Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aerfer Ariete from Flightglobal Archive 1958-0492.jpg
The release from the editor of Flight Global [1] does not appear to be sufficiently free for use on commons -"we retain the right to refuse the reuse of archive material by any third party" - but is only a Wikipedia only license - It is too recent (1958) for :template:Anonymous-EU, and according to Flight, was previously published elsewhere, so there is no evidence that the editor of Flightglobal could release the photo under a free license anway.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Nigel Ish (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed! File should be deleted. Ariadacapo (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- One moment please, I doubt that this photograph was a work of a British photographer but is very likely to be an image supplied directly from Aerfer. From this it follows that the photograph was taken on Italian territory and is assignable in the {{PD-Italy}} license. The Aerfer Ariete was a prototype that flew only in Italy.--Threecharlie (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- PS: I think can find the same photo published in Italy in some different magazines and encyclopedias.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note that {{PD-Italy}} states; "This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products". Would that stop PD-Italy from being applied? - Does it only apply to "simple photographs" of "people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life" or to all "simple photographs"?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nigel, I know your work in en.wiki and I understand you want to protect the project from copyright infringement. I admit that the permission granted by "Flight" does not respect the rules of a EDP even if it seems obvious to me, despite not having the certainty of paternity of the message, its intention to grant permission. However this is a case which falls within the {{PD-Italy}} and cannot find the intention of the photographer to create a work of art. He was, it is reasonable to think, an employee of Aerfer so an Italian who performed an artistic work is not on Italian soil and, naturally, state that the Copyright is valid for a period of 20 years. If we all agreed exchange license photo in PD Italy and avoid cancellation. Thanks for your pacience. :-)--Threecharlie (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note that {{PD-Italy}} states; "This provision shall not apply to photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects, technical drawings and similar products". Would that stop PD-Italy from being applied? - Does it only apply to "simple photographs" of "people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life" or to all "simple photographs"?Nigel Ish (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- PS: I think can find the same photo published in Italy in some different magazines and encyclopedias.--Threecharlie (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- One moment please, I doubt that this photograph was a work of a British photographer but is very likely to be an image supplied directly from Aerfer. From this it follows that the photograph was taken on Italian territory and is assignable in the {{PD-Italy}} license. The Aerfer Ariete was a prototype that flew only in Italy.--Threecharlie (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: In order for the twenty year rule to apply the photograph must be "images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and film frames of film stocks". The twenty year rule does not apply to "photographs of writings, documents, business papers, material objects,, technical drawings and similar products" (emphasis added). Since the subject is definitely not people or natural life, and is a material object, it seems to me that the seventy year rule applies. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
