Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Renault Mégane IV RS: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:17, 26 March 2023

Files in Category:Renault Mégane IV RS

Although these images appear to be from Flickr or are user uploads and are CC0 1.0 licensed, from what I can tell ~~they were all~~ most of them were taken in France where there are no FOP laws and the others were taken in countries were the laws are the same or extremely similar to those in France. Not that FOP usually cover cars anyway. Worse still, unique elements of modern cars and their general designs are copyrighted. So these images are not OK to host on Commons unless someone can provide reasonable evidence to the contrary.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: As utilitarian objects, cars are usually subjected to trademark rights rather than copyrights. Furthermore, not all of these images are taken in France or originate from Flickr. MB-one (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really feel like getting in an argument about it, but do a Google Search for "Can car designs be copyrighted." It will give you about 856,000,000 search results that disagree. Although I will say though that the idea cars are utilitarian objects is just laughable. Either you don't know what the word utilitarian means or your just obfuscating. As a side to that, your right that a few aren't taken in France. For instance the last image is taken in Isreal and one is from Germany. But that doesn't change this any. It's still essentially the same laws we have to follow no matter where the images were taken. FoP laws in Germany don't cover images of cars anymore then France's copyright laws do. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What a dumb reason to nominate them for delete. If you can't upload images of cars due to their "unique elements" I might as well delete 30% of my own photos on here. Your argument is stupid and unrealistic and your response to a fellow car photographer just makes you look arrogant and pretentious. Are all images of cars taken in France on have to be deleted as well? What about all French cars like Renault and Citroen? That is ridiculous. Vauxford (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So true. Its totally dumb to follow copyright laws lol. So prentitous of me to think this wasn't a personal file host for car enthusiasts to. My bad. I didn't mean to get in the way of you people continuing to use Commons for whatever you want regardless of the legal ramifications by starting this. Do carry on, really. Don't woory, I promise I won't nominate anymore of your copyright infringing images of cars. They are perfectly safe with me. Honestly, I'm glad you called me out on it so this happen again, because if you hadn't of called my argument stupid and me arrogant I probably would have just continued doing it. So thanks. You really set me straight with your comment! /s (in case it wasn't obvious) --Adamant1 (talk) 11:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - ridiculous demands. Most of these pictures are taken outside France, such as Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Japan, etc. Not to mention, did you just suggest every cars are copyrighted, thus shouldn't be in Commons? Andra Febrian (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First following copyright rules is dumb, now its ridiculous. What's next,ot cool? lol. And no I didn't suggest every car is copyright. Way to miss-represent what I said though. It's ridiculous you'd think that would be an effective strategy to have the images kept. Same goes for Vauxford's comment. Anyway, most of the images are from France. Like I saif though, with the few other ones that aren't the laws in the countries where they were taken aren't that different then Frances, or for that matter copyright laws in the United States. So it's not the big gotcha you people seem to think it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have your own definition of "most". I counted:

11 in Germany
10 in France
6 in South Africa
5 in Japan
4 in Austria
2 in Chile
2 in the Czech Republic
2 in Switzerland
2 in the UK
1 in Israel

