Commons:Deletion requests/USA images with FOP issues
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.
USA images with FOP issues
[edit]- File:Phipps - 001.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Phipps - 002.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Phipps - 003.JPG (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
- File:Chiluly at PHX Botanical Garden.jpg (edit · last · history · watch · unwatch · global usage · logs · purge · w · search · links · DR · del · undel · Delinker log)
Hammersoft (talk · contribs) marked these images as copyvios for speedy deletion, as they are not covered by freedom of panorama. However I believe that the regular deletion request process is more suitable in this case. SV1XV (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, as of our deletion guidelines this should be a case of speedy-deletion due to being a clear copyvio. In case of images already staying for some time on Commons, a RFD might be also o.k. out of "psychological reasons" (or just courtesy). On the other hand, we all know the back-log of RFDs and how long some RFDs remain open. This can hardly be tolerated if an image clearly violates copyright law. --Túrelio (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- Can somebody link to relevant policy that justifies their deletion, and also prove that those objects are still copyrighted? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
1) Category:Dale Chihuly is a still living sculptor
2) As of COM:FOP#United States FOP in the US covers only buildings. --Túrelio (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete3xPhipps - specifically taken of the artwork and not the building
KeepBotanical Garden- Not so sure about the Botanical Gardens as it could be claimed that it is the plants that are being photographed and the artwork are incidental, especially as the not all parts of the artwork are visible. +++ If the artwork was undertaken with plants, would it be an artwork or an arrangement, even a floral arrangement,or a floral decoration in a designer artwork vase. It is getting to be a grey area when the artwork is note solely in shot and in focus. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- In the Phipps cases, the works are the subject of the photo. The roof it is suspended from is the incidental part. As for the Phoenix Botanical Garden image, it was previously deleted via a DR. You can't place plants in an artwork and declare the artwork free of copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Delete These should be speedy delete, as they are all blatant copyright violations. There is no freedom of panorama for 3D works of art in the U.S. per US Copyright Act of 1976, § 106(2). --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
sorry, but no FOP here Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)