Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2010/04/14
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Seems to be an apparent copyvio as some images on the official website of the band, http://www.systems-in-blue.de (currently not available) are very similar to this one. You may see some other similar ones like a CD cover google searching. Link Diego Grez (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Official cover of one of their albums. Interesting. --Diego Grez (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Tineye by Bsadowski http://www.tineye.com/search/b344e25ed893b06dcad33dde7195ab6c072ac522 --Diego Grez (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete this image is actually a rearrangement of the same people images on the album cover! Bastique ☎ appelez-moi! 00:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Zscout370: Copyright violation: http://www.sib-music.de/images/051.htm
Copyright Violation: This poster is not free content. It belongs to Kantana company. Octahedron80 (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Non-free poster, no fair use on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I have much doubt if the flickr user Kamui Sendoh is the photographer of all the photos he uploaded. The photostream presents a collection of images that can be found elsewhere, for me its almost obviously an account stuffed with copied images focusing on one thing (or two).
- Examples
- Laura Lion: Google patrol33810 if you want.
- Nikki Benz: her blog of 2006, thanks to TinEye.
- Sabrina_Sabro TinEye
--Martin H. (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. The same image was discussed at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Aylar Lie.jpg. Kjetil_r 17:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Buxtehude (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
My guess is that this is a fun image (and therefor not in scope) Amada44 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment It's the type of image that could be used on Wiktionary. But I have no word for this one. --GaAs11671 17:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
My guess is that this is a fun image (and therefor not in scope) Amada44 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
My guess is that this is a fun image (and therefor not in scope) Amada44 (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
no author, no source Amada44 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete no author, no source --GaAs11671 16:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Renomination #1
Kent is not a notable person, so out of scope. GeorgHH • talk 18:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
unused, not useful Amada44 (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Self-portrait of the blogger with 1 edit in commons. Not in use. Can't be an illustration. Wikipedia is not a photohosting Shakko (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- « cette foto sorti de mon appareil pour rentré a l'intérieur de mon disque dur »
Not useful, Delete. --GaAs11671 16:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
-Develi.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
+ File:Leighsmithincosta.jpg, File:Leighonfieldhard.jpg, File:Leighsanta.jpg
Wikipedia is not a photohosting. User:Meanodeano1 in March uploaded 4 photos of some boy named Leigh Smith. (By the way, two of them are the same: File:Leigh.jpg and File:Leighsmithincosta.jpg). No more edits from this user, all photos not in use. -- Shakko (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
unused personal image Amada44 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Julo (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Where did it come from? -- Deadstar (msg) 13:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this image is unlikely than the other ones I asked for deletion. I asked on a limp bizkit forum for a free image, one member uploaded this one on an imagehoster. Nevertheless, I'm not quite sure, if it's really free, so it should be handled like the others. The others are mostly non-free pictures from website or flickr itself. -- Adw (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, one comment if I formulated the deletion tag too unprecise: With "the Flickr User" the person is meant, who uploaded the image on Flickr, which was the source for the upload on commons. The person (it were many accounts) was myself and like I said, I don't have any rights for that image. This applies also to the other uploades from me on commons with Flickr as source. -- Adw (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even so, you got the images from elsewhere & you put them on Flickr. It would thus be possible that they are released under a free license on whatever source site you got them from. For this image too - you asked for a free image, you got it from an unnamed source. If you provide a link to the forum/the question/the responder/the image host follow up can be done to see if it is in fact a free image or not. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, I don't think so. The forum I asked for this pic in specially, doesn't exist in that form anymore. File:Wrigley's Extra2.jpg and File:Cold live.jpg are taken from Google, guess they are all righs reserved as there was no CC-tag. File:Original Puddle of Mudd Lineup.jpg is taken from some Puddle of Mudd fan page if I remember correctly.File:Wes_Borland_live.jpg is a common shared picture on LB-Fanpages, I don't know who got the rights for it. File:Staind_Live_in_Concert.jpg is from another Flickr user, who hasn't released it under a suitable CC-license (same for File:Limp_bizkit_live.jpg and File:Aaron_Lewis.jpg). File:Snot live.jpg, File:Lynn Strait.jpg and File:Dobbs.jpg were once on the official Snot website, but have been deleted as far as I know. You have to think about the fact, that I uploaded these images three years ago, a time in which a lot can change in the net. They are everything, but not free and suitable concerning the methods of commons. -- Adw (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Even so, you got the images from elsewhere & you put them on Flickr. It would thus be possible that they are released under a free license on whatever source site you got them from. For this image too - you asked for a free image, you got it from an unnamed source. If you provide a link to the forum/the question/the responder/the image host follow up can be done to see if it is in fact a free image or not. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Btw, one comment if I formulated the deletion tag too unprecise: With "the Flickr User" the person is meant, who uploaded the image on Flickr, which was the source for the upload on commons. The person (it were many accounts) was myself and like I said, I don't have any rights for that image. This applies also to the other uploades from me on commons with Flickr as source. -- Adw (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Well, this image is unlikely than the other ones I asked for deletion. I asked on a limp bizkit forum for a free image, one member uploaded this one on an imagehoster. Nevertheless, I'm not quite sure, if it's really free, so it should be handled like the others. The others are mostly non-free pictures from website or flickr itself. -- Adw (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted / Uploader requested and none free copyrights.--Fanghong (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
The Flickr User was one of my accounts on Flickr (to prove that, neither the user, nor the image exists anymore- I deleted them both). He (I) never had any rights for that image. It was a non-intelligent action of mine when I was younger in order to spend good images to Commons. Today I admit, that it was a huge mistake and a danger for the project, so I want to undo it. You can ban me from commons and dewi afterwards, if you like, but please delete this image. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted by Fanghong: Uploader request
I doubt uploader is author of the logo of the Royal Netherlands Marine Core Base Savaneta in Aruba -- Deadstar (msg) 15:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept per Pieter Kuiper, changed license. -- Deadstar (msg) 13:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
merged with RQ-16 T-Hawk --NatanFlayer (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. High Contrast (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
promotional, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. shizhao (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
no exif data, small - looks like a copyright violation - nearly out of scope too - uncategorized and unused Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of scope. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It's unlikely the logo for the coast guard is own work. No link to source. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep {{PD-NL-Gov}}. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Source: [1]. They seem to restrict use of the logo in their FAQ (freely translated: "use only in the given colours and shape" and designer is "Aangenaam Ontwerp". -- Deadstar (msg) 08:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Pieter Kuiper is correct if and only if the subject is in fact a government body. I'll assume, given that he is Dutch, that he knows for sure. I raise the question because some rescue services, notably the Royal National Lifeboat Institution are private charities and {{PD-NL-Gov}} wouldn't apply if that were the case in the Netherlands.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- As the template says, also nominally private foundations can be considered Government institutions in this regard. The template refers to a court case involving the "Silicose Oud-mijnwerkers foundation". I believe that this would be a similar case, but it seems that this foundation recently lost its status of "zbo" (private legal entities with public tasks and authority). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- So Pieter does that mean the PD-NL-Gov is still valid? If so, please change license and this can be closed. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose the logo is from the time that this foundation had semi-official status. The orange color and the stylized crown on the lifesaver suggest that. So yes, I believe that {{PD-NL-Gov}} is appropriate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- So Pieter does that mean the PD-NL-Gov is still valid? If so, please change license and this can be closed. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- As the template says, also nominally private foundations can be considered Government institutions in this regard. The template refers to a court case involving the "Silicose Oud-mijnwerkers foundation". I believe that this would be a similar case, but it seems that this foundation recently lost its status of "zbo" (private legal entities with public tasks and authority). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
