Commons:Deletion requests/File:Postcard of Ljubljana, Prešeren Square (3).jpg

Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the monument by I. Zajec (d. 1952) is still copyrighted and it is not de minimis. Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep, monument is de minimis. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very unlikely DM: the image would be radically different without it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a small part of a larger work (=likely DM). The whole guideline you refer to reads "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful." Taking a part out of the context and using it in a discussion isn't exactly honest. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a key part of the subject, and the derivative work would be radically different without it. You should not go so low as to accuse me of being dishonest (unless you are). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the key part of the subject, the composition is such that it's equally important as the other structures pictured. And I'm sorry, but I do believe that using parts of rules out of context is a form of dishonesty. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the key part, it is a key part. I've cited the part that seems relevant to me, and assuming bad faith is good for no one. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 12:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming, but observing. Cropping out the statue would definitely make the image useless. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm observing too. You're assuming bad faith and it is certainly possible to crop the image so that the monument is not a key part anymore. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what would remain? A cut pharmacy building which is practically useless. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the entire pharmacy and Trubar Street. Part of the monument would still be visible, but it would not be a key part anymore. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the statue can safely be regarded as accessory to the main subject (i.e. the square), as recognized in relevant court cases. The composition is wide enough. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any rationale for the statement that the square is the main subject? The square around the statue is quite pale, even black and white, whereas the monument is vivid and in the focus. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any rationale... You mean beside the title and the motif? "Square" doesn't just mean the pavement, but also all the objects around that define it. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and in this case the key objects are the pharmacy and the statue. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As much as in the case of Louvre plaza mentioned below. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, because here, "the square around the statue is quite pale, even black and white, whereas the monument is vivid and in the focus." I have not spotted this would be the case with File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pharmacy building (which is a part of the square) for example is far from being pale and out of focus, and has a much more prominent role in this image than the statue. All the other elements are also equally elaborate. Because of this and the wide composition, the square as a whole is the subject and each individual element is accessory. As is the case in the Louvre plaza (the lower third of the image which shows the floor is quite boring, but that obviously wasn't important). — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pharmacy and the statue, I've already pointed them out as key objects above. The two images would be comparable in the case that in the Louvre image, the pyramid would be green and the surrounding buildings would be black and white. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The pyramid with its clean geometric shape stands out quite prominently, despite being transparent... Even more audaciously on this apparently non-problematic image. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, however here we have another problem. Whereas the pyramid is located in the centre of the square and there is no option to photograph the entire square without it, in this case one would not have to put the monument in the center and could still get a very usable photo of the pharmacy or the square. In addition, whereas in the cited image the pyramid and the square are both similarly illuminated, here only the central elements are displayed in colour whereas the rest is more or less black and white. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De minimis refers to each particular depiction, not all the potential depictions that could be made of the same subject. And no, it isn't possible to have a useable photo of the square without the statue occupying a prominent position within it - at least not from this perspective. So it's exactly the same case as the Louvre pyramid, regardless of the degree of one specific detail (such as the colour). It should be noted that even some details outside of the main subjects are also quite elaborately worked out, such as the colourful Ljubljanica with its banks. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this was true, we would not delete images because of "the object was included on purpose; the photographer could have easily stepped two meters to the left" rationales etc. I think this specific detail (colour) gives a very specific emphasis on certain elements of the image and denotes them as the key elements. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's true in this particular case, regardless of colours. If the rationale that you mention was really used (I can't find any discussion with those phrases), it was likely an abuse of copyright, or a case where the copyrighted object was obviously "out of place". — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be much more willing to accept the de minimis argument if the image was black and white without the colours. It was not exactly these words, but see e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kropa view at the settlement 21082009 03.jpg etc. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the closing admin's conclusion dodgy (in light of the argument above), but he also said that the copyrighted work was "the focus". As with the COM:DM guidelines, the comment should only be taken as a whole, because each part separately can be interpreted much more broadly. Of course, the example is not very useful if we can't see the image. