Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
May 1
[edit]Photo of copyright poster. ed g2s • talk 00:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I am not voting here, but the poster is supposed to be in puplic! If it was photocopied from a book I would understand, but a photo was taken to an object in a puplic place! --Tarawneh 23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not ours to use or license under a cc license - an attempt at a reproduction of a copyrighted map. 81.178.183.251 18:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Must agree with
Delete here. The poster is OK as a 3D object, but this cropped 2D-object. / Fred Chess 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Must agree with
- deleted--Shizhao 11:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation, not GPDL-ed. Siebrand 06:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted --Kjetil r 11:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This image is also on the ESA web site (http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Proba_web_site/ESAD3NTHN6D_1.html) with the statement "Credits: ESA", and therefore was probably not created by NASA. --Phrood 16:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 13:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Arnomane 11:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The picture is double. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 89.49.213.206 (talk • contribs)
- Marked with {{Redundant}} template Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 22
- 07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
OR, OB by en:Image:WA Blank.svg --Romeo Bravo (T | C) 03:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't use abbreviations until you've introduced them (in other words: what?) --05:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- That comes from en:WP:IFD or en:WP:PUI. OR = orphaned; OB = obsolete(d). Other common abbreviations over there: CV = copyvio, UE = unencyclopedic. Lupo 06:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. That is en.wikipedia.org, and our admins are people from many other projects. Also, some of the admins here who are active at en are not admins at en, so we won't automatically know what they mean. Please don't assume that the abbreviations at en: are going to be understood, or even used here. Thanks! Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- Since this image has not been rendered "redundant" at the English project. It should not be considered deleteable. Please consider uploading en:Image:WA Blank.svg here, and then label it with {{Redundant}} rather than putting it here. Thank you! Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13
- 20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
May 2
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason: copyvivo + Noncommercial see: http://www.banknoteworld.com/ You are *free to use my images if you agree to the following criteria:
- The images will be used for your own viewing pleasure. Or,
- You will use the images to promote World Paper Money collecting. Or,
- You will use the images in some form of educational capacity. Or,
- You will use the images in your personal homepage.
"The bottom line is, I give free usage of my images for any positive endeavor. I do not give permission for any donated images to be used. The copyright of a donated image remains with the original owner of the image and their permission must be obtained before the image can be used. I do not give permission for any of the images to be sold, for profit or otherwise. Regarding my images, as long as I own the original notes with my serial numbers, I consider the image as my personal property. To violate my criteria revokes the free status of any image and all applicable copyright rules will apply. Additionally, I do not require any credits or references to my name for usage of my images." --gildemax 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:Musubi kashiwa.jpg is contents same as Image:Musubi kashiwa.png. --Misogi 16:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
My error - duplicates Category:Animations BD2412 T 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Both are redundant to Image:Flag of Crimea.svg and are used nowhere. Alessandro 11:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The category was created by myself, but incorrectly named. I already created a new Category:German landscape or garden designers. This is more suitable, cause it contains the whole field of this activity. In addition hobbyists are included as well as professionals. --Greenhorn 16:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Put a {{Speedydelete}} tag in the category and gone with it. (The category is empty.) --ALE! 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Sir! Thanx! --—Greenhorn 20:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Various images uploaded by User:Radoste
[edit]- Author = Juergen Krueger
- Source = own work
- uploaded by User:Radoste
- Author= Juergen Krueger
- Source= own work
- uploaded by User:Radoste
- Author = Juergen Krueger
- Source = own work
- uploaded by User:Radoste
- Author = Gordana Schwartze
- Source = own work
- uploaded by User:Radoste
- Autor = Gordana Schwartze
- Source = own work
- uploaded by User:Radoste
- Autor = Juergen Krueger
- Source = own work
- uploaded by User:Radoste
- Autor = Juergen Krueger
- Source = own work
- uploaded by User:Radoste
- All these pictures are uploaded by User:Radoste as own work, but if you have a look at the list you can see that there must be something wrong! One time the author is named as Mr. Juergen Krueger and another time Mr. Gordana Schwartze!
- Also have a look at [2]! --80.237.152.53 14:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Own work...sure. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- All Delete--Shizhao 12:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep / Fred Chess 23:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment maybe two people are using the same account ... TZM de:T/T C 06:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
There were discrepancies on german wikipedia, too. But instead of clarifying it, the user took refuge on commons.
Here a user asks because of "permission to GNU FDL for own work ???" Without answering user radoste put the picture on commons. (I hope deletion on german Wikipedia will not be too fast!)
Bildbeschreibung: Ferdl und Schowmaster Karl Dall, Meine Show-Deine Show, Sat1 Quelle: selbst fotografiert Fotograf: Gordana Schwartze Datum: 18.02.1986 Sonstiges: Zustimmung zur Veröffentlichung unter GNU FDL wurde mir Benutzer:radoste erteilt.