likely flickr washing: may be from fansite Wcam (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
lxj已经被要你的飞翔授权分享 --Cuyfrg (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Cuyfrg
Deleted. Bad Flickr user and/or likely flickr washing! Martin H. (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
likely flickr washing: may be from fansite Wcam (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
hanxue已被要你的飞翔授权分享 --Cuyfrg (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Cuyfrg
Deleted. Bad flickr user and/or likely flickr washing! --Martin H. (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:Kaitseliit crest.svgFile:Kaitseliit emblem.svg and File:Kaitseliit.jpg. Quibik (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
promotional, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 20:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. And copyvio probably. Blacklake (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
promotional, out of project scope. ■ MMXX talk 20:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. And copyvio probably. Blacklake (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Image was not created by VOA or an employee of VOA but is from the ICTY Martin H. (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can only second this. The image is originally created by ICTY. While VOA might have had permission to publish it under certain terms, I think we still need a further confirmation that it had right to publish it as PD image. 巡 Mihajlo [ talk ] 10:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Risk game board. Wouldn't this be qualified as a derivative? ---- Deadstar (msg) 09:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
recent stamp of Slovakia. Probably copyright Slovak PO. Licence given is wrong. Maidonian (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't really have the rights for that image, a friend of mine send it to me in order to have an image for the article, but the real copyright holder is a teacher from the school. In order of copyvio, it has to be deleted. Sorry for my mistake in the past. -- Adw (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC) --Adw (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- It's a lil shame, that this simple request hasn't been worked on for several months now. It was a mistake and false information from a friend of mine, that I loaded up that pic in the past, as I have no rights for that image and no contact to the original copyright holder. Hell, I don't even visit that school any longer, there's no legal chance, that it can be kept here. No one liked to discuss on that manner in 3 months, so could something please happen now? -- Adw (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, this textile-logo is not self made, but does it qualify under PD-textlogo? -- Deadstar (msg) 11:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Does not qualify for copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama. I was said it's too simple for copyright, but I think it's almost impossible to say that for architect's work. Pikne 12:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not original. If you can't keep this one, you have to delete every photo where appears a house less than 150 years old. --GaAs11671 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment It's about freedom of panorama. Not every house, but houses in certain countries and whose arhitect, in this case, didn't die more 70 years ago (copyright hasn't expired). FOP guidelines seem quite clear to me. Pikne 17:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Non-descript building. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep if built before 1999, otherwise Delete
- FOP is OK in Estonia only for non-commercial use, see Freedom_of_panorama#Estonia, and therefore calls for delete here.
- However, The Republic of Estonia Copyright Act (at the top of page 4) did not apply to architectural works before February 15, 1999. If this building is older than that, it is PD on the principle that once something is PD, it cannot later become copyrighted.
- The Users above may not like the fact that some countries apply copyright to recent buildings (all buildings, even doghouses -- this law is very broad), but that needs to be debated by the respective legislatures, not here. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright only applies to artistic works - in general, a doghouse does not qualify. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly the theory behind copyright is that it applies to artistic works. But, in any specific instance, copyright applies to exactly what the applicable law says it applies to, in this case "... works of architecture...." The law says nothing about good architecture, artistic architecture, distinguished architecture, or anything else, just works of architecture. That would apply to a plain doghouse as much as to a work by I.M. Pei. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The important word is works of architecture. There has been an awfull lot of copyright creep, but an ordinary doghouse would not qualify. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies to the group for raising the irrelevant and distracting issue of doghouses. Let's not lose sight of the fact that this airport terminal, although mundane, is clearly a work of architecture and is therefore covered by the Estonian copyright law if built after 1999.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- The important word is works of architecture. There has been an awfull lot of copyright creep, but an ordinary doghouse would not qualify. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Certainly the theory behind copyright is that it applies to artistic works. But, in any specific instance, copyright applies to exactly what the applicable law says it applies to, in this case "... works of architecture...." The law says nothing about good architecture, artistic architecture, distinguished architecture, or anything else, just works of architecture. That would apply to a plain doghouse as much as to a work by I.M. Pei. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- 1999 (2000) is when law in such form and wording entered into force, not that any works published in Estonia before this year are without copyright. I haven't found architect's name, but today's airport was opened in 1999, so copyright can't be expired (life + 70 years; § 38). Pikne 18:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I think you have it backwards. According to the translation of the Estonian Copyright law I cited above, architectural works were not covered by copyright at all before February 15, 1999. If the airport was opened in 1999, then the architectural work was done before 1999 (you have to have drawings before beginning construction) and is therefore not covered. So my Keep above is correct. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- See § 88: "This Act also extends to works and results of the work of performers, producers of phonograms or broadcasting organisations which are created before 12 December 1992." Pikne 09:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- But see definition of performer § 64 and producer § 69. Either of them aren't architects, so this § doesn't apply do works of architecture. So if such works weren't covered before '99, they should be kept. Hluup (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- It says works and results. [of the work of performers, producers of phonograms or broadcasting organisations] describes what kind of results are in question. Works are listed in § 4. See the original to have it clear. Pikne 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah it says works and results, but it also clarifies that it applies on the works of [work of performers, producers of phonograms or broadcasting organisations]. Hluup (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- Translation could be slightly less ambiguous, perhaps. As an Estonian speaker, see § 88 in original – it leaves no way to consider [of the work of performers, producers of phonograms or broadcasting organisations] also describing works. Pikne 10:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- True it says so in original. I'm not trying to nitpick, but it also states ... mis on loodud enne 1992. aasta 12. detsembrit.. Doesn't this leave some sort of gray area between 1992−1999? Hluup (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Current wording is from redaction of 1999, it had the same paragraph(s) in earlier redactions as well. Pikne 13:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed I thought user Jameslwoodward was right when he said that architectural works were not covered by copyright at all before February 15, 1999. When reading the version from 1992, it also states that architectural works are protected by copyright. So, Delete - per law. And I think there's really no reason to discuss whether it's artistic or not, clearly there's enough artistic freedom in play when designing an airport terminal Hluup (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are we saying that the translation I quoted is misleading -- that is, the paragraph I quoted was actually added earlier? If so, we should add a note at the source of the translation, or we'll have this problem again -- I leave it to you who speak both languages to sort it out. Even better, perhaps one of you would read the law and markup the text here to show the date at which architectural works began being covered. Note that the second paragraph there covers only non-commercial use. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- You interpreted the annotation below the paragraph, not quoted the law. It's the regular life + 70 years for copyright to expire, so I don't see anything to be specially noted. Pikne 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- It says works and results. [of the work of performers, producers of phonograms or broadcasting organisations] describes what kind of results are in question. Works are listed in § 4. See the original to have it clear. Pikne 19:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you have it backwards. According to the translation of the Estonian Copyright law I cited above, architectural works were not covered by copyright at all before February 15, 1999. If the airport was opened in 1999, then the architectural work was done before 1999 (you have to have drawings before beginning construction) and is therefore not covered. So my Keep above is correct. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- Copyright only applies to artistic works - in general, a doghouse does not qualify. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Nondescript building. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
