Commons:Deletion requests/File:Oelsnitz Schloss Voigtsberg Tafel Geschichte.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.

This is an illegal derivative work of this information plate. Those three images that can be seen on it cannot be placed in the public domain. De minimis does not apply because the image resolution is very high - too high in this case. Unless there is no permission by the copyright holders of the images, it is illegal to claim PD for these photographs 93.196.43.149 15:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Please acquaint yourself with the German law before posting untrue statements here. German FOP applies, and basta. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC) PS: By the way, the first two pictures are, of course, in the Public Domain due to age, only for third your (untrue) statement would apply anyway. And you forgot the text: the text ist not to be treated differently from the images (which shows you have not much of an idea of copyright law at all). All are free according to the German law.[reply]

 Delete The one copyrighted photograph (aerial photograph from 2009) makes this file a derivative work: COM:DW. Sadly such things are not covered by the Freedom of panorama of one country. --A.Ceta (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep As Andreas formulated, the text as well as the one photograph could be considered derivative works where it not for Freadom of Panorama. Also the quality of the image is also no criteria. Either it is FOP or it is not. And it is. There is never a distinction beeing made, wether one of the photographs shown on such publicly and permanently installed infopost is of better or worse quality. Both the the applicant and A.Ceta miss the concept of FOP completly. --Wuselig (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Kept. Of course FOP applies. Dschwen (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]