In general, you can see this proceeding very often, if a copivio/inconsistency was detected on for example german Wikipedia the user tries it the next time on commons! --80.237.152.53 18:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Judging by the text you provide, I can not see the copyright issue -- to me it says "Gordana Schwartze took this picture (self-created) / Agreement to release under GFDL license conveyed by user:radoste" / Fred Chess 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The image size for the posed (last, likely High School from Backdrop) picture (and a couple of the others) indicates to me you're looking at stuff from a family member if not the musician himself. Certainly several cameras have been involved, different screen resolutions than are on the fan site, etc. All adds up to versimilitude to me. No third party is going to get their hands on such covering so many years and events. Note the images on the fan site are all compressed compared to the uploaded ones... normally by quite a bit. Getting noticed, and staying noticed is the only way such folks grind out a living. They certainly aren't going to complain if they're garnering publicity. In short, no liability, no downside, and likely the preformer himself is the user. de.wiki should decide whether he's notable, but the album covers are pretty conclusive there. And I don't have a clue on reading German, but I'll bet the user hasn't done a lot of other editing. Can anyone check that? So that make it self-promotion— seems reasonable rather than starving... maybe he's got some kids in college.<g> // FrankB 08:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept all, except those that were redundant. Updated description pages according to this page. / Fred Chess 10:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
May 3
[edit]named incorrectly by myself--Marcel Heckermann 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- replaced with --Marcel Heckermann 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
redundant, already exist as Image:Piaggio P.108 nose.jpg --SCDBob 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
redundant, already exist as Image:Piaggio P.108.jpg --SCDBob 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Reason: copy of an existing page with a provocative title — Cdang 14:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
May 4
[edit]I'm not sure what the official name in Belgium is for its capital. However, I'm sure having a category for the Dutch and French names is more appropriate than one for the English name. Everything should probably be moved to Category:Brussel and have redirects from Bruxelles and Brussels, because it's just wrong to have a category with two names. Good god, I'm sorry I brought it up. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is it true that it's Brussele in Walloon? Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- So, and what about the official German name of the city: Brüssel. Shall we have a category:Brussel - Bruxelles - Brüssel? Nonesense! --ALE! 07:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Category names should be english, because category redirects do not (yet) work. I'm working on a way to display translated category names automatically, see bugzilla:5638. Also, I don't think a "double name" is a gode idea at all. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) fyi, Brussels is called Bruxelles in French, and Brussel in Dutch, both are official names for the city as it's bilingual (French/Dutch) territory. Henna 23:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- No modifications -- but turned category:brussel into a Category Redirect. I really think that those who use a category should decide its name. Maybe you should discuss it with them first. / Fred Chess 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Image makes a political statement which is unacceptable in the Netherlands. Also the image is uploaded by a suspected sockpuppet. Regards Thomas-NL 10:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- NL-speaker to handle this, please; speedy if appropriate. (Although any image that appears to be just slogan text like this will be 99% of the time vandalism, I'd say) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The text says: "This website is against the data retention obligation", refering to the EU directive discussed at en:Data retention#Data retention in the European Union. I don't see what is unacceptable about the statement, though the image may well be inappropiate for Commons. -- Jitse Niesen 12:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- The thing that is un acceptable is that it says that wiki(p/m)edia has an opinion about the subject. Wich is not the case. Gerbennn 21:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is a personal feud from nl.wikipedia brought to Commons. Though the image may not be appropriate for Commons, the reasons for nomination for deletion are wrong; Vandalism and sock-puppetry have nothing to do with this. The image is clearly compliant with GDFL. NielsF 17:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
No clear reason for deletion given. Kept. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an expert on Manga, so I cannot vouch as to whether this one is copyrighted or not, but it's been my experience that it's unlikely that anyone would upload their original Manga-style work. Comments? Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Mark such images with {{subst:nsd}} for no source, and {{subst:nld}} for no license; in this case, the latter. ed g2s • talk 17:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Low res --> 99% of the time grabbed off the web --> 99.99% of the time copyrighted --pfctdayelise (translate?) 18:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploader seems to have made a mistake when he didn't check the copyright situation (we talked on fi-wiki), but the original uploader on en-wiki seems to have either deliberately or unwittingly added false copyright tags. He claims to have shot the image at the Luxen studio (which does exist) but Google tells me he's not a photographer but a Eurovision enthusiast. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Not in use any more.
Category:Nuclear power used instead. Julo 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The correct one is Category:Rivers and waterways of Basque Country (Country instead of Contry). --Colegota 07:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Derivative work. --EugeneZelenko 14:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Both Yoda and USS Enterprise are copyrighted. --Fb78 20:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Vector version available and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean Image:Hazard E.png which is much smaller? Thuresson 23:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meant Image:Hazard E.svg which doesn't look identical to me. --Flominator 19:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, see below
Vector version available and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why do the SVG version have large margins for no apparent reason? Thuresson 00:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Not exactly the same, the cross is different. However the svg might look like the official version, it's different, so not redundant. Effeietsanders 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, see below
Redundant to Image:Hazard_C.svg and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- But they are identical so one can say that your version is the redundant one? Thuresson 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, see below
Vector version available and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The middle red flame is not the same. Therefor not redundant. Effeietsanders 23:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, see below
Vector version available and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why do the SVG version have large margins for no apparent reason? Also, please do not remove categories from images. Thuresson 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, see below
Vector version available and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why do the SVG version have large margins for no apparent reason?
- The "wings" of the fish are in the svg orange, and in png black. So not redundant. Effeietsanders 23:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, see below
Vector version available and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why do the SVG version have large margins for no apparent reason?
- Keep - The number of orange inner flames is different, so no redundance here, it is essentially different. Effeietsanders 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, see below
Redundant to Image:Hazard_O.svg and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why do the SVG version have large margins for no apparent reason?
