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.
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.
Converted into deletion request. Original copyright speedy rationale, "in is professional work and cannot be own work: uploader claims to be born in 1990 whereas Balavoine died in 1986". –blurpeace(talk)03:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Keep quality is good enough to let actual user decide what version to use. No harm to have more then one picture of the same document --Justass (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This image was created by User:Rama, however it was created from and displays a protected, copyrighted design from the architect. User:Rama was attempting, in good faith, to create a free version of a copyrighted image, but ended up simply recreating a copyrighted work. This issue has been discussed at length and in detail with various users and administrators on the English Wikipedia (For this discussion, please visit en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). In short, consensus from those discussions seems to be that Wikimedia is put more at a legal risk when an image is recreated from a copyrighted design and then re-published by another author. DR04 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
..."if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place" - this building is not yet built so does not yet meet the requirements outlined therein. –xenotalk13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. According to title 17, chapter 1, once visible work beings on the superstructure we can take as many picture of it as we want, model the superstructure as it is visible, and replace the copyrighted, fair use version at Wikipedia. Until that time, Rama's work in question is a copyright violation. It is a derivative work. As administrator Jayron32 from the English Wikipedia also agreed (on the ANI page linked above), "Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works." Allowing this image to stay up puts Wikimedia at high legal risk - the architect's designs are copyrighted and worth millions of dollars. In fact, the architect is already involved in litigation with the developer re: these designs and has filed a multimillion dollar lien. If we allow Rama's recreation of this copyrighted design to be published as Rama's own work, that could be problematic. This and other copyrighted derivative works Rama is claiming are his own should be removed as soon as possible. DR04 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stating that the building is not "ordinarily visible from a public place" simply because it has not been completed is just bad faith. Rama (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it will never be completed where it would habe been ordinarily visible from a public place. You are gaming a formulation that aims to protect private property from unwanted scrutiny from the public. That is bad faith. Rama (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, We are not talking "unwanted scrutiny from the public" we are talking about copyright. The image can (and does) get wanted and unwanted scrutiny from the public already, but as a copyrighted image. Public opinion and their ability to formulate opinions is completely irrelevant to this copyright violation. Again, the US Code you quoted clearly states "if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." The code is indicating t he building must be physically visible from a public place. Notice, it does not say "images of the building need to be located in or ordinarily visible from a public place". It states that the building itself must be visible. That currently is not the case and as Xeno pointed out, may never be the case. Therefore your re-creation of a copyrighted work is a copyright violation. Once the building is built you, I and anyone else can model as much as we want to and publish as our own work - but not currently. DR04 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Spire is very visible from public places, and the proof of that is the numerous photographs that we have of the construction site. The building itself is visible. It might not be exactly in the advertised state, but it is the building.
None of the superstructure is visible. It is nothing more than a hole in the ground. There is no way you can make the argument that you are modeling after a hole in the ground. You are modeling off of copyrighted designs and recreating them. And even once the structure starts rising (if it ever does), then we can photograph only what it looks like. Even then, we can't recreate the building from copyrighted designs - only recreate what is visible per the article you quoted. DR04 (talk) 15:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not recreating the designs, I am producing very rought schematics, aking to [1]. As for "recreate what is visible", nothing of the sort is stated in Article 120; on the other hand, is explicitely mentions "pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations" as permissible, which entails that media that depart from the exact scene are permissible. Rama (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, I prefer not to think that this is deliberate, therefore I can only conclude that your English is not as good as perhaps you think it is. If the building is in front of you, you may take a photo or make an artistic sketch based on what you see. However, in this case you are basing what you draw not on what you can see on the street (because all you can see is a hole in the ground), but on another artist's rendition, or on the architect's plans. If you didn't have those, you wouldn't know what the building would look like, because you can't see it. Therefore you are breaching the original artist/architect's copyright under s106.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but you are basing your "therefore" on nothing at all. Nothing forbids using plans or schematics issued by the architect as documentation. The information that they carry is not, in itself, protected. Rama (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted worksthe owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights...to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work There does not appear to be any grounds on which drawings by a third party based on copyright architectural drawings does not breach copyright. 