Commons:Deletion requests/File:Irja Aholainen peilin kautta.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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.

two pictures of Irja Aholainen

[edit]

1939 photography from Finland. This looks like art photography to me (a photograph with the purpose of conveying beauty rather than useful information), so that the longer copyright term (70 years pma) should apply. Teofilo (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of photographic works of art. The criterion for deciding what is a work of art is not whether it conveys beauty rather than mere information, but the originality and personal quality of the image. As the Finnish copyright council said about another image: "The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer and so it can't be considered to be [...] a photographic work." --Jonund (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Irja Aholainen.jpg has perhaps a lesser amount of creativity, but in the case of File:Irja_Aholainen_peilin_kautta.jpg, choosing the angle, choosing to take the picture not directly, but by photographying the image in the mirror looks like the photographer has tried to make a picture that looks different. Teofilo (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Just a press or publicity photo; it may be a bit more artsy than usual, but that is to match the subject; the Finnish copyright council would almost certainly take the same decusion as in this case; just a photographer doing his job. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the olympic games picture, the photographer was not in a position to give directions to the model. In the case of the Irja Aholainen picture, perhaps there were only 3 people in the room, and it was much easier for him to say "don't move" or "put your hand more on the right side" or things like that. The photographer had also probably more liberty to move around the person and choose an angle from where the picture looked nice. Teofilo (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not matter, those are American criteria. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep--Motopark (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Unsure  Weak keep. I came here after seeing Teofilo's request at Commons:Kahvihuone. However, I can't really tell for sure if these images would be considered photographic works or merely simple photographs under Finnish law. All I can say with any confidence is that both of these images seem somewhat more likely to qualify as photographic works than the Paavo Nurmi image, and that of the two, File:Irja Aholainen peilin kautta.jpg probably has a higher chance of doing so than File:Irja Aholainen.jpg. I suspect that they might indeed both be simple photographs, but not all of the reasoning of the Copyright Council in the Paavo Nurmi case necessarily applies quite as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But works have authors; this is just an anonymous picture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point: if these images were indeed originally published without any indication of authorship, that would indeed seem a strong indication that the newspaper at least did not consider them to be works. Changing to "weak keep" on this. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the translation. I linked it at COM:L#Finland. Teofilo (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Dereckson (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Irja_Aholainen_peilin_kautta.jpg&oldid=43623256"