Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/04
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
April 1
[edit]This is sprites and scrrenshoot of a freeware game en:Codename: Gordon. Seem to be placed by one of the authors Paul "X-Tender" Kamma. This game use conceptes, characters, and the universe of en:Half-Life of en:Valve Software. I think that it is necessary to have a Valve agreement to place these images in GFDL or CC-BY. Im not a lawyer, am I in the mistake? ~ bayo or talk 09:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO permission by Valve is only neccessary if their artwork is used - I don't see this happening here (correct me if i'm wrong - if any artwork from the original Half Life is used, this is a probelm). Copyrighted/trademarked characters may be a problem in theory, but the figures used here seem pretty generic (unlike, say, the Simpsons or Micky Mouse). The concept/setting can not be copyrighted, afaik.
- The only image that is critical IMHO is Image:Cg sshoot 01.jpg, which shows a lambda-logo which is quite possible a trademark owned by Valve. But perhaps the uploader can clarify this, if he's in fact one of the creators of this game. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, please note that my comment above only concern the issues with valve, and assume that the updoader is indeed the creator of the graphics, or has permission by the creators of the game. This has to be documented somewhere! If that's not the case, the images have to be deleted of corse. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have written an email to Soenke Seidel (http://www.warbeast.de/), apperently the creator of the graphics. I have asked him to comment here - let's see how that turns out. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Cg gordon.gif is a derived work of the main character of Half life : http://www.planethalflife.com/images/top/top_right_sm.gif . Therefore, in order to be GFDL or CC, Image:Cg gordon.gif needs the approval of both the deriving artist and the original copyright holder. So unless we obtain the approval of the original copyright owner (presumably Valve), we can't display that character on Commons. Teofilo 13:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- After doing some more digging, the uploader seems to be one of the two main programmers (the creator of the graphics being the other), and both seem to be employed/contracted by Valve to create this game. While this does not necessarily mean that they have the right to license the images in the way the do, it does appear like they at least vaguely know what they are doing :D In fact, I am getting the impression this is part of an astroturf campaign...
- But be that as it may, I wonder what Valve (and the people that made Codename: Gordon) if someone (like, I don't know... Sony?) used those graphics to make another game. I hope that they realize that that would be perfectly legit under the license they granted, provided they are credited. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry can u explain "astroturf campaign" is like advertisement ?
- But it need to patch all image with "author: Paul Kamma (X-Tender), Soenke Seidel (Warbeast), Nuclear Vision, Valve Software" ? i can do it. ~ bayo or talk 11:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- See en:Astroturfing; Yes, an extended credit line would be good, but still not sufficient - I would like to have a statement by Valve that confirms they are willing to release it under a free license; The situation is somewhat complicated for several reasons: derivative work, character copyright, work for hire, etc... all this makes if rather unclear who has the right to license the images, and I'd like to be on the save side by getting a clear confirmation by all parties involved. As I sad: would Valve allow another game to use these graphics? If not, they will have to be deleted from commons. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I have had mail contact with the creator of the graphics. I hope I can give definite clarification on this soon. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 13:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The original creator, Soenke Seidel aka Warbeast, told me in an email that they have no problems with having these images on Wikipedia, but do not want to allow them to be used in another game, for merchendise, etc. Thus, the images are basically "Wikipedia only" or fair use. I will delete all. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- So hard to find nice and free computer game images :/ thanks for your work (sending mail...). ~ bayo or talk 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The image shows a -big- copyright notice of the website it comes from, while the uploader has released it in public domain... CyrilB 19:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
This empty category is badly named and has never been used properly. It was created to host a gallery of images, none of which were categorised. I have categorised all the images it contained into (new) sub-categories of category:British electric multiple units (e.g. Category:British Rail Class 501). I have moved the gallery of images to the new article Withdrawn British electric multiple units which I have also placed in category:British electric multiple units.
Having a category for withdrawn classes of EMU is something that may be useful, but this would be better named category:Withdrawn British electric multiple units and contain only sub-categories. We have the article anyway. Thryduulf 23:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No allowance of phtographed persons documented. --Kjunix 19:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep The people obviously aren't the subjects in these photos. They could be easily cropped out, if you insist, or have their face discreetly blurred so they're unrecognisable. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Both no images of Leipzig/Germany. --Polarlys 11:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment We should find out where they're from, then. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The second picture was taken in Halle. Compare Image:Hallemarktroterturm.jpg. --ALE! 07:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Reuploaded first photo as Image:Unidentified buillding in unknown city possibly Germany.jpg and asked photographer about the location. Reuploaded second photo as Image:Marktplatz Halle.jpg. Thuresson 21:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
April 2
[edit]Neither the GFDL claim here nor the PD claim on the original image in fr:wikipedia have any support or probability. Please delete.--Chef 11:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted for lacking source since April 5. Removed from 14 pages in 14 projects. / Fred Chess 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This image is used to vandalise http://de.wiktionary.org see [6], [7], [8], [9], ...
I don't see any educational purpose of this! And it is not funny at all. --birdy 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- P.S.: see the discussion page of the image it has also been used to vandalise other projects. --birdy 17:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- No reason to delete this image. The problem is not the image but the vandalizing user(s). --Denniss 19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- I uploaded the same image with a slightly different name. I hope that it will take a little before vandals find the new image. I checked, and the image is not used on any article page (except only on .ca , which I replaced)
- Fred Chess 19:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- This image gives vandalizing users a tool. Sure those users are a problem, but this image is too.
- Where is this image used?
- Is our language so poor we can't describe the meaning of masturbation with words?
- Have you ever seen an encyclopedia that looks like a porno book?
- I insist therefore to delete this image.
- Best regards, --birdy 21:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- This image gives vandalizing users a tool. Sure those users are a problem, but this image is too.
- Keep I don't think vandalizing is a reason to delete a picture. If it is I start using this picture to vandalize random pages ;). Renaming might be ok, even though I don't think it makes that much sense to prevent further vandalizing. -- Gorgo 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete since it is redundant to the new image Fred uploaded. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have been thinking for a while that it wouldn't hurt to have a policy on pictures of human genitals. Some guys obviously just like uploading pictures of themselves. I don't know why. But I think we have enough pictures of male genitals! If there is a need for some particular picture, go ahead and upload it, but enough of webcam and phone-cam masturbation and erect penis shots! I agree that WP (et al) should not be censored, absolutely, but that doesn't mean we have to accept every-Dick-on-the-street's picture. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, nicely put! I completely agree. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- also agree with pfctdayelise. I don't see their purpose. / Fred Chess 10:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- and me too. Sanbec ✉ 12:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Add another "me too," please. I am not against these images per se but have to agree with pfctdayelise that we need a clear policy. It does not benefit WP to have redundant images of this type. Ande B. 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Add me too this "me too" list. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Add another "me too," please. I am not against these images per se but have to agree with pfctdayelise that we need a clear policy. It does not benefit WP to have redundant images of this type. Ande B. 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- and me too. Sanbec ✉ 12:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- also agree with pfctdayelise. I don't see their purpose. / Fred Chess 10:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes that's right and sounds good. Hm how do we model a resonable policy out of it without censoring Wikimedia Commons? I suppose we will need to go through all those pictures and select the best ones available and place all others with a detailed rationale that each image has a superior one at the deletion requests. With respet to the vandalism problem (@birdy): You can simply make offending vandalism with everything so we don't delete anything because of that (for example there were guys that used for the third Reich flag for this pupose and we certainly won't delete that flag). Another side notice with regard to "sexual" content: I'd love if we had naked men pictures with a face here and that don't have a silly pose (ideally a naked man walking in the landscape like at the beach, perhapes also a comparison naked and with clothing of the same person so that you can see the difference how clothing changes us - that would be perfectly educational). That's what we need badly. Arnomane 10:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also agree with pfctdayelise. In fact, since selection must be made, I propose the notice: "This surplus-to-requirements penis image is being deleted as a poor specimen"... ;-) JackyR 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, nicely put! I completely agree. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Don't be prude. A mass of such pictures can perhaps be used for scientific purposes of proving that vandals have a shorter dick. ;) Really, I don't see a problem with a diversity of pictures and even a censorship for the 'right' reason (there is no right reason) is a censorship. I strongly oppose the User:Pfctdayelise/Commons:Nudity thing. I agree with User:Gorgo that there are far better alternatives to stop such pictures being used for vandalizing than to simply delete them. Such a policy could also easily be abused for any kind of censorship; simply using the picture one opposes to for vandalizing. --Rtc 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Pleased to see the support! I have written a proposed policy here: User:Pfctdayelise/Commons:Nudity. Please help improve it so it can be accepted and enforced here, and we can stop having the same debate over and over. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Kept - no current policy reason for deletion. A policy is however being discussed. To counter vandalism, add the image to MediaWiki:Bad_image_list of your wikipedia, e.g. wiktionary:de:MediaWiki:Bad_image_list / Fred Chess 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I made new and better versions under Image:Europe countries map de.png and Image:Europe time zones map de.png (now map also in english und french, see Other versions). thanks -- San Jose 17:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as per creator request. CheckUsage reports it isn't used anywhere. / Fred Chess 09:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
April 3
[edit]I uploaded it a long time ago, but the picture has been removed from the website it claimed to come from, and I have no other 'evidence' that the licence is correct. Also, it is redundant since commons has much nicer pictures of Bakunin. Sander Spek 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The uploader states that he got only permission to use the image in Wikipedia - the permission terms he told me the image is released under do not comply to the GFDL. Ausir 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted both of these. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
same Image:Jun1.jpg--Shizhao 02:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Better to delete Jun1, Japanese school uniform is more descriptive name Sanbec ✉ 11:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Sanbec, Delete Jun 1 image instead. Ownership info / permission for use is needed in either case. Ande B. 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The image at en.wp was deleted for no source. See [10]. But it's widely used which is the pain in deleting it. :/ pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted Image:Japanese school uniform.jpg because it wasn't used as extensively as Image:Jun1.jpg. A good solution would be to upload a free version image on top of Jun1.jpg. It shouldn't be so hard for a Japanese person. / Fred Chess 10:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This was the incorrect shield (see en:Talk:Route 195 (Rhode Island)) and has been replaced with Image:RI 195 special.svg. --SPUI 03:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
logo, copyvio--Shizhao 12:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- German-speaker to look at this, please. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- hi, I uploaded it into the commons, so what is the reason for the possible deletion? A friend of mine took this on an IFA2005 booth with his camera and gave me the rights to upload it here, so that is fine. And they displayed the logo on a public wall, and it is no direct reproduction or an upload of an logo made by the hd-dvd consortion. When taking pics of public places with other brands is forbidden, than no pics are allowed in here, because there are always brands on it, like McDonald's or BurgerKing etc. just my 2cents. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 11:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted Re: Andreas: the logo by itself is copyrighted. Imaged removed from 7 pages in 7 projects. / Fred Chess 10:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have a biger version with more surrounding of that, that was just one part of it, so that would fit? otherwise, there are a lot of more pics in here to remove, because of close ups. --Andreas -horn- Hornig 11:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Commons does not accept logotypes, or any images that are used to illustrate the logotype itself. Some Wikipedias accept logotypes locally, German Wikipedia doesn't, but you would have to discuss this on German Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 09:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have a biger version with more surrounding of that, that was just one part of it, so that would fit? otherwise, there are a lot of more pics in here to remove, because of close ups. --Andreas -horn- Hornig 11:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
April 4
[edit]Suspected copyvio--Minghong 02:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted the second as obvious copyvio (albumcover) / Fred Chess 12:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Image copied from http://www.lhs.pl . The uploader does not respond to questions. Ausir 05:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, website has copyright claim. The easiest way to have images like this deleted is tag them as incomplete license (since there's no explanation of why it's GFDL) ie {{subst:nsd}} and then after 7 days they can be speedy deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
same Image:Cricketball.png--Shizhao 09:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The PNG has a transparent background, whereas the JPG is the natural format for photographs. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Do we need both images though? They are more or less the same images and I think the non-transparent background is rather annoying. It may serve some "archival" value, but I don't see any benefits of using it in articles. – WB 13:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I will ask the uploader on en.wp and see what they say. (Don't forget, we're in no danger of running out of disk space, so what is the benefit in deleting it? Always an important question!) pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the original uploaded – I'm not aware of the policy for image deletion in this case, and don't mind either way whether it's deleted or not. Thanks for the note though 202.172.120.102 13:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree, the only reason to delete it would be redundancy. But seeing that both versions are used I guess it's ok to keep them both, there's nothing wrong with that. -- Gorgo 23:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the original uploaded – I'm not aware of the policy for image deletion in this case, and don't mind either way whether it's deleted or not. Thanks for the note though 202.172.120.102 13:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I will ask the uploader on en.wp and see what they say. (Don't forget, we're in no danger of running out of disk space, so what is the benefit in deleting it? Always an important question!) pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
The new name is Scilla pratensis, the contents have been moved. TeunSpaans 17:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Turned into a Redirect. Not sure if this is correct but just contact me if not. / Fred Chess 23:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
pt: O formato da imagem não é o recomendado e o nome é muito vago.--Mateus Hidalgo 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- pt: Já existe a imagem com o nome e formato corretos: image:Bairros e regionais de Fortaleza.png. --Mateus Hidalgo 18:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The above, in English: The image's file format is not the one recommended for Commons(jpg instead of png) and it has a vague title. The second phrase states that there is already a file in a correct file format and name.--Gaf.arq 01:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Portugese speaking admin, please! pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Image is incorrectly named and has been re-uploaded in Image:Bairros e regionais de Fortaleza.png. Image uploader agree with deletion in the portuguese User talk page. --Prevert(talk) 19:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted Image is incorrectly named and has been re-uploaded Image:Bairros e regionais de Fortaleza.png.--Lmbuga 08:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
April 5
[edit]There are hundreds if not thousands of images on commons which give information about temperature in Australia and in Europe.
Evidently these are related to wikinews
http://www.tiredbrain.com/wikinews/weatherchecker/
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Weather_maps
I think that these images should be deleted or stored in different way (e.g. all zipped per month or year). It is impossible to browse this sub-category because of the volume of these similarly identical messages. They are useful fro news but not for wikipedia type of applications.
- Comment This has been discussed twice previously (1, 2). I thought it was actually on COM:DEL some months ago. Anyway there are two problems here: What do Wikinews think about the issue? and How can we mass delete so many images? I don't think it matters how many people vote delete, they won't be deleted manually. :P pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'll delete them with a bot if we have total consensus to delete them. I don't want to delete them and then get find out a week later someone wanted them kept. I thought it used to be listed here, too, but I couldn't find it in Commons:Deletion requests/Old. Weatherbot images have also been discussed at Commons:Forum/Archiv/1#Stoppt den Wetterwahn and Commons:Village pump archive-23#Old weatherbot images. User:dbenbenn 00:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I raised the question at wikinews (again) at their VP. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- As a wikinewsie, I think you can delete them all, except, the ones from September 19, 2005 at 0030 UTC,(Image:World C 19Sep2005at0030UTC.jpg, [[:Image:Eur C 19Sep2005at0030UTC.jpg], etc) so that old templates (like wikinews:Template:FrontPageWeatherSummary, or n:Portal:European Weather, etc) don't break, and so people could see what the weather service used to be like. (So basicly any unused weather image can go.) This is all IMHO. Bawolff 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
These will be deleted pretty soon but please don't archive this section until they actually are. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Aus C 10Apr2005at0411UTC.jpg have deleted. wait other...--Shizhao 16:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've got a delete bot going on these. Actually, if someone archives this discussion now, then I can link to the archived discussion in the deletion summary. Right now, I'm linking to Template:Deletion requests, which is a little silly since the discussion will disappear soon. No big deal, though. User:dbenbenn 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:Mohrungen.ogg (withdrawn)
[edit]- Image:Mohrungen.ogg sorry but he says Morugen not Mohrungen; so wrong pronunciation ...Sicherlich Post 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have uploaded a clearer pronunciation. Olessi 22:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- yep better: so withdraw my dr ...Sicherlich Post 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
no source--Shizhao 08:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Jusjih 14:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Published in 1939. Not public domain under German law or any other legislation. Not anonymous, since the name of the photographer is printed on the calendar sheet (not legible, unfortunately). --Fb78 11:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete We have to wait 70 years pma or request permission --Historiograf 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Ande B. 20:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The logo of the city of Morgan Hill, California is most likely copyrighted and unfree [18], just like the logos of many of the other cities and communities in both California and the United States. Zzyzx11 01:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's clear from the Morgan Hill website that the city has claimed rights to this and other images on its pages. Ande B.
