Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mao Badge 12.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:Mao_Badge_12.jpg

Derivative work of copyrighted badge incorrectly labeled as own work, see discussion at en:Talk:Chairman Mao badge and Commons:Licensing#People's Republic of China, according to which works form the 1960s are probably copyrighted. This nomination applies to all images in Category:Chairman Mao badges, which have the same problems. Sandstein (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uploader I believe that this deletion request is misguided. According to the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (2001):

"the term "works" includes works of literature, art, natural science, social science, engineering technology and the like which are expressed in the following forms:

(1) written works;

(2) oral works;

(3) musical, dramatic, quyi', choreographic and acrobatic works;

(4) works of fine art and architecture;

(5) photographic works;

(6) cinematographic works and works created by virtue of an analogous method of film production;

(7) drawings of engineering designs, and product designs; maps, sketches and other graphic works and model works;

(8) computer software;

(9) other works as provided for in laws and administrative regulations."

I do not believe that objects in Category:Chairman Mao badges fall into any of the above categories, and they are therefore not covered by Chinese copyright law. Note that Mao badges are 3-dimensional, mass-produced products manufactured in factories, and no explicit claim of copyright is made for any of the objects. None of the examples in Category:Chairman Mao badges are hand-made by an individual, so I do not believe that they could be considered "works of fine art". Note especially that (7) "drawings of engineering designs, and product designs" covers drawings and designs of commercial products, but not the actual products themselves -- Mao badges are commercial products, not drawings, not designs, not works of fine work. The images uploaded by myself (including but not limited to File:Mao Badge 12.jpg) are all my own photographs of objects in my personal collection; I believe that I have copyright of images created by myself of 3-dimensional objects that do not fall within the scope of Chinese copyright law, and so am free to upload them to Commons, correctly labelled as "own work". BabelStone (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fine art" refers to the type of art (aesthetic designs, as opposed to industrial or commercial designs) and has nothing to do with whether a work is handmade or not. Under the Berne Convention, as reflected in all modern copyright law, no explicit copyright claim is required for copyright to subsist in a work; it does so automatically upon creation. What's copyrighted is the image on the buttons, and the badges are a derivative work of that, as is your image of the badges, but all these derivations do not make the copyright in the original image disappear. (If you copy a photo five times, the resulting copy is still copyrighted.) Sandstein (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion per BabelStone. Evertype (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or provide better deletion rationale. There is no reference to any applicable Chinese law (probably 1960s is relevant) suggesting that these items are subject to copyright restrictions without a fair use exemption for uses of this variety. Indeed, it is likely that the image is a government-issued one made available to pin manufacturers for their royalty-free commercial use. A little common sense would be helpful here. Bongomatic (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons does not accept copyrighted images available only under a fair use exception, and government works are not exempt from copyright law in China (unlike in the US). I agree that it would be desirable if these images were in the public domain, but it's no use pretending that they are. Sandstein (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, you have offered absolutely no compelling argument that BabelStone's photographs of objects are not in the public domain. You have offered nothing more than "these are probably copyrighted". BabelStone's photographs are indeed his copyright. You ought to give up on this. Evertype (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portraits on the badges are what is copyrighted by the people who drew them. The badges and photographs are derivative works. Under the Berne Convention, to which China is a party, copyright to such drawings is automatic. Sandstein (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the images in the public domain (CC-Zero) ... the question is not about the images, but about the actual objects that are depicted in the images, and whether miscellaneous manufactured goods are subject to copyright law or not. So far you have provided no evidence that badges are any more subject to copyright law than, say, clocks or airplanes or tubes of toothpaste ... and you can find hundreds of images of all these things on Commons without any complaints. I fail to see whose hypothetical copyright rights you are trying to protect, and how this campaign can be beneficial to anyone. BabelStone (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot put portraits in the public domain to which you hold no copyright. By pretending to do so, you are jeopardizing Wikimedia Commons's mission as a repository of exclusively public domain or freely licensed works. You are also jeopardizing the Wikimedia Foundation with the potential legal repercussions of hosting work in violation of copyright law; the presence of these works could, for instance, be a convenient pretext (if any should ever be needed) for Chinese authorities to take action against Wikimedia sites for "cultural theft" or some such. Sandstein (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please just read our page Commons:Derivative works, which explains it succinctly: "Do not upload works derived from other copyrighted works onto Commons, or they will be deleted." Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a photograph of the Eiffel Tower or Mona Lisa is eligible for Commons, surely a photo of a bit of pressed aluminium is as well. Evertype (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those works are in the public domain because copyright on them has expired (Mona Lisa) and/or because they are functional objects not amenable to copyright (Eiffel Tower); that is not the case for the portraits on the badges. Sandstein (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion St3veh (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BabelStone has cited the specific PRC copyright inclusions, and shows that images of these products do not apply. Objector has not cited any counter-reasoning or citations in favor of their inclusion in PRC copyright.

No, these portraits are evidently works of fine art protected by the cited Chinese copyright law. Sandstein (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portraits on the badges are all based on photographs that are out of copyright as per Template:PD-China. But whether a silhouette counts as "fine art" or not is debatable -- in these contexts it is more like a logo. BabelStone (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! See, that's the sort of template you should have put on these files to begin with, to save us all this trouble. If you apply it to the files, we can close this discussion. I'm glad that we can both keep the images and comply with copyright law. Sandstein (talk) 11:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How splendid. Now you feel good about it? But before you were antagonistic, insisting that your interpretation that mass-produced painted aluminium buttons were "fine art". This is one of the extremely annoying things about the copyright mavens on the Wikimedia commons. You don't act like members of a community. You act like lawyerish nannies, and not very nice ones. And I've had run-ins with more than one of you. Evertype (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a lawyer, so I'll take this as a compliment. Yes, the images on the buttons are fine art, and hence copyrighted, but what's important is that Babelstone has shown us that their copyright term under Chines law has expired (whereas in the US and EU, the rule is 70 years post mortem auctoris). Sandstein (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein: It was not a compliment. Your assertion that the image on the buttons are "fine art" does not make it so. Your assertion that they are copyrighted does not make it so. I say again: You don't act like a member of a community. You don't encourage: you censure. You act like a lawyerish nanny. That's not a compliment. It's an expression of my feeling, having dealt with unpleasantness like this on Wikimedia Commons before, that a lot of the copyright mavens are just jerks. Evertype (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sandstein, I originally applied the "own work" template in good faith as I believed the photos were my own work of uncopyrighted objects, but I am happy to change the licensing template if by doing so we are able to come to a satisfactory accomodation that will save the pictures from deletion. I have now applied Template:PD-China to File:Mao_Badge_12.jpg and added a note to its description. Please let me know if this is now acceptable to you, and if so I will modify the other images that I uploaded as well. Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to apply both PD-China (for the portrait) and PD-own (or another "own" template") for the photograph of the badge, and preferably note this in the description, since copyright subsists in both separately. Otherwise I'm fine. Sandstein (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that now (I had no idea that you could apply more than one licence to a single item). I hope that an admin can close this discussion as soon as possible so that the image can be used on DYK. BabelStone (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted, those badges are protected by copyright and protected for 50 years after the death of the author or the first publication, which wasn't provided in this case. Kameraad Pjotr 19:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]