Member: Modra

It's ridiculous, yes, but also sad that people can be so fucking stupid.

posted by Collectorator at 2:26 pm (EST) on Mar 6, 2010

This decision is ridiculous. :)

posted by Modra at 2:21 pm (EST) on Mar 6, 2010

Do you really think that in those times pictures were taken for personal commercial portfolio and commercial artistic presentation? This picture was taken by the member of his family or as photo for some document. Same treatment, as documentation, need to be applied here. Please, stop being bot, and use reason.

posted by Modra at 10:07 am (EST) on Mar 5, 2010

Since Wikipedia's determination that it is public domain is not sufficient for you, shall we go around flagging all images whose "exoneration" is based on that?

posted by Collectorator at 10:10 am (EST) on Mar 3, 2010

I did read the copyright notice on the page you linked to. However, the picture has no author cited, so therefore the length-term of author+70 years is not met.

posted by christiguc at 10:01 am (EST) on Mar 3, 2010

Collectorator, okay, but I don't think it unreasonable to think that the author (of the image) hasn't been dead for +70 years.

posted by christiguc at 9:58 am (EST) on Mar 3, 2010

PLEASE READ description on Wiki source:

Only archived photo of Janko Polić Kamov.

posted by Modra at 6:09 am (EST) on Mar 3, 2010

If it was taken on his deathbed by a newborn baby, that baby would be 100 years old.

posted by Collectorator at 12:39 am (EST) on Mar 3, 2010

Please provide evidence of 1) permission to use on LT, 2) license applicable to LT, or 3) public domain status.

"Author" for author+70 means the artist or author of the image, not the subject of the drawing who died in 1910.

posted by christiguc at 10:58 pm (EST) on Mar 2, 2010