Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2009/07/26
 |
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}
Image failed flickr review within 2.5 months of upload and is still licensed as CC BY NC today. Leoboudv (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted Failed flickr review (CC-BY-NC). Sv1xv (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No reason to believe the Las Vegas Sun has licensed the photo under the specified license. (File was uploaded to Commons shortly after being deleted on en Wikipedia as an unambiguous copyright violation.) —teb728 t c 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Bidgee: Copyright violation: http://www.lasvegassun.com/photos/2008/jul/14/5868/
copyvio. http://tineye.com/search/25afaf0dec8d948ea21eb3982ba2a2aaf768969d 百楽兎 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Mormegil (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
wasn't watching, all the other guys pictures was proper license and this one was set to wrong license, delete it. Raeky (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Acutally, don't delete it. He published this picture on his website under the proper license. http://www.forestwander.com/2009/01/cranberry-glades-fog-1/ , http://www.forestwander.com/policy.htm. Raeky (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Would an admin or trusted user need to verify that it was published under cc-by-2.0 via his website but not under that license from flickr? Raeky (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
--- Kept since the image is shown as cc-by-sa-3.0 at photographer's website at http://www.forestwander.com/2009/01/cranberry-glades-fog-1/. Corrected license shown here in Wikimedia Commons. / bmpowell (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Image from the argentine government (NOT in PD). --Alakasam (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete I found the copyvio http://meteo-practica.blogspot.com/2009/07/foto-satelital-de-area-de-lluvias-en-la.html Alakasam (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per above Infrogmation (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Image from the argentine government (NOT in PD). --Alakasam (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I found the copyvio http://meteo-practica.blogspot.com/2009/07/foto-satelital-de-area-de-lluvias-en-la.html Alakasam (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted per above; also false license, false claim of own work Infrogmation (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Obviously copyvio --Alakasam (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete http://www.tvcamaguey.co.cu/galeria_fotos_11_septiembre_torres_gemelas.php Alakasam (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Low resolution. Newbie user. Maybe copyvio. --Alakasam (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete I found the original from http://meteo-practica.blogspot.com/2009/07/fotos-de-la-nieve-del-22-julio-2009.html Alakasam (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Copyright violation
Not an image, a text advertisement. Spam spam spammity spam. Calton (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Just text, out of scope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
spamtext Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work Mormegil (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
copyrighted frontpage of a newspaper Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Converted from speedy delete to normal DR. Not own work. Not free if issued after 1977 --Sv1xv (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Comment It is in category:1981 stamps. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)- Keep - I downloaded this file to the Commons from English WP because the licence tags there complied with the requirements of the database. I had no reason to suspect that one Billy Hathorn, claiming he detained the rights on the picture, did lie. I shall of course approve of its deletion, should it turn out that old US stamps are protected by copyright. But then the licence tags should be corrected or altererd ("fair use"?) in the WP:en. --Verbex (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: this is a 1981 US stamp (per: [1]) so is a copyright image. Ww2censor (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio, stamps issued by the USPS (after 1977) are not free. Sv1xv (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Promotional sony photo - not a user created PD image. The supposed creators other uploads on enwiki were all camera shots of this quality and were deleted as either lacking licencing or being copyright violations. Image is widely used on the net and I cannot find the original. Peripitus (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright violation: low resolution image of a commercial product, widely available on the web. –Tryphon☂ 07:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
copyvio, see (c) logo on picture --oscar 11:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- could be, but the (c) logo has no juridical value in Belgium, and rma (the mentioned copyright holder) stands for Royal Military Academy. So I do not know about possible copyrights, but perhaps the poster was in a position to place the picture in public domain. 84.194.153.63 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission and missing source information (author's name). –Tryphon☂ 07:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Cover of a book that is less than 75 year old : under copyright Loreleil (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Une couverture de livre (par exemple l'Iliade) est une œuvre intellectuelle et artistique protégée, ecomme l'étiquette d'une boite de petits pois ou le design d'un mitigeur de douche, et leur reproduction serait effectivement punissable comme une contrefaçon.
- Mais la reproduction de l'oeuvre voudrait dire éditer l'Illiade en reprenant le modèle et le dessin de la couverture protégée, ou vendre des boites de petits pois avec la même étiquette, ou fabriquer des mitigeurs de douche avec le même design. La photographie d'une boite de petits pois, pas plus que celle d'un livre ou de n'importe quel objet manufacturé, n'est assimilable à une reproduction abusive de l'oeuvre protégée. Tous les objets dont la reproduction est interdite sont dans ce cas là : photographier une pièce de monnaie n'est pas interdit parce qu'il est interdit de faire des reproduction de la monnaie, ce n'est pas faire de la fausse monnaie.