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't quite remember it, but it proves that we do consider whether an image is de minimis or not also by the possibility to choose another position to take the photo. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued before, it's always possible to choose another position to take a photo, so that obviously can't be a distinguishing criterion. I don't know who is "we" that you refer to, but you and User:Jameslwoodward don't constitute a community. — Yerpo ^Eh? 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"So that obviously can't be a distinguishing criterion..." I've just provided a case where this obviously was a distinguishing criterion. Why do you therefore continue to say that it is not? That 'we' includes the community as a whole - Jim is an administrator and therefore a representative of the community, who has been elected in a democratic process. His decision still applies and is thus still a valid example. If you think that it was incorrect, you should clearly say so and demand undeletion of the photo at COM:UDR. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be a distinguishing criterion where the copyrighted work is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work (in this case the statue on the square, where the purpose was obviously to depict the square with its surroundings), i.e. likely DM. Jim may be an admin, but that doesn't make his decisions the law to be applied to all pseudo-related situations. The copyrighted work may have been the integral part of the depicted scene or not, which is why I'm not prepared to waste time and energy to have it undeleted, but I still think that Jim used an irrelevant argument. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring this case up to directly apply it to this situation, but to prove that the position can be and has been a distinguishing criterion. In relation to this: you said that it is not possible to take a useable photo of the square without the statue occupying a prominent position within it. You may compare the image to this or this image, which were taken from a similar perspective and where the monument is indeed de minimis. It is clear that this position was chosen on purpose to put emphasis on the statue. In addition, don't forget that the colour gives a very specific emphasis to it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an action was (possibly) justified, that doesn't make an accompanying argument relevant. The two images you posted have a quite different perspective, whereas the statue is a bit less prominent, but not much - on both it is in dead center (a "specific emphasis" by your standards) and on the second one, it only seems insignificant because the whole picture is so small. As much emphasis as it is given by the color on the postcard we're discussing. They're all de minimis. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The action was justified by the accompanying argument, therefore the argument is relevant. Surely they have a bit different perspective, but the reason for the perspective of the discussed photo was to show in detail the pharmacy and the monument. Yes, the statue is in the center, and things in the center are clearly in the focus. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the argument was false (as I explained), only the action might have been justified by the guidelines. I suppose we'll find out when we achieve FOP in Slovenia. As for your guessing about the reasoning of the long-dead artist, believe me, it's not even amusing, and the statue is still de minimis, regardless of it. So can we please stop with this nonsense now? You almost made me cease caring if this image gets deleted unnecessarily at the end. Almost. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the end it's up to the concluding administrator if the image is kept or deleted. I still think the statue is not de minimis, for the reasons described above, and I don't see why the argument would be false. Yes, the reasoning of the artist is unknown, but from the composition of the image it seems likely that the perspective was chosen by purpose, not by chance. In the end, the source page also states: "Prešeren Square with Prešeren Monument" and goes to describe the significance of France Prešeren... Please also consider that the photo was made in 1905, in the time when the monument was unveiled (this happened in September that year). --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective of course wasn't chosen by "chance", as is the case of all visual creative works. De minimis also doesn't mean that the work can't be quite useful for illustrating the copyrighted object. My argument is elsewhere, I hope it's clear enough for the concluding admin, at least, because I won't repeat it again. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that per COM:DM: "In determining whether the copying was sufficiently trivial, the court will consider all the circumstances. ... If the existence of the poster was the reason the photograph was taken in the first place, copyright infringement cannot be avoided by additionally including within the frame more of the setting or the surrounding area." I've described the reason to believe that the photograph was taken in the first place because of the monument. This is also supported by the chosen perspective and colourisation. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 06:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the perspective is far too wide to suggest the statue was the primary reason for making this picture instead of the view towards the east across the square as a whole. The statue also doesn't stand out in any way compared to multiple other objects (both foreground and background, both in focus and out of it) that are colourised. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statue has been put in the center and thus in the focus, and the periphery is much less colourised than the center. Although it is possible to argue about any of them, in my opinion, these three mentioned things (the year when the photo was taken, the perspective and the colourisation) in combination constitute a significant doubt that the image was not created in order to reproduce the monument and thus that the monument is de minimis. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A) the statue isn't in the center, but offset.