- deleted--Shizhao 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
may copyvio. see image page --Shizhao 08:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Should be deleted on Commons, but maybe it qualifies as fair use on en-Wikipedia ("{{politicalposter}}"=? One should transfer it to en, if needed in a specific article. --Svencb 09:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- By "one" I hope you mean the original uploader. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, removed from 7 pages in 4 projects. The image already present on English Wikipedia, I changed to license there to "fair use". / Fred Chess 12:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
not allow unrestricted commercial use.--Shizhao 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The terms of use given according to the polish government are non-free. But the description sais "The picture was staged a few days after the outbreak of the war for propaganda purposes", which seems likely to be true. Thus, the the polish government doesn't have any rights to the image whatsoever, since thy didn't create it.
- The status of "official Nazi propaganda" images remains unclear... there's an exception for government publications in german copyright law, but it only applies to text of laws, etc, not to photographs. It's also unclear if those images can be considered geovernment work, since they where often created by or for the Nazi party, which was not the government, although the distinction got blurred, as is common in dictatorships.
- I belive the only way to be sure about the copyright status would be to find out who actually made the picture, and see if he has been dead for 70 years. But that's quite difficult, I guess. If the image is considered an anonymous publication, it would be PD i think (50 years after publication - but i'm not sure) - but it's always possible that the hires of the actual photographer step up, which would effectively make the image non-free again.
- Perhaps we need a policy, or at least some rule of thumb, for NS propaganda pictures. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for such a rule. There is no known valid legal exception for NS propaganda pictures in the German jurisdiction and legal literature. We have an excellent guide in the en Wikipedia Duesentrieb is permanently ignoring: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_Domain#World_War_II_images Thus delete! --Historiograf 19:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, since it's the first time I have commented on the issue, I don't know about "permanently". And the question I really have is if those images can be treated as anonymous publications. Also, I don't hink that "guide" can be considered comprehensive - it really begs more questions than it answers. But yes, when in doubt, consider them copyrighted and delete them... it's a shame, though, especially for images like this one, which are really all over the place :/ -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if the photographer died the very day, it would be PD in 2009. And if it is indeed a staged photograph, it can be considered as a work of art in some way, which means it's protected for 70 years. --Fb78 09:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
The image is available in the Archive of the Deutsche Historische Museum, Berlin, see [19]. I have written them an E-Mail inquireing about the copyright of this and similar images. I hope I will receive an enlightening answer... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I got a reply... they basically say "we don't know either"... but they still host the image on their website ;) -- Duesentrieb(?!) 13:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's a shame, but I think we have to delete this picture, after all commons is about explicit free licenses and not about we don't have a clue. It can be copied to en under fairuse for WWII-articles, but I guess that's all. -- Gorgo 23:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Here is an exerpt of a "discussion" from this image's description page:
Why should it be in the public domain?
--[[User:Leipnizkeks|Leipnizkeks]] 00:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: I am pretty sure it was reproduced in Poland as public domain.
And are Nazi photos covered by any copyright?
--[[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]] 20:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:: Copyright in germany is 70 years pma, it does not matter
under what government the image was taken. If the picture was
created anonymously, the copyright will expire 70 years
after publication, i.e. not before 2009. That poland did
not recognize german copyright during the cold war is
very likely.
:: This image ''may'' be PD however if it was taken by an
official photographer of the 3. Reich or Wehrmacht - I
don't know about that. Government work isn't automatically
PD in germany today, but it may have been then.
-- [[User:Duesentrieb|Duesentrieb]] 22:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
:::I have a school book (''História 9º ano'' - Porto editora
[publisher]), that has the same picture and on one of
images/glossary pages it says the description of the
image followed by ''DP'' ('''''D'''omínio '''P'''úblico'' =
Public Domain).
:::Thats why I always presumed that its PD.
-- [[User:Get_It|Get_It]] [[User_talk:Get_It|•]] 22:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
::::In that case, if there are no more objections, I'd like
to remove the 'unknown' tag. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]] 16:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::Since there are no objections, I removed the 'unknown' tag.
--[[User:Piotrus|Piotrus]] 09:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Consider it. 67.81.33.18 02:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep, firstly, this picture was first published in Nazi Germany, which means that it has been published under their Nazi-times law and not the modern one. And, consequently, the copyrights have expired in 25 years, that is either in 1964 or 1965. Secondly, it was uploaded from a site that allows us to use their content. I'm only waiting for their official confirmation of my chat with their representative to modify the PolandGov tag accordingly. Halibutt 08:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete User:Halibutt is wrong; Copyright always refers to the current law, not to the law at the time the work was created. That would be ridiculous. --Rtc 23:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Template:PolandGov do not allow commercial use, ww2.pl, do not allow commercial use and it would be ridiculous for us to follow Nazi era laws. The claim that the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs owns the copyright is questionable. Thuresson 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
April 6
[edit]Reason: overlapping categories.JackyR 18:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Argument: Currently we have Category:Scientific instruments, Category:Scientific equipment and Category:Experimental equipment. I have tried to build consensus about the first two at Category talk:Science. I'm proposing deleting the third: partly because I'd already worked on the other two: partly because the name is the least straightforward. JackyR 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Anything is fine with me as long as it reduces redundancy -- Chris 73 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please make sure categories are completely empty when requesting deletion. COM:DEL is not the place to discuss the categorisation system, please try and reach a consensus decision first or if that doesn't happen discuss it on COM:VP BEFORE proposing deletion. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- comment Sorry, cat now empty. Creator of cat (Chris 73, above) OK with deletion. JackyR 01:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Violation des droits d'auteur Sylvie.d 16:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
La présence dans un lieu public, rue, collection permanente de musées, où la photographie d'une oeuvre d'art est libre n'entraine pas l'autorisation de sa publication. La jurisprudence a été entérinée par la Cour de Cassation qui, à l'occasion d'un litige concernant la reproduction dans un film des sculptures d'Aristide Maillol implantées dans les jardins des Tuileries, a rappelé que "la représentation d'une oeuvre située dans un lieu public n'est licite que lorsqu'elle est accessoire par rapport au sujet principal représenté ou traité" et qu'en 1'espèce, la Cour d'Appel avait "souverainement retenu que, filmées intégralement et en gros plan - ce qui ne s'imposait pas compte tenu du sujet traité - les sculptures avaient été volontairement présentées pour elles mêmes" (Cassation - lère Chambre Civile - 4 juillet 1995 - Gazette du Palais 15-16 mars 1996 - page 18). La licence CC du photographe ne suffit pas Sylvie.d 16:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE ONLY USE ENGLISH HERE. If you are not able to write English go to your French Forum and request another user to translate. It's a Niki Saint Phalle case again and French law is IRRELEVANT. Country of Origin according to our rules is ITALY. We should accept such pictures because Panoramafreiheit is a human right generally accepted in more important countries than France or Italy --Historiograf 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
1)Sorry but the picture is used by fr.wikipedia.org
2)In Italia the law is same and ADAGP works with SIAE:
Per le opere delle arti visive la SIAE esercita la tutela del diritto di riproduzione su libri, cataloghi, riviste, poster, cartoline, oggetti e materiali vari, videocassette, CD-ROM, e dei diritti di diffusione televisiva, o effettuata con l’uso delle più moderne tecnologie (Internet).
In base alle nuove norme di tutela del diritto d'autore (Legge 248/2000), la Sezione OLAF segue la riscossione e la ripartizione dei compensi dovuti dagli utilizzatori (centri copie, copisterie, biblioteche, ecc.) per la riproduzione di opere effettuata mediante apparecchi per fotocopia, xerocopia o simili ("reprografia").
La Sezione OLAF cura inoltre la tenuta del Registro pubblico speciale per i programmi per elaboratore (istituito con il Decreto Legislativo 29/12/1992, n.518) e assicura il servizio di deposito delle opere inedite (romanzi, racconti, poesie, copioni, trame, sceneggiature o soggetti cinematografici, opere audiovisive, format, software, banche dati ecc.), a cui si può rivolgere anche chi non aderisca alla SIAE.
Su richiesta degli interessati, la SIAE segue, infine, la registrazione delle opere presso il Copyright Office di Washington.
Sylvie.d 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is not relevant if the picture is used in fr. Do not display the picture in fr but do not DISTURB US HERE. Please do not quote texts in other languages WITHOUT ENGLISH TRANSLATION HERE. You have NOT the right to write Italian or French here. Capito? --Historiograf 23:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Er, why can't users write in their own languages here? For it and fr, we definitely have admins who can translate. Or perhaps they can just handle the whole case, it might be easier. Telling people they don't have the "right" to use their own language is a bit offputting and unnecessary. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it seems only fair that people should be allowed to put forth arguments in languages they can speak, instead of languages they can't speak. / Fred Chess 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete according main EU laws. Texts in fr: and it: are quotes of laws Rando-photo 05:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, what does italian law say about pictures of things in public places, then? I don't see how french law would be relevant here. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader is not the author of thepicture Karine-decoopman 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A nasty comment on exclusive use of English. Wikimedia should not claim exyclusive use of English and thus reward linguistic lazyness and lack of education. Besednjak 14:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Enlever - voir Sylvie.d qui fait remarquer qu'il s'agit d'une violation de droit d'auteur Besednjak 16:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Disney's Peter Pan, copyright. --Code Binaire 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC) It's a my photo by a poster in the way ... --「Twice28.0 · contributi · talk」 15:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Disney's Peter Pan, copyright. --Code Binaire 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's a my photo taken from a little poster I saw in the way ... --「Twice28.0 · contributi · talk」 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Both deleted and removed from articles on it wikipedia. / Fred Chess 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Olivier Schetrit photos
[edit]"Olivier Schetrit" claims to be a french actor but he is completely unknown in France and on the french websites. Only 200 results on google ([20]). The french article about this guy (writen by himself) will be deleted.
- Image:Olivier Schetrit 2006-7.jpg
- Image:Olivier Schetrit 2006-6.jpg
- Image:Olivier Schetrit 2006-5.jpg
- Image:Olivier Schetrit 2006-4.jpg
- Image:Olivier Schetrit 2006-3.jpg
- Image:Olivier Schetrit 2006-2.jpg
- Image:Olivier Schetrit 2006-1.jpg
- Please wait!! Discussion is not over on the French language Wikipedia site. This person is deaf but found his way to appear in many theatre shows, on various short-story movies and built most of his career telling stories to young deaf audience. Saying "he is completely unknown in France" should be double-checked with the French deaf-audience. For sure, my grand-mother (who is not deaf) does not know him but she does not know Sesame Street's characters either. Yanik Crépeau 20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your grand-mother doesn't know Sesame Street's characters so SesameSt characters have the same level of celebrity than Olivier Schetrit. That's an interesting point. And if she doesn't know Michael Jackson too, so logically SesameSt characters = Olivier Schetrit = Michael Jackson. Well, this is a strange reasoning.
Nevertheless, if you search Sesam Street on google you will find 21,500,000 results, if you search Michael Jackson you will find 134,000,000 results, if you search Olivier Schetrit you will find 251 results, and if you search my name or the name of your grand-mother you will find also between 50 to 300 results. In a word, I'm french, i know deaf people and they don't know him, all the people around me don't know him, you are french and do you know him? I don't think so.
In the Category:Actors from France, there is 3 photos of real actors and 7 of this unknown guy, this is not serious.
Et franchement si c'est pour s'opposer juste histoire de s'opposer, je ne vois pas trop l'interet Yanik. Ce type a visiblement confondu wiki avec un site de pub personnelle où il peut mettre ses photos de vacances. Udo01 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Your grand-mother doesn't know Sesame Street's characters so SesameSt characters have the same level of celebrity than Olivier Schetrit. That's an interesting point. And if she doesn't know Michael Jackson too, so logically SesameSt characters = Olivier Schetrit = Michael Jackson. Well, this is a strange reasoning.
- Keep, unless fr:Olivier Schetrit get deleted (looks like it's being kept at fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Olivier Schetrit). User:dbenbenn 00:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- w:Olivier Schetrit has been deleted so you can delete these photos (see here) Udo01 22:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
April 7
[edit]Logo of a Polish political party. Ausir 06:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It does not specify the licensing info. --Jusjih 17:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted - Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14
- 55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
marked with copyright in description. uploader (who is actually also the artist) was informed on his (German) talk page. --Poupou l'quourouce 09:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What's the problem? It's correct; he's the copyright-holder. Copyleft doesn't mean giving up all copyright, it just means a free license (at least around here). pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
APOD images once again
[edit]- Image:Andromeda gendler sm.jpg source [21]
- Image:Orionnebel2.jpg source [22]
Both are unfree images from APOD I am really fed up with people that can't read the clear copyright disclaimers provided by APOD. And I am quite sure that random Wikipedian XYZ will cry on Village Pump after deletion because of heavy usage in all projects and both are featured pictures and such... Arnomane 19:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Both deleted But I restored the text of Image:Orionnebel2.jpg in case someone wonders what happened to it. / Fred Chess 13:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Noncommercial images from SOHO
[edit]Images from SOHO are not generally NASA-PD, according to the copyright disclaimer in the SOHO web site: The use of SOHO images or data for public education efforts and non-commercial purposes is strongly encouraged and requires no expressed authorization. [23] --Vesta 20:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- All have been deleted.--Jusjih 16:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Misspelled my upload. Now redundant with correctly spelled image at Image:Qyzylorda station.jpg. Staecker 20:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
April 8
[edit]Nor do I believe it here. --Rosenzweig 18:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
An anon IP actually noticed this one before, but didn't list it here: It's a screenshot, but more importantly, the logo itself is originally from the anime series Ghost in the Shell - Stand Alone Complex' and thus copyrighted. --grmwnr (homewiki) 22:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – WB 09:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Empty category all pictures moved to Category:Communities in Nunavut. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Obvious copyright violation. --Joonasl 09:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong name & duplicate: please delete Image:金文编.gif
[edit](my mistake...) Image:金文编.gif is a duplication of / should be named Image:金文编_广.gif, which has been created after.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This template is in Russian (or Ukrainian?). I can't translate it and, as far as I know, templates with parameters doesn't really fare well when redirected. Delete? Thuresson 00:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not everbody is able to speak English. If we want Commons to be an international repository, we need discriptions in many languages. Stefan Knauf 10:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but a russian-only template is not helpful for that - quite to the contrary. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I could only suggest to add in Template:Изображение requests like English: Please add this information on English using Template:Information and so on. Automatic addition of Template:Information will not help too much, because parameters still need translation.--EugeneZelenko 14:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I could only suggest to add in Template:Изображение requests like
- Since we have no policy that people must write descriptions in English (=> policy that people can write in their own languages), I don't see how asking them to fill out an English template with their-language content really helps. So I agree with Eugene. Keep and we just have to ask an admin who can read it to check it out if there is some doubt. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Since we have no policy that people must write descriptions in English (=> policy that people can write in their own languages), I don't see how asking them to fill out an English template with their-language content really helps. So I agree with Eugene.
