Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2007 September 19



Image:Lascaux2.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. 

Lascaux is in France, photographs taken in France are subject to the Copyright of the photographer, even if the subject is in the Public Domain. As it's a colour photograph it's not unreasonable to assume the author did not die more than 100 years ago. This right is opposable to the American company that is Wikipedia, because of the bilateral agreements that exist in between France and the USA to protect their respective copyrighted works. (ie if something is copyrighted in France it can't be PD in the USA) Jackaranga 05:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Proof: CA Paris, 27 janvier 2006 SARL Éditions Arfise c/ SARL Descharnes
 * « L'article L. 112-2 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle précise que les œuvres photographiques et celles réalisées à l'aide de technologies analogues à la photographie sont considérées comme œuvre de l’esprit ; qu’il n’est pas fait d’exception pour des photographies qui sont la reproduction de tableaux ; qu’il suffit que les photographies présentent un caractère d’originalité ; que le seul fait que de multiples reproductions de mêmes tableaux existent ne suffit pas à démontrer que les photographies seraient dénuées d’originalité ; qu’en effet, le photographe conserve le choix de la luminosité, de la distance de prise de vue, de l’objectif, des filtres, des contrastes. »
 * Approximate translation by me: "Act L 112-2 of the Code of intellectual property, states that photographic works, and those created with the assistance of technologies analog to photography are considered as works of the soul (read human intelligence); that no exception is made for photographies that are the reproduction of paintings, that it is sufficient the photographs present a form of originality; that the sole fact that multiple reproductions of the same painting exist is not sufficient to prove that the photographies are void of originality; that indeed, the photographer retains the choice of the lighting, of the view distance, the objective, the filters, the contrasts."
 * Thus the image is copyrighted in all countries that have bilateral copyright relations with France, here is the proof that the USA has such relations with France : link.
 * See fr:Utilisateur:Jastrow/PD-art for more information. Jackaranga 06:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also under French law attribution is required even if the 70 years after the author's death have passed and the image is in the public domain, in this case the photography is the work in question (see above) yet no attribution is made. Where did the uploader find the image ?  Jackaranga 06:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know who uploaded it or where he found it. But the article will be nothing without it and may as well be deleted. If you speak French can you help get permission to use it? A couple months ago I went to the Lascaux web site  and e-mailed them asking for permission to use photos, but never heard back. It could well be that the recipient of the e-mail didn't understand English or wasn't familiar with Wikipedia. We really need some images of the Lascaux paintings. This is such an important cultural phenomenon in human prehistory. There are some images on Flickr that are apparently of Lascaux II that have a Commons license and could be used, but they are inferior and aren't photos of the original paintings but are photos from the replica cave.


 * There might be some Fair Use rationale, but it would be better to get permission. Really hoping you can help. TimidGuy 11:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This image is absolutely vital to several articles illustrating the history of Visual Art. Modernist 12:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If the uploader can tell us where he found the image it may well be in the Public Domain already, as photos taken with the purpose of being in an art gallery exposition catalog are not subject to the copyright of the photographer.

As people can't visit the cave anymore I'm not sure if it can be considered as part of an exposition catalog. Also as French law is not based on a common law system, previous court hearings like the one below are non-binding for new cases. Furthermore the pictures may be owned by part of the government, and separate laws apply in between the government and individuals in France. [CA Paris, 24 juin 2005] Pas d'originalité de photographies de tableaux destinées à un catalogue d'exposition. « Les choix revendiqués consistant essentiellement à rendre l'ambiance naturelle et bleue du tableau original, ne constituent pas des éléments susceptibles d'exprimer un travail original et personnel mais ont pour seul objectif de reproduire le tableau (…) avec le plus de fidélité possible, afin de le représenter tel que le perçoit le public. (…) Au surplus, la mission confiée au photographe consistait à effectuer une reproduction fidèle des œuvres d'art pour constituer le fonds de documentation de la galerie (…) ce qui exclut a priori toute subjectivité ou interprétation de la part du photographe.
 * Please comment here I am trying to see what will happen, as there are many images that seem to have a similar problem, see for example commons:Image:Mona Lisa.jpg, which has an incorrect license. I will have to take a look at works of art taken from British Museums also.  See Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, for more information.
 * Paris Appeal Court, June 24, 2005 No originality in photographies of paintings destined to be included in an exposition catalog.  The claimed rights consisting essentially of reproducing the natural environment and level of blue of the original painting, do not constitute elements susceptible of expressing an original and personal work but have for exclusive goal the reproduction of the painting (...) with the most fidelity possible, in order to represent it as viewed by the public.  (...)  Furthermore the mission given to the photographer consisted only in creating an accurate reproduction  of the works of art to constitute the gallery's documentation bank (...) which excludes a priori any subjectivity or interpretation on behalf of the photographer.

