Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:United States Air Force Memorial

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Certain files in Category:United States Air Force Memorial[edit]

The U.S. Air Force Memorial appears to be a copyrighted sculpture. It was created for a non-governmental entity, the Air Force Memorial Foundation, and there's no indication that it has ever been released to the public domain.

Powers (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only part of the U.S. Air Force Memorial is copyrighted. Copyright law says that only items with a de minimis level of creativity can be copyrighted. Arcs cannot be. But the statues at the base of the memorial can be copyrighted -- and have been. A search on the Copyright.gov site shows that the Air Force Memorial Foundation has copyrighted its own logo, the United States Air Force 50th anniversary logo, a model of the Air Force Memorial, and the Honor guard statue for Air Force Memorial. It has not copyrighted (because it cannot) the metal arcs in the air.
Thus, any image on Wikicommons which shows the arcs and only the arcs is non-copyrightable and suitable for Commons. Any image which shows the statues, in whole or in part, is copyrighted and cannot be shown on Commons. You will notice that only two or three of the images listed here show the Honor Guard Statue. - Tim1965 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're mistaken about the "arcs" -- while a single two-dimensional arc is not copyrightable, this is a three-dimensional sculpture. There is plenty of creative input involved in designing the angles and positioning of the arcs; I think it's impossible to say definitively that it does not meet the threshold of originality without further evidence (and absence of copyright registration is not evidence of absence of copyright). Furthermore, I don't know why you bring up de minimis; I specifically excluded images that included de minimis representations of the monument. None of these images remotely qualifies under that provision. Powers (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep FoP-US - memorial is architecture, like 3/2 of the saint louis arch. "James Ingo Freed, one of America’s finest architects, gave the nation a design that truly honors the men and women of the Air Force."[1] Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
migrate Zenos Frudakis "honor guard" statue to english wikipedia "non free 3D art" Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 15:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that these files are indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatiable license, we cannot host them on Commons FASTILYs (TALK) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:United States Air Force Memorial[edit]

This monument is under a copyright.