I'd suggest transforming the images using that template to Template:Information. I think it is crucial not to translate the description templates but the descriptions. Have for example a look at Image:MSH80_st_helens_eruption_plume_07-22-80.jpg for a good translation of a description. That way we can provide good information readable for all people in their native language and can avoid confusion with to much language version clutter and so on. But I agree we will need someone able reading that and how can can help us... Arnomane 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think monolingual templates with multilingual content (like you can find one at MSH80_st_helens_eruption_plume_07-22-80.jpg) are not very good. At MSH80_st_helens_eruption_plume_07-22-80.jpg the German discripten doesn’t lead very far, because you need knowledge of English nevertheless. I prefer discriptions like you can find one at HOL_crazyds_klotzi.jpg; there somebody with knowledge of German gets the same information as somebody with knowledge of English. So I think we should leave the template Изображение as it is and add to the images the template Information. Then, both, the people with knowledge of Russian and the people with knwoledge of English can understand the discripten perfectly well. Stefan Knauf 12:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- That something is written in German should be detectable by every German and as it is on top I can't see how this can cause trouble. We can't have full trabslations right now (I want this too but it is not possible in software right now) and I want to avoid unreadable pages if someone wants to translate everything and in the end our readers get lost in a language mixture. So it is not a question what is desireable but what is currently possible without blowing up our pages. Note: Please don't use flags for languages. They are strongly discouraged at Commons. Please use ISO-Codes instead. Arnomane 07:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is international! Tutte le lingue devono essere bene accette. --Gaetanogambilonghi 11:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Incorrect identification, bad picture --NoahElhardt 06:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC) This leaf is obviously not from S. purpurea - it appears to be a hybrid including S. leucophylla. The picture is also not sharp, is not linked to, and needs to be flipped 90° --NoahElhardt 06:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Noah is right. Denisoliver 22:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Has it been flipped, rotated and uploaded under an accurate name? When that happens, then it can be linked to, then we can delete this one. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- These actions have not been taken. However, even if they were, the resulting image would be of little or no use. The picture quality is far sub-standard, the identification is still sketchy, and the leaf of too juvenile a nature to be of use in representing a species or hybrid. --NoahElhardt 18:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If experts say, that it is impossible to determine species ID of this plant part, then there is no reason to keep this photo. There is no lack of good and correctly identified photos in Category:Sarraceniaceae.
@NoahElhardt: Is it possible, that this photos shows true Sarracenia leucophylla? The other photo of S. leucophylla also is from Kurt Stueber. I have found several cases, where he simply had confused the names of plants. --Franz Xaver 08:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)- If this is the true S. leucophylla (which is possible), then it is a juvenile pitcher which doesn't represent the species characteristics well and is consequently of no use to Wikipedia. --NoahElhardt 18:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
April 9
[edit]It's a copyrighted, trandemarked logo, it's tagged with {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} because they have some terms of use that allow people to use the logo, however one of those terms is that the image is not modified, so the terms are not compatable with Commons. --Sherool 15:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Identified Fungus
[edit]Plese delete the files Image:Fungus-unknown01.jpg, Image:Fungus-unknown02.jpg, Image:Fungus-unknown03.jpg. They are now identified and uploaded as Image:Inonotus-hispidus01.jpg, Image:Inonotus-hispidus02.jpg, Image:Inonotus-hispidus03.jpg. --Warden 09:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 15:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Source of this image, en:Image:Mp48mon.jpg, is copyrighted.--Morio 19:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy deleteted. It clearly is marked as "fair use" at the source page. --Franz Xaver 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I added this image before learning that copyrights for unpublished works virtually don't expire. I don't know when this 1899 photo was first published, so... --Rl 14:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
What for a nonsense. Who has said that copyrights for unpublished works don't expire?? --Historiograf 02:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody. But in some jurisdictions, it wouldn't make much of a difference (Commons:Licensing). The picture above was taken 1899. Author unknown, presumably (it was taken by a studio). So in the UK, you are looking at 70 years of copyright protection (in our case lasting til 1969). However, if someone publishes the work during that period (before 1969), they get another 70 years (until 2039 if they were clever/lucky: 1969+70). Wanna bet that by 2039 copyrights won't be extended again? – Now of course it should be up to the claimant to prove that and when they published the work, but arguing with these people makes my blood boil. It's too bad, because there are plenty of nice, ancient pictures where this one came from. Rl 10:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- First, for UK law, take a look at this chart. Assuming this chart is correct and up to date, it appears to me that this image is in the public domain (author known - yes; created before August 1, 1989 - yes; photograph taken before June 1, 1957 - yes; → copyright expires 70 years p.m.a.; the question of publication seems to be irrelevant in this case). The photograph was taken by the Lafayette studio; presumably all possible candidates for the actual photographer are listed here; they all seem to have died more than 70 years ago. The last of these photographers died 1923, hence their works went out of copyright in the UK at the of 1993 at the very latest.
- Now, for U.S. law, the situation is similar. Copyright on unpublished works with a known author expires 70 years p.m.a (with an exception for works that eventually were published 1978 - 2002 (inclusive), in which case copyright expires to sooner than end of 2047... but that rule is largely ignored on Wikipedia in practice, as it is virtually impossible to verify for us and appears not to apply to most images anyway). If published, the publication date would be important, but I think we can safely assume that the Lafayettes did not register copyright for these portraits in the U.S. In this case, their work would be copyrighted in the U.S. only (under the URAA) if it was still copyrighted in the UK (the country of origin) on January 1, 1996. But as we've seen above, the UK copyright expired already at the end of 1993. Therefore, these works were not eligible for automatic and retroactive copyright restoration in the U.S. under the URAA.
- And what about other countries? Do we care? Historiograf, what about Germany (and in particular UrhG §71)? Lupo 09:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- And for the UK, what about the publication right? (Corresponds to the German UrhG §71; both apply only if the work had not been published while it was copyrighted.) Lupo 10:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Similar case here: Image:Ras Mäkonnen (Wäldä-Mika'él) (1852-1906).jpg, we discussed it on german Wikipedia here Andro96 11:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- That discussion did not consider the possibility that it was a previously unpublished work, and did not consider en:publication rights... what do we do with those? Note that according to [25], the negatives were rediscovered in 1968, then again forgotten for another 20 years until 1988. If published before 1994, these images are not subject to publication rights (because they then were still under copyright at the time of first publication). If first published after December 1, 1996, they are protected by publication right (because the UK did have that right then, and the works were previously unpublished and no longer copyrighted). If published 1994, 1995, or in 1996 before December 1, I do not know what would apply, but §26 of the UK Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 1996 seems to indicate that they apply retroactively and would thus also place the works under publication right, although you'd be in the clear if you could prove that you produced a copy of these works before S.I. 1996 No. 2967 entered in force (§26(2)). However, I'm not sure if I read that text correctly, British legalese appears to me even more convoluted than U.S. legalese..., and anyway, in 1996, the WWW was still in its infancy and it is highly unlikely that anyone outside of the museum made a copy back then. Lupo 12:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I have discussed the topic in German at [26]. Result: According to German law it is likely that V&A as the propietor of the negatives has acquired the publication right in 2002 (start of the website?) for 25 years until 2027. Foreign creators in EU countries are treated like German citizens. Thus V&A can enforce its rights at German courts --Historiograf 16:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- All right then, delete. According to the V&A museum, these are unpublished works, first published by the V&A museum after their original copyright had expired (if we assume known authorship—one of the Lafayettes—after 1993; if we assume unknown autorship, the original copyright on that particular 1899 image expired end of 1969). Hence these images do qualify for the publication right, and the V&A museum in all likelihood does hold that right for 25 years after the initial publication. Their website seems to have gone online in 2002; assuming that was the first publication, these works would not be in the public domain in the UK until 2027. I'm not entirely sure about the situation in the U.S., but it looks as we have here indeed unpublished works first published between 1978 and 2002 (inclusive), which are copyrighted until at least the end of 2047. Lupo 18:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
April 10
[edit]copyvio--Shizhao 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- WB 09:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Reason: same as Image:Smolenice_vodopad.jpg
- Deleted -- WB 09:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Author User:SZPANER asked to remove a bunch of pictures of Katowice. He says that: I want to remove my picture. I haven't made it good anyway/It's of poor quality. No article uses it (pl: Chciałbym wycofać swoją grafikę. I tak mi zdjęcie nie wyszło/jest marnej jakości. Żaden artykuł nie odwołuje się do niego.). When asked about no article SZPANER said he checked main articles about Katowice in all languages himself (not using CheckUsage tool) --A.J. 13:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep anyway. Not so bad --A.J. 13:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I don't get these requests. Is he disappointed that his pictures have not been taken up en masse? The simple fact is that the way to get people to notice your images is to insert them into articles, not upload them to Commons and hope for the best! Or is something else going on here? Because I don't see a compelling reason to accede to this request, especially if we don't have decent replacements/equivalents. If we put them in articles ourselves, will he be happy then? --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well... I don't understand SZPANER either... I suppose he is just not satisfied with his work compared to more recent pictures. He wrote me he's going to take another, better pictures soon. I showed him in CheckUsage that his pictures ARE useful indeed, but maybe he's disappointed they are not used in big articles. I promised to handle his request on Commons since he's not familiar with it (these pictures were put at deletion requests on Polish wiki), but that's all. A.J. 10:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all. They are good. / Fred Chess 11:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you should tell him that when he takes the better photos, to upload them over the top of these ones. Then they are automatically replaced and in the meantime, we can use these. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- why were all those pictures deleted after just one day, without any comment, during an ongoing discussion (which turned out keep until now)? -- Gorgo 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- User:WarX deleted them. User:dbenbenn 00:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
OK I deleted them. Why? I think that the real reason was, that all these pictures were stolen and user didn't want to say this. Atleast two of this pictures looked like proffesional works, but low-res suggested that they were copied from web page. --WarX 09:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Reason: author's request, see above. A.J. 13:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it's good. A.J. 13:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Reason: author's request, see above. A.J. 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Srong keep - I'll be delighted if it was mine! A.J. 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Reason: author's request, see above. A.J. 13:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - author is too humble. A.J. 13:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Reason: author's request, see above. A.J. 13:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - good enough. A.J. 13:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Reason: author's request, see above. A.J. 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Now I agree, poor quality. A.J. 13:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Very vague usage conditions "Photo credit must be given to JM http://www.logodesignweb.com/stockphoto. Except when photos are used as a design element (in webdesign for example) then credit is not required." So sounds unfree to me. Arnomane 11:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Well, requiring {{Attribution}} is not against any of Commons policy. I'd recommend using the {{PD-Sweden-self}} tag that I think explains how the image can be public domain while simultaneously requiring attribution. / Fred Chess 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- I found this on speedy deletion (it has certainly never meat the speedy criteria) and was unsure as this sounded so unclear at the first sight and just did it put here for more comments. Well if we look at http://www.logodesignweb.com/stockphoto/terms.htm he says in fully "The stock photos on this site is released to public domain by the photographer. Photo credit must be given to JM http://www.logodesignweb.com/stockphoto." It is a little bit misleading Public domain vs. attribution but attribution sounds like the one he intended (probably he wanted so say: "You can do what you want, sell it print it modify it as long as you don't say it is yours"). So we can keep it. Arnomane 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- The photographer is just exercising his moral rights as the photographer. Countless nations, such as Russia, state that while PD photos can be used however one pleases, the moral rights of the author and credit to the author must be honored pernamently. I say keep. (I personally do this a lot, and that is why I used to upload many pics using PD-SELF or something to that effect). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I found this on speedy deletion (it has certainly never meat the speedy criteria) and was unsure as this sounded so unclear at the first sight and just did it put here for more comments. Well if we look at http://www.logodesignweb.com/stockphoto/terms.htm he says in fully "The stock photos on this site is released to public domain by the photographer. Photo credit must be given to JM http://www.logodesignweb.com/stockphoto." It is a little bit misleading Public domain vs. attribution but attribution sounds like the one he intended (probably he wanted so say: "You can do what you want, sell it print it modify it as long as you don't say it is yours"). So we can keep it. Arnomane 15:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Kept
April 11
[edit]On Jan 2nd, I copied this image from the portuguese wikipedia, where it was licensed as GFDL. However, I did not notice it had no Origin details. On march 6th, it was tagged as "no source" by User:Thuresson, who asked me for the missing info. I do not have that info, I believe we need to proceed deleting the image. Thanks. --Sergio 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Google Mars image, copyvio --Shizhao 09:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- 'Deleted -- WB 09:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:River Tay, which matches the naming of Category:River Tweed and Category:River Forth. Thryduulf 12:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is apparently a copyright violation. The uploaded said "The description page says "There are no usage restrictions for this photo."" but the license on the source website (click "view image license") says (amoungst other restrictions) "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!" which is clearly non-free. Thryduulf 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- No Copyvio, it was uploaded before these license restriction were installed (AFAIK in December 2005). Also only the creator of this image may state the license. --Denniss 01:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Im sorry but Commons has from the very beginnings free images only. Everything else is simply plain wrong. So delete that image. Arnomane 08:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Right above the section you quote it also says..."You may use the Image In digital format on websites, multimedia presentations, broadcast film and video, cell phones." I vote keep it. Ecophreek 01:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete no usage restrictions allowed on Commons. @Ecophreek: Please read Commons:Licensing. --Fb78 09:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that pointer Fb78 Ecophreek 16:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How many times are we going to individually debate SXC images??? What is COM:SXC for? What is villy even bothering writing an updated policy to reflect SXC's changes for? pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Quite, we have a policy for these images (COM:SXC) which is currently being rewritten (User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu (2)). Until then leave them alone.
- Kept ed g2s • talk 13:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Quite, we have a policy for these images (COM:SXC) which is currently being rewritten (User:Aurevilly/sxc.hu (2)). Until then leave them alone.
April 12
[edit]Images from Instituto Camões are not in public domain. Image without credits uploaded in deutsch wikipedia by user with problems with images. -- Fernando S. Aldado 21:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- DE speakers investigate, please pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- pls. inform image name on de.wikipedia, I can not find the mentioned image, maybe deleted --gildemax 22:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Removed from 12 pages on 11 projects. / Fred Chess 15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, was deleted by a bureaucrat. -- Fernando S. Aldado 05:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- then Delete --- gildemax 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
first upload on de: After speedy deletion (reason: Ad) uploaded again here. --Schwalbe 14:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This image is part of a comprehenive presentation of the topic architecture management. There is no reason for deletion, until someone shows me a similar, duplicated or more relevant article associated with the image about architecture management. The image contains no company logos or similar indices for advertising!!! The only reason for you deletion voting is a link from my first written article (which is not deleted yet!!!) to this image???
