Commons:Deletion requests/File:Photo identitie-Said Kouachi.JPG

This file was initially tagged by 2.137.36.148 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivated work of a copyrighted picture, wich is still copyrighted|source=http://www.lepoint.fr/images/2015/01/07/3044983-carteidentite-jpg_2651366.JPG Rama (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I call bullshit, as this photograph comes from an identity card, and was clearly taken by a photo booth. Photo booths are not people and have not legal personality, entailing that they yield no copyright. Hence PD-ineligible. Rama (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Of course the source image is claimed as copyrighted by a newspaper, which they are free to claim even when it is wrong; newspaper routinely claims to have copyright on Public Domain work or on the work of other people, we just don't have to believe them. Rama (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question The person (journalist, policieman, ...) who photographed the identity card has copyrights, don't he ? I think that's what 2.137.36.148 actually meant. 62.167.43.167 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There hardly arises new copyright when you take a photograph of an existing photograph without any special edits etc., which seems to be the case here. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and possibly Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep with User:Rama.--Kresspahl (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete The rationale Automated identity photograph machine, yielding no copyright and the licence {{PD-ineligible}} are nonsense. This photo could be similarly from a photographer and has in any case a copyright. Due to precautionary principle on Commons the photo must be deleted. It is also a violation of the presumptive perpetrator's personality rights. --Ras67 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  If the photograph was made by a photo booth, then it is not under copryright and is automatically under {{PD-ineligible}}. Now, you can discuss the question of whether it was or not made by a photo booth; I admit that I am not in a position to prove that it is at the moment, but I regard the probability of a human photographer to be sufficiently small to warrant the tag. That is, astronomically small. Rama (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Well, but why all images of Photo booth strips and photographs, excepted this one, have a normal licence? --Ras67 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that newspapers alledge to holding copyright to historical images, to images taken by animals, or my automated systems, or by you and me. They can say that, but you don't have to believe them because it is inexact or flat wrong. Rama (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep I agree with Rama both on the fact that this photograph is higly suceptible to come out of a photo booth (we should try to contact Saïd to confirm this, though) and that no journal has any copyright on the 2D reproduction of an ID card. Totodu74 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep a formal passphoto is not an artistic work. But the person on the picture has moral rights as Ras67 says, so we should add the tag {Personality rights} --Hannolans (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete unless it's possible to prove that it actually comes from such a photo booth. --Discasto _{talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis} 20:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question A wanted poster including a superior photograph was published on Préfecture de police's Twitter account. Perhaps this is an acceptable replacement? JoshuaKGarner (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Here is the high res version: http://www.prefecturedepolice.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/15227/103616/file/Appela%CC%80Te%CC%81moins07012015.pdf --Hannolans (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would be cautious here: documents by the French authorities are not automatically in the Public Domains (indeed they rarely are), and the photographs there could very well have been taken by a human photographer after an arrest. Rama (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per Rama all the way. MachoCarioca (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Obvious delete First of all, the photos taken by photo booth are indeed copyrighted. Pictures taken by accident or animals, not; is different. Anyway, one cannot crop a "PD fragment" from a copyrighted picture, since the protection is for the entire composition, and noone is allowed to crop it unless you are autorized by the autor. I mean, this is a cropped version of a picture of an ID card within a picture in it... which is copyrighted all around the world, and nobody is allowed to crop it to get the "PD fragment". Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) PS: 2.137.36.148 was me.[reply]

  Two problems here:

  1) "First of all, the photos taken by photo booth are indeed copyrighted": I just don't think that this is the case. Do you have any element to support your claim?

