| Revision as of 09:26, 1 May 2007 editVenu62 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,773 edits →Fair use justified: It should be pompously {{pd-art}}← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:18, 16 February 2016 edit undoMagog the Ogre (talk | contribs)Administrators100,727 editsm Magog the Ogre moved page File talk:Serfoji amarasimha Tanjore.jpg to File talk:Serfoji II and Amar Singh of Tanjore.jpg without leaving a redirect: Now available on Commons under this name | ||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :Lo res considerations have nothing to do with this image. This has been pompously released on public domain. Not even fair use. Also the picture(a colour image as it is) obviously doesnt qualify for pd-old. Pd-art states ''"The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years."''. Now prove to me that this applies first to India and then to ''this'' image. ] 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | :Lo res considerations have nothing to do with this image. This has been pompously released on public domain. Not even fair use. Also the picture(a colour image as it is) obviously doesnt qualify for pd-old. Pd-art states ''"The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years."''. Now prove to me that this applies first to India and then to ''this'' image. ] 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::I don't know how one 'pompously releases' something to PD! The license tag should probably be <nowiki>{{pd-art}}</nowiki>. Read ]. It says '''<nowiki>{{PD-art}}</nowiki> — for images of works of art where the artist died more than 100 years ago.'''. I will change the license accordingly. ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | ::I don't know how one 'pompously releases' something to PD! The license tag should probably be <nowiki>{{pd-art}}</nowiki>. Read ]. It says '''<nowiki>{{PD-art}}</nowiki> — for images of works of art where the artist died more than 100 years ago.'''. I will change the license accordingly. ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::This photograph of an uncopyrighted painting (''from 1797!'') clearly meets the criteria, the ''very purpose'', of PD-art, despite any claims by the museum. I'm removing the speedy delete template.--] 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 05:18, 16 February 2016
Fair use justified
The image is a low res version of an old painting. {{pd-old}} or {{pd-art}} should apply to this. - Parthi 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Lo res considerations have nothing to do with this image. This has been pompously released on public domain. Not even fair use. Also the picture(a colour image as it is) obviously doesnt qualify for pd-old. Pd-art states "The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain in the United States and in those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years.". Now prove to me that this applies first to India and then to this image. Sarvagnya 08:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how one 'pompously releases' something to PD! The license tag should probably be {{pd-art}}. Read Image copyright tags. It says {{PD-art}} — for images of works of art where the artist died more than 100 years ago.. I will change the license accordingly. Parthi 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- This photograph of an uncopyrighted painting (from 1797!) clearly meets the criteria, the very purpose, of PD-art, despite any claims by the museum. I'm removing the speedy delete template.--Pharos 20:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