- Ummm... do the images serve any purpose apart from illustrating that article? I can't see one... / Fred Chess 07:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We should respect the decision of de.wp, but did the article survive? pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Same Gemstone like Image:Mondstein.jpg, but less sharp.--Simon 20:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- So what? We're not running out of disk space. Keep --Fb78 22:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- kept--Shizhao 14:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
REASON : incorrectly named, the new file is Image:𠬠-order.gif--Wikic 07:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- WB 09:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
copyrighted image. see also en:Image:Eureka7.jpg --Lusheeta 08:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- WB 09:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No info, copyrighted. Michiel1972 15:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I have now added the source. Hera1187 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, another Wikimedia project is not a true source. It's tagged fair use on cy.wp. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
It's the same picture as Image:Agate-vases.jpg, but this is the right name. There are Agate vases. Onyx is black and white banded. -- Ra'ike Diskussion 17:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. You can use {{redundant}} for stuff like that. --Fb78 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
April 13
[edit]It's a logo of a company and/or website. I do'nt think it can be mark as CC-SA. --earthengine(〠✆ - ✉✍） 06:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's a logo of a forum website in Taiwan, see here for more info. --H.T. Chien (Discuss) 07:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
These two categories are redundant to each other, and I'd like to see one of them deleted. Which one gets kept is a matter of discussion, but I'd prefer Category:International Business Machines. --grmwnr (homewiki) 11:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think Category:IBM easier to found. People knows it as IBM, not as International Business Machines. Platonides 12:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The English Wikipedia article is at w:IBM, so I think we should use Category:IBM. User:dbenbenn 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, IBM. (Who even knows what it stands for these days?) pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Category:IBM it is, then. Everything moved over. --grmwnr (homewiki) 09:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
April 14
[edit]April 15
[edit]It's licensed under the Against DRM 1.0 license, which I think is non-free. The license says it doesn't apply when used with "any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts which are authorised or not authorised by licensor". For example, you couldn't distribute this logo via SSH. If others agree, the template should be deleted and removed from Commons:Copyright tags. User:dbenbenn 23:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Requiring people to use or not use a particular technology is non-free, the license is unacceptable. Thuresson 00:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
PLEASE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT that the GNU FDL strictly FORBIDDS DRM!! We cannot ban licenses which are clearly compatible with the GNU FDL (I would prefer banning the whole GNU FDL on commons but this is another question ...) --Historiograf 17:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about DRM in Commons:GNU Free Documentation License. Could you point out exactly where it says that? User:dbenbenn 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. Section 2. Please read the article on the GNU FDL in the English Wikipedia for more background before exposing ignorance --Historiograf 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. I find the best way to learn is for me to freely expose my ignorance. Regardless of any flaws in the GFDL, we clearly have the policy that we do accept the GFDL. ADRM, of course, is a different license, and this discussion is about whether it's acceptable here. User:dbenbenn 17:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. Section 2. Please read the article on the GNU FDL in the English Wikipedia for more background before exposing ignorance --Historiograf 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
It's a free content license clearly compatible with GNU FDL. --Bogos 00:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The license respects wikimedia commons policy:
* Republication and distribution must be allowed * Publication of derivative work must be allowed * Commercial use of the work must be allowed * Acknowledgement of all authors/contibutors of a work may be required. * Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required. * Use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management may be required. --87.11.205.164 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about this license but I will point out that the only thing compatible with the GFDL is the GFDL. So "compatability" is not an issue for anything. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL is compatible only with GFDL, but this license is compatible with GFDL: you cannot release under this license a derivative work of a work released under GFDL, but you can release under GFDL a derivative work of a work released under this license. However, it's not the point of the question: this license respects wikimedia commons policy. --Bogos 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- This image depends on whether the ADRM license is accepted at all. But it's not like we on Commons can decide that as were it our own decision. Based on my discussions with admins and knowledgeables, the license appears to not currently be supported on Commons. So, I'm going to delete the logo and any files released solely under this license or ADRM2 within a week. If you want to bring this up to a higher instance, I suggest the mailing list: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l . / Fred Chess 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The logo itself is kept because the uploader tagged it with PD-ineligible. I take as if he re-licensed it. If you wish to dispute this, nominate it again. However, these images would need to be deleted:
- Image:Bookmark2.png
- Image:Animal shell2.png
- Image:Floppy2.png
- Image:Glasses2.png
Image:Cd2.pngreplacedImage:Battery2.pngreplaced- Image:Smart card lector.png
- Image:Scissor2.png
- Image:Paper clips2.png
- Image:Clock2.png
(I'll do it, but why did the user add them to so many pages.... the best solution is probably to upload some better image on top of them) Fred Chess 18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is not at all incompatible with the GFDL, which has its own equivalent anti-DRM clause: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." (Section 2) Other than that, I see nothing in the license which is not compatible with our other Commons copyright policies -- it is a free license, with the only restriction being one which the GFDL already has. All of the Creative Commons licenses we accept have the same sort of clause: "You may not distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform the Derivative Work with any technological measures that control access or use of the Work in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this License Agreement."[30] (Section 4b). I see absolutely no reason to think this license is not compatible with the GFDL in the same way that our CC licenses are. Are there any real arguments to the contrary? If we accept CC licenses (which we do), then there is no reason we shouldn't accept this one. --Fastfission 14:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- This issue is closed. The matter has been sufficiently discussed. Please give the admins a little time to actually delete and/or replace the images. The fact that the images aren't physicaly deleted yet does not mean that the matter is not closed. /Fred Chess 20:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
NASA images are PD unless otherwise stated. This image itself contains an explicit copyright claim, so why are we keeping it? Johnleemk 21:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- The author of the animation has an updated version of the file on his web site with the statement "Anyone wishing to use one of the animations is welcome to do so. I would appreciate a brief message to let me know (my e-mail address is displayed in the eclipse animations)" in the introduction. --Para 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Then the image should be retagged to reflect the fact that it may be freely used but it is not public domain. Johnleemk 17:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, source & license updated / Fred Chess 07:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
REASON:Duplicate to Image:Claude Louis Berthollet.jpg--Stefi 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the other one instead, copying all info from the first, because it wasn't used as extensively. Changed name on 4 pages in 3 projects. / Fred Chess 07:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
A picture from collectable card game and copyrighted. I do not think the uploader is the artist, nor that he has the rights to upload the image under the GNU license. --Falcorian (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Reuploaded as fair use on English Wikipedia, under the same name (used in one article there). / Fred Chess 18:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
This category duplicates the better named Category:Railway signals (plural) where I have moved all the images. Thryduulf 11:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
April 16
[edit]A picture (not so good) of a poster of a real painting (Image:Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres 006.jpg) on the wall of an unnamed café in Firenze of which the image gives no useful idea. -Samulili 13:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS
- Kept , can't find any applicable policy in favour of deletion. / Fred Chess 19:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Chtamina 20:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 18:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Photograph is NOT licensed for free usage. The Photograph is originally from www.wiener-gasometer.at and Copyrighted by Andreas Pöschek, who has not given any copyrights for free usage like GNU GFDL etc. --Andreas.poeschek 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Photograph is NOT licensed for free usage. The Photograph is originally from www.wiener-gasometer.at and Copyrighted by Andreas Pöschek, who has not given any copyrights for free usage like GNU GFDL etc. --Andreas.poeschek 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Photograph is NOT licensed for free usage. The Photograph is originally from www.wiener-gasometer.at and Copyrighted by Andreas Pöschek, who has not given any copyrights for free usage like GNU GFDL etc. --Andreas.poeschek 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Photograph is NOT licensed for free usage. The Photograph is originally from www.wiener-gasometer.at and Copyrighted by Andreas Pöschek, who has not given any copyrights for free usage like GNU GFDL etc. --Andreas.poeschek 23:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
April 17
[edit]All the images in the gallery 1936 Summer Olympics. Although there is a mail with a permission these photos must be deleted. link to the ticket. As from 1936, they can't be PD yet. And I have strong doubts that the mentioned "Heinz Wohler" who gave the permission really has the copyright. As he says "es ist ein copyright für mich durch meine Bearbeitungen entstanden" ("A copyright arised through my editing") in the mail, it sound more like a reproduction which would give him no rights of the photos. --Crux 00:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Even if he gained rights by editing, this does not mean the original authors (or their hires) have no rights. So, delete. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 00:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Heinz Wohler is the author of the pictures! The deletion request is groundless. In addition, there come not all pictures of Heinz Wohler, but some (for example, the medallions) from the IOC. Heinz Wohler has all rights on these pictures, he has not only worked on them, but home-made. Hence, I ask all pictures to keep! I admit that the license was wrong with the last sometimes (because of my ignorance) - now, nevertheless, it is correct. Keep the pictures! Cottbus 04:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (Sorry for my bad English, I come from Germany ;))
- No the problem is the following: A reproduction (scan, smaller image corrections) does not result in own copyright (see also Commons:Licensing). And the email text given at permissions@ sadly exactly sounds that way that Heinz Wohler did not take the photos with his camera himself but collected them and digitalised them only. I would be really happy if it is not the case (as these images are really very valuable). As we had a lot such vague answers after a request for permission I'd be happy if you can ask him sending back to permissions@wikimedia.org the filled in Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverständniserklärung für alle Anfragen in case he is the photographer himself. The current email is sadly not enough. Of course this is not in order to fool you or others. We just need to be that carefully as otherwise we start in some years asking us again what's the status of such images. Arnomane 08:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, I have a "new" E-Mail from Heinz. I send this now to permissions@wikimedia.org. In this E-Mail he said, that one of his forefathers have make this photos and that he is the "Sole heir" of the photos. I hope this is enough! I wish you nice Easter! Cottbus 09:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- No the problem is the following: A reproduction (scan, smaller image corrections) does not result in own copyright (see also Commons:Licensing). And the email text given at permissions@ sadly exactly sounds that way that Heinz Wohler did not take the photos with his camera himself but collected them and digitalised them only. I would be really happy if it is not the case (as these images are really very valuable). As we had a lot such vague answers after a request for permission I'd be happy if you can ask him sending back to permissions@wikimedia.org the filled in Commons:Emailvorlagen#Einverständniserklärung für alle Anfragen in case he is the photographer himself. The current email is sadly not enough. Of course this is not in order to fool you or others. We just need to be that carefully as otherwise we start in some years asking us again what's the status of such images. Arnomane 08:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Heinz Wohler is the author of the pictures! The deletion request is groundless. In addition, there come not all pictures of Heinz Wohler, but some (for example, the medallions) from the IOC. Heinz Wohler has all rights on these pictures, he has not only worked on them, but home-made. Hence, I ask all pictures to keep! I admit that the license was wrong with the last sometimes (because of my ignorance) - now, nevertheless, it is correct.
- (the setion below was merged here from May 3)
This one is big! All the wonderful images from the 1936 Summer Olympics are copyvios and have to be deleted. The claimed licences by one Heinz Wohler are fraudulent, as he is not the owner of copyright but his website is violating the real owners of copyright too. The true source of all those images is a popular german collectors album from the 1930's and copyright is still valid. Regarding the posters and pictures of the medals, it is absurd to believe that the IOC would enter those rights into the Public Domain. This was claimed bei Wohler and it is a lie, as are his other claims. --h-stt !? 11:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi - the copyright of the posters and medals are right - but please delete all the pictures from Heinz Wohlers. These pictures, which are in the galery now are ok! Cottbus 05:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the images of the posters and medals from? Knowing the IOC, I can't believe they would give up reproduction rights of anything without strong proof. --h-stt !? 08:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- On de-Wikipedia we learned by now, that the posters and the medal come from the website of the olympic museum in Lausanne. Their legal notice is strict - no usage without written permission. Where is this permission? --h-stt !? 19:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Where are the images of the posters and medals from? Knowing the IOC, I can't believe they would give up reproduction rights of anything without strong proof. --h-stt !? 08:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Short notice: The relevant discussion about these images can easily be found with that permanent diff-link: [31]. In case you can read a little bit German it is really worth reading it. There is very detailed information on other related images from that time as well. Arnomane 12:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- * So if I understand it correctly, all photos should be deleted. I created a gallery of them at User:Fred chessplayer/1936 Summer Olympics copyvios. They should all be deleted then? / Fred Chess 06:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately yes. I can't see any way we can keep them. --h-stt !? 09:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thus this request is closed. I'll delete the images but it'll take a while. Feel free to formally close this request and move it to the archive. / Fred Chess 20:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately yes. I can't see any way we can keep them. --h-stt !? 09:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- All deleted. / Fred Chess 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Both images show the frame, which is not a two-dimensional object. We do not have the permission of the photographer. Anyway there are higher resolution images of Image:Mona Lisa.jpg in the file history, so if possible, cleaning up the history should be sufficient for this image. --Phrood 17:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Editing out the image frame is one option, however then you're left with an undesirable shadow as border. If this is a compromise to keep the image, I'm willing to accept it and even make that modification myself. Also, as we can confirm this is the official painting hanging at the Louvre, because it comes directly from the Louvre site, I would advise using this version instead of the other ones residing in the Image History. —Cantus 05:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- What about uploading this image: http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg or this http://mystudios.com/art/italian/davinci/da-vinci-mona-lisa-1503.jpg ? --ALE! 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, we don't have permission to use the photograph of the frame. I suggest that Image:Mona Lisa.jpg should be reverted to Cantus' first version, which has been there for more than a year. ALE, if you want to upload another version of the Mona Lisa, feel free, but please use a different title. There's no reason we can't have multiple pictures of the Mona Lisa; we even have a category specifically for the painting. (I think it was wrong of Cantus to overwrite the unframed version with the framed version, because that caused all wikis using the image to suddently be using a very different image.) User:dbenbenn 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Simply reverting would not be sufficient as the framed version is still accessible from the version list. --Phrood 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I meant revert, then delete the copyvio version. User:dbenbenn 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Simply reverting would not be sufficient as the framed version is still accessible from the version list. --Phrood 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, we don't have permission to use the photograph of the frame. I suggest that Image:Mona Lisa.jpg should be reverted to Cantus' first version, which has been there for more than a year. ALE, if you want to upload another version of the Mona Lisa, feel free, but please use a different title. There's no reason we can't have multiple pictures of the Mona Lisa; we even have a category specifically for the painting. (I think it was wrong of Cantus to overwrite the unframed version with the framed version, because that caused all wikis using the image to suddently be using a very different image.) User:dbenbenn 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- What about uploading this image: http://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg or this http://mystudios.com/art/italian/davinci/da-vinci-mona-lisa-1503.jpg ? --ALE! 09:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think the frame issue is pretty pedantic, legally speaking. It seems highly unlikely that anybody would try and make it the basis of an argument about creativity. --Fastfission 00:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Request closed, since this is not a question of deleting but reverting. Thuresson 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an issue of deleting. You can't delete only the most recent version without first reverting. And if the current framed version is a copyvio, it should certainly be deleted. As far as I can see, the frame, since it's a 3D object, isn't automatically PD. User:dbenbenn 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Request opened. Somebody do something! Thuresson 10:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's an issue of deleting. You can't delete only the most recent version without first reverting. And if the current framed version is a copyvio, it should certainly be deleted. As far as I can see, the frame, since it's a 3D object, isn't automatically PD. User:dbenbenn 00:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reverted Image:Mona Lisa.jpg (The frame is not part of the painting). Kept the other one, because IMO the photo of the frame lacks any creativity... hope this is OK with all... / Fred Chess 20:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source and the is copyrighted. --Rei-artur 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the author. FML
hi 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
_launch.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2006-08-04_renaming.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_male_flowers.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.find-croatia.com/photos-croatia/cities-croatia/slides/Croatia444Split.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://ic.ucsc.edu/~langdale/arth134/split1.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.unist.hr/lhcdays/2004/images/diocpal.gif){kind=link}
![[4]](http://www.tronchin.com/Art1A/lecture15_files/image008.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.dalmacija.net/split1700+/palaca.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Image:Jun1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Visible_Thong_5.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Visible_Thong_4.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Panty_Line_6.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Visible_Thong_3.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Visible_Thong_7.jpg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Radlerhose_Fotomodel_Ina.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Radlerhose_Fotomodel_Ina_hinten.jpg){kind=link}
_(1852-1906).jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
- Image kept, Thuresson 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The picture was downloaded from [32]. [33] states: Die Inhalte der Webseiten sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die Vervielfältigung von Inhalten (Texten, Textteilen und Bildern) bedarf der ausdrücklichen Zustimmung der Bundesleitung. (Rough translation to English: All content of this website is copyrighted. The use of any content (text and image) must be granted by the association's executive committee.) --jergen ? 10:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
According to German law the logo is ineligible for copyright (no Schöpfungshöhe). STOP STUPID quoting WORTHLESS claims of copyright and arguing with it. If the logo is protected by copyright this is independent of any claims. --Historiograf 17:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. copyvio --Shizhao 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The picture is not copyrighted, as Historiograf correctly pointed out, though it might be protected by trademark law from certain usage. But IMO only copyright of the work itself is to be taken into account when reading the commons policy. Taking the freedoms literally would mean hardly any picture at all would ever meet them (personal rights are strong, Panoramafreiheit disallows respective parts of the picture to be modified, etc). --Rtc 22:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It isn't a trivial work - such symbols are copyrighted. Shaqspeare 16:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image deleted. This logo seems to have "schöpfungshöhe" and also, there is no evidence that the "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." Thuresson 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Mis-classified images
[edit]The following images in the left column were mis-classified or mis-named by me. The same images were re-uploaded to the correct names in the right column. Please delete all the duplicate images in the left column. Thanks.
