Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peterborough-i sziklafigua.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.

File:Peterborough-i_sziklafigua.jpg

[edit]

More recently taken from w:File:Petroglyphs.jpg, where it was marked PD-art (the pd-self/pd-ineligible templates are incorrect). However, PD-art only applies to 2D art, and with good reason; this is 3D art, and the photo is taken in such a way that it exhibits creativity. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Purely derivative image. Nothing about it suggests that it passes the necessary threshold of creativity to attract copyright protection; it's a faithful photographic copy of a petroglyph. There is nothing here that could give rise to originality, such as choice of viewpoints and lighting arrangements (shadowing, etc.). It's a straight-on photo of a rock surface. As for 2D vs. 3D, this is no more 3D than the raised brushstrokes on a painting like the Mona Lisa render that a 3D piece. A good rule of thumb is that anything that could cast a shadow is 3D. That's not the case here.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Same reasons as above. --Sreejith K (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Same reasons as above. Teemeah (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info - See these google images' results to understand how the original looks like. I would have preferred to kindly ask for permission regardless of copyright status, though I'm not sure who the original author was. I'd say to convince fellow wikimedians around to make photos would be the best... Per the original question I agree that I wouldn't consider this a 3D object. --grin ✎ 21:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info at any rate, it should be renamed to Peterborough-i sziklafigura --Tgr (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: A petroglyph is, by definition, a rock carving. Therefore it is 3D, just as a coin is 3D. Certainly the choice of lighting direction will change the image -- flat lighting will de-emphasize the depth, lighting from the side will emphasize it.

Skeezix1000 correctly says, above:

" A good rule of thumb is that anything that could cast a shadow is 3D."

This work, if lighted from the side, will cast a shadow into itself and is, by that definition, 3D.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Peterborough-i_sziklafigua.jpg&oldid=52519632"