Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kate Middleton holding Prince George oil painting.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.
Unless Zontal is the painter, I doubt this is a free image. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Zontal is the painter - http://teachingkidsnews.com/2013/10/24/england-baptises-future-king/ and it is signed "Zontal".--Egghead06 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Image: Zontal" can (and usually would) mean that the photograph was taken by Zontal, not that Zontal painted the portait. Take a look at these. Surtsicna (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- As I wrote, the painting is signed Zontal - guess that would mean Zontal painted the painting?--Egghead06 (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Image: Zontal" can (and usually would) mean that the photograph was taken by Zontal, not that Zontal painted the portait. Take a look at these. Surtsicna (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Based on Zoltan's contributions history, the author of the painting and the photograph thereof appears to be Zoltan (Horváth Zoltán from Hungary). It seems they have used another photograph by Getty as a reference image, so Commons:Derivative works may apply. HelenOnline 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree the painting may be Zoltan's but it is a derivative and based on the decision tree in Commons:Derivative works it should not be here as no permission to use the image is shown.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but unless a person who died before 1944 managed to paint a portrait of someone born in 2013, I don't think the tree in Commons:Derivative works has any relevance here. The painter holds the copyright - and even that is not certain, as the painting is obviously identical to photographs that appeared in magazines. It is thus very well possible that the copyright is held neither by "Zoltan" (the guy who supposedly photographed the painting) nor by the painter, but by the guy who photographed Catherine. Whatever the case, this file is certainly not free. It is not even fair use. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- Agree the painting may be Zoltan's but it is a derivative and based on the decision tree in Commons:Derivative works it should not be here as no permission to use the image is shown.--Egghead06 (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
- The decision tree does not say the person has to have died before 1944. There is a yes/no gate! But hey it's a derivative. Let's go back to the blurry and grainy one on offer.--Egghead06 (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think we are all in agreement on this. :) Unless Zoltan took the original photograph (which seems unlikely), the derivative image which is a photograph of a painting of a (probably non-free) photograph is probably not free. HelenOnline 07:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about File:Kate Middleton portrait - oil painted.jpg? Taivo (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is also a derivative of this photograph but I am not sure who took the original photograph and whether the artistic treatment would be considered original. HelenOnline 11:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- On aceshowbiz.com the photo is credited to WENN (image link blocked by spam filter). HelenOnline 11:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Delete Derivative and therefore not licensed for here. LGA talkedits 03:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Painting is DW of Getty photo . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
