Commons:Deletion requests/File:ThomasKinkadeOct2005.jpg
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.
Derivative work of the painting, which is obviously one of the primary focuses of the image. The PD-USGov tag appears to only apply to the photograph - I don't believe Kinkade was ever a federal employee. Suggest {{Fair use delete}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep I have to strongly disagree about the focus; it's at least arguable that the uploader wanted to provide an available likeness of Kinkade. By the way, the source has now been moved to a different page at the Department of Defense website (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=18000) and shows the original picture has been somewhat cropped to remove a woman (Kinkade's wife?) standing next to him. If showing the painting at all--which I think is OK because it's relatively low-res--is not acceptable, perhaps this could be cropped further just to show Kinkade's face as a means of visual identification? I feel there is value in having an image of the late painter in Wikimedia Commons which at least one recent news story has utilized (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2129383/Beloved-painter-light-artist-died-aged-54-sleep-relapsed-alcoholism.html?ICO=most_read_module) and value lost if it gets removed. - MollyTheCat (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep The suggestion that it is a "derivative work of a painting" is utterly absurd, Dcoetzee. It's a photo of Thomas Kinkade holding what appears to be a painting; he could also be holding a framed print copy of one of his paintings. Furthermore, it's not the complete painting, but a portion of a painting, with considerable perspective distortion due to the way Kinkade is holding the frame. By your rationale, if someone were to walk into a museum and snap a picture of a copyrighted work of art and donate that image to Wikimedia Commons and put the snapshot into the public domain, it would somehow violate the copyright of the original work of art. Wrong! You are completely misinterpreting Wikipedia copyright policy. It would benefit us all if you would review the policies carefully and refrain from proposing deletions of files in the future based on such flimsy reasoning. —Quicksilver@ 19:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- "By your rationale, if someone were to walk into a museum and snap a picture of a copyrighted work of art and donate that image to Wikimedia Commons and put the snapshot into the public domain, it would somehow violate the copyright of the original work of art." Indeed it would! Please read Commons:Derivative works thoroughly. We delete such photographs routinely. This work would be fine if the photo were cropped to eliminate most of the painting (under Commons:De minimis), which is an acceptable alternative to deletion. In either case I think the original version should be copied to enwp as a fair use candidate. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly DW of the painting. BTW, it does not matter if it is the original or a reporduction of the painting, it is still a DW of the painting. The fact that it shows only part of the painting is also irrelevant -- an image showing only a small detail is still a DW. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