Yann (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep memorial is architecture. FoP US. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slowking4: See also [2]. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you do not have reliable sources indicating that it is sculpture, you do have reliable source indicating it is the work of an architect. you are consistently wrong on this factual point. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slowking4: Actually I was arguing for undeleting the files in the previous DR. But the copyright claims on their website quite trumps everything. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
hey - go for an undelete, not delete more. revent is wrong there - when he points to "The Air Force Memorial is protected by copyright registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in the name of the Air Force Memorial Foundation. Images of the Memorial are protected as trademarks owned by the Foundation. Commercial use of images of the Memorial that the Foundation has reason to believe will harm its licensees are prohibited and will be proceeded against." [3] that is a trademark registration, not a copyright. tthe registrations at LOC are for "honor guard" sculpture [4], not the arcs at the http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ . but of course, facts don't matter. and not a DMCA in sight for such a stern registration warning. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: Architectural works, as defined in 17USC, are specifically 'buildings'. The spires are not buildings, as they are not habitable.... they are in fact 2/3 filled with concrete. US FoP does not apply to sculpture.
James Ingo Freed registered the design of the memorial, as a model, as a work of sculpture in 2006 (VAu000693938). A larger copy of the same design is covered by the same copyright. - Reventtalk 16:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
architects produce architecture; he is credited here as an architect. if the construct is not habitable, then it is not a building, and not subject to copyright. "Ineligible Building Designs: Structures other than buildings, such as bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats"[5] Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a list of utilitarian objects. The memorial is not utilitarian, it is sculpture, and the USCO registered the design as such. Works do not become ineligible because of the author's job title. - Reventtalk 12:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"citation needed" - there is a citation calling him the architect of the project. he has never claimed to be a sculptor, are you now going to make claims on behalf of people, they will not make themselves? a memorial could be a symbolic object, that does not make it a sculpture. you say "utilitarian"; they did not; they said "such as" - so it is not exclusive to utilitarian; are tents utilitarian? see also Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial, Category:National World War II Memorial, Category:Second Division Memorial, Category:Pentagon Memorial, etc, etc. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: Again, look up VAu000693938 at the USCO (here, though the link might not work). The design of the memorial was registered as a sculpture.
The argument that the memorial is ineligible for copyright is disproven, for our purposes, by the fact that the USCO actually registered it, but if you want to go there....
The USCO (in the Copyright Compendium) defines an 'architectural works' specifically as "the design of a building", and states that the USCO registers as architectural works "designs for structures that can be inhabited by humans or are otherwise intended for human occupancy". The Memorial is not, by this definition, a building (obviously), so freedom of panorama cannot apply.
The USCO also defines a 'useful article' as "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." The Memorial clearly fails to meet this definition, so it is not ineligible on the grounds of being a useful article. And yes, "bridges, cloverleafs, dams, walkways, tents, recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and boats" all have an intrinsic (and obvious) utilitarian function.
As far as the claim that he does not 'claim' to be a sculptor, that's completely irrelevant. My niece does not claim to be an artist, but her finger paintings are still copyrightable as art. Again, per the Compendium, "the author’s personal or professional history is irrelevant to the determination of copyrightability." - Reventtalk 23:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
is is not obviously not a building. it does not clearly fail that definition. your certainty is in your own mind only. you claim to be an admin... Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(boggles) So you are claiming that the spires, which are full of concrete up to about the height of a 16 floor building, can be inhabited by humans? - Reventtalk 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
so you are claiming that a no longer utilitarian gate post is a sculpture? w:U.S. Capitol Gatehouses and Gateposts. is the not habitable washington monument a sculpture? (now that the elevator is broken again). Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: Actually, I'm not making any statement about those, because they are not the subject of the discussion.. if I was, the issue of originality (are they even copyrightable) would come to the fore. Here, the question of originality is moot, because the USCO actually registered the design... they win over amateur arguments. It's copyrightable. The sole question is if FOP applies, and it 'only applies if the monument is architecture. Works can only be copyrighted as architecture if they are habitable... the compendium says so. The spires are rather obviously not habitable... even if you flew up to the 16th floor where they become hollow, there's no door. Copyrightable, not architecture, so no FOP. Simple. I'm not making some kind of theoretical argument, it's simply what the USCO (the only opinion, other than a court, that actually matters) says.
And the Washington Monument is both not copyrightable (as it's egregiously a direct copy of prior art) and a building, because you can indeed walk in the door, throw yourself on the floor to sleep, and keep out of the rain.
Obviously, you are not, for whatever reason, going to be convinced. It matters little to the close of this DR, as things stand. - Reventtalk 18:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Based on this DR and the last one (especially [6]), this seems like a slam dunk for delete. Elisfkc (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

some keep and some delete - Keep for all images under PD because the US Government publish that as PD. So it is not our part to validate their publishing policy. So we can guess the have checked this images before publish that as PD. Other images from non US Government should deleted. --Slick (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
except this one already deleted here [7]. we delete US govt photos of sculptures every day. see also w:The Lone Sailor. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: That deleted image was, specifically, of the 'Honor Guard' statues, from fairly close (they fill the frame). The spires of the memorial itself aren't even visible. - Reventtalk 00:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you are now disagreeing with me, when i am agreeing with you. which is it a sculpture or not? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slowking4: I was just clarifying that the deleted image you linked was not of what this DR is 'about', which is the actual Memorial itself. - Reventtalk 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
i was just clarifying that a government photo of a copyrighted sculpture should be not be kept. but perhaps you differ about that point? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I was not arguing one way or the other (although, rather obviously, the author of a work - even the government - can only put their own contributions in the PD, and not any work the photo is a derivative of). I was just trying to be helpful by pointing out exactly what was actually in the photo, since it was deleted. - Reventtalk 18:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination/Revent/&c. --Daphne Lantier 23:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:United_States_Air_Force_Memorial&oldid=538993999"