Unless you think 22% constitutes as "most", no, most of the pictures weren't taken in France. Andra Febrian (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I originally counted I came up with like 9 from Germany. If that is or was the case, then most were taken in France. At least they were when I counted the numbers. But it's not like it matters anyway though. Sure though, lets pack this whole thing up and call it good because I was a few images off and 2 of them were taken Switzerland. Right. If nothing else illustrates how ridiculously spurious the keep arguments are then that should. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious? Where the pictures are taken is a very important distinction in this case. I'm not even nitpicking here (as in like, hey there's one picture taken outside France), but there's 35 of them. When you (initially) failed to recognize that, it shows how sloppy the request was. And as I'm writing this, you only revised "all" to "most", which I should point out again that 22% is not what anyone would call "most". Trivial, yes. But again, location matters (as you said). Which brings us to my question, why are you requesting a mass deletion of a group of pictures taken in 10 different countries while (initially) citing French laws only? Andra Febrian (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's spurious if the laws are essentially same in all the countries where the images were taken. Like if Germany and Switzerland have the same laws and I just say the images were from Germany, the arguments would be the same regardless. Especially since essentially no one was actually discussed the merits of the nomination. You could swap France for literally any other country and saying the files should be kept because Commons hosts images of Coca-Cola bottles would still be a stupid, non-argument. With the numbers, I guess that comes down to how you calculate it. France is the country where the most images come from. With Germany second. If you add them all together, sure France isn't the most. But that's like saying a sports team didn't win the most games of the season because the wins from all the other teams combined is more. That's not how it works. I guess I could have been clearer and said "France is the country where the most images were taken", but it's just needlessly pedantic and wordy. Plus it just doesn't sound grammatically correct for some reason. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as per what other users said. --Vauxford (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Patent for the body shape of an automobile that was granted by the United States Patent Office. So is the idea that car designs can be copyrighted ridiculous and stupid? Maybe. At least the United State Patent office doesn't seem to think so though. But what do I know? I'm just arrogant and pretentious lol. But who probably knows better about this, a couple of randos on Commons who clearly have an agenda or the United States Patent Office? Personally, I'd go with the patent office. BTW, it took me like half a minute to find that. Any of you could have found it pretty easily if you were at all being neutral or cared. To add, here's a quote from a law school "Car design protection occurs nationally through patent, trademark and copyright laws and internationally through various conventions." Again, who would better about this, a couple of randos on Commons who clearly have an agenda or a law school?