- Sinon, on ne pourrait plus faire aucune photo de choses existant dans le monde, et dont les designers ou concepteurs ne seraient pas morts depuis plus de 70 ans.
- Il n'y a que les photos ou les images (peintures, dessins, sculptures,..) dont une photographie soit une véritablement reproduction. La photo cavalière d'une livret de partition d'une pièce musicale, n'est pas la même chose que de jouer l'oeuvre.
- Dans le cas de mes photos de livres, il ne s'agit pas du scannage haute définition des plats de couverture, mais de photos en vue cavalière de livres d'occasion, dans un but de citation de l'oeuvre, comme je photographierai un scooter garé ou du papier-peint sur un mur dans une chambre (leur design est tout autant protégé que les couvertures de livres, sur le fondement de la même loi). La question de la banalité de ces couverture n'entre même pas en ligne de compte: à mon avis une simple composition typographique dépouillée (comme la collection blanche Gallimard)peut être originale, ou typique d'un éditeur, et susceptible de contrefaçon.
- J'ai l'impression que les officines qui s'occupent, à juste raison, de percevoir les droits d'auteurs ont tendance à étendre de façon illimitée et délirante l'interprétation de la loi sur la propriété intellectuelle. Personne n'a jamais payé de droits de reproduction pour la photo, même en sujet principal, d'un livre ou d'un stylo de marque posés sur une table, ni même pour la table si c'est une table IKEA dessinée par la célèbre Clara Beng.
- Oui, la reproduction de la couverture d'un livre est une contrefaçon, mais pas les photos des livres en tant qu'objets usagers dans le but de les citer ou de les montrer.
- Il n'y a aucune différence entre une couverture de livre et n'importe quel autre emballage ou design d'objet.
- Il faudrait apporter des précision au règlement de Common. Cordialement. -- Heurtelions (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in you plea that shows that work especially is not protected under copyright laws. AS you said "la reproduction de la couverture d'un livre est une contrefaçon," and as commons rules said : "Works which contain other copyrighted works (derivative works) - these are not permitted, so don't upload them! " Loreleil (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Копивио http://www.spiritualthoughts.in/2007/05/satya-sai-pet-elephant-died-at.html --Zac allan (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
-
- English: Comment. Looks like an enlarged http://www.saibabaofindia.com/buddhapoornima/saigeetha2.jpg
- Esperanto: Rimarko. Ŝajnas esti pligrandigita http://www.saibabaofindia.com/buddhapoornima/saigeetha2.jpg
- Русский: Комментарий. Похоже, увеличенное http://www.saibabaofindia.com/buddhapoornima/saigeetha2.jpg
- --AVRS (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- + terrible quality --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality --Daniel Baránek (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Permission has been granted by the author of this image for it to be released into the public domain. However, they ask us to "remember that that image is a gross reconstruction of a supposed flag illustrated on a number of The Flag Bulletin. I have no evidence of any actual use of it." As we have no evidence that this flag has been used, it is outside of the scope of Commons. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The source page for this image, on the "Flags of the World" website (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/it-tavol.html), cites a newspaper from the 1880s as authority for the flag. On the same page, Jaume Olle' has posted a photo of a physical specimen of the flag. Goustien (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't see that. That seems inconsistent with the author's claim that there was no evidence of use. How odd... J Milburn (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. See Robert Tennant (1885), Sardinia and its resources, p 28: "The fisherman has well maintained his right to the title [King of Tavolara]; he has a flag of his own, which he hoists on special occasions ...." Goustien (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Derivative work of http://blogs.vibe.com/man/Coltrane.jpg -- ShaggeDoc talk? 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO there are too much differences to be considered a derivative work. Please note: there are no free images of John Coltrane. This is going to be the only image available where fair use is not allowed. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- As per the last few RfDs regarding drawings derived from photos this is clearly DW, and it doesn't matter at all that this is the only "free" image since it is not free. -- ShaggeDoc talk? 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, clearly a derivative of a photo that is not freely licensed. --Kjetil_r 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, per Commons:Derivative work. Clearly based on that photo; if the photo is not free licensed, this is not either. Infrogmation (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the photo itself is free, it looks like one of those typical recording session photos Francis Wolf, Bob Thiele or whoever was around did. As this cropped version can be found on the Verve (Impulse!) page, I would suggest that it is the 60s John Coltrane. -- ShaggeDoc talk? 09:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This image is under a copyright, it was created only in 1993 and it is the logo of a municipality. [2] --Fralambert (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted logo. –Tryphon☂ 07:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Copyright violation. It is identical to an image on this page:[3] Will Beback (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- The original upload information says permission was received. It lists the URL of the French website where the diagram appears. --Coleacanth (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. –Tryphon☂ 07:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously not public domain, and the NC restriction means this is not free content for any purpose Resolute (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader, what with two different watermarks present. Highly unlikely HBO photograph is free for use Resolute (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 07:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Cropping the photograph brakes the de minimis argument and makes this file a derivative work. --Martin H. (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Per Martin H. I even think the DM argument does not apply on the original picture: the portrait is a key element of the photograph, in the centre of the frame. --Eusebius (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment than also original source image should be deleted as there is free CC licence which alows derivative works. As we see it is not possible in here, it means the license of the source image is a fake.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, not necessarily. See Commons:De minimis#Crops of de minimis images. --Mormegil (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed; the original image is probably a copyvio, too. --Mormegil (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio --Tlusťa (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