120 cannot be a defence as it clearly states "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed...." and goes on to reference making images of the work as seen from a public location. The structure in question has not been built yet, so cannot fall into this category. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Elen and everyone else have clearly made the point that article 120 does not apply here. The building is unbuilt. Therefore copyright stays with the architect. DR04 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputed that the copyright of the design stayed with the architect. I only say that, per article 120, nothing prevents me from making drawings of the building. Rama (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image Xeno linked to above is not a building. We can photograph what is there. But, you are not photographing or modeling as the "building" (or hole) exists. Again, you are modeling after copyrighted designs that exist nowhere in visible physical space. DR04 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, you do understand that "constructed" in s120 means that the steel erectors, bricklayers, glaziers & etc have all finished, the topping-out ceremony has been held, and the building is standing in place, free for the paparazzi to photograph and put in the evening paper. That's the only point at which you can make an image of it under this section. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC) (damn interface keeps logging me out!!)[reply]
Delete per Elen, and per DR04 delete all the other similar images Rama has uploaded in clear and obvious violation of copyright. –xenotalk14:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"120 precisely grants rights to make images of copyrighted designs." No it does not! It specifies, "architectural work that has been constructed", which is different as is clearly seen through this very example. 120 basically grants everyone the right to take photographs of buildings and structures in public spaces without having to worry about copyright law (else outdoor photography in urban areas would be virtually impossible!); it does not grant us the right to create derivative copies of architectural designs that have not even been constructed, and release them under a free license. Abecedare (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. The copyrighted design is in a completed building just as much as it is in the plans. 120 does not grants the right to take photographs, it grants the right to make images by wide variety of techniques. Your fixation on photography is undue. As for "derivative copies of architectural designs that have not even been constructed", I do not see what makes you say that. Rama (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, it doesn't matter whether you photograph it, draw it, paint it, or model it in Plasticene. Unless the building is standing on the lot, you have nothing on which to base your drawing. You based this drawings on the architect's plans, which are copyright. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More or less indirectly, yes, I do use the plans as the basis of my documentation. And per Article 120, this is permissible. You do the same thing when you photograph a building in the street, the building in a derivative of the plans, and it is copyrighted. Article 120 is all about bypassing this copyright. Rama (talk) 08:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe you said that. The whole point of s120 is that copyright does not apply to WHAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STREET. Not what you can imagine from looking at the plans, not the copy you made of the artists impression. Freedom of Panorama means exactly that - the freedom to make a reproduction of the landscape you are standing in. No more than that. Your level of non-understanding is deeply worrying in someone who is supposed to know about this stuff.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Elen, DR04 and xeno. Article 120 uses past-tense: "that has been constructed", nothing has been constructed yet. --JD554 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if this decision results in deletion. Also File:Chicago Spire early project.jpg should also be nominated for deletion. In the past I've stated it is an inaccurate representation. However it is based off of an earlier design by the architect and the arguments here would apply to that image as well. DR04 (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't even see that, Rama is on top of it here - he has listed a number of images that this decision would affect. DR04 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? Yes, I list things affacted by a decision, because I am a responsable sysop of Commons, that I care about the project, and that I was quite uneasy about a number of these images. I do not do things for political purposes. Rama (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, please assume good faith. All I was saying is I agree with you, that this decision would affect these other images as well. Images I failed to take note of. I was simply apologizing, not accusing you of anything political. DR04 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood "is on top of it". I will blame my sometimes stumbling English, and present you with a sincere apology. Rama (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that would be really nice, as it would allow silhouettes to be used to illustrate projected buildings. But I am afraid that it might be a tad arbitrary. Rama (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have almost no experience with Xeno's comment. Could someone else comment on this? Would these height comparisons (which include silhouettes) also be copyright violations or not? Perhaps we should nominate it for deletion and have the appropriate discussion at the appropriate place. But I think it wouldn't hurt to have some users comment here as well..... DR04 (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, this discussion is long enough already. Let's keep this straightforward. We'll nominate silhouettes of unfinished buildings