There's also The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. Although for boats the copyright standards it lays out are similar to those for automobiles. To quote from it "The Vessel Hull Design Protection Act, title 17, Chapter 13 of the United States Code, was signed into law on October 28, 1998, providing for protection for original designs of vessel hulls. The law grants an owner of an original vessel design certain exclusive rights if application for registration of the design is made with the Copyright Office within two years of the design being made public. Protection is afforded only to vessel designs embodied in actual vessel hulls that are publicly exhibited, publicly distributed, or offered for sale or sold to the public." Would the designs of boat hulls be copyrighted but not the design of automobiles? Obviously not. What about a law firm in Europe that specializes in patent litigation? I wonder what they would say. "A registered design protects the appearance of a product — which may consist of its lines, contours and shape, colours and patterns, and texture and/or ornamentation. An EU wide ‘Community Design’ is available that provides monopoly protection for a design for up to 25 years." So can the design of a car made in France be copyrighted? Obviously. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you are basing the deletion of these image for them being copyright infringement, I strongly suggest that you reconsider. While a vehicles design may be copyrighted to prevent someone from copying that design and producing a vehicle that matches it exactly, the copyright does not cover images taken of the vehicle by roadside. These images also do not generate revenue and able to be seen from public highways where various cameras also operate. If it infringed on a brands copyright, security cameras and the such wouldn't be allowed on buildings or dash cameras mounted on the vehicles themselves. ReturnOfBenji (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a picture I have taken at IAA. So its not from Flickr. No deletion required. SDKmac (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I edited my original comment to reflect that a couple of the images are user uploads. Not that it matters, but whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not a lawyer and I'm no expert in copyright/trademark law. But I look at it like this. If I made a fibreglass copy of a Renault car, put a Japanese engine in it and then tried to sell it in France then Renault would sue me for every penny and will probably win - quite rightly (see above comment about patents of body shapes). If I made scale models of Renault cars and tried to sell them without a license then they would also sue me and probably win. But if I was a wine maker and put out an advert of a handsome man in fine clothes holding a bottle of my wine standing next to Renault's top of the line car (ie to show wealth and status linked to my wine) then Renault is unlikely to sue and even less likely to win. This is demonstrating that not all usage of images of the cars fall under copyright but that the use of the image must be taken under consideration. Car magazines take images of cars all the time and don't get sued. A car manufacturer would be mad to sue somebody giving them free advertising. Likewise, images of Renault vehicles on Wikipedia must surely look like free advertising to Renault, so they would be mad to sue us unless we went out of our way to make them deliberately look bad. There would be a case for us copying professional images taken by profession photographer's but that's an issue with the photographer, not with the manufacturer (and in this case we are copying from Flickr where images are supposed to be copyright free). Stepho-wrs (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines take images of cars all the time and don't get sued. That's because they get the cars they review and permission to photograph them from the manufacturers. You seriously think some random car magazine buys every new Aston Martin car model they review right off the lot? Come on dude. The way I look at this is similar to how we handle images of board games. In that case photographs that are intended to illustrate the game board and/or the box are not normally acceptable because they can be used to reproduce the game. In this case a competing company can 100% recreate the design of a car based on images of it. That's why whenever a car manufacturer tests a new model they go out their way to do it in secret or take precautions to hide the body if they are driving around in public. Maybe images from Commons aren't going to be used that way, but it doesn't matter. Images we host on Commons have to be usable for any purpose. It's not on us to keep copyrighted otherwise copyrighted images because there might be some legitimate uses along with the none legitimate ones. You can't just use The copyright owner won't bother to sue as an excuse to keep potentially copyrighted images in the meantime either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? When did I suggest that car magazines buy the cars they report on? Please avoid putting words in my mouth. By your argument, owning an instance of a vehicle wouldn't make a difference anyway because the owner of an individual doesn't own the vehicle copyright. But a company would be mad to try and stop people putting snapshots of their cars on social media. Most magazine reports are on vehicles borrowed from the manufacturer with an implied agreement that the magazine will report on it and include images of it. But there are also spy shots of upcoming vehicles (my favourite is a Volvo SUV disguised with a BMW kidney grill). And there are also magazines devoted to classic cars where the manufacturer is usually not involved at all. Anyway, to tie together the various points, copyrighting vehicle shapes is to stop cheap knock-off clones - not to stop photos being distributed. Stepho-wrs (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SNOWBALL. France does not have FOP but that only applies to works of Art and Architecture, not even buildings "being part of a series (as is the case in housing development)" (CA Riom, 26 May 1966). This brushes very close to being a nuisance nomination. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 13:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was kind of my whole point. That images of cars in France aren't covered by anything like FoP that would make them free of copyright. Either way, I don't think the nomination is the nuance here. The bad faithed, insulting votes by people who clearly don't understand the guidelines or how copyright works is the nuance. In that vain I'd prefer it if this wasn't closed until people voted who are actually willing to address the potential copyright issues instead of just voting based on strawmen. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully aware of how copyright regarding cars but this has never been a problem all I know based on what I seen that it okay to photograph and upload cars on the Commons no matter what country you are in (Maybe not in North Korea). As per mr.choppers, you should definitely have a good read what WP:SNOWBALL is. The reason behind your delete nomination is just absurd. Why are you nominating this specific make and model when the reason you're using could possibly apply to millions of images on the Commons? Just seem like you are taking whatever copyright law you found by gospel just to make a point and with that attitude of yours it is coming across as disruptive. --Vauxford (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FoP applies to art (and architecture). These are mass-produced, utilitarian objects and you can take pictures of them without concern. Even buildings aren't covered if they are repeated, such as the housing development expressly mentioned in COM:FOP France. This is a serious overreach. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 14:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the country. The FoP laws in some countries don't cover art. Some do. Regardless, the whole reason I brought up FoP was to say it wouldn't apply to these images. Which it seems like you agree with. So the question then is, what copyright license would apply to the images then? As far as I can tell, none of them would since FoP doesn't apply and the cars were made in the last 50 years. I guess we could squabble about if automobiles are utilitarian or not, but I doubt we would agree. Plus, at least for our purposes it's a distinction without a since automobile designs can be copyrighted regardless. It's not like something can't be designed to be useful and attractive at the same time after all. If that's the war drum you want to beat though, be my guest. But again, it doesn't change the nature of this or the fact that automobile designs can be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FoP is irrelevant since France doesn't have FoP. You can still take photos in France and publish them, you just cannot include artworks or works of architecture in them. If French car photos (or other mass produced items) could not be shown, then ask yourself why no one noticed that in the last twenty-plus years of Wikipedia's existence. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know FoP is irrelevant in France. I've said it like 4 times now. Your the one who's making it a talking point. Be my guest and stop making it one though. Other then that this isn't Wikipedia and I don't know or care why they do certain things in specifics way. Except I will say they have pretty different policies then Commons does when it comes to what they will normally allow there. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons is part of Wikipedia. You can use them interchangeably to a certain extend. All you're doing now is just deflecting what others said and moving the goal post because you know this nomination and any future nomination you might make isn't going go anywhere. --Vauxford (talk) 15:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Actually it's part of Wikimedia. Both are. Wikipedia is actually a sister project to Commons like Wikidata is but there isn't really any daylight between them and Wikipedia has barely if any control or say in how Commons does things. Really the same goes for Wikimedia. All the projects are mostly, if not fully, autonomous. I don't know that's moving the goal post when it's litterally how the projects work either, but it seems like both you are out of your depth here. It's fine though. A lot of people get the various projects and how work confused. So no worries ;) Also I can almost guarantee making veiled threats toward me isn't going to be productive or turn out in your favor. So your probably better off not making them. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"It's fine though. A lot of people get the various projects and how work confused. So no worries ;)" Your tone is just coming across as patronising. The way you talked down on people like they're idiots isn't going to win you favours. Even if your argument for this deletion is valid or open to debate, the way you're speaking to people isn't going to help your cause. You just come across as arrogant and condescending. --Vauxford (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vauxford: No patronizing or condescension intended. I was just trying to be understanding about the fact that both of didn't know what site this is since it seems to be a pretty common mistake. That's why I said "no worries." I wanted both of you to know it was all right that you didn't what site this was. That's all. Although if your going to complain about someone else coming across as patronizing or claim they are treating other people like their idiots it might be good not to call their reason for doing something dumb, ridiculous or them arrogant and pretentious. Otherwise it just undermines what your saying. Civility isn't a one way street. Just because you or anyone else disagres with the nomination doesn't give you or them the right to repeatedly drag me through the mud while I just sit here and take it without responding. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This should have been handled with a single test case, or a question at the Village Pump. --RAN (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could maybe make that argument. They were all included in the same folder and are of the same car model. so I didn't think it would be that much of an issue. Looking back it probably would have been better to just nominate a few of the images for deletion at a time though. But then if it's the same model and the images are similar then I don't see what difference it makes. There probably would have at least been the same spurious votes and personal attacks regardless. I don't know I would have to ask about it on the village pump either since it's pretty obvious automobile designs can be copyrighted. Like people need to ask for permission at the village pump before hand every time when nominating an image having to do with a niche subject for deletion or something. That's not really how this works. That said, if this is closed as keep I'll probably will take it up at the village pump or the copyright discussion forum. Although hopefully the closing administrator will see through the brigading and false reasoning so I won't have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VPC discussion started https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#The_copyrightability_of_automobile_designs Abzeronow (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone who's interested here's a couple of stories about court cases having to do with the people being sued because they used copyrighted automobile designs, Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A and a case from China. The first one is particularly relevant IMO because it has to do with someone using images of the cars to create 3D models, digital models and they lost the because the court found the images weren't sufficiently original. The second one is probably less relevant, but the article lists a bunch of other law suits along similar lines. So it at least establishes that copyright law suits over car designs is something that happens pretty regularly and doesn't usually turn out in favor of the defendant when it does.

