Jump to content

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2016 February 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 9 February 11 >

February 10[edit]

File:Call of Juarez logo.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: converted to fair use. — Diannaa (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Call of Juarez logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Paddy Dunne.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paddy Dunne.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Delete - the source noted above states "Reprinted from Park/Ratheniska GAA Grounds Open Day programme". -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Pagan-Buphaya-pagoda-entrance-Dec-2000-00.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pagan-Buphaya-pagoda-entrance-Dec-2000-00.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Millenium Hall.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 14#File:Millenium Hall.jpg. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Millenium Hall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • This is a 3D photo, so we need permission from the photographer. Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a photo of an out-of-copyright 2D work - the definition of {{PD-Art}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a photo of a 3D object: a book. {{PD-Art}} only applies to pages of books, but not to the book itself if you can see the book's 3D features, as you can in this case. In order to rely on the {{PD-Art}} tag, you'd need to crop the picture to remove the 3D background. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of PD-Art is that non-creative reproductions of 2D works don't get protection under US law. The 3D elements in the photo are minimal and would not qualify for protection in and of themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point of PD-Art is that non-creative productions of 2D works don't get protection under US law, although small modifications may be enough to gain copyright protection. Photos of 3D stuff around the 2D works do get copyright protection. If you take something PD and combine it with something which is not PD, then the result is not PD. You might have see wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive, where the Wikimedia Foundation agreed that EXIF metadata may be copyrighted (and therefore took down the EXIF metadata but left the picture). A background around a 2D artwork appears to be similar to EXIF metadata. Or you might have seen {{Non-free frame revdel}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's isn't a "3D photo", whatever you think that is. It's a faithful reproduction of two facing pages of a book, and no matter how you cut it, that doesn't generate a fresh copyright in the USA. The book itself was published in MDCCLXII, which is CCLIII years ago, making it slightly older than the USA itself, and well outside any copyright term. The author, Sarah Scott died in 1795. Due diligence really needs to be done before nominating perfectly obvious PD images for deletion. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So are you saying that what looks like a table on which a book is placed actually is a painting printed on the page of a book? I'm sorry, but I don't think that it was possible to publish photographs of books on tables back in MDCCLXII. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I'm saying that the table is not a work of art, nor is it anything more than a trivial part of the final image. You're being ridiculous in your pedantry here, as well as showing how completely unsuited you are to making these sort of nominations. --RexxS (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yeah, it's obviously PD-art and I'd close this at once under whatever the appropriate {{wtf-snowball}} clause is if I weren't at work and had more than five minutes to figure out where the directions are. This is about as public-domainy as it gets. Antandrus (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, PD-Art requires the photographed object to be in two dimensions. This picture contains 3D objects. Compare with a photograph of a painting, if the frame around the painting is included in the picture. In that situation, we need permission from the person who photographed the frame (or the frame could be removed from the picture by cropping the picture). --Stefan2 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • When will you get it through your head that PD-Art requires the photographed work of art to be in two dimensions? Any extraneous objects within the image are not works of art and subject to copyright - and would be de minimis even if they were. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • When will you get it through your head that PD-Art requires that the photograph is a photograph of a work of art, and only a work of art? This is not a photograph of a work of art but a photograph of a 3D book on a 3D table, although the 3D book happens to contain a work of art. Also pay attention to wmf:DMCA Cranach Digital Archive: EXIF data is a lot more de minimis than backgrounds around a picture in a book, yet the Wikimedia Foundation took down the EXIF data because it was likely that the EXIF data wasn't de minimis. Also pay attention to {{Non-free frame revdel}}: pictures with non-free frames are deleted on Commons! --Stefan2 (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're talking nonsense. In this case, PD-Art requires nothing more than that the work is an image of a 2D work of art that is in the public domain. Although pages of a book and paintings are actually 3D objects, the artwork itself is obviously 2D and Bridgeman v. Corel makes it clear that a photograph of that artwork isn't sufficiently creative to generate a fresh copyright. The framing or background of this work of art is clearly a trivial part of the derived image and nobody but you think it a significant part of the image. I could not care less what the idiots on Commons decide to delete: this is the English Wikipedia and common sense will prevail here. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nonsense. In this case, PD-Art requires that the picture shows a 2D artwork and a 2D artwork alone. Also note that Wikipedia is subject to United States copyright law in exactly the same way as Commons is. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't get to make up your own rules. There is absolutely nothing that says "PD-Art requires that the picture shows a 2D artwork and a 2D artwork alone". Quote your source - put up or shut up. --RexxS (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark non-free or delete (see below.) This is a detivative work since the photo was taken at a specific angle by the photographer. The copyright for this image, in effect, belongs to the photographer. (The uploader made no claim that they were the photographer, so at this point, the source is assumed unknown.) Unless permission is received to use this image with a free license, this image needs a fair-use claim. However, if tagged non-free, it would probably fail WP:NFCC#8 anyways since the preferred method to identify a book in an article is to take a picture of the cover. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No photographer can generate copyright from a PD work of art in the USA, merely by the choice of angle. There is no possible USA copyright on this image. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright is the photo, not the subject of the photo. You are trying to rationalize the "PD" status of the item which I am not disputing. It doesn't matter that subject isn't eligible for copyright if the photo's copyright is unknown. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A copyright is not a photo. A copyright is the collection of rights that are conferred by ownership of something and they belong to somebody when they exist. When you take a photograph, there are two possible copyrights to consider: (1) any copyright that might be attached to the object that is being photographed; (2) any possible copyright that the photographer might create when taking the photograph. In the first case, where there is a copyright existing on a subject, the permission of the owner of the copyright on the subject is required for any use of the photograph. If the subject has no copyright attached then the photographer is generally able to create their own copyright (the one that you're concerned with) by creative composition. But there is an important exception that applies here: in the USA a photographer cannot create a fresh copyright by merely reproducing a two-dimensional work of art and Bridgeman v. Corel explains how that judgement was made. It is surely obvious that taking a photograph where 90% of the image consists of two pages of a book published in 1762 and the rest is a virtually featureless background cannot possibly allow the photographer to create a fresh copyright, because there is a blatant lack of any original element in the "composition". The test would be to consider whether a different photographer photographing the same subject would produce a significantly different image. It must be obvious to you that they could not. Under those circumstances the resulting image is devoid of either of the two potential copyrights and is public domain. And that is true regardless of who took the photograph. If I took it, it would be PD; if you took it, it would be PD; if Geogre took it, it would still be PD. Knowing the name of the photographer has no effect on the copyright for this image, because there is none. --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that, there is still the issue of lack of proof that the uploader owns the copyright for this image, or where this image came from. Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if this discussion were not already in progress, I would have tagged the image with a WP:F4 {{Di-no source}} deletion request tag. Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's public domain, keep it. Here's what I know. Geogre has left the project. He did not upload non-free stuff, and took his own pictures. I've looked at his upload log, and it's like others he photographed himself. He tagged it PD himself, probably thinking it wasn't worth the bother of saying "hey, I took this picture". A little bit of that "assume good faith" thing wouldn't hurt. Pinging User:Bishonen because she may remember. Antandrus (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't matter what the precedence is for this editor: Without proof or a statement from the editor stating that they created this photo, the assumption has to be that they did not to ensure that Wikipedia is not hosting a copyright violation. Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That, and the PD tag referenced here would only apply if that was when the photo was created. I highly doubt that this photo was taken in the 1700s. Steel1943 (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the original work of art, i.e the book dated 1762, whose copyright has expired everywhere, so the book is in the public domain. Do you see that? Now the only question is whether a photographer who takes a picture of a page of the book (i.e makes a derivative work) can generate a fresh copyright. In the USA, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. tells us that they cannot. A faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art lacks the element of creativity and is ineligible for copyright in the USA. That is - and always has been - sufficient for the WMF. In fact, it matters not a jot who the photographer was; nobody in the USA could create a copyright on the File:Millenium Hall.jpg image and there are no grounds possible to justify deletion. --RexxS (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with that ... well, there's still the chance that this is a copyright violation due to a lack of source information for this photograph present on the file's page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)–[reply]
What effect does the source have on the copyright status of this image? No matter where it came from, it is PD in the USA. It could not possibly be a copyright violation, because it could not possibly have any copyright attached. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are disputing the subject of the photo, which I do not disagree is probably not eligible for copyright. I am referring to the photo. Again, we do not know who took the photo. Whoever took the photo, by default, owns the copyright to this image. Since we do not know who that is, we do not know the photo's copyright status, so we have to assume that it is copyrighted due to lacking a source ({{Di-no source}} should apply to this file in its current state.