Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source says that image is from yahoo.com. Uploader does not appear to be author of image. RockMFR (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Obvious copyvio Corpx (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. blatant violation of copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Blunder. That would be Category:Sixt's Villa in Bielsko-Biała. Gaj777 talk 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Foroa. Author requested deletion or blanked page: content before blanking was: Category:Villas in Bielsko-Biała Category:Neo-Renaissance architecture in Bielsko-Biała Category:Built in 1883. Sv1xv (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Parts of the PDF file originate froma publication of the author "Eduard Loch". However, it is not said when Eduard Loch died. So it could well me that his death is not yet more than 70 years ago in which case the text would still be copyrighted. ALE! ¿…? 08:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Danke. Eduard Loch starb 1945. Sein Kommentar von 1930 und die Bier-Routine von 1824 stehen in dem von mir selbst herausgegebenen Buch: Corps Masovia, München (Aventinus) 2005, ISBN 3-00-016108-2. Loch hatte keine Kinder. Eine Nichte oder Großnichte lebt in Hamburg. Ich habe sie angeschrieben und vorsichtshalber um ihr Einverständnis gebeten.--80.171.53.218 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Bitte sende die Einverständniserklärung an Commons:OTRS. --ALE! ¿…? 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Support This is no copy of an original manuscript nor a real media. It might as well be copiy/pasted in a normal article. --Foroa (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. OTRSS permission received, ticket:2009071010045314. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This file was created by mistake. It is not necessary since it was created to manage facsimile images and the facsimile needed is available at Google. See . --Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, author request. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
uncorrect name. --Jaakko (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC) --Jaakko (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Empty. Yann (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, uploader's only contrib. This is not Facebook. Wknight94 talk 15:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Out of COM:SCOPE. Sv1xv (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This a composition of various video game covers, which are property of their respective editors (Ubisoft, Rockstar, etc.). I believe this is derivative work, which cannot fall under De minimis. (The picture is also quite crappy anyway) Jean-Fred (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, not de minimis. Sv1xv (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
corrupt file. no image uploaded Maddox2 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Replaced using PNG version: File:Earth gravity.png
TIFF deleted
Yet another penis picture, no different from all the other ones we have. Tabercil (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep yet another deletion request of a penis pic, from the same user/admin. why don't you just say: "i don't like "dirty" pictures, so i'm cleaning up wmc by getting rid of them! ^__^" you don't offer any rationale that relates to wmc:scope. & you have this particular quote set on permanent cut & paste, it seems. here's a thought: since "penis pics" seem to bother you so much; why don't you stop looking for them?
not that this "rationale" gets used for non-controvertial subjects anyway, but
wmc is a media archive
an archive is supposed to have lots of material on file (& properly organized); it's not a photo-album, it's not a collection of "one-of-each"
variety is a good thing.
how hard is it to grasp the concept!?