I'll also quote a line from the second article for the people arguing automobile designs can't be copyrighted due to their utilitarian nature and then leave it there for the closing administrator to decide. The quote is based on multiple decisions by the courts in China. "In Beijing No.2 Intermediate Court IP First Instance No. 145, it outlined the importance of utilitarian functions in works of applied art, and stated the need for the work to be both useful and artistic. Similarly, in Guangxi Higher Court Civil III Final Instance No.62, it was emphasized that there are two aspects in works of applied arts: the functional aspect, which includes the purpose and the functions, and the artistic aspect, which includes the shape, design, colour, decoration or the aesthetic expression of the design of the work. Therefore, where a work is both functional and artistic, such as a design of a car, it is protected under the Copyright Law for a term of 25 years." --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think every photo of a car that is younger than 25 years could be subject for deletion? --Vauxford (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not going to speculate on the possible legal status' of files that aren't included in the DR. Not that it's something there's a simple yes or no answer to either. That said, the reason I included the bit about the copyright status of automobile designs in China was to support the point from an actual legal perspective that automobile designs can be copyrighted. Since it seemed like no one was willing to just take my word for it. Does that mean I think every photo of a car that is younger then 25 years old could or should be subject to deletion? Not really. Every country has their own copyright laws and legal precedents. Plus, it's just not something I care that much about. Let alone have I put any thought into it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a little trouble understanding here. You said it yourself that "Every country has their own copyright laws and legal precedents." Then why are you requesting a mass deletion of a group of pictures taken in 10 different countries? And if this is something that you don't care much about, why bother with the request? Andra Febrian (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep every damn one of them until some common sense arrives. I checked every one of these and it seems that the only thing they have in common is the subject.

