Commons:Deletion requests/File:Basile 1966rac.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This may not qualify as free at this time. Look at the whole image; this is a portion of the cover magazine, El Gráfico, and PD-AR-Photo does not apply for magazine covers, does it? The whole separate photo was derived into a magazine cover, and it may count as a portion of it. Therefore, it is still copyrighted under law of Argentina. If anonymous, its copyright will not expire until December 31, 2016; otherwise, an author is required and must confirm copyright status of this image. George Ho (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are wrong, George. First, this is not a portion of the cover, this is the entire cover itself. And although the cover was cropped, the photograph was taken in 1966 (when this issue of El Grafico was published) so more than 20 years have passed since it was published and therefore does not apply copyright. According with the reasons you are giving, all the covers in Category:El Grafico should be deleted too? Second, Law 11.723, art. 1, refers to "...any method of reproduction of science, literature, didactic or artistic expressions" (including photographies, of course) - source: 11.723. Fma12 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link that you gave me is either dead or wrong. I'll wait for you to give a correct one, while I find the law myself. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- found it: http://www.infoleg.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm. This is Spanish, though. --George Ho (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Your logic: I'm wrong about my reasons for deletion! My logic: unless you have the actual photo that has no derivative materials on the magazine cover, I can't accept this as a stand-alone photo. This image is beyond limits to qualify as a photo; there should be an actually separate lab- or printed photo of this person that was used later in a magazine. --George Ho (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link I gave you is in Spanish, I don't know if there is an English text for this law, but you can search it on the web. You should read the law first to know what it exactly says about copyright before tagging free images. About the photo information, I have added further data (although I have been previosly clear enough about the information provided), and the image does not infringe copyright law, sorry but I don't understand what sort of obsession you seem to have with a simple magazine photo taken in 1966. So please remove the tag or I'll do it myself. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is copyrighted and not considered a photo, then it may have grounds of deletion. Also, please do not remove the nomination tag until it is officially closed. Also, please do not close this nomination page; I have no plans to withdraw this nomination, and let the administrators decide. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- This issue is closed for me. I'm sure enough about the image because of the reasons I explained above. I don't want to continue discussing with a person who has not provided a consistent argument for deletion, although I saw on your talk page you tend to tag files everywhere. Unfortunately you have not read Law 11.723 (not even an English version) and therefore you can't discuss any point about it. Your mistake, not mine. Fma12 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- If it is copyrighted and not considered a photo, then it may have grounds of deletion. Also, please do not remove the nomination tag until it is officially closed. Also, please do not close this nomination page; I have no plans to withdraw this nomination, and let the administrators decide. --George Ho (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link I gave you is in Spanish, I don't know if there is an English text for this law, but you can search it on the web. You should read the law first to know what it exactly says about copyright before tagging free images. About the photo information, I have added further data (although I have been previosly clear enough about the information provided), and the image does not infringe copyright law, sorry but I don't understand what sort of obsession you seem to have with a simple magazine photo taken in 1966. So please remove the tag or I'll do it myself. Thanks. Fma12 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- The link that you gave me is either dead or wrong. I'll wait for you to give a correct one, while I find the law myself. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are wrong, George. First, this is not a portion of the cover, this is the entire cover itself. And although the cover was cropped, the photograph was taken in 1966 (when this issue of El Grafico was published) so more than 20 years have passed since it was published and therefore does not apply copyright. According with the reasons you are giving, all the covers in Category:El Grafico should be deleted too? Second, Law 11.723, art. 1, refers to "...any method of reproduction of science, literature, didactic or artistic expressions" (including photographies, of course) - source: 11.723. Fma12 (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have translated the whole page by Bing Translator. I'm still searching terms of magazine works. Why is this image a photographic work besides reproduced into a magazine? ...Wait, found Article 31 and 35. This is an image of some person, Alfio Basile. Under those articles, if he's living, consent is required to display this image; otherwise, photo has 20 years after death of the pictured person. Right now, he is still living. He has rights of publicity, regardless of publication and creation. Without Basile's consent, this image is unacceptable. However, I cannot find a law about partial materials of periodicals. Still finding... --George Ho (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Art. 34 (original Spanish): "Para las obras fotográficas la duración del derecho de propiedad es de VEINTE (20) años a partir de la fecha de la primera publicación". (into English): "For photographic work, the copyright will be expire after TWENTY (20) years since the date it was first published". In other words: The photo of Basile is 46 years old so any permission from him is not necessary to reproduce the cover. Under your point of view, all images contained in Category:Diego Maradona or Category:Hugo Porta or Category:Guillermo Vilas should be tagged for deletion because they are living persons. Why only Basile counts for you?... So go ahead and make free to tag all those images because all of them would be "unacceptable" according to your reasons. In fact, I have not heard Diego Maradona or Hugo Porta giving their consent to see their old photos published on Commons. Have you? PD: I cited Art. 34 because this is what refers the PD-AR-Photo tag.