unused JPEG version of File:Õhutõrjepataljon emblem.svg Quibik (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The image is outdated ("Õhutõrjedivision" has become "Õhutõrjepataljon") and is superseded by File:Õhutõrjepataljon emblem.svg. Quibik (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Logistikapataljon emblem.svg. Quibik (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Also, both files are derived from the same source, so the JPEG version is just a low-quality duplicate. —Quibik (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that the 1984 Olympics logo is NOT a work of the US federal government. howcheng {chat} 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Images in Iran are pd 30 years following the publication, not creation. So evidence must be provided, that something was published 30 years ago, such evidence is a book, newspaper or magazine with all information - simply as a citation of a book, newspaper or magazine like in Wikipedia or any other educational work. In this case some strange website is cited that copied an image from someone else facebook, http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=5151186&id=141121061094, the image name of the "source" http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs439.ash1/24259_412939751094_141121061094_5151186_5272213_n.jpg comes from facebooks software. So no evidence of publication, no source at all. Martin H. (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
superseded by File:Flag of Nõmme district, Tallinn, Estonia.svg. Quibik (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Superseded by File:Flag of Nõmme district, Tallinn, Estonia.svg Quibik (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, since there's an .svg version, I see no reason for keeping this file. Flying Saucer (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
'Unique' picture from the coup d'etat in Chile in 1973. I think it's hardly an 'own work' because militaries were ocupping the streets and et all. Impossible. Diego Grez (previously MisterWiki) let's talk 22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Comment Wait for user:Rec79 answer, he is active on Commons. --GaAs11671 09:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- La imagen NO es una fotografía de La Moneda, es un dibujo.--Rec79 (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
-Develi.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Develi.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source (?) link given to a newspaper (http://www.kayseri.gov.tr) , but as I have no Turkish language skills, can someone check if this could have been released with a GFDL? (Also no real description of what this is that I can make out. The title translated by google reads "Khidr Ilyas Authority (celebrated)-Develi.jpg" (something in Develi, Turkey) so if someone has more info, please add it. Thank you.) -- Deadstar (msg) 09:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
-Develi.jpg){kind=link}
- This is a tomb called Hızır İlyas tomb (in Turkish Hızır İlyas Türbesi or Hızır İlyas Kümbeti) in Develi district of Kayseri Province. This must be related to Feast of Hıdırellez but I don't know how. There is many structures in Turkey called Hızır İlyas something. The http://www.kayseri.gov.tr is not a newspaper but official website of Kayseri Province in Turkey. I do not know where the photograph is copied from, I could not find the photograph on the Kayseri website, but it is seen on this page of news portal Kenthaber.com and the image name has date 2005/12/27 which is before it was uploaded here: http://www.kenthaber.com/Resimler/2005/12/27/00087736.jpg. Main page of Kenthaber.com says "© 2003-2008 Kenthaber.com". Hevesli (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Blacklake (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
-Develi.jpg){kind=link}
An Soviet Air Force member is hardly an employee of the U.S. federal government as claimed here. However, the image might be public domain for a more valid reason. Martin H. (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Not an artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry i have problems settting correct metadata as i am new to Commons, anyhow Russian official documents (including this photograph taken from a fighter plane) have no copyright, cf. article 1259 item 6 alinea 1 of Russian civil code. --Allesmüller (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wrong, this has neither an legislative, administrative nor an judicial character. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have linked to the law above. It is not restircted to "legislative, administrative or judicial character". Just read it. --Allesmüller (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, not an artistic work: {{PD-ineligible}}. Kameraad Pjotr 09:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how threshold for originality applies to this work. Schierbecker (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I assume the argument is similar to those made surrounding images from police body cameras. There is no creative act. The camera is just automatically recording whatever it is pointed at. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
It is doubtful that this should be regarded as a photographic picture rather than a photographic work under Swedish law. It is taken in a controlled environment with what appears to be deliberate lighting with the apparent purpose of being aesthetically pleasing. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the photograph is a photographic picture and that the photographer's copyright has expired, it is a derivative of a non-free, copyrightable work, namely the model of the city. The model contains creative decision-making in the miniateurisation and depiction of planned structures, and since Swedish copyright lasts longer for works of other types than photographic pictures, the model creator's copyright has not expired. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep "lighting" etcetera is an American criterium and completely irrelevant; something like this is not an artistic work, just a routine task of a photographer doing his job. The model seems to be just to scale reality, not an architect's artistic work. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to sv:Verkshöjd#Fotografi, there is no Swedish case law on the matter of what constitutes a photographic work versus a photographic picture. With that in mind, the certainty with which you dismiss the notion that a deliberate studio setup could create a differentiation from mere snapshots strikes me as odd. Regarding the model, it is a simplified depiction of developments which were planned at the time. Creating it would have required creative decision-making both in the process of envisioning the developments (several of which were never built as depicted, unless I'm greatly mistaken) and in selecting the level of abstraction and how details should be simplified to fit the medium. Additionally, realism does not preclude copyrightability. An aerial photograph of a city or an accurate drawing of an aerial city view is not exempt from copyright protection. Why would three-dimensional forms of expression be any less copyrightable? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- As to the photo, in the legislative process (förarbeten) for the law of 1960, the distinction was made between photographic works and the ordinary pictures that professional photographers produce. Examples of run-of-the-mill jobs were mentioned press photo and other reportages, photography for advertising and other commercial photography, passport photos and common portraits ("pressfoto och annat reportagefoto, reklam och annat kommersiellt foto, passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering"). This photo is just like making photos for advertising, not something one would commission an artist to do. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- According to sv:Verkshöjd#Fotografi, there is no Swedish case law on the matter of what constitutes a photographic work versus a photographic picture. With that in mind, the certainty with which you dismiss the notion that a deliberate studio setup could create a differentiation from mere snapshots strikes me as odd. Regarding the model, it is a simplified depiction of developments which were planned at the time. Creating it would have required creative decision-making both in the process of envisioning the developments (several of which were never built as depicted, unless I'm greatly mistaken) and in selecting the level of abstraction and how details should be simplified to fit the medium. Additionally, realism does not preclude copyrightability. An aerial photograph of a city or an accurate drawing of an aerial city view is not exempt from copyright protection. Why would three-dimensional forms of expression be any less copyrightable? —LX (talk, contribs) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, whether the photograph is free or not does not really matter, as the subject is clearly copyrighted. Deleted as derivative work. Kameraad Pjotr 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
