Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gaza City, Palestine 2020.jpg
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.
File:Gaza City, Palestine 2020.jpg[edit]
There may be FOP in Israel but this is Gaza. And are we sure that Gaza is a part of Israel? MGA73 (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, it's not. However Israel is the occupying power there. Keep. 186.173.196.243 08:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Given that the situation remains unclear (to put it mildly), this should be deleted per COM:PRP. I am no expert in this ongoing conflict, but it is likely that a military occupation is different than an annexation where control is claimed over civil matters like copyright law. This was also taken in 2020 when the territory was under Palestinian control to a much greater degree. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This is about George Floyd and "Black Lives Matter". Please see Black Lives Matter Krok6kola (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- How is the subject relevant to whether this clearly copyrighted (and derivative) mural is protected by freedom of panorama? IronGargoyle (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is used in an enwiki article Black-Palestinian solidarity. Are we not supposed to keep "in use" images? Besides, graffiti is not considered under copyright. FlickreviewR 2: passed Public Domain Mark. (See image history). None of the other images of George Floyd are considered under copyright as they are all street art and/or graffiti. Krok6kola (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Whether an image is in use has no effect on deletion if the image is a copyright violation. Being in use only matters if there are questions of scope. Note that murals of George Floyd are generally only kept in circumstances where freedom of panorama is allowed or the mural itself is de minimis. As for graffiti, while there is a lot of debate and lack of consensus about this topic, I think a good rule of thumb is that if the work is claimed by an author it should be considered as a mural under the precautionary principle. Note that there is a signature on this mural. Beyond this, the mural is clearly a derivative work of the well-known selfie photograph of George Floyd that circulated after his death. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- But as I noted above, this image was passed as PD by this site and has a PD template. I will ask for another opinon. Krok6kola (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- The photograph was passed, not the underlying mural. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- But as I noted above, this image was passed as PD by this site and has a PD template. I will ask for another opinon. Krok6kola (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Whether an image is in use has no effect on deletion if the image is a copyright violation. Being in use only matters if there are questions of scope. Note that murals of George Floyd are generally only kept in circumstances where freedom of panorama is allowed or the mural itself is de minimis. As for graffiti, while there is a lot of debate and lack of consensus about this topic, I think a good rule of thumb is that if the work is claimed by an author it should be considered as a mural under the precautionary principle. Note that there is a signature on this mural. Beyond this, the mural is clearly a derivative work of the well-known selfie photograph of George Floyd that circulated after his death. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- It is used in an enwiki article Black-Palestinian solidarity. Are we not supposed to keep "in use" images? Besides, graffiti is not considered under copyright. FlickreviewR 2: passed Public Domain Mark. (See image history). None of the other images of George Floyd are considered under copyright as they are all street art and/or graffiti. Krok6kola (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- How is the subject relevant to whether this clearly copyrighted (and derivative) mural is protected by freedom of panorama? IronGargoyle (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Per Krok6kola since as they have noted graffiti is not considered under copyright. Although admittedly there's a fine line between graffiti and a mural, but the wall clearly has signs of other graffiti being painted on it at some point. So I don't think it was a legal, professionally done mural that someone paid for. You could maybe nitpick about it being based on a selfie photograph of George Floyd, but I feel like that's tangential since it's a different medium and clearly isn't a 100% exact recreation of the original. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is no good evidence that graffiti is not under copyright, just that a graffiti artist would have a difficult time enforcing the copyright. We don't toss aside our copyright principles just because someone is unlikely to sue us (and note that the artist is taking credit for the work with a signature, significantly increasing that risk). The argument that "the wall clearly has signs of other graffiti" so this must not be a legal mural is just staggeringly awful.
Spending any time in an urban environment will quickly disabuse you of the notion that graffiti and murals cannot exist in the same place.Ultimately, all this is beside the point though because this is clearly a derivative work of the George Floyd selfie. Any derivative work is always going to be slightly different. That is what makes it a derivative work and not an exact copy. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)- @IronGargoyle: It seems like the wording in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter says that graffiti is mostly OK because "in many cases the artist is unknown, proof of authorship of the art is problematic, and, some believe, the artist would have difficulty enforcing their copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party." Personally, I'd treat it like everything else on here and just have it be copyrighted across the board, but that doesn't seem to be the consensus. It's not really about if anyone will sue us or not though. It's about their lack of ability to.
- There is no good evidence that graffiti is not under copyright, just that a graffiti artist would have a difficult time enforcing the copyright. We don't toss aside our copyright principles just because someone is unlikely to sue us (and note that the artist is taking credit for the work with a signature, significantly increasing that risk). The argument that "the wall clearly has signs of other graffiti" so this must not be a legal mural is just staggeringly awful.
- And sure, the graffiti is signed, but it's likely a pseudonym. Which I don't think would grant the artist a copyright if they could even prove its their work to begin with. As to your other thing, not that I think it's relevant but I've lived a good partition of my life in urban environments. One's that had quite a lot of graffiti. What's really staggering awful here is treating a random stranger on the internet like they must be wrong about something because they live in the woods or something. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- No assumptions were made about where you live. Sorry about that. I was just talking about my own experience in urban environments, but I've struck that part of my comment because it was misconstrued. There is just no question legit murals often exist in places with graffiti. There is certainly a lack of consensus about actual graffiti on Commons which offsets the optimistic language at COM:GRAFFITI (cf., wording at {{Non-free graffiti}} and COM:PRP). There is also no evidence that the signature is a pseudonym, but even if it was a huge percentage of Commons users claim copyright under pseudonyms. That isn't a barrier to copyright. Finally, and most importantly, the derivative work issue remains. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought you were talking about my experiences with urban environments because you said "Spending any time in an urban environment will quickly disabuse you of the notion that graffiti and murals cannot exist in the same place." Not something like "I've spent time in urban environments where graffiti and murals exist in the same place." Regardless, I still think this is graffiti since it is located on the West Bank separation wall. As far as I know there isn't anything that can be legally painted on the wall to begin with. As it's a security barrier built by Israel. So it's not like the painting is on the side of a business or something. Otherwise I'd be interested to know who you think commissioned it. The IDF? --Adamant1 (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- No assumptions were made about where you live. Sorry about that. I was just talking about my own experience in urban environments, but I've struck that part of my comment because it was misconstrued. There is just no question legit murals often exist in places with graffiti. There is certainly a lack of consensus about actual graffiti on Commons which offsets the optimistic language at COM:GRAFFITI (cf., wording at {{Non-free graffiti}} and COM:PRP). There is also no evidence that the signature is a pseudonym, but even if it was a huge percentage of Commons users claim copyright under pseudonyms. That isn't a barrier to copyright. Finally, and most importantly, the derivative work issue remains. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- And sure, the graffiti is signed, but it's likely a pseudonym. Which I don't think would grant the artist a copyright if they could even prove its their work to begin with. As to your other thing, not that I think it's relevant but I've lived a good partition of my life in urban environments. One's that had quite a lot of graffiti. What's really staggering awful here is treating a random stranger on the internet like they must be wrong about something because they live in the woods or something. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. I think {{Non-free graffiti}} applies here. The graffiti author could not claim a copyright, for obvious security reasons. --Yann (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Deleted: by IronGargoyle. Photograph by Mohammed Salem/REUTERS. See https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/10/israel-hamas-war-black-struggle.html Yann (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