- Kept, see below
Redundant to Image:Hazard_F.svg and no more used --MarianSigler {bla} 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Image:Hazard_F.svg and Image:Hazard_F no borders.svg don't have the superfluous margins. NielsF 02:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- All these images are kept. As long as anyone wants them kept, as the case is here, they are not redundant. / Fred Chess 18:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Closeup photo of a copyrighted logo (of the Englsh Rugby Football Union) ed g2s • talk 17:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a photo from shirt I have. I don't think there are copyright issues in taking a photo of a shirt i bought. If copyrighted objects can't appear in photos then you should remove all the photos where commercial and non commercial signs, drinks cans and bottles, appear. Of course it's just my opinion and I'll accept any decision because I understand my position it's highly opinable. BTW a similiar photos of a different subject was deleted without any notice, so thank you or letting me know :) --Massimo Finizio 08:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, the rose is the main object of the photo. -Samulili 06:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, when the copyrighted logo is the main object, the photo is reproducing the item..--Jusjih 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is this a matter of copyright or of trademark? Can the logo, which is at least 80 years old, and a rather standard way of depicting a rose, be copyrighted? / Fred Chess 10:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Would that make a difference with refard to deleting the image? -Samulili 09:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- AFIK there is no restrictions on using trademarks in encyclopedias -- the restriction only applies for the commercial in the countries where the object is trademarked. Furthermore, since no-one owns them (i.e. no copyright), their regulations are independant of the GFDL, which is only a copyright license. This is the way it has been presented to me -- I think it was user:Historiograf who presented it in this way.
- Would that make a difference with refard to deleting the image? -Samulili 09:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Specifically, the following are generally not allowed: -- Trademarked symbols, logos, etc". Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses. -Samulili 11:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you ask "Why should this matter", then I'd answer that some Wikipedias (most notably the German, which is the second largest wiki in the world) only use Commons for their images, so it matters to them.
- Fred Chess 14:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Still, German Wikipedia allows upload of logos, if they are below the German Schöpfungshöhe (en:Threshold of originality), which makes them PD, or the uploader gives a special (free) licence for the logo. In these cases, the logos are marked with a special template to make sure, that the copyright licence does not affect any trademark rules. For further information you best contact user:Historiograf. --Taxman(de) 13:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Commentmay i point that this is not the real rose used by the royal family. the tudor rose, or english rose has one layer of white petals and one of red. like you may see [here]or [here] there is something called the english rose, wich is a sort of rose. but that one is no logo. Yet this image was on a shirt. i would sugest that the company that made the trico is contacted and asked weather "them" had trademark that rose.LadyofHats 10:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, alright -- it is protected. / Fred Chess 10:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
May 5
[edit]Images in Category:Photographs_by_Agencia_Brasil
[edit]User:555 recieved upon his request a clarification ( "O uso do material é exclusivamente para fins de cobertura jornalística. Não há qualquer autorização para derivações e uso comercial." - Use of the material is permitted exclusively for journalistic coverage. Derivations and commercial use are not authorized.) of their license (see [3] and [4]). As there was enough time for others to share their points if he is right and if Template:Agência Brasil is really unfree (see Commons_talk:Licensing and my call at pt.wikipedia village pump) and nothing came out that did proof 555's view on that very topic wrong I thatfor made Template:Agência Brasil a deletion request template and thus moved all these images here for deletion (I hesitated to make a speedy maybe some further pt.wikipedia people still can wake up). So please help as well notifying all uploaders of images from Agência Brasil with the usual notification template given at the deletion tag of every image. Arnomane 09:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Misunderstanding about Agencia Brasil. Must not be deleted
[edit]- The licence of Agencia Brasil textually says: The use of the photos produced by Agencia Brasil is free... According to the law it is due to register the credit, i.e. name of the photographer/Abr (O uso das fotos produzidas pela Agência Brasil é livre...De acordo com a legislação em vigor, é obrigatório registrar o crédito, como por exemplo : Nome do fotografo/ABr.[5]".
This is the official licence. It's very clear it's not only for journalists, and also by teachers, reserchers, and people in general. And it is also very clear that it can be used by commercial press. The replay to User:555 clarification is not official. Notice it's made by "Eurico Tavares, Assessor da Diretoria de Jornalismo" that is (Eurico Tavares, Adviser of the Press Director). He is not an authority, and he is probably misunderstanding the message.
SO PLEASE, DONT DELETE THE IMAGES. YOU HAVE TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE LICENSE.
