Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/The School of Athens

The School of Athens

Reason: This is a curly one. The promoted image has been deleted as a copyright violation - see here for example, and also the Commons log. Somehow a low res version of the image now exists here (I don't know how it's not a copyright vio as well, there's something about it being non-Vatican I think), but it's below standard size requirements, is no longer in any articles, and has been removed from all FP galleries, e.g., here (though it does have the FP tag on the actual image, and the FP count still includes it). I'm inclined towards official delist due to its highly questionable status.
Previous nomination/s: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/school of athens (though perhaps this version of the nom is more informative).
Nominator: jjron (talk)

Delist — jjron (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is removed from articles because CommonsDelinker only knows replace and remove pictures. It doesn't restore to original revision even if the image is later restored by an administrator (such as this case) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was tagged as copyvio in good faith by a contributor who found it at [1] and saw the copyright notice on the page, not understanding that PD-art is applicable here. howcheng {chat} 15:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a case of copyright confusion. The image is not, however, a copyvio, as far as commons or en.wiki policies are concerned. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A good illusion of three dimensionality. Not copyvio. Durova^Charge! 22:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See, I have a bit of a problem here. The 'big' version now reuploaded by Howcheng has been stitched from images supplied on the Vatican website. The Vatican website is pretty darn clear stuff on their website is copyrighted - see their copyright notice. So can all those voting to keep please explain to me how it's not a copyvio? --jjron (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the Vatican is engaging in copyfraud. Well, probably not willfully -- most likely they just have a blanket copyright notice and they don't bother to indicate which items are really in the public domain. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag for more details. howcheng {chat} 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Howcheng said. This is a derivative reproduction of two dimensional art that's several centuries old. Copyright cannot attach. Durova^Charge! 19:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I see. Sounds like a good dodge around the copyright laws, about which I've previously expressed my dislike - but laws are laws... And if someone gets sued here, it won't be me :-). --jjron (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above argument. Spencer^T♦^C 14:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If everyone is happy with the licensing, and now the 'big version' is back, I think the image can be returned to ~~FP galleries~~ (done) and articles (though I think that part's been done), and this delist can be closed. --jjron (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - concerns addressed. --jjron (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]