Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today
The below discussions are transcluded from Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 December 9
December 9
[edit]
- File:Bangkok skyscraper collapse.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EF5 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).
Uploader seems to be suggesting that anything created by a dashcam is public domain. I cannot find any precedent for such a broad, sweeping claim about dashcam footage. aaronneallucas (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Aplucas0703: See PD-automated on Commons; things not produced by human input are indeed generally considered public domain. Dashcam is not specifically mentioned but from other categories and uploads I've seen it generally falls under this. Camera does not move at any point during the video this was taken from. EF5 01:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5 I'm really not convinced of this argument. I think someone could easily (and correctly) argue that choosing where to drive their car is human input sufficient for copyright protection. This might apply to CCTV footage or traffic cameras that receive no input, but a moving car is significantly different. By this interpretation, all footage captured from a drone would be in the public domain. It's difficult to even know if the footage was captured by a camera manually activated or automatically activated, but I don't think it matters in this case. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5 The category you cite is populated almost entirely by items with other licenses. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- I concede that point but the rest of what I've said is still a valid argument. EF5 01:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- You could argue that, but then that's equally an opinion as mine. Dashcam has been a subject of contention (in the US), although I'll note that looking up ToO in relation to dashcams in Thailand I find zero results, so there doesn't appear to be any defined law relating to CCTV/dashcams. EF5 01:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5 The category you cite is populated almost entirely by items with other licenses. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
- @EF5 I'm really not convinced of this argument. I think someone could easily (and correctly) argue that choosing where to drive their car is human input sufficient for copyright protection. This might apply to CCTV footage or traffic cameras that receive no input, but a moving car is significantly different. By this interpretation, all footage captured from a drone would be in the public domain. It's difficult to even know if the footage was captured by a camera manually activated or automatically activated, but I don't think it matters in this case. aaronneallucas (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)