Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wapenbord van François Mitterrand in Stockholm.jpg
copyright violation Meerdervoort (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why? It is a detail of a photo that is allready on Commons. It has been cropped, that is all.
Source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Riddarholmskyrkan_Vapensk%C3%B6ldar.jpg and Author Frankie Fouganthin were mentioned. Robert Prummel (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Derivative of a freely-licensed file, BY-SA fulfilled. Green Giant (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
com:DW. Copyrighted element cropped from a freely licened photograph. While this object may or may not be com:DM in the original it certainly isn't in this file. Previous closing is based upon an invalid argument. There is always a change that the underlying work is PD of course but this needs to be proven. Natuur12 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- That would be strange... the whole foto is free of copyright, a detail would be under copyright! The uploader gave this licence to use the work: license "under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix – to adapt the work" etc. I did just that.
Robert Prummel (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- No it isn't strange. The photograph is free but some elements displayed at the image are copyrighted. In some cases we argue that those elements are de minimis like in the original photograph. But if you crop out the copyrighted element like you did it becomes a derivative of non free content. There are two copyrights involved, those of the photographer (who granted a licence) and those of the "artist" who created the "scuplture/engraving" and that copyright isn't covered. Natuur12 (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- Same as if you took a photo of another photo, you would not become the sould owner of the copyright of your photo then, the subject still has copyright. Josve05a (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Although this image is cropped from a freely-licensed photo, it is nonetheless a derivative work of what is likely a non-free artistic work. It may be de minimis in the source photo, but after a close crop the de minimis principle can no longer be applied. Freedom on panorama in Netherlands is very expansive, covering both 2D and 3D artwork in public locations (including the interior of some public buildings) but the interior of Riddarholm Church does not primarily serve a transit purpose for the general public, so it does not qualify. —RP88 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