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply wrong. Whoever took the photograph owns no copyright in this case because a mere reproduction of a 2D work of art has no copyright for anybody to own. When the Bridgeman Art Library obtained digital copies of old masters, they thought they were getting a copyright on the images, even though the subjects were out of copyright by hundreds of years. But Corel Corporation started selling copies of those images; and when Bridgeman Art Library sued for breach of copyright, they lost. The act of reproducing a two-dimensional work of art, according to the judgement, lacked the element of originality that would allow them to receive a fesh copyright. And so it is here. --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This photo isn't a "2D work". This photo clearly has pages that are not flat, and has a wooden background. So, this photo has originality, and again, the copyright for the photo most likely belongs to its photographer, and we do not know who that is. Steel1943 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the photo isn't a "2D work" - it's actually virtual as it only exists in digital form - but the original work definitely is. A page of a book is just as much a 2D work of art as the Mona Lisa. If I took a photograph of the Mona Lisa, I could not generate a fresh copyright that would be valid in the USA. All of our images of old portraits, landscapes, etc. rely on that to ensure the photograph cannot escape the public domain. The point is that - unlike a statue (a 3D work), for example - there's such a limited way in which you could photograph any 2D work of art, that in the USA a photographer can't create a copyright because there is a threshold of originality that can't be crossed. Look at the image; it's nothing more than a reproduction of two pages of a book - there's no originality in that. --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Antandrus: I'm with RexxS on this: there is no way the photographer could create a new copyright merely by photographing a work of art lying on a table. However, I'm also pretty sure Geogre took the picture; as Antandrus says, that's what he did. I could ask him; we're in touch. But before I bother him I'd like to know if there's any point. If all I'm gonna get is in any case some version of "Either you or he or both are probably lying" ("How do we know you even know him?") then I prefer not to. How about it, @Stefan2:? Would my word, relaying Geogre's word, be taken on this? Bishonen | talk 10:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the uploader didn't specify who the photographer is. The uploader might be the photographer, or the photographer might be someone else. Also, the uploader didn't specify a licence, so even if he were the photographer, the picture is still unlicensed. Adding PD-old-100 to an "own work by the uploader" is essentially the same thing as adding the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark to a file on Flickr, which is resulting in lots of file deletions on Commons: c:Category:Public Domain Mark 1.0-related deletion requests/deleted.
If you could get in touch with him and get a confirmation that he is the photographer, and at the same time obtain a licence from him, then that would solve the problem. If a user uploads a file and claims that the file is his own work, then we typically trust this claim unless we have a good reason to assume that the uploader is lying. I also doubt that an admin would lie about knowing a user, but verification through OTRS might be safer in case someone else complains at some later point in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already pointed out, it doesn't matter who took the photograph (although we all know it was Geogre). Even David Bailey couldn't generate a copyright in the USA on a photograph of a page from Millenium Hall. This file has no copyright attached to it and there are no rational grounds to delete it. If you feel it necessary to contact Geogre, then the onus is on you to use the email link on his user page. The rest of us already know that's unnecessary. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already pointed out, this is not just a photograph of a page from Millenium Hall, but a photograph of several things, of which the page is only one thing. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are the several things? Look at the image - 90% of it is the pages and the rest is a dark, featureless background. I'm afraid there's no copyright available on dark, featureless backgrounds. --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Stefan2, are you saying I could add a statement that Geogre took the picture, plus a licence, to the image page, on request from Geogre, and that would be the end of it? Or are you saying I should state the license right here, and you would add it? (That sounds safer. I probably wouldn't express it the right way on the image page.) The other alternative, verification through OTRS, sounds complicated. You mean Geogre would e-mail OTRS and affirm he's the photographer? He might not want to, actually. Stating it to me would be different. RexxS, could you please advise Geogre, through me, as to what would be a good license? He probably doesn't remember the finer details about licenses any more, and as for me, I never knew them. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately Stefan2 doesn't know what he's talking about. As the photograph that Geogre took is not eligible for copyright ("a faithful reproduction of a 2D work of art"), Geogre can't license it because it's already in the public domain. There is no originality in the act of photographing a page from a book on a table. The image would be substantially the same no matter what table the photographer chose to place it on, and there needs to be some significant element of creativity for a photograph to receive a fresh copyright under US case law. In addition, we have an article on de minimis, which explains that small or incidental elements of an image don't have copyright protection. Imagine if photographers could create new copyrights on public domain art simply by including a bit of the wall behind a portrait. What a joke this nomination is. If Geogre would affirm to you that he's the photographer, it would completely cut the ground out from the deletionistas, but he already added a PD licence when he did the original upload and a public domain licence is the correct licence for this file. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the evidence that Geogre is the photographer? Without proof, your statement is akin to supporting a copyright infringement from an unknown source. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It needs no evidence of who the photographer is. There cannot be a copyright infringement because there cannot be any copyright, regardless of the source. --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Taman.png[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taman.png (delete | talk | history | logs).
