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.

Image:Carla del Ponte Mladic 1.jpg

The screen shows possibly unfree photos --Phrood 16:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep Said photographs are not the subject of the photo. Swiss law, which should apply here, recognises rights similar to "panorama rights". Rama 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "Panorama rights"? The Université de Lausanne is not public ground, nor are those photos permanently displayed. --Phrood 19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Panorama right" is a German term which says (grosso modo) that if you are taking a photograph where a copyrighted work of art is featured without being the subject, no copyright applies.
Here, the subject is Carla Del Ponte, not the blackboard. The blackboard does give a context, but this is done quite regularly by professional photographers (for instance this [1]. I remember a similar photograph where the next president of France was featured under a giant portrait of himself). Rama 20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're mixing up Panoramafreiheit and Beiwerk. The latter says that if one can "think away" a copyrighted object on a photograph, then that copyright does not apply. I suppose that a comparable rule exists in Switzerland. Anyway, it cannot apply here because the photos are clearly essential to the photo - this is also apparent from the file name, which mentions Mladic.
However, if the subject is only Carla Del Ponte, then the photograph should be cropped to show only her, although we already have better photos such as Image:Carla del Ponte 4.jpg --Phrood 20:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot "think away" the pyramid on a photograph of the Louvre, yet the rule applies.
I have provided examples of press photographs where the practice of using the presence of copyrighted works in the context to ilustrate the main subject is featured.
As for your suggestion that a photograph should be cropped to contain only its main subject, this is going so far against all commonly accepted rules of photographic composition that I cannot comment further. Rama 08:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Agree. As long as the Commons image isn't duplicating the original I see no copyright problems. --|EPO| 18:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Freedom of panorama in Switzerland applies only to outdoor public places. A Swiss press association argues that interior places that serve for (pedestrian) transit might also be considered "public places" (such as underpasses, or railway station halls). But an auditorium at a university is not a "public place" in the meaning of the law. Hence "freedom of panorama" does not apply to this image. And the whole composition of the image (del Ponte small at the lower edge, only torso and head visible, overhead projection with Mladic's image in the center of the photo) makes Beiwerk (roughly "incidental inclusion") also inapplicable. (If anything, del Ponte might be a Beiwerk here.) Lupo 08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep no copyright problems. The picture is showing the woman, not those irrelevant pictures above her. If you feel those pics are copyvio, crop the image, not delete it. Now it is cropped, so  Delete is ok I think. Wooyi 21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, either both pictures must be deleted or this image is deleted and Rama agrees to separately license Image:Carla del Ponte.jpg. --Phrood 20:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: not Beiwerk. I would like to add that the image was used in Wikipedia articles to illustrate the man on the screen (Mladic). -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]