Commons:Deletion requests/File:Perversion-for-Profit-lesbian.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.

File:Perversion-for-Profit-lesbian.jpg

[edit]

Probable copyright violation. This is a still from a film which is in the public domain. This image, however, shows a "censored" version of a contemporary commercial work which is not known to be in the public domain. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep, nominator admits film itself is in the public domain, and yet fails to note whether and where this image still is copyrighted. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Rectangles are PD-Simple, original is {{PD-old}}, all together are below the originality threshold. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Changed the reasoning for the vote. See below. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point is, that while the film may be pd, the photograph that is being shown in the film may not be PD.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, the opinion of the WM foundation is that a reproduction of a 2D work that is in public domain is also in public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be missing the point. There is no reason to assume that the 2D work in question is in the public domain. I believe it is an image from a contemporary commercial magazine. If this were a Playboy centerfold, for example, there would be no debate that this is not a public domain work. That image may well be an image taken from Playboy, despite the spurious labelling of it as a "lesbian" image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Whether the film itself is PD or not seems pretty much irrelevant. What matters is whether the image depicted is in the PD or not. And given the material, I would imagine that is next to impossible to find out. What's Commons' standard way of dealing with images of unknown authorship and origin that are likely, but not necessarily in the Public Domain? --Conti|✉ 14:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can a still from a public domain film be copyrighted? I think that even in UK with its very low threshold of originality requirements wouldn't give you a copyright just for adding a rectangle to a single frame. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The film is not copyrighted, but what is shown in that still from the frame is something that was almost certainly copyrighted at the time and is likely to be under copyright now. Without meaning to sound facetious, what part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha, I think I am beginning to see what you are saying. You believe that the public domain film has used a copyrighted work, and as such it was originally a derivative? Is that what you mean? If so you should just say that, and then we need to examine that claim. The image is good and very useful, but of course if the particular frame happens to be a derivative work of a copyrighted material then we should probably delete... unfortunate as it may be. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You should probably amend your "vote" now that you understand what you are voting on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, you can try to insult me, but it won't get any emotional outburst. I understand that I am voting on a still frame from a public domain film which has been around for almost 50 years now. It is a very well known film and is widely distributed. COM:PRP states that we don't keep the files because "we can get away with it", but it doesn't state that we should see copyright where the evidence points to its nonexistence. Your claim that a frame from a popular 48 year-old public domain film is a copyvio can be compared to the claims made by people who think that there can be patent challenges against Theora or Ogg. After all this time there is still a chance of such thing occurring, but please calm down and m:Avoid copyright paranoia. So I do want to change my vote from Keep on the grounds that it's a DR from a pd film to  Keep since it's a DR from a 48 year-old popular pd film. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't trying to be insulting and I'm sorry if it came across that way. This has absolutely nothing to do with patent challenges, which are an entirely different legal area. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Don't worry about coming across insulting or anything, It's not easy to get through my skin. Btw, I did not say that there is anything patent related about this image, only that the logic used is the same. 48 years of distribution under public domain is evidence enough that it is in public domain. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Whilst the film itself might be in the public domain, such works can include elements which are still under copyright. Unless the authorship of the photograph used in the film can be ascertained, and unless it can be determined whether that image is in the public domain, we apply COM:PRP on this project. russavia (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete per nom and Russavia: a PD work can make fair use of copyrighted material, but if we isolate that copyrighted portion and present it by itself, we can't claim fair use any more. This is like finding a copyrighted photo in a Wikipedia article and republishing it without the text of the article. Rybec (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that may be a reason to delete. If it can be shown that in the film that frame was used under fair use, then this file here must be deleted. A very good and possibly valid point. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that the point that has been made from the very beginning? And shouldn't the basic principle be "Copyrighted until shown otherwise", instead of the other way around? --Conti|✉ 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the point that was being made was that it is just a copyrighted frame that somehow found its way into the public domain video that has been around for 48 year we're the first ones to notice it. Also it has been shown that the film as the whole series of frames is in public domain, even the nominator stipulated that right from the start. Now is the first time that somebody says that the original filmmakers put this part in under the fair use doctrine, and I agree that if there's (per COM:PRP) "significant" to believe that, then of course the file should be deleted. So far there's only "maybe they took a copyrighted work and fair used it", but that can be said about any work released into the public domain from which a derivative is then made. "Maybe copyrighted" is not "significant doubt", it's a statement of a possibility. Now, I like watching arguments of creationists against rationalists, and one of the things that distinguishes them is the point of being falsifiable. So here's what would make my argument false. If somebody finds a statement by the film-makers that says "some portions of this film are used under fair use". This wouldn't show that this particular one is, but it would create a significant doubt about the status of this frame. Without such a statement we have film-makers saying "we release all this work into the public domain" and for 48 years it goes completely unchallenged. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having said all that. I do see how an administrator can look at the image and see a reason to delete it. Thus I ask that whatever the decision of the closing admin will be that one provides an explanation for the deletion/keeping. I will try not to comment here unless something that hasn't already been said comes up. I've written more in this thread than I probably should have as it is. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair Use did not even exist as a term in 1965, thus it is absolutely impossible that the film back then could have claimed Fair Use and thus create "significant doubt" by your definition. So your definition of "significant doubt" does not seem that useful to me. A much more useful way to look at it would be to look at the context of the film: It is a propaganda film from 1965, privately financed, and it is about the (perceived) horrors of pornography. The film shows copious amounts of pictures from pin-up and similar magazines (with hilarious censor-bars everywhere). Now the question is: Is it likely that the film makers, wanting to show the horrors of pornography magazines, asked said magazines for permission to publish their pictures to denounce them? Is it likely that those pictures already were in the public domain and free to be used by the filmmakers? No, of course not. It's absolutely unlikely that either was the case. One could say that there is "significant doubt" that either was the case. What is more likely is that the filmmakers simply took the images without asking and used them in their film, not caring at all about copyright status. And the magazines did not want to draw any more attention to the issue by suing them, especially since copyright law back then was not as clear about Fair Use as it is today (again, "Fair Use" as a term did not even exist in law at the time). So is there significant doubt that those images are in the public domain? Yes, absolutely, there is. --Conti|✉ 11:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Videos of the film are in Category:Perversion for Profit. Rybec (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per arguments above. Basically the Burden of Evidence is on those who want to keep, so COM:PRP means we delete it - 48 years might seem long, but unfortunately it's not long in the copyright arena. 99of9 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Perversion-for-Profit-lesbian.jpg&oldid=95463448"