--Wing-Chi 00:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- all deleted--Shizhao 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
No source, {{Copyrighted free use}} seems unlikely, the image is deleted from en.wikipedia.org. Kjetil r 10:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- It was deleted at en: for having no source. Jkelly 22:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The quality is really bad. On the other hand here is a useable picture for the iPod Image:Ipod mini 2gen silber.JPG--sherz.net 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC) --Rei-artur 19:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – WB 09:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, for double upload. This picture exists under Image:Sinnbild PKW black.pngAkribix 13:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, for double upload. This picture exists under Image:Sinnbild PKW red.pngAkribix 13:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I made a little mistake. In the graphic I wrote "km" instead of "m". New and correct version of this Illustration you find under Image:NaSchIllustration_white.png --Akribix 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I made a little mistake. In the graphic I wrote "km" instead of "m". New and correct version of this Illustration you find under Image:NaSchIllustration2_white.png --Akribix 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done for the 6 pics. Greudin 22:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Image redundant as a larger version (Image:Lyksborg slot 9-7-2005 (2).jpg) is available. --Pred 16:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
I made a little mistake. In the graphic I wrote "km" instead of "m". New and correct version of this Illustration you find under Image:NaSchIllustration_black.png --Akribix 22:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I made a little mistake. In the graphic I wrote "km" instead of "m". New and correct version of this Illustration you find under Image:NaSchIllustration2_black.png --Akribix 22:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot of Google's web page. Not a GFDL image.--Hello World! 08:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – WB 09:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
April 18
[edit]The images from Insects Their Ways and Means of Living are not Public Domain. The book was printed with a copyright notice in 1930 and the author lived until 1962. I am dealing with the book at Wikisource and noticed the images where from here. I know I have not tagged this as copyvio, because I couldn't find the instructions. I am not even sure copyvios should be listed here. So please forgive the incomplete nomination. --BirgitteSB 23:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Where was it published? If it was published in teh US and copyright was not renewed, it may be PD (athough it's disputed if that would apply worldwide). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 14:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- It was published in the US. For $90 you can determine if the copyright was renewed or not, but I have exhasted all means of getting the info for free (I really wanted this book for Wikisource). Usually things that are not renewed are by people who died with no direct heirs, it is unlikely the Smithsonian neglected this bit of paperwork. And I agree that such a licence could not be expected to hold up wolrdwide, but truthfully the same can be said for the GDFL. Here is a link to the best instructions I have ever read on determining copyright. [34] --BirgitteSB 11:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- It was mentioned in its Wikipedia featured picture nomination [35] that it was being reproduced "by the University of Toronto scanning center as part of a high volume book scanning pilot project in association with the Internet Archive." Perhaps you could contact them for information regarding copyright. Ziggur 22:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at their website they have "fudged" the publication date as 1922. However I checked with the Berkley database and it was first published in 1930. The date is clearly visible on the scanned page available at archive site. I have researched this extensively and am certain it is a violation. As I said before I did this for over at Wikisource and am letting people here know my discoveries. If Commons allows such questionable material (BTW the tag is completely incorrect), that is Commons decision. I am just used to "when in doubt delete"--BirgitteSB 13:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it appears this work was first published 1930, with many subsequent reprintings (the earliest were apparently 1934 and 1938). However, how about asking the UToronto or Archive.org people why they think it was PD? And I didn't find any copyright renewal at [36] for the years 1957, 1958, or 1959. (Granted, that's not a definitive proof that there wasn't one. I looked for entries for Snodgrass, Abbott (the series editor), and Smithsonian.)
- From the 1938 edition, here's an interesting excerpt from the foreword: "The original drawings for most of the color plates and line cuts are the property of the United States Bureau of Entomology, although some of them are here published for the first time." {{PD-USGov}}? Lupo 10:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- That's really interesting. It is in the 1930 edition of the preface as well. I think that probably does mean that we can consider it a work of the federal government, though there is some ambiguity about what "original" means here (does it mean "new" or does it mean "that on which the color plates and line cuts are based"?). --Fastfission 01:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it's in the 1930 edition available at archive.org, too. Even more, Snodgrass writes in the foreword that "much of the material in several chapters is taken from articles already printed in the Annual Reports of the Smithsonian Institution". That would mean that this book wasn't even the first publication of "much of the material". The problem is, of course, to know which parts of the material were already published earlier, and when eaxctly. As to the interpretation of "original": it never occurred to me to read it as "new". I had thought it obvious he meant the originals from which the reproductions in the book were produced. And just to clarify: Snodgrass was an employee of the U.S. Bureau of Entomology, see [37] and [38].
- I have asked archive.org what they know about the copyright status of that book. I got an answer saying basically that they don't know for sure either, but hadn't found any copyright renewal record (neither did I), and that they were given the book by the Smithsonian as a test book for their scanning process. I have followed up and asked archive.org for a direct contact e-mail of the person responsible at the Smithsonian for this. They certainly should know whether or not they did renew the copyright on that book. Lupo 07:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still in contact with archive.org—sort of. They answer my e-mails once a week only (feels like snail mail) and it doesn't seem to be easy to locate someone who really knows about this book and how it ended up at archive.org. Still an ongoing investigation... However, they have already updated their web page on that book: they now correctly say that the book was published in 1930, and they have tagged it on 2006-05-09 as "possibly public domain" (they are careful...) as no copyright renewal record could be found. In view of this, combined with Snodgrass's own statements about the drawings (see above) and my own search of renewal records that also came up empty, my vote is to keep the images in Category:Snodgrass as {{PD-USGov-USDA}}. Wikisource must decide on their own whether they want to (or can, I don't know their policies) use the book as {{PD-US}}. (Note: if the images are kept using this reasoning, this reasoning should be copied to the category page itself.) Lupo 20:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Lykavittos
[edit]Image:Lykavitto 8169.JPG, Image:Lykavittos 8167.JPG, Image:Lykavittos 8168.JPG, and Image:Lykavittos 8169.JPG are Duplicates superceded by others in Category:Lykavittos panorama. – Kaihsu 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- All Deleted. / Fred Chess 20:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by a vandal user of Swedish wikipedia. Used only in the context of making a insulting comment about the person on the picture. The picture seems to have no use after the vandalism was deleted from swedish wikipedia. --Muneyama 12:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
REASON : merged to Category:Specific Japanese stroke order in BW pictures--Wikic 23:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment That's an irregular category name and seems somewhat political. Can you explain why you believe the new name is a better one? pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- (See some discussion on my talk page and also look at the Category:Chinese stroke order organisation in general) pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
REASON : incorrectly named, the new file is Image:こ-bw.png--Wikic 23:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – WB 09:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
April 19
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is basically a copy of the Audion icon. (Lots of icons in the exqusite collection are copied from other icon sets.) --Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 10:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There ist also another image (Image:Apollo_AS11-40-5952HR.jpg) with better quality and description, so this one is obsolete. --Haeber 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 10:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation pursuant to Austrian law (Austria is the place where the source was published and the place of residence of the contributor): As the object depicted is not two-dimensional but three-dimensional, the photo or drawing published in 1965 constitutes a protected work of its own (irrespective of the fact that the depicted three-dimensional object is not protected any more). See de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Nicht schützbare Fotos (Reproduktionen) (explicitly mentioning the case of seals). The picture is therefore not in the public domain. --UV 00:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The relevant section in that article says: Reliefartige Vorlagen, Münzen und Siegel können nicht als zweidimensionale Vorlagen gelten. (roughly: Workes based on reliefs, coins or seals can not be considered two-dimensional). It does not give any reason not any further information. I find this assertion very strange, not to say silly. Where does it come from? I can not see any "three-dimensional" character in the image in question; especially, I don't think the creator can claim creativ originality (Schöpfungshöhe) over the original PD seal. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The cited section on seals is not relevant here (it is not relevant if a seal is 2-d or 3-d). The picture is a copyright protected drawing made by an auhtor who is not dead 70 years (EU rule). Thus we have to delete it --Historiograf 17:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong name! The Category:Jupiter (rocket) is under its right name Category:Jupiter (Missile) in the Category:Missiles. Not in use. --Uwe W. 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
April 20
[edit]
PD-Template (Template:PD-AR-Photo) talks about photos, but this image contains a drawing. Is the Argentine law applicable in this case? --ALE! 09:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
(This question applies to a series of images. This image was chosen as an example. --ALE! 09:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC))
- Articles 8 and 28 of Argentine law 11.723 specify 50 years after first publication as the copyright term for non-photographic graphical printed media. The tempalate should be corrected to account for that. Taragüí @ 15:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information. I think when using the PD Argentina template it essential to state in which publication the image was published for the first time and most important in what year. It is not enough to assume that it was published long ago because the photo is old. An old picture could be published just now in the year 2006, which would mean that it will enter into the public domain in the year 2006 + 25 = 2031. Agreed? This should also be reflected in the template. --ALE! 20:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- It does not enter into the PD 50 years after the first publication but 70 years after the death of the author, see http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/40000-44999/42755/texact.htm (Article 5). The question now, when did the author of this painting die? --ALE! 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- According to information by the uploader on my talk page the author Ramon Colombo died in 1959. So the images has to be delete. --ALE! 11:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- See #Image:Perón (El Obrero Ferroviario).jpeg. Unless the drawing was signed by Colombo when published, it falls under Art. 28 of the relevant law, thus entering the PD 50 years after publication. Taragüí @ 16:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Signing the work is not the point. We know by whom this work is. It is not a obra anónima stated in the law. Therefore the 50 years rule can not be applied. --ALE! 16:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm being obtuse, but why doesn't Art. 28 + Art. 8 apply? Art. 28 speaks about how property of drawings purchased for publication in a periodical go to the publishing company. What I am missing? It is ambiguous as whether it refers to unsigned drawings or any drawing; in any case, the drawing isn't signed. --193.86.75.124 08:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Do you own the drawing? Or why do you know that the drawing is not signed. The scanned picture does not show the complete original page. --ALE! 07:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 10:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Author died in 1943. PD Argentina Template not applicable? --ALE! 12:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- See #Image:Voto cantado y Juan Pueblo - Caras y Carertas - 1938.jpg. Taragüí @ 16:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Year of death of author + 50 years = 1993 --> Public Domain, assuming that the image was published while the author was still alive. Does somebody know when that painting was published? --ALE! 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong, it is year of death of author +1 +70 years. See above. --ALE! 22:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Year of death of author + 50 years = 1993 --> Public Domain, assuming that the image was published while the author was still alive. Does somebody know when that painting was published? --ALE! 20:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 10:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is replaced by an new image (Image:NASA_AS16-107-17446.jpg) with better quality, better description and better title. --Haeber 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - the colours are somehow different! Shaqspeare 11:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's because you are comparing thumbnail versions of these images. Image deleted, Thuresson 11:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by me but used wrong names. I have uploaded the image with a correct name, so please help delete these two files.--Hello World! 15:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I started this category, but I think it's not worth a category --Kdkeller 16:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
We do not have the permission of the author. -- aka 17:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I uploaded this image with the wrong name, renamed to Image:Stamper tulp vdg.jpg --Vdegroot 07:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – WB 09:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This should be moved to http://es.wikisource.org/ --ALE! 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Moved to wikisource and therefore clear for speedy deletion. --ALE! 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded this image with a wrong name, I re-uploaded it as Image:Venetian house piran.jpg, now is redundant --Dani 7C3 13:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Duplicates category:Mountains of Scotland, the Mountains of country naming scheme is used for England, Wales, UK and most/all subcategories of Category:Mountains by country. Thryduulf 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted work is main subject of photo. There are many other similar photos by this user. --EugeneZelenko 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Empty, ambiguous name. Howcheng 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
This picture is fair use (Enwiki): en:Image:Truffaut.jpg Nikita 11:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded this image with the wrong name, renamed to Image:Japan Chubu Niigata.png --Akanemoto 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
April 21
[edit]
acording to Japanese law, this image violates copyright in registered design. even if it's written by a user, it IS NOT free.--Suisui 19:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Kerosene 06:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests#Image:Midori_fanart.jpg
- deleted--Shizhao 12:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Showing non-free content. No information given, that the showed content on the monitor could be free, so I assume, it isn't. --::Slomox:: >< 13:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the content shown on the television screen is obviously not free. Therefore: delete --ALE! 15:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Very much tied to the Al Tango article on English Wikipedia -- which will be speedy deleted soon. This, therefore, should go too. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Image is not PD-old if it was created in 1950 and was deleted in de.wikipedia, as well ([39]). --Matt314 11:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
![[39]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Bild%3AG%C3%B6del+und+Einstein.jpeg){kind=link}
- Delete. Absolutely no evidence that it is in the public domain. --Fastfission 00:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete at request of uploader, personal image. --Semiconscious 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
April 22
[edit]
For the same reason: Image:Spiegel-Cover_45-2004.pdf
