Commons:Deletion requests/2024/06/26
June 26
[edit]Files in Category:Statue de Kosa Pan
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and although it's not clear when or if the artist of this statue died, it was inaugurated in 2020. So more then 70 years clearly hasn't passed since their death.
- File:Brest 191412214.jpg
- File:Brest Kosa Pan 2020-02-22 01.jpg
- File:Brest Kosa Pan 2020-02-22 02.jpg
- File:Brest Kosa Pan 2020-02-22 03.jpg
- File:Brest Kosa Pan 2020-02-22 04.jpg
- File:Brest Kosa Pan 2020-02-22 05.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cette statue a été réalisée sur la base des images d'archives et ne remplie pas, a mon avis, les conditions nécessaires pour être classée comme une œuvre originale. C'est une sorte de copie (voir : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KosapanPortrait.jpg?uselang=fr et https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosa_Pan#/media/Fichier:Kosa_Pan,_Charles_Le_Brun,_1686.jpg) - en dehors d'une demande directe de l'auteur Wachara Prayookum je ne suis pas favorable à la suppression de ces photos S. DÉNIEL (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Port des records
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and although it's not clear when or if the artist of these reliefs died, it clearly hasn't been 70 years since they were created around 2010. So the images should be deleted as COPYVIO unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 01.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 02.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 03.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 04.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 05.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 06.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 07.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 08.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 09.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 10.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 11.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 12.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 13.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 14.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 15.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 16.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 17.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 18.jpg
- File:Brest Port du Château 25-05-2017 19.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Auguste Labouret
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of these stained glass windows and mosaic, Auguste Labouret, died in 1964. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2035.
- File:205 Roscanvel Vitraux église.jpg
- File:L'Hôpital-Camfrout-Auguste Labouret 01.JPG
- File:L'Hôpital-Camfrout-Auguste Labouret 02.JPG
- File:L'Hôpital-Camfrout-Auguste Labouret 03.JPG
- File:L'Hôpital-Camfrout-Auguste Labouret 04.JPG
- File:L'Hôpital-Camfrout-Auguste Labouret 05.JPG
- File:L'Hôpital-Camfrout-Auguste Labouret 06.JPG
- File:Église du Bono (mosaïque du portail).jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Marcello Tommasi (scultore)
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in Italy and the artist these sculptures, Marcello Tommasi, died in 2008. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2079.
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 01.JPG
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 02.JPG
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 03.JPG
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 04.JPG
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 05.JPG
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 06.JPG
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 07.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep Adamant1 the scupltures belonged to the sculptor Marcello Tommasi, but they do not all represent his work, they are all classical and Renaissance replicas. For example:
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 01.JPG I think just the kids statues are by Tommasi, I would keep tagging "de minimis" as they are not the main subject of the photo
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 02.JPG this is just classical replicas, like it:Hermes con Dioniso, it:Madonna Medici (Michelangelo), Riccardi horse head and so on
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 03.JPG same as above. The reliefs are classical (Greek mourners) or Reinassance as It:Pulpito del duomo di Prato
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 04.JPG same as n. 2, you can also see it:Venere de' Medici
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 05.JPG here you can see it:Madonna della Scala (Michelangelo) or it:Cacciata dal Paradiso terrestre (Jacopo della Quercia)
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 06.JPG same as n. 1, tag with "de minimis"
- File:Palazzo merciai, cortile 07 gipsoteca dello scultore marcello tommasi 07.JPG works by Michalangelo (Taddei tondo) and Giovani Pisano (Madonna from the façade of Siena Cathedral), Classical as Ludovisi throne... Only a small, dark kid bronze to tag with "de minimis"
