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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Markgasser1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no proof of ownership Redsky89 (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are we requiring everyone who uploads photos that the person claims to have taken themselves to have OTRS tickets now? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Uploader claims to be the author and states "picture taken by myself". I can't see any indications to the contrary.--Melburnian (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now can be deleted per WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#F8. (Images available as identical copies on Wikimedia Commons) per AussieLegend below.--Melburnian (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC). (struck in response to the comment of Stefan2 below.)--Melburnian (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Uploader claims to be the author and has released the image into the public domain. Exif data in the image does not contradict the uploader's claim. The image was therefore a candidate to be copied to commons and is now available there as File:Mark Gasser 01.jpg. This has been done so this image can be deleted. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: There are two images in the history. Note that F8 only covers the photo which is on Commons, not the other photo. Both photos have EXIF and indicating that they were taken using the same camera model. I can't find any indication that the uploader would be lying about his claim. Note that the file also was uploaded as File:Markgasser01.JPG. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 discussion was: .Images in this group were deleted Diannaa (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC) [reply]

File:BillRowlingMP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Photo of Michael Joseph Savage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:PeterFraserPM.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Peterjanetfraser.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

File:Fraserspeaking.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The files are all copied from the National Library of NZ. The confusion seems to be that they have "unrestricted" listed against them which the uploader has taken to mean "public domain" but in fact means they can be viewed by anybody. This matches the restrictions listed against them in their descriptions. I have contacted the libaray about this and they confirm (full email available on request):

Rather confusingly, the 'unrestricted' restriction on the collection record refers to viewing the items rather than using them for anything other than personal use.

In fact this collection is still in copyright to Fairfax. The Library can administer the copyright for non-commercial use but we refer clients back to Fairfax for any commercial use. I have just spoken to ___ ______ who is the rights administrator for Fairfax and she has told me that they would give a categorical 'no' for any use on Wikimedia Commons. This is because of the requirement to make all images freely available.

This actually reflects the Library's policy. Any re-use of our images, other than for personal use, requires permission from the Library. Again, because Wikimedia requires the images to be freely available for all use including commercial use, we do not give permission for images to be used on Wikimedia/Wikipedia.

The exception to this are the 'free downloads' which are available for any use including commercial use. These images tend to be posters or postcards that are well out of copyright and have been deemed by the curators to be acceptable for this use.

