Commons:Deletion requests/File:Plymouth Royal Parade - First 53154 (HIG8433).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:Plymouth Royal Parade - First 53154 (HIG8433).jpg

Derivative work of the photo on bus Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per COM:DM & basic common sense. The DM case is that the subject is obviously the bus, it cannot be captured in a way that avoids the copyrighted element, so per that policy, it's more than likely acceptable. And on the common sense front, due to the resolution of the image, plus the dirt & panel line on the bus, the subject that was meant to be captured in the copyrighted element is barely even discernible - all I can make it out is that it's some kind of car ferry on what is presumably the River Dart (bearing in mind that, per the policy COM:DM, you judge that based on normal viewing aspect, and not on what it might look like if you zoomed in or cropped out the element). Given that the whole point of declaring a derivative work is to prevent its illegitimate use in place of the licensed version, it's hard to see how deletion of this image would serve any purpose on that front. In fact, I cannot conceive of a single way that this particular image could be used without alteration to subvert the copyright holders interests. Fair warning - I am sick to the back teeth of sloppy DR closures and admins on Commons thinking they can get away with blatantly ignoring policy and/or other users who cite it, so I give fair warning that, in the event of a delete outcome, if the closing admin gives a one word rationale or any other indication that he hasn't even bothered to read what I just wrote, I will be proceeding directly to COM:UD. Ultra7 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK more full rationale as to why I think de minimis does not apply here:

To paraphrase COM:DM: If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive or more usable or is liable to cause significant economic damage... DM will probably fail. If first two apply, a lack of potential economic harm does not negate them.
The advert is visually dominant in the photo, not the bus - to me its more a photo of an ad (that's on a bus) rather than a photo of a bus (with an ad on it)
When the copyrighted element is the motivation for taking the image, DM cannot be said to apply.
Its likely that the poster was primary motivation for taking this photo in first place - why this bus? Why a rear three-quarter view instead of a more typical (and generally more useful) front three-quarter view?
The photographer/uploader appears to feel the ad is relevant - why else would he have added the discussion about its normal service in Dartmouth?
The fact that the file is categorised as relating to the claimed DM element (Category:Dartmouth Lower Ferry) that is a clear warning bell.
Blanking the ad wouldn't negate the value as a pic of the bus, but would radically change the image.

Add all that together I feel a de minimis claim here is tenuous.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does the presence of the poster make this image more attractive or more usable. Attractive to who? People interested in low quality/dirty/obstructed prints of the Dartmouth Ferry? And usable for what? You need to actually answer these questions if you want to invoke COM:DM
Yes, people have tried to claim this before, but it simply doesn't stand up to basic logic - just how do you take an image of that bus from this angle, without including the advert? You can't. It's impossible. If the sole interest was the advert, it's quite clear the framing could be radically different, to maximise the chances that it would actually be a useful/usable image of the ad
You're speculating without evidence. User:Geof Sheppard has uploaded several hundred photos of buses to Commons - in some cases I'm sure he's photographed every bus in a specific fleet/town at one point or another. And yes, while front three quarters is the most common, you'll find that any transport photographer will always try and photograph the rear at least once for each type/livery combination, whether there's a poster there or not. And any images of an unusual situation, such as a bus normally used on route x/place a, being on route z/place b, will always be noted by transport photographers, precisely because it's unusual. His primary motivation is clearly photographing buses, especially ones doing unusual things. It's clearly not photographing posters like this.
see 3.
see 3.
It is a warning bell, but on further analysis, it's clearly a false alarm. It's pretty obvious that the reason Geof added the category Category:Dartmouth Lower Ferry was because the image has a loose connection with the ferry, and not because he has captured a usable/useful image of the ferry itself (which ties in with my response to 1.). It could be removed, without affecting the usability/usefulness of the image at all
You've effectively just shown why COM:DM does apply - this is an image of a bus, specifically of a specific bus working off its normal route. It is still eminently useful/usable as such, even if the advert is blanked. Ultra7 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The interest of this photograph is that it is a bus way off its usual route. This is not obvious from the front but is from the side or rear where it carries large 'Dartmouth' adverts. These happen to include photogrpahic images and logos. The unobscured part of the picture (that without text over it) is perhaps 10% of the total image. Adverts are a common feature on buses in the United Kingdom and are often the reason why specific vehicles are photographed (see Category:Buses with advertisement in the United Kingdom) and to exclude all where a copyrighted logo or image features heavily would seem inconsistent with our desire to have encyclopeadic coverage, so we try to work within the DM rule. I see in that category the same advert covers a much larger proportion of the image in File:First Devon and Cornwall bus 53154 (HIG 8433) 2005 Optare Solo, Dartmouth Park & Ride, 30 May 2011.jpg.

As an aside, I don't hold with the idea that front three-quarter views are 'generally more useful'. What good is a dozen images of the front of a bus if we have none of the back? Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree rear shots have value in general, and if we only had front shots we would be poorer for it. However, my questions related to why did you take a rear shot of this bus? Because it is a bus way off its route? How would you (or anyone else) know that? If the copyrighted element is critical to the understanding of the image, by definition it cannot be de minimis. Bear in mind the entire advert is copyrighted, but that if it was text only it might well be PD-ineligible.

