Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.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.

Image:Fire_breathing_2_Luc_Viatour.jpg

Performance performed less than 50 years ago in the European Union.

The rights of performers shall expire 50 years after the date of the performance. Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, Article 3 (English) - (French).

Teofilo (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is not that for sound recordings of music performers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it applies to any kind of performance art. Teofilo (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some evidence that photos of this kind of performances are covered by copyright. Just now, this looks like your own novelty, another tack to propose a whole new class of images for deletion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Act of 30 June 1994, §35 (French) : Sont également considérés comme artistes-interprètes ou exécutants les artistes de variété et les artistes de cirque. - §35 (Dutch) : Ook variété- en circusartisten worden als uitvoerende kunstenaars beschouwd. . §35 (English)Variety and circus artists shall also be considered performers. See also en:Related_rights#Performers. Teofilo (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est lors d'un festival en plein air. J'ai reçu l'autorisation (presse)de faire les photos du festival par les organisateurs. Je pense que si cette image est supprimée, il faudra en supprimer bien d'autres... --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les seules autorisations qu'on accepte sur Commons sont les autorisations écrites de distribution sous licence libre, archivées dans le service COM:OTRS. Sous licence libre, les produits dérivés, tels que cartes postales, T-shirts sont autorisés, et cela m'étonnerait qu'une autorisation pour journaliste de la presse écrite permette d'aller aussi loin. Teofilo (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il faut alors supprimer des milliers de photos sur wikipédia et pas seulement les miennes. C'est vraiment absurde, c'est une représentation en rue et donc publique, pas une représentation privée. Même les magazines et la tv ne respectent pas cela sinon il n'y a plus d'image dans la presse! Toutes les pages qui parlent de spectacle, chanteur et autres seront sans illustration! De plus ici ce n'est pas une représentation artistique mais folklorique. Cracher du feu n'est pas une création unique mais simplement un geste commun et folklorique. --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FR : J'approuve ce que dit Luc. Il n'y a aucun fondement juridique à cette requête de suppression. La directive européenne, tout comme le traité OMPI s'applique aux oeuvres de l'esprit, hors cracher du feu n'est pas une oeuvre de l'esprit. EN : I approuve what Luc says. There is no legal basis about this deletion request. The european directive, like the WIPO treaty applies to work of the mind, make some fire is not a work of the mind. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ni plus ni moins que chanter une chanson écrite par quelqu'un d'autre. This is not less a work of the mind than singing a song written by someone else. Teofilo (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So will you propose to delete photos of open-air concerts in Belgium? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sic. THISONE will. In German those are called "pea counters" -- no idea about how to translate. OPPOSE. ;[[ 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by W. (talk • contribs)

Of open air danses, by professional or professional-looking amateur dansers, perhaps. Teofilo (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beloved T~, I did NOT UNSIGN my comment, I just overly used o.n.e of those "~" . 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

NB: You are not disallowed to 'correct' thisone, too. eod.

Vous avez écrit juste au dessus que les organisateurs donnaient des autorisations à la presse. Voilà pour les magazines. Et pourquoi pas également à la télévision ? Teofilo (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a presse en général, la télévision en fait partie, elle était là aussi. --Luc Viatour (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated, however, the fact that a public event may not be transmitted to third parties without authorization is universally accepted without argument. It is not, I repeat, a principle peculiar to public sports events and to television. For example, a theatrical performance is a public event, but nobody has ever maintained that its televising should be free. In my experience no radio company has ever arrogated to itself the right to broadcast the sound of a performance, and I have never seen a television company turn up to take pictures of a performance without authorization. When a concert is held, the sound and the images that comprise the entertainment cannot be freely transmitted. The right over an entertainment or event, by Jose de Oliveira Ascensao, Copyright Bulletin, Vol. XXIV, N°2, 1990, UNESCO. Also available in French and Spanish. Teofilo (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universal?? That is bombastic nonsense of someone trying to diminish the public domain. Belgian copyright law has no panorama freedom, but other countries do. And according to COM:FOP#Permanent vs temporary, ephemeral sights like ice or fire shows are not protected by copyright. And how about Category:Fireworks in Annecy, August 2005? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoir,

Cette discussion est pour le moins surréaliste. Le spectacle de rue dont il est question ici est public, cela fait des centaines d'années, pour ne pas dire des millénaires, que des artistes ou des saltimbanques crachent du feu et il n'y a dans ce geste aucune part de création, aucune interprétation originale, rien qui ressemble en quoi que ce soit à une œuvre de l'esprit au sens donné à cette expression par les textes en vigueur. A ce tarif-là, il faut retirer de Commons toutes les images de footballeurs tirant au but ou dribblant leur adversaire, toutes les images de musiciens, de patineuses faisant des pirouettes, etc., et même, pourquoi pas, en poussant le raisonnement à sa limite, toutes les images de joueurs et joueuses d'échecs qui ont été publiées sur Commons ces temps-ci.