However except for the 1st image (from 1978) the others may be out of copyright anyway due to their age and the copyright period in NZ being 50 years. - SimonLyall (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas I can confirm that Fairfax Media is pretty assertive about copyright; they're unlikely to give us a permissive license of the type we can use. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At File talk:BillRowlingMP.jpg there's a notice about a donation of a photoarchive to the national archive -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the Restrictions : Unrestricted confusion explained in the quoted text above. - SimonLyall (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment why are the files untagged for PUF? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. PUF is setup for one file at a time (and all the templates are) but I bunched all these into a group. Do you think I should split them out to fix all the tagging? - SimonLyall (talk) 10:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should add tags to all the files, and then add ((anchor)) for each filename (((anchor|file:xyz.ext))) at the top of this section -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly how to use that template and/or what exactly you mean. It might be quicker for you to do it yourself - SimonLyall (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) for every file that is missing the PUF banner, add it the same way you did for the one file which you did do it for. (2) right below the header of this section, add a template tranclusion which says: ((anchor|file:nameoffile1|file:nameoffile2|file:nameoffile3)) (until you list every file) ; -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 discussion was: Kept as fair use for one article. Diannaa (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Do whacha No U Shud.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• CD cover, unlikely self made. Deadstar (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:SaksOct1.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This is a work of design/art by a third party (not the uploader) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiska w children.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• It says that permission is given in the "site bottom notice on every page". There it says "Все материалы, размещенные на сайте, могут быть использованы при условии указания источника. Дополнительная информация по e-mail." which Google translates as "All material on this site may be used, provided the source is acknowledged. For more information on e-mail." There is no evidence that it is permitted to modify the image. Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well... who did modify it? Stefan 2? Anyone? Was this a moot or erroneous listing? Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the text on the file information page, not the image itself. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the copyright holder doesn't explicitly grant modification rights, the image is non-free. It's also potentially replaceable with a free image, since all the subjects are still living. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Touhou figurines.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• See Hasbro Bradley, inc. v. Sparkle Toys, inc., 780 F.2d 189 (2nd Cir. 1985) and Commons:COM:TOYS. Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Danny Choo released the images themselves, but I did not realize Japanese law is superceded by Berne in the United States and that it could run afoul of this. Given the publication of the books containing these rooms, I am confused. Danny Choo's book of rooms contain literally thousands of figurines, toys and other works likely to run afoul of this very tight reading of the law. Some of the photographs likely would infringe on several hundred copyrights at once, but are officially published. Now, if this is a problem, would contacting and obtaining permission from ZUN (creator and owner of the Touhou rights) be acceptable? ZUN gave his permission for the creation of the commercial figurines to the Good Smile Company which runs the Nendoroid line. Finding who I have to go through is of concern. This is rather complex. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that Danny Choo made the toys (it seems that he only took the photo of them). Unless he made the toys himself, he has no rights to the toys which he can release. There is no evidence of permission from the toymaker. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's start with the basics, because I am confused about the issue here. How does the case law apply to a collection of figurines? Does it matter that Japanese law does not allow copyright on the toys? What about the published images in a book, which the images were released CC-BY-SA? Are you stating that the images are themselves invalid and thus the entire published work may be a violation despite international publication? Can fair use be used here? Failing that, who, specifically do I need to get permission from? The toymaker or the original creator who owns the work? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the case law tells us that Japanese toys are copyrighted in the United States regardless of what the Japanese law says. The person who holds the copyright to the toys in the United States needs to follow the procedure at WP:CONSENT. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You didn't answer my question at all. Who owns it, who do I ask? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Normally the person who made the toys. However, when a toy is made by a company, things can be trickier and the copyright holder might be the company instead. Also, they are probably based on other products made by Tōhō or other people, so it may be necessary to obtain permission from more people than just the toymaker and the photographer. In either case, permission from only the toymaker isn't sufficient in cases like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we change it to NFCC in that case? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisGualtieri: The image fails NFCC criterion #1 and #8. #1 states "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." We can be told using words that some people collect figurines; we don't need to see a picture of a collection of figurines to understand this point. #8 says "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Seeing the figurine collection does not significantly deepen our understanding of the topic of the article, so the image fails NFCC #8. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doc+Severinsen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• no proof of ownership Redsky89 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Recording artist Adonnis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The permission is only for Wikipedia. See ((db-f3)). Stefan2 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Double Dragons Carry Pearl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence that derivative works are permitted. Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strip till rig.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No evidence of public domain claim. Permission for educational non-profit purposes is insufficient. Stefan2 (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 discussion was: Kept; OTRS ticket has now been received. Diannaa (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:De-Wet Nagel profile photo off Internet Movie Database.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence of permission for the licence stated on Wikipedia.

IMDB seems to claim that the subject of the photo has licensed the photo under the GFDL. However, the photo doesn't look like a self-shot, so it is unlikely that the subject of the photo is the copyright holder. No indication is given that the copyright would have been transferred to the subject of the photo at some point. Also, it doesn't say how the photo ended up at IMDB: who uploaded it there and was that person authorised to do so by the copyright holder?

