User:NVO/Wikihistory of scale models

Left or right?

Did you know that ... as of end of April 2011, Wikimedia Commons does not have a clear and uncontroversial policy on images of scale models? No, they don't. No policy, no guideline, no FAQ or help page answers a simple question: "May I upload a photo of a scale model? I photographed it myself. Promise!"

This page attempts to list closed deletion requests and discussions related to self-made photographs of scale models of man-made objects: cars, ships, historic buildings etc. The models themselves could be unique museum exhibits, non-working full-size replicas, factory-made toys or kits (perhaps with some personal touch added). Very few were actually built from scratch by Commons photographers. I excluded photographs of recent arhitectural models (which, in my opinion, firmly fall into "copyrighted art" category), models of humans and animals (cf. Bambi raptor - fits "art of sculpture" route). No architectural follies (Mini-worlds, Disney-kitsch etc.) too - another vague crossover category, although the Baby Atomium saga is quite entertaining in its own right. And, regretfully, no brunette models here.

The list is not complete (many files were speedied and are now below search engine radar) and is not representative of any "consensus".

In a nutshell

Is there any consensus, at all? Not really. Any self-made image of a scale model may be brought to deletion. Some would argue that scale models are "copyrighted" art. Copyrighted by default: "It exists, ergo, it's copyrighted". Others would say: "the prototype (car, ship, Great Pyramid of Giza ...) is not copyrighted, and neither is its model". This is offset by a counter-argument: "the model builder has made creative decisions in placing a rivet here and omitting a door handle there" ... "Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative". Further down the road there would be arguments that, although the prototype is a useful object and thus acceptable on Commons, the model is not, and must be treated like a work of art along with genuine Picassos and Yamasakis.

The decision is pronounced and executed ("closed") by an administrator. A few years ago deletion debates could drag for years, but these days (2011) they rarely take more than a month. There's a bunch of outcomes, listed here in no particular order:

• Speedy deleted as a violation of someone's copyright (mostly historical - see 2009 records below);
• Deleted for the same reason;
• Deleted for lack of OTRS release from the builder(s);
• Deleted for depicting something that is not a useful object;
• Deleted as a violation of "freedom of panorama";
• Deleted "per discussion";
• Deleted for all of the above,
• or Kept.

A promising diversity, isn't it? Very few Commons administrators actively engage in these deletion requests, and each of them predictably leans to this or that interpretation of policies. One thing that you cannot predict is who will preside over your case.

Year by year

This is a frightened city work of art (that is, architecture) by Minoru Yamasaki. There is a strong opinion that photos of scale models must be treated in a similar fashion.

2006

• A question raised in June at COM:DW "Is it allowed to photograph Modells of real things...?" is answered by User:Postdlf in November: "Not necessarily; there are numerous court cases in the United States finding that a scale model of a public domain object was copyrighted, because the reduction and simplification of details in the model required creative decisionmaking" [1].

2007

• An inquiry at COM:LICENSING: "Could I upload a picture taken by me of a model ship that I own but did not make?" ended in a 1:1 draw. One respondent said "I don't think model ships are usually an expression of free artistic creativity", another said: "copyrightable creative and original decision-making in the selection of which details to simplify and how" [2]. Not much has changed since then...

2008

• Vasa (museum exhibit). Deleted in April in a week: No FOP since not outdoors as required by Swedish law.
  • Another Vasa (museum exhibit) deletion dragged from May to August and was kept per OTRS release issued by the museum, rather than individual authors [3].
    • Curiously, as of April 21, 2011 a multitude of other Vasa model photos is left unharmed ... for the time being.
• Model of a town in Belarus dragged from Dec 2007 to end of May 2008. Nom: "FOP in Belarus. Author info must be provided." Deleted without discussion per nom.
• Tiger panzer (custom-painted but factory-made) dragged from May to September and was kept without much discussion [4].
• Box art of a model of a destroyer was deleted in one. This is not a "scale model" case but a plain copyvio. I included it here for a simple reason: the same file (apparently) is alive and well on English wikipedia since February 2007, licensed PD [5]. I told ya: wikipedia is safer.

