User talk:Carcharoth/Review

If you would like to comment on this self-review that I've started, or on any particular image, please create a section below and leave your comments there. If I don't respond within a few days, please leave a message on my talk page. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wknight94

1. What do you know about the Bulgarian church in File:St George and the Dragon (Sozopol).jpg? Is it old? COM:FOP could be a problem there, but not if the artwork is so old that it is in the public domain.

   It is this church. The "Church of Sveti Georgi". Trying to find out more about it. The painting might have been renovated over the years, but the church itself is almost certainly old. Not sure how to find a source definitively stating that. I found this and this, both stating that the church dates to the 19th century. The inside is lovely, but they don't let you take photos inside (or my camera wasn't good enough, can't remember which). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

2. Someone could give you a hard time for File:Modern tram (2007) in Sofia.jpg, but the design/logo on the tram could be defended per COM:DM, i.e. it isn't really the focus of the photo. The tram is. COM:DM is in place so that a single Coca-Cola can lying in the middle of a park doesn't subject a picture of the entire park to copyright concerns. Another point - is the tram run by a government? If so, maybe there are government copyright exclusions like in the U.S. (COM:L doesn't list Bulgaria for some reason).

   Eh, I'll leave that one be then. I would have taken a wider shot of the tram to avoid the design being as prominent as it is, but the tram was moving and I didn't have much time to take the photo! :-) Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

   Stumbled on an open DR with precedence here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ayr Coach Polar Bear.JPG. Wknight94 ^talk 14:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

3. As for personality rights in your (1), I am not aware of any files being deleted for that reason. Some add that tag to their images, some don't. I haven't bothered, but I probably should.

   Fair enough. I added some and someone answered my questions about this elsewhere, so I'm happy with that now. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

4. I routinely see France FOP deletions as many people (logged-in and not) will make a stink about them. Technically even pictures of individual buildings can be deleted, let alone pictures of artwork and statues. You have numerous pictures of statues from France, and those could all be potential targets. Any clearly newer than 70 years (per COM:L#France) or designed by someone who died less than 70 years ago are definitely in jeopardy:
   1. File:Grave of Alexander Alekhine in Paris.JPG
   2. File:Detail of grave of Alexander Alekhine in Paris.JPG

   I think I know which ones are old enough to be OK. But I will clearly need to document the dates here more clearly. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

5. La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial was designed by Adrien Fizeau - when did he die? If it was less than 70 years ago, then that whole category is in jeopardy.

   If that is the case, there are hundreds of photos of World War I memorials in jeopardy, as most of the Western Front ones were built in France and Belgium between 1920 and 1930. I have a list of the architects, but would prefer to see a debate about all the photographs of this sort, rather than just one or two. Is there a good place to do that? Preferably before I visit them and take hundreds of photos (I would still take the photos, and probably upload them to en-Wikipedia, but it would be sad if Commons rejected them). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Fizeau was not the architect, by the way, see the article for the name of the architect.

   Woops, I did read the article but read too quickly ---- didn't see the words "on land given". So Edwin Lutyens only died in 1944 - that would put that whole category in jeopardy. It likely means the memorial itself is still copyrighted. Does the fact that Lutyens was British factor in? I don't know but I doubt it. Wknight94 ^talk 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

   He was a British architect working for the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, an intergovermental agency (which should make the copyright issues a bit more complex) established by Royal Charter following the Imperial War Conference in 1917. Most of the time, the land on which the memorials and cemeteries were built were ceded in perpetuity to the country building the memorial. The four Principal Architects were Lutyens (died 1944), Blomfield (died 1942), Baker (died 1946) and Holden (died 1960), but there were Assistant Architects as well (who were younger). Who was responsible for the design is not always clear (sometimes a Principal Architect is named, but most of the work was by an Assistant). For more on the architects, see here. There are other issues as well, which is why a wider debate would be my preference here. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

   Oh yes, that is a lot of good information to process, and there would be little chance of me closing that DR.  :) Wknight94 ^talk 01:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

6. File:Humberto Delgado plaque in Lisbon.JPG is probably okay only because Portugal has liberal FOP.

   You mean the artwork there makes it different from purely textual plaques, and plaques and inscriptions that are text-only are usually OK? i.e. Are the ones in the "plaques" section OK? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

   I believe that text-only plaques and inscriptions are okay, but I'm not 100% sure. I am more sure that plaques with artistic creativity do need to be considered carefully. They are often copyrighted unless they are old enough to be public domain, or fall under the applicable COM:FOP exclusion. Another exception - which definitely does not apply here - is whether the artistic creativity is original enough for someone to claim copyright. There are many logos and such that fall under {{PD-shape}} or {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-ineligible}}, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

7. Not sure on File:Twinning plaque at Liverpool Street station.jpg. FOP does not extend to two-dimensional works in the UK. But is there anything copyrighted on the picture anyway? Are the flowers part of some ancient old coat of arms?

   Not a clue about the flowers. Will try and remember the bit about 2D works in the UK. Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

8. I think File:Marble Hill House (March 2010) 3.jpg is okay. Even the slight raising should qualify it as three-dimensional for UK's FOP requirement.

   I will remember to take a tape measure with me and measure the amount of 3D'ness in plaques I photograph... Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

   Do I sense sarcasm?!  ;) I know it's silly and I agree. That's why I harped on retaliatory DRs earlier - few people bother looking for harmless 2D publicly-placed plaques and billboards to delete unless there is some ulterior motive. There are exceptions though. Like I mentioned above, some person or group of people adhere very strictly to French FOP rules, but at least they do it unilaterally. Their purpose is protecting French artists' copyrights, not attacking a particular class of people. Wknight94 ^talk 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)