As for the other image, if this file is deleted that one could be too.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He would know that because he knows about buses. What actually identifies this as the one specifically allocated by First to Dartmouth Park & Ride, is the registration number, not the advert (assuming the reason it found its way to Plymouth wasn't due to being replaced/redundant, and thus permanently transferred). I would presume that for Geof, noticing the advert was effectively merely a short cut to get to the realisation that the bus was off route. In reality (AFAIK), there's nothing that says the bus allocated to the P&R has to have this advert (it isn't after all specifically about the P&R service) - it could have been applied to other buses too. It could also be removed from this bus, without affecting its allocation to the P&R duty. I would assume the reason it only appears on this bus, it's because they maybe offset the cost (the council being the contractor), or because they could be (reasonably) certain it remained in Dartmouth. As such, your assumption that the advert is critical to understanding the image, is clearly faulty. And obviously, the other image is COM:DM for the same reasons this one is (the larger ratio being offset by the smaller size, which means that in both images, the quality/usability of the advert in a way that would violate COM:DM is about the same). Ultra7 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What confirms the bus is off-route is the reg number - which is equally visible from the front. The ad is likely made him notice this bus in the first place (reasonable speculation - the model is common enough in Plymouth, and I doubt very much as he walked along Royal Parade he saw "HIG8433" and instantly knew that was off-route from that alone), and certainly (not speculation) made him choose to take the shot from this angle was "it is a bus way off its usual route. This is not obvious from the front but is from the side or rear where it carries large 'Dartmouth' adverts." In other words, this composition is deliberately a rear angle shot because of the poster and his desire to include it in the composition.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're really reaching. At best, all that quote shows is that he chose to photograph it from the rear because it better identifies it as being HIG8433, but that's still a very long way from you showing that his motivation was to actually photograph the advert. His primary motivation here was to capture HIG8433 because it was running off route - that's why, when you consider all the other points, this falls within COM:DM. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not close to the line - a different title, a closer shot, a different photographer, then it would be a more obvious violation, or indeed if it was actually remotely usable/attractive as a replacement for the copyrighted work (as opposed to just being useful to quickly identify the bus), then you could argue it's an unintentional violation, but we have to deal with reality as we find it, not the way we want it to be. Ultra7 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about "if it was actually remotely usable/attractive as a replacement for the copyrighted work", its about its value to the work as a whole. With the ad, you have a bus miles off-route, something transport photographers take special interest in. Remove the ad, you have a First bus on routine service in Plymouth, losing the key interest in the imagw (and the photoshopping to remove the ad would make the pic into junk). The ad is what shows the bus if off-route, not the registration, which is why Geof said a side shot - no number plate, but a visible Dartmouth ad - would be better than the front - no ad, but a number plate.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's about the usability or attractiveness as a replacement, that's the whole point of protecting derivative works. Being clear enough to merely identify HIG 8433 doesn't even come close to showing it's usable as a derivative work. And the basic fact is you're wrong - take the ad off and it's still an image that transport photographers like Geof and I can easily identify as being the bus specifically allocated to the Dartmouth P&R bus, but operating way off route. Sometimes even when we can't see the reg. - for example HIG 8433 is actually 0.7m longer than the Plymouth buses you're just assuming would be identical otherwise. So please, no more of these assumptions, you're way off base - it's a convenience to us, and nothing more. If you really want to know what Geof thought/intended, why not just ask him? If he says the image would have no value without the ad, then you'll certainly hear no more about this issue from me, as that would show COM:DM doesn't apply. Ultra7 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read Commons:Derivative works much more carefully - its not about if it can replace the original. Freedom of Panorama is a classic exemption for derivative works: You can't recreate a sculpture from a photograph, so a photo can never constitute a "replacement" of the original work, yet in many countries that photograph wouldn't be permitted. Not because it can replace the original, but it detracts from the broader commercial interests of the copyright holder. eg An unauthorised postcard of the Louvre Pyramid damages royalties due to the architect. In the case of the ad, I'd assume the copyright holder is the District Council. Depending on the nature of their contract, FirstGroup might not be able Geof's photo for its own publicity without permission from the council - never mind a third party.