The first sentence is inaccurate, weaselly, and shows how little thought went into this request. Just looking at the titles I see Geneva, Osaka, Prague, Vienna, and Frankfurt. The licenses are 4.0 (26), 2.0 (6), and 1.0 (13)

This isn't using a shotgun, it's a blunderbuss. Example without any context: This RfD has six of twenty-three files struck out so far. I am very poor at math but that looks like at least a quarter of this list is wrong.

Wikipedia is full of copyright/trade mark fanatics, there are drama boards for strange ideas. Poorly done mass deletions that send people scrambling to save images, just to push a nom's personal point of view, stink. Sammy D III (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Edited: Sammy D III (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait until User:Adamant1 finds out about Category:Coca-Cola bottles... mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff BTW the reason those images exit on here is because simple text logos or designs don't meet the threshold of originality. But sure dude, you got me. Automobile designs can't be copyrighted because the Coke logo isn't. Totally sound logic. You really don't know anything about this or how it works do you? As to the assertion that the nomination has anything do with me pushing a personal point of view, I've cited multiple laws, legal documents, and articles pertaining them that all show automobile designs can be copyrighted. So there's nothing personal about this. Let alone am I pushing "my" point of view that the designs of automobile are copyrightable. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cars are utilitarian objects. Abzeronow (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ones that hold copyright at that. Who would have thunk? If the utilitarian argument was at all valid on it's own there'd be zero point in even doing this because litterally everything is to some degree utilitarian or serves a functional purpose. Product packaging? Well, it functions to hold products. So whatever. Lets start uploading video box art "because utilitarian." Complex logos? Their useful because they inform people of a company in a simple way. So Screw the threshold of originality. Computer software? Most of it serves a functional purpose. So screw it. Lets start hosting images commercial software because they and the operating systems they run are utilitarian. I think you get my point. It's just stupid none argument that just comes off like bad faithed gas lighting. Especially in this case since automobile designs are clearly copyrightable and there's been multiple law suits where defendants lost for copying the designs. It would be cool if the people voting keep could at least acknowledge that and make an actual argument for why this should be an exception, instead of ignoring it and acting like the "utilitarian" aspect of automobiles gives them a special pass, or making absolutely stupid and ignorant comments like Mr.choppers' about images of Coca-Cola bottles. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1: I object to your actions and wish to share them with others. Did YOU inform anyone that you were having a similar discussion, about similar points, with multiple editors on different requests, here? Now anyone who reads this comment, especially any closer, will know. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. No I didn't because it's not relevant. Let alone is at all similar to this DR. I don't think the closer would really care either. Their usually pretty good about ignoring comments that are being made purely as a way to forum shop and/or intimidate the nominator. Not that I'd expect you to know that since you aren't a regular contributor. Although, that said, your link to the other DR is dead. It's kind of hard to forum shop for users who are sympathetic to your position if the link to the place you want the people to go to is a dead link ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment "Not that I'd expect you to know that since you aren't a regular contributor." says just so much about your experience with and understanding of Wikipedia that I think I've made my point. This link works, I'll check the other one in a minute. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been said further up in the discussion this is Commons, not Wikipedia. Again though, not that I'd expect to know that since you aren't a regular contributor to Commons. The fact that you don't even know what website your using says so much about your experience with and understanding of Commons that I think I've made my point. Whatever you want to claim about me and my experience at least I know what website this is lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that having parallel discussions allows deception. I will be posting at Swiss hotels because it appears to be your stronger argument. I can't do much for a while so you have time to choose which board you prefer and edit your post, although at first glance the one there looks pretty good. I'm not blowing you off, I'll be back later. Have a nice day. Sammy D III (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

