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 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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
This is PD-UK because the author is unknown and it has not been published since 1935 and thus if it had a copyright, it fell into the public domain in the UK either in 2001 or 2005. For an item that was published, the law required any copyrighted image to be credited. This image was not credited. Neither the campaign's election agent nor the publishing company Underhill would have risked breaking the law by publishing a copyrighted item that was not credited. Therefore, I conclude that there was no copyright attached to this image
Graemp (
talk)
22:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not disputing that it's PD-UK, but Wikipedia's servers are in the United States so we can't treat it as free unless it is public domain in the US (please see
WP:Non-U.S. copyrights and the bottom half of {{PD-UK}}). Since this image could not have entered the public domain in the UK any earlier than 2001, it was still copyrighted on 1 January 1996 and therefore has a
restored copyright, making it copyrighted in the US for 95 years from publication.
January (
talk)
17:20, 15 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Oh boo, I'm getting tired of this... I went around and photographed the shop decor for Christmas. The poster in that image isn't quite de minimis, I know, but it was incidental but happened to fit the purpose of the Lufsig article. -- Ohc ¡digame!15:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree that FOP doesn't apply because the primary subject of the image is a 2D poster. As an alternative, I've uploaded
File:Lufsig IKEA Tottenham.jpg. This is slightly low-quality because I took it on my phone (wasn't really expecting to put it on WP/Commons when I took it). The plush toys are mounted to the store's fence railings so they can be construed as "on permanent display in a publicly accessible place" by any reasonable definition.
Deryck C.23:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
what i don't get is why a 2d poster enjoys that status for copyright protection while neither the toy itself nor the shop display, both of which can be considered artistic works, do not. just seems so arbitrary to me. -- Ohc ¡digame!00:16, 15 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Wikipedia images are often re-used on social media sites, so images that were uploaded here a few years ago may well have been taken from us. I can't see the image on the Facebook page but the Twitter pic (based on "833 days ago" at the bottom right) seems to be more recent than our upload.
January (
talk)
14:34, 20 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
This is PD-UK because the author is unknown and it has not been published since 1935 and thus if it had a copyright, it fell into the public domain in the UK either in 2001 or 2005. For an item that was published, the law required any copyrighted image to be credited. This image was not credited. Neither the campaign's election agent nor the publishing company Underhill would have risked breaking the law by publishing a copyrighted item that was not credited. Therefore, I conclude that there was no copyright attached to this image
Graemp (
talk)
22:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not disputing that it's PD-UK, but Wikipedia's servers are in the United States so we can't treat it as free unless it is public domain in the US (please see
WP:Non-U.S. copyrights and the bottom half of {{PD-UK}}). Since this image could not have entered the public domain in the UK any earlier than 2001, it was still copyrighted on 1 January 1996 and therefore has a
restored copyright, making it copyrighted in the US for 95 years from publication.
January (
talk)
17:20, 15 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Oh boo, I'm getting tired of this... I went around and photographed the shop decor for Christmas. The poster in that image isn't quite de minimis, I know, but it was incidental but happened to fit the purpose of the Lufsig article. -- Ohc ¡digame!15:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree that FOP doesn't apply because the primary subject of the image is a 2D poster. As an alternative, I've uploaded
File:Lufsig IKEA Tottenham.jpg. This is slightly low-quality because I took it on my phone (wasn't really expecting to put it on WP/Commons when I took it). The plush toys are mounted to the store's fence railings so they can be construed as "on permanent display in a publicly accessible place" by any reasonable definition.
Deryck C.23:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)reply
what i don't get is why a 2d poster enjoys that status for copyright protection while neither the toy itself nor the shop display, both of which can be considered artistic works, do not. just seems so arbitrary to me. -- Ohc ¡digame!00:16, 15 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Wikipedia images are often re-used on social media sites, so images that were uploaded here a few years ago may well have been taken from us. I can't see the image on the Facebook page but the Twitter pic (based on "833 days ago" at the bottom right) seems to be more recent than our upload.
January (
talk)
14:34, 20 December 2013 (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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 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 images's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.