Commons:Deletion requests/File:Free-speech-flag.svg

And File:Fs-flag.svg per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fs-flag.svg.

This image is not ineligible for copyright. This is a representation of the HD DVD key, and the MPAA has asserted they own all rights to the number under the DMCA -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The idea that you can copyright an integer borders on the absurd. If they issue a takedown notice, then we will deal with the question at that time -- but there's no need for us to anticipate in advance hypothetical extravagant and flamboyant legal claims... AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Allowing the concept to exist that a given hexadecimal string can be held under copyright is dangerous in the extreme. Under this argument, were I to copyright 0xFFFFFF this website would be in violation for using a white background, which on investigation would reveal my key. Not to mention that when examining the image in an image editor, I first looked at the RGB values before looking at the hexadecimal values. are the RGB values also protected from fair use? -User:FatherStorm (User talk:FatherStorm)(Let's talk) 23:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep the idea is beyond absurd. whats next, Microsoft taking down any image that is made of 4 coloured squares because it kinda looks like the windows logo is you squint hard enough and turn you head at an angle? Indy muaddib (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. It didn't work for digg, all you will get by deleting it is waves of spam to reinstate it, the end result would just be disruption. mkb@libero.it —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.5.19.149 (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep While the MPAA may assert that they own all rights to the number, they do not own all rights to any coincidental representation of the number. Unless the creator of the image itself produced it under the employ of the MPAA, then the MPAA cannot claim copyright over the image itself. --Uncle Milty (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep There are a number of reasons to keep this. I will start with the weakest (in my opinion) and move to the strongest.

1. The material is transformative in nature (the HD DVD key is clearly completely distinct in format and commercial purpose to a 16 byte jpeg). It is likely that this jpeg would not be under a deletion request if all parties immediately saw this rationale as valid. Some would argue that since the distinct purpose of the flag is to broadcast the decryption key in another format that this is derivative.
2. The material is not harming the commercial opportunities of the business making use of the key (the format is dead and the industry has moved to other methods of selling videos). This would clearly meet #4 of the US fair use doctrine if this were a concern (see my final point below).
3. Most importantly, the work is reporting material that is freely available for anyone to find with proper investigation tools. This is not a matter of broadcasting the full content of Iron Man onto the Internet but rather a matter of publishing the results of investigation into hardware. It would be similar to publishing the specs of a new car--this is freely available information (as evidenced in the least by the AACS article posting the key in plain text several times and some 12,000 other google entries). --Eleuthero (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep.

1. First, if you mean that the MPAA is asserting control over the number via 17 USC 1201, the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, that is non-sensical. 1201 prohibits manufacture, trafficking, etc., of a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" that is used for circumvention. This flag is an image, not a circumvention device. It cannot primarily (or really, at all) be used to circumvent any technological protection measures. It is not marketed as a circumvention device, but rather as an expression of free speech.
2. Second, it is not at all clear that the MPAA or AACS LA have any copyrightable interest in the encryption key itself. Words and short phrases are not copyrightable. I am unaware of any precedent suggesting that short sequences of numbers can be copyrighted.
3. Third, this flag itself was eligible for copyright and was released into the public domain by John Marcotte, its creator (not the MPAA or AACS LA).
4. Fourth, even if the short sequence of numbers was copyrightable, the flag arguably represents a transformative, non-commercial fair use of the sequence. Langelgjm (talk)

 Keep Two reasons. Firstly it's the AACS LA who own the rights not MPAA. Secondly I see no reason to preempt the Foundations Lawyers, if it comes to a takedown notice then they should make the decision. Xmp (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The image itself is released into the public domain by its creator, as mentioned above, so that is not an issue. And if Wikipedia is preemptively anticipating a suit with no legal standing from a corporation that no longer even makes or uses the technology that uses the string of random hexidecimal characters that just happen to be encoded into the colors of the image, then the concept of Wikipedia as a whole has completely and utterly failed, and as such Wikipedia should be removed from existence entirely.
--Cogniac (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Cite your claims. The MPAA have not asserted ownership of the flag, nor the hex-string 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0 that it's based on, nor the decimal number 790815794162126871771506399625. The number is at the centre of a valid and notable controversy, and there is no need to preemptively remove material from Wikipedia. 192.9.112.196 17:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep An image isn't an circumvention device, that is a nonsensical assertion. Abelsson (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep A number cannot be placed under copyright let alone images derived from that number Unibond (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Eleuthero and Langelgjm's arguments above. McDutchie (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The RFD makes the claim that the MPAA has asserted they own all rights to the number under the DMCA. The MPAA and their members have made several DMCA claims about content, some of which have even been applicable under the law. I do not know of any takedown request from the MPAA (to Wikipedia) concerning this number or the flag derived from it. If such a legal document exists, then I propose that we link to it here so that all may review it and weigh-in on its relevance and legality. If such a document does not exist, then let us cease with this unprovable speculation so that we may attend to more pressing matters on Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Sincerely, Womble (talk)

 Keep The image is so highly transformative that it would be hard not to conclude that it falls under fair use. Nharmon (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Obvious SNOW keep. Close it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Like Nharmon said, even if the MPAA's highly dubious copyright claim (that the key is an "expression" and not a "fact") is upheld, the highly creative recasting of the number as a flag is clearly fair use. 71.41.210.146 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I agree with previous keep arguments. Ejtttje (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep It might be true that the number is copyrighted (even if this is questionable), this does not imply the copyright on any color sequence that could represent that number in a given transformation. --TcfkaPanairjdde (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could conclude it falls under fair use--problem is, Commons does not accept fair use images!

