Commons:Deletion requests/File:Projected Image of Madeline.JPG

• File:Madeline overlooks the Suir.JPG
• File:Girl overlooks the Suir2.JPG

No FOP for 2D works and not a missing persons poster at all but an art exhibit, see http://www.helnwein.com/kuenstler/exhibitions/artikel_3606.html -Nard the Bard 02:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC) --[reply]

Thanks Nate, please get this image deleted soon. It has already caused a bit of confusion. There is also this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Madeline_overlooks_the_Suir.JPG - I just edited the description. Cyril — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.199.241 (talk • contribs)

• It's "Nard" and yes, I think both should be deleted. -Nard the Bard 20:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted, OK if it's art. --Raymondnivet (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, Nard. I see both files are still up... does it just take a while to process or something? Cyril

• Yes, there is a discussion time that is usually a minimum of one week. Sometimes much longer if the people who run Commons think there is any more to discuss. If you are the copyright owner and you want a faster response you can send an email to the contact info here[1]. -Nard the Bard 19:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry about this. I uploaded this picture. Madeleine McCann actually has a distinct marking within her eye which does not appear on this image so I will try to remove it from and correct the images relating within the encyclopaedias. Please hang on for an hour or two while I do that. ~ R.T.G 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• ?I have no button to "move" a picture in the same way as I might move this page. Some other images I uploaded with this picture have the same mistake in them. ~ R.T.G 01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also images File:Madeleine overlooks the Suir2.JPG and File:Madeline overlooks the Suir.JPG which are now known to be named incorrectly. I do not know how to move them save for deleting and reuploading. Again very sorry for this, purely mistaken and based on how alike the two look. I can't even find the actual projected image of Madeleine McCann now. Take note about identifying things. I can't help but imagine with the timing of the pictures appearance, the themes of the rest of the exhibition and the fact that no symbols are used on this piece such as in the other pieces, that the effect was intentional but still not the correct picture and reference to it has been removed from the other sites now. Surely if the actal projected image can be found from BBC or something it would be released to PD on request. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure it will be possible to re-upload under a different name. Per COM:FOP photographs of 2D works are not allowed on Commons from Ireland and England. -Nard the Bard 05:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The cropped picture might be contentious but nobody can pursue copyright of the other two photos except me personally and they are public domain as far as I am concerned. They aren't particularly important photos but the idea that they might default on a copyright because of the display of that portrait would not make sense. It's a walkway in the commercial center of a city not an art gallery or secret place. ~ R.T.G 08:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As these remarks were surprising I have flicked through the statutes for copyright law and only two sections relate to photographing a public place. It is explicit in the first section that photographs of art on public display will not infringe copyright and in section two that inclusion in an incidental manner of one work of art within another will not infringe copyright. I will state the obvious, this river is not subject to copyright law even, if you incidentally placed a 60 foot high photgraph next to it. ~ R.T.G 08:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted because this looks nothing like madeleine, and there have been images made by the ICMEC what look more like madeleine and have her eye in it. comment by User:78.145.79.130 13:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Obvious copyvio. Firstly, the subject of the photo is the image of Madeline, therefore its inclusion is in no way "incidental". Secondly, this is a graphic work not a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, therefore Irish FOP does not apply. --Simonxag (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand why there is even a discussion anymore as it has nothing to do with copyright, it's that the information provided by RTG in his image name and description is incorrect and misleading. And no Simonxag, unfortunately you are quite wrong - this image is NOT Madeleine McCann. And it IS "incidental" if there is any similarity between the girl in this photo (Molly from Waterford) and Madeleine, as this is not what the artist Gottfried Helnwein intended. Does that make sense to you now?

So, either RTG is willing to correct the labeling of his photograph or it should be immediately deleted. Someone is even putting it back into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_McCann#Family no matter how many times I take it out of there (moronic behavior if you ask me). I have provided clear evidence in the correct places that is is not only not a photo of Madeleine, and never was intended to be, but also that it is not even a "projected image" but an actual print. Please RTG just relabel your incorrect assumptions OR someone delete it already. Cyril, Studio Helnwein

Please assume good faith and don't describe editors as morons. People on Wikipedia will not necessarily be aware of this discussion and you did not explain over there what you were doing. I've now removed the image again and left a note on the article's talk page, so hopefully it will not be put back in before being deleted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought that the cropped photo, this one showing only the portrait, should be deleted as it probably is a copyright vio. But the photos of the river which the portrait can be seen in part of, I thought should only be renamed without "Madeleine" in the title. The reason I quoted the law here was to show that the photos of the river could not be copyright vio. This one without any view of the river probably should be deleted as even to use to illustrate the artists work it would probably be better to show the whole river and give a perspective on the size of the thing. ~ R.T.G 01:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, per the definition of work of artistic craftmanship (Freedom of Panorama in Ireland) in the UK entry; works of artistic craftmanship do not include 2D works of art. Kameraad Pjotr 19:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]