"Gerne genehmigen wir Ihnen die Nutzung des SPIEGEL-Covers 45/2004 unter GNU-FDL in der Wikipedia." seemed unclear, so I requested them to send Commons:Email templates. Sadly I received "SPIEGEL-Titel gelten als öffentliches Gut, weshalb jeder Mann sie kostenlos verwenden darf, allerdings nicht für Werbezwecke. Das Titelblatt darf nicht verfälscht oder verändert werden. Es muss mit rotem Rand und Logo nachgedruckt beziehungsweise abgebildet werden." (emphasis by me) I replied "Das widerspricht fundamental einer optimistischen Interpretation von 'Gerne genehmigen wir Ihnen die Nutzung des SPIEGEL-Covers 45/2004 unter GNU-FDL in der Wikipedia.' [...] Sie meinen hier offensichtlich ein Bildzitat bzw. dass Spiegel-Cover auch ohne Genehmigung im Rahmen eines Bildzitats abgedruckt werden dürfen, weil das gemäß Urheberrecht sowieso erlaubt ist. Bitte machen Sie das in Ihren Antworten deutlich [vor allem wenn Anfragen aus dem Kreis der ... Wikipedia-Nutzer kommen] und gebrauchen Sie den eindeutigen Begriff 'Bildzitat', damit solche Missverständnisse nicht mehr vorkommen." They responded "vielen Dank für Ihren Hinweis. Im Prinzip haben Sie Recht." They did not intend to provide the picture under GFDL itself, but to allow fair use in the GFDL publication Wikipedia.--Rtc 22:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — in my opinion it is wrong interpretation. For me, this matter is clear. Primarily, in 2004, this picture was uploaded to de-wiki, and German Wikipedia user Leon Weber asked for license in the der Spiegel editorial. See correspondence of User:Leon Weber here: Image talk:Spiegel-Cover 45-2004.JPG - there is not zusätzlichen Einschränkung (additional limitation) "nur" ("only"). When the responsible person in huge weekly says about rights of publication of his newspaper's cover, he knows what he does: it is his job, isn't it? There is valid GNU-FDL license without any additional limitations, which gives right to use this ilustration anywhere, especially in wikimedia.commons, under the same license. Julo 22:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — ack. They do not say "only in Wikipedia", they say that they allow it to be used under GFDL in Wikipedia. That "in Wikipedia" is effectless since it's not possible to restrict the usage of a gfdl-licensed image. As Julo said. --Leon 07:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it's too late for that. They said it's GFDL, and that's mandatory. I don't see the problem -- rtc, maybe you could epxlain it to me on my german talk page, since my englisch isn't the best one. --Leon 13:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, because of BGB §119. Since the permission you read from their words was not the intended one, it is null and void. --Rtc 14:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it's too late for that. They said it's GFDL, and that's mandatory. I don't see the problem -- rtc, maybe you could epxlain it to me on my german talk page, since my englisch isn't the best one. --Leon 13:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think Rtc is right here. Yes, Der Spiegel sees his covers as free and won't force their copyright when someone depicts them. But it is only free as a whole, as a citation. But when you crop the Spiegel logo and the prominent red rim (what would be allowed by GFDL), then this is no citation any more. If you would use this cropped version for commercial purposes, they wouldn't allow it. The given permission is not clear enough about the fact that this is possible through the licence. The person from Spiegel, who answered the mail, wasn't aware of the legal implications. You now could say "Sad for them. Licence is licence." but this won't help in front of a court. delete --::Slomox:: >< 15:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Sadly Rtc was right. I stringly support recommending that only Commons:Email templates should be used --Historiograf 21:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's stupid! Commons:Email templates have been written 3 weeks ago ([40]), but the copy has been accepted as GFDL more than one year ago... Do you want to re-license all pictures, if people were asking for licenses using different words? Julo 22:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- PS. Do what you want. It is not my dream to keep this cover on Polish wikipedia, if my German friends do not want us to have illustration of this important weekly - I have deleted it: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Der_Spiegel&diff=3175891&oldid=3067778 Julo 22:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep. LeonWp is known to be very thoughtfully on licensing see also the full email quote at [41] (in German) and it is plain ridicoulus believing that the people at "Der Spiegel" do not know the GFDL given the fact that they write a lot about Wikipedia. Arnomane 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
![[41]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Spiegel-Cover_45-2004.JPG){kind=link}
- I would suggest delete. I can't believe a magazine would want to release their material under a free license such as GFDL. And I don't think we should get into an argument over whether they agreed to license their material in something they did not coprehend at the moment. / Fred Chess 18:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete – It seems like Spiegel misunderstood, they did not really intend to use the GFDL. Kjetil r 18:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete. since they didnt intend to release it as GFDL Astrokey44 12:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. They didn't intend to release it as GFDL and they have made that clear. --Fastfission 18:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep quote Spiegel from their answer: Gerne genehmigen wir Ihnen die Nutzung des SPIEGEL-Covers 45/2004 unter GNU-FDL in der Wikipedia. They got a request to allow publication under GFDL and gave permission under GFDL. Pretty clear case and absolutely no reason for wikilawyering here. --Elian Talk 08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Der Spiegel gave explicit permission to use this title under the GFDL. That's all we need to know. Dear rtc, please stop bickering. We have a permission. If Der Spiegel wants to go back beyond that, they have to make a move. We should not become paranoid and act without them even complaining. --h-stt !? 17:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Elian and H-stt, please stop your unprofessional and dishonest behaviour. They are not complaining because the picture happens to be used exactly according to their policy, ie. under fair use, which is what they meant. The picture must be deleted, since it has not really been licensed according to free license policy. Only Commons:Email templates is to be accepted as a proof for a valid license. Commons needs to be cleaned entirely of all these invalid licenses. If you want fair use, journalistic purposes and nonderivative license pictures on Wikipedia, please engage in policy-making and correct tags for such pictures. But please don't try to support a completely bizarre status quo, where pictures happen to be used exclusively according to the intention of the rights holder, but are tagged with free license tags which are entirely contrary to this intention, and were wormed out of the rights holders by suggestive and dishonest questions by mail or are based on entirely absurd wishful interpretation of license statements on web sites and selective reading of copyright exceptions. --Rtc 17:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's nice to have a boilerplate now but you can't possibly mean to delete every single image, that was approved by coyright owners before the new text was written. If you try to, good luck. --h-stt !? 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep it's a good think to care care, that people understand what a free license means. it's ridiculous to harass people who actually wnat to give pictures. -- Southgeist 18:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Did they gave their OK to {{GFDL}} - AFAIK yes. So what's the problem? Shaqspeare 10:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- May I stress again that their alleged OK is null and void because of BGB §119? --Rtc 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- May I stress the point that "Der Spiegel" did make a valid contract with that declaration? (German laws on formal requirements for legally binding contracts are very relaxed). I can't say after a contract "Huh I didn't intend this" (unless you did not play a evil trick on that person on purpose; German "arglistige Täuschung" but Leon obviously did not make an "arglistige Täuschung". Every lawyer will you tell this). The only question is if "Der Spiegel" did have the right making this contract. But that's another question. If we delete the image it would be out of our generosity towards der Spiegel. We are not legally required to do so (unless "Der Spiegel" did not make the failure I remarked). Arnomane 09:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- "arglistige Täuschung" is certainly not the case here, clearly. But it's not required after all for the contract to be null and void. It's "fahrlässige Irreführung" and "Die Rechtsprechung hat wiederholt einen Schadenersatzanspruch desjenigen bejaht, der durch fahrlässige Irreführung zum Vertragsschluss veranlasst wurde." [42] Let's be honest, the GFDL was not intended. Der Spiegel would have a chance in court and after all I'm against keeping pictures of people tricked into giving a license they did not intend, regardless of deliberately or accidentally, simply because it's unethical. Anyway you alternatively have the obscure situation in which you have a 'GFDL' picture which may in fact only be used as fair use, since for any attempt to exploit the freedoms of the GFDL seriously, Der Spiegel would certainly sue and have good chances to win. --Rtc 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- May I stress the point that "Der Spiegel" did make a valid contract with that declaration? (German laws on formal requirements for legally binding contracts are very relaxed). I can't say after a contract "Huh I didn't intend this" (unless you did not play a evil trick on that person on purpose; German "arglistige Täuschung" but Leon obviously did not make an "arglistige Täuschung". Every lawyer will you tell this). The only question is if "Der Spiegel" did have the right making this contract. But that's another question. If we delete the image it would be out of our generosity towards der Spiegel. We are not legally required to do so (unless "Der Spiegel" did not make the failure I remarked). Arnomane 09:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- This whole discussion is utterly stupid - and we can keep this image without any concern for licencing. There are two reasons for this: 1) Der Spiegel didn't get the range and limits of a copyright-licence like GFDL: The cover-layout of Der Spiegel is a registered trademark, so even if they licence a single cover under the GFDL, this general layout (title, red frame, other typical features) may neither be defaced, not used by any competitor. Their worries about losing any rights by this licence-tag on one of their covers are completely unfounded. 2) Their own layout is not involved in the licence at all: From the point of artistic value the Spiegel cover suffers from a complete lack of originaly, making it ineligable for copyright under german law. Only in 2005 the german constitutional court (equivalent to the Supreme Court of the United States) confirmed, that graphics craftsmanship as such usually is not applicable for copyright under the german Urheberrechtsgesetz but only works that show considerable artistic value are protected (to those reading here, not familiar with german IP-law: this only applies to graphics and other design, not to photography, texts and the like - details in german laguage at de:Schöpfungshöhe). So I repeat: strog keep. --h-stt !? 10:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- May I stress again that their alleged OK is null and void because of BGB §119? --Rtc 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "Der Spiegel" agreed to publication of the cover under the GFDL („Gerne genehmigen wir Ihnen die Nutzung des SPIEGEL-Covers 45/2004 unter GNU-FDL in der Wikipedia.“). IMHO the fundamental part of this agreement is „unter GNU-FDL“ (under the terms of GNU-FDL), the place of the publication (wikipedia) is of lower relevance. Furthermore, LeonWeber stated explicitly the terms and conditions of GFDL (example of commercial use and links) in his request mail so i wouldn't be sure that §119 BGB is applicable. Even when it is, the coverage of the wikipedia in "Der Spiegel" makes it unlikely that §121 will apply.--Wiggum 20:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wir brauchen hier doch gar nicht über juristische Tricksereien diskutieren, ob der Spiegel juristische Chancen hätte, uns erfolgreich zu verklagen. Was haben wir: Der Spiegel erklärt, dass er seine Titel als unter dem Zitatrecht frei verwendbar ansieht, aber eben nur unter dem Zitatrecht (oder kann man die Antwort, die Rtc gegeben wurde, etwa anders auffassen?). Die vorliegende Genehmigung wurde von irgendeinem Kerl in der E-Mail-Beantwortungsabteilung des Spiegels beantwortet, der wahrscheinlich Zitatrecht im Sinn hatte, aber leichtfertig eine viel weitergehende Freigabe gemacht hat, zu der er mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit gar keine Berechtigung hatte. Selbst wenn es gute Chancen gäbe, vor Gericht zu bestehen (was ich persönlich bezweifle, aber ich bin kein Jurist), wäre es doch eine Sache des Anstands, dass man von Rechteinhabern nicht hintenrum Freigaben rausleiert, die gar nicht in ihrem Sinne waren. --::Slomox:: >< 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Der SPIEGEL muss sich - auch unqualifizierte - Äußerungen von Mitarbeitern zurechnen lassen. Andererseits: auf Nachfrage hat er eindeutig und unmißverständlich die Unterstellung unter eine freie Lizenz zurückgenommen. Somit sprechen gute Gründe fürs Behalten wie fürs Löschen. Die Freigabe ist im übrigen nur wirksam, wenn der SPIEGEL Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts
des Fotos bzw. im Fall einer Montage der Fotos ist, was mir an sich nicht unbedingt plausibel erscheint. Handelt es sich um Fotos einer Bildagentur, so kann es gut sein, dass der Fotograf dieser die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte überlassen hat, diese sie aber nicht dem SPIEGEL weitergegeben. Hier besteht eindeutig ein weitergehender Recherchebedarf, denn Willenserklärungen des Nichtberechtigten sind nicht bindend. Wenn uns der Inhaber des ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechts in Anspruch nimmt, sollen wir dann den SPIEGEL auf Haftung verklagen? --Historiograf 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- ACK --Rtc 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Diese Kette könnte man bis ins Unendliche weiterdrehen. Die Annahme, dass der jeweils antwortende Mitarbeiter des Spiegel nicht ausreichend befugt oder kompetent ist, um Freigaben zu erteilen oder nicht zu erteilen trifft auf beide gleichermaßen zu. Wir müssen uns doch nach Treu und Glauben darauf verlassen können, dass dem Spiegel die evtl. vorhandenen Grenzen der Verwertungsrechte an ihren Fotos hinreichend bekannt sind. Angenommen wir würden feststellen, dass das Titelbild von einer Agentur geliefert wurde und diese um GFDL-Freigabe bitten, die uns auch erteilt würde - wir dürften auch das nicht glauben, sondern müssten weiter recherchieren, ob nicht evtl. ein freier Mitarbeiter das Foto angefertigt hat und die Verwertungsrechte der Agentur begrenzt sind. --Wiggum 16:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Natürlich soll man nicht grundsätzlich in Frage stellen, ob der Freigeber zur Freigabe berechtigt war. Aber im konkreten Fall gibt es ja berechtigte Zweifel an der Freigabe, denn der Rechteinhaber hat auf Anfrage klargestellt, dass eine derartige Freigabe nicht gewollt ist. Man kann nun natürlich auch die Berechtigtheit der zweiten E-Mail in Zweifel ziehen ;-), aber unter den vorliegenden Umständen scheint mir die zweite Aussage deutlicher und klarer. Während die erste Aussage eher so einen „Jo, mach mal“-Klang hat, ist die zweite von klaren Aussagen zu den Weiterverwendungsmöglichkeiten geprägt. Aussagen, die eine Weiterverwendung in der Wikipedia nicht zulassen. --::Slomox:: >< 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Im übrigen ist dieser Löschantrag ein Paradebeispiel dafür, dass nicht-englischsprachige Löschdiskussionen sehr wohl sinnvoll sein können. Wer kein Deutsch versteht, kann hier doch kaum einen hilfreichen Beitrag leisten, sie verstehen ja nicht den Wortlaut der beiden Statements. Und die Klarheit der Argumente der Deutschsprachigen wird durch Übertragen ins Englische meist gemindert. --::Slomox:: >< 18:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it's quite clear Spiegel didn't understand what releasing the image under the GFDL actually means when they "granted permission" to use the image. Once it was made clear to them what a release under the GFDL means, they said no. The picture is a copyvio and must be deleted. Angr 23:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The request from LeonWeber was completely clear; He said on Image_talk:Spiegel-Cover_45-2004.JPG: Bitte beachten Sie, dass die Wikipedia zwar nicht-kommerziell ist, der Lizenztext der GNU-FDL eine kommerzielle Nutzung von Dritten aber durchaus erlaubt --> Please take into consideration that Wikpedia itself isn't commercial, but that the GNU-FDL doesn't prohibit the commercial use of a third party and he also gave direct links to the license text. Taking into account the multiple links in the text from LeonWeber, the employee from Der Spiegel would be seriously incompetent if he would allow use of this image/cover without being up to speed of the appropriate license. At least Wikipedia/Commons is acting in good faith here; I don't think that any judge would order Wikimedia or Commons to revoke the image and pay a fine/prosecute the uploaders. Just my two cents; I'm just an outsider. NielsF 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Leon wrote that the FDL states that content may be freely copied and distributed when the source is cited. He did not mention modification, though he did give several links about the FDL. Based on the follow-up, it seems patently clear that free modification is not what they intended. And this is not just within trademark boundaries -- they do not want us to remove the red border, for example. That makes the image technically non-free.
Of course it's a bit of a tempest in a teacup since it's neither a particularly important image nor a big precedent. We can keep the image until they explicitly complain about it, but why? To me this merely illustrates the problem that there isn't an effective fair use policy in de.wikipedia. If there was, we could use the cover as "fair use" as we do with many similar covers in the English version and be done with it. But because we don't have it, German Wikipedians are trying to cling desperately to an apparently ill-informed license assignment. I think this time would be better spent developing a policy of reasonable fair use exemptions on de.wikipedia.org. To the extent German law applies (e.g. to the user who uploads a file to de.wikipedai.org), German copyright law recognizes scientific and educational contexts.--Eloquence 03:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very well said Eloquence. / Fred Chess 22:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. See NielsF. --Avatar 10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep "Gerne genehmigen wir Ihnen die Nutzung des SPIEGEL-Covers 45/2004 unter GNU-FDL in der Wikipedia." ("With pleasure we'll permit usage under GNU-FDL in Wikipedia"). Leon gave Links and explained the license, so I cannot understand why they should have misinterpreted it. It is not our problem when they did not read Leon's request clearly. We should ask a specialist, I think there was something in the license that sharing files under GFDL cannot be canceled.--Hannes2·wp 16:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- as per Eloquence -- the licensee does not allow unrestricted modifications and commercial use. / Fred Chess 11:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Wrong filename. The same image as Image:Cut of an Ariane 5 ECA (de).gif. --Uwe W. 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
The picture has no Copyright Tag --84.60.113.121 16:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
.gif){kind=link}
- deleted--Shizhao 12:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong filename. The same image as Image:Jupiter3D.jpg. --Uwe W. 19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This image belongs to peugeot. CyrilB 19:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Same possibly applies to Image:Peugeot407Coupe2005.jpg and Image:Peugeot407sw_2006.jpg: "own work" seems really unlikely, but I don't really know how to deal with this on commons. -- CyrilB 20:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
_launch.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_launch.jpg){kind=link}
_launch.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploaded twice, same image as Image:Delta N6 rocket with ITOS satellite.jpg. --Uwe W. 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Better Image with higher resolution Image:PROBA.jpg. This picture is not in use. --Uwe W. 19:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Alas, this very image is also featured on the ESA page: http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Proba_web_site/ESAD3NTHN6D_1.html. Therefore both images should be deleted. --Phrood 14:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Grund: Urheberrechtsverletzung.