- --Sailko (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really feel like getting in an argument about it, but there's a difference between something between being "de minimis" and it not being the main subject or element of a photograph. They aren't the same thing. Regardless, in cases like this I usually ask if the photograph would exist or be the same without whatever the element in question is. For instance, if we were to blur out or otherwise remove the kids in the first image would be the same and/or still have been uploaded to Commons? My guess is not. It clearly exists as a display of Marcello Tommasi's statues. His name is in the file name and description. So you can't claim it has nothing to do with him. Same goes for the other images that your saying are "de minimis." The fact is that these images were clearly taken and uploaded to Commons because of Marcello Tommasi's work. Otherwise we could just blur it out, but then the pictures would be kind of worthless. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in case it's just n. 1, 6 and 7 to discuss, the other ones we can
Speedy keep. For your question "if we were to blur out or otherwise remove the kids in the first image would be the same and/or still have been uploaded to Commons?" my answer is Yes, as my main focus was to portray the courtyard and the collection of gipsum in general, I could have made details for the bronzes if I wanted to focus on them. Btw in Italian "dello scultore" may mean "by the sculptor", yes, but also "belonging to the sculptor, sculptor's property", doesn't necessary mean he made all the statues (in fact he did not). --Sailko (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I never claimed he made all the statues. He doesn't need to for the images to copyrighted. Regardless, be my guest and blur his statues out of the images then. Otherwise I still think they should be deleted. We'll have to agree to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I think I understand now what was misleading. Somebody in 2021 created the category "Marcello Tommasi (scultore)" - bad name btw, I moved to English - and added some images of the courtyard of his formed studio I had uploaded in 2014. So I understand now why you claimed they portray works of the artist as main subject. Who added the category selected the images quite randomly (including replicas of Classical art), but since there are no photos where the artist's work is the main subject I removed the category. We just need to decide if the "de minimis" rule can apply to those children bronzes, maybe somebody else's opinion could be useful, and see if it worths to edit the images with selective blurring. --Sailko (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh cool. That makes sense. Thanks for removing the category. I'm not super concered about it if they aren't connected and your telling me the intent of the photographs is mainly the courtyard. I originally thought it was the statues. But I guess it really doesn't matter since most of them aren't by him originally anyway. The important thing is that we know it and its documented somewhere like this DR. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I think I understand now what was misleading. Somebody in 2021 created the category "Marcello Tommasi (scultore)" - bad name btw, I moved to English - and added some images of the courtyard of his formed studio I had uploaded in 2014. So I understand now why you claimed they portray works of the artist as main subject. Who added the category selected the images quite randomly (including replicas of Classical art), but since there are no photos where the artist's work is the main subject I removed the category. We just need to decide if the "de minimis" rule can apply to those children bronzes, maybe somebody else's opinion could be useful, and see if it worths to edit the images with selective blurring. --Sailko (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- I never claimed he made all the statues. He doesn't need to for the images to copyrighted. Regardless, be my guest and blur his statues out of the images then. Otherwise I still think they should be deleted. We'll have to agree to disagree though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in case it's just n. 1, 6 and 7 to discuss, the other ones we can
- I don't really feel like getting in an argument about it, but there's a difference between something between being "de minimis" and it not being the main subject or element of a photograph. They aren't the same thing. Regardless, in cases like this I usually ask if the photograph would exist or be the same without whatever the element in question is. For instance, if we were to blur out or otherwise remove the kids in the first image would be the same and/or still have been uploaded to Commons? My guess is not. It clearly exists as a display of Marcello Tommasi's statues. His name is in the file name and description. So you can't claim it has nothing to do with him. Same goes for the other images that your saying are "de minimis." The fact is that these images were clearly taken and uploaded to Commons because of Marcello Tommasi's work. Otherwise we could just blur it out, but then the pictures would be kind of worthless. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- --Sailko (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep for sure number 4 and 5, in which the kids don't appear at all... But I'd say that I agree with Sailko also on the other images, they seem de minimis to me too. Letting aside cases as number 2 in which they are barely visible, also in the other images they are visibile mainly only as a profile, because they are black and in the shadow and they occupy only a small portion of the overall image.--Friniate (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and although it's clear when or if the artists of these stained glass windows died, they were created in 1940s. So pretty it's unlikely the artist or artists have been dead for more then 70 years yet unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary.