having parallel discussions allows deception. Sounds like a self since your the one who started the other discussion for essentially no legitimate reason but OK. I'm sorry For being deciptive by responded to a message you wrote as part of a discussion you instigated by forum shopping though lol. I don't think there's anything else to say anyway. Really there isn't in the other discussion either, but whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - bad-faith nomination, as evidenced by the endless snide remarks (conveniently just short of being personal attacks in some cases) and bludgeoning from the nominator, and the fact that "they were all taken in France" is an obvious lie. Most of the images weren't taken in France so French copyright law is scarcely relevant; the later attempt to bring up Chinese law is downright preposterous. This nomination appears to be clear disruption to make a point in every respect except the fact that there doesn't seem to be a point. --Sable232 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the part about all the images being in taken France to reflect that some of them were taken elsewhere. While I agree that it could have been worded better that doesn't mean the nomination was bad-faithed or that I was lying. I was just busy with other stuff in real life at the time and wrote the nomination message more hastily then I probably should have. It was honest mistake though. One that wouldn't have mattered at all in any other nomination. lesson learned. I'll be sure to be more careful next time. I'm more then willing to strike any files from the nomination that were taken in countries where the copyright laws are different from Frances. Although I'm pretty sure that none of the countries where the images were taken allow FOP for images of non-permanent works since that's kind of their point, but whatever. If you can point any images that qualify for FOP then I'm happy to exclude them from the nomination. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Patents and design protections are not copyright and are irrelevant here. Ruslik (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Which is why I've been pretty clear since the start of this that it has to do copyright and everything I've cited discusses copyright, not patents or protections. At least notexclusively. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a discussion about copyrights and automobiles at Commons Village pump that relates to this request. Sammy D III (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 130: / Line 130: @@
 *{{keep}} Patents and design protections are not copyright and are irrelevant here. [[User:Ruslik0|Ruslik]] ([[User talk:Ruslik0|talk]]) 20:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 :Totally agree. Which is why I've been pretty clear since the start of this that it has to do copyright and everything I've cited discusses copyright, not patents or protections. At least notexclusively. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
+{{Comment}} There is a discussion about copyrights and automobiles at [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#The_copyrightability_of_automobile_designs  Commons Village pump] that relates to this request. [[User:Sammy D III|Sammy D III]] ([[User talk:Sammy D III|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Renault Mégane IV RS: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:17, 26 March 2023

Files in Category:Renault Mégane IV RS

Navigation menu

Search