Furthermore, the GFDL only applies to the exact version number(s) chosen by the copyright holder. If we don't state a version number chosen by the copyright holder, or if we state a different version number, then it is a copyright violation. The version number chosen by the copyright holder is unknown, so there is no way to verify whether we currently satisfy the version number requirement in the GFDL or whether we would need to change our current version number claims into other version number(s). Stefan2 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The license is clearly stated on the page underneath the photo and permission is given by the owner for free use. It is also indicated that in this case the subject of the picture is the owner of the copyright. http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2379849728/nm5556881?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor lover (talk • contribs) 23:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMDB doesn't say who the photographer is or how the photo ended up on IMDB. Wikipedia claims that this is a self-shot, but that seems unlikely. Also, the copy at https://jumpingrabbitcreative.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/profile-photographs/ seems to predate IMDB by two days (check the "Last-Modified" HTTP header on IMDB) and is of much higher quality. There is no evidence that the person who uploaded the image to IMDB is the copyright holder in the first place. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://jumpingrabbitcreative.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/profile-photographs/ clearly states that those photos were taken for the artist and for his profile page and it is my understanding that was for IMDB. That is why those photos appear two days after the post on Jumpingrabbit and the quality difference is due to the restrictions on IMDB. Those photos don't appear anywhere else. What else do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor lover (talk • contribs) 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the photos were taken for his website. However, IMDB is Amazon's website. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Jumpingrabbit creative is credited for the photo http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2379849728/nm5556881?ref_=nmmi_mi_all_pbl_33 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor lover (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the photo was uploaded to IMDB by Jumpingrabbit Creative, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I need to make sure Jumpingrabbit creative gave consent for free use of that photo? How do I do that and what do I need from them and how do I get that to the appropriate channel to clarify whether this photo is ok to be used and get it back on wiki without it being flagged? Thanks for the help! Really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor lover (talk • contribs) 14:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a response as to how to go forward. The consent e-mail has been sent and I haven't gotten any response. Could you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actor lover (talk • contribs) 10:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Commons:Commons:OTRS/backlog, there is currently a backlog of 20 days for permission e-mails, so it might take some time. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shaolin Wahnam Lineage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The permission appears to be nonderivative. Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• The permission appears to be nonderivative. Stefan2 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Darkwind (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort Qu'Appelle public building.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• This was taken after 1945, so the photo is still protected by copyright in the United States. Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

((PD-Canada))((PD-1923)) "This file is NOT necessarily in the public domain in the United States because a non-simple image can only be in the public domain in the U.S." is not relevant to whether it is in the public domain in the country of its creation, subject and the body which has the photo. Saskatchewan is one of the ten provinces of Canada, not one of the 50 states of the USA. I'm sorry to burden you with this: one must assume that you are from some European, Asian, African or, most likely, Australian jurisdiction, where such matters are possibly not common knowledge. I would assume that all Americans know the names of their 50 states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masalai (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, so the copyright law of the United States is what applies to Wikipedia. What Canadian law says is irrelevant. See WP:C#Governing copyright law: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However US copyright law considers what the copyright law was in the country it was taken from on Jan 1 1996. Picture was taken in Canada thus it would matter what Canadian copyright is. Caffeyw (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian copyright term does not matter as it had not yet expired by 1 January 1996. The Canadian copyright term is only relevant for photos taken before 1946, as stated in my original deletion rationale. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinan the Architect.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• There is no evidence that the painter died more than 100 years ago as claimed and there is a statement on the talk page that this is a modern painting. Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 discussion was: Keep for local use only. Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grande Arche de La Défense et fontaine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

• No Freedom of Panorama (FOP) in France, and the US does not recognise FOP for statues or monuments.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That's a building not a sculpture, so US FOP applies. --ELEKHH^T 01:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's an office building -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a building. I don't know whether the fountain might count as an artwork, but the fountain seems to satisfy de minimis here as it is not the main purpose of the image. ((FoP-USonly)) is actually wrong: this is a pre-1990 building, so we should use ((PD-US-architecture)) instead. We don't seem to have a local copy of that template, though... --Stefan2 (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Citations, please, that this is a building? The article is decidedly unclear about it except for a throwaway mention in the lede. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.grandearche.com/breve6.html?id_article=150 (shows several of the rooms in the buildings) & http://www.grandearche.com/squelettes/inc-evenementiel/popup/360.html (also shows many of the rooms in it) --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • huh, the article says "The two sides of the Arche house government offices. The roof section was an exhibition centre, housing the Musée de l'Informatique (Computing Museum)." You could also just go to the official website. --ELEKHH^T 23:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Did not see that (buried in there, particularly as most of the wording seems to emphasis "monument")

• Actually, ((FoP-USonly)) is correct, because it accounts for both possibilities regarding 1990. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw, appropriately FOP in the US — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.