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 17.JPG
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 19.JPG
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 20.JPG
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 23.JPG
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 24.JPG
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 27.JPG
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 28.JPG
- File:Crozon 14-07-2013 37.JPG
- File:Crozon Vitrail 2.jpg
- File:Crozon Vitrail1.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of these stained glass windows, Pierre Arcencam, died in 1959. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2030, if not longer due to the URAA.
- File:Aramits (Pyr-Atl, Fr) vitrail 03 Notre Dame de Lourdes.JPG
- File:Aramits (Pyr-Atl, Fr) vitrail 05 - Saint Pierre.JPG
- File:Aramits (Pyr-Atl, Fr) vitrail 07 - Curé d'Ars.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- No objection against suppression. Thanks for adding the the artist's dates. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gabriel Loire
[edit]Unfortunately FOP in the United States doesn't cover Artworks or sculptures, which stained glass windows qualify as. It's also not really clear when these windows were installed since that information isn't included with the files and the artist died in 1996. So there's no way to know which copyright status or term they would qualify for anyway. Whereas the rest of the images were created in France, which doesn't have FOP. So they are copyrighted until at least 2067.
- File:Basílica de Lourdes 2.JPG
- File:Cathedrale nd chartres eglise basse018.jpg
- File:Close up stained glass window in First Baptist Church in Everett Washington.jpg
- File:FUMCA - Crowell Chapel - Good Samaritan.jpg
- File:FUMCA - Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Crucifixion.jpg
- File:FUMCA - Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Ministry.jpg
- File:FUMCA - Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Temptation.jpg
- File:FUMCA Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Baptism.jpg
- File:Gabriel Loire réalisant le carton pour Metairie, Louisiane, USA.jpg
- File:Pouancé - église - Gabriel Loire.JPG
- File:Vitrail église Sainte Lazare de Lèves.JPG
- File:West Window.jpg
- File:Épinal Notre-Dame-aux-Cierges Innen Chorfenster 1.jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep File:Close up stained glass window in First Baptist Church in Everett Washington.jpg, File:FUMCA - Crowell Chapel - Good Samaritan.jpg, File:FUMCA - Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Crucifixion.jpg, File:FUMCA - Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Ministry.jpg, File:FUMCA - Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Temptation.jpg, File:FUMCA Sanctuary Stained Glass - The Baptism.jpg, File:Gabriel Loire réalisant le carton pour Metairie, Louisiane, USA.jpg, and File:West Window.jpg. These are US works which are integral with the surrounding architecture. Leicester v. Warner Bros. allowed freedom of panorama for such works (see COM:FOP US). IronGargoyle (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- What "surrounding architecture" is there in the first image? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- The window is mounted into a building. That is the architecture. It is an allowable style element of the building. It also just occurred to me that these works are doubly allowed because they were installed prior to 1978 without a copyright notice, per {{PD-US-no notice}} and COM:PACUSA. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- What "surrounding architecture" is there in the first image? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in Morocco and the artist of these stained glass windows, Gabriel Loire, died in 1996. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2067.
- File:Casablanca Notre-Dame-de-Lourde (3).jpg
- File:Casablanca Notre-Dame-de-Lourde (4).jpg
- File:Casablanca Notre-Dame-de-Lourde (5).jpg
- File:Casablanca Notre-Dame-de-Lourde (6).jpg
- File:Casablanca Notre-Dame-de-Lourde (7).jpg
- File:Eglise N.D. de Lourdes, Casablanca.jpg
- File:Inside Catholic Church in Casablanca (23297994344).jpg
Adamant1 (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stained glass windows of Église Notre-Dame de Nogent-le-Rotrou by Gabriel Loire
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of these stained glass windows, Gabriel Loire, died in 1996. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2067.
- File:Nogent-le-Rotrou - Église Notre-Dame - Stained glas - Saint-Michel terrassant le Mal.JPG
- File:Nogent-le-Rotrou Notre-Dame Jeanne 357.JPG
- File:Nogent-le-Rotrou Notre-Dame Jesus Michel 356.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Paul Bony
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of these stained glass windows, Paul Bony, died in 1982. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2053.