Au contraire, si œuvre de l'esprit il y a, elle est ici le fait d'un photographe qui non seulement réalise ici trois images splendides, mais en plus les offre à la communauté au lieu d'en faire commerce. Les photographes ont déjà suffisamment d'ennuis de toutes sortes avec les censeurs de tout poil, les mauvais coucheurs, les spoliateurs et tous ceux qui tentent de se faire du pognon sur leur dos pour qu'il ne soit pas nécessaire d'en rajouter une couche.

Amitiés. Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il ne s'agit pas ici de droits d'auteurs, mais de droits voisins. Il ne s'agit pas d'une oeuvre, mais d'une interprêtation. L'originalité est un critère utilisé par les tribunaux, pour les oeuvres, en matière de droit d'auteur. Où avez-vous vu qu'elle soit nécessaire en matière de droits voisins ? Quand bien même ce serait le cas, n'y a-t-il pas dans la gestuelle, dans le style de ce cracheur de feu des choix qui reflètent sa personnalité ? Teofilo (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pour qu'il y ait des droits voisins, il faudrait que l'auteur de l'œuvre originale, c'est-à-dire le premier qui a craché du feu, soit identifiable. Le reste relève me semble-t-il au mieux de l'argutie ou au pire, de l'acharnement : on peut toujours trouver chez toute personne, et à tout moment, des détails qui "reflètent sa personnalité". Autant je me bats pour faire respecter les droits d'auteur, quand c'est nécessaire, autant ici je trouve qu'il n'y a vraiment pas lieu d'en faire tout un plat ; j'en viens d'ailleurs à me demander quel est le but exact de cette démarche, qui me semble non seulement inutile, mais aussi disproportionnée et destructrice. Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it is in the style of the sabam.be collection agency (the Atomium case, and other examples). Let us hope that such outrageous claims will lead to changes in Belgian law, because Teofilo is likely to proceed to footballers, figure skaters, and chess players. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the implementation of panorama freedom in all EU countries, that is the implementation of Article 5-2-(h) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. Currently opting-out countries, like Belgium, should abrogate their opting-out. This would not solve the problem of performance arts performed in the street, however, because they are not "permanently located". So a new law or European directive would be needed to cover these cases. Teofilo (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lorsqu'un spécialiste de langues anciennes propose une nouvelle traduction de la Bible, il a droit à un droit d'auteur, même si l'auteur de l'oeuvre originale n'a jamais pu être identifié. Et quand vous regardez les autres photos du Jaipur Maharaja Brass Band, vous trouvez vraiment que leur présence sur scène manque d'originalité ? De toute façon, ce n'est pas avec une seule photo qu'on peut se faire une idée de l'originalité d'une chorégraphie. Teofilo (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

en:WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, Article 2 says : “performers” are actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret, or otherwise perform literary or artistic works or expressions of folklore. So, "expressions of folklore" are included even when no identified literary or artistic work is used as a source. Teofilo (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion might be of interest: Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_6#Copyright_status_of_concert_photographs. Pruneau^talk 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link, but I think that the problem is more severe here, because it is a photo of a visual art artist, not the photo of a sound art artist. The medium (vision) is the same. Teofilo (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice quote-mining you have going on there, Teofilo. Have you read the document you quoted all the way through? Actually, have you even read the portion you were quoting? The author specifically denies that there exists any such "stadium right" outside of Brazil:

As other legal systems possess no legislation specifying that a public sports event counts as intellectual property, in order to protect it, we are obliged to conclude that the stadium right cannot be one of the categories of intellectual objects currently protected.

