File talk:Macau stamp featuring geometric magic square.jpg

I have been working with Lee Sallows on this upload. This is a photocopy (of a stamp) made by Lee Sallows. Moreover, the image on which the stamp is based was also created by Lee Sallows. Furthermore, the Macou post office has corresponded with Sallows saying that he is welcome to reproduce it. If it is really required, we can get the Macau Post Office to forward the necessary permissions. I was hoping to avoid such a complicated correspondence.--21:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I also noticed that User:JohnBlackburne added a Speedy Deletion request which contains the remarks,

Also 'photocopy' ? This looks more like an original copy, i.e. pulled from some unnamed web site, rather than a photocopy.

This is pure speculation. And quite insulting. If you have the equipment to view the embedded image source information, you will see that it was indeed made by Sallows.--Foobarnix (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I would question whether it's a photocopy, i.e. photographically reproduced - it looks too clean for that, especially from such a source as a postage stamp. But that doesn't make any difference to the issue. I understand the stamp is based on art by Lee Sallows but the stamp was produced by Macau Post; you can buy it from their store: [1]. So yes, I think permission from Macau Post is required. I'm not at all familiar with the process though, which involves OTRS: Commons:OTRS.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Foobarnix: You are stuck with a complicated correspondence or deletion. We need the form at com:consent to be filled in by the copyright holder and sent to OTRS. I've postponed the deletion for now, and placed an OTRS pending notice - you have 30 days to get the permission approved by OTRS. NB: if it does get deleted later, OTRS will undelete it when sufficient permission has been obtained. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

New version of file has been uploaded

My mistake. It turns out User:JohnBlackburne was right. In my rush to get the file uploaded, I did indeed mistakenly upload an older version from the Lee Sallows website that was not the photocopy I intended. The new version is the photocopy of the stamp made by Lee Sallows. It is my understanding that a photocopy of a stamp is the considered the photographers own work and no further permission is needed.--Foobarnix (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As noted above I don't think it makes any difference whether it's a photographic or other copy. It's still a copy of a 2D work of art, i.e. of a stamp. In general you can't just make a copy of a 2D work then claim it as your own work. There are exceptions but I don't see any that apply here. So it still needs permission.--JohnBlackburne (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)