superseded by File:Flag of Mõisaküla.svg Quibik (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, superior SVG-version available. Kameraad Pjotr 17:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Unnecessary collage of File:Kvyldlipp.jpg and File:EKV coat of arms.svg. Quibik (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, out of project scope. Kameraad Pjotr 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The map presents a random selection of license tags - but it fails COM:L#Russia_and_former_Soviet_Union completely. See e.g. en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#Official government publications ?. Of course the uploader not selected a valid public domain copyright tag, but I know what he means this. (He added a CC-by, thats a licensing the copyright holder must agree to but he insists on removing my 'missing permission' tagging which I think is the only way to keep the image). Martin H. (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry i have problems settting correct metadata as i am new to Commons, anyhow Russian official documents (including this military map) have no copyright, cf. article 1259 item 6 alinea 1 of Russian civil code. --Allesmüller (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Wrong, this has neither an legislative, administrative nor judicial character, there is no public interest in exempting that from copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have linked to the law above. It is not restircted to "legislative, administrative or judicial character". Just read it. --Allesmüller (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- ??? в том числе законы, другие нормативные акты, судебные решения, иные материалы законодательного, административного и судебного характера, официальные документы международных организаций, а также их официальные переводы. (Article 1259, Paragraph 6, Part IV of Civil Code No. 230-FZ of the Russian Federation) Thats exactly written in Template:PD-RU-exempt, it not covers most photographs that are not part of such works and it not covers random maps. --Martin H. (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have linked to the law above. It is not restircted to "legislative, administrative or judicial character". Just read it. --Allesmüller (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the same article is also used for all Soviet and Russian stamps on Commons. --Allesmüller (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- You mean template, yes - they fulfill the requirements, see Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#USSR and Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Russia. However, this is not a stamp nor an document of such nature. --Martin H. (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- No i mean article. Article 1259 is for official documents, not restricted to "legal, administrative or judical character", therefore including non-legal documents like stamps and maps. --Allesmüller (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- See quotation above for the article, it says of legislative, administrative or judicial character. See the help page on stamps for stamps, there is an extra law to take into consideration. You are wrong, please finaly make some reading, I linked you so many sites already in our previous discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just read the law, which i have quoted :) --Allesmüller (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- you mean: linked, I quoted it. --Martin H. (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good. Then read it: "official documents" ("официальные документы") have no copyrights. "Including" ("в том") "laws, other legal texts, judicial decisions" ("материалы законодательного, административного и судебного характера"). "Including" does not mean "restricted to". --Allesmüller (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- you mean: linked, I quoted it. --Martin H. (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Just read the law, which i have quoted :) --Allesmüller (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- See quotation above for the article, it says of legislative, administrative or judicial character. See the help page on stamps for stamps, there is an extra law to take into consideration. You are wrong, please finaly make some reading, I linked you so many sites already in our previous discussion. --Martin H. (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- No i mean article. Article 1259 is for official documents, not restricted to "legal, administrative or judical character", therefore including non-legal documents like stamps and maps. --Allesmüller (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Should stay, no copyrights. --64.120.47.24 21:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Dont make a drama out of the obvious. The map can stay here. It was an official document of the army of USSR. --94.100.90.22 14:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- No copyvio, request to be closed. --204.74.221.46 08:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Not all governmental works are official documents or of legislative, administrative and judicial character. There is no legal component in map even if it produced by army officials. Therefore not covered by Template:PD-RU-exempt. Blacklake (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Claimed PD-old, but no source given and thus no proof that creator died in 1939 or earlier. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like Crown copyright. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Might be, might not be. Hard to tell without a source. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per Pieter Kuiper Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks a source thus Crown copyright cannot be verified. Kameraad Pjotr 20:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
not sure it's own work, not sure Christan de Pescara is the only owner Bapti ✉ 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is approaching harassment.
UploaderNominator gives no reason whatsoever to cast doubt on the statements by a contributor. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 18:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Author = Filip Appeldorn yet licensed with PD-self (username is User:Erwin2js, so I assume not the same person). Also, band has no mention on wiki, and image name is "Info_main2" indicating that this is likely taken from a website somewhere. User's other contribution was a promotional shot of (presumably the same) band, which was deleted. -- Deadstar (msg) 15:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Info Filip Appeldorn is a user of flickr [2]. --GaAs11671 16:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
superseded by File:Northeastern Defense District of Estonia emblem.svg. Quibik (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
The color is wrong (should be orange), supersedd by File:Kaitseväe Võru Lahingukool emblem.svg. Quibik (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
derivative of sculpture. Martin H. (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I'm the one that uploaded the file. So it's considered, or possibly considered, derivative. I'm kinda new here, and others are likely more expert at this than I. However, for my case for the file, I figure that given how folk-arty it looks, it might have been made by the photographer herself.Better than Hustler (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thats something I dont know either, otherwise I would have named the artist. Its tagged with "Broad Ripple Art museum" however. --Martin H. (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmmmm. Apparently she's here and here and did a photo for Black Sabbath. Also, a quick search found a Broad Ripple Art Design.Better than Hustler (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No proof of free license presented — Deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Portrait of Mao Zedong at Tiananmen Gate, is copyrighted, author living, See [3] --shizhao (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment But there is a FOP in China, and if the painting (it is not a foto but a painting) is displayed in public places in China, than this FOP will apply. Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Yes,it is a FOP in China,the paiting is permanently displayed on Tiananmen square. --NewSpeaks (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep - no reason for deletion Cholo Aleman (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Delete Regarding US law: This is not a panorama, this is a 2D-portrait - with above reasoning every publicly displayed painting would be PD. Since Zhang Zhenshi died only 1992 the image is not free. An image must be free in both source country and the US to be hosted on Commons. Hekerui (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Commons does not apply the American FoP rules to photos that were made in other countries. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment like P. Kuiper, the argumentation of user:Herkerui is errouneous (sorry, spelling?) Cholo Aleman (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Delete all revisions that are of the portrait alone, and Keep versions which are photos of the portrait in Tiananmen Square.
- Freedom of panorama is not a "freedom to violate the copyrights of an artist"; rather it simply allows one to take a photo of his or her work in its public environment and publish it (the photo of the subject and its surroundings) without infringing the artist's copyright.
- Modifying the photo to make it solely a representation of the copyrighted item is a copyviolation (similar in principle to de minimis). Please read Commons:Freedom of panorama#Nuances in the panorama freedom, particularly "The right to modify" and "Further derivative works". Thus, cropping out the environment to obtain a nice picture of a copyrighted subject (remember, FoP does not invalidate copyrights) still violates the copyright of the artist; publishing a photo of the artwork in its installed environment is allowed under the law where FoP applies. As such, the versions uploaded on 07:46, 21 August 2009 and 15:11, 28 March 2010 are copyviolations and should be deleted. Jappalang (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Keep, Chinese FOP appears to be wider than German/others as it applies to artistic works. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Kept, Chinese FOP seems far broader than European FOP. Kameraad Pjotr 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Article 22 of China's Copyright Law has an important condition that "the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon", which was overlooked by Kameraad Pjotr who closed the previous DR. Also Jappalang's argument above is a strong one that we should not keep this image here on Commons. Wcam (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The question of what "other rights" is intended to cover is interesting, but it seems more like a criticism of {{FoP-China}} than of its applicability to this particular image. That said, I chose to look into it.
