Commons:Deletion requests/File:Louvre Museum Inverted pyramid 01.JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.

Copyright protected creation (the architect Pei is still alive) Remi Mathis (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Kept: a bit over the top to see an issue here Denniss (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This file was initially tagged by Elvey as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Louvre_Museum_Inverted_pyramid_01.JPG&oldid=172552486 Elvey (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Uh, no, Tm. I see something very different. I see two pyramids. One is stone, one is glass and the same apparent size as the other one and mentioned in the name of the file - "Inverted pyramid". It's the one causing the FoP issue. Have you ever been to the Louvre? The pyramids are part of the building, Perhaps you not realize that; having never been? --Elvey (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Two piramids, one made of stone, another made of glass. Pyramids exist as\in buildings for almost 5 thousand years, so in shape they have no original or novelty value and the materials also are used for thousands of years. As this image only shows the very tip of this similar pyramids in its most basic element, nothing depicted in this image can be copyrighted and this DR is pure copyright paranoia. Tm (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: nothing copyrightable here. --Denniss (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]