B) the statue isn't less colourised than the periphery (note the Ljubljanica river, its banks, and the buildings on the right - Ljubljanica is here by far the most striking element if we only judge by the colour).

Leaving the year, which is obviously not enough for any "significant doubt". — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statue is offset, because the photographer decided to also include Trubar Street, but it's still roughly in the center.

The statue and the pharmacy are not less colourised, but more colourised than the perifery. Ok, Ljubljanica is colourised too, but is this of any significance?

By the way, per en:Prešeren Monument: "The monument was ceremonially unveiled on 10 September 1905. Over 20,000 people were present. The ceremonial speech was read by Ivan Tavčar. A biography of Prešeren with some of his poems was published by Engelbert Gangl on the occasion" As you may see, this was a very big deal at that time, and people were very proud of the monument. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that they are less colourised, I said that they aren't (significantly) more colourised. So this argument of yours doesn't hold. Further hair-splitting won't contribute anything to this discussion. The statue is near the center of the image because it's near the center of the square - the artist simply reflected this arrangement, which proves that the square as a whole is the primary subject, and the statue is an accessory one. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to black and white parts, which tend to be in the periphery, they are significantly more colourised; and if the artist wanted to depict the square as the primary subject, he did a mistake, because he left out a major part of it - compare the image to [1], [2] or [3]. Therefore, this is very doubtful. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, people are still proud of the monument, but that doesn't make all panoramic photographs of the square non-free. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, people are still proud of the monument, but have I said that they are not? However, it is not a sensation anymore like it was in September 1905. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your point is, but your imaginary interpretation of the author's desires is simply much too far-fetched to be useful in this discussion (this refers to the other comment as well). There is a good legal precedent (albeit foreign) that favours my argument, and with absence of other relevant grounding, such fantasying is a waste of time. So again, can we please stop with this nonsense? You made your point and I made mine, no further twisting of words will be of any use. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're out of arguments and losing nerves... Yes, we may stop with this discussion. However, the point is that I at least have offered a completely sensible interpretation, based on the analysis of the image and the historic context, even if you call it fantasying and far-fetched. What have you offered? A refuted argument and a reference to a judgement from a foreign country that you don't know and understand, but would like to apply it to this superficially similar case, though it is in fact quite dissimilar. In my opinion, this and your attitude raises a doubt significant enough that the image is free. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, but the only thing I'm losing my nerves over is your stubbornness in wanting to get this image deleted no matter what. Your interpretation ("the motif is the statue with the pharmacy") is, taken very optimistically, roughly equivalent to mine ("the motif is the general view across the Prešeren Square towards the east"). This optimistic comparison alone proves that the copyrighted work may be regarded as accessory to the overall purpose of the work. So my argument is far from refuted, and the foreign judgement is the only relevant comparison we have. The case is practically the same, despite you claiming otherwise (an object standing out because of its geometry is just as visually distinct as the one standing out because of its colour). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get this image deleted no matter what, but have a strong impression that you want to keep it no matter what and from your previous comments, that you even don't care much about the image but more about winning the debate... "The copyrighted work may be regarded as accessory" is not the same as "the copyrighted work is accessory", so my argument about COM:PRP is far from refuted, and Stefan4 mentions another foreign judgement that may be relevant. The object in the French photo stands out of its actual geometry, whereas this object does not stand out because of its actual colour, but because of the later colourisation, even though it approximates the actual colour. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

does not stand out because of its actual colour Wrong. The statue, when it was new (as you pointed out), must've been quite dazzling - bright white stones and shiny bronze surfaces, unlike today when it's oxidized and stained. So the artist reflected the reality, not enhanced it.

you even don't care much about the image but more about winning the debate Your approach looks a lot like that, too, so you shouldn't be too quick in pointing fingers. But just to clarify, this particular image is indeed of secondary importance, I'm primarily concerned about freedom of expression in our country, which is hampered in part by overly zealous law-makers and law-interpreters, not having anything to do with legitimate author interest (especially in this case, where the author is long dead). — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the original photo was evidently black-and-white, and why did the artist reflect the reality just in some parts of the image? Even on the monument itself, I guess that the side reliefs by Zajec were also shining, yet they have not been colourised. Is this an authentic reflection of reality?

What you saw is what you get: you have been the first to accuse me of "not being exactly honest" and of "stubbornness in wanting to get this image deleted no matter what", so you should be more understanding about pointing fingers.