Regards, --Roblespepe 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- commercial press is exactly not enough A free license needs to permit all commercial use, not only commercial press use. Please don't misunderstand wikipedia and commons as a storage for pictures to be used in wikipedia. They are for storing pictures to be used by everyone under a free license that permits creating arbitrary derivative works and use the picture commercially in an arbitrary way. There is only a 'free use' statement on their web site, which is ambiguous and needs to be interpreted in the most careful way (free journalistic reproduction here). We were asking for permission to use outside this careful interpretation. If we want to keep the picture, we need an explicit permission from an authorized person that commercial use beyond press use is permitted for everyone. We did not get such a permission. Instead, we got an explicit clarification from a non-authorized person that we won't get such an explicit permission from an authorized person. That is enough of a reason to delete the pictures. If you want the pictures not to be deleted prove you are right by getting them to change their unclear statement into a CC-by-sa tag on their web site --Rtc 00:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Rtc, but I think you act out of unjustified paranoia. Just because we don't have an explicit-extreme-with-out-a-doubt permission doesn't mean we have to delete an image. And it appears that most users and administrators share this viewpoint with me. / Fred Chess 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree. There is no legal reason to delete such images. Hell, even keeping clearly nonderivative and noncommercial images (such as this one, because of clarification) is entirely legal of course. It is only a question of commons policy (voluntarily and intentionally rejecting a broad range of licenses) and commons policy must not be confused with the law! Now what is the problem? The problem is that people, contrary to commons policy want to keep journalistic and nonderivative pictures here, primarily for use in Wikipedia. The consequence is dogmatic and irrational behaviour of wishful instead of careful interpretation of licenses etc. This deletion request is a very good example: We have a clarification yet people (not only User:Roblespepe, see the template discussion) are trying to argue for ignoring it and to keep the pictures. I vote for deleting these pictures and for a wikimedia commons that has pictures unequivocally under a free license. I want pictures that can be modified and commercially exploited without to suspect that the pictures are there legally, but the given licensing information is wrong. Is your objection only against my 'copyright paranoia' view, as you call it? Or is it a objection against deleting the pictures in this particular case? --Rtc 21:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Copyrighted but free to use, apart of formal concept, not any significant difference in use to cc-by. Shaqspeare 11:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I will ask a brasilian admin to write to Agencia Brasil (EDITORIA DE FOTOGRAFIA - EDITOR - Marcello Casal Jr. fotos@radiobras.gov.br) and resolve the question. --gildemax 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kept for now -- lack of consensus and activity. It has not yet been suffciently shown that these images can not be used in accordance with Commons policies. I suggest that further discussion about Agencia Brasil be made at Commons_talk:Licensing.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A work by the German artist Mary Bauermeister, still alive. I find the GPL license unlikely. Thuresson 13:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a photo, so isn't it allowed then? (de:Panoramafreiheit ~= “liberty of panorama”?) --MarianSigler {bla} 14:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- No Panoramafreiheit does not apply inside of buildings it only applies to objects that are permanently installed on public places. Have a deeper look at the article you linked and at Commons:Lizenzen and de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte. There it is described quite in detail when Panoramafreiheit can be claimed. So this image must be deleted. Arnomane 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- It isn't a photograph of painted picture, but one of tree dimensional work AFAIK! Shaqspeare 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 23:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Vector version available and nowhere used --MarianSigler {bla} 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Vector version available and nowhere used --MarianSigler {bla} 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Vector version available and nowhere used --MarianSigler {bla} 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation [6] Hashekemist 22:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation [7] Hashekemist 22:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 05:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Why should the picture be {PD-USGov-State}? The University's web pages states "Portland State University reserves its copyright to any and all materials posted online."[8] Even if the picture was taken by a person working for the US Dept. of State, it was most likely not taken as part of official duty. --Matt314 12:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Seems that the uploader just tagged it randomly. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 04:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a copyvio image. Image is from http://www.inspirationline.com/images/old_lady.jpg --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Spelling in the filename, sorry for my bad English ;-) . I uploaded the same images under *prepare.jpg now. is there no move-function? --Wisi 16:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
copyright violation, cf. text inside image --EvaK 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
copyright violation, cf. [9] and [10] --EvaK 17:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
REASON - uploaded with incomplete file name; re-uploaded with better name - MPF 21:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be a good idea to tell us the better name? ;-) (And write it at the image description page, too) --MarianSigler {bla} 10:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.woschitz.net : "All photographs on www.woschitz.net are under copyright of Marco Woschitz" --BLueFiSH ✉ 21:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Kept - OK, very strange to overrule myself, but I figured out that this was originally uploaded to en.wp by w:User:Marco w, who we can presume is the photographer. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
http://www.woschitz.net : "All photographs on www.woschitz.net are under copyright of Marco Woschitz" --BLueFiSH ✉ 21:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Kept as above. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Spell error. Category:Karting is correct. I'm sorry...--Morio 02:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
May 6
[edit]correct german pronunciation under Image:De-Sensburg.ogg ...Sicherlich Post 18:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why didn't you just upload the correct version to Sensburg.ogg? --MarianSigler {bla} 21:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually should be better to have the language code in the name for spoken audio files IMO. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, that's right. But then I think it's better to name it Sensburg-de.ogg. --MarianSigler {bla} 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the original pronuncation (by someone else, I see -
