Commons:Deletion requests/File:PinkStar.jpg

This photo of a star-shaped drawer pull was taken from Google and uploaded with a false Free Art License claim, and I tagged it as a copyright violation. The problem tag was removed, and the {{FAL}} tag replaced with {{PD-ineligible}}. As a deliberately lit and clearly post-processed photograph of a three-dimensional object, I don't think {{PD-ineligible}} applies, notwithstanding the fact that one surface of the depicted object constitutes a simple geometric shape. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: {{PD-ineligible}}      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering I think I explained quite clearly in the last nomination why {{PD-ineligible}} does not apply, the rationale for closing the nomination is hardly satisfactory. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep Too simple for copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
•  Keep It is an absolutely plain pink five pointed star. Neither the pink color nor the shadow adds anywhere near enough to make this eligible for copyright in the USA.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 21:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the full resolution version of the file. Again, it's a photo of a three-dimensional object, taken at a slight angle with lighting and cast shadows. Photographs of three-dimensional objects are not ineligible for copyright protection. This is well-established policy on Commons. See, for example, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art, Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#Photograph of an old coin found on the Internet, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Athelstanobv2.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/Image:€2 commemorative coin San Marino 2006a.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SiegelBalduin.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Piece de el hadjar.png and Commons:Deletion requests/File:1francobelga1996front.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not judging the full resolution; we're judging the version here. This is not a coin or work of art.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same photo. The full-resolution makes the details of the lighting and the fact that it is a photo of a real-world object more apparent, but resizing it hasn't affected its copyrightability. I'm obviously not claiming that it is a coin or a work of art. A photograph of a coin is copyrightable as a photograph irrespective of the copyright status of the coin itself, because a coin has a three-dimensional aspect to it and will appear differently depending on angle and lighting. This photograph is copyrightable as a photograph irrespective of the copyrightability of the depicted object, because the object has a three-dimensional aspect to it, and there are many different ways in which it could have been lit and photographed. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Keep PD-ineligible is correct and the closure was ok Neozoon (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but repeatedly insisting that something is the case without addressing the arguments for why it's not the case is not really all that helpful. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand your point -- that an image of a PD-ineligible object can (and usually will) have copyright of its own. Our automobile photographs are good examples of this.

With that understood, though, this version of the photograph is PD-ineligible -- all of the things you comment about that are visible in http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31u25AHPlJL.jpg are missing here. The larger images is well lighted to show the bevels in the star and its depth. I might agree with you with respect to the larger image -- I'm not sure -- but this smaller one seems clearly ineligible. It is small enough so it amounts to a pink star icon with typical icon shadows.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 00:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, any photo scaled down sufficiently (think 1×1 pixel) is {{PD-ineligible}}, but stretching that to claim that we can take a copyrightable 488×500-pixel photo, scale it down to 28%, and call it ineligible seems to be a risky position to take. Where did it cross the line (as you appear to think it has), and which kinds of photos does that apply to? How do we explain to new users that they can't just upload any thumbnail from the Internet? I think the truth is actually much more straightforward: anyone who sees File:PinkStar.jpg and the non-free full-resolution version can tell that the former was derived from the latter, which makes it a non-free derivative of a non-free work. If we really need an icon of a pink star (this one is not used and never has been), we have plenty of unambiguously free SVG files which could easily be adapted (e.g. File:Star with shadow.svg). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is highly subjective and will vary by subject. Images much smaller than this of many subjects would be infringements, but in this case, my eye tells me that the copyrightable detail has been lost. DRs are not votes, but opinion here is running 3:1 against you.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - obvious case, PD-ineligible - Jcb (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]