2009

• User:Mike.lifeguard deleted photographs of scale models of ships without discussion, as copyvios (#1, #2, #3). Uploader complained ("I have built, painted and photographed the model by myself. It contains parts from various manufacturers as well as parts designed by myself. Therefore I do not think that uploading a picture of it should be a violation of anybodys copyright." [6]) and was politely shown to the door [7]. He did not get back yet.
• One-of-a-kind tram model (see flickr source which says that one model was built by en:Magnus Volk in the 1890s). Filed in Oct 2008, deleted in March 2009 citing "plenty of creativity" [8]. Note that another pic of the same from same source is still here.
• Mass nom: 20+ ship models (museum exhibits, France). Dragged from June to October and was mercifully kept as no consensus, stating the need for an explicit policy for models [9].
• Video of a model of Vatican was deleted: no OTRS from His Holiness [10].
• Model of an ancient Roman building was deleted without sysop's rationale [11].

2010

Wikipedians discuss deletion of a video of a train model. Watch the white truck take a freedom of panorama detour.

• A 1976 photo of a model of a modern building was kept: "this photo has never been copyrighted" (not a word on its subject) [12].
• Model of a basilica (museum exhibit). After two months of debate it turned out a plain copyvio and deleted on sight [13].
• X-wing, whatever it was was deleted in a week with no explanation [14].
• 10 models of ancient Roman structures. Filed in July, deleted in November: "no freedom of panorama in Italy, the models are a work of art themselves" [15].
• A category of scale train models (14 pics) was kept with no rationale from closing sysop. The decisive keep vote seems to be a textbook WP:OSE: "treating OO differently to O / HO because the gauge is slightly inaccurate is ridiculous" [16].
• June 11, 2010: Category:Architectural models is topped with {{NoUploads}} [17]. The user who posted the hatnote inquired: "does the amount of contents in this category (and subcategories) mean that Wikimedia Commons has an unwritten policy allowing them as a kind of "fair use"?" [18]. No answers, mate [19].
• Yet another Village Pump inquiry about scale model rights ends in a 1:1 draw.

2011

• Tango submarine cutaway (museum exhibit). A heated two-week DR was ruled delete with a lengthy summary applying American legal definition of a "not a useful object" to Russian FOP concerns [20].
  • A link to this case becomes the sole reference case for the relevant section of COM:CB [21].
  • Another submarine model, this time from Germany deleted per above.
  • A non-working full-size replica of a French submersible deleted per above.
• Factory-made yellow submarine (from Beatles comic) was deleted per discussion.
• A model self-built from scratch by a wikipedian is kept but not before the builder himself speaks out. An administrator suggests that OTRS paperwork might be necessary even in this case [22].
• A modern model of an old building (museum exhibit in Russia) was kept: "PD-old clearly applies here" [23].
• Another model of an old building from a Russian museum was deleted with no rationale [24].
• Model of a WW2-period airplane was deleted: "Our clear policy is that models are covered by copyright. Don't tell a model maker that models are not creative ..." [25].
• Tram (museum exhibit in the Netherlands) was deleted, uploader left to seek OTRS - good luck! [26].
• Delete the whole category! Summary execution postponed: kept [27].
• A toy steam locomotive hidden in a mass-nom of mostly lifesize exhibits was kept, perhaps by omission. The model was not discussed as such - discussion focused on nominators' retraction of license [28].
• Toy cars in Polish police liveries: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8. Main discussion is here. All kept. This time user:Jcb ruled that "the scale model has nothing added to the original car that meets the threshold of originality" [29].
• Three photos of unique truck models from a museum in Germany: 1, 2, 3. All kept with no further explanation.
• Model of medieval Nuremberg from 1930s deleted. No explanation - perhaps, Godwin's law?

...