you should at least have the courtesy to notify them!- I see you did on their en.wp page)? Having two different pronuncations helps rather than hinders, I would have thought. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I can't judge this case, I'll leave it to a Germans admin. / Fred Chess 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Both pronounciations are not perfect. The first one has an English tone to it. The second is a little bit too slowly spoken. If I had to decide I would prefer the second one (de-sensburg.ogg). Having two versions does not really help. --ALE! 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Andre Engels --ALE! 08:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Image of Bart Simpson is copyrighted, can't be put under a free licence without permission of Matt Groning --Schlendrian 09:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether the photograph itself has some copyright claim, they would not trump the copyright claims made in the object depicted in this case. --Fastfission 18:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- ACK, Delete pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 23:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- We can argue about Simpson doll, but this is clear. Delete. A.J. 17:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly, this is a picture of Bart Simpson, not of the object who holds its drawing. Barcex 07:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This Image with wrong name and description is replaced by the newer ones Image:NASA AS14-67-9386.jpg and Image:NASA AS14-67-9386 (cropped).jpg. --Haeber 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The photos from the web pages of the Norwegian political party Progress Party are not licensed under GFDL or any other free license. When asked about conditions of use, a party representative replied that the photos are "available to anybody". See no:Bildediskusjon:Jørund Rytman.jpg for a discussion (in Norwegian). Thuresson 17:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – now I'll have to find all of the bogus Progress Party GFDL photos in no.wikipedia and delete them as well. Kjetil r 11:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Spelling mistake in file name, new file uploaded as image:SPDIF AES EBU protocol.svg --Phydaux 20:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please confirm you don't want the version without text labels anymore, because these are not the same image. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Replaced by more accurate rendering, Image:MO-supp-K.svg. See w:Missouri Supplemental Route for photographic examples. --PHenry 03:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Go ahead and deleteScott5114 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I marked this to be speedy-deleted but that apparently didn't work. It's redundant, see Category:Suwa-jinja --Melanom 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Patience, grasshopper! Deleted --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Please delete it. Yaohua2000 00:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry,this filename is wrong.Correct namefile Image:Hakone cablecar - kouensimo station.jpg is already uploaded.--Los688 10:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This is not Prinus avium it is a blossom of a Prunus cerasus. Please delete this file and I will upload it with the correct name. MatthiasKabel 06:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Upload the new file then tag this file with {{duplicate|new image.jpg}}, no need to use a deletion request --Denniss 07:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image was incorrectly listed as in the public domain. It was found at stock.xchng and therefore its use is not allowed on WikiCommons. LeaMaimone 18:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Stock.xchng images are still covered by COM:SXC, pending an updated policy which villy is working on with the lawyers, I think. Do you have a specific source for the image (i.e, a URL)? pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
delete unless source is provided per {{No source}}. A.J. 15:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Simple case: Delete A.J. 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- The restrictions of the photo on stock.xchng are "eestrera must be notified when using the photo for any public work". Though there are some images on Commons with such requirements using the {{Copyrighted free use provided that}} tag, I imagine it's a no go here, and, eventually with the others as well? --Para 17:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Para is correct, {{Notify}} is a disallowed tag. Delete pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Para is correct, {{Notify}} is a disallowed tag.
- Deleted, and changed to Image:Tarsius syrichta.jpg on three projects / Fred Chess 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved from en.wikipedia, where it is tagged as fair use. Kjetil r 20:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh, that's such a pain. But I question its fair use tag (I think it's easier for someone to put that rather than to investigate the true copyright situation). It must date to around the 1860s, right? PD-old? pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. My guess would be that this coat of arms is {{PD-old}}. --ALE! 20:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, well, I personally would like to keep it, but people keep telling me that images need a source ( a recent example is at Template talk:No source since ). / Fred Chess 23:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- I asked the en.wp uploader about it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good news!!! We have a source: [11] and website conditions (Spanish speaker, anyone?): [12] Maybe we can just ignore that since I don't think they can copyright something from the 1860s anyway. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I strongly believe this should be OK now, but since I found this info I'll let someone else close it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is clearly way older than the period covered by copyright laws. The date looks like the second or third quarter of the nineteenth century. In any case, that means PD-old. Keep. Valentinian (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
May 7
[edit]The newest addition to our gallery of home-shot penis photos. Little else to see here, and as always no interesting information provided. / Fred Chess 19:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image:100 0419.JPG is another one --Denniss 20:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think it’s pornografic --Uwe W. 10:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://big5.china.com/gate/big5/game.china.com/zh_cn/hotspot/pal3/char/index.html--Wing 10:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 05:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the cover of a magazine, I'm not sure "own work" applies here. -- CyrilB 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- I guess when they sell you a magazine they do not sell the right to photocopy or to take pictures of it, that is reproduction, now if this cover was on a bus then I think that is something else --Tarawneh 04:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image deleted, rather obvious copyvio - not own work as claimed. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This image is redundant to Image:20060416090504.jpg. Yaohua2000 20:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This image is the cover of an album [13]. The uploader has successively tagged it as no licence/album cover/free use. Same copyvio apparently with Image:Overdrawn.jpg although I haven't checked. CyrilB 21:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, album covers can be speedied. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by me because I thought it was PD. I now found the name of the photographer, Paul Strähle, who was born in 1893 and seemingly still alive in 1972. So this cannot be PD. --Rosenzweig 16:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ACK --- gildemax 21:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- And it's.... Deleted/ Fred Chess 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
May 8
