Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.png

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:Radiohead "Creep" ostinato.png

The riff notation was taken from "Creep" by Radiohead, one of copyrighted songs. Even when the notation might be ineligible for copyright in the US, Radiohead is a British band. The riff is subject to copyright in the UK, especially per COM:TOO UK. Speaking of US copyright, I think the musical note has potential for US copyright protection. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned about copyright you should check the licensing given on a file's page. Hyacinth (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unconvinced that the notation is automatically PD just because it looks less original or something. George Ho (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless I'm missing something, a couple of chords aren't eligible for copyright. The image was also created by Hyacinth, so UK TOO isn't applicable. -FASTILY 22:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: I see that chord progressions are not protected by law, even when a song is registered for copyright. On the other hand, this (other) article says that chords can be protected as part of intellectual property of a musical composition. Well, some people and/or organizations don't have enough rights to sue others for infringement of using other people's works. However, those links are based on US copyright. I found another article based on UK copyright, but it doesn't say much about chords (methinks). This one says that "underlying chords and beats" wouldn't be original enough for copyright protection. Rather more melody line is needed to suffice. Of course, other sections of that page befuddles the line of where a chord can stand. George Ho (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho and Fastily: See: en:Threshold of originality. I think the problem is that a chord progression must be in context to be copyrighted and infringed upon. Like how counting isn't copyrighted but a line from a movie where someone counts might be copyrighted, but the only way to know if someone is counting or quoting the movie is for the quote to include both the counting and some context (before and/or after the counting). See: en:List of songs containing the 50s progression and en:List of songs containing the I–V–vi–IV progression. That's why the Radiohead song itself is not copyright infringement on all of the music which uses a major chord for the tonic, mixed-thirds, leading-tones, etc., none of which are unique to the song. Notice that no one has brought up that the English Wikipedia en:Creep (Radiohead song) article says, "The G–B–C–Cm chord progression is repeated throughout the song," or the quotation from a cited source, "I–V7/vi–IV–iv," which would be Wikipedia impinging on copyright by quoting a source which itself impinges on copyright. Obviously that problem would need to be fixed on the English Wikipedia and not here or on the Commons, but if this image should be deleted should the content from then English Wikipedia be deleted? Hyacinth (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can raise the issue at w:Talk:Creep (Radiohead song) or w:WT:SONGS. Well, en.WP abides to just the United States jurisdiction because the servers are located in the US. On the other hand, the UK enforces the en:sweat of the brow principle, which lowers the UK's originality line, in regard to copyright of works by British (...and Northern Irish) people, and the international project Commons had to also abide the UK law. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you bought the sheet music to this song you would not find the image in this file in that score. Hyacinth (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, it's still a derivative of one melody line to me. George Ho (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between melodic lines, arppeggios, and block chords. Hyacinth (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'll be able to change each other's minds. Let's wait for others to comment then. George Ho (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@George Ho: How could I alter the image so that it would be acceptable to you under {{PD-music-ineligible}} (which is a license)? How about File:Radiohead 'Creep' ostinato chord progression.png? Hyacinth (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found out that you created many other music tags, so I decided to discuss the tags at COM:VPCOPY. George Ho (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also contacted the band Radiohead about this. George Ho (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)~~ Wait, I realized that I must have contacted the wrong people. George Ho (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's canvassing, but I do wonder how would you prove that you are communicating with Radiohead. Assuming good faith, have you gotten permission for use on Wikipedia from artists before? Hyacinth (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used their chord progressions or any of their music before. I rarely upload audio samples at enwiki; never at Commons. For music-related contet, I just uploaded cover arts and vinyl labels, like File:The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face by Roberta Flack US vinyl.png. George Ho (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Abstraction without context. Note that it is also not the actual riff, so one can't complain that it "steals" the riff from the song and, thus, the potential ability to copyright musical notation isn't an issue. Delete things when we have real problems, not potentialities and possibilities and delete things when we have answers, not questions. Hyacinth (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]