Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amitabha Buddha Sukhavati Dunhuang Mogao Caves.jpeg
This is a photo of a modern reproduction, therefore it is not a Public Domain work of art as stated on the license. This art was displayed as a part of a 2009 art show that can be seen using the "source" link on this Commons page, Please, click on the additional link on that flickr source page that reads (quotation), "This photo is in 1 album 再現敦煌 大型敦煌復原壁畫公益展（The Exhibition of restoration replicas of the Dunhuang murals） 33 items." This secondary link shows all 33 photos in a art gallery- not in the Mogao Caves- not in Dunhuang, Xinjiang. There is no mention of this being a reproduction. It is instead misleading, except for the fact of the new, bright colors of new paint. Also, this source link flickr page says, Copyright- "all rights reserved" Tibet Nation (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- it seems to me that the exhibits were faithful replicas of murals in Dunhuang. whether re-colouring murals can qualify for copyright, i dont know. photographer cannot claim copyright since his/her shot was merely a copy of the mural.--Roy17 (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: The US Supreme Court has already ruled that a work can be transformative without altering or actually adding to the work. I would imagine that recoloring of this extensive nature could qualify. Sure, only the chosen colors would be copyrighted but that would still present problems for us here. As Roy17 stated, it is a vagueness within copyright law and that's not even getting into Chinese copyright law. Since this has been open for so long and there really hasn't been any discussion on it coupled with the potential for problems I'm going to land on the side of a precautionary deletion here. --Majora (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