  2) "the protection is for the entire composition, and noone is allowed to crop...": the identity card (and thus its photograph) are derivatives of the automated ID photograph; if you remove everything that is not the ID picture you get the ID picture. Another angle on that is that the ID card is not a work of art (given the ID photograph, you have a straightforward algorithm to generate the ID card -- that is the point of the ID card), and the photograph taken in Le Point does not seem to meet even the very low French threshold for an original work either (straightforward photograph of a 2D object, and none of the elaborate lightning, consideration for reflections or for quality that characterise 2D reproductions awarded copyrights (well, "author's rights", to be precise) in France (professional reproductions of paintings, notably). Rama (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment First of all, we cannot assure this pic is made in a photo booth. Besides... I think it's doubtful (at least) saying a photo booth-pic is not copyrighted. Then, every photograph you take, for example, with a webcam would be free of copyright?, because "it was the computer/webcam who took the photo and you only press the key"? It's a long shot, I think. I see no monkeys involved around here, but a human being taking an automatic pic for himself. He inserted the coin, he posed, he decided when the pic would be taken. He did everything. Oh no, the camera device was huge and non-mobile, and the pic is taken with a small time lag since you press the key, so it's a monkey-selfie-pic-case. Bullshit. Nevertheless I think if the original 2D-photo-booth-pic is in public domain, then this cropping too, because it would be a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. Totemkin (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright stems from originality, for which you have differing thresholds (Germany has a high threshold, France has a low one). Irrespective of philosophical considerations as to who or what is "taking the photograph" when you use the controls of a photo booth, the fact is that the booth is automated: you have no control of composition, lightning, not even the moment of the shot. Without input form the user, the image cannot yield a copyright. Rama (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A selfie pic taken from a single-lens reflex camera set up in automatic mode and placed over a table with a 15-seconds-lag is free of copyright too? I'll be damned. Said could also have moved the photo booth and placed it in a horizontal position, "changing the lightning and composition". With a crane, of course. Oh, no, it's not the case because the photo booth is heavy and big. A photo booth is nothing but a big-and-not-very-interactive camera, I'd say. Copyright doesn't depend on the devices but in the person who uses them. And a photo booth doesn't decide to take photos by him(it)self. Totemkin (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a theoretical legal framework of copyright and authors' rights, of which laws an jurisprudence are manifestations. If you want to make up legal opinion based on monkeys, cranes and "Copyright doesn't depend on the devices", what can I say, you are entitled to your beliefs. Rama (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Well, Rama, I'm not seeing any legal document here stating photographs made with a photobooth are free of copyright, so you are making your point too, philosophical considerations aside. Totemkin (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep - Neither originality nor imbued with the spirit of its author, which is mandatoy for 'droit d'auteur' protection under the french law, probably taken by an automaton, so it should be public domain. Usage issues should be resolved at wikipedia level and not here on Commons. Esby (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Cette image n'est pas assez originale pour pouvoir prétendre en France à la protection par le droit d'auteur. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Idem.-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → ^(Talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Keep Probably legaly wrong but "we are all Charlie". --Madelgarius (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hahahaha, what? Nohomersryan (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete It must be proven that this is not copyrightable in order to keep, so far nobody has done that. Further there is no ruling in US courts on whether automated photography is copyrightable or not, leaving photo booths in a gray area. When in doubt, assume copyright. Geogene (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete Nobody has proved it is uncopyrighted and we can't just assume it isn't per the guidelines here. It's best to err on the side of caution. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete I don't find the argument in favor of keeping convincing at all. Do we have any evidence/guidelines/legal decisions supporting that view? How is a photo booth different from a big bulky camera operating on a timer? Obviously somebody has pressed a delayed shutter button (and it was most likely the depicted person). The person depicted can move/turn their head or do whatever to influence composition and has obviously, well provided their own face to the image. So at the very least an argument can be made that copyright exists and in absence of proof of the opposite the image should be deleted. --DXR (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Here is interesting jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice about portrait photographs, in this it is debated when copyright is applicable http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82078&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=148989 --Hannolans (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation of this jurisdiction and the question for us to be answered: In conclusion, it must be stated, first of all, that a portrait photo is afforded copyright protection under Article 6 of Directive 93/98 and of Directive 2006/116 if it is an original work resulting from the intellectual creation of the photographer, which is the case where the photographer leaves his mark by using the available formative freedom of portrait photography.--Hannolans (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For 'unoriginal' photographs still national and moral rights are relevant. Restrictions ofpersonality rights should be evaluated. --Hannolans (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I should post this long post here in between, but below I listed the aspects mentioned in the case of the European Court a comparible case by the way, a must read) to determine if it is an original work or free of copyright according to the European Court of Justice and the Berne convention. Those are the explicit aspects mentioned (not a finite list):

