Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paper flowers in vase.jpg
The flickr uploader doesn't certify that he sought a permission by the paper flower designer. This is a derivative work. Teofilo (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Keep Oh my! What next? Copyright of a person arranging flowers? Garden designers? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Paper flowers do not grow in gardens. Teofilo (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- But what keeps you from requesting deletion of Image:Flower-arrangement-funeral-white.jpg? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- These are natural flowers, while paper flowers are like glass flowers (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bellagio chihuly.jpg), created by an artist. I don't see why these flowers would not pass the threshold of originality and not be copyrighted. Teofilo (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- But what keeps you from requesting deletion of Image:Flower-arrangement-funeral-white.jpg? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Paper flowers do not grow in gardens. Teofilo (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Replicas of a public domain object, with no creative input, and furthermore they are a useful article (fake flowers are great for funerals), per Commons:applied art. -Nard the Bard 19:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- A "useful article" is defined as "an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information." Commons:Derivative works. A paper flower "portrays the appearance" of natural flowers. Teofilo (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Flickr page has the tag "handmade". (I also note that the Flickr image is now CC-BY-NC-SA... thank goodness for the FlickreviewR bot!) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Handmade, but the problem is : whose hands ? Teofilo (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to have been made by the Flikr user, hence permission has been granted. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The same Flickr uploader uploads other derivative works and tags them as Creative Commons, without input on who produced the original work : a screenshot, a statue, the same statue with a man (a fuzzy picture with a few letters on the top, perhaps a screenshot), an outdoor wooden sculpture, a frog sculpture, a still life, lion sculptures sculptures depicting strange animals with red eyes, a series of 3 firemen sculptures, a television screenshot, a screen at a lecture at an art gallery. I don't believe that he did all the original works himself. Teofilo (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- The Flickr user tags his photos as "no commercial use". That is also the current license on his paper flowers. I do not know what the license was when it was uploaded. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Kept per pfctdayelise and MichaelMaggs. There was no reason presented why we cannot trust the uploader's tags at Flickr that indicate that these flowers were hand-made and are at his home. It appears very likely that the flowers were made by the uploader himself or by someone who consented to this. COM:PRP requires significant doubt about the freedom before we delete an image on this ground. Teofilo: In the other referenced images I do not see tags which claim that anything of them would have been homemade as in this case. We wouldn't accept these images at Commons but this does not mean that we reject everything else from him. Pieter Kuiper: It is not uncommon that the license at Flickr gets changed. Because of this we trust the FlickreviewR bot who has posted its note on the image page. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