Furthermore, consider that even a normal copyrighted work can be written out as a very large number. Numbers can be copyrighted; there is no dispute over that. (You might, however, be able to argue that the number is not copyrighted under [|merger doctrine] since the number is necessary for particular functionality.)

There is a Slashdot article that points out that the [|PS3 free speech flag] was deleted from Wikipedia for similar reasons, and it is very hard to justify deleting that and not deleting this. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to justify, that deletion was a mistake. Further, this flag has higher notability as it originated/popularized the argument. Ejtttje (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep I'd argue that this work is a parody of the original: "a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation" and thus protected speech.--agr (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies fall under fair use. Commons does not accept fair use images. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Arromdee -- Parodies are technically "fair use" according to U.S. legal doctrines, but it's a kind of fair use which allows unrestricted commercial exploitation without the permission of the original copyright owner, so it's extremely different from every other type of fair use... AnonMoos (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the image falls under fair use assumes the original number is copyrightable. This is dubious. It is likely unable to be copyrighted for a variety of reasons: failing to pass the threshold of originality, serving a functional purpose, or being so short as to fail to warrant copyright. Furthermore, we have no evidence that anyone has actually claimed copyright on the number. The RFD vaguely mentions something about "all rights" and seems to implicitly reference the cease and desist letters that were sent by the AACS LA in 2007. Those letters did not claim copyright violation or a copyright on the number, they claimed a DMCA 1201 anti-circumvention violation, suggesting that the number itself was a circumvention device. That is also dubious for other, more complicated reasons. In any case, the number is not at issue in this discussion. Until such time as AACS LA indicates they believe this flag is a circumvention device, there is no copyright issue - indeed, no legal issues - to consider. Langelgjm (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Copyright claims over a number are highly dubious. Claims that a transformative work based on said number are also under the control of the original claimant border on ridiculous. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, any work can be represented as a number, so claiming that this is a number is not sufficient reason for something to not be copyrightable. The short size of the content might be more of an argument. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Fortunately for this situation, the image is not a direct representation of the number. Just look at the source code; it's an original work, not just TheNumber.svg. — MK (^t/_c) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep per Womble. UncleDouggie (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

span>]]) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 'Keep'keep Unless and until there's an actual DMCA claim about this image, the difficulty in claiming that this is eve copyrightable seems to be more than enough reason to keep this. If there is a DMCA claim made then the Foundation can deal with it. Until then, we should keep it. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. Pdboddy (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. --Lambdacore (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep You're kidding, right? This is not a circumvention device - it's a representation of a key. There's nothing infringing about this... --Mrbrown (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep keep. It is my understanding that to claim copyright that a certain level of creativity is involved. Both the number and the flag itself do not meet this very basic requirement. -- Ned Scott (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. Firstly, it is unreasonable to argue that this image enables copyright infringement. Secondly this number is not a result of research or artistic expression. It's just an arbitrarily chosen key. --Requiem18th (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. The proposer hasn't got the faintest idea what they are talking about, the image violates no ones copyright Jasonfward (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Why is this even under contention? The absurdity of even considering removing this under copyright grounds completely baffles me. --Ekimr (talk) 19:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep as per COM:L’s public-domain policy, because (even if the raw integer is copyrightable) this flag is a derivative work to which substantial creativity was added (kudos for the artistic cleverness!), hence making it conceivably eligible for its own copyright by the flag designer who chose instead to place it into the public domain. —Optikos (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. If you want to get delete the Free Speech flags over copyright issues then you'd better also delete references to true having value one and false having value zero: A number of C-language header files (bool.h, curses.h, dial.h, et al) contain "Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 AT&T All Rights Reserved" followed by "define TRUE 1" and "define FALSE 0". KevAvatar (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment If someone wonders what is going on they could have a look at en:Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#free_speech_flag - it may make it easier to understand what is going on. Also have a look at File:Free-speech-flag-ps3.svg where someone erased the file without even telling why. Why not leave a note on talk page or add a notice on file page? Dammit! --MGA73 (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. Whether this is protected by copyright is debatable -- and I'd argue it's not. --Trevor Johns (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep, not over Threshold of originality. --Cybjit (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This entire discussion is misguided. No one has provided any evidence that the AACS LA or MPAA ever claimed copyright on the key. AACS LA invoked 17 USC 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1), neither of which have anything to do with the key being copyrighted. The deletion request should be closed, and the tag removed. Langelgjm (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Keep. "This image is not ineligible for copyright. This is a representation of the HD DVD key, and the MPAA has asserted they own all rights to the number under the DMCA -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 23:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)" Ummm, the courts already ruled that you CAN NOT COPYRIGHT A NUMBER. Thats why this flag is so important. Thats why we need to fight to keep it in the public domain! To remind companies of this precedence. Nard - I'm sorry man but you're 'screwin the pooch' here to borrow military vernacular.

 Keep I think you cannot copyright numbers. Andrea Sterbini 94.38.114.135 21:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep because the deletion proposal argument is bogus. Sam Hocevar (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This is a classic example of parody, which is protected as fair use under copyright. 77.252.226.79 21:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The claim that there is sufficient creative input into the original number to be protected under copyright is ludicrous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Shouldn't this have been speedy closed by now? 24.177.120.138 00:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for all the above reasons. --Managementboy (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for all the above reasons --Sun Ladder (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for all the above reasons, and the fact that this whole argument is stupid. 1) you can't copyright a number. 2) the MPAA never even claimed copyright on the image or the number, they claimed an anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA. It's a legitimate claim, but still stupid. There are bigger principles at stake here if we blindly follow the law. Laws need to be made to protect people, not corporations. I don't think Wiki can stay neutral on this issue. Kopachris (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Cannot copyright hex. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 16:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]