Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Deletion requests/File:17723 EscherMuseum.jpg

< Commons:Deletion requests
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:17723_EscherMuseum.jpg

edit

The same (COM:DW) as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg. Saibo (Δ) 17:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per (same as) Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#File:Escher museum.jpg. --  Docu  at 18:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To get this clear: this photo here does not feature a faded picture of and unrelated work ("the queen"). To the contrary it features a work by Escher which the whole museum is about. That is quite a big difference. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still a picture of the building. It doesn't actually matter what ad is being displayed in the advertisement space.
If you are trying to say that the ad is there on a permanent basis, one might even consider keeping cropped versions of it. --  Docu  at 06:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a picture of a building where works by Escher are exhibited. Great opportunity for the photographer that even a work is displayed outside - makes the photo way more valuable.
No I am not trying to say that the ad is there on a permanent basis?! I am not sure how you did get this idea. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the main facade of a listed building and there seems to be no recent photographs without the advertisement in the picture. --  Docu  at 21:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be the problem of the artist? You can still photograph the building - just edit out the banner. --Saibo (Δ) 23:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we bother with that? Commons is primarily a host for photos of architectural works in the Netherlands, not photoshop works. --  Docu  at 01:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want to bother whit that just delete it. But there is also no reason why the copyright holders need to agree to a free usage of their works. --Saibo (Δ) 01:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is expired. Pieter de Swart died in 1772. --  Docu  at 10:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...I meant Escher. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 14:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored The artwork is de minimis. Yann (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Info This was discussed at this undeletion request. --Saibo (Δ) 23:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:17723_EscherMuseum.jpg

edit

Wrong UDR restoration (see end of last DR above). Faded Queen Beatrix was found to be de minmis at File:Escher museum.jpg. But between queen Beatrix and an Escher artwork is a big difference regarding de minimis: the queen is not (or at least not obviously) related to this building. To the contrary the artwork is highly related to this building - the whole museum is about him (if I understand correctly) and you can even see the Escher advert banners in this photo. Saibo (Δ) 23:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The similar DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg I had linked to in the DR above was not overturned, was it? --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw: Why am I not notified if an UDR is going on? Maybe we should simply place a message on the talk page or the DR page (this page) of an image which is under UDR - that would be sufficient in this case. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the art work is related to the building or not has no bearing to the fact that it is de minimis. What is important is the size the art work related to the size of the whole picture. Yann (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your Comment. At least in German law the context has a great effect to determine DM-eligibility. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paleis lange voorhout.jpg was deleted, too. COM:PRP unless somebody shows the Netherland's law allows this. Let me also quote Commons:DM#An_example: "If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail." The Escher artwork in the center of this image makes the photo much more attractive. --Saibo (Δ) 17:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - per concensus - Jcb (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:17723_EscherMuseum.jpg&oldid=718204069"