Commons:Deletion requests/Jean-Claude Flornoy Tarot

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.
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Jean-Claude Flornoy Tarot|year=2024|month=August|day=13}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Jean-Claude Flornoy Tarot|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Jean-Claude Flornoy Tarot}} at the end of today's log.

Jean-Claude Flornoy Tarot

[edit]

These cards aren't the original cards (circa 1650), but a personal interpretation and creation from Jean-Claude Flornoy © 2002-2007. --Thomas Linard (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a personal interpretation nor a creation, but a reproduction. The comparison shows this and the en-WP says this ("Jean-Claude Flornoy has reproduced a number of early decks in the historical Tarot of Marseille and other early French pattern."). There are lots of modern reproductions of the Marseille deck and none of those are copy protected. "He brought back to life the Historic decks, …" and "His aim was to faithfully bring this traditional imagery back to life in all its original freshness": that is pure blurb and irrelevant here. To fresh something up does not qualify as creation. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Beforeafter.jpg shows the extend of the Jean-Claude Flornoy work. We can upload on Wikimedia the original Noblet deck, not a contemporary interpretation that has never been freely licensed, but whose creator claims copyright (© 2002-2007). Thomas Linard (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what he claims? This is just copyfraud, nothing else. Again: copyright protection is not for something "freshened up", but for creative work. BTW, "freshening st up" does not generate notability, either. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant Commons policies: COM:TO, COM:EVID and COM:PRP. Thomas Linard (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to claim that some policy is relevant is not enough. You have to show that it is relevant and explain in which way it applies. Likewise, for some company to claim copyright is not enough. It may be just copyfraud, as in this case. As long as there is nor original work, there is no copyright. This is a principle actively defended by Wikimedia in litigation (e.g. Wikimedia vs. Reiss-Engelhorn). To take a photograph of a PD painting does not generate copyright protection. To put a scan of a PD Tarot deck into Adobe Illustrator and freshen the colors and smoothing the lines does not get you copyright protection. Same applies to all 1-1 modern Marseille deck versions. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS: BTW, that Thomas did not take the time to wait for the decision here, but started parallel copyfraud-support-actions on other decks (see here and here), is very bad style in my eyes. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that Tarot © Maritxu De Guler, 1983, Tarot de Marseille (recolored) (sorry for the double request, my mistake) and Tarot de Marseille - German (thumbnails) are the same case, and the same answer must be given.
So far you have given only your own opinion (of little legal value in my opinion), but the argument that you put forward (Wikimedia vs. Reiss-Engelhorn) is very interesting: "In June 2016, a Berlin court (Landgericht Berlin) ruled that digitizing paintings that are in the public domain creates new copyrights, even if the intent is to create a faithful image of the public domain work. The lawsuit was dismissed with respect to Wikimedia Deutschland on the basis that it was not responsible for the files which are managed in the U.S. by the Wikimedia Foundation, which latter organization expressed the intent to appeal the decision." (…) "In a related case, in May 2017, the Oberlandesgericht of Stuttgart ruled with reference to the concept of property (Sacheigentum).[11] Property is addressed by article 14 of the German constitution.[12] The Stuttgart court ruled that under German law even minimal creativity produces protection of a work as a "Lichtbildwerk"." (see Wikipedia article for references). Thomas Linard (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You want to apply German law to Commons? Fine. Start making deletion request on fair use images (no such thing in German law). Regarding your obfuscating comment: these cards are not a "Lichtbildwerk", this is artwork, here applies "Schöpfungshöhe".
Furthermore, you still fail to make your point. The card company claims copyright for a century old design and you follow this fraudulent claim. --WolfgangRieger (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Start making deletion request on fair use images": I will if I found such images. Not because it's my personal opinion, but because it's Wikimedia official policy.
Furthermore, I do not think this discussion respects the 4th pillar of Wikipedia. So, I think we should ask for the help of an administrator, and while waiting for this help, I'll abstain in the future to comment here, unless obvious needs. Thomas Linard (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Jean-Claude_Flornoy_Tarot&oldid=310485599"