Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2008/07/01
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No Commons:Freedom of panorama for statues in USA. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
only used for vandalism on en: -209.125.235.60 03:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Finn Rindahl (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The Flickr "author" does not own this photo so the cc-by-sa license is illegal. -Nard 04:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am the owner of the photo and I am the one who pictured it, i dont know how to get a license from creative commons. GoblinTech (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted and blocked. The Commons uploader and the Flickr uploader is the same person. The Flickr uploads include magazine covers, television screenshots, and clearly watermarked photos from various sources, fraudulently passed off as the uploader's own work. With the patently false statements here, I can no longer assume good faith, and I'm deleting all of the users other uploads as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Flickr source not given. -Nard 03:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like meant to upload as own work but user got lost. Keeping and removing flickr tag. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Flickr source not given. -Nard 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like meant to upload as own work but user got lost. Keeping and removing flickr tag. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. -Nard 03:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violations; no license
useless Koefandr (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: User request
There is not freedom of panorama for other work than architecture in Finland. There is no reason to think the sculptor is dead 70 years at least. Ikiwaner (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks, should have checked back then, but it was party and the statue was 100 years old, so I forgot about it. I'm a little bit to used to the FOP-rules of Austria. The sculptor died 1940, so I will reupload in two years. -- Cecil (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- And two years later, it's restored. --Dereckson (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Not "own work" -Nard 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted. On of many copyvioimages of this actor from uploader. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A Promotional Poster which has next to no value (E.g. in Wikipedia, Wikiquote, etc) and only serves to advertise for a particular website. Mifter (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The licence is wrong too. According to the flickr-source all rights are reserved. Should be possible to do this speedy. -- Cecil (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Yep, possible to do this speedy... Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Drawing date can't be confirmed by source. --Tarawneh (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's OK, you can delete the image if you want. I have uploaded a photograph of el-Baroudi, which by definition must have been taken during his lifetime. Since he died in 1904, the photograph is now in the public domain. Regards. BomBom (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted . --Tarawneh (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
not accordable with Commons:Scope ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 17:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep. In use on ja:User:Rawny; User-page images are allowed by project scope. ---dave pape (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Oh, ok. I just missed that. ← Körnerbrötchen » ✉ 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
This is an album cover and therefore a copyrighted image. – Zntrip 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This image was tagged with pd-self, but the author (therefore copyright holder) of the image seems to be someone else than the uploader and there was no reliable confirmation that it may be tagged as such. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like its based on an image from Google maps or other non-free mapping service. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted, it is. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
wrong data Clipper (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Sorry it's my fault, I have plot the wrong position so this pic has no use anymore.--Clipper (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by Ahonc: In category Unknown as of 1 July 2008; no license
File unused, bad license. -Nard 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Uploaded via FlickrLickr. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Proof the "Diocese of Partenia" released this? -Nard 04:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I forgot to sign in, yeah, but this is Undead_warrior. Nard, please read my page before posting warnings. I don't want them on my page. I don't care if you delete the image. I only transfer the images to ease the backlog on en.wikipedia. If you need the source info, contact the guy who uploaded it on wikipedia. 64.71.125.49 05:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, the uploader has to be notified. Just because you work sloppy and choose to ignore your responsibilities, you cant'r request that others act negligently themselves too. Please refrain from transfering images if that is an example of your work. That image never should have been transferred at all. Images which are on Commons get deleted on the local WPs and then are lost on both projects after the logicial deletion here. -- Cecil (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Cecil (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. -Nard 03:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a potential for identity theft by posting signatures in non-PDF formats. As well, it may be worth double-checking that this signature counts as a US government work. This is per OTRS ticket number 2008061910021121. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep PD-ineligible (if however the actual person doesn't want his sig on Commons maybe we should respect that). -Nard 00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it is from the US Federal work s:The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (hosted on Wikisource) which was signed, and widely distributed, with Johnson's signature. "Identify theft " is always possible when we sign things, I could pretend to be w:Magic Johnson or w:Richard Nixon - but that doesn't mean we digitally remove their signatures from things we host. That's why we have Category:Signatures and Category:Autographs. Sherurcij (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of panaroma in Japan --Kelvinc (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I do not know if Japanese government works are considered public domain. If so, please close this request. Kelvinc (talk)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Why would this image be public domain? -Nard 02:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Change licence to {{PD-Norway50}}. Sosekopp (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't see why it should be a simple enough photograph for it not to meet the threshold of originality which is a requirement for PD-Norway50 to apply. The composition is too good for this to be just a random snapshot. But even if it is public domain in Norway, why would it be public domain in the United States? Hemmingsen (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No proof "Dick Blick" donated this image. OTH it may be pd-ineligible. -Nard 02:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Corrupted file. -Nard 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think I'll just request that Dvortygirl or Neskaya re-record it, instead. --Connel MacKenzie (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low magnification. It has been replaced by Image:XeF2&C2H4.png --Puppy8800 (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low magnification. It has been replaced by Image:XeF2'.png --Puppy8800 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Bigger and better version now uploaded Mhaesen (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a very similar, more zoomed in, higher resolution image of the same monument at Image:Kossuth Budapest.JPG, so primarily, I think it's silly having two such similar images. However, I can see there being arguements for keeping both, so it's also partially a testing the waters type thing to see what's considered too similar or not. If the indication is that only one version is necessary, I will be more than happy to run around the various wikis fixing the links; I haven't done it yet because I didn't want to make needless edits if both end up being kept. -Bbik★ 08:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No need to delete, having 2 images is better than 1. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio 62.157.169.229 09:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative of copyrighted artwork. FOP in countries following the British model does not include 2d works. Also derived works Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg and Image:Urban explorer Hobart CA Edt.jpg -Nard 10:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean by FOP? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP: it means "Freedom of Panorama". Since there is no such law in Tasmania, the creator of those graffiti needs to give his permission. Otherwise you can't post his image under a licence that allows commercial use. -- Cecil (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#Australia says: "These sections allow photographers to take pictures of buildings and also of sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship provided that they are permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public". As the photo is in a place that is open to the public I fail to see the problem? Noodle snacks (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I should have checked the page and not just link to it (it's the US, not the UK).
- Huh? The US has NO FOP at all and Australia, which follows the UK legal model, does not cover 2D works. Please re-read COM:FOP#Australia: "Australian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical." If you read the UK section it excludes 2D works. -Nard 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- I really should go to bed now, I start to mix the FOP-laws. In this case: The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place. -- Cecil (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, is there a valid Licence for Wikipedia for example? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- On Commons not, but a few Wikipedia projects (like en) have Fair use. I'm just not sure if you could find any rationale for this image. But without the permission of non-commercial use it is not free enough for most projects. -- Cecil (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm interested in using this image, surly if you did need permission by the graffiti artist that wouldn't hold up legally anyway - as I'm sure that the artist did not have legal permission to work on those walls in the first place? Graffiti in public places is illegal full stop in almost every country (as far as I know), so how can anyone claim copyright to a piece of work if it is illegal? It would be like a drug addict dropping his/her stash and coming back to the police to reclaim it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.31.50.60 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3. Jul. 2008 (UTC)
- On Commons not, but a few Wikipedia projects (like en) have Fair use. I'm just not sure if you could find any rationale for this image. But without the permission of non-commercial use it is not free enough for most projects. -- Cecil (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough, is there a valid Licence for Wikipedia for example? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- I really should go to bed now, I start to mix the FOP-laws. In this case: The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works (which will typically be two-dimensional) such as paintings, murals, advertising hoardings, maps, posters or signs. These cannot be uploaded to Commons without a licence from the copyright holder even if they are permanently located in a public place. -- Cecil (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Huh? The US has NO FOP at all and Australia, which follows the UK legal model, does not cover 2D works. Please re-read COM:FOP#Australia: "Australian law is modelled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical." If you read the UK section it excludes 2D works. -Nard 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. I should have checked the page and not just link to it (it's the US, not the UK).