nobody outside wikimedia takes wmc seriously as a media resource
& this is part of why (tho there's a pretty good list of reasons: sloppy categorization/organization of material, backlogged everywhere, uneven application of rules & standards, cliquish groups controlling various pieces of wmc "turf", general unprofessionalism)
at some point we need to decide if this place is a serious, professional-level project, or just a private clubhouse to play in
& honestly, i'm just about fed up with trying; if the concensus-decision @ wmc is to continue as-is, in the serene & mistaken belief that as-is constitutes "doing a good job" running a media archive project, then working here is a waste of time
i work @ wikipedia; it ain't perfect, but we have real, professional standards there, outside people actually use wikipedia as a (semi-)reliable resource, & i'm sorry, but none of that applies to wmc "as-is"
Lx 121 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
p.s.: 3 to 1 odds that this file ends up getting deleted (because it's "bad"!); based on previous record, i think those numbers are just about right... Lx 121 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objections about "dirty pictures". In fact, I suggest you check the membership of Wikiproject:Pornography on the English language wikipedia - you'll find my name there so I obviously have no problems with nudity. The reason why I'm pushing hard against a lot of these pictures of penises is that we get so freakin' many of them of posted, and most of 'em are not of suitable quality for use! Take a hard look at Penis Mann - it's not as sharp as many of the other images in the same category, and the presence of so much shadow is highly distracting. Thus I feel it meets the criteria mentioned in Commons:Project scope: "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose:... Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality." (emphasis mine) Tabercil (talk) 05:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete - low image quality. delete and make way for better quality images instead of clogging up the category with images like this. Wikignome0529 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. low quality, {{Nopenis}} Yann (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Advertisement Calton (talk) 04:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - spamtext/link deleted, picture not in use, perhaps better to delete it to disappoint the spammers; sign of the company visible, no problem to get a better picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Used for advertising goods Calton (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - spamtext/link deleted, picture not in use, perhaps better to delete it to disappoint the spammers; sign of the company visible, no problem to get a better picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone mistaking Wikicommons for a catalog Calton (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment Do we care? The file is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- "We"? Perhaps you don't care that Wikimedia Commons is being used to host someone's spam, but you're not royalty, a newspaper editor, or someone with a tapeworm. --Calton (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - spamtext/link deleted, picture not in use in an article, only copy of the picture on the ru-wikipedia as far as I see, perhaps better to delete it to disappoint the spammers; sign of the company visible, no problem to get a better picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Cirt (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This file was uploaded by mistake. It is not necessary since the facsimile needed is available at Google. See en:s:A Review of the Year. --Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 11:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This file was uploaded by mistake. It is not necessary since the facsimile needed is available at Google. See en:s:A Review of the Year. --Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Pruneautalk 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the wrong bridge! This isn't Burnside's. I need to reload it with the correct name MiddleBridge1862.jpg ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Do not delete. I have found & replaced with the correct photo.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Advertising logo used in spam. Calton (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Company logo used as the vehicle for spam. Calton (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cyrus portrait.jpg - contains unfree image which must be replaced. Martin H. (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please edit out the offending portrait and re-upload. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:8FamousPersianPeople.jpg --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted old version and reuploaded without the unfree images. I also had to remove another image per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Darius.jpg. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
for the first image, per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cyrus portrait.jpg - unfree images which must be replaced. Martin H. (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please edit out the offending portrait and re-upload. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Persian_people_-_Persians_280507.JPG --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted old versions. I also removed another file which has already been deleted, File:Khwarizmii.gif. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It is the wrong image! This is Point Wilson light, not New Dungeness. Sfbg308 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I have sent an e-mail to USCG media to have them correct the problem in their media release files, but then we need to re-load the correct one...
- Comment Never been there, but you are right. See Lighthouses in Washington. This is Point Wilson lighthouse, while Dungeness lighthouse has a round tower. Sv1xv (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- And the Dungeness lighthouse is covered in Category:New Dungeness Lighthouse; Category:Dungeness Spit Lighthouse, which contains only this image, should probably be removed. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- We should re-upload this image with correct name and information, rather than delete it outright. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Renamed as File:USCG Point Wilson Lighthouse.jpg per Sfbg308. Sv1xv (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- It's in Italy (OK, no FOP there either). According to the image description this sculpture is a copy of an ancient statue - so it should be old enough to be PD already. Keep --Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. It is a copy of the original, created B.C.--The daydreamer (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ubisoft agreement allow users to upload their own screenshots. I believe a video cannot fall under this agreement, as it not merely a sequence of screenshots, but also includes sound effects, which are not covered by the agreement. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Please read the agreement and the discussion about it on User:Avatar/Ubisoft. It is claimed that
- "derivative work" includes not only still images, but also GUIs and
- since all individual screenshots are freely distributable, a sequence of such screenshots will also be. That is, you can record your playing and post it freely on youtube, or produce tutorial videos, or even some of those funny spoofs... all without asking further permission.
