Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon international hot air ballon festival nov 2012.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:Leon international hot air ballon festival nov 2012.jpg

[edit]

COM:DW, no FoP in France, the USA has a w:Mickey_Mouse_Protection_Act. Sorry Tomas, I know this is annoying. 99of9 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hot air balloons in leon guanajuato mexico 2.jpg features the same balloon at the same event. Rd232 (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Several points…. Starting with FoP in France… So what does FoP in France have to do with FoP in Mexico? Perhaps we should apply the FoP in reverse so we can get some decent images of France! I mean, it makes as much sense, doesn´t it? Since the picture was taken in Mexico, and Mexico has FoP #[this should apply here.]

Second, de minimis applies, see here an example: #REDIRECT[[1]]
Third, 7 hot air balloons appear in the image, which one is the offending one? I suppose that the pattern designs could be copyrighted on any of them. The largest one? The second largest? The third largest?
Fourth, the image is of a hot air balloon festival, so naturally hot air balloons appear. Hot air balloons come in different shapes, colors, and are meant to be seen, photographed, etc. So all the balloons that appear here are shown in that context. By participating in such a public event, it is very unreasonable to think that participants would expect the public to refrain from photographing their particular balloon. This image records a notable public event.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I misread Leon as Lyon. Geocoding or location categorization would help dolts like me. However, I don't buy the COM:DM claim, I think Mickey features prominently and is an important subject of the picture. If the other patterns are copyright too, that would only make the situation worse, not better. --99of9 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let´s delete anything in Commons that could be copyrighted! And since just about anything that appears in photographs, clothing, signs, buildings, sculptures, etc., etc. in public view could be a copyrighted image, let´s play it safe. Let´s delete, that way we can free gigas and gigas of memory to store nothing images. ;) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting images does not free any disk space, they're just removed from public view. (That is why images can be undeleted.) As for your general remark: yes, unfortunately, a very large proportion of modern creative works are copyrighted. Some copyright exemptions may apply for specific photos of them (de minimis or freedom of panorama), or they may not. A wider exemption, "fair use", is not allowed on Commons. It has to be remembered that Commons is not a general media repository, it is a media repository of educational works that are available under a certain definition of "freely usable". You're welcome to upload images that don't meet that definition elsewhere, at your own legal risk. Rd232 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speculations about intention of displaying or publishing works in certain ways may be tempting, but intention is only legally relevant for copyright if the law actually says so (and it rarely does). Rd232 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - the Mickey Mouse balloon needs to be cropped out; the resulting image will not be as good, but not useless. It's clearly a derivative work, de minimis does not apply (see the Commons:De_minimis#Guidelines) and unfortunately FOP in Mexico doesn't seem to cover balloons: Commons:FOP#Mexico. Rd232 (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it may be that {{FoP-Mexico}} does apply here (I don't see any requirement of permanent display in the main law; there may be elsewhere of course). Unfortunately there's no freedom of panorama in the US, and per Commons:Lex loci protectionis, US FOP rules might well apply in a US court. (See Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Choice_of_law.) Rd232 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, let´s be clear on what is in the photograph. The photograph is of a hot air balloon festival. A hot air balloon is an airship designed and built to comply with aviation standards and licensed as such. So some say it is Mickey Mouse, I say it is an airship. This airship is among its airship peers in its utilitarian context. Much like a car that may be copyrighted, once it is on the freeway, in its context, it is just part of the scene. I am pretty sure that whatever legal papers there may be on the legal existence of this object do not mention Mickey Mouse, but rather refer to it as airship serial number X and so forth. The physical area (surface) where the airsip that resembles Mickey mouse is smaller than the one occupied by another airship, and definitely there are other elements that take up much more space. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a balloon clearly designed to look like Mickey Mouse; it's a derivative work of Mickey Mouse. It doesn't matter that the balloon is a utilitarian object (Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Utility_objects) because the issue isn't a new copyright in the balloon, but protecting the copyright that predates the balloon. And you took the photo as a photographer, making a striking image of which the balloon is a central feature; don't now pretend you took it as a physicist, not noticing what the balloon looked like... Rd232 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting reading, and some comments... this is an airship, a 3d object... First, it would be interesting to know how some of the criteria in the link you provided found its way there. Reminds me of a law in Texas that says "When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone." If this is a serious attempt to enforce not even copyright protection, but someone´s incredibly narrow view of reality, then please go to category automobiles and have a field day! If we are to err on the side of ridiculous caution, then lets just close down commons! