| Revision as of 08:41, 1 May 2007 editSarvagnya (talk | contribs)9,152 edits re← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:26, 1 May 2007 edit undoVenu62 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,773 edits →Fair use justified: It should be pompously {{pd-art}}Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| The image is a low res version of an old painting. <nowiki>{{pd-old}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{pd-art}}</nowiki> should apply to this. - ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 05:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC) | The image is a low res version of an old painting. <nowiki>{{pd-old}}</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{pd-art}}</nowiki> should apply to this. - ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 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. ] 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) | |||
Revision as of 09:26, 1 May 2007
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)