for deletion on the appropriate pages and go from there. This discussion is about the Chicago spire.svg image. DR04 (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. US Freedom of panorama does not apply to buildings that don't exist. This is a clear derivative work of a copyrighted architectural design. By analogy, we don't accept fan art of copyrighted characters, even when the original character was presented only in a different medium (as in many video games) or is only one part of a scene. When the building has been partially constructed, we can take a photo. A simple diagram using rectangles or a "pointy house" pentagon can be used to illustrate relative height without any problem. I certainly understand Rama's good intentions here, and if this image were free it would serve the greater good of the public, but unfortunately the law is not always sensible. Perhaps the architect would release one of the renderings for illustration? Dcoetzee (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Either this creation is a derivative work, and therefore non-free, or it is not a derivative work, and therefore useless as an illustration. I'm inclined to think the former technically, the latter practically. Either way, it should not be on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong on two accounts:
It is a derivative work, and that in this precise case is permissible per article 120
What makes you think Article 120 covers copyrighted architects' drawings? It doesn't, it covers buildings, as yet there is no building. --JD554 (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that there is a building, of course (we have photographs of it -- not quite in the state for which it is advertised, but certainly a building). I think that the very information provided by the plans is not protected for itself, and that the architectural design is protected only in the limits of article 120; this makes commissioning a drawing of the building acceptable.
Now, whether this will be accepted on Commons is a matter of assessment. I tend to think it should be accepted; you and most other think it should not; I will be satisfied with this decision if it is taken, since I vastly prefer erring on the side of caution than of that of recklessness.
But discussions about the copyright of the plans, derivative work and the plans and original research are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Rama (talk) 11:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. Frankly, if that wasn't a building, when exactly would it become one, at the first floor? Second? Second and a half? Thirteenth? And then, why? Rama (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose if you were using a strange definition of the word "building", like "a structure being built" or "an ongoing effort at construction, i.e. building" that might make sense. When there is no structure, there is no building. For the purposes of the law, building probably refers to a visible structure - as has been noted, the purpose of the language is to permit representations of things in public view, so what's permitted is based upon what is visible. In this view, it's clear that an architectural design of the complete building is not permitted when only a hole in the ground is visible. NathanT15:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've already had this discussion, Rama. I think User:Elen of the Roads interpretation of article 120 and 106 as it applies to this case were spot on (and nearly everyone agrees on here, except for you) - "If the building is in front of you, you may take a photo or make an artistic sketch based on what you see. However, in this case you are basing what you draw not on what you can see on the street (because all you can see is a hole in the ground), but on another artist's rendition, or on the architect's plans. If you didn't have those, you wouldn't know what the building would look like, because you can't see it. Therefore you are breaching the original artist/architect's copyright under s106." 120 is referring to someone physically standing, looking at a superstructure, and taking a picture or painting a picture of it - something Rama is obviously not doing because no superstructure exists - there is no way you can argue you are recreating a pictorial representation from what you see on the ground - because only a hole is there! You are simply copying copyrighted architectural designs. Rama, if you are going to argue that you can recreate copyrighted designs because the foundation for the building exists then, as Elen of the Roads said, "That is an outrageous misunderstanding of copyright." DR04 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree that we disagree on this.
I do not understand the "visible from a public place" as forbidding images of buildings under construction, but of buildings located in private areas outside of public view, where privacy matters come in motion.
Yes, I do base by drawings on plans and such. No, they are not "copies", they merely use the information contained in the plans, something that cannot be protected as such (just like you cannot sue someone for breaches of copyright if, after seeing the plan, he publicly states that the Chicago spire has more than 20 floors, based on what he has seen). And I understand Article 120 as specifically autorising this. Rama (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of the code (that it is intended to protect the privacy of buildings that are not in public view) is at odds with the plain reading of the language. It is, frankly, below what we should expect from a Commons administrator. NathanT16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "plain reading" the language yields the immediate and absurde consequence that it is when a building is completed that the copyright exemption comes into force -- entailing that photographs of the construction site are not permissible, and that the moment at which the examption comes into force is undefined (when the outer structure is finished? when the installation is finished? when the building is commissioned? what if the design is altered? what about repairs?). Therefore, assuming that law is not meant to be absurd, I infer that the accent is put on "public place" rather then "constructed".