Jackaranga 18:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The French really have some gall (Gaul?) to try and claim a copyright on an image that is 15,000 years old. The same goes for the British National Museum "copyrighting" lintels from the Maya site of Yaxchilan. These are educational materials, people. If I take pictures of the pages of the Saint James bible, with no surrounding scenery or context, and post them online, it would be difficult for me to claim some sort of "copyright" over those images. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.38.117 (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The photo is not that old, photography didn't exist then. There is no doubt the actual painting is in the Public Domain, what I am wondering about is this photo.  Jackaranga 07:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Considering that the authorship of the photograph is both currently undetermined and might actually render the picture usable, I think it should remain for now. If more information surfaces to the contrary it can be removed under those circumstances. For now it serves a valuable position illustrating several important Visual Arts articles. Modernist 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I say fuck the copyright and fuck the copyright holders. Use the image regardless. Fuck them in the ear.DonnyChurchill 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.163.35 (talk)

Well seems to me the real maker of the Art is long dead, and left it behind for the wolrd to see and think about, for it to be illegal to use a picture of perhaps a picture of a cave art. is stupid, and people should just use there heads and think outside the box. I suppose someone wants to get rich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.219.46 (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I think it's rather clear that the claim that this photo is copyrighted is very weak.  We have Bridgman vs Corel in the States that says such precise photography is in the public domain and at least one French law (quoted above) that says pretty much the same thing.  If we knew who the photographer was, we could ask him/her, but we don't.  The downside to keeping the image is vanishingly tiny.  The downside to removing this photo -- and all other photos of unknown origin shot in France -- is huge.  It's a definite keep.  Madman 00:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The creator of this image has most likely been dead for about 30,000 years (give or take a few thousand). Claiming that the guy who photographed it has copyright privileges is downright absurd. -- DragonAtma 162.84.152.129 02:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kept. (But will soon deleted locally because it's on Commons under the same name.) The quote Jackaranga cited above clinches it. Nothing about this photograph adds enough creativity to meet the threshold of originality required to copyright it separately from the millennia-old painting itself. —Angr 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ''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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

KEEP. Under the Bridgeman Art Gallery decision in New York, an image of a public domain painting is itself in the public domain. The judge based the case on both US and British law. It has not been appealed, but sets a strong and broadly used precident. It would be unfortunate if Wikipedia removed the image and especially if it removed the image without even receiving a specific complaint. Seadle 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

KEEP. Basic Question from an artist. Q. If the original photographer went into the lourve and photographed the mona lisa and other works without permission from the owner and then claim the the copy right as his what would happen then? If he was given permission to do so would the copyright be his? outwith that does the current generational owner of the un photographed image have a say in the mater of copyright? Da vinci is dead and so is the cave artist. But if the government of the region was allowed to move the cave painting to a museum I am quite sure they would, then charge admission or if free admission a decent grant of some sort from somewhere. Oh for preservation purposes I'm sure. Environmental/Sustainability sci-artist. (Scientific Artist). a.muldoon 20:12, 13 November 2007 GMT

Image:Jessica_01b.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a promo shot- No source listed ShakespeareFan00 12:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Qadeer_Mangrio.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a promo shot ShakespeareFan00 12:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a photo of himself, for his user page ... Jackaranga 07:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

HI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.39.62 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Fusethesauce.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I4 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be either a screenshot or official download; no satisfactory copyright info provided —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:J_sargeant_reynolds.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as I3 by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

subject lived 1936-1971, no evidence photo is PD Calliopejen1 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:JA112.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

undated photo, no evidence of PD status Calliopejen1 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:JacqLogan.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  19:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

undated photo, subject lived 1901-1983 Calliopejen1 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:JacqLogan.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

undated photo, subject lived 1901-1983 Calliopejen1 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:JeanVigo.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

undated photo, subject lived 1905-1934 Calliopejen1 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Zimina.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

undated image, subject lived 1899-1928, all her major films were after 1923. Calliopejen1 22:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Sampling.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted as F8 by A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This has the copyright holder's details on the image itself. Don't see how such an easily recreated image could possibly be fair use, either —  iride scent   (talk to me!)</i>  23:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Photo tech.jpg
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #e5ecf5; margin: 1em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid Gray;">
 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  18:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently replaceable image taken from website —  iride scent   <i style="color:#5CA36A;">(talk to me!)</i>  23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.