- COM:FOP#Australia says: "These sections allow photographers to take pictures of buildings and also of sculptures and works of artistic craftsmanship provided that they are permanently located in a public place or in premises open to the public". As the photo is in a place that is open to the public I fail to see the problem? Noodle snacks (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- COM:FOP: it means "Freedom of Panorama". Since there is no such law in Tasmania, the creator of those graffiti needs to give his permission. Otherwise you can't post his image under a licence that allows commercial use. -- Cecil (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama, so not PD work (stupid as that is). -mattbuck (Talk) 00:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Update: Undeleted per COM:CB. -Nard the Bard 14:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
File is not PD. -Nard 11:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Has no author information, PD status is uncertain. Kameraad Pjotr 12:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader asserts the photo was not credited in the magazine it was published in. Unless you're willing to go through microfiche to disprove him... -Nard 23:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Kept. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Image w/o description, used for vandalism[1] in es:Carmen de Mairena and possibly an attack image. --Túrelio (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There is no FOP in USA for works of art, and even if there is one it would not apply here since this is the interior. Designer Tadao Ando is still alive and I can't see his permission to publish his design for commercial use. -- Cecil (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Permission? Author Le Corbusier died 1965 so the images are not public domain yet, and inside a museum FOP definitely not applies (most museums forbid fotography). -- Cecil (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
looks like a private family photo; out of COM:SCOPE --Túrelio (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Marked as PD-textlogo, but given the stuff to the left of the M I don’t think PD-textlogo is correct (and thus the image is copyvio). — H92 (t · c · no) 13:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: should be converted to wiki-table. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Commons:Derivative works. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image depicts a 1944 mission and can't be in Pd-old-70. — Albert Krantz ¿? 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC).
.gif){kind=link}
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
There is no COM:FOP in France, and whoever the artist was, he obviously was still alive in 1946 (because otherwise he would not have known the death date of the depicted Besnard). -- Cecil (talk) 17:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
User uploads are generally copyvios and claiming permission when none is known. No idea who this is, but it's probably self-promotion. It was used on en at Södros (looked like vandalism), and caption just states "from the book". -mattbuck (Talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Since no one else cares to comment, I'll delete it as copyvio or out of scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work. -Nard 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work, no good source. -Nard 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyvio. -Nard 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Photo taken in Morocco not Egypt, Needs 50 years to be PD Tarawneh (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Derivative fan-art. -Nard 23:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 10:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Derivative fan-art. -Nard 23:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Forrester [[ hate+love letters ]] 10:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Tadao Ando artwork
[edit]The artist Tadao Ando is still alive. In Japan there is Freedom of Panorama only for buildings (but not the interior of those buildings). For artistic work (permanantly installed or not, in public places or not) only non-commercial licences are allowed. -- Cecil (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Chikatsu asuka museum05s3072.jpg
- Image:Chikatsu asuka museum04s3072.jpg
- Image:Nariwa-cho museum10s4000.jpg
- Image:Nariwa-cho museum09s3200.jpg
- Image:Nariwa-cho museum02s3200.jpg
- Image:Nariwa-cho museum07s3200.jpg
- Image:Nariwa-cho museum08s3200.jpg
- Image:Ft Worth Modern 16.jpg (interior in US also no FOP)
- Image:Ft Worth Modern 15.jpg (interior in US also no FOP)
- Image:Morimoto-Ando-restaurant.JPG (interior in US also no FOP)
- Image:Tokyo - Omotesando Hills.jpg (originality?)
- Image:Omotesando shopping.jpg (originality?)
- Image:Omotesando shopping 2.jpg (originality?)
- Image:MPMOP08s3200.jpg
- Image:MPMOP06s3200.jpg
- Image:MPMOP05s3872.jpg
- Image:MPMOP04s3200.jpg
- Image:La Collezione 2.jpg
- Image:ShibaRyotaroMemorialMuseum GlassCorridor.jpg (originality?)