- File:Altorf StCyriaque 80-03.JPG
- File:Altorf StCyriaque 80-04.JPG
- File:Altorf StCyriaque 80-06.JPG
- File:Altorf StCyriaque 80-07.JPG
- File:Bischoffsheim SteAurélie12.jpg
- File:Hersbach ImmaculéeConception 08.JPG
- File:Hersbach ImmaculéeConception 18.JPG
- File:Hersbach ImmaculéeConception 19.JPG
- File:Hersbach ImmaculéeConception 20.JPG
- File:Saint-Lô d'Ourville Église Saint-Lô Baie 0 Verrière du Calvair 2022 08 22.jpg
- File:Surbourg StArbogast47.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- File:Saint-Lô d'Ourville Église Saint-Lô Baie 0 Verrière du Calvair 2022 08 22.jpg is actually a window from 1540 (see description) with restorations done by Paul Bony. This is covered by {{FOP-France}}. All this has been properly documented and described on the description page. Why was this included in this DR? --AFBorchert (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The file has a category for the stained glass artist Paul Bony who clearly wasn't around in 1540 because he died in 1982. So either the file description or category is wrong. I don't really care which, but they can't both be right and I couldn't find any indication anywhere about who the original artist was or what exactly he has to do with it. So at least IMO we should defer to COM:PCP unless you know the details and just didn't include them or something. "restored and completed" is also pretty ambigious. "Completed" could mean anything from Paul Bony adding their own elements to recreating an original drawing or something. If it's the former though then the part specifically by Paul Bony would clearly be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Please make yourself familiar with COM:DM France and COM:FOP France. Both are referenced to in the image description. Quote:
- French case law admits an exception if the copyrighted artwork is "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" (CA Paris, 27 octobre 1992, Antenne 2 c/ société Spadem, « la représentation d'une œuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité »). Thus ruling #567 of March 15, 2005 of the Court of Cassation denied the right of producers of works of arts installed in a public plaza over photographs of the whole plaza.
- See, for example, File:Louvre at night centered.jpg. The main subject in my photograph is the window from 1540. I am unable to photograph it without having the work by Paul Bony included. Such cases are permitted in France. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe its because I'm from the United States but ""accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" doesn't sound like a completed window would qualify for that part of the law since the window is "an accessory to the main subject" of the image or artwork ts the actual subject. Especially since we don't how much of it was complete before it was finished by Paul Bony or what he added. Like if someone draws the rough outline of a person and I then "complete" it by filling the person in and drawing a room around them I haven't an "accessory to the main subject" at that point. Otherwise shared works wouldn't a thing. The copyright would just default to whomever drew the first line of hair or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is mainly a window from 1540, nearly 500 years ago. Stained glass windows do not stay in prime condition for these extended periods of time. You constantly need careful restorations and when there is a part missing it needs to be replaced. This has been done here by Paul Bony but the main artist is from the 16th century. We do know exactly what in this window is original and what not. The relevant literature is cited in the file description: Martine Callias Bey and Véronique David: Les vitraux de Basse-Normandie, ISBN 2-84706-240-8, pp. 165–166. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware of how windows work. The description litterally says that Paul Bony "completed" the window though. Not that he fixed a chip on the corner of it that already exited and was just damaged or something. Regardless, that inherently insinuates that it wasn't finished before Paul Bony worked on it and the work wasn't minor restoration with a wet squiggy to remove some dirt or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, this window was complete and finished before. But some parts of the upper lights and other details did not survive (they were severely damaged in 1944 during the invasion in Normandy, see Palissy record) and were then replaced afterwards. The file description summarizes what is original and what not. Quote: “The Virgin and Saint John in the Crucifixion scene are original, likewise the ecclesiastical donors in the left und right Saint Paul and the ecclesiastical donor in the right light.” This means that the main part was just restored but is otherwise original from the 16th century. Jesus Christ at the cross and some accessory elements (including the angels, Father in Heaven with the dove) are the works by Paul Bony. Please have also a look at the description at Palissy which likewise describes exactly what is original and what not. In summary, this still remains a significant 16th-century window where some minor parts have been replaced. It is impossible to photograph the 16th-century elements without including the additions by Paul Bony. Hence, {{FoP-France}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ at the cross and some accessory elements (including the angels, Father in Heaven with the dove) are the works by Paul Bony. That's like 30% of the window though. So it's clearly not de minus. Nor does that much of the window being created by Paul Bony support your claim that it was complete and he just wiped some dirt off of it or whatever. Regardless, if 30% of the window was created by Paul Bony then it's clearly copyrighted. It's not our issue that the rest can't be photographed without including the part by him. Otherwise you could always just blur it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The percentage does not matter, it just needs to be incidental in regard to the main subject according to French case law. Please do not mix this up with the interpretation of de minimis in the United States. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The main subject here is the window though. Not just the part of the window that was created in 1540. Otherwise there's reason you wouldn't support blurring out the part of it created by Paul Bony. It seems like you want to have it both ways though where the subject is clearly "the window" but just not the large part of it that happens to be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the tracery window is actually older, probably from the 14th-century, just the stained glass was installed in the 16th century. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK. Honestly, I could really care less either way. I was just going by the wording in the description and book you cited. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the tracery window is actually older, probably from the 14th-century, just the stained glass was installed in the 16th century. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The main subject here is the window though. Not just the part of the window that was created in 1540. Otherwise there's reason you wouldn't support blurring out the part of it created by Paul Bony. It seems like you want to have it both ways though where the subject is clearly "the window" but just not the large part of it that happens to be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- The percentage does not matter, it just needs to be incidental in regard to the main subject according to French case law. Please do not mix this up with the interpretation of de minimis in the United States. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ at the cross and some accessory elements (including the angels, Father in Heaven with the dove) are the works by Paul Bony. That's like 30% of the window though. So it's clearly not de minus. Nor does that much of the window being created by Paul Bony support your claim that it was complete and he just wiped some dirt off of it or whatever. Regardless, if 30% of the window was created by Paul Bony then it's clearly copyrighted. It's not our issue that the rest can't be photographed without including the part by him. Otherwise you could always just blur it out. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Again, this window was complete and finished before. But some parts of the upper lights and other details did not survive (they were severely damaged in 1944 during the invasion in Normandy, see Palissy record) and were then replaced afterwards. The file description summarizes what is original and what not. Quote: “The Virgin and Saint John in the Crucifixion scene are original, likewise the ecclesiastical donors in the left und right Saint Paul and the ecclesiastical donor in the right light.” This means that the main part was just restored but is otherwise original from the 16th century. Jesus Christ at the cross and some accessory elements (including the angels, Father in Heaven with the dove) are the works by Paul Bony. Please have also a look at the description at Palissy which likewise describes exactly what is original and what not. In summary, this still remains a significant 16th-century window where some minor parts have been replaced. It is impossible to photograph the 16th-century elements without including the additions by Paul Bony. Hence, {{FoP-France}} applies. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware of how windows work. The description litterally says that Paul Bony "completed" the window though. Not that he fixed a chip on the corner of it that already exited and was just damaged or something. Regardless, that inherently insinuates that it wasn't finished before Paul Bony worked on it and the work wasn't minor restoration with a wet squiggy to remove some dirt or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is mainly a window from 1540, nearly 500 years ago. Stained glass windows do not stay in prime condition for these extended periods of time. You constantly need careful restorations and when there is a part missing it needs to be replaced. This has been done here by Paul Bony but the main artist is from the 16th century. We do know exactly what in this window is original and what not. The relevant literature is cited in the file description: Martine Callias Bey and Véronique David: Les vitraux de Basse-Normandie, ISBN 2-84706-240-8, pp. 165–166. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe its because I'm from the United States but ""accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" doesn't sound like a completed window would qualify for that part of the law since the window is "an accessory to the main subject" of the image or artwork ts the actual subject. Especially since we don't how much of it was complete before it was finished by Paul Bony or what he added. Like if someone draws the rough outline of a person and I then "complete" it by filling the person in and drawing a room around them I haven't an "accessory to the main subject" at that point. Otherwise shared works wouldn't a thing. The copyright would just default to whomever drew the first line of hair or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Please make yourself familiar with COM:DM France and COM:FOP France. Both are referenced to in the image description. Quote:
- The file has a category for the stained glass artist Paul Bony who clearly wasn't around in 1540 because he died in 1982. So either the file description or category is wrong. I don't really care which, but they can't both be right and I couldn't find any indication anywhere about who the original artist was or what exactly he has to do with it. So at least IMO we should defer to COM:PCP unless you know the details and just didn't include them or something. "restored and completed" is also pretty ambigious. "Completed" could mean anything from Paul Bony adding their own elements to recreating an original drawing or something. If it's the former though then the part specifically by Paul Bony would clearly be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tristan Ruhlmann
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of these stained glass windows, Tristan Ruhlmann, died in 1982. So these windows are copyrighted until at least 2053.
