Commons:Deletion requests/File:PilotCosmonautOfTheSovietUnion.jpg
Derivative from http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x79/nthach1/cosmonaut.jpg . The current source information has been given by the latest user to have processed the file, but he's not the original uploader and I doubt he would claim copyright over the original file. Eusebius (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- This sign is the State award of the USSR. The state awards of the USSR are in PD and it is not important from what sources the given image has arrived. Sdobnikov A. (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The medal itself is PD but the photograph generates a new copyright. --Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are not right. Sdobnikov A. (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The medal can be described as double-sided relief 2D-work, not full 3D; the photographing under direct viewpoint for such work is reproduction (воиспроизведение) in Ru-Copyright Law and doesn't create new copyright. Alex Spade (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal is intrinsically three-dimensional. The relief is its main feature, so I don't agree with your analysis. However, if the closing admin considers that it is actually 2D, the picture can simply be kept with {{PD-old|PD-RU-exempt}} (regardless of Russian law about the issue), but it must be properly sourced and acknowledge the original photograph (and, if possible, photographer). --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal is 3D-object, but bilateral relief 2D-work (game of lights and shadows). The painting/drawing/photoimage is also 3D-object (in real, non-digital life), but single-sided painted, drawn or photographed 2D-work (game of colors). Alex Spade (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Independently from the outcome of the debate, I quite don't understand what your point is here. There is a big difference about the two examples you give. In the case of a relief, the "game of lights and shadows" gives liberty to the photographer, who can choose different lightings to create different shadows, for instance. In the case of a photograph, in which the work of art itself (independently from its support) is 2D (whereas the work of art in a medal is the relief, therefore 3D, and cannot be conceived independently from the material) and if a second photographer wants to reproduce the photograph in a faithful fashion, he doesn't have the option of create new shadow effects or to take a different point of view. The case of the medal is borderline and can be debated for a long time, but in the case of the painting, for instance, the mere presence of the frame excludes this PD-Art reasoning. More specifically, if it is not ok for a coin, I don't see how it could be ok for a medal. Having found this new clear argument in a Commons official policy, I must re-affirm my initial position and vote
Delete. --Eusebius (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The possible difference (the liberty of "game of lights and shadows") between photographing in direct viewpoint of painting and relief 2D-work is insignificant. The difference between photographing and scanning is very more, more significant. We (you) can't decide/prove is this image photo or scan? The scanning does not create new copyright. Alex Spade (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Independently from the outcome of the debate, I quite don't understand what your point is here. There is a big difference about the two examples you give. In the case of a relief, the "game of lights and shadows" gives liberty to the photographer, who can choose different lightings to create different shadows, for instance. In the case of a photograph, in which the work of art itself (independently from its support) is 2D (whereas the work of art in a medal is the relief, therefore 3D, and cannot be conceived independently from the material) and if a second photographer wants to reproduce the photograph in a faithful fashion, he doesn't have the option of create new shadow effects or to take a different point of view. The case of the medal is borderline and can be debated for a long time, but in the case of the painting, for instance, the mere presence of the frame excludes this PD-Art reasoning. More specifically, if it is not ok for a coin, I don't see how it could be ok for a medal. Having found this new clear argument in a Commons official policy, I must re-affirm my initial position and vote
- The medal is 3D-object, but bilateral relief 2D-work (game of lights and shadows). The painting/drawing/photoimage is also 3D-object (in real, non-digital life), but single-sided painted, drawn or photographed 2D-work (game of colors). Alex Spade (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal is intrinsically three-dimensional. The relief is its main feature, so I don't agree with your analysis. However, if the closing admin considers that it is actually 2D, the picture can simply be kept with {{PD-old|PD-RU-exempt}} (regardless of Russian law about the issue), but it must be properly sourced and acknowledge the original photograph (and, if possible, photographer). --Eusebius (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The medal itself is PD but the photograph generates a new copyright. --Eusebius (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(indent reset) I can hardly believe it is a scan, for I have never seen a scan with a light not coming from front. However, if we accept your ignorance, we must conclude that we don't know whether the copyright status of the file is ok or not, and therefore delete it. --Eusebius (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- We don't really know, has this file made by me or smb. other, and let's delete it. If we cann't segregate scanning (absolutely non-creative work) and photographing (creative work in view of certain conditions) in such cases, in what do we see the original and creative work, which can be copyrighted? Alex Spade (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The limit is always blurry and depending on the countries. The rules on Commons are based on the US jurisprudence as applicable in the state of Florida. This explains the details in Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag but I must say I'm not a specialist of scans and copyright (in the US). --Eusebius (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Eusebius is clearly going too far regarding this particular medal image. There is absolutely no 3D features in this medal image. It is absolutely straightforward. No play of light, no angles. No artistic creation to be copyrighted. Discussion whether it is a scan or not, is pointless here. What matters in copyright law is whether there is artistic work done here or not, and there is none. It is plain two-dimensional image, therefore I support Alex Spade's position here. The image should stay. --Leonid Dzhepko (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- But the official Commons policy on coins negates this reasoning, which I would be ok to accept otherwise. --Eusebius (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
NONESENCE, this is PD Russia as much as PR USSR. It is not matter at all where this badge or image or photograph came from. It is belongs to State first of all, Not to any photographer. --Kwasura (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're confusing the medal with the photograph of the medal. The question here is whether the photograph gets a new copyright, and the answer is that it does. --Eusebius (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, no permission from the photographer. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
