Commons:Deletion requests/National Portrait Gallery images (first set)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

[edit]

Not public domain in source country. See Commons:Bad sources and Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#According to these guidelines, all National Portrait Gallery images must be deleted from the Commons. At least 500 images will have to be deleted eventually. This is something of a trail run with a small set. I am currently nominating the following images for deletion:

Uploaders have been notified.

Kaldari (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

btw, all of these images are OK under US law, alone, so can be kept if transwikied to the English Wikipedia which does not care about UK law as Commons does. Before any mass-deletion is done time should be allowed for all the images to be copied over to any Wiki which is able to host them. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Info: Could you explain, to those that are not legal experts of British law, what is the problem with those images. I assume that painting itself is in PD. So I guess the photographs of paintings are not necessarily PD in GB, the way they are in US. I assume that if a Commons contributor goes to National Portrait Gallery and takes a photo of this same painting than such image, would be OK on Commons. Is my understanding correct? --Jarekt (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaldari: The nominated images are all older than 167 years... The author of the image Image:Priestley.jpg - en:Ellen Sharples - died in 1849. This is more than 70 years ago... She was from the USA, so in this case the country of origin are the USA. And there, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author.
The author of the image Image:Marywollstonecraft.jpg - en:John Opie - died in 1807 and was from Cornwall.
The author of the image Image:RothwellMaryShelley.jpg - en:Richard Rothwell - died in 1886 and was from Ireland.
I couldn´t find something about the author of the image Image:CHANDOS3.jpg - John Taylor. But this image is from about 1610, so it´s hardly still copyrighted...
Conclusion: The nomainated images are all free and so there is no need to delete them. Chaddy (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed the point. There are (possibly) two copyrights here: 1) the portraits themselves and 2) the photographs thereof. Obviously the portraits are all PD. The photographs, however, are presumed to have been taken in the U.K. and, since Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is only applicable in the United States, the question is whether the photographs have sufficient artistic input (lighting, filters, etc.) as to be eligible for protection themselves. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the file Image:CHANDOS3.jpg really from the museum website? The portion that says so was added at a later date by a different user [1], and the image here does not like the same file. --Rosenzweig (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only if we are certain that the reproduction photographs were taken in the UK and are still copyrighted. If the images come straight from the museum's website, one may assume that. In case of the Chandos image, I'm not so sure. --Rosenzweig (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See reply below. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The position of the Wikimedia Foundation is quite clear: "[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes" (Erik Moeller at foundation-l). --Histo (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, I wondered if you would bring up this favourite quote. Unfortunately, it does not help, even if Moeller was in fact intending to override longstanding Commons policy (which I doubt). Firstly, if you read the thread you will see that the comment was made in response to the closure of a DR relating to Darwin Online images as "delete". That DR has since been re-opened and closed as "keep", and Commons policy has been changed accordingly. Secondly, the previous posting to which he was replying quoted Lord Oliver in Interlego as saying "But copying, per se, however much skill and labour may be devoted to the process cannot make an original work". As explained at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#Reply to call for revision, that quote has since been explicitly disapproved by the Court of Appeal in the later Sawkins case. It is not wrong, but it applies in narrow circumstances only such as where an engineering line-drawing has been copied. The Court of Appeal has held that it does not apply in cases such as the present where the photographer has to apply significant skill and labour in setting up lighting, filters and so on. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunetly for us UK copyright law doesn't apply in this case since the images have been published in the US (at least as far as UK law is concernded) That being the case as long as the uploader is in the US I don't expect there to be a problem.Genisock2 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not the case. The UK court will apply UK law because of the nexus between the location of the paintings, the place where the photographs were taken, and the nationality of the copyright owner (almost certainly the NPG). If we apply your argument we could freely choose which country's law we want to use since a website can normally be accessed from almost anywhere. If you always wanted to choose the US, since all our images can be seen there, we would have exactly the same policy as on the English Wikipedia where only US law applies and everything else is ignored. Commons does not have the same policy and we have to take account of UK law as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. For example images in a book may not have been published in the US and not all courts attempt to extend their juristictions as far as UK ones so the published in the US issue would not arrise.Genisock2 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am afraid we have