- File:Bischoffsheim Couvent 31.JPG
- File:Bischoffsheim Couvent 32.JPG
- File:Bischoffsheim Couvent 33.JPG
- File:Bischoffsheim Couvent 34.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stained glass windows with signature of Henri Curcier in Église Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption de Lanquais
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France, these files don't include the date of creation for the windows, and I couldn't find any information about the artist Henri Curcier. So these images should be deleted per the precautionary principle unless someone can figure out when or if Henri Curcier died.
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (1) signature.JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (1).JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (5) signature.JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (5).JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (6) signature.JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (6).JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (7) signature.JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail (7).JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail blason (1).JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail blason (2).JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail blason.JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail portail signature.JPG
- File:Lanquais église vitrail portail.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment Copied from edit that was reverted do to formating issues "Fichiers à conserver. Henri Curcier est mort à Bamako en 1919. Son œuvre est dans le domaine public. Donnez-vous la peine de chercher un peu mieux avant de proposer des fichiers à la suppression https://www.calameo.com/read/006346484d8b89450df8a p.39]. Cordialement." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and it's not really clear who created these stained glass windows or when they were created. So the image should be delete per COM:PCP unless someone can figure out who the artist is and/or when the windows were created.
- File:Lalinde église vitrail choeur (2).JPG
- File:Lalinde église vitrail choeur (3).JPG
- File:Lalinde église vitrail choeur (5).JPG
- File:Lalinde église vitrail choeur (6).JPG
- File:Lalinde église vitrail choeur.JPG
- File:Lalinde église vitrail nef (7).JPG
- File:Lalinde église vitrail transept (2).JPG
- File:Lalinde église vitraux choeur.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Ce vitrailliste a été actif entre 1895 et 1903 : voir en 1895, fin 19e, en 1899, en 1902, entre 1896 et 1903. S'il n'y a pas de date, ça ne veut pas dire que c'est récent ! Père Igor (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- If there is no date, that does not mean that it is recent! Of course not, but then the opposite is also true and we can't host files that lack information about when the work was created or who created it either. There's really nothing inherently "old" about stained glass windows. It's not like they are ancient artifacts from the Roman Empire or whatever. There's plenty of modern ones. So their origin needs to be documented for images of them to be hosted on Commons just like any other type of work. These and similar images don't just get a special pass from the guidelines "because window." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- D'après Wikidata, il serait mort en 1919. Il me semble donc que cette demande de suppression est non fondée. Père Igor (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, but Wikidata says that because I created the entry after you provided me with his biographical information. Both of which you were free to do at the time of upload. The DR was perfectly founded when I created it though since the information wasn't readily available at that point. That said, I'm totally fine if this is closed as keep now that we know when Henri Curcier died. Not to point fingers, but it's on the person who uploads this stuff to document the origin of it at the time of upload. Not leave it up to others to do 14 years later. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please add the identity of the artist to the image descriptions! Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- D'après Wikidata, il serait mort en 1919. Il me semble donc que cette demande de suppression est non fondée. Père Igor (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- If there is no date, that does not mean that it is recent! Of course not, but then the opposite is also true and we can't host files that lack information about when the work was created or who created it either. There's really nothing inherently "old" about stained glass windows. It's not like they are ancient artifacts from the Roman Empire or whatever. There's plenty of modern ones. So their origin needs to be documented for images of them to be hosted on Commons just like any other type of work. These and similar images don't just get a special pass from the guidelines "because window." --Adamant1 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files in Category:Antoine Bessac
[edit]Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of these stained glass windows, Antoine Bessac, died in 1974. So these images are copyrighted until at least 2045.
