Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SaabScandia.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

Image:SaabScandia.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a model of the plane rather than the plane itself. Deriv work - hence delete. Megapixie (talk) 02:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Liftarn and N are right.  Keep. Pruneautalk 17:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the model is a faithful replica of the original plane so it is ineligible for copyright anyway, making the freedom of panorama issue a moot point. // Liftarn (talk)
  •  Keep replica of PD object with no individual creativity. -Nard 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And re-opened. User:Megapixie makes this point on my talk page:

Let me pose you the following thought experiments:
Can you copyright the appearance of a human being ? No. A human being's appearance is not copyrightable. Can you copyright a sculpture of a human being ? Yes. Is a photograph of such a sculpture a derivative work ? yes.
Look at it another way. Take a coin, say a Roman coin (Sic transit gloria mundi) . PD for a thousand years. Take a photo of the coin. The photo is protected by copyright.
How can a 3D representation of a PD object not be protected by copyright given the above.

I can't argue with this. If he's right, then my keep was in error. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off the human can be copyrighted if it is not a real person. Also the choice of features, shading, pose, etc etc add to copyright. The same with a photograph..positioning, background, shading, may make a copy copyrightable (and may not). An exact 3d model shows no creativity. At least under US law, the harder a person works to make a 3d model exact the less eligible it is for copyright, See L Batlin & Sons v. Snyder [1]. -Nard the Bard 19:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I have absolutely no idea about Swedish copyright law. You'll note that Snyder involves something on the same scale. Hmmm - "Alva Studios v. Winninger" I choose you ! Basically the case says a precisely scaled down exact 3D reproduction that involved some skill to produce is entitled to copyright protection (dangerously close to sweat of brow...). If we argue this is an exact reproduction (which I have to say it doesn't appear to be) then this precedent would suggest that it is entitled to protection. If we argue it's not an exact reproduction then the creative choices that make it non-exact entitle it to protection. EU copyright law again - I'm a bit vague, but it tends to be more sweat of browish than US copyright law. Megapixie (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The difference with the "sculpture of a human being" example is that the sculpter has a lot of scope for artistic decisions about pose, expression, clothes etc. Here, there appears to be just a direct copy of a non-copyright object.MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:SaabScandia.jpg&oldid=418382588"