As to your reason of arguing here, you should pursue the freedom of expression elsewhere, Commons with its strict policies is probably not the best place to do this. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your overly-stretched interpretations which (in my opinion) don't constitute a significant doubt may have quite real consequences someday (for example, if the lawmaker decides to gauge the public opinion about FOP or de minimis and finds this prominent forum), so it's not self-serving if I pursue it here (within guidelines, of course). — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really too far-fetched. If anything at all, he will find and base his opinion on the discussions in Slovene in Wikipedia. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use it as an argument for keeping this image. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you did use it to accuse me of doing harm. Even if it is completely disconnected from reality. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - it is similar case to Commons:De_minimis#An_example_under_Civil_Law. --Sporti (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cited photograph was taken in France, and it is not a copyright violation since "it is of the entire plaza, and not just the Louvre Pyramid". This photograph was taken in Slovenia and it is not of the entire plaza, but of the part with the pharmacy and the monument. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment The main purpose seems to be the pharmacy and the river, not the statue. Do we have any examples of de minimis court rulings in Slovenia? --Stefan4 (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we don't have any. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As we don't have any court cases about "copyright infridgments" when it comes to old postcards.The postcard itself is not problematic (it has long been in public domain), and if it wasn't a copyright infridgement back then (there was FOP in Austria-Hungary), why would it be problematic now. I am agsinst cropping, I consider it as a "rape" of the original artist's work - photographs only work as a whole. --Miha (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed this issue here. I have to agree with the opinion of User:Stefan4: "One could say that the old law didn't protect the 2D representation of buildings and that the new law didn't restore this protection, but I think that we are stepping into uncertain parts of COM:PCP here and that it would be better to await court rulings on the matter". In that discussion, I have also specified the reasons why I believe the current copyright law would most probably apply.[4] We have yet to see some evidence that these postcards would really be considered free, otherwise this defaults to COM:PRP.

What makes you think that there was FOP in Austria-Hungary? And why do you think the Austria-Hungary copyright law and not the modern copyright law would apply in Slovenia? This is bizzare... Your opinion that cropping public domain images is a kind of raping is also bizzare. It seems that your opinion is that these images should be considered copyrighted (protected by moral rights) forever... --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should claim that Austria-Hungary had FOP without first checking that; laws may have changed at any point in the history. For example, COM:FOP#Sweden was changed in 1960. Before the 1960 copyright act, Swedish architecture FOP only covered the exterior of buildings, but the 1960 copyright act extended this to also cover the interior of buildings.

This is one of those ambiguous cases. It would seem to be OK under the French Louvre example, but the Swedish "thumbnail case" set a threshold which was a lot higher: the de minimis artwork must not be important to the image in any way. In this case, removing the artwork would create a significant change to the image and would therefore not count as de minimis under Swedish law. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Based on the scarce sources about de minimis from Slovenia, it seems that only those works that are not a significant element of a work and have occured in it by chance [5] ("the work appears accidentaly, like a marginal accessory, e.g. a visual work in the background of a film shot") [6] ("images in a hotel room, a movie shot where by chance a music hit is heard in the background"), count as de minimis. This seems closer to the Swedish than the French example. I hope more detailed information will gradually become available. However, it is clear that in this image, the monument is not present just by chance. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 23:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scarce sources you quote only mention de minimis very passingly, using the most obvious examples possible, so their explanation cannot be taken as definitive. The wording of the law itself - "may be regarded as accessory works of secondary importance" (emphasis mine, see also the comment above) is quite broad. So we have nothing to base significant doubt on, therefore I suggest we wait until a relevant court case appears and only delete obvious violations until then. If/when the situation is clarified, we will act accordingly. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that may in the original version of the article: "Tista objavljena dela, ki so nebistvena pritiklina..." - i.e. "Those published works that are an inessential accessory..." To state that the statue is inessential in this image is in contrast with with the fact that removing it would create a significant change to the image. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 08:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: what you wrote is not fact, but a lay opinion (including your lay translation of the law which is different from the official translation - even if the Slovene version is the one that counts, the translation indicates what exactly does it mean). — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the translation differs in such a fundamental thing that it say "may be" where the original says "are", we have to assume that it is an incorrect translation and we must give priority to the original. Translators are not copyright experts and the translation has no legal binding, whereas the original does have it. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is clear that the sources are scarce and the mention of de minimis is very passing, but they still at least point the direction of how we should think about these things. To assume that de minimis should be considered more widely in regard to the Slovene copyright law is purely your own belief, based on no reliable source whatsoever. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An official translation is an official document, so more relevant than passing mentions in non-specific powerpoint presentations. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interpretation that because the translation says "may be", this means that "are" in the original should be interpreted as "may be" and this is legally binding, is your own original synthesis. The courts don't use translations in the interpretation of the law, but they do use opinions of copyright experts. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what I had said, please don't twist my words. I just said that it's an indication of what the lawmaker meant, and a better one than a passing mention by an outsider. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt that this translation in any way indicates what the lawmaker meant. Any evidence for this? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an official document has nothing to do with the lawmaker's intentions... — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The translation has not been prepared by the lawmaker, and the executive branch of the state is separated from the legislative one, so yes, there is no evidence of the relation. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would a Slovenian court argue in a potential de minimis case? Swedish courts typically refer to parliament propositions and previous court cases, which may contain additional information. Would it help to look up the parliament proposition which established the current de minimis clause? --Stefan4 (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's anybody's guess, as far as we know, no related official material is available. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep images based on guesses. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are also not useful for basing "significant doubt" on. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that for you, the statement that removing the artwork would create a significant change to the image is "just a guess"; and an interpretation founded on the perspective, the colourisation and the historical circumstances is also "an unfounded interpretation". Are you not a bit biased? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 09:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, on both counts. I'm not any more biased as you are. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for having confirmed this. Well, in contrast to you with a hidden (now disclosed) agenda, Stefan4 and me have come here solely to enforce the rules of the project. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find comparing yourself with Stefan4 rather distasteful... — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not comparing myself to anyone; I just stated why I have come here. I strictly recommend the closing administrator to read your comments in the light of your statement that "this particular image is indeed of secondary importance, I'm primarily concerned about freedom of expression in our country..." Not to say that you have stopped assuming good faith...and have without any particular reason characterised mine words as dishonest and distasteful. This really tells more about you than about me. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 11:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part "without any particular reason" is, in light of the prolonged discussion we had (and others in DR), quite off the mark. It's exactly this kind of flawed logic you regularly use that made me believe you're being unconstructive to the point of being overtly disruptive (the opinion I share with a good part of the slwiki's community) - this DR included. Pursuing freedom of expression is in line with the Foundation's goal (sharing free knowledge), so I don't see any reason why this "revelation" should be used against me, as long as I observe the guidelines and laws. Which I do, I just try to find their interpretation that is compatible with this project's main goal, wherever possible. You do, too, but you always insist on an interpretation that's against this goal. See the problem?

