Commons:Deletion requests/File:Urška Žolnir 2012.jpg

The photo with the medal, designed by David Watkin, has been taken in London, and is not covered by the FOP, as the medal has not been permanently placed in a public space or premise. Per COM:DM, it is 'very unlikely de minimis': "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work radically different, but potentially still useful... Example: File:Carla del Ponte Mladic 1.jpg... Example: File:Mario Bros with Cube - Graffiti.JPG..." It should also be noted that the photo has been used to illustrate the terms 'gold' and 'gold medal'. Eleassar ^(t/p) 13:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep - I belive Urška Žolnir is in the focus and the image was originaly used only to illustrate her, also details on the medal are not visible quite so well. Which is why the image was already kept at the previous DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2012 Summer Olympics medals, yet you have created another DR with the same rationale. --Sporti (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been stated in the previous DR that this image may not be de minimis, which means we shouldn't host it. The design is visible enough to be clearly recognisable. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say that, in regard to the photo, per Article 101, the copyright is transferred to the employer only for 10 years and is then returned to the employee (or former employee) and that it can't be transfered further to third parties without an explicit clause about this in the contract, which we don't have any evidence about.[1] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 15:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Was already kept here. No new arguments given. Anatoliy (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened: there is a new argument in regard to the photograph and the discussion should last at least 7 days: per Article 101 of the Slovene copyright act, the copyright is transferred to the employer only for 10 years and is then returned to the employee (or former employee) and that it can't be transfered further to third parties without an explicit clause about this in the contract, which we don't have any evidence about.[2] --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the photo has evidently not been taken in the United Kingdom, but in Slovenia.[3] We should therefore evaluate its copyright status by taking COM:DM#Slovenia into consideration. This text has also been added only recently: Article 52 has been interpreted by the copyright expert Miha Trampuž in his book Copyright and Related Rights Act with Commentary (COBISS 67538432). He has stressed the following aspects: the work must have been disclosed, it must have been incidental with another object or work, it could be at will replaced with another work, and it is inessential in the copyright sense to the object or the work. It is clear that this medal is not incidental and could not be at will replaced with another work. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 20:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: At this resolution, with the medal slightly out of focus, I can see nothing but lines crossing on the medal. I think we are safe with this one. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]