Commons:Deletion requests/File:RussianmonumentBangui.png
I'm not sure when this monument was erected; based on its subject matter it was almost certainly less than 50 years ago, probably less than 20. So it is still protected by copyright. Also, per COM:FOP Central African Republic, there is no freedom of panorama for a photograph of a publicly accessible work of art (as this one) in the Central African Republic, which means the file should be deleted. Rosenzweig τ 15:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- From the cited page: "Article 15 allows reproduction for cinematography, radio or television broadcasting of works of art or architecture if placed permanently in a public place or if its inclusion is accessory or incidental to the main subject". This photo is screenshot from Voice of America video and it is placed permanently in a public place so it should qualify under this exception. Borysk5 (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Except it's now an isolated screenshot, offered here as such, so I'd consider it photography, for which there is no exception like the one for cinematography, radio or television broadcasting. Unless someone has clarifying case law or similar, the file should therefore be deleted per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Screenshot of video is not photography. If video is allowed then derivative of this video should also be allowed. The law seems clear to me, I don't see reason to delete. Borysk5 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Borysk5, a screenshot is not photography and if the original video is acceptable then it conforms to existing law. EkoGraf (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Screenshot of video is not photography. If video is allowed then derivative of this video should also be allowed. The law seems clear to me, I don't see reason to delete. Borysk5 (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Except it's now an isolated screenshot, offered here as such, so I'd consider it photography, for which there is no exception like the one for cinematography, radio or television broadcasting. Unless someone has clarifying case law or similar, the file should therefore be deleted per the precautionary principle. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A still from a video effectively becomes a still image, not an audiovisual work. It is very simple. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- I also want to point out to existence of Template:Gouvernement.fr which allows videos but not images. With this template screenshots of videos have been uploaded clearly indicating that derivative of video is not the same as photograph. Borysk5 (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- That template has nothing to do with FOP or law of the Central African Republic. --Rosenzweig τ 10:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, but I was responding to claim that screen from video is "obviously" a photograph. Borysk5 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Borysk5: government's public domain licensing does not overwrite artist's copyright. Commercial license permission from the heirs of monument artist (if he/she is already dead) is required. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, but I was responding to claim that screen from video is "obviously" a photograph. Borysk5 (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- That template has nothing to do with FOP or law of the Central African Republic. --Rosenzweig τ 10:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; @Borysk5: the FOP law allows for photos of a wide area that happen to include to the copyrighted work as a small portion; in the case of this still image, the copyrighted work is the main focus of the image, and as such, FOP does not apply. —howcheng {chat} 20:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