[edit]Copyvio. In this case the Argentine presidency does definitivly not hold the copyright of the La Nación frontpage. The tag {{PD-AR-Presidency}} can not be applied. --ALE! 11:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyviol. It's a frame taken from the movie "The Gladiator". --Snowdog 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This never seemed to have been added to this page. Probably a copyright violation unless the original photos are PD/GFDL (if so, please link to their source.) Delete. Ral315 20:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- No justification for deletion. Assumptions; e.g. "probably", doesn't justify censorship. 70.48.204.74 02:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the onus is on you to prove that it's not a copyright violation, not on us to prove that it is. Your straw man claim of censorship will not induce the Commons to keep this image. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- pfctdayelise; I am not the submitter but I don't understand your reasoning; are you saying every photo taken by the submitter has been proven to have been taken by the submitter? How did they prove it ? 64.229.31.37 12:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- In general this is not required but in suspicious cases yes, it is. The Commons is intentionally conservative when it comes to possible copyright violation. This is about trying to truly maintain a databse of truly freely licensed images, not censorship. Trying to dance around the rules is not going to help you when it is extremely likely that the image creator is not the photographer of those photographs it incorporates. As I said on the image talk page, they can prove that they are the photographer by uploading the original high resolution images. I even suggested to you to just remake it with freely licensed images and then there will be no problem. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sanbec ✉ 10:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Template:Morguefile and all 50-odd images using it, should be deleted, because it does not allow commercial use. It states "distribution and or resale of the archived compilation in part or whole is prohibited". See also en:Template talk:MorgueFile - there the owner or Morguefile is quotes as saying "... Basically the license should say you can't use the image entirely on its own merit (sell prints) ..."; This is clearly not compatible with Commons:Licensing. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I see no chance keeping it, also given the comment in en.wp. Arnomane 23:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Send it to the Morgue. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. --Tarawneh 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Sad to see that only the legally irrelevant prohibition of use seems to convince people. IMO the mere lack of an explicit permission for arbitrary commercial use would be reason enough for deletion.--Rtc 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect capitalization. Needs to be renamed to Category:Freedom Plaza. --Schuminweb 08:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- We can't rename (ie move) categories. The images have to be individually re-categorised and when the bad category is empty, then you can request it for speedy deletion (or in this case I would leave it as a {{Category redirect}}). You can either change the images by hand (wouldn't take very long with only a few images) or make a request on Commons:Bots. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hint: categories tagged with {{category redirect|new category name}} are emptied by bot every few days (at least, there where two bots active doing that - I hope they still are). -- Duesentrieb(?!)
The images have been moved and the old name is a RDR, so the problem is resolved. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Created by mistake (intended to create category Category:Palaces in Norway) --DeFacto 08:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{db|Reason}} for such purposes in future. --EugeneZelenko 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This user's article that using this image was afd'ed in [here], and he can not provide any detail about this image as the author. It's disputed that if it's really maked by himself. --earthengine(〠✆ - ✉✍） 19:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, it appears not to be self-published work and might have copyvio issue.--H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
May 9
[edit]- As the title of a series, Thirty-Six should be spelled out and 'Views' capitalized. Also, Mt. Fuji or Fuji-san should never be referred to as "the Fuji," just as you would never write "the Everest" or "the Kilimanjaro." I propose this category be, not deleted, but renamed to "The Thirty-Six Views of Mount Fuji", "Hokusai's Thirty-Six Views of Fuji-san" or the like. LordAmeth 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, please decide what you want the new name to be, and then we can delete the old one. There is no point deleting an old one with no new one ready. I suggest looking at en.wp to see how they refer to it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Kept as it is for now, asked nominator to contact me. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category is a duplicate of Category:FIFA World Cup 2006: 'WM' is a common german abbreviation for 'Weltmeisterschaft', which is 'World Cup' in english. All Articles were moved to the Category mentioned above. --Gnu1742 15:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the old cat into a category redirect. --Denniss 20:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Request these two identical photos be deleted. There was a note to me that the name of the person was wrong and I whave corrected the article information but the photos are incorrectly named and not needed right now.WayneRay 21:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)WayneRay
Now at Image:JohnHuseSaunders.jpg, deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Redundant to Category:Suzuki Harunobu, and emptied. LordAmeth 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted (also: consider speedying simple requests like this in future), pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a template containing only the text "See a doctor!!", as a heading. It has been transcluded in a number of image pages. These images are used in the encyclopedia(s), with the result that this exclamation is reproduced within the encyclopedia(s). I am not expert in the deletion policy of the Commons, but I submit to you that this template is ridiculous, which ought to be as good a reason as any to delete it. Yours encephalon 02:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- I rather agree... Delete or at least blank it. It has been used on a few dozen images of medical conditions. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I've blanked it. Lupo 07:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, when you recognise from these pictures you should see a doctor. That is its intended use. When you have a better mechanism to warn people fine when you do not leave them be. These texts will only be shown on the details page of the picture so what is the issue ? GerardM 12:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia should not have disclaimers? (And likewise the Commons) There is no warning on w:Chlamydia that "If you have this ailment, you should see a doctor". Or any other disease article. pfctdayelise (translate?) 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. I'll ask Ogullibot to remove the template from it is used. / Fred Chess 12:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
May 10
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader claims to be author of the logo but it is identical with the one appearing on this party website: http://www.pis.org.pl/
There is not mention about asking the party for permission for using this image. --Derbeth 09:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. logo--Shizhao 12:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 21:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation, image taken from [16] --EvaK 14:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio. Being a film screenshot does not automatically remove the 'must not be artistic' precondition. This picture is artistic beyond doubt, after all, you see two artists in action, don't you? --Rtc 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A movie is mostly an artwork, just like a part of it. Shaqspeare 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 00:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Dieses Bild zeigt lediglich revisionistische Phantasien. Diese Karte zeigt einen Staat, der nie existiert hat. Die deutschsprachigen Gebiete Böhmens und Mährens waren niemals Bestandteil der Republik Österreich. Daher ist diese Darstellung nicht neutral, sondern steht in der Tradition revisionistischer Geschichtsschreibung.
