Commons:Deletion requests/File:George madison plaque.png

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:George_madison_plaque.png

Keep No text, just a listing of names. Ineligible. -- 194.48.128.75 10:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOP only applies to buildings in the United States. –Tryphon ^☂ 20:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is the design of the plaques themselves sufficient to attract copyright protection? Some of the ones listed have curly cues and the like, but others are squares pieces of metal on a post. I honestly don't know the answer. As for the text, do we want to repeat this exercise? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No one has responded to my questions, and the result of the deletion discussion for File:Lendal Tower, York (21st October 2010) 001.jpg suggests that we should come up with a project-wide guideline for images of plaques rather than having potentially conflicting decisions on these one-off nominations, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - copyrighted texts. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure how the cited rule (COM:FOP#United States) applies. The rule states that freedom of panorama is OK for buildings and not OK for artworks, but these photos are of neither. The photos are of public signs showing public information, which seems to me to be something different than a public artwork. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exception for buildings only, other works are not excepted. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't FOP a red herring, though? Since when does a sheet of metal on a stick attract copyright attention? Isn't the issue the text? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the issue is the text: and FOP in the US does not apply to text. Jujutacular ^talk 19:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. FOP is specifically about buildings: in its header it states that it's "a rule that allows for photographs to be freely taken of buildings permanently located in a public place." If "other works are not excepted," then it must be defined what other works that refers too. All other works? My left foot is not a building, so is photographing it verboten? Clearly not.

Per the cited WC rule at COM:FOP#United_States, buildings are in and artworks are out, and I don't see that a historical marker is either a building or an artwork, which suggests to me that this rule doesn't restrict these photos any more than it would photos of (for example) road signs. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 11:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOP is an exception to copyright, so basically everything that can be copyrighted (that excludes your left foot) and is not covered by FOP cannot be photographed and released under a free license. –Tryphon ^☂ 11:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that any of these texts are public domain. Jujutacular ^talk 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question as author of one of the works in question, I have contacted and asked the Commonwealth of Kentucky's cabinet on historical markers, and they are consulting with legal on their decision. They have been in contact with me. K3vin (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: In almost all cases, the text of the plaque is the issue, in addition, the shape and design of the plaque always is. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored File:Mary Lincoln home lexington KY Todd House.jpg which a lawyer's opinion that it is OK. See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Mary_Lincoln_home_lexington_KY_Todd_House.jpg. Yann (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:George madison plaque.png

File:George_madison_plaque.png

Navigation menu

Search