* the angle

* the position

* the facial expression of the person portrayed

* the background

* the sharpness

* the light/lighting

I compared them with the rules for passport photos published on http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/photos/photos.html and http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/photos/photographers-guide.html to check if there is creatieve freedom possible or not. This is the comparison:

* the angle, no creative freedom, it should be "[...] directly facing the camera" and "The camera should be placed at the eye level of the person being photographed and at least 4 feet (1.25 meters) away."

* the position, no creative freedom, it should be "Taken in full-face [...]", ""The height of the head (top of hair to bottom of chin) should measure 1 inch to 1 3/8 inches (25 mm - 35 mm)", "the eye height is between 1 1/8 inches to 1 3/8 inches (28 mm – 35 mm) from the bottom of the photo"

* the facial expression of the person portrayed, no creative freedom, it should be "With a neutral facial expression and both eyes open"

* the background, no creative freedom, it should be "Taken in front of a plain white or off-white background", "[..]free of patterns, objects, textures, etc."

* the sharpness , no creative freedom, " low quality vending machine [...] not acceptable"

* the light/lighting , no creative freedom, "The lighting arrangement should consist of a minimum of three (3) points of illumination; two (2) points of illumination should be placed at approximately 45 degrees on either side of the subject's face, the third point should be placed so as to illuminate the background uniformly. The background should be uniformly illuminated to remove any shadows or other lighting effects that would otherwise interfere with clearly discerning the facial outline on the background."

Conclusion I: A correct passport photo is with the criteria mentioned in that case not an 'original work resulting from the intellectual creation of the photographer'

Then I checked our particular photo:

* the angle - correct in front of the face on eye height

* the position - front face person, eye height seems exactly matching the specs, but we could measure.

* the facial expression of the person portrayed, indeed neutral facial expression

* the background - offwhite (blue tone)

* the sharpness (this picture is rasterised due to the low scan quality)

* the light/lighting (left and right is both lighted, background has no shadows, so is lighted as well, this is matching the specs)

Conclusion II: this picture looks like an accepted passport photo.

Combining conclusions I and II would mean this passport photo has no copyright for European law and the Berne Convention. Not said this picture has no copyright in every country as according to the European Court "the protection of other photographs should be left to national law.". So that is still anopen question.

--Hannolans (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: has this picture the same problem? File:247D243400000578-0-Cherif Kouachi is alleged to have carried the attack out with hi-a-8 1420805636047.jpg Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep, official document, not an artistic work. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep per Esby, it's an official document, it has no artistic value, hence no copyright, even if taken by a professional photographer. Varmin (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Agree with Rama. Hypree (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per Discasto and COM:PRP . Alan ^(talk) 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per Discasto and COM:PRP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete per COM:PRP. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete COM:PRP Olivier LPB (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-ineligible, per Rama and Esby. Not enough creativity, which is required by French copyright law. Yann (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was not kept open for the requisite 7 days per COM:DEL. At the time it was closed as "Keep", momentum seemed to be in favor of deletion per COM:PRP. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decision is not based on the number of votes, but on legal arguments. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many users were not persuaded by those legal arguments. It's best to follow accepted policy when closing discussions. This should be noted in case someone decides to re-nominate this in the future. Geogene (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination. The previous kept decission is based on the argument that the photo is taken with a en:Photo booth, there are two issues with this decission:

• The argument is speculation. There are certain requirements for passport photos leaving little space for photographers creativity. There is no evidence provided that the photograph is from a vending machine.
• Vending machines usually have a trigger. The trigger is pressed by a person, the person in the vending machine. Thats similar to a selfie. The photo is not created by an autoamted process and sure there is a copyright holder.

