Commons:Deletion requests/File:2009-0805-Mapleton-CarnegieLib.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File:2009-0805-Mapleton-CarnegieLib.jpg edit
non free image.see http://collections.mnhs.org/cms/UseConditions.php Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's inapplicable because I took the photo. Read licenses. --Bobak (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find any evidence that the photo would have been stolen from any of those collections. If you are claiming that the image is a copyright violation of the building, then I would like to point out that the copyright law of the United States allows you to take photos of buildings. See {{FoP-US}}. Also, lots of buildings are in the public domain (see {{PD-US-architecture}} - I don't know how old this building is). --Stefan4 (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aside from your questionable flouting of WP:AGF (unless you know something I don't), America provides well established, known copyright law to allay any of the other concerns. I can only hope you haven't nominated for deletion items because you simply had no grasp of American copyright law. --Bobak (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I thought that the user might have mixed up something with for example French law (which doesn't permit photos of buildings - see Category:French FOP cases/deleted). I just tried to figure out what faulty reasons the nominator might have for nominating this for deletion in the first place. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Aside from your questionable flouting of WP:AGF (unless you know something I don't), America provides well established, known copyright law to allay any of the other concerns. I can only hope you haven't nominated for deletion items because you simply had no grasp of American copyright law. --Bobak (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I can't find any evidence that the photo would have been stolen from any of those collections. If you are claiming that the image is a copyright violation of the building, then I would like to point out that the copyright law of the United States allows you to take photos of buildings. See {{FoP-US}}. Also, lots of buildings are in the public domain (see {{PD-US-architecture}} - I don't know how old this building is). --Stefan4 (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I can see no obvious concerns about this image. MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