And its not about transport photographers but users of such photos - this bus will be different to every other vehicle in the UK under a microscope, and I'm sure you could tell me what makes it different from say a (notional?) sister bus on the Dartmouth P&R service. What makes it obviously unusual to a "normal" person is the combination of the Dartmouth adverts and the info that the bus is in Plymouth.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're giving each other reading tips - the first line of COM:DM says "De minimis use of a copyrighted work is such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required." The reason permission is not required here is because, quite clearly, there's no way anyone would be able to use this image (ie. without cropping or enhancing it) in a way that damages the commercial interests of the copyright holder of the ad (which, in this context, is the same as saying 'use it in a way that replaces the original'). As for the last line, I've no idea what your point even is or how it relates to copyright. I was merely addressing your faulty assumption that the only reason Geof would know this bus was off route is the ad. What third parties would or wouldn't notice about it is entirely irrelevant, unless they're going to actually use it in the way previously mentioned. Ultra7 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is: If the ad is not de minimis, Geof's photo is not ok as is. It would fail the de minimis test not as a replacement for the advert, but because as a photo of a Dartmouth P&R bus it infringes on the advert's copyright. If you want an example use which infringes on the ad's copyright consider the following: Its plausible that FirstGroup could want to use this as publicity for its Dartmouth service. They would not be able to use it without permission of the advert's copyright holder, as without it its just a picture of a FirstGroup bus to the target audience (the public, not bus-geeks) of publicity like that - the ad is what gives it its utility for that task. As a practical matter, they would probably use a photo of a First bus in front of a recognisable Dartmouth scene .--Nilfanion (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's two problems here - 1. you appear not to have even realised that, to the general public, there is no apparent connection between that ad and the P&R service, and 2. you've come up with a mutually exclusive test for DM/DW - it can't ever be de minimis if the proof that it isn't de minimis is that you photographed it. The fact is, the point where a picture of this bus ceases to be identifiable as the bus with this specific ad on, is a long way from the point where it ceases to be of use for that same purpose on any kind of PR. This is quite clearly well inside both those two points, and obviously wouldn't ever see the light of day on any kind of PR material. Ultra7 (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purely by chance, I've just uploaded File:YK05CDO-2 210713 CPS (11712983766).jpg and File:YK05CDO-1 210713 CPS (11712209815).jpg, which is another First Solo with the same ad on the side (I can't find a rear shot), and it appears to be operating a P&R service in Dartmouth. ~~So, either there are two buses on this route, or HIG 8433 has been made redundant and permanently transferred, or the advert is in wider use than just the P&R.~~ What that adds to this DR, I no longer really know, but I just thought I'd mention it. Ultra7 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And unbelievably, I managed not to notice that in that batch, HIG 8433 was also captured, so yes, there are at least two buses on the service, both of which wear the adverts. And also, as this image of it alongside a standard bus shows, if you merely take the ad off, you don't end up with bus indistinguishable from any other First route bus - the buses allocated to the park and ride have also had the pink bits of First's corporate livery removed, which surely even the general public would notice - and are perhaps even more likely to notice than the mere presence of a generic, 'Dartmouth is great' type ad, on a bus in Dartmouth. Ultra7 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Dartmouth, yes - but that's not the context of the image. In Plymouth, someone is more likely to notice an out-of-place advert than a missing bit of paint (especially as the lack of pink makes the bus less conspicuous). The biggest single interest factor in the image is not "its HIG8433" (very specific), nor "its HIG8433 off-route" (even more specific), but "its a bus where it shouldn't be" (quite generic). General understanding of that fact is greatly assisted by, if not absolutely dependent on, the prominent advert in the image.

Consider two examples: A front shot in Plymouth and an identical rear shot in Dartmouth. The first would show HIG8433, and it could be described as an off-route bus, but it wouldn't be as useful for the critical "its where it shouldn't be" fact, without the visually apparent advert. If Geof had taken this shot in Dartmouth, the image would be showing a different subject - "a bus on its usual route" - and understanding that doesn't depend on the ad. In both cases, DM would be less of an issue.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We've already covered a lot of this - this is all just your own supposition, it's completely erroneous, the source of which is presumably you having no real understanding of transport photography, or perhaps even UK bus transport at all. It's a simple fact of life that the general public wouldn't have a clue this bus was off route - most people don't even bother looking at bus ads, they are a completely ubiquitous element of daily life. Those that do, aren't exactly going to assume that buses with adverts promoting Dartmouth, have to be in Dartmouth. If anything, you want adverts promoting Dartmouth, to be seen outside Dartmouth, no? As for the pink bits - no, the whole point of a corporate livery is all your vehicles look the same, in a way that even the general public would notice (which is why standard Arriva, First and Stagecoach vehicles couldn't look any more different). The general public in Dartmouth and Plymouth will be very used to seeing the standard First livery by now - and they will obviously notice the missing pink bits on a First bus, before they would ever notice anything about the advert. And as I've already said, there is nothing on the ad that even refers to the Dartmouth Park & Ride, so it obviously has no such association to the public, unless they live in Dartmouth and are very observant, and/or already use the service frequently, neither of which I'm sure are the people you're talking about when discussing interest factor. You seem to have completely missed the point of most of the previous discussion about how the ad shows it is off route - the only people who would have any clue that this bus was off route, is transport specialists. And they do not solely rely on the presence of the ad to identify it as being off route, it is merely a convenience - and as seen with these subsequent images, anyone assuming that this ad only appears on HIG 8433, was obviously wrong. And clearly there is absolutely no logic in this claim that this is a violation here, but it would be closer to DM if it had been photographed in Dartmouth - not when just above you're claiming that the supposed commercial value to First would be in including a photo of this bus in a Dartmouth context. Ultra7 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: It's a bus. Busses have advertisements. The advert can be blurred out and the bus will still be there. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]