Commons:Deletion requests/File:Barbara Teller Ornelas rug.jpg
Likely a copyrighted image. It appears on the "Art and Embassies" page with text to the effect of "courtesy of the artist", indicating that the artist holds copyright. She was or is a State department cultural ambassador, but that does not mean she created the work while under State Department employ. What it does indicate is that she worked for State, State asked for an artwork image for her "personnel page", and the artist gave them one ("courtesy of the artist").Possibly (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – I'm sorry, but this is completely ridiculous and a waste of time. Not only is this not "likely a copyrighted image", but it's objectively in the public domain. The context for this nomination is this discussion on Wikipedia, and you can clearly see in the 'Summary' for this image that it's in the public domain. This comes from Ornelas' official personnel page on the Department of State's website ("art.state.gov/personnel/barbara_ornelas") and lacks any mention of copyright. Meanwhile, the Department of State specifically states: "Unless a copyright is indicated, information on State Department websites is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission. Citation of the U.S. State Department as source of the information is appreciated." There is no interpretation where this image's inclusion on Commons is even dubious. For an example of what an indication of copyright looks like on this exact website, please see Tony Ryals' personnel page where the image caption clearly reads: " Courtesy of the artist and Mouth and Foot Painting Artists U.S.A. Image copyright Association Mouth and Foot Painting Artists Worldwide". Meanwhile, the caption for this image reads: "Courtesy of the artist, Navajo Nation, Tucson, Arizona" with no mention of copyright. At this point, the onus is on the nominator to find where copyright is indicated, and if they can't, then this discussion should be closed and the image kept. TheTechnician27 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright is indicated: "courtesy of the artist" is equivalent to the artist giving permission for the reproduction on that page. Anyway, we have both made out positions clear, so it is time for others to weigh in, rather than repeating the discussion.Possibly (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- You say this, yet Ryals' page clearly has "Courtesy of [...]" followed by a sentence explicitly stating "Copyright of [...]", meanwhile Ornelas' rug has "Courtesy of [...]" but no such claim to copyright. Why would the State Department have two allegedly redundant sentences for Ryals but only one for Ornelas? The clear answer is that the "courtesy of" is an attribution not out of legal necessity but out of decency to the author of the work. Literally within the same website we can see examples of what an actual copyright indication looks like, but you refuse to accept this and continue to keep this discussion open. Under the page linked above for Copyright Information on the State Department's website, do you see "courtesy" mentioned? No? Neither do I. I've wasted my time rebutting this bunkum, so please waste some of yours by finding where it says "copyright" on Ornelas' personnel page. TheTechnician27 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please stay civil. Possibly (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- You're right; I apologize. TheTechnician27 (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Please stay civil. Possibly (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- You say this, yet Ryals' page clearly has "Courtesy of [...]" followed by a sentence explicitly stating "Copyright of [...]", meanwhile Ornelas' rug has "Courtesy of [...]" but no such claim to copyright. Why would the State Department have two allegedly redundant sentences for Ryals but only one for Ornelas? The clear answer is that the "courtesy of" is an attribution not out of legal necessity but out of decency to the author of the work. Literally within the same website we can see examples of what an actual copyright indication looks like, but you refuse to accept this and continue to keep this discussion open. Under the page linked above for Copyright Information on the State Department's website, do you see "courtesy" mentioned? No? Neither do I. I've wasted my time rebutting this bunkum, so please waste some of yours by finding where it says "copyright" on Ornelas' personnel page. TheTechnician27 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Copyright is indicated: "courtesy of the artist" is equivalent to the artist giving permission for the reproduction on that page. Anyway, we have both made out positions clear, so it is time for others to weigh in, rather than repeating the discussion.Possibly (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: The image itself does not have a copyright, per Bridgeman. The question here is the copyright for the rug. There is no evidence anywhere that the Ornelas was hired by State as a weaver. Further, we are told that she was asked for an artwork image for her personnel page -- an image of the rug, not the rug itself. That is very strong evidence that the copyright for the rug is hers. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