little choice here. Under UK law the photographers of these images have enforceable copyright in the photographs which are considered original works in spite of the fact that they show paintings that are in themselves public domain. I am well aware that this means we have to lose lots of images, but we have no choice given that Commons policy quite clearly requires that all images be free both in the US and in the source country. I am also aware that some users think (hope?) that the case of Bridgeman which allows this type of image under US law applies everywhere in the world, but sadly it does not. I have also heard the argument that UK copyright law should be ignored on the grounds that it is "against common sense" and that it is "stupid" (though, strangely, the same argument is never used when it comes to hosting photos of public statues that are allowed under UK but not under US law). But in fact the UK approach on this is much more typical of the law of Common Law countries than is the US approach. In addition, many other countries would come to the same conclusion but for slightly different reasons (the Nordic countries, Spain). The discussion page mentioned at top of this DR is quite long, but to summarize: there is binding UK case law on the issue. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know who the photographers are? Are they from the UK? --Rosenzweig (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. The photographers of the images on the National Portrait Gallery website will without doubt have been contracted by the gallery to take pictures for that purpose, and to sell on postcards and so on. Just to be clear: it is images grabbed from the National Portrait Gallery website that we are concerned with here. If you have taken a picture yourself there is no copyright problem, and it could be hosted on Commons. This deletion request has nothing to do with the NPG's rules prohibiting photography. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then why do you list this image here? It does not appear to be “grabbed from the National Portrait Gallery website”, as I have already explained above. --Rosenzweig (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been clearer. A scan of a picture purchased from the NPG is as much of a copyright infringement as one taken straight from their website. The reason is the same in each case: under UK law the original photographer created a new copyright when the image was captured, and in order to use the image in any way a licence is needed from the copyright owner. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A website which appears to be accessible from the US thus as far as UK law is concerned published there. If the national gallery didn't want their photos to end up in situations subject to US law perhaps they shouldn't have published the images there.Genisock2 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Please review the discussion above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudo-experts like you should first read the diligent discussion of UK law on this point in Bridgeman v. Corel. I would like to trust more in the NY judge than in an ignorant Mr. Maggs. Commons allows pictures PD in the US and the country of origin. If an US photograph has made pictures in the NPG it is absolutely irrelevant if there are contractual bindings between him and the NPG. This deletion request is absolutely Nonsense --Historiograf (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historiograf, do remember to play nicely with the other children. COM:MELLOW or WP:CIVIL, take your pick. There is no need for insulting people in a Deletion Request, it is an open discussion after all. I think it is fair to say that no one here is a copyright lawyer, we're all trying to do the best that we can. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A really nice example of a DH0-level argument by Historiograf. By the way, is Historiograf the same person as Histo who has already commented above? --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Histo and Historiograf are the same person. And he is also the same as FrobenChristoph, who is also commenting here. -- 193.200.150.23 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof for this allegation (FrobenChristoph)? Chaddy (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reasons for your opinion? The admin who closes this will not be counting votes but will be applying Commons policy and US and UK law. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have any reason that the relevant country of origin UK is. The admin who closes has to respect community consensus. You have not to decide if votes here are valid or not. --FrobenChristoph (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If by "consensus" you mean the number of votes, that is irrelevant. On an issue of law, consensus can never trump the decisions of the copyright courts and Commons policy. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Bridgeman v. Corel considered UK law as well and reasoned "the Court is persuaded that plaintiff's copyright claim would fail even if the governing law were that of the United Kingdom." which means that faithful reproductions of twodimensional works are not copyrighted in UK as well. Since there has not been a known case similar to Bridgeman v. Corel in UK we can use that decision as reasonable hint. Further, the POV of British museums (which rejected Bridgeman v. Corel) is irrelevant because they're just bolstering there obvious commercial interests.--Wiggum (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has ever been cited in a UK case so unlikely to be considered UK law.Genisock2 (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you miss the point - which is that the US court carefully considered UK law, and although it hs no binding precedential value, the logic is excellent, and any ruling to the contrary would need to go contrary to that logic which is unlikely. Trödel (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you may not have not read Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag#Reply to call for revision very carefully. The recent Court of Appeal decision in Hyperion Records v Sawkin puts the issue beyond doubt. Contrary to your belief, UK courts very seldom follow US court decisions and they have simply applied a different logic. The comments of the US judge in Bridgeman as to what he thought UK law would be have been shown by the later Sawkin case to be simply wrong. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. This request seems to be the result of a misunderstanding of british copyright law. The court in the Corel vs. Bridgeman case [2] cites Hugh Laddie, Peter Prescott, & Mary Vitoria, The Modern Law of Copyright and Design § 3.56, at 238 (1995) (see paragraph 30), a treatise on UK copyright, which in essence confirms that a mere 2D reproduction (without any creative input such as a montage) is not eligible for copyright. The National Portrait Gallery can claim as much copyright as they want that doesn't mean they got it. We do not need to resort to common sense here. The works are in the public domain even by UK standards. --Dschwen (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info:. Many people have questioned whether or not we are sure these photographs were originally taken in the UK. For all 4 of these photographs the answer is yes. The Shakespeare portrait was donated to the gallery before the invention of color photography and the gallery has always maintained a monopoly on images of this portrait (or at least tried to). The other 3 images were scans of prints ordered directly from the NPG. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep 2D representations of a public domain 3D object that exhibit no unique artistic presentation seperate from the 3D object are public domain. Not only is it the law, but for once, it's logical and is (or at least should be) common sense. Trödel (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I should preface this question by saying that I don't intend for it to be a contentious question, but an honest one that arose when I looked at these nominated images. Though it probably has no direct bearing on the outcome of this, I do wonder under what circumstances Kaldari first uploaded what were described as better version and color version early in July, then nominated the images for deletion. The original file url for the Image:RothwellMaryShelley.jpg was a lesser quality image from the San Diego State University website and then replaced by the same contributor from malaspina. On July 5, Kaldari replaced that image with an uploaded scan of a print, which says above was ordered directly from the NPG. Now 2 1/2 weeks later, Kaldari has nominated the entire file for deletion. Image:Priestley.jpg and Image:Marywollstonecraft.jpg have similar histories. My direct question is why must these be deleted when the original image sources, not scanned from prints from NPG, and obtained from US websites which have what appears to be older images of the art and, in the absence of direct evidence to the contrary, are not copyright violations? Why are these not restored to the original upload? The original sources are available. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reason may be that before the UK Court of Appeal decision in Sawkin, the UK legal situation was not quite as clear as it is today. A scan of a picture purchased from the NPG is as much of a copyright infringement as one taken from their website. The reason is the same in each case: under UK law the original photographer created a new copyright when the image was captured, and in order to use the image in any way a licence is needed from the copyright owner. Probably nobody noticed the infringement before. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyperion Records v Sawkin: In the end the question is one of degree - how much skill, labour and judgement in the making of the copy is that of the creator of that copy? Both individual creative input and sweat of the brow may be involved and will be factors in the final determination.
  • Jane Ginsberg: [R]eproductions requiring great talent and technical skills may qualify as protectable works of authorship, even if they are copies of pre-existing works. This would be the case for photographic and other high-quality replicas of works of art. I don't see the high quality copies on this wiki. What we have here requires no skill (sorry to the uploader). As much as I appreciate the effort it must have taken to compile this list, I simply don see how it is relevant for the measly portrait scans we have on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check what I said. For three of these images, the original upload had nothing to do with copies purchased from NPG. They were taken from mostly US educational sites and were not, in any stretch of the imagination, of the quality of the scans that are now on those pages that were uploaded by the nominator. I see no argument in this that the original images uploaded were infringements of any photographer's work or gallery's copyright of that work. Why can't the original images be restored and what be removed are the scans Kaldari uploaded in their place? I can understand, and do support, removing scans taken from prints purchased from NPG, but the images first uploaded had nothing to do with that and appear to be images that are quite a bit older, based on the color desaturation in one and the black and white version of another. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. It may be possible to retain the original versions, although I'm rather certain it will never be possible to prove that the NPG doesn't have any copyright claim over them (even the crappy versions). The NPG forbids any unauthorized photography of their paintings and they've had ownership of many of these painting since the 1800s. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership and fobidding unauthorized photography is irrelevant for commons and the copyright status of the work. If someone decides to break the contract (which buying a ticket to the NPG constitutes) and take pictures there to upload them here that does not affect the copyright status of the uploaded work. --Dschwen (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Commons policiy is crap. We should definitely keep images that are in the public domain in pretty much everywhere but one country (i. e. architecture of France, paintings in Britain) and work with disclaimers there. These images are not less free than many coats of arms or pictures of living persons, in pretty much all over the world. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A template "don't use in... because..." will do it perfectly. --Herbert Ortner (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't. See COM:L, in particular, COM:FAIRUSE, which appears to be what you're getting at. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Individual deletion discussions and undeletion discussions are not the place to discuss changes to policy (or policiy). If you wish to change Commons:Licensing to allow Commons to commit copyright infringement for images from countries with whose copyright laws you disagree, that discussion should be conducted at Commons talk:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about high-quality reproductions. Don't believe me take a look at what happens when you try and take a photo of a painting.Genisock2 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, expect an upload after lunch. --Dschwen (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So? Big effing deal ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong? Actually, I find yours to be rather weak argument, like the preceding one who also failed to read Michael's comment above. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you failed to read Mike Godwin's comment--kogo (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had (as I'm not subscribed to that list), so thanks for pointing that out. That's certainly more helpful than the preceding comment. We usually tend to err on the side of caution if the legal situation is "unclear," as Mike describes it. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem you imply that those who disagree with you have not read about this US case. It would seem that this is not true given the discussion above. You're off course free to rebut the arguments as to why Bridgeman does not apply here, but re-iterating points that have already been refuted do not really add much to the discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alkab (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat after me this is not a vote. Please try to maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The short version of my response is that UK lawmakers seriously erred in failing to recognize that the requirement for skill and experience to faithfully reproduce 2D art was merely temporary. I argue that the faithful reproduction of 2D art will soon no longer require any skill or experience whatsoever -- perhaps, potentially no longer requires any skill today.
Off the top of my head I still lean toward complying with a conservative interpretation of the UK law -- while bluntly pointing out its full absurdity to anyone defending the UK law.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the case is clear-cut. Commons policy states that images must be PD in country of origin, and these are not. No amount of arguing american law will change that, as it is British law that makes the determination. Until we change this (frankly stupid) law, hosting these images would be violating copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WMF policy change: *There is also this statement by Jimmy Wales in his personal capacity. The WMF Board is clearly telling us that we can/should ignore UK law in this case, and I agree that the policy should now be re-written to reflect that. They are the ones that may end up being sued and I suppose they must have the final say about what they want on their servers. This position does mean, though, a re-think of another Commons policy that is often quoted: that we keep images that are demonstrably free rather than what we can get away with. Wales's statement, in particular, does appear to encourage the hosting of content that is known to infringe copyright, which I find surprising. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Thanks to MichaelMaggs for sharing his serious concerns with us. I agree that we must consider the laws of the countries of origin and not just the US law perspective. One of the goals of the Commons is, as far as I understand it, wide applicability, i.e. its contents can be in general used world-wide without restrictions beyond those of the licenses (PD, GFDL, CC etc). This makes Commons unique and special. This being said, we still need to be careful in interpreting laws. In this particular case we have diverting informed opinions and none of these opinions have so far been tested in an UK court. (I hope that I do not need to repeat any quotes here that we have, in fact, informed UK law commentaries that point into both directions.) Given this, there is an apparent risk for uploaders and the Wikimedia foundation that they violate UK law. We do not know, however, for sure. In my opinion we shall accept all images even in not 100% safe circumstances when both sides, i.e. the individual uploader and the Wikimedia foundation, are willing to take the risk. The uploaders have obviously taken this risk and, having seen Wales' statement (which I do not find in any way surprising as I share his visions), Wikimedia is apparently likewise accepting this risk. In my opinion, we shall not attempt to overrule them as long as this remains uncontested. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: - FWIW, the WikiMedia Foundation seems to support keeping the images: "...WMF has made it clear that in the absence of even a strong legal complaint, we don't think it's a good idea to dignify such claims of copyright on public domain works." -Erik Moller. Kaldari (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion?