- Therefore, it is allowed to publish a short sequence, which displays the famous "Leap of Faith". I think including sound can be interpreted as "derivate work". However, if this is not the case (i.e. Ubisoft explicitly disagrees) it would still be better to keep at least another version of the video without sound. -- Chstdu (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Er no, we have the right to make derivative work of the screenshots (which do not have sound), not of the game. I agree that a sequence of screenshots is ok, my point was precisely that it was not only a sequence of screenshots. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- As a reminder (mainly for myself) : if we keep this video without sound, we should ask the author (this thisismysn guy on YouTube) for permission.
- There are two separate issues with this file. 1) the sound track is not covered by the Ubisoft permission and should be removed, and 2) the author of the video did not give permission for it to be published under a free license. So Delete if permission cannot be obtained from the youtube user, or, if we get proper permission, re-upload without the soundtrack and delete the old revision. –Tryphon☂ 08:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed on the sound part, but it's debatable if the recording user contributed enough originality to qualify for a separate copyright. Also... is this game owned by Ubisoft, or merely published by them with the copyrights being owned by another company? If the latter, Ubisoft may not have the ability to license it in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- As for the license concern, unlike plenty other "Ubisoft" shots we have, this one could not be more okay : this game was developed by Ubisoft Montréal, a studio created by Ubi in Canada.
- Regarding the originality: I have a hard time with the thin line of originality, so I'm just guessing. I think there is originality, as Assassin's Creed uses a free virtual camera controlled by the player. So the camera moves before the leap are made by the recorder. More generally, I think the rule about pictures of sculptures and 3D things bearing originality applies for 3D games for the same reasons. The screen is like an lens by which a whole 3D world is viewed, and it is the player who chooses how it is viewed. (once again, I am a complete newbie on that stuff). Jean-Fred (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed on the sound part, but it's debatable if the recording user contributed enough originality to qualify for a separate copyright. Also... is this game owned by Ubisoft, or merely published by them with the copyrights being owned by another company? If the latter, Ubisoft may not have the ability to license it in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Uploaded another video without the problems this one here has. There's no sound and the recording was self-made. I chose to upload it separately rather than uploading a new version to this one as the "author" changes. Yah msg 14:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted soundtrack and uncertainty about copyrights of the person who recorded the video. File:Assassin's Creed - the Leap of Faith.ogg is equivalent but has none of the copyright issues mentioned here. –Tryphon☂ 14:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nonsense! There is no such thing in Greek legislation. If there is no other issue here, keep.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Is somebody going to stop this anonymous editor? His arguments are nonsentical in all his massive deletion requests, and there is definitely no such restriction in Greece.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Badseed: per per Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Greek FOP: conclusion?
Used as a selling tool. Calton (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Do we care? The file is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- "We"? Perhaps you don't care that Wikimedia Commons is being used to host someone's spam, but you're not royalty, a newspaper editor, or somone with a tapeworm. --Calton (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - personal attacks aren't useful arguments. The only "spam" I can see is in the description, and easily removed. The image itself is just an image of a handbag, suitable for many educational uses. Blurring the logo on the label would eliminate all "commercial contamination", if that really matters that much to you. --Latebird (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - spamtext/link deleted, picture not in use, perhaps better to delete it to disappoint the spammers; sign of the company visible, no problem to get a better picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, out of Project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 20:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
File is corrupt -Echtner (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Seems fine to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- The file works fine for me as well. The license is questionable, though. The image is borderline PD-Ineligible, but I cannot say whether it crosses that line. If it is eligible, it is copyrighted by DocMorris. Therefore, we would need some OTRS clearance from them to publish it under the given license. --rimshottalk 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- According to German standards, this is ineligible for copyright protection, see File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, clearly protected by copyright. Kameraad Pjotr 20:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be very close to the Yousuf Karsh case. One LAC source claims copyright by Susan King, restrictions of use: nil. The more general overview of Susan King's work asserts copyright on everything. Due to it being made in 1987, I see no reason why this copyright has expired in the US, even if it has in Canada, and we require US copyright laws to be satisfied, not just those of the originating country. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- No one asserted that the copyright on this image had expired, so this really isn't comparable to the Karsh situation. As is clear from the image description page, Library and Archives Canada indicated on its website that although copyright was held by King, restrictions on its use were nil -- i.e. it was freely licensed by the copyright holder (which, depending on the scope of the license, would make it acceptable here on the Commons). There used to be hundreds of copyrighted "restriction nil" LAC images on the Commons. However, after a series of emails between LAC and Commons editors, it became evident that the licenses under which these images were used did not allow for derivatives (I can located links to the relevant discussions, if you would like). Given that this restriction did not comply with Commons' licensing requirements, these images were either deleted or were migrated over to Wikipedia to be used under a fair use rationale. This image ought to have been deleted or migrated under the great "LAC purge", but was obviously missed. So, I have no objection to deletion, not on the basis of the copyright rationale put forward in the nomination, but rather that the free license is insufficient. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, if you are willing could you locate links to the discussion for me, and either put them here or on my talk page. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. The email from LAC is at here. Anything from LAC that is not in the public domain is restricted in terms of derivatives (and re-distribution, apparently, upon re-reading the LAC email). So this image of Gehry is not freely-licensed, at least not in a manner acceptable to the Commons. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- There is also this discussion here from about a year ago. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. The email from LAC is at here. Anything from LAC that is not in the public domain is restricted in terms of derivatives (and re-distribution, apparently, upon re-reading the LAC email). So this image of Gehry is not freely-licensed, at least not in a manner acceptable to the Commons. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, if you are willing could you locate links to the discussion for me, and either put them here or on my talk page. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- If evidence can be foudn that our use is allowed, then Keep, otherwise, delete it. 74.76.180.0 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
PD-Denmark50 is only valid for photographic pictures without artistic merit. This looks like a professional portrait photo with artistic merit. --Nillerdk (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete because photo could have been taken in his last years around 1940-1943 and is thus still protected by copyright (maybe until January 1, 2014) Nillerdk (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-Denmark50}} applies to all normal photography. This is just a portrait, not a work of art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think you are making things too easy now. There is no clearly defined borderline between photographic images and photographic pictures in the relevant Danish law (Lov om Ophavsret - for a English consolidated version, see [1]) and there have been no court decisions regarding this. The best thing we can do, is to compare §1 and §70. If §1 applies, we can't use the shorter term of §70. To be sure we don't make any mistakes, we have to read §1 quite broadly.
- It is my opinion that artistic works (§1) include any photography where special attention has been given to elements such as composition, lightsetting and background. Since we have no court decisions, the only sensible way for us to go is to apply this careful interpretation. The short term (§70) should be applied to casual photograhies where the work of the photographer was little more than push the trigger.
- We have had at least one case on dawiki recently, where we applied the above careful interpretation ([2]). That outcome was delete.
![[2]](https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sider_der_bør_slettes/Arkiv7#Sletningsforslag:_Fil:Alf_Ross.gif){kind=link}
- Does someone have some other interesting views? Nillerdk (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- There was a coordinated Nordic copyright legislation. Photography was protected by separate legislation, because it was very rarely considered a work. This protection was for professional photography, like press photos, advertising photography and normal portraits - the kind of professional stuff where lighting etc was payed attention to. This image of Paavo Nurmi was considered ordinary photography by a Finnish authority. Artistic photographical works would be "artsy" prints, signed by the creator, produced in limited editions. But here we have just Lange sitting in a chair with a book in his hands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- The initiative to make this copyright of short term for photographic pictures might very well originate from the Nordic Council, but the countries have implemented this term independently, because the Nordic countries are independent countries! Why do you think you can apply Finnish court decisions in Denmark? Anyway, I actually think the decision of the Finnish court was very sensible. Anyone could have taken that photo - the composition, light etc. have been chosen by someone else than the photographer.