- The rights enjoyed by copyright holders are listed in section 1, Article 10. Notably, this includes the rights of (5) reproduction, (6) distribution and (14) adaptation. It's not clear from the law itself which rights of Article 1 are trumped by the right to exploitation in Article 22 and which "other rights" remain – the articles are at odds with one another. Looking only at the statute, I would assume that the premise of {{FoP-China}} is invalid based on the concern that you raise.
- As a result, one would assume that commercial use of depictions of public sculptures would infringe on the sculptor's copyright. However, as noted in Commons:Freedom of panorama#China, People's Republic of, case law shows that the courts apparently do not consider such use to be infringing. It would seem that they take a broad view of what is covered by "exploitation" – more so than I would personally have expected. As Article 22 (7) does not distinguish between two-dimensional and three-dimensional works, those case law precedents should be applicable here.
- Respectfully, I do not agree that Jappalang's argument is strong. There does not seem to be any basis in Chinese statute or case law for the notion that the right to exploit publicly displayed works under Article 22 (7) is contingent on the inclusion of any surroundings. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Although Article 22 (7) does not distinguish between two-dimensional and three-dimensional works, it is obvious that a three-dimensional work and a photo of a three-dimensional work are very different in nature. It follows that commercial reuse of such photo is unlikely to infringe "the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner" of the 3-d work. However, the image in question is essentially a faithful 2-d reproduction of a 2-d work. Such reproduction cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality. As the original work is still under copyright protection, any infringing reuse of the image in question is almost sure to infringe the rights of the original work's copyright owner. --Wcam (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: not a panorama. --Jcb (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Undeleted: as per undeletion request. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Renominating this image for deletion after previous deletion and undeletion requests. In short: this image is a mechanical copy of a copyrighted work, and China's copyright law does not allow unlimited reuse of such work.
Detailed reasons:
(I) The original work (painting) is under copyright protection because its creator, Zhang Zhenshi died only 1992, and the copyright protection duration in China is life plus 50 years.
(II) As opposed to photos like File:Lascar The Tian'anmen (4498194542).jpg which is a panorama and qualifies as a photographic work with its own separate copyright, this image in question is a mere mechanical reproduction of the original work, which "cannot attract additional copyright protection over and above that of the original, as it lacks originality: it is a bare copy, no more. That rule applies internationally and, on Commons, is normally taken for granted." (Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Original_work)This is in line with WMF's official position on faithful reproductions. Given that this image, in and of itself, is not eligible for copyright protection (as opposed to a derivative work), we cannot slap a "free license" or any kind of license on it, the same way we cannot force a "free license" on the original work, i.e., it is meaningless to use a CC-BY on something that is not eligible for copyright protection.
.jpg){kind=link}
(III) According to Article 22(10) of China's copyright law which is interpreted here as the "freedom of panorama" provision, there are "other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner" that cannot be infringed upon while photographing an outdoor public place. Also, from Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China:
| “ |
Article 21 The exploitation of a published work which may be exploited without permission from the copyright owner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law shall not impair the normal exploitation of the work concerned, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner. |
” |
As this image is a mechanical copy of the original work, if it were allowed on Commons (which means this work is allowed to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose; COM:L), it may potentially violate the copyright owner's rights of publication, alteration, integrity, reproduction, distribution, etc., defined in Article 10. The point here is, it is entirely possible to use this picture for the same purpose as the original as a 2-dimensional painting work, which the Chinese law explicitly does not allow.
The following is my rebuttal to the reasons used in the previous undeletion request (original text quoted in italic):
- FoP in mainland China seems more border than in other countries. There are no detailed regulations on 2D or 3D, commercial or uncommercial use, etc. The copyright law itself only claimed doing so is legal.
- No, given the language "the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon" in Article 22, the law does not allow unlimited reuse of an exact duplicate.
- According to a previous case, a photograph of a statue, even cropped to fit into a phone card is still considered legal. So Jcb and several other Wikimedians' comment "not a panorama" in the deletion request is groundless.
- The case quoted here is about using a photo of a sculpture commercially. The court decision explicitly states that the photograph of Tian Tan Buddha and the sculpture work are two different works in nature; their expressions are different (天坛大佛的摄影作品与雕塑作品是两种不同性质的作品，两者的表达是不同的). A photo of a sculpture is not an exact duplicate of the original and can never be used for the same purpose as a sculpture. Any use of such photo is unlikely to infringe the sculpture creators' rights, which does not violate Article 22. Clearly this court decision cannot apply to the mechanical duplicate in question.
- Article 22 (10) stated that photos of an "artistic work" apply. "Artistic work" should not only include statues, but also other forms of work. Photos should be "artistic work" according to Article 3.
- This is true but is not where the problem is. It is WMF's official opinion that an unmodified photocopy is not an artistic work.
- Another judicial interpretation released by the supreme court of P.R. China, Article 18 claims that photos are in the scope of "artistic works".
- Again, no objection to this but it is not where the problem is.
- Also, Article 18 of that interpretation claims that "The photographer, imitator, painter, and cameraman of the artistic work can use their works in a reasonable range and methods, and should not be considered violating copyright".
- Reusing a mechanical duplicate of a copyrighted work for the same purpose as the original should not be considered as "in a reasonable range and methods", as established in (III).
- Files on Wikimedia Commons should be free content. That means it can be used for commercial. This explanation released by the supreme court suggested that it could be used for commercial purposes.
- Again, this is about a photo of a 3-D artwork, not a mechanical copy. It is interesting to note that, in this Supreme Court's explanation quoted here, it is indicated that the interpretation of "reasonable range and methods" in the previous bullet point is in line with the Berne Convention's "fair use", and a duplicate of an image is less likely to be considered "fair use" than other more typical examples of freedom of panorama.
It is therefore clear that under China's laws and regulations, reusing FoP work has to be within the range of "fair use". And also according to Commons' official policy COM:FU we do not accept fair use media files including reproductions of other copyrighted works, especially for such a blatant case of duplicating a copyrighted work.
--Wcam (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Copyrighted by Zhang Zhenshi (1914–1992). Mao Zedong portrait attributed to Zhang Zhenshi and a committee of artists (see [4]). Marked as a copyvio. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete The picture is still under the copyright of its creator who only died in 1992, and FoP does not apply as it obviously fails de minimis. Of course it is a shame to lose this iconic picture from Commons, but the bottom line is that it is still under copyright and so has no place on Commons. BabelStone (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Please see the UDEL request by @Techyan: . Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Techyan above.
