Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2018 September 28

< September 27	September 29 >

September 28

File:Grappenhall heys board 2.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grappenhall Heys Walled Garden Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Grappenhall heys walled garden.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

per c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Grappenhall Heys Walled Garden Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:William the Silent.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:07, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

unused, superior version available: File:Antonio Moro - Willem I van Nassau.jpg FASTILY 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Commons file. Salavat (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2 up 2 down with central staircase.gif

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. A couple of points. One, whether this floor plan is copyrightable in the United Kingdom is of no relevance here as enWikipedia only cares about US copyright law. Two it looks like there is too much doubt about whether this file would be copyrightable in the US - "selection and arrangement" copyright and related copyright in compilation are well established -, and the issue of the file's origin raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is also concerning. Third, I think that this would be a situation where you ask WMF Legal to comment on the question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious claim of being too simple to be eligible for copyright. Simple shapes are ineligible, words are ineligible, but when you put lots of simple shapes and words together, it's less easy to argue that a threshold of originality has not been met. B (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your personal opinion has been noted. It's sat fine in an article for years, that was listed on the main page and which I hoped I could improve to good article status if I ever got round to it. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not trash one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, I don't see the necessity for an assumption of some sort of intent to "trash" the encyclopedia on B's part. That it has sat fine for years is not an indicator of whether it is a copyright violation or not, and determinations of whether something violates copyright aren't a personal opinion Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the "write" bit is "draw a similar image and licence it CC-BY-SA". I can do this (or get Pants to do it), but I'm not going to drop everything and jump to it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked for and with architects for many years: floor plans such as this one are not copyrightable. There's nothing creative about it, hence nothing to base a copyright claim on. Editors who work in image space should be aware of how copyright works.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

19:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per this article, floor plans are copyrightable. This may not apply here, as no copyright applies if the plan is "standardized configurations of spaces and generalized notions of where to place functional elements", but still Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That article is misusing "floor plan". Floor plans do not, by definition, include architectural or design features such as built-in desks; the very feature used to define their hypothetical example. The last copyrightable interior design I saw was one based around a spiral staircase and had a per-floor footprint of 350 square feet and 4 floors, total. Again, not exactly a floor plan, but an architectural design, of which the floor plans played enough of a part to be copyrightable.

Floor planning is nothing more than dividing an existing space into rooms. Not generally copyrightable, as it's all basic arithmetic and geometry, and frequently governed by local building codes. Very unique floor plans may be copyrightable as I just described of course, because they required creative input. But this, and floor plans that follow this basic scheme of rectangular rooms, standard-width halls and standard-size doorways and windows will never be eligible for copyright. At least in the US. I can't speak for any other nation.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

23:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This may not apply here" - exactly, hence it's a matter of opinion and not a clear-cut case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost anything anyone says in one of these discussions is a matter of opinion. And no, it's not a clear-cut case. If it were, it wouldn't even be here - it would be speedy deleted as F9. None of us are lawyers (or few of us anyway - there are a few lawyers hanging out here) and we are trying to do the best we can based on our understanding. --B (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. No encyclopedic value. This is not taken from anything resembling a reliable source on the subject of architecture. Instead, it comes from a Harry Potter fan fiction collection (although its specific source seems to be an essay about "real world" locations used in the books). There's no reason to treat this as in any way reliable. Note also that in the very first paragraph on the author's home page she gives us the very important information that, when engaging in astral projection, "it's important for your self-image to include clothes". It's also not at all clear that this "sample" is original work, or whether it's been copied from another source of unknown nature, which may expressly claim copyright. Finally, if it is accurate, it can be replaced by a clearly free recreation, like a map or chart can. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh good grief. I was about to ask if this was something about a different image and then I looked at the source website and saw that yes, this floor plan is from somebody's Harry Potter fanfiction. --B (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a pretty accurate depiction of the average 2 up / 2 down house, which are still widespread all over Britain. If there are actual inaccuracies between the plan and a genuine Victorian terraced house, I'd be interested to know what they are. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to be published in a Wikipedia article, there needs to be a reliable source for its accuracy. --B (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the information is challenged or is likely to be challenged. Are you seriously challenging that the floor plan of a British terraced house - for which there must be thousands if not millions across the entire country - is wrong? That sounds like this old joke..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know if this is representative or not. I'm assuming "yard" is British English for foyer or something? (If yard really means lawn, nobody has a bathroom in the yard nowadays ... except maybe in West Virginia.) I googled and found a handful of different designs. Here is one - [1] - for example that would be more definitively PD-ineligible. It's much more basic and doesn't have "coal" or the bathroom in the "yard" so I think we'd be more content in accepting it without further verification under the principle that the sky is blue. --B (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Full disclosure, Ritchie pinged me from his talk page.) I don't know that I know enough about architecture to know whether this is a sufficiently standardized concept so as to be ineligible for copyright. It is an arrangement of simple geometric shapes yes, but I don't know how "simple" their arrangement is because I don't know enough about the subject. So, something like this is labeled as too simple, because the components are more-or-less the essential elements of a bicycle. But how many knowledgeable people tasked with illustrating this would illustrate it in a sufficiently identical way so as to be mostly indistinguishable?