--Martin H. (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not similar to a selfie: in a photo booth, you have no control over the lightning, the setting, the background, the people, the angle, the expression of your face. You have control over basically nothin, because the very point of the photo booth is to negate creativity (that is what the regulations on identity photographs amount to). The discussion on the trigger is irrelevant: it is not the human hand that creates copyright, it is human creativity. Go into photo booth with make-up and take a photograph upside down, it will have originality and will yield a copyright; go hack the photo booth so that you are in control of the settings and take a legally damissible identity photograph, you will still not have creativity, and thus no copyright over the product. Rama (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep There is no room for creativity. That's exactly the point. French copyright law says that originality and creativity are needed for a copyright (French droit d'auteur) to exist. Criteria for ID pictures are very strict, and there is no place for creativity, even if taken by a photographer. Please see [1] or [2]. This is the exact opposite of what is required for a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Delete The claim that any form of creativity is impossible in an ID photo is just an opinion, based on someone's subjective definition of what defines creativity. The only evidence given is list of regulations for ID photos, none of which actually state that they're not copyrightable or that they must have zero creativity. In fact they do the opposite, by allowing flexibility in terms of background color, etc. Commons has a page that discusses this [3] and it contains a link to an example of an image that has previously been considered an example of an image that is copyrightable: [4]. The nail clipper is much like these ID photos, a person/object standing in front of a colored background. I don't see how this is much different from that, and unless you're a judge your opinion on what can be considered creativity and artistic merit don't have much standing in the matter. What we do know is that French courts have previously considered the threshold pretty low. Geogene (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geogene, that argument of creativity is not based entirely on a personal opinion, see the jurisdiction above of the European Court, did you read that? The nail clipper is another case, as the photographer took the freedom of position, freedom of lighting, and freedom of angle. --Hannolans (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannolans, can you point out exactly what you're referring to? So that I can properly respond. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82078&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=148989 it sums up the requirements for a creative portrait photo. based on this above I used the criteria to compare this picture with. --Hannolans (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the conclusion of the case: 4. Under Article 6 of Council Directive 93/98/EEC harmonising the terms of protection of copyright and certain related rights and of Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, a portrait photo is afforded copyright protection if it is an original intellectual creation of the photographer, which requires the photographer to have left his mark by using the available formative freedom. So yes portrait photographs are copyrightable in principle depending on whether the photographer left his 'intellectual mark' on it in any way. I repeat that it is merely a personal opinion that the regulatory guidelines on ID photographs are too confining to allow any influence at all on the work. Just because you don't see a way to influence the outcome of a photo while staying within the guidelines does not mean that there is no way anyone could do so; or that a judge may not have a different opinion of what constitutes artistic content than you do. Geogene (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you are interpreting this sentence: The photographer can determine, among other things, the angle, the position and the facial expression of the person portrayed, the background, the sharpness, and the light/lighting. as a literal and complete checklist of the only possible elements of creativity in a photo. I don't think they intended it to be taken that way. Geogene (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because you don't see a way to influence the outcome of a photo while staying within the guidelines does not mean that there is no way anyone could do so": I think that you are correct; for instance, I think that a Giga-pixel identity photograph might be creative enough, because you could feel the desire of the photograph to do something out of the ordinary while staying within the very deterministic guidelines. Of course in this instance it is not the case.

"or that a judge may not have a different opinion of what constitutes artistic content": the opinion of the judge is irrelevant. In France, the judge is a technocratic civil servant whose job is to rule whether such or such disposition of the law applies to particular cases; their job is not to give substance to the law by writing jurisprudance that would later server as reference. A French judge could very well have an opinion of what constitutes artistic content; but they will kindly keep that to themselves and refer to the definition given in the law. The elaboration of the law is the job of the elected law-makers in the Parliament, and a judge ruling according to his opinion and in contradiction with guidelines given in a law will have his decision laughed out the court of cassation. Rama (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Per Hannolans' excellent research. Martin H., I have never ever seen a photo booth with trigger. Rama (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the trigger is automatically pressed when you insert the coin... that is the "trigger". Albertojuanse (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin H. said that "Vending machines usually have a trigger. The trigger is pressed by a person." You may change the meaning to an automatically actuated trigger, but that invalidades Martin's point. Rama (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coin is the trigger. Albertojuanse (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coin is not a trigger: a trigger is a part of a system that sets it off. Read what you yourself said of that putative trigger: "the trigger is automatically pressed when you insert the coin", or what Martin H. said ("Vending machines usually have a trigger", "the trigger is pressed by a person."): is the coin pressed by a person? Does it press itself when you insert it? Does it belong or is it part of the photo booth?