This image is merely a representation of revisionist phantasies. This map shows a state which never existed. The German-speaking territories of Bohemia and Moravia were never part of the Republic of Austria. Therefore this representation is a breach of the NPOV principle in the tradition of revisionist historiography.--Johannes Rohr 09:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If used in an article about revisionist phantasies, its useful and neutral, showing the truth about those phantasies. Or are the phantasies not as depictured? Shaqspeare 10:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the caption translates as "The composition/structure (?!?) of the Republic of German Austria compared to the present-day Republic of Austria". This language neglects the fundamental difference between those two entities: The fact that the former is fictional - It never existed- while the latter is beyond doubt a real state. --Johannes Rohr 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- So it should be changed to: "The structure of the proposed Republic of German Austria compared to the present-day Republic of Austria". It's not original research but a thing proposed by some revisionists some 70 (?) years ago, and such claim should be added to make it clear it's kinda fiction/proposition/political (mis)conception. Shaqspeare 11:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the caption translates as "The composition/structure (?!?) of the Republic of German Austria compared to the present-day Republic of Austria". This language neglects the fundamental difference between those two entities: The fact that the former is fictional - It never existed- while the latter is beyond doubt a real state. --Johannes Rohr 11:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I really do not have much knowledge of the Austrian history but I Think it is not a revisionist map. Please have a look at the German article w:de:Deutschösterreich and the Dutch article w:nl:Deutschösterreich. --ALE! 12:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's not by chance that w:de:Deutschösterreich and this map share the same author. --Johannes Rohr 15:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well at least Deutschösterreich is not an invented country. Please see:
- etc.
- Ich denke die Quellen sind ausreichend seriös ;-) --ALE! 07:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - For a very short period after world war I Austria called itself officially "Deutschösterreich" (see [17] and claimed the territories depicted in this map. Thus, it might be useful to rename the map and make it clear that Austria didn't have any sovereignity over those lands which exceed the border of todays Austria, but it should be kept to visualize the claims of Austria during the few years following WWI. Gugganij 19:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep NPOV is not a reason to delete images, see Commons:Deletion guidelines. Thuresson 22:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Lieber Johannes Rohr, Dein Löschantrag ist völlig unbegründet. Dieser Staat bestand ziemlich genau 1 Jahr (1918-1919)!
Um "ausnahmsweise" einmal eine "neutrale" Quelle zu nennen, folgt nun ein Auszug aus dem "Atlas zur Zeitgeschichte: Europa im 20. Jahrhundert" (ISBN 3-85447-434-2) vom Österreicher Manfred Scheuch. Dieses ist 1992 im Verlag Christian Brandtstätter erschienen und gehört zur "Standart Bibliothek" der österreichischen Zeitung "Der Standart"!
Auszug (S. 124ff):
"Die Republik Österreich hat ihr Selbstverständnis nach 1945 durch die Erfahrungen mit dem Hitlerstaat, durch den Staatsvertrag und die von ihr erklärte Neutralität gefunden. Als sie - als "Rest" eines Großreiches - entstand, glaubten die wenigsten an den "Staat, den keiner wollte".
Punkt 10 des "14-Punkte"-Katalogs des amerikanischen Präsidenten lautete: "Den Völkern von Österreich-Ungarn", deren Platz unter den anderen Nationen wir sichergestellt und gewährt sehen wünschen, soll die freieste Gelegenheit zu einer autonomen Entwicklung geboten werden". (...)
Österreich berief sich in seinem Ersuchen um Waffenstillstand - das übrigens unbeantwortet blieb - auf Wilsons 14 Punkte, (...)
Nachdem Thomas Masaryks tschechoslowakische Exilregierung von den Westmächten am 14. Oktober 1918 anerkannt worden war und die Gründung eines tschechoslowakischen Staates sich abzeichnete, kamen die deutschsprachigen Abgeordneten des Reichsrates am 21. Oktober im niederösterreichischen Landhaus in Wien zur Sitzung der "Provisorischen Nationalversammlung des selbständigen Deutsch-österreichischen Staates" zusammen. Die Staatsgründung Deutsch-Österreichs wurde am 30. Oktober vollzogen; dessen Verfassung trug bereits republikanische Züge - obwohl Kaiser Karl erst am 11. November abdankte. Die ersten Sätze der Erklärung lauteten: "Deutsch-Österreich ist eine demokratische Republik. Alle öffentliche Gewalten werden vom Volk eingesetzt. Deutsch-Österreich ist ein Bestandteil der Deutschen Republik".
(...)
Vor allem ging es ja um die künftigen Grenzen. Im Hoffen auf die Gewährung des Selbstbestimmungsrechtes glaubte man, zumindest das geschlossene deutsche Siedlungsgebiet für Österreich erhalten zu können. Am 22. November gab die Nationalversammlung eine entsprechende Erklärung ab: "Die Republik Deutsch-Österreich übt volle Gebietshoheit über das geschlossene Siedlungsgebiet der Deutschen innerhalb der bisherigen im Reichsrate vertretenen Königreiche und Länder aus. die Republik umfaßt: Die Länder Österreich unter der Enns einschließlich des Kreises Deutsch-Südmähren und des deutschen Gebietes um Neubistritz, Österreich ob der Enns einschließlich des Kreises Deutsch-Südböhmen, Salzburg, Steiermark und Kärnten mit Ausschluß der geschlossenen jugoslawischen Siedlungsgebiete, die Grafschaft Tirol, Vorarlberg, Deutschböhmen und Sudetenland sowie die deutschen Siedlungsgebiete von Brünn, Iglau und Olmütz."
