Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bp-polish-codebreakers-plaque.jpg

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.

File:Bp-polish-codebreakers-plaque.jpg

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 the United Kingdom.. The image infringes on the text on the plaque. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well, what about [1]? And if your claim is that there's infringement as to the text itself, would it be your position that we can't quote the text in the article? EEng (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We call the section you cite FOP, and I suggest you read Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom, where you will see that it does not apply to text in the UK.

The question of quoting the text in a WP:EN article is up the rule makers there, but my guess would be that you can quote it as Fair Use, but Fair Use is not permitted on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless I believe your analysis is incorrect. The work is clearly a 3D "sculpture", so that leaves only the issue of the text. The text opens "This plaque commemorates..."; thus it is not quoted from elsewhere, but rather is simply a part of the sculpture itself. EEng (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: could you please share your opinion? Natuur12 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure the text is sufficiently lengthy and creative to justify a copyright claim, even in the UK. Do we have general guidance on such matters? James F. (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's another way of looking at ~~tit~~ it, but I'll say it again: the text is part of the work itself. It has no copyright status separate from the work itself. And the work comes under FOP. EEng (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry, there was a typo in my prior post. Now fixed. EEng (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: UK has FOP for 3D works. The text as a 3D work falls under the FOP exception. FOP does not depend on the complexity of the depicted work. It would be different is you write the depicted text down, although even then it may be borderline to PD-ineligible. --Jcb (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]