- There was a coordinated Nordic copyright legislation. Photography was protected by separate legislation, because it was very rarely considered a work. This protection was for professional photography, like press photos, advertising photography and normal portraits - the kind of professional stuff where lighting etc was payed attention to. This image of Paavo Nurmi was considered ordinary photography by a Finnish authority. Artistic photographical works would be "artsy" prints, signed by the creator, produced in limited editions. But here we have just Lange sitting in a chair with a book in his hands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Another comment: Alone signing a photography definitly does not make it a work! Where do you get this from? Nillerdk (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Where did you get it from that just attention to composition, lightsetting and background would make something a work? Have you read any parliamentary documents from the legislative process of these special laws for photography? These laws were coordinated to make life easier for publishers etcetera. The Swedish committee that prepared the 1960 law wrote in its report that "pressfoto och annat reportagefoto, reklam och annat kommersiellt foto, passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering" were examples of ordinary photographs. What I wrote about limited editions with signed and numbered prints comes from a parliamentary discussion about different tax rates for photographers and for artists. It would apply to artists like e.g. Andy Warhole, even when he used photographic methods. But this is just a guy in a chair, a photo without indication of artistic ambitions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- You might be right, but evidence is still lacking. It would be very useful to reach agreement, so we don't need to repeat this discussion for portraits. Thanks for the quote. However, I don't think this photo belong to the group "passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering" (passport photos and other simple portrait photos). Notice the words annan enklare (other simple) - this is a professional portrait photo from a studio - not just some passport photo made at the police station by an automated process! Here are some Danish proponents for a "careful" interpretation: P. 6 in [3], [4] and [5]. Notice that they propose - as a rule of thumb - to distinghish based on whether the photographer is professional or not. Nillerdk (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is a rule of thumb that professional photographers advocate, but it does not make sense. Amateur photographers do not need copyright protection. This legislation was introduced to protect professional photographers. The examples mentioned are press photographers, commercial photographers for advertisement, and simple run-of-the-mill portraits. Passport photos used to be made by a professional photographer, and this is also a routine portrait job. An example of a photographic-work portrait might be Garbo by Goodwin. It has artsy ambitions, and it is signed in the manner of a graphic artist. But this Lange photo is anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- In my view it is not important if the photographer is professional or not. And an example mentioned is that if a photo gets "cult status" or become famous it will become a work of art. I can't agree on that. The last link has an interessting point "what if everybody else could have taken a similar picture, is it then it 'just' a photo?". The answer is not a simple "yes" but in my view that could be one of the elements in evalueting if it is a work of art. So putting light on a person is not enough (everyone can do that) but if the light is special then I would say yes. --MGA73 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is a rule of thumb that professional photographers advocate, but it does not make sense. Amateur photographers do not need copyright protection. This legislation was introduced to protect professional photographers. The examples mentioned are press photographers, commercial photographers for advertisement, and simple run-of-the-mill portraits. Passport photos used to be made by a professional photographer, and this is also a routine portrait job. An example of a photographic-work portrait might be Garbo by Goodwin. It has artsy ambitions, and it is signed in the manner of a graphic artist. But this Lange photo is anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- You might be right, but evidence is still lacking. It would be very useful to reach agreement, so we don't need to repeat this discussion for portraits. Thanks for the quote. However, I don't think this photo belong to the group "passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering" (passport photos and other simple portrait photos). Notice the words annan enklare (other simple) - this is a professional portrait photo from a studio - not just some passport photo made at the police station by an automated process! Here are some Danish proponents for a "careful" interpretation: P. 6 in [3], [4] and [5]. Notice that they propose - as a rule of thumb - to distinghish based on whether the photographer is professional or not. Nillerdk (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Well. Since we have no clear law or no clear statements form our courts (that I know) then both could be right. My guess would be that the light is put there on purpose but it could happen that he was just sitting under a lamp. On dawiki we have just had a major cleanup and we deleted in many cases (better safe than sorry). But I would be