Of course, we're not talking about sports here. The author is talking about rights to a "public event", of which sports are a subset. So if the author is right, then they have specifically denied your position that a public performance is copyrightable! What's more, even if the point of the piece was to detail a legal right that already existed (as it would if the author had their way), it would only apply to a photograph (even if we do concede that such would be a derivative work) of such an act in "a public place, such as a square or garden" in circumstances where

promoters [...] have a right of use that will allow them to fit it out for their purposes and to control admission.

What we have is a speculative piece, asserting that certain (moral) rights exist which should be (legally) codified. That's all. And I'm not impressed by their reasoning anyway, so whatever.

Earlier, you quote the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. But there's an elephant in that particular room. Hell, there's even a wooly mammoth in the title of the treaty, but just in case that didn't clue you in, here's the point of the treaty:

Desiring to develop and maintain the protection of the rights of performers and producers of phonograms in a manner as effective and uniform as possible,

The upshot of it all is:

Contracting Parties shall accord the protection provided under this Treaty to the performers and producers of phonograms who are nationals of other Contracting Parties.

"[P]erformers and producers of phonograms". Phonograms. If you hooked a rope on each end of the definition of "phonogram", tied each rope to a Case STX-480 and then had aforementioned farm machinery drive off in opposite directions, the ropes would snap long before you could stretch it far enough to be inclusive of "a dude setting fire to his breath".

You also said "See also en:Related_rights#Performers. Let's do that and make it a herd, shall we? Apart from the WPPT cited (and addressed0 above, The Treaty of Rome, the other legal document it cites, says:

Performers (actors, singers, musicians, dancers and other persons who perform literary or artistic works) are protected against certain acts they have not consented to.

As I see it, it's an act of great skill, but not a "literary or artistic work". The burden of proof is upon you to show that fire-breathing is such. I think you'll have almost as much of a difficult job as you would trying to prove that it's a "phonogram". Good luck. If you need help, I know a couple of places that lease tractors at very reasonable prices.

tl;dr: lol, Internet lawyers. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A similar issue arose at Commons:Deletion requests/Classical spectacular. There is some confusion here. Performers' rights do exist in Europe and elsewhere as neigbouring rights (not copyright as such) under the Rome Treaty 1961 and The WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty 1996. In Europe, the term of protection was harmonized in 1996 by Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (The "Term Directive").

The 1961 Rome Treaty requires signatory states to provide certain minimum protections for performers, including "the fixation, without their consent, of their unfixed performance". No specific definition of "fixation" is provided, but the whole context is the field of phonograms. The WIPO Treaty has many of the same clauses, but specifically defines “fixation” as "the embodiment of sounds, or of the representations thereof, from which they can be perceived, reproduced or communicated through a device". There may be implementation differences in different countries, but this is not to do with the protection of still photography.

In the UK, for example, the implementation of these treaties is via the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, s182(1)(c) of which says that a performer's rights are infringed by the making of "a recording of the whole or any substantial part" of the live performance. The definition of "photograph" in s4(2) of the Act is "A recording of light .... which is not part of a film". So, the legislators in the UK, at least, did not intend the taking of a photograph (being neither a film nor a sound recording) to infringe the performer's rights.

Source: The Law of Photography and Digital Images, Michalos QC, Sweet and Maxwell 2004.

--MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK law is not really relevant here, because the picture was taken in Belgium, and the policy here on Commons is that the picture should be free at least in the country of origin and in the USA. Even if it were, you fail from convincing me. The UK law saying that a recording of the whole or any substantial part" of the live performance is forbidden, means that unsubstantial parts of a performance may be recorded. For example a narrow focused photograph of a hand or of an ear of the performer, not showing the substance of his talent as a fire breather would be OK. But a picture showing his general gesture as he breathes fire is substantial, and, I am afraid, forbidden in the UK too (as far as I understand from the part of the UK law you are quoting). Teofilo (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When the law does not provide a definition, one should use a dictionary. Merriam Webster defines "to fix" as to make firm, stable, or stationary b: to give a permanent or final form to: as (1): to change into a stable compound or available form. A photograph is a permanent form which can stay the same for years. So I think that a photograph is a "fixation". Merriam Webster defines "to fixate" as : to make fixed, stationary, or unchanging. Once you have pushed the trigger of a camera, it is impossible to go backwards and the making of the photograph becomes irreversible. (It would not be the case if you broadcasted the performance live, because as soon as the television viewer turns his television off, the image disappears) (you could say that a display on the internet has some similarity with a television broadcast, because the viewers may turn their computer off, so that the picture instantly disappears, but here on commons we want the pictures to be available on all kinds of mediums (media), including paper)(But anyway I guess that the UK law has some provisions forbidding unauthorised broadcasts of performances). Teofilo (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Classical spectacular is not relevant because it deals on a performance located in Australia. The Australian law is very different from the Belgian law. Teofilo (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelMaggs. Teofilo's many words have not shown that still photography is covered by these laws. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if I said 2+2=4 you would say that I have not shown convincingly that 2+2 is not 5. Teofilo (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelMaggs --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lorsque les intégristes pensent défendre une cause, ils n'en défendent en fait que la caricature, car ils perdent de vue l'essentiel. Le but du droit est avant tout d'éviter qu'une personne morale ou physique se trouve lésée par l'acte d'un tiers. Dans le cas présent on voit mal qui pourrait se sentir lésé en quoi que ce soit par ces images qui, je le répète, sont de haut niveau, et ne peuvent que magnifier ce qu'elles montrent. Si quelqu'un peut traduire en bon anglais ... Jean-Jacques MILAN (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Michael Maggs talks about Britain, while the deletion request is about pictures taken in Belgium, why should I not speak about the situation in France ? In his book "Reproduction interdite?" , p.49 Google Books, Emmanuel Pierrat (a lawyer specialised in defending the press) quotes Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, première chambre, 6 décembre 2000 Vogel/Société éditions Générations : La reproduction non autorisée d'une photographie d'une actrice, même prise à l'occasion d'une représentation théâtrale publique, constitue une faute au regard de l'article 1382 du code civil et de l'article L212-3 du code de la propriété intellectuelle qui protège les droits de l'artiste interprète. (unauthorised reproduction of a photograph of an actress, even if taken during a public theatrical performance, is a fault as regards to articles 1382 of the Civil code and article L212-3 of the Intellectual Property code which protects the rights of the performance artist). Teofilo (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Complètement d'accord avec les avis de Jean-Jacques MILAN et de Luc Viatour, ce dernier dont il faut apprécier le geste de donner libres de droits des photos de qualité exceptionnelle. Les photos prises lors de représentations publiques ou de concerts, mises libres de droits par leur auteur, sont par ailleurs quasiment les seules que l'on peut utiliser ici pour illustrer les articles sur un artiste ou sur un art ! --Grain de sel (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pour les mêmes raisons que celles évoquées par Jean-Jacques MILAN et Grain de sel.

Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Maybe amateur lawyers could troll in other places than Commons? Thanks. le Korrigan →bla 17:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fire_breathing_2_Luc_Viatour.jpg

I reopen this deletion request because I showed with my 15:32, 12 December 2008 quote of Emmanuel Pierrat that such pictures require the permission of the performer in at least one European country. As long as noone provides convincing law studies explaining how Belgian law applies to this picture, the picture must be deleted per Commons:Precautionary principle. In the previous deletion request the file was licensed under a 2.5 version of Creative Commons. Today the picture is also displayed with a 3.0 license whose legal code at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode says "Work : (...) a work performed by a variety or circus performer to the extent it is not otherwise considered a literary or artistic work", and "Original Author : (...) other persons who act, sing, deliver, declaim, play in, interpret (...) expressions of folklore". The permission of the performer is then needed. His name must be provided so that the attribution clause of the Creative Commons license is fulfilled. "Attribution: I" on the license template should be changed into "Attribution: We <performance artist's name> and <photographer's name>". Jean-Jacques Milan's argument above (nobody's legitimate interests are harmed) amounts to fair use, but fair use is not allowed on Commons. Teofilo (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular see article 35 of Belgian law "reproduction (...) en tout ou en partie" (reproduction [...] in part or in whole). Teofilo (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, reading Michael Maggs' explanations for Britain again, they seem to be clear enough that this picture would be OK if it had been taken in the UK. I was probably wrong when I objected to his explanations on British law. Teofilo (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a still depiction of a moving work, therefore the copyright of the performer is not applicable. A photograph of the performance is not a reproduction of the performance "in part or in whole," because it does not reproduce any moving part of the performance. If this were a movie, or other recording, of the performance in part or in whole, that would be a different matter. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 06:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as last time - not a reproduction of the performance. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, per Pieter Kuiper & Bastique. Kameraad Pjotr 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]