Commons:Deletion requests/Hominin photos violating FoP

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • Add {{delete|reason=Fill in reason for deletion here!|subpage=Hominin photos violating FoP|year=2024|month=November|day=13}} to the description page of each file.
  • Notify the uploader(s) with {{subst:idw||Hominin photos violating FoP|plural}} ~~~~
  • Add {{Commons:Deletion requests/Hominin photos violating FoP}} at the end of today's log.
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.

Hominin photos violating FoP

[edit]

Austria (FoP does not include building interiors)

Belgium (FoP does not include building interiors)

Czech Republic (FoP does not include building interiors)

Croatia (FoP does not include building interiors)

Spain (FoP does not include building interiors)

Ethiopia (no FoP in Ethiopia)

France (no FoP in France)

No, he died 1943 [1]. --Einsamer Schütze (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany (No FoP in Germany)

Iran (no FoP in Iran)

Italy (no FoP in Italy)

Japan (FoP does not include building interiors)

Mongolia (no FoP in Mongolia)

Netherlands (FoP does not include museum interiors)

Poland (FoP does not include building interiors)

Russia (FoP does not include building interiors)

Tanzania (FoP does not include building interiors)

Discussion

@Fährtenleser: See Commons:OTRS for steps on how to ask people to release their works under a Commons-friendly license using email Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fährtenleser: It's been a while, have they not responded yet? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fährtenleser: they should've responded by now seeing as it's been over a month Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now received an email from the Neanderthal Museum that all pictures of the category "Exhbits in Neanderthal Museum" will be released. I have prepared a corresponding mail for @permissions. Please have some patience. --Fährtenleser (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the museum has revised its promise to release all pictures of the category "Exhibits in Neanderthal Museum". Only the press photos I uploaded yesterday and an older press photo will be released. --Fährtenleser (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you forwarded your correspondence to commons-copyvio@wikimedia.org yet? If the museum has explicitly stated they do not want certain images on Commons, we have to delete them as soon as we can Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kulmalukko and Editor-1: You misunderstand. FoP in Germany does not include sculptures inside a building. I was not referring to the walls or the floors. So because the sculpture is inside a museum as opposed to on a sidewalk, it is not applicable for FoP and is thus a copyright violation Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dbachmann: For US law, it also needs to be free in the source country. Also, even if the sculpture were in an American museum, FoP still wouldn't apply to it. Though photography was allowed in the museum, this does not mean you have the right to publish photos (derivative works) of sculptures. You'll have to ask the artist Elisabeth Daynes for permission to publish a photo of her work with a Commons-friendly license. Unless I'm losing my mind, I vaguely remember a discussion of a photo of 1 of her works where she said she was unaware the photo even existed and asked for it to be taken down which resulted in its deletion Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@אילן שמעוני: I'm afraid it isn't Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: According to the copyright laws of the Netherlands, the artist of a sculpture which is placed inside a museum (public or otherwise) retains all rights on the sculpture, and only s/he can publish or give permission to publish derivative works, including photos. A CC-BY-NC is not a valid license for the purposes of the Commons, so you can either try to find the artist and ask their permission to publish a photo on the Commons with an applicable license (via Commons:OTRS), or you can make a case for fair use Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COM:NUDITY violations? Also  Delete File:Lucy - Australopithecus afarensis reconstruction in Museon Den Haag 01.jpg because of the CC BY-NC. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe COM:NUDITY is violated here because it isn't just penises for penises sake; a lot of these species (or cultures for the H. sapiens models) simply didn't wear clothes or cover genitalia Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please also delete the following files (I 'm not familiar with the process, sorry)? All the artistic works were photographed inside museums.Thank you in advance and kind regards, Thilo Parg (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I saw the explanation at the top of the page ... Thilo Parg (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long will it take untill the photos are deleted? Thilo Parg (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure but I wasn't expecting it to go on for over 2 months. @Ciell and Einsamer Schütze: do you know more about the timeline of the process? It appears that the Neanderthal Museum has apparently specifically declined granting permission to any of the Commons photos with the exception of those Fährtenleser recently uploaded Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dunkleosteus77, I remember this discussion, but lost track of the image where I referred to similar previous deletions in cases like this. Can you help me? I think it was on one of the reconstructions done in the Netherlands of which the image was deleted, because reconstructions are in basic just a 3D model with creative input from the maker, so they are under copyrights like all other 3D models do. As long as they are not in public space in a country that has FOP, our FOP rules have nothing to do with this. Ciell (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in the list of images below the Netherlands heading Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, but I found it. w:Yde Girl is one of the first we had in the Netherlands where a facial reconstruction was done and was reported in the news in 1992. The picture that is on the English Wikipedia is not allowed on Commons, as for instance you can see in this DR from 2012 handled by Jcb. Because of FOP in the Netherlands a picture of the information sign (semi-permanently placed at the place of discovery) is considered the alternative for images like this. Or: reach out to the artists and ask for permission: it's just like real sculptures. Ciell (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Delete due to artist copyright, doubtful they were all signed over. --Ciell (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Hominin_photos_violating_FoP&oldid=898311393"