File talk:Atomium 320 by 240 CCBY20 flickr Mike Cattell.jpg

Contested deletion

This file should not be speedy deleted as redundant, because...

It would seem logical that this file stays and the file to be deleted is File:Atomium 320 by 240 CCBY20 flickr Mike Cattell v2.jpg which I uploaded as a hasty overreaction when this file was temporarily deleted, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July 5. 9carney (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair use

This is a fair use image and should be tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The building was completed before 1 December 1990 and is therefore {{PD-US-architecture}}. This is a free image according to WP:NUSC. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not in the US, it's in Belgium, a country with no FOP. It is not a free or PD image in Belgium.

Now if any photograph of anywhere in the world can be excused with the rationale "It would have been OK if it were in the US" (your claim here), then why has Commons recently run a banner ad campaign highlighting the need for European FOP? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Because Commons isn't us. Over there, they require images to be free both in the US and their country of origin; here, they just have to be free in the US. —Cryptic 10:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The building is in Belgium, but the file is hosted on Wikipedia servers in the US. In US law, building designers have no copyright in pictures of their works, so the law in Belgium is not relevant. Wikipedia only applies US copyright law, which is the content policy Wikipedia:NUSC. Commons considers both the law of the US and the country of origin. AHeneen (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Read this RfC about images of buildings in non-FOP countries hosted on Wikipedia: Template talk:FoP-USonly#RFC: Does US FoP apply to foreign works?. AHeneen (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)