You are embarking on a philosophical quest to determine the causality of the photograph being taken. This is both a difficult question (I mean, PhD-thesis-difficult, and spoiler: the answer is that causality is an artefact of the human mind and in reality what "causes" an event is nothing or everything or anything in between) and completely irrelevant. What creates a copyright is not some magical and contagious property of the human hand; it is human creativity. No creativity, no copyright or authors' right, and all the triggers of OK Corral will change nothing to that. Rama (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep per me in previous DR. Creative identity photographies will be rejected for passport or identity card... Esby (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep Idem.-- Bertrand GRONDIN  → ^(Talk) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Delete for the same reasons Olivier LPB (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Delete for same reasons that I state in the first request. Albertojuanse (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except this was taken in France, so there is no copyright here but 'droit d'auteur'. the two requirements for protection under it are:

• creativity.
• imbued with the spirit of its author,

which together are not compatible with the identity photography requirement for national identity card or passport.

Esby (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm... we talk about Copyright and droit d'auteur, see the inclusion criterion at Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. Maybe the French Wikipedia allows for hosting of files that are not PD in the U.S. but in France? --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

France signed the Berne Convention (of 1886), meaning protected works in France are getting protection in the country which are members of the convention, I don't think you can have the copyright counterpart for non protected works in France. There are special case with work which protections expired in some country, but it is not the same here, since the photography here is not original enough, nor created from an artistic point of view (the imbued spirit of the author? to imitate a photobooth? seriously, no.) to be protected.

Esby (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the berne convention foreign authors are given the same rights as domestic authors in any country that signed the Convention. It is well possible that works not entitled to protection under foreign law are protected in the U.S. --Martin H. (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep as previously, and per Hannolans. Totodu74 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Neutral: This is pointless (and probably also pointy): A general discussion needs to be had to decide upon a guideline to implement in Commons a stable interpretation of that quirky legal text in the case of automated mugshots taken in France. Then, after that guideline is agreed on, this photo — and a thousand others everybody seems to be neglecting — can be cleanly deleted or kept. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC); clarif. at 00:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my part if it's POINTY. But I thought the means by which this was taken is unknown, and consequently the discussion focuses on droit d' auteur/threshold of originality and US reciprocity. If someone can prove that this came from a photobooth, perhaps something in the EXIF data, I will change my !vote to 'Keep'. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This do not came from a photobooth, Geogene, this came from here... Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense: the URL you refer is that of a trivial, uncopyrightable photograph of an identity card, which features the photograph presently being discussed.