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately these things are irredeemably complicated and legalistic. If you can provide clarification with sources about a specific situation (country's law or relevant cases), great. If not, we have to do our best to apply what knowledge we have. About cars: no, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Vehicles. Rd232 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an airship is a vehicle... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a place where anyone can contribute. This is one of the greatest things and one of its greatest dangers. Just about anybody can put whatever he wants on a page and if it goes unnoticed, it can be assumed as either poicy, procedure, or God forbids, the law cast in stone and interpreted in any manner. Here we have it clear, I say it is an airship. It is a vehicle, it transports people, it is registered under aviation regulations, it is a 3d object. That is the legal status. And there are 7 such airships in the image, why delete it on the basis of one? Why not extend the courtesy of possible copyvio to all of them? and at the same time, do so in every photograph of "possible copyvios." I mean, it was attempted in this nomination to apply French law to Mexico!!!!! The nominator accepted the mistake because it was pointed out to him, but what about the possibility that a vandal wrote opinions used as guideliness and pulling a great joke on all? Some of these claims are beyond belief! There is nothing wrong, illegal or unethical about the image. It depicts an actal public and notable event in the area of hot aiir balloons and aviation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other balloons may fall under the "not copyrightable, as it's a utilitarian object" principle. The Mickey Mouse balloon may too, but that doesn't cancel the copyright that existed before the balloon was made. As to your general thoughts: I can only reiterate, we're doing the best with the knowledge we have; if you can add to it or correct it, great. In my experience, mistakes are mostly made in the direction of allowing things that we should not - see for example Commons:VPC#Scale_models. Rd232 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It´s all semantics my friend... And given the nature of the image in the real editorial world, its proportions, its context, the newsworthiness of the event (200+ balloons, the 2nd largest hot air balloon festival in the world) make for a legitimate image, with EV, the intent is clearly to illustrate that, and it is in line with legal and legitimate journalistic principles of photography. And if we were to look into the legal nature of the object, it is an airship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This all seems so Orwellian... manouvering language to fit desired meanings to justify desired actions... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
it is in line with legal and legitimate journalistic principles of photography - yes, absolutely. But the root of the problem - and you must accept this, and you're struggling to - is that not everything that conforms with those principles is acceptable on Commons. The main reason for this is that Commons requires files to be usable for any purpose, including commercially, and not just for journalistic purposes, where "fair use" considerations would normally cover any copyright issues. Rd232 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
which hot air balloon is used in the article comes down to who is writing the article, and what a range of balloons they like and what takes their taste. For example, if the article is about that festival, then they'd pick out the most interesting balloons as a fair summary of the festival and why that festival is noteworthy. For balloons of the 21st century, it's not a great summary to have more than a few custom balloons, but those few still come down to taste. So really it's just a matter of asking random people 'could you use this in a good article'. Of course if you asked me, I'd say "Hell no!" I couldn't use that in an article, but then there are people who are slightly less blocked than me :O Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The hot air balloon/airship may be a copyright violation of Mickey Mouse; but I don't think it is a problem here. It had to be handled by the hot air balloon festival authority, if it was a problem for them. JKadavoor Jee 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It had to be handled by the hot air balloon festival authority - no, that makes no sense. For all we know the balloon-makers had the right to make that derivative work of Mickey Mouse (as a balloon). That does absolutely not mean that anyone else has the right to make and publish further derivatives of that derivative work. Rd232 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really imagine Disney making that balloon, take it to an international hot air balloon festival that attracts 70,000 people plus each day of the festival at the park itself, and be seen in the air by a city of 1.5 million people and to expect people, or the press, or the organizers restrain themselves of photographing this airship? Come on... where is the sanity here? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find something in Mexican copyright law where such expectations factor in, please let us know. Otherwise, it just comes back to the very basic point that the law says what it says, and we have to do our best to apply it. In short, please stop trying to apply common sense to legal issues, it's rarely helpful... :( Rd232 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have gone through this before, it is even in wikipedia.... maybe the admins that nominate should read the law first... of the relevantcountry, of course...
