User talk:Didym

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

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Didym.

This is the user talk page of Didym, where you can send messages and comments to Didym.

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

Recyclable sanitary care box in Montevideo

[edit]

Helloǃ I saw the derivative works tag on this photograph. I appreciate the request for further information, but I don't think it's a case as straight forward as that. I'd suggest that there are two further things to take into accountː

1. The subject of interest is the box, its colour (but not the artwork) and the fact it's recyclable. This seems similar to me to the "incidental" artwork in the Ets-Hokins decision - like in this discussion on artwork on tailfins of aeroplanes. I deliberately took an image at an angle to try to emphasise that the design on the box itself is not the significant point.

2. I also considered that in Uruguay there is freedome of panorama in public spaces COMːFOP Uruguay which I believe also includes hotels (at least it does in the USA according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act).

I'd be grateful to collaborate on making sure that the above considerations are marked in the image description. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can apply FOP to a piece of cardboard in a public toilet. For anything like de minimis, just imagine removing the artwork, there would be almost nothing left. However, if you still disagree, you can convert the tagging into a regular DR to allow for a discussion. --Didym (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, please could you explain what regular DR is? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request. --Didym (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the uploader to nominate their own file for deletion seems a bit backward. I've removed the tags because I think your interpretation is extreme and not in keeping with common sense or the practical application of copyright law. If you disagree, you can take it to DR and we can get wider input but like I say, asking the uploader to do so is backwards. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? Just removing the tag is REALLY bad practice, unless it's obviously misplaced. Maybe you can do that on en, but not here on Commons. Converting such tagging into a DR is common practice, even if you are the uploader. You are free to do this, but I won't do it myself. --Didym (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't patronise me, I used to be an admin here too. I've been here for fifteen years. If you were acting in good faith and actually believed there was a copyright problem with those images, you would start the DR yourself and state your case instead of expecting an inexperienced editor to do it for you. Btw, your use of rollback was inappropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didym&oldid=909566627"