And also:
Web image, no assertion of ownership. All same uploader. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No permission. Yann (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
These File:Anna Paquin 1 (2009).jpg, File:Anna Paquin 2 (2009).jpg, File:Anna Paquin 2.jpg, File:Stephen Moyer 2.jpg, File:Stephen Moyer 1.jpg and File:Rutina Wesley 1.jpg looks like a picture of a live feed. I reviewed them to verify the license so we did not risk the license were changed before we decided what to do.
.jpg){kind=link}
I requested a second opinion and it seems there are more opinions wether it is a derivative work or not. So therefore I started this DR. Is there originality or not? I would say no but what do you think? --MGA73 (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I do not see any problem - high resolution image, Exif-data are on Flickr. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work of the video displayed on the screen. –Tryphon☂ 09:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see any problem. ron_whisky 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious derivative work. Same as photographying a cinema screen and than claiming copyright over it. Source shows clearly that it's a screen. --Lilyu (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in a cinema the object would be a movie where there has been a lot of work instructing actors and setting lightning, cutting and editing etc. This seems to be a live feed so I doubt there is a manuscript, instructing, cutting, editing etc. That was why I'm not sure if that qualifies as a work. --MGA73 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- A live feed is not a work. It does not exist. It is like looking through a telescope. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, in a cinema the object would be a movie where there has been a lot of work instructing actors and setting lightning, cutting and editing etc. This seems to be a live feed so I doubt there is a manuscript, instructing, cutting, editing etc. That was why I'm not sure if that qualifies as a work. --MGA73 (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Live feed, so no copyright, because there is no originality (it is automatic), no fixation (that's the definition of live feed), and no author (the technician setting up the camera is not the author). Yann (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.1.98 09:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Subject died 1867... Is this a modern statue? When did the sculptor die? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- The sculptor is not known and the man is a wellknown king in the world, "a public person", not delete. --44penguins (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in Greece, unknown copyright status of the sculpture. ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.1.98 09:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Erected 1966. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. No FOP in Greece, unknown copyright status of the sculpture ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 09:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
No valid source is stated. Hard to believe that this image was taken by an US Army employee. High Contrast (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment LBC maybe stands for "Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation"? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It's from a WikiLeaks DOD document, which implies it's Public Domain; but I agree it seems likely that the DOD simply stole images from elsewhere. I'm not opposed to deletion (as uploader). Sherurcij (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, information too vague. --Martin H. (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Bigfoot-trail-overview wiki1.jpg
[edit]
duplicate --Mkauffmann (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. –Tryphon☂ 10:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
RHS images
[edit]- File:793. TP - The Four Elements (Jul 2006).jpg
- File:802. TP - Out of Africa (Jul 2006).jpg
- File:803. TP - A Healthy Future - englandsnorthwest (Jul 2006).jpg
- File:Amen Corner.jpg
- File:Cater Allen Garden.jpg
- File:Copy KWP0040.jpg
- File:EMWG.jpg
- File:Forest Garden.jpg
- File:Into the light.jpg
- File:JackieKnight.jpg
- File:Lakes.jpg
- File:Life & Soul.jpg
- File:TBDG.jpg
- File:Water Garden.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
In all of the above images, the author is specified as "The RHS" (en:Royal Horticultural Society), "Karen Wright Photography", "Johnny Boylan" or "Tim Sandall/RHS"; there is no indication that the uploader is the photographer, or connected to the RHS, and no links to any pages specifying the image license. Hence they appear to be copyright violations. -Mike Peel (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have emailed the user that uploded these - Leeroy4 (talk · contribs) - asking them to comment here, or to send an email to OTRS stating that he owns the copyright and wants to release them under a free license. Mike Peel (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Response from user:
- I work for the Royal Horticultural Society and as such we have commissioned the photographers listed: Karen Wright Photography", "Johnny Boylan" or "Tim Sandall/RHS". The RHS as a society own the copyright and are happy for the images to be used assuming the RHS/photographer is credited.