Mexican copyright law, taken from the oficial Mexican Government site at #[[2]]
Chapter II
Limitation of patrimonial rights
Article 148
Literary or artistic works previously published could be used, as long as the normal exploitation of the artwork is not affected, without the authorization of the copyright holder and without compensation, pointing out to the source, only in the following cases:
II. Reproduction of articles, photographs, illustrations and comments referent to current events… or any other media, if this is not expressly prohibited by the copyright holder.
VII. Reproduction, communication and distribution of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual procedures of the works that are visible from public places.
So this photograph does not interfere with the normal commercial exploitation of the image in question and previously published; No announcement was made warning photographers to photograph the airship question and last, the airship was visible from a public place, and in public land.
This image is so within the law….
Laik oder yusers here, my inglish is not so gud so maibi someone else wants to translate the law…
And this, incidentally, applies to the other images that have been censored.
--Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article 148 is worth considering, but it doesn't help us here. VII doesn't cover 3D works like balloons. II doesn't cover 3D works either, and also seems to only cover text and media publicados por la prensa o difundidos por la radio o la televisión, o cualquier otro medio de difusió, i.e. published in the mass media. More generally, Art 148 has two requirements that seem hard to meet here: siempre que no se afecte la explotación normal de la obra ... citando invariablemente la fuente. COM:L requires permitting commercial reproduction, which may be a problem for the first; and citing the source - well that again suggests it's not applicable here, a balloon is not really a citable source. Rd232 (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, the airship can be considered a 3d object, which it is, and therefore not copyrightable... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to correct myself. I misread it somehow (not sure how, now!): VII does cover 3D works - it's the freedom of panorama clause of {{FoP-Mexico}}. It seems fair to apply to that here - am I missing something? Unfortunately, we probably have to respect US law here as well (COM:L + Commons:Lex loci protectionis), and the US doesn't have freedom of panorama. Rd232 (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg, the issue was that FOP needs permanent display. That's certainly a principle with some FOP laws, but I don't see it in Art. 148 part VII, which just says obras que sean visibles desde lugares públicos (objects visible from public places). Rd232 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've made that point before, and I've replied to it before: it doesn't matter whether the balloon is independently copyrightable; that's entirely separate from the copyright of the work it's based on. It's perfectly possible to copy a copyrighted work without generating a new copyright - but doing so doesn't make the existing copyright disappear. Rd232 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, in order to be o the safe side, just wipe out 99% of images in Commons, for they will be somehow questionable under any country under any excuse.... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, per COM:L we need works to be OK in the US and in the source country, not every country. Rd232 (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So much for wikipedia being a universal effort... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia actually only needs to respect US law, because it's served from the US and is mostly consumed online. Commons has a wider educational purpose. Rd232 (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever educational purpose is thus limited by shortcomings of local laws and the interpretation of these laws by not-necessarily-competent administrators in the matter. This would be an interesting call by Jim Woodward... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

: Oppose Per Darth Vader, dear Tomas. No need to have the same false discussion every year... ;) --Jebulon (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Jebulon, not false to me... the image is perfectly legal and ethical, of a newsworthy event and editorial use. What else is needed? To respond to imaginary dangers on somebody´s paranoid mind? We must always, in order to have progress, push the boudries of our comfort zone. Otherwise, nothing is gained, nothing learned, nothing accomplished... To have fear of the imagined dictate our actions is just a no no for me.... and this is just a picture! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel any fear, and actually I don't understand what you mean, but my Darth Vader argument is no more relevant, because I've just noticed that the Darth Vader balloon files have been restored (even my own derivative work). Therefore I cancel my agreement for a deletion. I think it is fair.--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Exactly the same discussion as with Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leon hot air balloon festival 2010.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot air balloon sans darth vader.jpg. No reason to believe the outcome should be different. --Ecemaml talk to me/habla conmigo 21:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So much for a self imposed interaction ban... Nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hum - that wasn't really necessary, and neither is File:Mickey mouseless balloon festival.jpg (uploaded by Tomas, will probably need a separate DR to judge if de minimis applies, so thanks for that). Please show a bit more caution, both of you. Rd232 (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no FOP on Tatooine either, and we can hardly try to predict US courts except to predict they'll continue to churn out absurdly senseless crap that no-one can predict in advance. But if we are going to delete stuff compliant with laws of the country of origin for the benefit of US laws that MIGHT exist as the result of a possible future absurd judgement, then I'M ALL FOR IT !!! WOOHOO !!!! let the fun and games begin !!! WOO HOO OH YEAH !!!