- Argumente: Bild ist zu 100% von http://hkpro.com/g3sg1.htm --Sonaz 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Picture is to 100% from http://hkpro.com/g3sg1.htm --Uwe W. 09:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- The terms of the web site allows personal and non-commercials use only, so it is not compactible with GFDL. It has been deleted.--Jusjih 17:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
First: it is copyrighted logo. Second: it has bad categorisation. Third: this uploader have been warned because of his corporate logos uploading. Hołek ҉ 13:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This picture is CC-nd-nc, see http://flickr.com/photos/20792787@N00/70003857/ --Rei-artur 14:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This picture is a duplicate of Image:USAF_F-15C_fires_AIM-7_Sparrow.jpg. I've changed the single usage in http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-7_Sparrow to the latter, so it's no longer in use. Hashekemist 14:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Spelling mistake in title, all pictures on the page have been changed to Category:Dairy Farming, no other links to this page Gnangarra 16:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- How about Category:Dairy farming? I wish titles weren't case sensitive... pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would have thought Dairy Farming more correct but lets see what transpires for a couple of days Gnangarra 17:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
April 23
[edit]
the image is copyrighted see http:/www.armenianhistory.info/about.htm --gildemax 12:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? The link you gave doesn't say anything about copyright. The image is from a 14th century manuscript, immediate image source is [43]. Keep, and retag as PD-old on the en:-Wikipedia. Somewhat better (?) reproduction available here, linked at [44]. Lupo 13:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete.--Shizhao 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - this is PD, not fair use, as it is from a 14th century manuscript. Kjetil r 11:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, clearly {{PD-old}}. Angr 23:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not Fars, but Kerman Province. Bontenbal 12:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC) Eventually Image:IranFars-correct.png could be renamed as well. Bontenbal 12:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are not correct, that is indeed the Fars Province. But I will delete the duplicate. Kjetil r 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
simply taken from the band's homepage --Mazbln 14:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have checked the web site and found no sign of copyright licensing.--Jusjih 17:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted while no evidence of licensing has been found.--Jusjih 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no author named. Since the picture was recorded in 1932 the author may have not been dead for 70 years, yet. So the image is not in the public domain. Since scanning isn't enough to put it under GFDL, I suggest we delete it. --Flominator 17:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Shaqspeare 16:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC) de:Kurt_Jooss died in 1979
- deleted--Shizhao 11:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrong, this image not is PD, is PD-art-US.--Rei-artur 10:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Delete request by uploader. "For the sake of WikiCommons, this image is not freely licensed and should not be transferred there."
copyvivo symbol copied from google --gildemax 13:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, obvious copyvio (actually the Google logo). pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Could someone delete it? I've uploaded image, which I didn't want to. The good image is here. Dodek 15:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
_2006-08-04_renaming.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
I uploaded it with the wrong filename. Correct one at Image:MV TSgt John A. Chapman (AK-323) 2005-04-08 renaming.jpg --Pmsyyz 06:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
_2005-04-08_renaming.jpg){kind=link}
_2006-08-04_renaming.jpg){kind=link}
Please delete. This image has been replaced by a newer revision: Image:WhereToFindPerchInNorway.png. Norwikinator 11:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This file is a copyright violation because it is copyrighted --gildemax 11:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
This file and Image:JoseSocrates.jpg and more, is not free, there are no lucrative or offensive purposes.--Rei-artur 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Licensed under a noncommercial license --Lmbuga 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted Image:PR Foto oficial.jpg (Licensed under a noncommercial license) & Image:JoseSocrates.jpg (Licensed under a noncommercial license)--Lmbuga 08:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
COPYVIVO
- image from rom www.nba.com/media/knicks/a_brownesanders.jpg
- = Copyright 2006 NBA Media Ventures, LLC. All rights reserved. No portion of NBA.com may be duplicated, redistributed or manipulated in any form. --gildemax 13:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
April 24
[edit]
I have upload now the png version.Rasbak 15:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I mistakenly thought they were PD with the .mil in the address, but, seeing as they are AP, I put them up for deletion because they are not PD. Hurricanehink 21:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
April 25
[edit]
logo, not PD. see[45]--Shizhao 12:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong license, see [46] --Edub 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Missing license, probably a fake. Related article de:Kami Ehtesham was deleted twice and finally blocked in German WP. --EvaK 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC) --EvaK 14:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The images on the back of the books are copyrighted. --Matt314 19:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
April 26
[edit]
Template PD-AR-Photo not applicable. Arturo Jaureche died in 1974. Not in the PD. --ALE! 10:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- 1974+25=1999 Why not? Sanbec ✉ 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is not 1974 + 25 (20) years but + 70 years. Please read the current version of the argentine law 11723. --ALE! 11:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- The only thing Jauretche could have the copyright of, in this case, are the words in the title; but it's absurd to say that these 3 words are copyrighted and can't be reproduced. The only possible copyright violation here is the cover art. I would say it falls in the famous article 8, if the case is contemplated in the law at all. Therefore, in PD. --193.86.75.124 08:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Usually inside books on the first pages it is stated who designed the cover. It has to be checked whether somebody is named. If yes: Has he died more than 70 years ago? Yes: PD, no: not PD. If nobody is named: The cover is public domain because of its year of publication 1938 + 50 = 1988. In that case the template {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} should be applied. --ALE! 20:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'll ask the uploader and get back to you. 84.42.146.44 [ex-193....] 22:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Any new information? --ALE! 07:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, it's been over a month. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a current picture candidate, but this was posted as one of the recent comments:
- Comment - Has anyone checked that this is actually an NOAA photo. Sure it is on an NOAA web site (the link with better context is http://www.erh.noaa.gov/er/lwx/lightning/va-lightning.htm), but I spent a while checking out this photo a year ago and came to the conclusion that the NOAA were just using it and not the author. The original appears to be copyright Johnny Autery http://www.highvoltagephotography.com/ -- Solipsist 08:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)¨ (Template:Featured pictures candidates/Image:Lightning hits tree - NOAA.jpg)
Fred Chess 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is really a clear copyvio. We have no permission. There's not much for a discussion. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed it is a copyvio initially committed by NOAA. So we need to delete it. Arnomane 20:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete What a pity, it's a really good shot. Some jerk at the NOAA cropped the image, removing the copyright imprint. --Pumbaa 12:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the NOAA had permission to use the image, judging by the artist's comments on his website--but that's incedental. We didn't have permission. Which means that we have to be extremely careful when copying government website images and using them to be absolutely sure the image doens't belong to someone else. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Right, my comment was too harsh. But I wonder how we can find out about the copyright status if it can't be found on the site. It seems unlikely that the author gave permission to remove the imprint and to use the image without mentioning him. --Pumbaa 12:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- The image is not actually deleted yet, but it will be. I've uploaded a temp copyvio version, put it on speedy delete, plan to delete it within a week / Fred Chess 20:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- wait delete...--Shizhao 11:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is fan art, and thus it violates copyright. It might be fair use but to call it GFDL is misleading. (see w:Fan art) Ashibaka 03:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is ok. I think that more than a "misleading" it was a malinterpretation of the GFDL licensing. I believe in the moment that I upload this pic that fan art can be uploaded to commons, but if this is wrong you can delete this image and other from the Category:Manga, no only my uploads, other fanarts uploads by other users form the manga and anime hellsing, alita, kugutsu, evangelion, royo, Ghost in the shell, etc. And the two modification of Image:Midori fanart.jpg, Image:Midori.jpg and Image:Midori.png.
All those image are fan arts, and can be violating copyrights, som3 of themes are fairuse images, likes some magazine, and dvd covers:
- Image:Alita001.png
- Image:Alita002.png
- Image:Alita003.png
- Image:Angelsanctuary 001.png
- Image:Berserk003.jpg
- Image:Berserk004.jpg
- Image:Berserk01.jpg
- Image:Blade manga.JPG
- Image:Caska01.jpg
- Image:Gaara.jpg
- Image:Ghostintheshell001.png
- Image:Hellsing001.jpg
- Image:Hellsing002.jpg
- Image:Hellsing003.png
- Image:Hellsing004.png
- Image:InuyashaTimeline.JoshG.jpg
- Image:Kugutsu001.png
- Image:Kugutsu002.png
- Image:Kugutsu003.png
- Image:Kugutsu004.png
- Image:Love Hina.JPG
- Image:Magic kaito.jpg
- Image:Manga.jpg
- Image:Naruto.jpg
- Image:Nausicaa7.jpg
- Image:Negima.JPG
- Image:Po bleach dvd.jpg
- Image:Royo001.png
- Image:Royo002.png
- Image:Royo003.png
- Image:Royo004.png
- Image:Tsubasa(comic).JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Sorry about my english. --Kerosene 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- all Delete. copyvio. --Shizhao 12:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- all Delete. copyvio & useless for a encyclopedia. --Morio 23:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all per Morio. Copyvio and unencyclopedic. Angr 23:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment OK did you guys actually look at these images? A lot of them are pencil sketches - not exactly the same as a digital image. Image:Ghostintheshell001.png is just a sketch of an eye!! I am happy to mass-delete genuine copyvios but let's be clear about which ones are and what the basis for this statement is. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- The characters exist, and is a copy of a character than someone have rights, is a copyright violation, the quality of the copy if not a factor to consider it a copy or not. --Kerosene 04:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I have uploaded edited (experimental) version instead of original Image:Kamieniec 3.jpg --Grisza 12:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
April 27
[edit]Atomium images
[edit]- Image:Atomium.JPG
- Image:Atomium-restoration-05-2005.JPG
- Image:Atomium-restoration-detail.jpg
- Image:Atomium-sm.jpg
These have been discussed at length before, at Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives07#Image:Brussels_atomium_underconstruction.jpg. The original discussion at French Wikipedia is at fr:Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/25_janvier_2006#Avec_beaucoup_de_d.C3.A9ception.... Note: I do not support the deletion of these images, and I question the Belgian law regarding it. However, if Belgian law indeed denies permission to publish this image, then they should be handled accordingly. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- aufgrund fehlender Panoramafreiheit müssen diese Bilder leider gelöscht werden. --Marcela 22:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Welche Gruende sprechen dafuer, sich an die belgischen Vorschrifte zu halten? Shaqspeare 15:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly, the text of the discussion is pretty clear 'please remove any picture of the Atomium from your pages'... and don't forget Image:AtomiumInnen.jpg. CyrilB 21:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and restore the previously deleted. Sanbec ✉ 14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I say the Belgian Government should change its laws on this issue. I mean I would like to see WMF and local chapters pushing for "panorama freedom in all EU legislations" or the world... --Snowdog 10:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep images from public places should never be deleted Commonsfreak 21:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is no vote place (see above). You can vote as much as you like it doesn't help keeping that image. The image must be deleted because of legal problems. Belgium has (like France and several others) no freedom of panorama although I find this very wired. Arnomane 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep According to Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_Copyright_Law_and_Foreign_Copyright_Law, we don't have to adhere to Belgian copyright law unless the file was uploaded from Belgium. I think this is what Shaqspeare was trying to say (just based on a Babelfish translation). Seahen 02:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Commons adheres to the laws of the country of origin. / Fred Chess 11:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Tagged on Flickr as cc-by-nc-2.0, which is not compatible with Commons licenses. Uploader mistakenly thought it was cc-by-sa. --Rosenzweig 19:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Flickr users can change the license of their pictures at any time, without the possibility for others to notice the change. So, the image may be in fact cc-by-sa, we have no way to know. This is a serious flaw in Flickr's system: since a license cannot be revoked, their page should at least document changes to the license status. Perhaps we can request them to change their software - Wikimedia has become well known, and Flickr is owned by Yahoo, who supports Wikimedia. It might work... -- Duesentrieb(?!) 17:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Also Jimbo's on the CC board... pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- I had asked the same photographer earlier to change the licence on another one of his pictures of the same person (this one) so I could upload it to Commons, and he did change the licence. All of his pictures were tagged as cc-by-nc-2.0 before that. The uploader of this picture here in question simply did sloppy work: he did not look closely at the licence, he simply assumed it would be the same as to the one I uploaded earlier [47]. He even copied the image description from the picture I had uploaded, not bothering to change the references and even making it appear that I was the uploader of this second picture [48]. This is just an act of gross negligence, not a case of a licence changed afterwards. --Rosenzweig 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
![[48]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Audrey_Hollander_2.jpg&oldid=1692606){kind=link}
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
Wrong title. New upload with new title.Rasbak 18:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What is the new name in case if image is already used on other projects? --EugeneZelenko 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- New name: Image:Acer platanoides seed head after seed fall.jpg. Rasbak 10:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong title. New upload with new title.Rasbak 19:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment What is the new name in case if image is already used on other projects? --EugeneZelenko 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- New name: Image:Noorse esdoorn Acer platanoides flowers.jpg. Rasbak 11:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
_male_flowers.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Wrong title. New upload with new title.Rasbak 19:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
_male_flowers.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment What is the new name in case if image is already used on other projects? --EugeneZelenko 14:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- New name: Afbeelding:Acer platanoides ( Noorse esdoorn ) flowers.jpg. Rasbak 10:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Not under free license. --Minghong 16:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Image deleted from fr: by me because the licence (PD) was not clear. ~Pyb 17:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
April 28
[edit]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Currently used template {{PD-AR-Photo}} not applicable. Template {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} can not be used before the year 1979 + 50 = 2029. --ALE! 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason: The term "Waffen-SS" was used first around 1939/1940, so the poster cannot be in the public domain. Even if the poster is anonymous, the date of publishing is less than 70 years ago. Apart from that, it seems that there is a name written just below the shoulder of the man and that would mean, that it takes even longer until this poster is in the public domain. --L.m.k 01:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Well your are most probably right. But one thing: Sometimes I am just wondering who would claim the copyright for such a piece of art and sue us. --ALE! 08:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, that's true, but we cannot be sure, that there is no weird mind, who is a heir of the author and claims the copyright for it. The main reason of putting this image to this page was that there was a license-unclear tag on that image since January. I will discuss this theme also in the German Wikipedia, because I think, that the German copyright law should apply for that image. --L.m.k 14:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Das Urheberrecht unterscheidet nicht zwischen gutem und schlechtem Urheberrecht. Gutes Urheberrecht muss, da es eben gut ist, beachtet werden, schlechtes darf man missachten. So kommen wir nicht weiter. --Steschke 06:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think so, too. My first thaught, when I saw that image was: "That shouldn't be here" (because of copyright reasons). So let me resume that: The image is not old enough to be in the public domain and there's no one, who's authorised to put the image under a free licence. And in my eyes that means deletion. We should stand to the rules we made. Any other thaughts? --L.m.k 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- No. Just delete the thing. --ALE! 07:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Same situation as with Skien fengsel 800.jpg, deleted on 25 March 2006. The photographer seems not to have been informed about the use of a free lisence. In an e-mail posted at no:Bilde:Skien fengsel 800.jpg, the company that provided the image was pointed to no:Mal:Statoilbilde, which is a restrictive lisence allowing use only on Wikipedia and requesting that an e-mail is sent to the owner of the image whenever a photo is used there (now discontinued on no:) The company is asked only to specify if they'll allow use of their photos in the Norwegian WP or in any other WP; there is no mention of third party use. If anyone wants a translation of the e-mail, let me know. Cnyborg 20:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted Kjetil r 11:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Image is not PD, was created 1931 by Frank Bennett, 1883-1952 [49]. Picture has been deleted at de.wikipedia, as well [50]. --Matt314 11:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
![[50]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Bild%3ACharles+Eastman.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete--Shizhao 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 23:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
REASON: Copyvio --193.86.75.124 10:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS: Apparently based on some of the four sources listed ([51] [52] [53] [54]). None of them has a free license --193.86.75.124 10:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
![[54]](http://www.bcnbib.gov.ar/img/repargmap.jpg){kind=link}
:::If it is a copyvio you should also consider the following images similar to the above one for deletion: Image:Argentina (Político).png and Image:Argentina - Político 2.png. They are from the same sources. --ALE! 14:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC) It seems, that I was very tired after lunch. --ALE! 20:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- It's not a copyvio, because it's just the same region. What do you spect, turning it upside down for make it "original"? Huhsunqu [@] 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Draw your own map. --84.42.146.44 22:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This map and all the others (Argentina,Provinces and Departments) has been drawn by myself - Based on: ([55] [56] [57] [58]) But not copied. I have taken this sources as reference but I have created all of them in Adobe by myself. May be It was a mistake to use the word edited and used an incorrect licence.
