Commons:Deletion requests/2009/07/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Contents 1 July 6 1.1 File:Handbag_4.JPG 1.2 File:Portrait of Frank Gehry.jpg 1.3 File:HOLange2.jpg 1.4 File:Dimitrios_Psaros_statue_in_Amfissa.jpg 1.5 File:Dimitrios_Psaros_statue_in_Amfissa.jpg 1.6 File:Karadenizliler_selanik.jpg 1.7 File:Cholargus.JPG 1.8 File:Konstantinos_I_of_greece_Pedion_Areos_Athens.jpg 1.9 Image:FuchsErika.jpg 1.10 Image:Docmorris MeineNeueApotheke.jpg

[edit] July 6

[edit] File:Handbag_4.JPG

Used as a selling tool. Calton (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Do we care? The file is in use. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"We"? Perhaps you don't care that Wikimedia Commons is being used to host someone's spam, but you're not royalty, a newspaper editor, or somone with a tapeworm. --Calton (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep - personal attacks aren't useful arguments. The only "spam" I can see is in the description, and easily removed. The image itself is just an image of a handbag, suitable for many educational uses. Blurring the logo on the label would eliminate all "commercial contamination", if that really matters that much to you. --Latebird (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete - spamtext/link deleted, picture not in use, perhaps better to delete it to disappoint the spammers; sign of the company visible, no problem to get a better picture --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Portrait of Frank Gehry.jpg

This seems to be very close to the Yousuf Karsh case. One LAC source claims copyright by Susan King, restrictions of use: nil. The more general overview of Susan King's work asserts copyright on everything. Due to it being made in 1987, I see no reason why this copyright has expired in the US, even if it has in Canada, and we require US copyright laws to be satisfied, not just those of the originating country. Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No one asserted that the copyright on this image had expired, so this really isn't comparable to the Karsh situation. As is clear from the image description page, Library and Archives Canada indicated on its website that although copyright was held by King, restrictions on its use were nil -- i.e. it was freely licensed by the copyright holder (which, depending on the scope of the license, would make it acceptable here on the Commons). There used to be hundreds of copyrighted "restriction nil" LAC images on the Commons. However, after a series of emails between LAC and Commons editors, it became evident that the licenses under which these images were used did not allow for derivatives (I can located links to the relevant discussions, if you would like). Given that this restriction did not comply with Commons' licensing requirements, these images were either deleted or were migrated over to Wikipedia to be used under a fair use rationale. This image ought to have been deleted or migrated under the great "LAC purge", but was obviously missed. So, I have no objection to deletion, not on the basis of the copyright rationale put forward in the nomination, but rather that the free license is insufficient. --skeezix1000 (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, if you are willing could you locate links to the discussion for me, and either put them here or on my talk page. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (en.wiki) 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The email from LAC is at here. Anything from LAC that is not in the public domain is restricted in terms of derivatives (and re-distribution, apparently, upon re-reading the LAC email). So this image of Gehry is not freely-licensed, at least not in a manner acceptable to the Commons. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also this discussion here from about a year ago. --skeezix1000 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• If evidence can be foudn that our use is allowed, then Keep, otherwise, delete it. 74.76.180.0 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:HOLange2.jpg

PD-Denmark50 is only valid for photographic pictures without artistic merit. This looks like a professional portrait photo with artistic merit. --Nillerdk (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Delete because photo could have been taken in his last years around 1940-1943 and is thus still protected by copyright (maybe until January 1, 2014) Nillerdk (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep {{PD-Denmark50}} applies to all normal photography. This is just a portrait, not a work of art. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are making things too easy now. There is no clearly defined borderline between photographic images and photographic pictures in the relevant Danish law (Lov om Ophavsret - for a English consolidated version, see [1]) and there have been no court decisions regarding this. The best thing we can do, is to compare §1 and §70. If §1 applies, we can't use the shorter term of §70. To be sure we don't make any mistakes, we have to read §1 quite broadly.

It is my opinion that artistic works (§1) include any photography where special attention has been given to elements such as composition, lightsetting and background. Since we have no court decisions, the only sensible way for us to go is to apply this careful interpretation. The short term (§70) should be applied to casual photograhies where the work of the photographer was little more than push the trigger.

We have had at least one case on dawiki recently, where we applied the above careful interpretation ([2]). That outcome was delete.

Does someone have some other interesting views? Nillerdk (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a coordinated Nordic copyright legislation. Photography was protected by separate legislation, because it was very rarely considered a work. This protection was for professional photography, like press photos, advertising photography and normal portraits - the kind of professional stuff where lighting etc was payed attention to. This image of Paavo Nurmi was considered ordinary photography by a Finnish authority. Artistic photographical works would be "artsy" prints, signed by the creator, produced in limited editions. But here we have just Lange sitting in a chair with a book in his hands. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The initiative to make this copyright of short term for photographic pictures might very well originate from the Nordic Council, but the countries have implemented this term independently, because the Nordic countries are independent countries! Why do you think you can apply Finnish court decisions in Denmark? Anyway, I actually think the decision of the Finnish court was very sensible. Anyone could have taken that photo - the composition, light etc. have been chosen by someone else than the photographer.