[edit]

I suggest that somebody should close this deletion request as keep and that discussion on how to implement the policy that the WMF Board is suggesting should be continued at Commons talk:When to use the PD-Art tag. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was opened two days ago. I don't think there's a reason to rush a decision, and I think decisions should be based on policy, so if we're going to keep based on something other than the current policy, that policy needs to change first. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I agree with Michael - this request has been overtaken by events. We need to regroup and consider the general issue at a higher level. Haukurth (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I have a modest proposal to resolve this issue (in accordance with the arguments put forth by those who have moved to keep these):
  • We delete all licensing tags. Commons is now a repository of images that we can get away with hosting until we "[face] anything like legal action or a DMCA takedown notice regarding such images", there is no reason for us to be vigilant about copyright anymore. Commons "policiy" is crap. This, of course, only applies if we like an image badly enough, i.e. if any deletion request will be zerg-rushed and hissy-fitted into oblivion by Wikipedians who don't care for the rules on other wikis, i.e. that respecting the law of the country of origin is, and always has been, how things are done around Commons. We'll still want to keep around our deletion requests page, but the only deletion criteria will be how much Wikipedians like the images.
  • Consequently, we need a new name based on our new approach. I'm thinking CommonsTube, or maybe Wikimedr. Though I'm open to discussion on these matters; we also need something in the name that makes it clear that we are also a political activism group making a stand against "copyfraud" and people ZOMG STEALING TEH PUBLIC DOMAINS, and arbitrarily declaring rulings built on decades of legal tradition as "unjust and illegitimate". Courage, comrades.
  • Ditch judgment based on the best arguments (i.e. consensus). No matter how strong the arguments in favour of deletion are, a STRONG keep, which is like a keep vote but with EXTRA VOTING POWER, trumps any argument that even the smartest of people can muster. Remember, if the EXTRA VOTING POWER fails to save the day, then you can always go cry to the Wikimedia board! It's not as if they care for long-standing policy on individual Wikis.
tl;dr fuck those guys, seriously. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the zerg-rushes are a bit grating and the higher-ups do have something of a shoot-from-the-hip style. Nevertheless it has long been clear that our de jure policy in this matter was at odds with our de facto policy and that something would have to give. Hopefully we can work this out without turning the place into CommonsTube. Haukurth (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed a shame that they haven't actually engaged with any of the legal issues surrounding photographic copyright, and instead prefer to repeat the "old paintings are public domain" mantra which nobody has ever disputed. Still, the Board can control what it wants on its own servers, and if we end up with a new policy of "only US-law matters" that probably won't expose the WMF to any new risks. That is already en.W policy, and files uploaded under that policy are I believe stored on the same physical servers as Commons uploads are. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, speaking of insults, those came exclusively from the other side: Pseudo-experts like you ... an ignorant Mr. Maggs. by Historiograf. --Túrelio (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, and you think a discussion style who is reduced to "'fuck those guys" is the correct one. Wow that are the words of a so-called superexpert and deletionist like you. --kogo (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Please calm down and don't make this into something else then just a deletion request. --Kanonkas(talk) 09:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider policy change to apply US law only, for all Commons files

[edit]

Please see a radical proposal I have made at Commons talk:Licensing#Consider policy change to apply US law only, for all Commons files.--MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

inb4 that getting zerged into oblivion too. sigh. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks like Michael's radical proposal isn't getting much traction, I have created a modest compromise proposal. Let me know what you think. Kaldari (talk) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. I would have closed this DR earlier due to the fact that policy changes are supposed to be discussed first, but I wanted to get a more detailed outcome on the basis that current policy was being applied as well. I've waited out the duration of a normal DR, and must conclude that there is no consensus to keep or delete. That would usually result in the discussion being extended indefinitely, but that is really not the case here. This DR has somehow turned into a forum of unusual satire and suggested policy changes, which DRs are not supposed to be, and I'm closing on the basis that policy changes should be discussed first. Should any user retort this closure, please consider contributing to the associated discussions that have been mentioned here. Thank you, O (谈 • висчвын) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (GMT)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/National_Portrait_Gallery_images_(first_set)&oldid=164712538"