Hmm... I supposed I'm inclined to think that we should just recreate it with a modicum of creativity in the arrangement and then license it all brand new. (Meaning not a 100% recreation. And honestly, who has a bathroom in their back yard anyway?) I don't have the software to do that. I could recreate is basically using lines and shapes, but it would surely be easier with someone who had drafting software. I would be more inclined to keep crops of just the staircase bits. Those seem essential. I imagine most knowledgeable people would recreate those almost exactly. The entire package is a bit more questionable. I'd be interested to hear Majora's opinion. GMG ^talk 20:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(off-topic) The typical terraced house, when built, didn't have anything so fancy as a bathroom - come on! You had a tin bath in front of the fire and that was it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: Technically blueprints and floor layouts can be copyrighted. As for the threshold of originality you have to take into account country of origin as well. We have many floor plans on Commons but they are either released by the creator or old enough to have fallen into the public domain. This being from the UK does not help as their TOO is sweat of the brow. Would this meet that standard? Probably. It is certainly a debatable aspect of the drawing. As for US a source pretty explicitly says that copyright would exist in a floor plan. So again, it is dubious that this would fall under a non-copyrightable state. --Majora (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if it was definitively from the UK or not. TOO in the UK is plainly idiotic. Regrettably, I'm inclined to think the safest best here is just to take User:MjolnirPants up on their offer to whip up an original version. You can take a shit in the UK and if it was bad enough to break a sweat it's copyrightable. GMG ^talk 21:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Galobtter above. The fact that some floor plans can be eligible for copyright should not be read as a blanket statement about all floor plans. I reiterate: Floor plans such as this are not eligible for copyright. There's nothing creative whatsoever in a layout like this, and so nothing to base a copyright claim on. That being said, I'm more than happy to create a replacement. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of whether or not you could build the house described in these plans (bathroom in the yard and all) and not run afoul of copyright. It's also a question of whether this particular image has spark of creativity necessary for copyright protection. --B (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name one creative element, and then I will consider that a valid question. I'm sorry if I seem like I'm being unduly harsh on you: I don't mean to be. I'm not trying to suggest that this nom is a colossal screw up or anything. In fact, it looks like a mostly harmless mistake of the sort that might be rather easy to make to me. I'm only stressing my responses because your assertion that this is or may be copyrightable just does not jive with anything I learned in 20+ years working in the field. There's nothing unique about the floor plan, the font, the placement of text, the word choice, the linestyles or line weights, the scale, the descriptive text... There's literally nothing about that work that requires even the faintest whiff of creativity. There's a reason they call it technical drawing.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

01:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you went out and drew something like this yourself or went out and built this house, it would be 100% okay. In the US, there is the doctrine of independent creation where if you have a copyrighted work and I create something similar, it's not infringement if my creation is independent (I didn't see your version, didn't base my work on your version, have never heard of you, we just so happened to make similar things). Certainly, that doctrine would protect you if you made something that was very very similar to this image. But this discussion is about THIS PARTICULAR FILE, not whether or not you would run afoul of copyright if you made a similar-looking file. --B (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing "THIS PARTICULAR FILE". Kindly re-read my comments with that in mind. And for the record, "THIS PARTICULAR FILE" was created in a fraction of a second at 2:01 PM GMT on November 19th, 2015 on the WMF servers when Ritchie uploaded it. Discussing a particular "file" is meaningless. We discuss a particular "work", which is represented in this file. And my comments regarding the text and linestyles and such in my last response above are comments directly and unambiguously about the work. There is no indication of any element in this work upon which a claim to copyright could be based.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

02:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more discussion on whether the file is copyrightable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I trust MjolnirPants's assessment as an expert in the field, but can you confirm that what you say is based on US copyright law? If so, we'd really need some confirmation as to what the case law in terms of drawings like this is in the UK, which seems to be the source country. Because TOO works differently and is significantly lower in the UK, the presumption should be that unless there is case law to the contrary, this is above TOO in the UK. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't point to more than the "minimum amount of creativity" requirement and a lot of examples, unfortunately. I mean, in this case, the design is "two rooms on either side of a staircase." So for example: you can't discern the individual architect by looking at this work. You can't even discern which school of architecture it belongs to. You can't tell anything about it, even to the point of differentiating two similar designs from two extremely different architects. I can't even imagine a judge ruling that to have required any creativity, especially when you consider things like standardized wall depths, staircase widths, door and window sizes and such incredibly common tropes as "cupboards below the stairs". This is the sort of thing that -were it actually contested in court- would rely on case law. I'm sure a qualified attorney or paralegal could dig up case law on both sides (copyrightable and not), but I'm not that, just someone with a lot of experience dealing with technical drawings.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

22:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MjolnirPants. I feel your pain, but since I have poor imagination, I'm going to err on the side of caution and call this delete. Possibly above TOO in UK and it seems like this possibility can't be ruled out without actually going to court. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I keep saying that people with no actual experience shouldn't be working in this area. No offense intended.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

01:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PayU Corporate Logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted on 2018 October 6. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:PayU Corporate Logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:NZ wiki meetup 200606a.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader is one name, license credits someone else. Not an F11, but a clearer indication of actual authorship, licensing would be desirable. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Taken by User:Avenue using my camera and thus uploaded by me. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Um, the license has to be issued by the photographer, not the owner of the camera.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. License granted by Avenue here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Onenightonly.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Replace. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Originated from an auction website and possibly fake; looks like a 2000s WWE home video cover despite the PPV's home video release was around 1997 (same year as PPV airing). This or this should be used instead. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 18:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uploader has been blocked for years as a sock. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replace and let it be deleted as orphan. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.