- Per Supereme People's Court [1995]民他字第38号函 (The Reply on copyright violation case, Zigong Wuxing Lantern Company vs. Zigong Bus Company), The 'Fair use' should meet this:
- 2．该作品是专门为参加灯会创作的，灯会结束后，该作品即被运回存放，不另在公共场所设置或陈列，因而不应将其认定为“设置或者陈列在公共场所的艺术作品”（Quoted from [1995]民他字第38号函）
- 2. The work was created specifically for the Lantern Festival. After the Lantern Festival, the work is shipped back to the store and is not set up or displayed in public places. Therefore, it should not be identified as 'art works set up or displayed in public places'.
- This reply means that as long as a work was not put in the outdoor public space for short-term display uses, it meets the definition of 'art works set up or displayed in public places'. As we all know, this work is put on Tian'anmen for a long time and is used for long-term display uses.
- Although it is WMF's official opinion that an unmodified photocopy is not an artistic work; however, it is true that it is the artistic work regulated under Chinese law.
- Please also see Duan and Hou vs. Jitong Network Guangdong Branch and Wang Juxian vs. Shaoxin Water Resources Bureau & Shaoxin Shencai Printing Co.,Ltd..
- --WQL (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Per Supereme People's Court [1995]民他字第38号函 (The Reply on copyright violation case, Zigong Wuxing Lantern Company vs. Zigong Bus Company), The 'Fair use' should meet this:
- I do not question the 'art works set up or displayed in public places' part of the issue. Regarding the two cases you mentioned, it is clear that photos of sculptures can be commercially reused. The evidence you provided by no means support your conclusion to keep this Mao Zedong portrait image. --Wcam (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously you didn't read two cases I mentioned. I have checked the news, since Wang vs Shaoxing Water Resource Bureau involves some photos of some 2-D paintings permanently carved on stones as it is, and just the same situation as you take the photo of the portrait. As the file you quoted, the supreme Court never treat this kind of photography as violating any rights of copyright holder. --WQL (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is a 2D (painting) to 3D (sculpture) to 2D (photo) situation. Court decision determined the sculpture to be a creative derivative work with originality (涉案雕塑作品系通过改变原绘画作品表现形式而创作出的具有独创性的演绎作品), thus the photo is not a mechanical copy of the original painting. This is still a very different case. --Wcam (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- I should make my opinion clear:
- First of all, the original portrait shall be treated as a 'service work' of Beijing Art Company, since it is mainly created by the material and technical conditions of the legal person (Beijing Art Company) for its employees' work tasks, and is held by legal persons or unincorporated units. According to Beijing Morning News (北京晨报), painters are all comes from this company and all portraits you see in this photo are duplications of a painting in 1967 by Wang Guodong as-it-is. So, the copyright protection was expired on 31 Dec 2017 and the original portrait is in public domain.
- Secondly, the Copyright law has said,
Article 21 The exploitation of a published work which may be exploited without permission from the copyright owner in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law shall not impair the normal exploitation of the work concerned, nor unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright owner.
- Anyone with a little knowledge of copyright law knows that fair use in the concept of law does affect the property rights in copyright, and does not in any way affect the personal rights of the work. In the laws of the People's Republic of China, the property rights of the work refer to the right of reproduction, distribution, rental, exhibition, performance, screening, broadcasting, information network communication, filming, adaptation, translation, and compilation; The author's personal rights refer to the right to publish, sign, modify, and protect the integrity of the work.
- Thirdly, Based on the definition of fair use mentioned above, according to Article 22 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, as long as the author's right of authorship is guaranteed, anyone can photograph and copy-paint the paintings displayed outdoors without infringing the author's copyright, and, who takes the photograph can execute their own copyrights, including the right of reproduction, distribution, rental, exhibition, performance, screening, broadcasting, information network communication, filming, adaptation, translation, and compilation, without the origin authors' permission.
- Fourthly, Among all the civil laws of the People's Republic of China, the most important principle is the principle of Public Order and Good Custom, and the copyright law is no exception. As you can see, the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright refers to the view that,
[p]eople who copy, paint, photograph, or video the works of art prescribed in the preceding paragraph may The use of reasonable methods and scope does not constitute infringement.
- Where reasonable grounds and scope are not clearly defined, this reasonable method and scope cannot be viewed only by the copyright law. Articles 8 and 10 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China make provisions on the principle of Public Order and Good Custom. From the perspective of fair use, the art works displayed outdoors (remarks: apparently containing two-dimensional works of art under the laws of the People’s Republic of China) have obvious properties of public welfare, and they could be copied in a reasonable way (painting, photography, copying) with the respect for the author's moral rights, which apparently does not violate the principle of public order and good customs. Following the principle of public order and good custom is a necessary condition for all civil acts in the People’s Republic of China to be legal. This principle is obviously shown in Letter of the Supreme People's Court concerning the reply to the "Report on the Request for Infringement of Copyright Disputes between Shandong Tianyi Advertising Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Hisense Communications Co., Ltd." of the Shandong Provincial Higher People's Court (a.k.a the Letter on The Wind of May). In the Letter on The Wind of May, the Supreme People's court consider the commercial use of the FoP works legal. So do this case -- I must underline that The copyright law of the People's Republic of China never do distinguish whether the art work is two-dimensional or three-dimensional.
- In addition, it should be noted that, as far as I know, there are only Public Order and Good Custom principles in the civil law of the People's Republic of China that limit "reasonable approach and scope" in this case.
- Finally, regardless of whether you take a picture of the work, where is the portrait of Mao Zedong, the act of taking photos alone is obviously not enough to damage the work (unless you go and pour ink onto this portrait, of course this is a criminal act), also obviously it is impossible to make any infringement of the author’s personal rights (as mentioned above, according to the panoramic freedom clause of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China and related judicial interpretations, the author’s copyright property rights are not protected under this circumstance), so there is no such situation in which Wcam claims to "unreasonably damage the legitimate interests of the copyright owner". Moreover, under some circumstances, the photographer may not even perform the obligation to sign the original work without violating the authors’ rights since the author and title of the work is not mentioned.
如前所述，我国著作权法在免除社会公众在对室外公共场所雕塑进行临摹、摄影时需征得作者许可和支付报酬的义务的同时，赋予其应指明作者姓名和作品名称的义务。在一般情况下，社会公众只能依靠该室外艺术作品本身的标注来确认作者姓名和作品名称，而没有另行核实的义务。
As mentioned above, China's Copyright Law exempts the public from the obligation to authorize the author's name and the name of the work while exempting the author from the obligation to authorize and pay for the copying of the sculpture in the outdoor public place. Under normal circumstances, the public can only rely on the annotation of the outdoor art work itself to confirm the author's name and the name of the work without any obligation to verify.
——Wang Juxian vs. Shaoxin Water Resources Bureau & Shaoxin Shencai Printing Co.,Ltd., the Supreme People's Court, （2013）民提字第15号 - Above all, taking a photograph of the Mao Zedong Portrait on Tian'anmen and upload it to Wikimedia Commons neither violates others' copyright, nor violates the policies and guidelines of Wikimedia Commons. As long as the principle of Public Order and Good Custom is followed, we can always take the photo of all outdoor 2-D and 3-D art works for long-term exhibition uses in a "reasonable approach and scope".