There are two ways to produce such photographs: a photo booth, or a studio photographer. We do not have a positive proof that the photograph was taken in a photo booth -- in the same sense that we do not have a positive proof that you are a Human; you could be a very hight-tech chatterbot, only the probability is abysmally thin. How likely is it that notorious paupers woul dhire a professional photographer for an ID card? Producing that result? Get real. Rama (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False dichotomy. Last time I needed a passport photo I went to a retail drug store. Photo booth was broken so a clerk took the photo with a hand-held digital camera. Last time I needed a driver license photo it was taken at a semi-automated kiosk operated by a clerk who had a trigger mechanism. There is no way to guess that from the result, except that they're obviously not professional work. Agree with PRP unless somebody knows a way to tell for sure. Geogene (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, Rama, per COM:PRP we must delete this photo unless the uploader could prove that this is a PD picture. Could you? How? Do you know the author? How do you know that this is picture with a photo booth? Did you were there when the photo was taken? Prove it! Albertojuanse (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the European directive it doesn't matter if a picture is made by a professional photographer or an amateur with a photobooth: "[..] no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account". A copyright is only applicable if it is an artistic work. Only if a picture has copyright, then the author becomes important as the author should then give us a license for reproduction. --Hannolans (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So satellite imagery isn't copyrightable in the EU? News photography? Videography from political speeches? Surely the interpretation of 'artistic work' is rather broad. Geogene (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"per COM:PRP we must delete this photo unless the uploader could prove that this is a PD picture": you seem to entertain the fanciful notion that we can prove and know things for all images on Commons; it is not so. A large quantity of our work is founded on trust or judgement. To give you an example, there is no way to prove that a contributor uploading their images is who they say they are and have the copyright on their images. For another example, see how we deal with images from the 1880s whose author is unknown; or how we accept the spoliation commited by the US government (for instance they claim Heinrich Hoffmann's photographs are in the public domain, and we publish them as such on the ground that the US national archives have them; it is in fact not so). Claiming that identity photographs do not yield copyright is by no means the strongest claim we make on Wikimedia Commons.

"Surely the interpretation of 'artistic work' is rather broad": the question is not of "artistic work", but of "imbued of the spirit of its author"; a technical photograph can absolutely be imbued of the spirit of its author, as soon as taking it entails solving problems such as choice of angle, lightning, etc. There is absolutely no question that News photography and videography from political speeches are non-trivial tasks, and they legitimatly yield copyrights : you get to chose the angle, the settings, you try to catch a particular moment, etc. Satellite imagery entail choices of spectrum and post-processing, so it could yield a copyright too, although here we are venturing into the realm of copyright on collective work held by institutions and waived by the public sector. Rama (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannolans said that only artistic works are copyrightable. Here you seem to agree with me that if that is so, then 'artistic' is a broad concept. The 'sweat of the brow' ("non-trivial to make") doctrine doesn't apply here, only in the UK. Satellite imagery traditionally is for utilitarian, not artistic, purposes, as are ID photos. It also is traditionally copyrightable. So saying that an ID photo is not copyrightable because it is not artistic? That is not necessarily so. As for doubt, there's always some of it anywhere, it's not Cartesian skepticism to say there's a lot of doubt here. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant 'artistic work' as defined by the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" in Article 2.1 and translated by the European Court for portrait photography in the above case as: "an original work resulting from the intellectual creation of the photographer, which is the case where the photographer leaves his mark by using the available formative freedom of portrait photography".

I'm not sure if we should discuss satellite imagery, as this is a passport photo of Said Kouachi. Anyway, "satellite imagery [..] is for utilitarian, not artistic, purposes", purpose should not matter for the European directive, as "[..] his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account;".--Hannolans (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Yeah, I thought I could take that example somewhere useful, but it's much too far off-subject. Nevermind. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'So satellite imagery isn't copyrightable in the EU?' - no idea, even not sure what the country of origin should be. What I do know is the the Dutch Federation of Professional Photographers (Dupho) write on their website that for sure the following pictures has no copyright: rontgen and passport photo's (http://www.dupho.nl/kennisbank-auteursrecht/de-foto/auteursrecht-per-genre/pasfotos-portretten-en-huwelijksfotos), and sometimes product photo's (http://www.dupho.nl/kennisbank-auteursrecht/de-foto/auteursrecht-per-genre/reclamefotos). News and speeches are in most cases with copyright, but an interesting case is the so called 'Endstra tapes', http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2013/08/20/backseat-conversations-not-protected-by-copyright/ --Hannolans (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are good sources. So these would not be copyrightable in the Netherlands, and the Dutch 'personal touch of the photographer' (Google's English translation) seems the same as from France and is also consistent with your EU court link earlier. The same logic seems to be used in the US, although the US courts seem to have a low threshold for recognizing creativity. But I think this would really test that limit in a novel way. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per discussions in first nomination regarding copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]