Delete Per Dcoetzee. This drawing, like any other drawing, is copyrightable. Just as a photograph taken of a finished building would be owned by the photographer, drawings of a finished building would also be owned by an artist. Therefore, drawings, even of an uncompleted building, are owned by the original artist. The nature of the object itself does not matter in this case. A derivative drawing is a derivative drawing. It could potentially be used under fair use until a free replacement can be created by photographing or drawing a completed structure. Multixfer (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comment It did have a license, namely {{PD-self}} (see this edit, the last one before IP number started to add things to the description page. It is added back in. However, it lacks a source. Is this self made or not is the question. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Neutral I'd say keep, because if one gets sued for painting graffity he'll probably not claim copyright on it, but I'd say delete because the image descriptions lack essential information about the subject. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
This looks like a photograph of a television screen, and is used to illustrate television series "De Smaak van De Keizer" on nl: wiki. Copyvio. -- Deadstar (msg) 14:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No freedom of panorama, and the guy next to the logo does not have his own article so does not need to be in a file here anyway. The file was only used on nl:wikipedia anyway, but it was removed there. --81.71.151.21512:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why "no freedom of panorama"? "The guy beside the logo" is (according to the YAM FM article on nl: wiki) the founder of this radiostation, so he is relevant. And the image is used there. I see no reason to delete. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly in scope, but the banner might be a problem (FOP doesn't apply, and I don't think it's incidental enough to be de minimis. It can easily be fixed by cropping it though, so Keep a cropped version. –Tryphon☂14:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
The user has sought permission from the Bank of Malta, but outside OTRS. As a consequence, he has taken for acceptable a permission stating that "the source is to be stated and the material not altered or distorted" (excerpt of the e-mail reproduced on image pages). Not ok for Commons then, since derivative works are specifically not allowed. Eusebius (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that's acceptable in this case. We have lots of images of currency, where modifications can be implicitly seen as prohibited. Also, reproduction (aka. commercial reuse) is obviously forbidden. Compare the following template being used on images of US banknotes (I'd expect something similar to apply here) --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As listed by the the U.S. Currency Education Program at money illustrations, the Counterfeit Detection Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, in Section 411 of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations (31 CFR 411), permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided: 1. The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated; 2. The illustration is one-sided; and 3. All negatives, plates, positives, digitized storage medium, graphic files, magnetic medium, optical storage devices, and any other thing used in the making of the illustration that contain an image of the illustration or any part thereof are destroyed and/or deleted or erased after their final use. Certain coins contain copyrights licensed to the U.S. Mint and owned by third parties or assigned to and owned by the U.S. Mint [11]. For the United States Mint circulating coin design use policy, see [12]; for the policy on the 50 State Quarters, see [13].
It's fundamentally different. In the US, most currency is in the public domain as a federal work, but subject to non-copyright restrictions (as every single piece of currency, of course, and we don't take these restrictions into account for keep/delete on Commons). In the case of the Bank of Malta, currency is explicitly copyrighted as a work of the Government (art. 6(1) of the Maltese Copyright Act) and the quoted notice is a specific license granted by the Bank of Malta (copyright holder) on only a few pictures. We cannot assume that it is a public domain release with non-copyright restrictions, it is a limited usage permission over a copyrighted work. For information, many currency stuff that we have on Commons is not ok, and many paragraphs in Commons:Currency are not ok either. --Eusebius (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is different then. If it's an issue of the copyright on the motive of the currency, we cannot keep it. I could, however, imagine that there was some missunderstanding around here, too. I mean if I went to the bank and ask them, whether it was ok to create commercial reproductions of the banknotes, I'd be *very* surprised if they'd say "yes"... --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO their first reaction would be to list you the non-copyright, anti-conterfeiting restrictions (on resolution, recto-verso printing, etc.). --Eusebius (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. --Dorieo (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article §26 of the Greek Copyright Law establishes that: The occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media of images of architectural works, fine art works, photographs or works of applied art, which are sited permanently in a public place, shall be permissible, without the consent of the author and without payment. Dorieo (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The interpretation of "occasional reproduction and communication by the mass media" as it is perceived in Greece, allows for this use. Photos of any kind of public places are freely and widely use in any kind of media. Even more this is a public monument (in a public place), belonging to the Greek state and its cultural value is freely available to all people. --Dorieo (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