- --WQL (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- I should make my opinion clear:
- This is a 2D (painting) to 3D (sculpture) to 2D (photo) situation. Court decision determined the sculpture to be a creative derivative work with originality (涉案雕塑作品系通过改变原绘画作品表现形式而创作出的具有独创性的演绎作品), thus the photo is not a mechanical copy of the original painting. This is still a very different case. --Wcam (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Techyan and WQL. According to current law in China, the portrait can be used freely.--Panzer VI-II (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- According to the law, it can't. 《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》第二十一条 依照著作权法有关规定，使用可以不经著作权人许可的已经发表的作品的，不得影响该作品的正常使用，也不得不合理地损害著作权人的合法利益。--Wcam (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep:该图片符合著作权法规定，可以在维基媒体计划中使用。Jyxyl9 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: After reading all of the above I'm simply not convinced that Chinese freedom of panorama exemptions restrict the use of this image that is publicly displayed in a permanent manner in a place open and accessible to the public. In addition, Chinese FoP explicitly allows for the reproduction of artistic works provided the original author is attributed. This requirement has been fulfilled. Wcam's rationale that this violates the author's article 21 rights is simply supposition without clear court cases or information to back up their claim. While a crop of otherwise FoP exempt images, such as the full shot File:Tiananmen beijing Panorama.jpg, would need consideration what we have on Chinese copyright law appears to allow such a thing due to the "artistic works" language. Finally, WQL's rebuttal of the nominator's claims were convincing. --Majora (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Nominating this image again to present new evidence supporting its deletion. As the closing admin of the previous DR mentioned a lack of court cases, User:Teetrition has recently discovered a court case where the commercial use of a photograph of a 2D artwork displayed on an outdoor billboard on the moon cake packaging were ruled to be infringing the copyright of said artwork. Therefore, commercial reuse of 2D artworks displayed permanently outdoor (as is the case of the image in question) would face imminent and serious copyright consequences, thus is against COM:L. Wcam (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete Besides the case above, though still pending, the draft of Copyright Law of PRC (2014) gives a new proviso that art works in public places cannot be used in the same form of the original work, which is also a view shared by many famous professors of IP law in China and they have made the same interpretation to the provision of the current law (2020). And, FYI, see Commons_talk:Copyright_rules_by_territory/China#FoP: court rules use of photo of an outdoor sculpture on postcards as infringement. Teetrition (talk) 14:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- And, another court case (2020) ruled by Beijing IP court said,
对此本院认为……著作权人对平面美术作品正常使用的方式相对单一，即自行或授权他人复制作品、在原作品基础上创作演绎作品再加以商业利用。如果认为只要一幅平面美术作品被置于公共场所，他人就可以在拍摄、绘画或临摹之后随意进行商业性使用，势必会严重影响美术作品著作权人对他人发放许可，并威胁到其收入来源，会构成与美术作品正常使用方式的冲突和影响著作权人的合法利益。
The Court believes that the general use of 2D art works by copyright owners is relatively simple, that is, copying works, creating derivative works on the basis of the original works for commercial use or authorizing others to do so. If a 2D art work is displayed in a public place, others can freely use it for commercial purposes after photographing, drawing or copying, the licensing and copyright owner's income will be seriously threatened, then the normal use of the work will be affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner will be prejudiced.- So the file (File:Mao Zedong portrait.jpg) cannot be used freely because Article 24 of the Copyright Law of PRC read,
In the following cases, a work may be used without permission of, and without payment of remuneration to the copyright owner, provided that the name or appellation of the author and the title of the work are indicated, the normal use of the work is not affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner are not unreasonably prejudiced:
(10) copying, drawing, photographing or video-recording of a work of art put up or displayed in public places;- --Teetrition (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, per 《中华人民共和国最高人民法院民事判决书》（2013）民提字第15号 ruled by Supreme People's Court:
本案中，王巨贤为《康乾驻跸碑》等十一幅雕塑作品的原绘画作者，并授权东方公司使用其作品制作雕塑作品。……根据著作权法第二十二条第（十）项的规定，这种使用方式可以不经著作权人许可，不支付报酬，但应当指明作者姓名、作品名称。对于设置或者陈列于室外公共场所的包括雕塑在内的艺术作品允许他人未经许可以临摹、绘画、摄影、录像等方式进行使用，包括对所形成的成果以合理的方式和范围再行使用，是我国著作权法及相关司法解释规定的合理使用方式的一种。对设置在室外公共场所的艺术作品，由于其可能已构成了户外环境的一部分，如果要求社会公众相关的临摹等活动都需经过著作权人的许可，显然对公众的自由限制过大，而且客观上无法实现，故对该类艺术作品的著作权进行一定的限制，也是各国著作权法的通例。
In this case, Wang Juxian was the original painter of eleven sculptures including "The Stele of Kang Gan's Residence", and authorized Dongfang Company to use his works to make sculptures. ... According to the provisions of Article 22 (10) of the Copyright Law, this method of use may be used without the permission of the copyright owner and without payment of remuneration, but the name of the author and the title of the work should be specified. For artistic works including sculptures set up or displayed in outdoor public places, others are allowed to copy, paint, photograph, video, etc. without permission, including re-use of the results in a reasonable manner and scope, it is one of the fair use methods stipulated in our country's Copyright Law and related judicial interpretations. For works of art set up in outdoor public places, since they may have formed part of the outdoor environment, if the copying and other activities related to the public are required to obtain the permission of the copyright owner, it is obviously too restrictive to the freedom of the public, and objectively It cannot be realized, so it is also a general practice of copyright laws of various countries to impose certain restrictions on the copyright of such works of art.
- Obviously, in 2013, Supreme People's Court did not opposite that a painting was remade into another photo through the 2D->3D->2D way. ---Njzjz (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: @Njzjz, please note that in the case you gave, the original painting is not displayed in a public place and the original painting's copyright owner authorized Dongfang Company to make sculpture using the painting (so the sculpture's copyright owner is probably Dongfang Co. instead of the painting's author). And what is displayed in the public place is the sculpture (instead of the painting). We DO agree that one can take the photo of a sculpture and use it freely and even commercially!
- The draft of the Copyright Law of PRC (2014) and many professors in IP law who think one cannot reproduce and use the art work in the same form as the original work also hold the views that one CAN take a photo of a sculpture and use it commercially without copyright owner's permission. So you have to give a 2D to 2D case, instead of a 3D to 2D case (or 2D -> 3D -> 2D, 2D -> 2D -> 3D -> 2D, …… -> 3D -> 2D) to rebut the nomination. Many people have made the same mistake in previous talks that they've used 3D to 2D cases to rebut the nomination.