Image:LastSupper-GardenOfFineArtKyoto.jpg- Image:Church of Light.jpg
I'm here because my two images of the lobby of the Ft Worth Modern (Image:Ft Worth Modern 15.jpg, Image:Ft Worth Modern 16.jpg) were tagged. As far as I can tell, these are basically photos of an architectural space. Interior or not has no bearing: it's a public space. I'm unfamiliar with the work of Tadao Ando, so I don't know how he enters the matter. I'm guessing that the (very marginally visible) picture that can be seen in a small portion of the image is his. This borders on saying we can't have a photograph in which some person wandering through is wearing a T-shirt with art on it. If there is really deemed to be an issue here, then let's put a Gaussian blur on whatever tiny portion of the photo is at issue. On the other hand, if the issue is that this is the interior of a building, I don't think the artist's nationality enters the matter. - 207.246.150.86 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the rest of the image: did you have a press accredidation when making the pictures indoors? Museums usually forbid photography at all, some allow snapshots (but then forbid the commercial use). -- Cecil (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I did not have a press accreditation, and did not take pictures in the museum galleries. Museum galleries are clearly private space in the sense used by U.S. copyright law. Museum lobbies, restaurants, etc., are another matter entirely. I am unaware of any statute or court decision that treats them any differently than the lobbies of office buildings, etc. Are you aware of any such? And can you point to any U.S. statute or case that makes the indoor/outdoor distinction you've alluded to? I'm very aware of the U.S. distinction between public and private spaces, and that it does not correspond neatly to the distinction between public and private in some other areas of law. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, since you can't remove the building around the lobby I save my time for checking through the details of US-law until there is a case where I would need more in depth knowledge. -- Cecil (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, I did not have a press accreditation, and did not take pictures in the museum galleries. Museum galleries are clearly private space in the sense used by U.S. copyright law. Museum lobbies, restaurants, etc., are another matter entirely. I am unaware of any statute or court decision that treats them any differently than the lobbies of office buildings, etc. Are you aware of any such? And can you point to any U.S. statute or case that makes the indoor/outdoor distinction you've alluded to? I'm very aware of the U.S. distinction between public and private spaces, and that it does not correspond neatly to the distinction between public and private in some other areas of law. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
正確に伝えるために日本語で書きます。私は写真撮影が禁止されている場所で撮影していないつもりです。ここで問題になっている大阪府立近つ飛鳥博物館の展示室内の撮影は基本的に許可されていました。特にImage:Chikatsu asuka museum04s3072.jpgは博物館の案内係に「ここでどうぞ」と促された場所です。撮影してはならない箇所は撮影禁止の表示があったと記憶しています。--663highland (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I commented on this at Commons:Village pump#A deletion debate that may raise some interesting questions, hoping to bring in others who may have views on the general principles here, at least as far as U.S. law applies. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep It seems to me that this deletion request for many images should be split into individual deletion requests for each image or at least each reason for deletion. That way, we can discuss each one of them separately. In the current set it is unclear to me why Image:Ft Worth Modern 16.jpg is there or why Leonardo's da Vinci Last Supper (Image:LastSupper-GardenOfFineArtKyoto.jpg has a problem. --Jarekt (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the first image, read the note next to it. For the second image read the second sentence in the deletion request. Artistic work is never FOP. -- Cecil (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a moment. That picture is obviously from Da Vinci, why has somebody sorted it in the works from Tadao Ando? -- Cecil (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Presumably because the space it is in, and which is visible in the picture, was designed by Tadao Ando. Insofar as your arguments are correct, I don't think the addition of a public domain image within the larger architected space would change things. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- In that case it will, since the public domain picture is the central motive. -- Cecil (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Presumably because the space it is in, and which is visible in the picture, was designed by Tadao Ando. Insofar as your arguments are correct, I don't think the addition of a public domain image within the larger architected space would change things. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wait a moment. That picture is obviously from Da Vinci, why has somebody sorted it in the works from Tadao Ando? -- Cecil (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Deleted per discussion. ~/w /Talk 14:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)