While discussing a deletion nomination for another image, an administrator determined that images of unbuilt buildings (even if they are only silhouettes) violates article 106 as these shapes could be considered a derivative work of the original design. And since these buildings are not yet completed, article 120 does not apply. DR04 (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As commented at the aforementioned discussion, these are created purely of geometric shapes - they are very simple representations. –xenotalk17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 3 of course, for Nakheel tower I am not so sure, because left building is little more detailed then simple shape. But silhouette is so simplified and when looking to actual building like this it can hardly be recognized --Justass (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. "Fair" use cannot be invoked just because the non-Free image is "nicer". Face the fact that you claim "Fair Use" simply for decorative purpose, and desist from this behaviour. Rama (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your shadow image does not by any stretch of the imagination accurately depict the subject and has no encyclopedic merit whatsoever. –xenotalk21:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it had "no encyclopedic merit whatsoever", silouhettes of buildings would not be featured in Wikipedia articles. Which they are. Rama (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, already climbing down from "no encyclopedic merit whatsoever" to "next to useless"! Adjusting for your political motivations, I assume that is means they are valuable schematics. Rama (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This (interpretation of NFCC) remains an en.wiki issue, so I see no reason to continue running around in circles here. You are free to continue to hold your erroneous assumptions, if you like. –xenotalk18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Screenshot taken from a website. Even though Ubisoft might allow users to publish screenshots under CC-by-sa, this does not mean that all screenshots are automatically freely licensed. Taking a screenshot is a creative act by the player and thus said player needs to hand out a free license for the screenshot. This has not happened here. ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be correct for simple 2D applications, but is definitely incorrect for complex 3D games. You are basically walking around in a real world, which gives you endless possibility to take pictures. This is like taking a photograph of a copyrighted work - even though the work's author allows this, you still need the photographer to agree to the release of the image under a free license. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)00:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some misunderstanding between real world and 3D application. All those "endless possibilities" are hard-coded by authors to game's source code, everything from grass and water to buildings and moving objects are rendered from existing graphic elements created by the same authors. Even random camel, moving to random direction indeed is programmed by the creators to move pseudo randomly. By changing camera view mode player simply cant jump-out of pre defined limits and create unique artwork because he always will be in range of the limits created by the soft. There was a similar discussion about 3D games not long ago Commons:Deletion requests/GPL screenshots --Justass (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The possibilities in the game are just as hard-coded as the ones in the real world. The only difference is that the real world is not copyrightable. Yes, all artwork in the game has been created by Ubisoft and they also programmed the movements etc. But there is still creativity involved when choosing which angle, which view etc. you take the picture of. That is _not_ copyrighted by Ubisoft as they could not have predicted when and where you are taking a screenshot and it is not their creative work. Think of it a taking a picture of a statue: Of course the statue was created by a sculptor and he crafted every little detail of it, but you can still move around it and thus your photograph of the statue becomes your own creative work. As to the GPL images: I am not really sure how far the GPL goes - as it is a viral license it might be that it also applies to screenshots of GPL software, but I would have to do some reading to confirm this. Also note that Eusebius has already pointed out on the other DR where the error in your logic is. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)08:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @ChrisiPK: in the statue analogy, the author of the statue (Ubisoft) has explicitly allowed to take photographs (screenshots) of the statue (game). It seems to me you're trying to delete pictures without good reason: the license explicitly says that taking screenshots of their games is allowed. We have no reason to assume a creative act took place in creating the screenshot: the player may have moved the camera but the game could also have been programmed to make a certain event happen (like a cut scene). This is different from real life where a photographer needs to phsyically move the camera into a certain position. The agreement with Ubisoft says that publishing screenshots of all their games is allowed under a free license; it does not make any claims about the origins of the screenshots (i.e., like they must have been taken by people who bought the game, using their copy of the game, etc). Therefore, a screenshot found on a website still qualifies as a screenshot of one of their games, which can be published under a free license. - Simeon87 (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, _can_ be, but not _needs_ to be. If this is a precoded scene, then there is no creativity involved in creating the screenshot, but if it is not and the player can move the camera around freely, then that is definitely a creative action and publication needs to be authorized by the player. BTW, I am not assuming this is a cut from a precoded scene as those are usually presented in a wider mode in this particular game. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ChrisiPK, mostly. Three points:
I am convinced that the creativity needed to take a screenshot in a rich 3D game is enough to generate copyright. I will not develop (again).