- And, 2 cases given above both ruled that one cannot use the picture of a 2D art work, which is sufficient to prove that one using the picture of a 2D art work is at risk. Teetrition (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
- What I want to point is that Mao Zedong portrait (2D) is a main part of Tian'anmen (3D). When you take a photo of Tiananmen, you have to also include Mao Zedong portrait in the photo. This is more like Wang Juxian's case, where his 2D work is also a part of 3D work. I will support you if Mao Zedong portrait is not a main part of any 3D buildings but just put outside.--Njzjz (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- If the file nominated for deletion was the panorama view of Tiananmen including the portrait, I would definitely vote {{Vk}}. See COM:DM.
- However, the file is the Mao portrait which faithfully reproduced the painting at the Tiananmen gate.
- And, few 2D art works are just put outside. They are usually a part of a building or a 3D object! Moreover, the Copyright Law was amended in 2020 and indoor art works were added to the FoP provision. Can I upload a copyrighted painting displayed in a gallery to Commons because the painting is a part of the gallery building? The answer is obviously no.
- And, in Wang Juxian's case, the defendant take the picture of the sculpture instead of the original painting. The sculpture is a derivative work and there is an independent copyright. The original 2D work is not a part of the sculpture though the sculpture is made on the basis of the painting! Teetrition (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC), modified at 08:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- So, do you think File:Chairman_Mao.jpg and File:ForbiddenCity_MaoZedongPortrait_(pixinn.net).jpg is OK, when other parts of the building is also included in the photo? Njzjz (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think they are OK, and these files cannot be further cropped. Although they may not meet COM:DM, there are no de minimis standard in mainland China, professors and courts of PRC usually judge by the originality and use of these FoP photos. Teetrition (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- So, do you think File:Chairman_Mao.jpg and File:ForbiddenCity_MaoZedongPortrait_(pixinn.net).jpg is OK, when other parts of the building is also included in the photo? Njzjz (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- What I want to point is that Mao Zedong portrait (2D) is a main part of Tian'anmen (3D). When you take a photo of Tiananmen, you have to also include Mao Zedong portrait in the photo. This is more like Wang Juxian's case, where his 2D work is also a part of 3D work. I will support you if Mao Zedong portrait is not a main part of any 3D buildings but just put outside.--Njzjz (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, this is no longer bound for Chinese FOP, regardless of attribution or commercial/non-commercial use. Essentially this is already a "freedom of faithful reproduction" and not "freedom of panorama" to me; no more presence of frames and at least a few meters of the walls of Tiananmen (if not the whole building). This means the normal use of the work has been affected and the legitimate rights and interests enjoyed by the copyright owner has been unreasonably prejudiced (rewording the clause at the Chinese law). Some non-commercial uses may have been affected too by this exact reproduction. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment zhwikisource was having several bunches of discussions in regard to CPC works, and it looks like {{PD-PRC-exempt}} may apply to those if they're from central organizations of CPC (or do we need a fork of s:zh:Template:PD-PRC-CPC?), but if not from central, I don't against it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is just a portrait by Zhang Zhenshi (w:zh:张振仕). s:zh:Template:PD-PRC-CPC only applies to CPC documents (text). Teetrition (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- And, because this portrait is not a part of a document of legislative, administrative or judicial nature, {{PD-PRC-exempt}} cannot apply here, I think. Teetrition (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per the precautionary principle. From what I gathered this is mainly about the question if Chinese FoP allows you to isolate works that are displayed outside, showing only that work, or if it only allows to show those works as part of a panoramic view. Apparently there's case law and legal commentary supporting the latter, and the Supreme Court decision cited is not about this exact question. So I have serious doubts if Chinese FoP allows this file, and have therefore decided to delete it per the precautionary principle. If you disagree, you can (once again) try to argue the case at COM:UNDEL. We have a named author of this painting who died in 1992, and the People's Republic of China has 50 years pma, so the file can be restored in 2043. --Rosenzweig τ 20:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Claimed to be PD-old but there is no source and thus no evidence that the creator died in 1939 or earlier to qualify for PD-old. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Looks like {{PD-anon-70}} would be more appropriate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- The problem being that there's no way to know if it's anonymously created or not because there's no source. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Tineye finds it in seven places, several of which are linked to the Commons image. None of them have a credit or a copyright. The Vatican web site uses a different photo. Does anyone actually know the Vatican copyright rules? Although there's some risk, I'd be inclined to keep it, on the grounds that if the photographer were 40 when the picture was taken, and died before age 70 (long after the expectation then), it would 70 years since death. I agree with Howcheng that {{PD-anon-70}} is not appropriate because it's almost certainly not anonymous. Whoever has the original photo knows who took it, because it almost certainly has a professional photographer's stamp on the back.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing that matters is whether it was published with the name of the photographer, which would not have been common at the time. Of File:PiusX, Bain.jpg, NARA has the negative, but even in that case, the photographer is unknown. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- Vatican rules are that where the Vatican doesn't have a rule, the Italian rule applies. And the only Vatican rule on copyright is that anything written by the Pope is perpetually copyrighted in the Vatican. So 70 years pma applies. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Common practice or not, Pieter, we have no idea because there's no source. howcheng {chat} 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete No source, no Commons. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no source and thus no way to verify public domain status. Kameraad Pjotr 15:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this may qualify for {{Anonymous-EU}} in 2039, but it's not PD right now. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. BTW, the image is not tagged with PD but with PD-ineligible. See simply the talk Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SocAnoOkNe.jpg from 2007. -jkb- (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- That's a very surprising comment from ALE, whom I think would know better. PD-ineligible applies to images that have no real creative aspects to them, like File:Schwa IPA symbol.svg. This poster is definitely eligible for copyright. howcheng {chat} 07:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Anonymous works are protected in the EU for 70 years and not ineligible for copyright. delete. Kragenfaultier (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- keep das hat doch keine SH --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Du vergisst erneut, dass es hier nach den USA-Maßstäben geht, nicht nach DACH. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- No, local standards apply, see File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg; this is Czech. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
- Du vergisst erneut, dass es hier nach den USA-Maßstäben geht, nicht nach DACH. Grüße, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, no valid reason presented why this is PD. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, far too complicated for {{PD-ineligible}}, no other reason for PD-status. Kameraad Pjotr 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
not sure it's own work, not sure Christan de Pescara is the only owner Bapti ✉ 09:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Is your deep distrust based on anything? Or is this just harassrent? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
not sure it's own work, not sure Christan de Pescara is the only owner Bapti ✉ 09:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Keep This is a technical graph, therefore it is ineligible for copyright anyway. --PaterMcFly (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Kept, AGF on uploaders behalf. Kameraad Pjotr 17:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Keenmediath
[edit]Claims to have an OTRS but there is no link to an OTRS and I could not find one. User is not active so a ordenary NPD would be the same as a speedy. --MGA73 (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC) I forgot the list:
- File:Anantara properties.jpg
- File:Anantara Spa at Veli.jpg
- File:Dhoni Bar and pool.jpg
- File:Beach Front Villa.jpg
- File:Over-water bungalows.jpg
--MGA73 (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Seems pretty obvious to me--DieBuche (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Rechecked and nothing. OTRS tickets should only be added by volunteers ZooFari 19:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)