  • Badge. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Jehoash tablet images[edit]

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 30#Jehoash tablet images Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of Jehoash tablet showing form of lettering in inscription.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
File:Jehoash tablet, allegedly circa 800 BCE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
This was the discussion for File:Detail of Jehoash tablet showing form of lettering in inscription.jpg prior to merging the discussions. The content here is essentially a duplicate of the discussion for the latter-nominated file.
  • The inscription was created prior to 1923, but the photo obviously was not. Since this is a derivative work since the photo is taken of the item at a specific angle, the photographer could claim a copyright for their zoom of the item. Also, if this is deemed non-free, per the information above, it would fail WP:NFCC#1. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steel1943, the photo is a simple front-on snapshot of the object. It shows no creativity or originality within the meaning of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. It is therefore unprotectable. In addition, the picture is used to illustrate an article about the tablet and is therefore a fair use. 23:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @PraeceptorIP: Yes, there is a free equivalent. A free equivalent would be you or I taking a photo of the tablet ourselves and then uploading it to Wikipedia with a free license. Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PraeceptorIP: Actually, I have a question for that you may be able to answer to truly determine if a free equivalent can be created. See the discussion below. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This item may have been created prior to 1923, but the photo was not. This is a derivative work, so this th copyright belongs to the photographer. If this file were marked non-free, it would fail WP:NFCC#1. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steel1943, the photo is a simple front-on snapshot of the object. It shows no creativity or originality within the meaning of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. It is therefore unprotectable. In addition, the picture is used to illustrate an article about the tablet and is therefore a fair use. Also, there is no free equivalent available. If one existed I would have used it. 23:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @PraeceptorIP: Yes, there is a free equivalent. A free equivalent would be you or I taking a photo of the tablet ourselves and then uploading it to Wikipedia with a free license. Steel1943 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PraeceptorIP: Do you know where this tablet is currently located (in what facility, what country, etc)? This information may help determine if you or I taking a photo of the tablet would be considered free or non-free by default. (See Commons:Freedom of panorama.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the tablet were not hidden, it would be infeasible to go to Israel from the US to photograph it, even assuming Golan would cooperate in the project. If you are in Israel (which I am not) you are welcome to try to do this. There is another, not as good, photograph of the tablet at http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/verdict-not-guilty/ but you would make the same complaint against it that you already made. There is another photo of the detail (not the same) at http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/outside-edge/.premium-1.591953 but again you would make the same complaint against it that you already made.
No reasonable alternative source exists. This is a fair use. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures do not need to be replaced by you personally. There are lots of people in Israel who can take photos of objects. Compare with WP:NFC#UUI §1: a picture of a living person isn't 'irreplaceable' only because the uploader and the subject of the photograph are in different countries. That said, if the tablet is inaccessible, then the pictures may very well be irreplaceable. For example, photos of people are often irreplaceable if the person is in prison, and an object locked into someone's private home would presumably also be irreplaceable if there is no legal way to enter that person's home. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Stefan2:Golan secreted the tablet in a secure, unknown location after his acquittal. http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/outside-edge/.premium-1.591953 It is therefore inaccessible. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jehoash tablet, allegedly circa 800 BCE.jpg shows more than just the tablet, and it's possible that the light effects on the tablet are caused by the photographer or that they are affected by how the camera is held. There is also some background stuff on the picture. It's maybe easier to claim PD-Art if the picture is cropped, but the light effects make me worried. Or maybe the light effects are not light effects but parts of the tablet? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My unprofessional IANAL opinion:
  1. On the first image: The border is problematic, yeah. On Commons non-free photos of PD paintings need to have the frame removed as a 3D frame adds a factor of copyrightability (c.f commons:Template:Non-free frame and relevant section on commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag); the question here is whether the same principle would apply to a cropped photo of a coin; the policy page and linked explanation is not 100% clear.
  2. On the second image: If by "light effects" you mean the blue-orange colour, I am fairly sure photography machines cannot do that. Image alteration maybe, but that is much more likely to be the plate's original colour. The "non-free frame" point may apply here though.

That's my take, I am open to corrections.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2016_February_10&oldid=1074064372"