Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leo Gestel dame met sigaret 1911.jpg
Painting is PD per pma +70, but frame is a separate work with no copyright information - see Commons:DW#Casebook. Frame is 3D, so Bridgeman does not apply. Painting could perhaps be cropped out, but is of poor technical quality (slight focus issue, noise, etc.) - discussion is needed. Эlcobbola talk 14:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- File:Rommert Casimir door Isaac Israels.jpg - same issue. Frames must be cropped to be retained.
- Of course I know the picture is not perfect or even bad. But it is a key work of Leo van Gestel, it is not often shown in a location were it is permitted to take a photograph. Yesterday it was in a museum were I was allowed to take pictures. So please retain untill a better version is available. You can crop the frame, but that seems rediculous to me. I saw other pictures with frames. Elly (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- The pictures I have made myself. The copyright of the picture of the frames is given by me in PD or CC, whathever you like. The upload form has no space for adding these special issues. Because I made the pictures, the frames are thus not copyrighted according to this "casebook". Elly (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Read COM:DW - the frames are copyrightable works and not yours to license. Эlcobbola talk 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- The pictures I have made myself. The copyright of the picture of the frames is given by me in PD or CC, whathever you like. The upload form has no space for adding these special issues. Because I made the pictures, the frames are thus not copyrighted according to this "casebook". Elly (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
- Don't delete - at most the frame should be cropped. (However, at a guess the frame looks about as old as the picture, so some investigation would probably show that it's PD too.) --99of9 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Keep but - maybe - crop. There are two issues at hand which shouldn't be confused: In most cases where Bridgeman is invoked here, it's about photos of artworks taken from a third source by the uploader - who isn't the photographer. As it's assumed that photos of 3D objects are copyrightable as works of photography, we delete or crop such photos where a frame is shown, even if the frame itself is very simple and only of a functional kind. So, in these cases it's firstly about the copyright of the photographer, not a possible frame designer's copyright. That's what "Paintings with frames" at Commons:DW#Casebook is about. On the other hand, if the uploader is the photographer, they own the copyright of the photograph, if there is any. Well, in the case discussed here, we have a photograph taken by the uploader, as I think we have no reason to doubt her assertion. This leaves the second issue: Is the frame itself a) copyrightable and if yes, is it b) still copyrighted? We have here a quite ornate frame, so it's probably copyrightable, I'd say (e.g. a simple wooden frame wouldn't be). It looks rather old but a more recent "old-fashioned" creation would be a possibility. So, to be on the safe side, I suggest cropping. It's the only photo of this painting we have at Commons. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Crop the frames... FASTILY (TALK) 00:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