- Well, you can read Commons:Personality rights. I wonder: does using an original source for reproduction into Commons require consent? If the person is dead, according to law, permission is required from surviving descendents or ascendents until 20 years after death. If living and missing, then publication is free, right? Even the 20-year-old photo does not nullify pictured person's rights to be publicized. Basile gave permission to have picture of himself published into magazine cover, and that was long ago. Does this person, in any way, give you permission to use the mag cover of Basile for Commons? --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- I ask you the same question than before: Why Basile and not Maradona, Porta, Vilas or whoever? Go ahead with the tags on the pictures of all of them whose photos are published on Commons. I think you have something personal with Basile so your position is difficult to understand, clearly. And it seems to be guided by a caprice, sorry. Fma12 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, but there are some with valid OTRS ticket. {{Personality rights}} can apply to Argentine people. --George Ho (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- As User:Wikiwatcher1 said about Richard Burton file, "PD is the default. Unless there is proof that something is copyrighted, it is PD. It is not necessary to prove PD status for something to be PD, but it is necessary to prove something has a valid copyright for it to be protected by copyright". This resumes all I thing about the file, you and your request. Moreover, if someone nominates a photo for deletion, that person (in this case, YOU) should support the request with clear evidence of copyright. Otherwise, the image is PD by default according to Argentine Law. You can nominate as much files as you wish, or put a lot of templates but Law is clear. If you want to continue tagging files, go ahead! Fma12 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- I ask you the same question than before: Why Basile and not Maradona, Porta, Vilas or whoever? Go ahead with the tags on the pictures of all of them whose photos are published on Commons. I think you have something personal with Basile so your position is difficult to understand, clearly. And it seems to be guided by a caprice, sorry. Fma12 (talk) 04:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, you can read Commons:Personality rights. I wonder: does using an original source for reproduction into Commons require consent? If the person is dead, according to law, permission is required from surviving descendents or ascendents until 20 years after death. If living and missing, then publication is free, right? Even the 20-year-old photo does not nullify pictured person's rights to be publicized. Basile gave permission to have picture of himself published into magazine cover, and that was long ago. Does this person, in any way, give you permission to use the mag cover of Basile for Commons? --George Ho (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
- Art. 34 (original Spanish): "Para las obras fotográficas la duración del derecho de propiedad es de VEINTE (20) años a partir de la fecha de la primera publicación". (into English): "For photographic work, the copyright will be expire after TWENTY (20) years since the date it was first published". In other words: The photo of Basile is 46 years old so any permission from him is not necessary to reproduce the cover. Under your point of view, all images contained in Category:Diego Maradona or Category:Hugo Porta or Category:Guillermo Vilas should be tagged for deletion because they are living persons. Why only Basile counts for you?... So go ahead and make free to tag all those images because all of them would be "unacceptable" according to your reasons. In fact, I have not heard Diego Maradona or Hugo Porta giving their consent to see their old photos published on Commons. Have you? PD: I cited Art. 34 because this is what refers the PD-AR-Photo tag.
Deleted: This is not a photograph, it is a magazine cover. Only photographs have the shorter term. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