- As such, I withdraw the deletion request. Mike Peel (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Response from user:
DR withdrawn Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like an obvious screenshot from the TV show --88.108.239.47 01:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
COM:DW - this must have a source for the drawing. - 77.249.4.79 16:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep It says it's own work by the user. Mr. Grylls isn't copyrightable. Tineye doesn't show this as being copied from anywhere. Is there some picture you suspect it may be based on? --Simonxag (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Confusing twice-nomination using the same page. Oh well. James F. (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Source is not working. There is no evidence that author "David Raykovitz" (if he really is) gave the permission for releasing this image in the public domain. High Contrast (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, see the source website archived: "All Gallery contents are copyright of ther [sic] owners. Everything else ©1998-2006 Brickshelf L.L.C. All rights reserved." --The Evil IP address (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.1.98 09:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment When was this made? Who was the sculptor? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
clearly breaking rule of protection of artist copyright except if proved otherwise Loreleil (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Bonjour. Le sujet de la photo n'est pas la fresque dont la vue est très partielle et prise en biais, avec une mauvaise définition de photo.
Ce n'est pas non plus la rampe en ferronerie originale dont le dessin très dépouillé est une oeuvre intellectuelle certainement protégée.
Le sujet de la photo est une vue d'ambiance, avec un point de vue original, assez insolite étant donné que le reste du bâtiment est ancien et très pompeux, de la cage d'escalier moderne de la faculté de sciences économiques de l'Université de Paris I.
Le but de la photo est de montrer sur wikipedia le cadre dans lequel se trouve cette université publique.
Le bâtiment est ouvert au public et appartient à l'Administration centrale de l'Éducation nationale française. -- Heurtelions (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- For your information, French copyright laws don't allow you to distribute such a photo, since it's protected under copyright due to work of various artist that are recent : Architecture + Paint. No FOP ([4]) and even less inside ([5]). Loreleil (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- In case someone is not as tired as me for tracking problem of copyright same kind of photo but other angle of shot : File:Universite Paris I faculté sciences eco 05303.jpg. It should be concerned by this deletion requests too
- Delete Clearly copyrightable. Otourly (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Cute picture, but there is no freedom of panorama in the United States : see COM:FOP#United States Teofilo (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Your comment makes no sense. This is a public building, not a private structure.
Philkon (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC) Phil Konstantin
- I don't mind for the building, but the dinosaur is a kind of sculpture, isn't it ? Teofilo (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete The photo is of the sculpture. The sculpture is modern and will still probably be copyrighted. So, unless Phil is the sculptor or has the sculptor's permission, he cannot take the picture. In some countries you can make 2D images of 3D artworks if they're permanently on public display (that's called Freedom of Panorama), but the USA is not one of those countries. --Simonxag (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
.......
I have no objections to the photo's deletion if its use is, in deed, a violation of any law. Please forgive my ignorance of the "Freedom of Panorama" law.
However, the sculpture (according to the Wiki article) appears to be owned by what I believe is a state-owned museum. It is placed outside a state-owned building in a public place. Doesn't an artist give up copyright when they sell a one-of-a-kind object to a public entity? The Picasso sculpture in Chicago has been ruled by Chicago courts to have no such copyright protection.
(The Chicago Picasso sculpture is legally considered to be in the public domain per a ruling in Letter Edged in Black Press, Inc. v. Public Building Commission of Chicago, 320 F. Supp. 1303 (N.D. Ill. 1970). because it was published without a copyright notice.)
Philkon (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Phil Konstantin
- If any artwork was published in the US before 1978 without a copyright notice, it's in the Public Domain. If it was published from 1978 to March 1 1989 and the copyright wasn't registered within 5 years it's in the Public Domain. After that copyright is automatic, like it's alway been in the rest of the world. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:PD files, and Commons:Freedom of panorama for an explanation of that (it's the lack of FOP in the US that's the problem). If you can date the statue to before 1978 and can check there's no copyright notice on it, then the photo's OK. --Simonxag (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, no FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 18:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
