Commons:Deletion requests/RedPanels comics

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=RedPanels comics|year=2024|month=December|day=06}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||RedPanels comics|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/RedPanels comics}} at the end of today's log.
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.

RedPanels comics

[edit]

These files come from a website that states that "you may repost it anywhere without restriction". That being said, I think this falls short of an actual Creative Commons license or release of copyrights. The page certainly doesn't mention the CC0 license or the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license that the files are labeled with. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The statement by the copyright holder that "you may repost it anywhere without restriction" is a clear unambiguous release to the public domain. TarnishedPathtalk 05:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like the statement could be perceived as more of a {{Copyrighted free use}}. ObserveOwl (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about that I read it in context of the question that is asked in FAQ form (http://redpanels.com/about_page.php). Question: "May I share this comic?" Answer: "Yes, you may repost it anywhere without restriction." The important bit to me is "without restriction". To me that would include making derivative works when sharing. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; it's not a statement that directly mentions the public domain, but it could be close enough from that interpretation, so the CFU template might be more appropriate for the licensing. ObserveOwl (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete The statement grants an unlimited right to make copies. It says nothing about derivatives. There is also no explicit protection from the artist revoking the "licence" at a later stage. This isn't a PD release and it isn't compliant with our requirements at COM:L. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete besides the points raised by From Hill To Shore, it's not clear to me who "you" is. Does it apply to everyone, or just people who checked out the website? So if someone takes the image from us, are they actually allowed to "repost it anywhere" as would be required for a suitable licence? Also what is "repost"? Can someone print out the image, put it on a plain right t-shirt with nothing else, etc? As I understand it, these a good chance none of these things will be considered derivative works, since they're just using the original image in unmodified form without doing anything with a sufficient creativity to give rise to a new copyright. However they also don't clearly fit into what the licence says. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per nom and From Hill To Shore (not irrevocable). Alalch E. (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Even though the CC0 license is not explicitly mentioned, it seems obvious to me that the work is released to the public domain and allows making derivative works when sharing. -- Gabi S. (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's a public domain statement at all -- {{Copyrighted free use}} seems more accurate. Definitely cannot use any CC licenses (especially CC0) without it being explicitly stated. Vague licenses like this can be quite problematic. I don't think it should be revocable, since it doesn't mention that aspect, though there can be some technicalities with that. My biggest issue is the derivative works question. The explicit permission is to "repost". Not sure that includes derivative works, or usages in places which may not qualify as a "repost". The term to me somewhat implies internet usage only (even if the intention was wider than that). Can it be used on a t-shirt or a postcard? The precise wording on statements like these can often be an issue. Does "repost" allow cropping, which could remove the credit, or does that imply only reproducing the entire image? If a re-user assumes one thing, and the author assumed another meaning, it can end up quite messy. A wording change to "re-use" instead of "repost" may have done it, but this makes me a bit nervous, even if on the borderline. The explicit permission statement should be on the images, if kept. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The web comic in question ran for about two years, from 2015 to 2017, and was not a blockbuster. The creator didn't reveal his real name, does not have social media presence and did not sell merchandise. Given these circumstances, it seems obvious to me that yes, he would allow you to crop, remove the credit, make t-shirts and do whatever you want with his creations, go ahead. He wrote "you may repost it anywhere without restriction" because a one-man web comic cannot afford a legal department. -- Gabi S. (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that isn't a sound argument. For as long as copyright has existed, there have been anonymised and pseudonymised works and they receive a degree of automatic protection. You portray the author of the Red Panels comic as having abandoned their work but WHOIS data shows they have maintained their domain since 2015 (including a renewal on 16 July 2023). As a minimum, the domain registrar will have the details of the site owner and the site owner (if not the author) should have details of the author. As someone in control of that site was active in 2023 to renew the domain, it is well within their power to provide a less ambiguous statement. We should rely on the statement as written until it is changed. Fanciful interpretations that are convenient for Wikimedia editors go against COM:PCP. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous works get U.S. copyright protection for 95 years from publication. The author can choose to make themselves known at any time, or even file a lawsuit through an agent/lawyer. The license is only based on the words explicitly given, no more. If a court deems a particular usage to not be a "repost", then it's unauthorized and infringement (unless fair use for other reasons). If these become famous for whatever reason in 30 years, a copyright owner (or their heirs) can change their minds. In the U.S., abandonment can be a difficult thing to prove; it requires an overt act. A license statement which is limited in any way does not do that. Creative Commons licenses attempt to make it easy for non-lawyer authors to license their work; by choosing something different, it unfortunately needs to be evaluated on its own wording. You cannot change "repost" to any other word; that is the permission. It seems clear to me that the author wanted to allow them to be spread over social media, but not sure how much further it goes beyond that. It would be based on what the commonly-understood meaning of "repost" is. Hosting it on Wikimedia is likely within the license, so I don't think it's infringement just by hosting it, but I also don't think it's "free" (which does not simply mean free of cost) because there are likely usages which do not count as a "repost". If you have a different interpretation of "repost", then please show that, with some references of how other people interpret it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's customary to include the irrevocability wording and that it has bearing on how it should be understood because it is a usual thing to include. For example CC0: "...hereby overtly, fully, permanently, irrevocably and unconditionally waives, abandons, and surrenders..." Alalch E. (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's preferable to remove all doubt, but lack of a mention does not necessarily make something revocable -- {{BSD}} does not mention it for example. I think there was a court case that a license silent on the matter is irrevocable if there was consideration given (payment, or something else). The requirement for a credit may well qualify as that consideration. Something like this one though, may be more nebulous since there are no real conditions imposed, provided it's a "repost". Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep so would be the WTF license. Just because the creator did no use the phrase CC0 does not invalidate the very obvious intention of free use. --Zenwort (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That license is not vague, really -- it is quite expansive in that it has no restrictions whatsoever. There have been humorous licenses which haven't been as obvious, which can run into trouble. On this license, I don't see that the author intended free use (with the "free" being defined as we need it, https://freedomdefined.org ). It says "repost". That does imply a wide range of OK uses, certainly, but not absolutely everything. It's a valid license, but not sure it is "free". If there is any use that "free" requires that does not qualify as a "repost", then its license does not allow it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The permission to repost does not seem to extend to making derivitive works. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/RedPanels_comics&oldid=885188166"