Another comment: Alone signing a photography definitly does not make it a work! Where do you get this from? Nillerdk (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get it from that just attention to composition, lightsetting and background would make something a work? Have you read any parliamentary documents from the legislative process of these special laws for photography? These laws were coordinated to make life easier for publishers etcetera. The Swedish committee that prepared the 1960 law wrote in its report that "pressfoto och annat reportagefoto, reklam och annat kommersiellt foto, passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering" were examples of ordinary photographs. What I wrote about limited editions with signed and numbered prints comes from a parliamentary discussion about different tax rates for photographers and for artists. It would apply to artists like e.g. Andy Warhole, even when he used photographic methods. But this is just a guy in a chair, a photo without indication of artistic ambitions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, but evidence is still lacking. It would be very useful to reach agreement, so we don't need to repeat this discussion for portraits. Thanks for the quote. However, I don't think this photo belong to the group "passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering" (passport photos and other simple portrait photos). Notice the words annan enklare (other simple) - this is a professional portrait photo from a studio - not just some passport photo made at the police station by an automated process! Here are some Danish proponents for a "careful" interpretation: P. 6 in [3], [4] and [5]. Notice that they propose - as a rule of thumb - to distinghish based on whether the photographer is professional or not. Nillerdk (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a rule of thumb that professional photographers advocate, but it does not make sense. Amateur photographers do not need copyright protection. This legislation was introduced to protect professional photographers. The examples mentioned are press photographers, commercial photographers for advertisement, and simple run-of-the-mill portraits. Passport photos used to be made by a professional photographer, and this is also a routine portrait job. An example of a photographic-work portrait might be Garbo by Goodwin. It has artsy ambitions, and it is signed in the manner of a graphic artist. But this Lange photo is anonymous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In my view it is not important if the photographer is professional or not. And an example mentioned is that if a photo gets "cult status" or become famous it will become a work of art. I can't agree on that. The last link has an interessting point "what if everybody else could have taken a similar picture, is it then it 'just' a photo?". The answer is not a simple "yes" but in my view that could be one of the elements in evalueting if it is a work of art. So putting light on a person is not enough (everyone can do that) but if the light is special then I would say yes. --MGA73 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Well. Since we have no clear law or no clear statements form our courts (that I know) then both could be right. My guess would be that the light is put there on purpose but it could happen that he was just sitting under a lamp. On dawiki we have just had a major cleanup and we deleted in many cases (better safe than sorry). But I would be happy to get some new info so I could disagree with Nillerdk. --MGA73 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Delete Based on a couple of legal experts, it seems to me that Nillerdk is on the right track. Quoting from Birkmann, Anette & Dyekjær, Thomas Maagaard (2006) Håndbog i ophavsret (in Danish), Nyt Juridisk Forlag, p. 64 (in my own slightly rough translation): "Evaluating whether a photograph meets the threshold of originality, includes elements such as composition, the angle of the photo, the choice of scene, perspective, lighting etc.. An independent effort must have been made where multiple options were available. In practice, one will often look at whether the photographer has a professional education and uses photography to make a living. But of course nothing prevents an amateur from creating a photographic work." Quoting from Rosenmeier, Morten (2007) Ophavsret for begyndere (in Danish), Jurist- of Økonomforbundet, p. 52 (also in my own slightly rough translation): "The requirement for originality may be met if the photographer was creative in the choice of scene [...] or there may be originality in the timing [...] There may also be originality in the photographers choice of angle and positioning of the camera, the lighting, arranging the photographed people, depth of field etc.." This is in my view also in agreement with the quote Pieter gave above ("passfoto och annan enklare porträttfotografering") because a passport photo is a photo with very little room for creative input in composition, choice of scene and no room for other advanced portraiture techniques such as using various artefacts to show additional aspects of the person.
  Regarding this photo, it is clearly an arranged composition with the face in the golden section and his body following a diagonal line to the hand holding the book. And while you may argue that using a book to show that he is a librarian is too obvious a choice to be as much a work of art as the Garbo-photo, that as well as the composition are nonetheless deliberate and creative choices where multiple options were available, setting it apart from the likes of passport photos. Hemmingsen (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Based on the same arguments that have been made by Pieter Kuiper above. /FredrikT (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Karadenizliler_selanik.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cholargus.JPG

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! I took the picture with my camera in a public place. Of course, there is such freedom in Greece. I am jurist, and this is the first time I listen to something like that. Could you explain what do you mean, because it makes no sense!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment See COM:FOP#Greece - there is not, photos of artwork are not free for some purposes. --Martin H. (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Could be a copy of an ancient statue. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Konstantinos_I_of_greece_Pedion_Areos_Athens.jpg

No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.171.8 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Nonsense as elsewhere.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Don't know exactly when was the statue built, but the park around it was built in 1934 and that King died in 1923.--The daydreamer (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Delete now there is September, no freedom of panorama in Greece. Iconoclast (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Docmorris MeineNeueApotheke.jpg

File is corrupt -Echtner (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

 Keep Seems fine to me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The file works fine for me as well. The license is questionable, though. The image is borderline PD-Ineligible, but I cannot say whether it crosses that line. If it is eligible, it is copyrighted by DocMorris. Therefore, we would need some OTRS clearance from them to publish it under the given license. --rimshot^talk 00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to German standards, this is ineligible for copyright protection, see File:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)