... or not ?
This image is smack in the middle of enormous categories of FOP works from many countries, deleting one because all of those works in all of those categories might one day need to be wiped out is clutching at a straw.
Possibly this isn't so much about choice of law, it's about choice of user. Someone who uploads good and useful images in such a way as to feed his pet trolls and keep them over excited, but then, don't feed the trolls is probably more a minority essay somewhere rather than policy, because one or two editors keeping lot of trolls on the project busy lets all the rest of the good contributors have a chance to do their work in peace. I want to point out however, that I don't mean this particular 3,000 word keep discussion of course, I mean generally. Penyulap ☏ 23:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as is. On further consideration, I think {{FoP-Mexico}} applies for Mexico (I see no evidence that permanent exhibition is a requirement in the law), and {{Not-free-US-FOP}} for the US, as we didn't actually clearly decide that US FOP failures for foreign works require deletion. (See Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law.) I'd misremembered the latter, and to make it less likely that happens again, I've added a new subsection at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. Rd232 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variations in laws and in uses of works mean that firm rules are not possible. As a general guideline, however, a file containing copyrighted work X is less likely to satisfy de minimis the more of these it meets:

  • the file is in use to illustrate X
  • the file is categorised in relation to X
  • X is referenced in the filename
  • X is referenced in the description
  • X cannot be removed from the file without making the file useless
  • from other contextual clues (eg by comparison with a series of uploads by the same uploader) X is the reason for the creation of the file.
      • So let's see. The file is used to illustrate the entire hot air balloon festival, the category Mickey Mouse was added not by uploader and can be removed, the file name references the festival, the description references the festival, Mickey Mouse cannot be removed without making making the file nearly useless, the last one is "I don't know about other uploads" (somebody who cares can check). Thus all, or nearly all, points show that it is De Minimis. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • "the file is categorised in relation to X" - the intention of that principle is that if it's not silly to categorise in relation to X, then it's less likely to meet DM. It's not like you can change the legal position by removing the category. But actually I wasn't looking at those principles, I was looking at where it falls in the table below those principles, and I think it's the second-to-last row: Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful. It falls there because the Mickey Mouse balloon is obviously a key part of the composition, and not in any way incidental or unavoidable (the core idea of de minimis). Rd232 (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would ask myself a question: "Can somebody take a photo of the balloon festival without that particular balloon?" We can see that this one is in the middle of other ones, and not at the periphery, we can see that it is a part of the scene, but not the major part of it. This is why it is clearly DM. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also DM to a degree from the start because it's not the dark lord's head, it's a balloon. Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • If somebody comes along and cuts the Mouse's head out of this photo and uploads it, that would be a DR of a DR of the copyrighted work, and that's a copyvio. Not every image where somebody can see Mouse is owned by Disney, however. If we have an image of the crowd, and somebody is wearing Mouse's t-shirt, that's DM, and if we have an image of a balloon show, and one of the balloons is in the form of a Mouse, that's DM. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • If somebody comes along and cuts the Mouse's head out of this photo and uploads it, that would be a DR of a DR of the copyrighted work, and that's a copyvio. - ? how it can be a copyvio of a copyrighted work when the copyrighted work isn't shown? A T-shirt in a large crowd is likely to be DM, yes, but that's quite different from the case at hand. Rd232 (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, you can have a pd image that cannot be cropped to zoom in on some dm items within it.
