Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mdann52 2

Q9
This has to do with Q9, the candidate's answer, and 's oppose comments. I don't normally get too deep into Wikipedia copyright policy. Wikipedia policy generally is bad enough, but the intersection of Wikipedia's copyright policy and copyright law is scary. With that disclaimer aside, I'm not sure why French copyright law is relevant. According to WP:COPY, "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." Thus, if French copyright law doesn't protect street art of any kind but American law does protect some of it, it would seem that we have to go with American copyright law. The converse may be handled differently. Thus, if American law does not protect the copyright of a work, but French law does protect it, we may need to respect that (see Non-U.S. copyrights). But that isn't the issue for Q9.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion in question is below. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry but I have to (regretfully) oppose your candidacy by now. I think you don't yet have the diligence enough to carefully evaluate and study all the possible nuances of a situation before taking any action, which can be extremely problematic. An administrator needs to stop and think about all possible reasons and solutions, and needs to be convinced that they fully understand what's happening before being able to properly take any action. I have the impression that you act before you give yourself time enough to think. For example, you answered question #9 40 minutes before Acanther outlined it, and it was a question that needed a considerable amount of time to think, and to do some research. Rushing things is not a good thing (unless you need to stop vandalism), and certainly not a thing I want to see in an administrator. I hope you will take this and the opposers' advice above, improve as much as you can, and run again in a year or so.  → Call me  Hahc  21  22:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , copyright law is complex, and it seems to me that Q9 was a tough question. Don't we need more facts to answer the question? When people talk about street art, they could mean a performance, but they could also mean a painting or an object or something else that is more tangible. Wouldn't Mdann52's answer be correct if it were one of those kinds of works?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, street art is complex too, I know. But my perception of French law is that a painting on a wall done by some random person is not protected by copyright. First, because it was done on a public space, and second, because there it's hard to satisfactorily prove they are the artists of the work in question. France's freedom of panorama laws must be read carefully and they are not as restrictive as they ought to look. Otherwise we wouln't have pictures of France at all on Commons. The point is that as long as the street art is not protected by copyright, the picture is okay, and this was not pointed out either by the candidate. It is not clear from the start that the picture is a violation or not just because France forbids FOP. It goes beyond that, and not explaining in detail is what brought me to oppose, i.e., the lack of comprehensiveness when facing tough and nuanced scenarios. However, I removed my comment about question 9, since I am not opposing because of the actual answer.  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree the candidate's answer was sub-par, "a painting on a wall done by some random person is not protected by copyright" does not appear accurate either, per "le droit d'auteur s'étend incontestablement à la reproduction de l'œuvre installée dans un espace public" (source). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For those who are interested, before 's comment, I opened up a discussion on the RfA talk page. For me, at least, this has more to do with Wikipedia's copyright policy than Mdann52's candidacy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

End content copied from main page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. The discussion turned into copyright policy and left the candidacy aside. I find this interesting. Though as I said, I did not oppose solely on the actual answer to Q9 (which i still find sub-par and unsatisfactory).  → Call me  Hahc  21  00:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding everything else you said, I have no comment; my sole objection is on the copyright issue. I've pretty much never heard of "street art", so I assumed it was something painted on the street itself or a building along the street, or a piece of art (either 3D or a painting on an easel) exhibited out in or along the street — all of which are copyrightable, and all of which would make the image a copyvio without PD-old or permission of the artist.  Photos of buildings themselves aren't copyrightable in the USA, so French restrictions on photos of them are inapplicable here; however, photos of street art (of the types I was thinking) are copyrightable in both countries, so we have to treat them as we would photos of similar artwork originating in the USA.  Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

just wondering what you meant by "For example, you answered question #9 40 minutes before Acanther outlined it" (emp. mine). The user in question last edited the page 21:26 UTC, and I replied at 21:53 UTC. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  05:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, good catch. Problems of not being a native speaker of english. I meant after. Thanks.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)