Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Refuse Fascism

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.

Files in Category:Refuse Fascism

Despite being Flickr reviewed and approved, these images contain either photographs of full documents, and/or photographs of other photographs, and as such are Derivative Works which cannot be held by Commons. Other images in this category may also need additional review.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the author of File:Berkeley Free Speech Week protest 20170924-8639.jpg and File:Berkeley Free Speech Week protest 20170924-8781.jpg. You can check the metadata and my user profile (which contains my real name and link to my web site) for verification. I upload all of my photos to Flickr and then upload a portion of them to Commons as well. Funcrunch (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the message I see that the problem is not authorship but a photo contained within a photo. For File:Berkeley Free Speech Week protest 20170924-8781.jpg surely the photo on a sign someone is holding is small enough in size that this should not be grounds for removal? Funcrunch (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. These easily pass Commons:De minimis and the text works themselves pass the "The depicted text is ineligible for copyright and therefore in the public domain, because it is not a “literary work” or other protected type in sense of the local copyright law. Facts, data, and unoriginal information which is common property without sufficiently creative authorship in a general typeface or basic handwriting, and simple geometric shapes are not protected by copyright" criteria. MB298 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the entire page of text (File:01.BusStop.511.BaltimoreMD.26April2017 (34282560855).jpg and 2 copies File:02.BusStop.511.BaltimoreMD.26April2017 (33898670550).jpg&File:03.BusStop.511.BaltimoreMD.26April2017 (33898668380).jpg) is more than "common property" and also there are black and white photos with stuff pasted across them. It needs to be shown that these materials were freely licensed by the creators, not just the person who took the photos. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These all contain significant text or photographs or both. The de minimis test requires that an average observer would not notice if the copyrighted works were removed from the image. The only thing in the first three is a solid page of text. Claiming that that does not have a copyright is just silly. Even a single sentence can have a copyright if it is creative. The whole point of the remaining images is the posters being carried by the crowd. If you blanked the posters, the images would be meaningless. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of each of these images is the copyrighted posters

Keep some, undecided on others. As I commented earlier, the photo on a sign in File:Berkeley Free Speech Week protest 20170924-8781.jpg is a very small part of the overall image. I dispute that the plain text on the larger sign being held in that image constitutes significant copyrightable content. The same goes for File:March to the White House Not My President's Day IMG 1548 (32990111076).jpg, File:March to the White House Not My President's Day IMG 1549 (32649746820).jpg, File:March to the White House Not My President's Day IMG 1767 (32221857793).jpg, and File:March to the White House Not My President's Day IMG 1831 (32660466620).jpg. As for the others I don't have as strong of an argument, though if images like File:March to the White House Not My President's Day IMG 1832 (33000813886).jpg are prohibited that's going to affect quite a few protest images on Commons.

I'm trying to assume good faith but I do question the timing of this request coinciding with the start of Refuse Fascism's largest protests to date. I am not formally affiliated with that group, but I did take photos at their November 4 protest in San Francisco, and the outcome of this discussion may affect which of my protest images I contribute to Commons going forward. Funcrunch (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of the nomination had to do with opening a page and finding images to look at. I noticed the large amount of type on the ones (three copies same one), and looked at gallery of Category after that. If you'd like to make a conspiracy out of everything, please be my guest, but in reality there was none. I never heard of your group before the other day, and had no knowledge of them at all but what you write here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refuse Fascism is not "my group"; as I clearly stated, I have no formal affiliation with them, I have simply photographed rallies that they've participated in just as I have photographed dozens of other rallies. I hardly implied that there was any sort of "conspiracy" to suppress these photos; the timing of the request simply seemed questionable given the date and the fact that all three of the photos currently on their Wikipedia page (only one of which I took FWIW) are included in this deletion request. Funcrunch (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jameslwoodward. I feel like the framing of the photos is designed to capture the messages, rather than the event. --Netoholic @ 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - kept 2 images borderline De minimis IMO. --Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]