A copyright item can be the sole focus of a work if it is sufficiently transformed, I'm not saying the balloon is, but I'm saying it adds a little onto the scale to go with the DM and it comes out as moot just the same in the case of FOP anyway.. Penyulap ☏ 03:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Streaking is illegal in many countries. But how photographing a Streaker will illegal? Here the copyright violation has done by the airship manufacturer; not by Tomas. According to Tomas, the airship has proper registration and license to fly over the air of Mexico. So this violation is with the permission of Mexican authorities. Other concerns are well under {{FoP-Mexico}}. Further, the airship manufacturer can never claim a copyright for this design since this is an imitation of Mickey Mouse. JKadavoor Jee 13:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your streaking comparison isn't helpful, since it introduces COM:PEOPLE complications; let's leave that to one side. First, whatever the Mexican authorities did in terms of balloon/aircraft registration has no bearing on copyright; it's quite likely that those authorities didn't even consider copyright, and even if they did, it wouldn't prevent legal liability for violating Disney's copyright, if that copyright is violated by making or photographing the balloon. Second, whether the balloon maker had the copyright holder's permission to make the balloon or not has no bearing on the right of anyone else to make derivative works of the balloon. Third, it's irrelevant whether the balloon is independently copyrightable - that doesn't negate the original copyright. All of this is irrelevant: the only thing that matters is whether Mexican freedom of panorama covers the case. Rd232 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'm just learning things. JKadavoor Jee 14:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Copyright is a bit like an onion - layers and layers, and it makes you cry! ;) Rd232 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Box of chocolates. Box of chocolates, and I ate all the good ones. You can have the empty box though, I know who to ask for more ;) Penyulap ☏ 03:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that courts would rule along the lines of that one Germany cross-border FoP case -- the sculptor owns the copyright of the statue, and while the photograph is not deemed a derivative work in the country where the statue is located, it is in the U.S., and thus there is possible infringement based on how the photograph is used. Or, it may be judges take into account that the photographer expected to fully own the photograph in the source country, using foreign law to determine that the copyright owner of the photograph is entirely the photographers, or that the FoP situation alters the fair use calculation, or other possibilities.
Given this, a strict deletion of FOP cases per lex loci protectionis which considers everything unfree that would not be free if photographed in the United States appears premature. There was no consensus yet to enforce this. Hence, I suggest to use templates like {{Not-free-US-FOP}} to warn potential reusers in the United States but to otherwise keep them at least until we have a U.S. precedent. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The related file File:Darth vader hot air balloon.jpg has restored per {{FoP-Mexico}} after the discussion at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive. So I think this too can be closed as "kept" per that discussion and per the opinion of AFBorchert above. JKadavoor Jee 04:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete or crop out Mickey Mouse balloon and  Keep. Regarding AFBorchert's point: If the existence of copyright depends on use, it is not OK to host it on Commons. We promise our readers that our files are free to reuse, regardless of the context. See COM:LICENSE. Regardless of whether or not it's been litigated, there's no reasonable interpretation of US law in which the mere creation, display, and photography of a derivative work on foreign soil could obviate copyright under U.S. law. This is clearly a derivative work, and not de minimus. Commons policy requires that the photo not be encumbered by copyright in the U.S. -Pete F (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also worth noting: Wikimedia has a policy for images whose reuse is dependent on the nature of the use; it's called an "Exemption Doctrine Policy" (EDP) and covers things like English Wikipedia's acceptance, in limited circumstances, of images under the U.S. "fair use" doctrine. Wikimedia Commons is explicitly banned from adopting an EDP. I believe a case like this is exactly the kind of thing the Board of Trustees had in mind when passing that resulotion: an image representing Mickey Mouse might be acceptable on a Wikimedia project (like English Wikipedia) but only in the context of a rationale that explains why it can be used, legally in the U.S., on that specific article. Not without an EDP and rationale. -Pete F (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such a rationale, that an image can't exist on commons with any conditions to it's use, would mean deleting a vast number of images that are accepted under de minimus. There are countless images hosted here that have conditions on their use. What applies to one image we'll need to apply to all. I don't mind helping knock off the first thousand or so, but I think we should discuss the complexities of copyright law on a more central page, so it's applied in a uniform manner. Penyulap ☏ 05:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See this discussion too. JKadavoor Jee 05:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Peteforsyth - those are arguments which should really be had about the wider issue of how FOP in other countries is handled for US copyright. The conclusion of previous discussion was unclear, and resulted in {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Template:Not-free-US-FOP. Basically, the conclusion you're arguing for affects so many images that it needs wider discussion - as was attempted inconclusively at Commons:Requests for comment/Non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. That discussion petered out in early December; maybe it's time for another crack at it. Rd232 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This kind of DR will be complex until we have a clear answer to {{Not-free-US-FOP}}. The consensus for now is to apply FOP exceptions from the origin country. PierreSelim (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Leon_international_hot_air_ballon_festival_nov_2012.jpg&oldid=493199212"