- File:Hoquy (Chéraute, Pyr-Atl, Fr) vitrail Sacré-Coeur.JPG
- File:Hoquy (Chéraute, Pyr-Atl, Fr) vitrail Sainte Famille.JPG
- File:Paris Saint-Jean-Bosco422.JPG
- File:Paris Saint-Jean-Bosco430.JPG
Adamant1 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- No objection against removing. Thanks for finding the artist's dates. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately there's no FOP in France and the artist of this stained glass window, Édouard Mahé, died in 1992. So this image is copyrighted until at least 2063. Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Tut mir leid, ich versteh das nicht, das ist eins von etlichen in Commons hochgeladenen Fotos des Aquariums, bei denen es kein Copyrightproblem gibt. Viele Grüße --Pimpinellus((D)) • MUC•K•T 10:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Way too recent as a bulding/structure in order to fall out of copyrights, since there's no FOP in Greece. 🏺ⲈⲨⲐⲨⲘⲈⲚⲎⲊ🏛️ ⲱⲑⲏⲥⲁⲧⲉ 09:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Recent building. No FOP in Romania. Gikü (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary Deutronomous (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Not own work, at least not entirely. Image is a montage of works by several authors. Top-left image is from [1] and credited to Chartchai Neng Chaiyasuko. Lower-left image is from [2] by ณัฎฐพล เทพวงค์. Paul_012 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Naruro
[edit]- File:Tobyl.jpg
- File:Rudnyi.jpg
- File:Fdr.kst.kazakhstan.jpg
- File:Стела-баннер "Рудный".jpg
- File:Мечеть "Нұр".jpg
- File:Vophddry6.jpg
- File:Aktobe Region, Kazakhstan.jpg
- File:XmRNyvsA.jpg
Copyright violation. 1 – photo by Qostanai.Media [3], 2 – photo by Rýdnyi media [4], 3 – photo by local news in Qostanay [5], 4-5 – photos by Wild Ticket [6], 6 – a still frame from this video, 7 – [7], 8 – photo by DXT 1 [8]
Probably a copyvio. I couldn't find the exact image but this seems pretty similar. Radmir Far (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not a vexillologist but these flags seem fictional to me. Radmir Far (talk) 20:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
COM:SPAM, promotional image uploaded by likely company rep; no usage outside wikidata, out of scope Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment. Use in Wikidata is within scope. There is a good chance this Wikidata entry should be deleted, but this file should not be deleted for scope reasons until it is. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Offensichtliche Fehlllizenzierung - Urheber kann nur eine natürliche Person sein Lutheraner (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Das copyright des Fotos liegt bei AUREUM Saxophon Quartett.
- Die Aktualisierung des Fotos ist deshalb wichtig, weil die Besetzung des Ensembles sich verändert hat. AUREUM Saxophon Quartett (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a non-free, copyrighted file shared under an incorrect license. Darth Stabro (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-free image: https://www.brooklynpark.org/communications/logos/ Darth Stabro (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Below the threshold of originality in the United States (see examples at COM:TOO US). IronGargoyle (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Very low quality crop of the 12:30, 1 July 2011 version of File:Martin Van Maele - La Grande Danse macabre des vifs - 13.jpg which has been replaced with a superior version since. This is because File:Grooming.png is already a montage from three images sourced directly from Commons. Should be merged as duplicate. Nutshinou Talk! 23:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)