Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marten Toonder (1972).jpg

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:Marten Toonder (1972).jpg

This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: THE OLD VERSION has derivative work in it Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 KeepThis is a promotional picture taken at a press conference for the introduction of a book of Marten Toonder. To have his picture taken the author is standing right next to an image of which he owns the copyright. It is intentional that the image of the bear is in the photo and that this image must be distributed as part of the promotional campaign. By doing so, the author is releasing copyright for this particular bear-image in the way it is used here. The only copyright that applies is the copyright of the photo all together, which is CC-BY. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• • I think the cropped version may be kept. The images of the strip character "Bommel" and the book cover should be removed as these are still copyrighted. Elly (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Toonder could also have meant this is CC-BY-ND, not necessarily that it is allowed to crop the bear. At least this picture should be tagged with the de minimis template that certain parts of the picture are copyright protected when cropped. --Hannolans (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I added a de minimis template. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

De minimus is not some decoration you can ad to a photograph and than have this level of infringement be OK. It's half the darn picture, hardly a incidental feature. Jan, you're making a ton of unfounded assumptions here. It's really not that easy to lose your copyright. Vera ^(talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• this picture is released under CC-BY and available online. If you assume that that is not right, you or Stichting Het Toonder Auteursrecht as a rightholder can contact Nationaal Archief who has the copyright of the picture and released it under CC-BY, not the uploader. But as it is only a part of the bear and with a book before and the subject of the picture is the book presentation, not the bear, de minimis can apply . We can OTRS [email protected] the rightholder of the bear if you want OTRS aassurance and see this as an infringement. --Hannolans (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Further lets not crop the file in the same version. We should create a new cropped file as the subject of the picture becomes completely different. --Hannolans (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I created a cropped version and changed the places where we need a portrait to that version. Let's revert here the version with the bear so we can discuss the copyright - --Hannolans (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

      

      Marten Toonder (1972) (cropped)

      .
      • Did not notice before but note there is a joke in the photo: Maarten Toonder points with the book to the bear and the bear is pointing to Toonder as the author. --Hannolans (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I think we need the input of a person at commons who really knows the ins and outs of this. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Delete It is obvious, that the writer gave permission to take photos, but it is not obvious, that he gave permission to publish them under free license. CC-license did not exist at that time. OTRS-permission from his heirs is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Nationaal Archief is the copyright holder of the photo. They are entitled to release it under CC-BY. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep per Jan Arkesteijn and Hannolans. The photo is properly attributed with a compatible license. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Deleted: Taivo and Vera are correct. Derivative of non free content. The National Archive is the copyright holder of the photograph but not of the underlying derivative work. They can probably hoste it under the "citaatrecht" (though it is a borderline case) but citaatrecht (Dutch version of fair use) isn't allowed at Wikimedia Commons. The cropped version is okay though. --Natuur12 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think they can't use citaatrcht within CC-BY. if it is not de minimis, officially they should release the picture under CC-BY, with an explicit exception of the copyright of the bear. They are allowed to publish the bear due to the copyright contract they have with Pictoright to publish their collection. --Hannolans (talk) 08:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)