Please , I would like to know how to solve this problem.--Misionero 17:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Sufficiently original. This uploader is having to defend his work for being too honest! pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Currently used template {{PD-AR-Photo}} not applicable. Template {{PD-AR-Anonymous}} not usable because the drawing is signed and the text most probably too (on the next page). Therefore it has do be found out, who is the artist of the drawing and who is the author of the text. Did both die more than 70 years ago? --ALE! 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- The author of the manifest was w:Oliverio Girondo (1891-1967), but the text wasn't signed [59]. To track the artist will be a little more difficult... :-/ --84.42.146.44 01:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader asks us to delete the image because maybe it is not in the public domain. See User talk:ALE!. --ALE! 15:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
porn picture used for vandalism: Image:Timea Margot wikipedia page.jpg
[edit]
Porn image that is use for Vandalism - was for instance linked to Afrikaans village pump - http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Geselshoekie. This is clearly malicious and should be dealt with swiftly. I suggest User:Vagvölgyi is permanently blocked as well. Laurens 06:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
April 29
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Hyundai logo closeup. Copyvio. ed g2s • talk 13:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, in fact everything in Category:Car company logos. ed g2s • talk 13:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite everything - it's possible some of the old logos are copyright-expired. Morven 20:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Trivial design. Not a copyright issue. Trademarks are usually deleted. --Fb78 13:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Yep this is a matter of fair use. The use of these images is just as restricted as if they were painted or drawn. Unfortunately there is no Fair Use Commons (I was told it wasn't realistic; see Commons_talk:Project_plan#Fair_use_commons). / Fred Chess 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted this image; but I haven'teven begun to tackle the other images in this category. JeremyA 02:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Bei diesem Schild ist eine Schöpfungshöhe gegeben. Marcela 16:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Schöpfungshöhe hat nichts mit Masse zu tun. Nur weil viele auf den ersten Blick komplexe Logos als triviale Zusammenstellungen von trivialen Bestandteilen keine Schöpfungshöhe haben, heißt das nicht, dass jedes subjektiv 'einfache' Logo keine Schöpfungshöhe hat. Man kann hier erkennen, dass die Designer explizit darauf hingearbeitet haben, um das Logo absichtlich so zu gestalten, dass es zusätzlich vom Markenrechtlichen auch von einem urheberrechtlichen Schutz profitiert. Hier ist eine Schöpfungshöhe objektiv gegeben. --Rtc 16:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ich sehe die Schöpfungshöhe nicht nur für das Logo (hier meiner Meinung nach unbestritten), sondern auch für das Schild als Ganzes. Marcela 22:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sicher nicht. Woher auch? Da ist außerhalb des Logos kein schöpferischer Aspekt. Eine triviale Ansammlung von (bis auf das Logo) trivialen Elementen. --Rtc 23:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sag das mal den beiden Designbüros, die die Schrift entwickelt haben und dafür kräftig bei der FIFA kassieren. Es ist eine extra für die WM geschnittene Schrift. Marcela 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Schriftarten genießen prinzipiell keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz. Man kann lediglich einen Schutz gemäß Schriftzeichengesetz registrieren, der dann anderen verbietet, die Schrift zu vektorisieren und einen eigenen Font zu erstellen. Die Verwendung einer Schrift unterliegt jedoch keinerlei Beschränkungen. --Rtc 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Das stimmt, Schriftarten --> anders sieht es mit Schriftzeichen aus! Das Schriftzeichen der DHL ist urheberrechtlich geschützt, Coca Cola ebenfalls. Und Schriftarten auch nicht generell, die Nachfahren von Claude Garamond haben jahrhundertelang Tantiemen für seine Schriftfamilien bezogen, bei der Helvetica sieht es ähnlich aus, auch wenn das Ausnahmen sind. --Marcela 22:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nein, definitiv nicht. Die Logos von DHL und Cocal Cola sind per Markenrecht geschützt, wie kommst Du auf einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz? Und was soll bitte der Unterschied zwischen Schriftarten und Schriftzeichen sein? Selbst wenn einer da ist, ist beides nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt, denn sie sind keine geschützten Werke im Sinne des UrhG §2. Es gibt (wie ich bereits erwähnte) nur das Schriftzeichengesetz für einen zeitlich stark begrenzten Schutz, der angemeldet werden muss und nur die Anfertigung von Fonts betrifft. Ein urheberrechtlicher Schutz ist nur bei Schriftarten wie [60] gegeben mit über die Buchstaben hinausgehenden Elementen. Wenn 'jahrhundertelang' Geld an irgendwelche Nachfahren bezahlt wird, ist das alleine schon deshalb klar eine freiwillige Zahlung, weil der Urheberrechtsschutz lediglich bis 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Urhebers gelten würde. --Rtc 22:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Schriftarten genießen prinzipiell keinen urheberrechtlichen Schutz. Man kann lediglich einen Schutz gemäß Schriftzeichengesetz registrieren, der dann anderen verbietet, die Schrift zu vektorisieren und einen eigenen Font zu erstellen. Die Verwendung einer Schrift unterliegt jedoch keinerlei Beschränkungen. --Rtc 16:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sag das mal den beiden Designbüros, die die Schrift entwickelt haben und dafür kräftig bei der FIFA kassieren. Es ist eine extra für die WM geschnittene Schrift. Marcela 09:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sicher nicht. Woher auch? Da ist außerhalb des Logos kein schöpferischer Aspekt. Eine triviale Ansammlung von (bis auf das Logo) trivialen Elementen. --Rtc 23:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Unterm Strich sind wir uns aber einig, daß das Foto gelöscht werden sollte...Marcela 22:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep not eligible for copyright according to German law IMHO --Historiograf 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ist IMHO in Ordnung --- gildemax 08:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:Obcine crensovci.png et alii
[edit]
Image:Obcine crensovci.png, Image:Obcine crnomelj.png, Image:Obcine destrnik.png, Image:Obcine dobje.png, Image:Obcine loski potok.png, Image:Obcine podlehnik.png, Image:Obcine rogasovci.png, Image:Obcine rogatec.png, Image:Obcine sveti jurij.png, Image:Obcine tisina.png, Image:Obcine trzic.png, Image:Obcine vransko.png, Image:Obcine zavrc.png, Image:Obcine zetale.png, Image:Obcine zelezniki.png, Image:Obcine zrece.png kaj Image:Obcine zuzemberk.png. La fotoj estis jam alŝutitaj kun aliaj nomoj. Slike so bile objavljene že prej pod drugimi imeni. Images were already uploaded 2005. The images above have a higher resolution, so I uploaded the images above under the old names to improve the previously uploaded images. Keine von den oben genannten Bildern werden anderswo verwendet. Besednjak 12:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Nun mi ekstermis la fotojn. Kjetil r 12:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Reason: scan from the book „Ludwigshafen - Ein Jahrhundert in Bildern“ des Stadtarchivs Ludwigshafen am Rhein von 1999 (ISBN 3-924667-29-2), so reason for CC visible. I guess it was deleted once - but i dont know the title or date of this --Schlendrian 15:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it has been deleted before. I did a new upload because the deletion reason was "old licence" or something like hat. With book scans, it might be the case, that the copyright holder has given a consent... Maybe somebody could contact this book author?! Thanks, Mattes 15:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. "Old licence" is not a reason for deleting. If it is an unauthorized book scan of an image which is younger than 70 years it is... Mattes 06:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This image was deleted in January because you claimed it was cc-by-sa but [61] claims it is cc-by-nc-sa. The deletion reason was "Sorry, but that's not cc-by-2.0, that's cc-by-nc-sa-2.0! (therefore not allowed on Commons".
- Please contact the author to get a permission _before_ you upload photos, thank you. Thuresson 11:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Claim "from here Since Yugo america went bankrupt, this image in in pubilc domain." is not correct? / Fred Chess 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyright and trademark of Mozilla. No modification allowed. [62] --Pmsyyz 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether intentionally or not, the uploader is making apparently bogus claims about this image's copyright licensing status. —Lifeisunfair 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Relevant discussions:
- Image talk:Firefox.svg (most recent, from COM:VP)
- Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives08#Image:Nuvola_Firefox_icon.png
- Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives06#Image:Mozilla_Firefox_.28alternative_logo_design.29.svg (Duesentrieb makes a good argument here about copyright applying to "creative originality, not sweat of the brow"
- Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives07#Image:Nuvola_Firefox_icon.png
- Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives07#Image:Nuvola_apps_opera.png
Let's please make this the definitive and final discussion on this (subject to any change in Mozilla or WMF policy) and if this is deleted now, hereafter make it speedyable. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- my position is still the same: Delete, Mozilla's logo-policy is non-free, and it IMHO applies to all reproductions, redrawings, modifications, etc - also, trademarks are generally not welcome at the commons. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- my position is still the same: keep Duesentrieb is definitively NOT speaking for Commons. He has not the sufficient legal knowlegde. We should only take into account COPYRIGHT not other rights. A portrait picture cannot be modified according German jurisdiction, COAs etc. etc. Duesentrieb is permanently confusing trademark protection and copyright'. I do NOT trust in such an admin. --Historiograf 21:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Historiograf, do you have any evidence that this logo is not under copyright? Let's leave the diatribes for elsewhere, hm? Why do you assert that this image is not a copyright violation? pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I do not see that the logo is copyrighted - design is too simple --Historiograf 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, too simple? It seems fairly complex to me in the detail... What, in your mind, would be a copyrightable logo, then? And can you show a case where a similarly complex logo was ruled to be PD, because it was deemed trivial?
- You told me once that the criteria for originality for logos are different (higher) than the criteria for "normal" artwork. This seems a bit shaky to me. Does such a distinction even exist in the US? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 00:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I do not see that the logo is copyrighted - design is too simple --Historiograf 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above. -- WB 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I don't think Historiograf understands the law on this either; the logo is certainly complex enough to be copyrightable -- it is downright artistic. And Mozilla does claim copyright on it: "The logo files themselves (e.g. the ones distributed with the apps) are copyrighted, and so making and distributing any derivative works would be a copyright infringement.".[63] The page further elaborates that the logos are not licensed under the GPL as the source code is. There is every reason to think they are copyrighted, without getting into the trademark issue (which, by the way, is pretty clear on Commons:Licensing, where "Trademarked symbols, logos, etc." are listed under "generally not allowed"). --Fastfission 00:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete by default, since this is a corner case. The burning fox has some artistic elements and also stands out a little bit compared to other logos. It may or may not be ineligible, at least according to German law, which Historiograf refers to here. --Rtc 03:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Fotos of FIFA logos
[edit]
Uploader claims: "Da ich die Bilder gemacht habe, liegt das Urheberrecht bei mir" But according to copyright, copying is prohibited. Making a photograph of the copyrighted work doesn't change anything about this fact. --Rtc 13:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unkenntnis des Urheberrechts rechtfertigt nicht den upload. Marcela 22:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Similar to the Olympics ticket argument few months ago. -- WB 03:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Missing license, illegally taken from [64]. --EvaK 09:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
![[64]](http://www.nanoo.biz/images/Band_4.jpg){kind=link}
Changing tag from {{Copyvio}} (a speedy tag) to {{Delete}} for discussion here. Apparently it orginated at en.wp, seems to have been deleted from there now (would be good if an admin there could check it out). --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Tagger made this comment: No reason to believe that this was first published in the US. Has Max Halberstadt been dead 70 years?
- Yes, it was indeed deleted at en.wp, but only because it was moved to here. It was tagged as {{PD-US}} at en.wp. The page history shows:
- 22:10, 24 February 2006 Jkelly deleted "Image:1freud-anna.jpg" (Now at Commons)
- 22:09, 24 February 2006 Jkelly deleted "Image:1freud-anna.jpg" (Deleted old revision 20051215092814!1freud-anna.jpg.)
- 12:38, 8 December 2005 . . Svencb ({{PD-US}} then, cause it's probably not PD in Germany etc.)
- 07:35, 8 December 2005 . . JesseW (PD-old; yes, there is no source, but it claims to be from 1913...)
- 13:23, 6 November 2005 . . Svencb (no source)
- 20:03, 24 June 2005 . . Themanwithoutapast (Sigmund and Anna Freud 1913 {{PD}})
- -- Jitse Niesen 11:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Original source seems to be [65], linked at [66]. Image LC-USZ62-119776 from the Library of Congress. The LoC do not give any copyright indication; for works they know to be in the public domain, they typically state "no known restrictions on publication" or some such. They do not do so for this image, and in fact don't even offer a download of a larger version. The LoC lists the item as "unprocessed". What has Max Halberstadt to do with this image? I couldn't find any statement that would say that he was the photographer... However, Halberstadt is the photographer of Image:SigmundFreud2.jpg (also from the LoC, who again do not give any indication on copyright). Incidentally, I note that {{PD-LOC}} says "No information on copyright protection has been given for this particular work, thus it is presumed in the public domain in the United States." This is wrong, compare with the copyright info from the LoC itself. You should only presume PD if the LoC says that there were no known restrictions. All other works at the LoC may be copyrighted, and if they don't give any copyright information, that doesn't mean the item was PD, it means that the LoC doesn't know and the item may be copyrighted. Lupo 07:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, sorry that I wasn't clear. The Freud and Anna image under discussion here was, as I recall, taken by Halberstadt (it's used in Freud and His Women -- I'll double-check), and copyright is, again "as I recall", claimed by the Freud Archives, and I don't know that there is any reason to believe it was published in the United States before 1923. The iconic cigar image, seems to have been, however. At least Brill, Freud's translator, asserts that the image is PD,
and W. W. Norton and Co., publishers of the English standard edition, also seem to believe that it is.I shouldn't have tagged it PD-LOC; sorry about that. I'll try and research some more publishing history for the cigar image so that I can get the right template, which may be PD-US after all. In case there remains any confusion, my deletion at en: had nothing whatsoever to do with copyright concerns, those only occured to me later. Jkelly 20:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
![[65]](http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/freud/images/anna.jpg){kind=link}
- Actually, W. W. Norton attributes the copyright to the Freud Copyright group. I suspect that none of the three images are appropriate for Commons until someone can show that they were first published in the U.S. Jkelly 21:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- And technically that isn't Brill's website. A.A. Brill was indeed Freud's translator but he died ages ago -- he was a contemporary of Freud's. --Fastfission 01:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Max Halberstadt died in 1940... Lupo 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify: that's a delete from me for Image:1freud-anna.jpg, and a delete for Image:SigmundFreud2.jpg, too (photographer Max Halberstadt died only in 1940). Lupo 09:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- And a delete for Image:Sigmund Freud w cigar.jpg, too... Lupo 09:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify: that's a delete from me for Image:1freud-anna.jpg, and a delete for Image:SigmundFreud2.jpg, too (photographer Max Halberstadt died only in 1940). Lupo 09:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, Max Halberstadt died in 1940... Lupo 08:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted and orphaned / Fred Chess 13:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)