So I will only say this: in absence of any relevant court cases or specific expert opinions that would shed some light on what "may be regarded as accessory" or "is an inessential accessory" means, we can understand it a bit more liberally, because a mere suspicion that we can't isn't a "significant doubt", nor does it represent a significant risk for commercial reusers. — Yerpo ^Eh? 14:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are two or more roughly equally possible explanations, in my opinion, there is still a very significant possibility that the worse one is correct, and it is worth pursuing the Foundation's goals, however this should not be done in the way that you would like to, by simply ignoring the worse option. The rules are clear and they are not based on the fear that commercial reusers may get sued, but on the principle that we build a free media repository. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is beside the point. The point is, that to the best of our knowledge, those files are free (as per COM:PRP). A significant doubt would exist if, for example, there had been a related court case finding that a depiction is non-DM, or an expert in Slovene copyright law said so. Only that would raise significant doubt over the whole lot of images where the copyrighted objet is similarly prominent. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any knowledge, because, as you have just stated, we don't have enough of the relevant information. Your opinion that the file is free is based on FAITH. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's based on the law and the real-life situation. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever... What law? Article 52 that you tend to interpret as it is written in the translation, whereas I tend to interpret it as it is written in the original? Nonexistent court case? What real-life situation? --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I later switched to the original version, so you're a bit off with your critique again. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Just four comments above I read "in absence of any relevant court cases or specific expert opinions that would shed some light on what "may be regarded as accessory" or "is an inessential accessory" means". It sounds like you can't decide which version to choose. I'll borrow COBISS 67538432, that book has 472 pages and discusses only the copyright act of Slovenia. It surely contains a commentary of Article 52. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I merely find the difference superficial (because there is nothing to suggest it isn't), but yes, borrow that book, by all means. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the difference between "may be" and "is" is essential, and I would need additional evidence to understand that it is superficial. Anyway, I hope that this source will help us better understand de minimis in Slovenia. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 18:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion is getting very messy. If a DM case were to pop up in a Slovenian court, I would assume that the court only cares about the original text in Slovenian and not about some English translation, so if there are differences in the text, then it should be obvious that the Slovenian version takes precedence. I can't read Slovenian, so I don't know what the it says.