happy to get some new info so I could disagree with Nillerdk. --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Based on a couple of legal experts, it seems to me that Nillerdk is on the right track. Quoting from Birkmann, Anette & Dyekjær, Thomas Maagaard (2006) Håndbog i ophavsret (in Danish), Nyt Juridisk Forlag, p. 64 (in my own slightly rough translation): "Evaluating whether a photograph meets the threshold of originality, includes elements such as composition, the angle of the photo, the choice of scene, perspective, lighting etc.. An independent effort must have been made where multiple options were available. In practice, one will often look at whether the photographer has a professional education and uses photography to make a living. But of course nothing prevents an amateur from creating a photographic work." Quoting from Rosenmeier, Morten (2007) Ophavsret for begyndere (in Danish), Jurist- of Økonomforbundet, p. 52 (also in my own slightly rough translation): "The requirement for originality may be met if the photographer was creative in the choice of scene [...] or there may be originality in the timing [...] There may also be originality in the photographers choice of angle and positioning of the camera, the lighting, arranging the photographed people, depth of field etc.." This is in my view also in agreement with the quote Pieter gave above ("passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering") because a passport photo is a photo with very little room for creative input in composition, choice of scene and no room for other advanced portraiture techniques such as using various artefacts to show additional aspects of the person.
Regarding this photo, it is clearly an arranged composition with the face in the golden section and his body following a diagonal line to the hand holding the book. And while you may argue that using a book to show that he is a librarian is too obvious a choice to be as much a work of art as the Garbo-photo, that as well as the composition are nonetheless deliberate and creative choices where multiple options were available, setting it apart from the likes of passport photos. Hemmingsen (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Based on the same arguments that have been made by Pieter Kuiper above. /FredrikT (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 20:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. All these nominations by the above IP are simply nonsentical. There is no such thing in Greek legislation. Restriction of the freedom of "panorama"?!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: All these mass DR requests by Iconoclast (and his anon IP) appear like a bad faith attempt to delete images while a discussion over them is still taking place. Iconoclast and his IP should be banned for 1 week to stop this disruptive activity as he shows no courtesy or good faith to others. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece Iconoclast (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Iconoclast is not responding to the objection above, he is just stacking another nomination on top of the previous one. This is disruptive behaviour. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 02:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Quelle aus lb.wikipedia.org hat keine Lizenz. Handelt sich um eine Pressefoto vom Ehapa-Verlag. User dontworry, der das Bild von lb nach commons kopierte schrieb auf Nachfrage: "ich kann dazu auch keine weiterführende info liefern, kenne weder den fotografen noch kannte ich zuvor dieses bild. habe es nur zufallig gefunden." -84.133.112.127 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: Never licensed under CC-BY-SA. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm sure this is from Ehapa. When doing an image search on "Erika Fuchs" with Google, this photo is one of the most common. It should be deleted on lb.wikipedia as well. Or better, speedy delete them. --Grandy02 (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How old is this? Who made it? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Avi (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about?! I took the picture with my camera in a public place. Of course, there is such freedom in Greece. I am jurist, and this is the first time I listen to something like that. Could you explain what do you mean, because it makes no sense!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment See COM:FOP#Greece - there is not, photos of artwork are not free for some purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Could be a copy of an ancient statue. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Statue not in public domain. -- Avi (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. Nonsense as elsewhere.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Don't know exactly when was the statue built, but the park around it was built in 1934 and that King died in 1923.--The daydreamer (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Who made this statue? When did he die? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Sculpture unveiled in 1938 and sculptor (Francesco Patisi) died in 1958 (see here. Sculpture not in PD in Greece until 1/1/2029 and not PD in the US until 1/1/2034 (published abroad, no US representation, under copyright in host country on 1/1/96 (even though Greece's extension to 70 years was implemented in 1997, 1996 was less than fifty years pma, so still in copyright in host country despite being published prior to 1946) so is not PD until 95 years from publication date and no rule of shorter term). -- Avi (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
