Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kuromi.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:Kuromi.jpg

Although there is FOP in Mexico, the character in the painting is a copyrighted cartoon character by Sanrio. See COM:FAN Tvpuppy (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Also, same case for File:Kuromi2.jpg and File:Kuromi (cropped).jpg. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mexico's freedom of panorama allows for these photos because the law says so: VII. Reproduction, communication, and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs, and audiovisual means of works visible from public places». Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 06:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In terms of your image being a derivative work of a public artwork, you are correct that permission is not needed from its artist, according to Mexico's FOP. However, that public artwork is a derivative work of a copyrighted character. It is unlikely the artist have permission from the copyright holder of the character to produce such derivative work. So, you would need to have permission from the original copyright holder to upload your image here. See COM:DW for explaination. Tvpuppy (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvpuppy These images are from movies and are not deleted because Mexico's freedom of panorama allows it and it is not against the rules.

Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 14:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a problem with the fact that photos according to Mexico's FOP are free to distribute. My focus is these two points:

It is likely that the artwork in your photo is copyvio
If it is copyvio, FOP cannot be applied here since consequently your photo would also be copyvio

Would you or others agree with these points? I am interested to know people's thoughts on this.

As for the images listed above, I doubt the original photos on display were copyvio, as they were displayed in a museum/exhibition, which means it's likely they had permission from the film studio, or maybe even the film studio provided those images. So I agree those photos should be allowed. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The drawing is a derivative work of the original character. Regardless of FOP, the image is a copyright violation. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 13:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nom. The graffiti is covered, but not the character. I'll request the nomination of some of the files above since people don't seem to understand what freedom of panorama means. Tbhotch™ 19:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I asked about such a situation a while ago. The consensus seems to be that it wouldn't be a copyright violation to publish a photo of a derivative work of a non-free foreign work in a country with FoP, and any damages would apply to the artist of the derivative work rather than the photographer. However, it would be illegal to continue to use the photo for commercial purposes. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is illegal to use the photo for commercial purposes, then it is not permitted on Commons. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the graffiti/mural done with permission of the character's copyright owner? If not, then it is sort of a copyright violation to begin with. Usually FoP arises when the work is there with permission to begin with. Even if that was the case here, the photos is cropped pretty closely to the work, without much public context. That can be problematic with 2D works even if there is FoP. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the graffiti/mural done ... — Often we (including the photographer) won't know this. As we host a lot of images using FoP-exception, of which a number may pose an identical scenario as in the case at hand, a general guidance would be welcome. It seems that our Commons:Freedom of panorama-page does not address this issue. --Túrelio (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tvpuppy@Tbhotch@Pbrks@Clindberg The user @Ixfd64 has good arguments when he asked, It would be a good idea to see what the administrators argued, and the user @Túrelio has the idea of making a general guide that addresses that topic in Commons:Freedom of panorama Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clindberg You commented: the photos is cropped pretty closely to the work, without much public context. If you want, I can take another photo so you can see that it is in a public space. Aurelio Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) 21:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue here. The copyrighted works are the main subject of the photo, and therefore are not de minimis. Regardless if the are in a public space or not, it is a copyrighted character. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 01:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. FoP is not permission to make straight-up copies of works. For a 2-D work, if you are basically cropping so that it's a copy, and can compete with the original in the marketplace, that violates the Berne Convention. It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author. For a 2-D work then, a photo showing it in its public context can be OK, but cropping to just the work is not -- that becomes more of a copy, and conflicts with a normal exploitation of the original work, prejudicing the legitimate interests of the underlying author. Similar to how a work appearing but being Commons:de minimis in a particular photo is OK, but a crop to just that element is not. So for stuff like this, we trying to find that dividing line of showing enough public context, or are they cropped enough that they are more like copies, and should be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per discussion. Taivo (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]