Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Replaceable fair use/File:Angkordemon.jpg


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of a fair use image as a replaceable image. Please do not modify it. 

The result was to delete the image.

The underlying sculpture is PD. Per Public domain: “In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain.” Obviously, 1150 A.D. is before 1923 A.D.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, 3D is different from 2D.... :)-Andrew c [talk] 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, please note that this is a bas relief, which is about as close as a 3D work can get to a 2D work. Also, courts have often held that reproductions of 3D works have no copyright protection.  The question is whether the reproduction reflects decisions regarding things like angle, background, and lighting.  This particular image indicates no decisions regarding angle or background, and negligible lighting decisions (the only decisions seems to be that there is lighting instead of darkness).


 * See Meshwerks v. Toyota Motor Sales, (10th Cir. 2008);
 * Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2003);
 * Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel, 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999);
 * ATC Distr. Group v. Whatever it Takes, 402 F. 3d 700 (6th Cir. 2005), etc.


 * "The law is becoming increasingly clear: one possesses no copyright interest in reproductions . . . when these reproductions do nothing more than accurately convey the underlying image." Wojcik, Mary.  "The Antithesis of Originality", 30 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L. J. 257, 267 (2008).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What copyright tag do you propose we apply to this image then? PD-art explicitly states it is for 2D works. Furthermore, we don't know the lighting situation. This image is clearly casting shadows. Perhaps additional lighting was added to bring out this effect. As coming from a temple, this photograph was probably outside. Did this user have to wait for a certain time of the day for the lighting to be right? Wait for cloud cover to enhance shadows? We don't know, nor do we know the context of this image so that, while it appears as if it is straight on, we don't know if this angle was difficult to obtain. Fact of the matter, wikimedia does not allow 3D works copied (stolen?) from contemporary photographers to be tagged as PD. Perhaps they could/should, but currently they do not. If I am wrong about wikimedia policy, please point out my error. If you want more opinions, I'd be glad to list this at WP:PUI. But, as someone who regularly deals with wikimedia image use policy, this simply isn't worth fighting over. -Andrew c [talk] 19:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've raised the issue here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The image does have copyright, that much I am sure of. Photographs gain their own "artistic quality" and are thus novel creative works. Whether that makes any damn sense or not is besides the point. What about the other photographs in Abortion?--Tznkai (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

PD-art correctly says that "a mere photograph of an out-of-copyright two-dimensional work may not be protected under American copyright law." The only reason this particular photo might have some slight copyright protection is because it is (barely) a photo of a 3D work instead of a 2D work. There's no indication that the photographer selected an angle or background, since it's just a straight-on view. There's a slight chance of lighting selection. Because the copyright-worthiness of this photo is so slight (assuming it exists), the fair use rationale would probably be fairly compelling.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is as such it is not replaceable, except by taking another photograph of the exact same bas relief true? if so, then this image fails WP:NFCC #1. Non-free images that could reasonably be replaced with a free image (i.e. by someone going to the site and taking a photo) cannot be used on wikipedia. Non-free images are for images that could never be free... like book cover art, iconic historic photos (that are still copyright), photos of deceased individuals, buildings that have been destroyed, etc. Perhaps we could find someone who lives in the area, or is planning on visiting the temple and ask them to take a photo for us. We already have a number of free images from this temple (see Commons:Category:Angkor Wat). -Andrew c [talk] 21:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already got someone lined up who has already taken such a photo, is its sole owner, and has agreed to donate it. But that person is traveling until next week.


 * I am not 100% sure if the bas relief is still available to be photographed, so I'd suggest we leave things as they are for a week or so, by which time we will probably have a free version.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's great news! Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to loose this image from the article. I won't pursue this matter further for the next week or so (or indefinitely). What you say about 3D image and copyright is very interesting, and I'd also be interested in seeing what others say in regards to changing how we tag PD-art. (but I can't fully ignore our current image use policy). I'm not sure the abortion article would ever be ready for FA, as such a controversial topic, but we'd need this copyright stuff worked out for that. I'm currently going through flickr's images of reliefs from Angkor Wat to see if I can't find this image (and then see if it could be used on the commons). Failing that, hopefully your source comes through! -Andrew c [talk] 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Any updates on this? I've contacted two flickr users, but I'm not sure that will come to anything. -Andrew c [talk] 02:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.