not an issue.
FOP. I assume this is in a museum (see the link above to another photo of the uploader's.) Of the major countries, only the UK, I think, allows FOP inside museums. Since we do not know where this was taken, I think we have to assume that FOP does not apply.
The images above the model. I'm willing to say that they are de minimis. Others might disagree.
Finally, the question of the model itself. I have always been uncomfortable with the fact that, in all jurisdictions, a good set of paper drawings of this Thresher, showing all three views and all the detail shown here, would clearly have a copyright, but in some jurisdictions, a model might not.
Does not the model take more work to create than the drawings? Does it not require more creative input? An excellent drawing is simply a faithful reproduction, but a modeler must make creative choices all the time -- small objects -- rope, handrails, etc. -- are hard to show in scale sizes -- and you cannot model every detail, even in relatively large models, so you are making choices all the time.
I would also argue that if a sculptor makes a 3D sculpture of a person, or a lion, or a gun -- it plainly has a copyright and we delete images in non FOP countries. So how do we reach the conclusion that a sculpture showing a ship is not covered?
Therefore, I come down on the side of saying that this model does have a copyright. The full size Tango does not, as it is a utility object, but the model does. It would a stretch to call this a toy, but clearly models that are toys have copyright, so why not this model? Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptional statements need reliable evidence. Who has copyrighted it, and in what jurisdiction? I'd repeat again, for those who didn't hear it, that the country of origin does not employ the concept of "copyright". "Copyrighting" in the sense of "registering rights with a copyright authority" exists for software, databases, etc.; "copyrighting" in the sense of "registering with money-collecting racket" exists for musical and video recordings; - neither scale models, nor museum exhibits are there. P.S. What "copyrighted artwork" is doing on User:FunkMonk/Files_I_have_created? NVO (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet no exceptional claims have been made. Copyright does not have to be registered, the moment you create an artwork, the copyright is yours. And please show me which image in my gallery shows "copyrighted artwork". Nominate them for deletion if you so please. I do have some images of sculptures, but they are public domain due to age. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect in case of this jurisdiction. Author's rights emerge "the moment you create" one of sixteen types of intellectual property, from fine art to computer databases. Author's rights exist regardless of anything except the act of creation (or first performance for never-recorded IP), but curiously, and quite often, the author is prohibited from copying the work. Then there are layers of exclusive rights, related rights etc. - in line with Berne Convention. But "copyright" just isn't there. Especially coupled with past tense ("copyrighted") or future tense ("copyrightable"), words that imply some action at obtaining copyright.
"Author's right" seems pretty much like a synonym of "copyright". And if you don't want "deletion vendetta", then you should maybe quit referring to pictures irrelevant to this DR? In any case, I welcome you to nominate any of my uploaded pictures if you feel they are copyvios, I'd do it myself if I thought they were. FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NVO, please forgive me a dumb question. Your have referred several times to "this jurisdiction", but I don't understand where the model is. Certainly it is a model of a Soviet submarine, but the file name includes the NATO code name for the class, so it could be in Russia, the Ukraine, or in a NATO country. The uploader, User:Mike1979 Russia doesn't tell us where he is based, so even that is not a clue. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did photo in museum in Moscow, Russia. The museum is a public. I didn't create the model. I don't know who and how did the model but it was done for museum.--Mike1979 Russia (talk) 12:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Mike, although you may not like the result. There is no exception for FOP in Russia, so the creator's rights must be respected. As I argued above, this must be a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Copyright generally subsists in models (e.g., per USC 17 § 101, "Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works' include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans." (emphasis added) Note, further, that this is not a useful article (as an actual submarine would be), as a useful article is "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information". (USC 17 § 101, emphasis added) The Russian Federation does not have a freedom of panorama position compatible with our definition of freeness. Эlcobbolatalk16:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as the uploader appears to have a loose grasp on copyright law (see my user talk page). — Jeff G. ツ 04:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment Thank you, Mike, although you may not like the result. There is no exception for FOP in Russia, so the creator's rights must be respected. As I argued above, this must be a delete. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