I agree that copyright law can do bad things with freedom of speech. A good example is here (in Swedish) about a change in the Swedish law from 2005 where the text "artworks which have been made available to the public may be reprinted in connection to the text of a critical discussion" was changed to "artworks which have been made available to the public may be reprinted in connection to the text of a critical discussion, except in digital form". This makes it impossible to do things on blogs and other websites even if the same thing is permitted when something is printed on paper. However, COM:L suggests that we only care about the copyright law and not about how the copyright law affects other things such as freedom of speech. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We concluded to check what the book Eleassar has found says about the infamous paragraph 52 of the Slovene copyright law. But yes, original version is the definitive one, obviously. — Yerpo ^Eh? 15:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep It is not possible to take a photo of the square without the monument. This is the usually one key concept in defining "de minimis". Furthermore low quality and low resolution don't allow to get an usable image of the monument by cropping the photo.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is possible to take a photo of the square without the monument being in the centre of the image and coloured, right after it has been unveiled. Second, a crop would be completely usable. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 21:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the problem is that de minimis depends on how you intend to use the image. If you use this image in an article about the pharmacy, to show what the pharmacy looks like, then there is probably no problem: the statue is de minimis. On the other hand, if you use the same image in an article about the statue, to show what the statue looks like, then the image is unacceptable. This is a bit problematic with respect to the idea that you should be able to use Commons files for any purpose. Compare with the section COM:DM#Guidelines: in those examples, the copyrighted works are not de minimis because they are specifically discussed in the text surrounding the images. However, in most other contexts, the copyrighted works would be de minimis. It is furthermore questionable whether anything can be de minimis if the template {{De minimis}} is used on the file information page as that template directly brings focus to the copyrighted items. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning about usage makes sense, but stating that anything only can be "de minimis" if {{De minimis}} is not used, is to take the reasoning too far away.

Furthermore, I can't see any usage of this image challenging "de minimis". Not even the title and the description mentions the statue - if I understand them.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been described above: "In the end, the source page also states: "Prešeren Square with Prešeren Monument" and goes to describe the significance of France Prešeren... Please also consider that the photo was made in 1905, in the time when the monument was unveiled (this happened in September that year)." --Eleassar ^(t/p) 22:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've consulted today the book that I have mentioned. It is a very fine book, with a lot of detail on each of the articles of the copyright act, however very hard to get. In the library I have visited, it was available only for the reading room, whereas in bookstores, it is not possible to buy it, because it has been sold out. Anyway, I have taken some photos with my cell phone of the text that interested me, so here is what is written about de minimis (Article 52):

"I. General: Article 52 wants to prevent that it would be necessary to get a permission from the author also in cases, where his work appears accidentally as an inessential accessory and without any relation to the exploitation of some object or work. This way, the author will not be able to claim his copyrights: if a work of visual arts acccidentally appears in the background of a film scene; if when renting a hotel room, also works of visual arts in it are rented; if when a car is rented, also a computer program for the influx of fuel in this car is rented; if in an exhibition of sceneries, also photographs of sceneries, where actors with author costumes are visible, are displayed etc."

Sections II and III discuss the position of the article in the act and the international law (very briefly), and are not of much interest.

"IV. The Presumptions of Free Usage

1. Published works - the limitation concerns only published works. This emphasises the protection of the moral right of the first publication from Article 17 of ZASP [the copyright act]).

2. Inessential accessory: the term "inessential" means that an author's work is accidentally present by an object or another work. A fleeting observer would not even notice this inessential work, we could without any damage and at will replace it with another work. - The term "accessory" means that an author's work is inessential to an object or another author's work. This is about the inessentiality in the copyright sense, not the functional sense. In this way, for example, the computer program that is part of the rented car, is very significant for the usage of this car, but from the view of the copyright usage, it is of inessential significance."

My opinion: It is clear that this sculpture is not accidentally present and that even a fleeting observer would notice it. We could not easily and without any damage replace it with another work. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 10:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this interpretation, the statue may indeed be too prominent to be regarded as DM. However, the interpretation, if taken literally, completely negates the possibility of fixed architectural works being DM (which is unrealistic), and I doubt that the author gave much thought to implications of this paragraph, as indicated also by the extremely short length of the commentary (you said that the whole book has almost 500 pages). This is not to say I object to deletion of this image anymore - looks like we will have to be conservative in our estimates - but the book doesn't reduce the grey area by much. We really need to focus on getting a specific opinion on this question and pushing for FOP in Slovenia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the quote well demonstrates that we have to be restrained in our interpretations of the copyright issues. The explanation of the article by Trampuž is specific to the Slovene legislation, and in my opinion, it makes much more sense than the forced application of the French example to the Slovene copyright law. I don't think that it completely negates the possiblity of fixed architectural works. The general idea is the following: when an element is present in the image and it is significant and not accidental, it is not de minimis.[7] If it was somewhere in the background, hardly visible (like NUK or TR3 in this image), it would still be inessential and thus de minimis. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: 7,000 words here. Don't you have better things to do. No single image is worth this kind of effort. The monument is central in the photograph and obviously cannot be removed without radically changing the photo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]