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.
There is also this photo which shows some photograph of a women (couldnt find the image with tineye): File:Escher_museum.jpg - but at least we can see that the "Day and night" is not permanent.
I can retouch the image to blank the canvas if there is agreement that the original version is not allowed. Saibo (Δ) 19:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could be - but this is not Escher's (heirs) problem. This is ours. In addition the advertising is avoidable: as proposed I can simply retouch the canvas to blank it out. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a photo of the building, not a reproduction of someone else's problem. It's not really avoidable, because a blank surface creates a hole in the image. Personally, I think it's negligible. Obviously one mustn't crop it. -- Docu at01:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a photo of an art museum. And this photo really is much nicer with a sample of the artwork which is inside. Therefore I really do not see this as de minimis. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a de minimis sample at Commons is a cinema with an Indiana Jones poster. BTW, the woman you mention above is the queen. -- Docu at08:00, 7 May 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.
Comment Background: The original photograph, with the same filename, was deleted because a copyrighted work was displayed on the building and shown in the photograph. As mentioned above, a version with the banner blanked was created (File:Paleis_lange_voorhout-banner_blanked.jpg) to retain an image of the building itself in Commons. This seems like an acceptable, least-worst solution. The version now proposed for deletion, with the Wikimedian's original Commons art (File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg) placed into the white space, is inappropriate. --JN46622:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just noticed that we also have a photograph of the building without any advertising banner at all: File:Escher_Museum.jpg. This being so, I don't think the version with the blanked banner is needed either. --JN46623:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speculation of uses that would be deceptive is irrelevant, the image page clearly describes the changes, and the reasons for those changes. The linked page about image guidelines was created specifically for "featured pictures" and "quality images", and even there these are not prescriptions, they are guidelines, and definitely not policy anywhere. Whether there are other images of the same subject is also irrelevant, we normally have lots of images of the same subject, often more than one being used in the same article, often different wikis use different views of the same subject. At any instant most images on Commons are not in use on any wiki. (Perhaps I should suggest that images of the building with no advertising banner attached are deceptive as there is a banner there these days ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is deceptive, and I can see no other reason for a contributor placing their own image as though it had been displayed on a public building than self-promotion. An editor might as well Photoshop their face on to a man in a red carpet shot, next to that of a famous actress. It does not aid the Foundation's educational mission in any way. --JN46611:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The weirdest image I've seen, really, and a deceptive one, too. If one doesn't want to show copyrighted work on a building, one simply blurs or airbrushes it. I have to agree with the poster above - here is a blatant self-promotion. Ari Linn (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is a useable image, there is no reason to use a deceptive image. Even clearly labeling the substitution on the photo itself would not be workable because who would want to use such a photo in an article, etc? And it would be a precedent for all sorts of foolishness, like me putting my face on the Statute of Liberty and clearly labeling it as such and uploading it. (Unless of course it became a famous art photo or something. ;-) Carolmooredc (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNew stadium being built in New YorkIf I see a photo of a building with an advertising banner on it, what am I expecting it to contain? If I go there and find it has a different illustration than I thought do I think I was deceived? Photographs are not reality, photographs are subjective, photographs show the subject as the photographer chooses (just like artists do with paintings) - photos are edited or staged. Photographs can be used to deceive eg "New stadium being built in New York", but if their description clearly states what they are of, they are not deceptive in themselves.
The deletion/undeletion history of the image clearly shows why the banner image was replaced. It is the most natural thing to use one of ones own images (where you can be sure of the long term copyright status and ensure it is compatible with the image you are merging it with) when making such a change. If an image is an FP and subsequently POTD, this additional use is hardly extra promotion. I stated on the user's talk page that I don't think it was the best image for this purpose as limits its use. But as an illustration of the Palace (which currently happens to house the Escher museum) it is a quite useable image. The editted photograph illustrates how the building looks with an advertising banner taking up aprox 1/10th of the photograph. I makes a visually attractive image at normal viewing distances and sizes used on wiki pages, certainly better than the visual dissonance created by a straight blanking of the original artwork.
