Commons:Deletion requests/File:NotreDamedeLoretteNapoléon.jpg
This file was initially tagged by Hamish as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.google.com.hk/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiuFoLAELliorAS69o9tK_187sdWuQnS_1LnA2r9muAUwY3nkWG72CIQu-FwwQcYUjzsUXaLqgB9QKzJA0hlza_1Vu6jkwBLSsDVQtbsCYOOThUM-iNXtqknqCDCwA8hKU_1wNOpURsETOZXNgUhba0SOlotuWEr7eFbJdp1UxAokxBJvfSYweZByFPc8eHP9rTP8CwXJyrCYxNmsoSTi4YrXfqKHAmwN5psnqyrotZd41RmpWc-_1744DX2VXZjs-eunsgf3gjhI5QdUrOxHzR-VLbyhFAxUQMqLasv9r4oSvhCeSZDMol-rf1k-wtIe2YfQbpBhSYHaqGMr7wIJesf6b3PmsjATgg&safe=strict&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWypPQ2tHoAhVIIDQIHXasDfUQ9Q8oAHoECAEQJg If this is indeed form the 1790s, it is Public Domain. Storkk (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Storkk: If you were saying "indeed from", I do not consider the photo is made in 1790s, though the objects in it may. However, that does not affect its copyright status. --Hamish (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Storkk: Sorry. Remedy for that failed ping. --Hamish (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hamish: We do not recognize a new copyright on faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works. Please see the policy at COM:PD-Art and the accompanying template {{PD-Art}}. Storkk (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Storkk: Thank you for that. And, Yes, I know that policy. I've read about the article where collected it, and I regard the picture as an reproduction, which does not meet the "simply a faithful" requirement, of the picture above it based on Google Translate. As I see fr-3 in your user page, if you do confirm it's the original publishment or other format that meets the policy, I hope you help me close my silly request. --Hamish (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hamish: your Google link does not take me where you imply it takes you. Could you link to the article itself that leads you to believe that this is a modern reproduction? Storkk (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Storkk: Sure, here. --Hamish (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hamish: clicking the image on that blog takes you to this source, which seems clearly PD... while it's not the same physical object as was reproduced for the upload for us (there's a stain missing on ours), it does appear to be the source document. I'm still not clear why you believe this is a modern reproduction, though. Storkk (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Storkk: Oh, sorry, I really did not click the image. Please kindly close the request. Sorry again for any inconvenience. --Hamish (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hamish: clicking the image on that blog takes you to this source, which seems clearly PD... while it's not the same physical object as was reproduced for the upload for us (there's a stain missing on ours), it does appear to be the source document. I'm still not clear why you believe this is a modern reproduction, though. Storkk (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Storkk: Sure, here. --Hamish (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hamish: your Google link does not take me where you imply it takes you. Could you link to the article itself that leads you to believe that this is a modern reproduction? Storkk (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Storkk: Thank you for that. And, Yes, I know that policy. I've read about the article where collected it, and I regard the picture as an reproduction, which does not meet the "simply a faithful" requirement, of the picture above it based on Google Translate. As I see fr-3 in your user page, if you do confirm it's the original publishment or other format that meets the policy, I hope you help me close my silly request. --Hamish (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Hamish: We do not recognize a new copyright on faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works. Please see the policy at COM:PD-Art and the accompanying template {{PD-Art}}. Storkk (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment I've uploaded a higher res version sourced from Gallica. Storkk (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
