Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 25

< October 24	October 26 >

October 25

File:MeganTimpf2008SummerOlympicsBeijing.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8 - use is purely decorative, used in infobox, no commentary on the image itself. Mosmof (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with Mosmof. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Paris Collage.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: wrong venue. This is made up of Commons images. Try there first. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual monuments in France are protected by copyright. No freedom of panorama. 82.120.52.9 (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - every one of those monuments is a building. In the United States, the only country for which the law is relevant on English Wikipedia, architecture has freedom of panorama. In any case, all of the images come from commons, meaning they likely have been endorsed by that community, meaning they don't fall under copyright in France. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When you write "In the United States, the only country for which the law is relevant on English Wikipedia, architecture has freedom of panorama", does it mean that the United States has the right within its own "intellectual borders" to deny the copyrights of other countries or does it mean that "the United States has freedom of panorama within its own "geographic borders"? Because, it seems to me that if the United States has the right to deny the copyrights of other countries within their own borders by publishing copyrighted material no matter what, then there is no need for such a long article: all that is needed is a template stating: "Do as you please, because as long as you publish in the United States=Wikipedia, you have the right to trample on the copyrights of the rest of the world."

I also would like to point out that, in spite of the fact that many photographs or other œuvres d'art have been published in Wikipedia with the benediction of Commons, many have to be removed because of copyright enfrigement: the picture of the Louvre with the Pei's Pyramid on two points: the Pyramid, which must have the authorisation of Pei himself, and the Louvre because of its night lighting. Same with the photograph of the Hôtel de Ville, which is not lost in a landscape, but the landscape itself, the HdV encompassing the whole of the frame.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - 1) Yes, that's exactly what I'm stating; I assume you are now going to ask me if I'm beating my wife as well. See {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. This is English, not French Wikipedia. If you don't like the laws, then write to the US congress (or for that matter, the UN). If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, then take it to the village pump. Simply put, that image is public domain in the US; the copyright holder of that pyramid cannot successfully sue in court for it. I don't imagine you'd like someone from the US jumping into your country and telling you what we can sue for in your court of laws anymore than the US would like you doing the same.
2) The Louvre pyramid isn't even in that image and even if it was, it's no more a copyright violation than the way it's used on the page at fr:Pyramide du Louvre.
3) You haven't as much as proven that any one of those images is a copyright violation even in France. If you believe they are, I suggest you put them up for deletion on commons, lest it look like you're selecting your fora based on the audience you know you'll receive. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to "prove" anything, only showing my concern that "maybe" the copyrights of the artists, those of the authors of the lighting of the Louvre at night, and those of Ieoh Ming Pei who created the Pyramid, could have been violated.

Furthermore, to answer your: "I don't imagine you'd like someone from the US jumping into your country and telling you what we can sue for in your court of laws anymore than the US would like you doing the same", may I add that in defending Pei's droits d'auteur for his creation of an œuvre d'art in France, I am defending the rights of someone who happens to be a United States citizen.

--Frania W. (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the Louvre isn't on that image anymore? Only the old version. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ogre, I am quite aware of it and was only responding to your statement about who could sue whom, and where, in case of copyright infrigement. I am still questioning the night shot of the Hôtel de Ville. --Frania W. (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency, can I ask why you haven't nominated it for deletion at commons? Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say keep because the creators or architects of these buildings have been dead for more than 70 years. The Eiffel Tower is out of copyright since Gustav Eiffel died in 1923 (out of copyright since 1994) while Huyot who designed the Arch the Triumph in Paris died in 1840. Both structures are out of copyright. I suspect the other structures are also out of copyright. --Artene50 (talk) 04:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Amindavar Hamidreza.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though the uploader may be assumed to be the person in the photo, the source is a copyright website. At a minimum an OTRS ticket needs to be raised in order to validate their identity for a claim of copyright ownership. Fæ (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.