Commons:Deletion requests/File:Funny head.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.
derivative work; the copyright belongs to the tattoo artist, or possibly to the tattooed person. –Tryphon☂ 09:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep If we are so strict we should delete allmost all the picture from Category:Tattoos. I think that it is an utilitarian art and should be treated like a kind of costume... See -> Template:Costume. Electron <Talk?> 09:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment If we go that way of thinking like Tryphon it can be impossible to take photos of people with tattoos on the whole - because they are stayed copyrighted :) Electron <Talk?> 09:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- De minimis applies in some cases. But here, it's clearly the main focus of the picture. –Tryphon☂ 10:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK. But in your opinion it is a good way of thinking that painted people are copyrigted? So, allmost all women should be copyrigted because they do make up every day... :) The nature is not copyrigted and men are a sort of a part of it. Neverteless they are painted or not. Electron <Talk?> 10:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- BTW. See here -> File:Murzi3.jpg - the woman has very oryginal design on her body. Maybe copyrighted? So you should see all Category:Women of Ethiopia - there are much more such photos... Be serious - copyrights paranoia is not a good thing. Electron <Talk?> 10:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thats traditional design/folklore, as such it is not eligible for copyright and not comparable to the case we have here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you sure that it is tradicional make up? Maybe yes, maybe not... Especially this tattoo on her belly. To say the truth I am not sure it is 70-ty years old design of an unknown artist. 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thats traditional design/folklore, as such it is not eligible for copyright and not comparable to the case we have here. --Martin H. (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, derivative work of copyrighted design. Kameraad Pjotr 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