We normally keep many different images of the same subject, differently sourced, differently licensed, differently editted. This aids our educational purposes by allowing wikis to choose between a number of alternative images of the subject for illustration purposes, we don't decide which is the best for any particular purpose, that is up to the participating wikis. --Tony Wills (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the most natural thing to use one of ones own images
This is a very silly point. A solid colour rectangle over the offending portion of the image is the surest way to ensure the long-term copyright availability of the image. Lankiveil (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I'm sure the Escher museum would love to see this! What exactly is the educational purpose of this and how does it fit into Commons educational mission? It's a joke that people actually think this serves an educational purpose by displaying itself on the Escher museum to show how banners are displayed on the facilities exterior. Missvain (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with other arguments above to delete. If you want to remove the advertising banner on a museum's facade, make it blank; don't advertise your own work as a form of affiliation with a cultural institution. Jgmikulay (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a museum professional, I'd much rather have the blank banner than having a Commons users artwork, let alone something totally unrelated to the mission of the Escher museum. Sometimes imaginations are meant to be used, and I find it hard to believe that the creator of this second image, the creator of the artwork itself, was doing it as a charity to Wikimedia Commons. Missvain (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that they don't, do you think it is ethical for us to misrepresent them, and to deceive our readers/viewers? --JN46623:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do see anything "unethical" here. Also our readers/viewers are not deceived. It is clearly labeled as an edited (with specific details what has been edited) photo. If this would be used - for example - in an Wikipedia (but remember: Commons is not an Wikipedia image store) article, of course, the image subtitle should reflect that, too. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no bona-fide point serving other projects or commercial re-users. We have an image of the building, without banner, as well as one with the banner blanked. --JN46600:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's just bizarre that you think it's "ethical". This is just one of the many concerns that institutions dread when it comes to open-source and Wikimedia - images of their objects, buildings, etc, being utilized for things like this. Missvain (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that that image was created as a part of a discussion on the strategy wiki, I think the answer to the question is "Yes, it does have a useful purpose". Lankiveil (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
This rationale makes no sense, unless half of the images on Commons are pictures of museums with hentai images plastered across them. Lankiveil (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Not everyone does, and that doesn't mean that anyone is any lower on the food chain here or any less cultured, not everyone in the Wiki world is into anime/manga/lord forbid.."cartoons". Missvain (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely better to choose your words right and not to use something as an argument that you don't even know. I won't cite Dieter Nuhr in this case, but it could be an good start to begin with. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係14:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to view that comment as a piece of performance art, rather than a contribution to the discussion. --JN46613:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Out of scope and potentially misleading. It's a good work indeed, when I looked at it for the first time, without seeing this discussion, I thought for a moment that for some reason the Niabot artwork (which I knew from a rather unfortunate attempt of censorship when it was POTD) was displayed in that building.--DarwinAhoy!03:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The guidelines are clear - images which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. Kaldari (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Out of scope. The Niabot picture is unrealted to the Escher museum, and so doesn't provide any educative information. A better solution were provided by the blanked version. A certain tolerance generally exists but in this case, Niobot weren't entitled to squat the old photo filename to force his custom artwork display. --Dereckson (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Background: The original photograph, with the same filename, was deleted because a copyrighted work was displayed on the building and shown in the photograph. As mentioned above, a version with the banner blanked was created (File:Paleis_lange_voorhout-banner_blanked.jpg) to retain an image of the building itself in Commons. This seems like an acceptable, least-worst solution. The version now proposed for deletion, with the Wikimedian's original Commons art (File:On_the_edge_-_free_world_version.jpg) placed into the white space, is inappropriate. --JN466 22:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Keep Speculation of uses that would be deceptive is irrelevant, the image page clearly describes the changes, and the reasons for those changes. The linked page about image guidelines was created specifically for "featured pictures" and "quality images", and even there these are not prescriptions, they are guidelines, and definitely not policy anywhere. Whether there are other images of the same subject is also irrelevant, we normally have lots of images of the same subject, often more than one being used in the same article, often different wikis use different views of the same subject. At any instant most images on Commons are not in use on any wiki. (Perhaps I should suggest that images of the building with no advertising banner attached are deceptive as there is a banner there these days ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Delete The weirdest image I've seen, really, and a deceptive one, too. If one doesn't want to show copyrighted work on a building, one simply blurs or airbrushes it. I have to agree with the poster above - here is a blatant self-promotion. Ari Linn (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