The Ubisoft ticket allows the users to publish screenshots of all their games under a free license. It does not deny their right not to do so. It might even be the case that a screenshot not released under a free license by its author is a copyright violation in the first time, because the OTRS permission does not cover that. Therefore we must not consider any screenshot of an Ubisoft game as freely licensed, the screenshot creator must release it.
The GPL case was totally different. The screenshot was bound to be GPL licensed because it was a derivative work of GPL material. The key element is the viral aspect of the licence. Here, it is not the case, the screenshot taker can release under any kind of licence, provided they have a permission from Ubisoft to do so, which is apparently not the case here.
As a conclusion, I request deletion because there is no evidence that the screenshot, as published on http://www.annoist.de/, is not a violation of Ubisoft's copyright. The picture could be kept only if the creator of the screenshot released it under a free licence, in which case it would be covered by the OTRS ticket. --Eusebius (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this straight: if the description had said "Taken myself, released under Ubisoft's agreement" then everything would have been fine but because it says "Found on website", it's going to be deleted? Pointless really. - Simeon87 (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general you are correct, but in this particular case, I think you're simply searching for tiny fragments of copyright that "haven't been released" in order to delete these files. It's far-fetched to delete all these files simply because the act of taking a screenshot should be considered creative. I took the time to upload these files in an effort to improve the encyclopedia and thought it was okay given Ubisoft's explicit license. If they're deleted then someone else will have to take the time to upload replacements. - Simeon87 (talk) 10:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you might have wasted time to upload these files, but if they are copyright violations, we cannot keep them just because they might enrich Wikipedia. In analogy to your statement above: If you uploaded someone else's photographs and said "taken by myself", those would also not be deleted unless someone suspects that your claims are wrong. You are nevertheless not authorized to upload them. Regards, -- ChrisiPK(Talk|Contribs)11:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can understand and agree with that, I just find the reason of copyright violation far-fetched. But a violation nonetheless I guess... - Simeon87 (talk) 11:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone took a similar shot in real life, they'd have copyright. The same considerations of angle and waiting until the light and everything lines up right apply.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
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.
Not necessarily. If the son of the sitter (?) manages the rights, he can release the painting. A portrait painter often does not have the right to publish his paintings. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete per nom --Justass (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep quality is good enough to let actual user decide what version to use. No harm to have more then one picture of the same document --Justass (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Info If this deletion is successful, a good round of cleaning up at Category:Proposed or planned buildings will be needed. There are
Comment It did have a license, namely {{PD-self}} (see this edit, the last one before IP number started to add things to the description page. It is added back in. However, it lacks a source. Is this self made or not is the question. -- Deadstar (msg) 11:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Neutral I'd say keep, because if one gets sued for painting graffity he'll probably not claim copyright on it, but I'd say delete because the image descriptions lack essential information about the subject. --PaterMcFly (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep it. We still don't know what the Greek law is referring to exactly by "occasional" reproduction.--The daydreamer (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Question So these are OK too, right ?
Chicago spire
Nakheel tower 
Freedom Tower
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leeds_building_heights_(Criterion_Place).svg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AEREA_HELICOPTERO.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elite_Residence_Rendering_on_Construction_Board_on_9_November_2007.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dolce_Vita_Rendering_on_Construction_Board_on_17_August_2007.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nakheel_tower.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_Tower.svg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chicago_Spire_early_project.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LeedsBuildingsHeightLumiere.JPG){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Leeds_building_heights_(Lumiere).svg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
