Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Banners CIMG0256.jpg

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.

Image:Banners CIMG0256.jpg

derivative work. The subject is: the posters in the hall --G.dallorto 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree on this one; the picture is of the hall as a whole and not a particular banner. In addition, whatever logos are there are very small and from a distorted perspective.  Keep Carl Lindberg 07:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject is not the hall, if you take the posters away, nothing is left (btw, what the heck is a nude man doing up there?). The hall is not portrayed, it is the posters in the hall that are portayed. --G.dallorto 20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If you take the banners away, you have the ceiling area of an interesting interior space, and a statue (as you note). The individual logos (which would most often fall under trademark law, not copyright law) are so small here, with most detail not visible, that the photo does not qualify as a derivative work. Carl Lindberg 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did you have a photo of a poster deleted? It certainly seems as though you are nominating every photo which even seems similar as a matter of retaliation. Some of them are problems to be sure, but the entire effort seems excessive. Carl Lindberg 00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not talk about retaliation: I have better ways to waste my time than playing flames on Commons. This is a test. Since I have been told that "There is more than one rule for everything and there is no need to try to figure out everything under one rationale" I need to know which those "more-than-one rules" are (since they are written nowhere) and if the gay vs nongay contents is - perhaps - one of them. One of the pictures deleted was very similar to the Attac kiosk picture: an Arcigay kiosk in Bologna with a poster of theirs (with two boys kissing) in front of it. It was used in the Italian Wikipedia page "Arcigay". It was speedely deleted without me being warned, as derivative. When I asked why, in the undeletion page, I got no reply at all. I asked again in the Village pump and I was told: quote -- "If you think some other images are unauthorized derivative works you are free to tag them with {{derivative}} but please don't come here to accuse us of being homophobe. Regards" -- unquote. So testing the case was the only issue I was being left with. And here I am.

Now I am in the process of asking Arcigay for a written permission to upload my pictures again (which I admit could be the only road that can be followed in the future if we want to play by the rules... but what an unconvinient road!). But it will take time. However I feel that if the rule is that a written permission should be asked for any scene in which a political poster is featured to be uploaded, even when it is not the only subject of the image, as in my case, then all political posters should have such a permission -- not just the gay ones.

I am ready to adapt to the rules, scores of pictures of mine have been deleted without me objecting, since at the begininng of my cooperation with Commons some rules applying only on Commons but not in the real world were not evident to me: I had to learn. But here I think we are facing either a case of copyright paranoia, or a case of homophobic discrimination. In either cases, the situation needs fixing, and a CLEAR rule should be voted by all of us concerning ALL political posters of ANY kind, whether about allowing or deleting them. And perhaps a special policy being adopted for "Right-to-chronicle" in Commons. If you are interested in the matter, the discussion is here. Thanks. --G.dallorto 16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Short answer then, yes you did ;-) The intersection of copyright, trademarks, personal rights, infinite national variations thereof, and commons rules makes for a confusing situation with a lot of gray area; it is inevitable that some mistakes are made. It does sound like your original photo may have been a mistake; at the very least it probably should not have been speedied. However, keep in mind that every deletion request causes several editors to spend time looking at each one, and editors on many wikis to possibly remove it from articles, so be careful about each one you nominate. I'll go peek at the more in-depth discussion... Carl Lindberg 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

•  Keep Not derivative work. Lupo 07:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
•  Keep Not derivative. Quadzilla99 11:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

---

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)