Zudem behielt sich die Republik die Rechtshoheit über andere deutsche Sprachinseln vor: Für das Industriegebiet Ostmährens und Ostschlesiens wurde ein Österreichisch-tschechoslowakisch-polnisches Kondominium vorgeschlagen. Für die geschlossenen deutschen Siedlungsgebiete der ungarischen Komitate Preßburg, Wiesenburg, Ödenburg und Eisenburg (daher der Name "Burgenland" wurde das Selbstbestimmungsrecht verlangt; die deutschen Sprachinseln in Ungarn sollten "kraft ihrer bisherigen mehrhundertjährigen Reichsgemeinschaft zum nationalen Interessenbereiche des Staates Deutsch-Österreich" gehören.
Soweit der Österreicher Scheuch.
Damit ist es eindeutig klar, wie unsinnig und politisch motiviert Dein Löschantrag ist; allein Deine Formulierung ist eindeutig!
Dear Johannes Rohr, Your delete request is completely unfounded. This state existed quite exactly 1 year (1918-1919)! In order to call "exeptionally" once a "neutral" source, now an excerpt follows from the "Atlas to contemporary history: Europe in 20. Century "(ISBN 3-85447-434-2) by Austrian Manfred Scheuch. This appeared 1992 in the publishing house Christian Brandtstaetter and belonged to the "kind of condition library" of the Austrian newspaper "of the kind of condition"! Excerpt (S. 124ff): "the Republic of Austria found its self understanding after 1945 by the experiences with the Hitler state, by the convention and the neutrality explained by it. As it - as "remainder" of a large realm - developed, believed the few in the "state, which none wanted". Point 10 of the "14-Punkte"-Katalogs of the American president read: "the peoples of Austria Hungary", whose place under the other nations granted we see guaranteed and to wish, are the freieste opportunity to an autonomous development are ordered ". (...) Austria appointed itself in its request for Armistice - which remained by the way unanswered - on Wilsons 14 points, (...) After Thomas Masaryks Czechoslovakian government-in-exile had been recognized by the Western powers on 14 October 1918 and the establishment of a Czechoslovakian state appeared, the German-speaking delegates of the realm advice met on 21 October in the down-Austrian country house in Vienna for the meeting of the "provisional national assembly of the independent Deutsch-Oesterreich state". The establishment of state of Deutsch-Oesterreich was carried out on 30 October; its condition carried already republican courses - although emperor Karl resigned only on 11 November. The first sets of the explanation read: "Deutsch-Oesterreich is a democratic republic. All public force is used by the people. Deutsch-Oesterreich is a component of the German republic ". (...) Above all it concerned the future borders. In hoping for the grant of the right of self-determination one believed to be able to receive at least the closed German settlement area for Austria. On 22 November the national assembly made an appropriate declaration: "the Republic of Deutsch-Oesterreich practices full sovereignty over the closed settlement area of the Germans within the past in realm rate of represented kingdoms and countries from the republic enclosure: The countries Austria under the Enns including the circle Deutsch-Suedmaehren and the German area over newbe-cut, Austria whether the Enns including the circle Deutsch- Suedboehmen, Salzburg, Steiermark and Kaernten with exclusion of the closed Yugoslav settlement areas, the county Tirol, Vorarlberg, Deutschboehmen and Sudetenland as well as the German settlement areas of Bruenn, Iglau and Olmuetz." Besides the republic reserved itself jurisdiction over other German language islands: For the Industrial area Ostmaehrens and Ostschlesiens a Austrian-Czechoslovakian-Polish Kondominium was suggested. For the closed German settlement areas of the Hungarian Komitate Pressburg, Wiesenburg, Oedenburg and Eisenburg(therefore it the name "Burgenland" was required the right of self-determination; the German language islands in Hungary should belong to "strength of their past more-hundred-year realm community to national spheres of interest of the State of Deutsch-Oesterreich". So far the Austrian Scheuch. Thus it is clearly clear, how unreasonably and politically motivates your delete request is; however your formulation is clear! Postmann Michael 23:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The header might not be ideal, but Deutsch-Österreich did exist 1918-19, although never controlling all the territories it claimed. This map doen't look revisionistic to me. In fact its description page clearly states that several of the claimed territories did not have a German-speaking majority. Valentinian (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be a copyvio, image taken from http://www.dreamsstudio.com/old/ONLINE/DV-002.gif edited to remove the copyright info and uploaded as "pd self" --Sherool 07:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Quite surely copyvio. Shaqspeare 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
This image has been manipulated without any description. It's only usage is to illustrate an original research in zh-wikipedia. Due to wikimedia's policy, this image should be deleted. --earthengine(〠✆ - ✉✍） 10:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Could you explain what is manipulated there or what was the original research in it? Shaqspeare 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The name and the date have been changed very crudely (in blue). Chinese speakers, please comment. 请会说中文的人来看看，说怎么样。 --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- He try to illustrate that a man whose existance was disputed is a real man; and he provided this image with his name "碧发艾斯" to prove that. Therefore this image is a FAKE image and its description is also not true. By the way, his story is totally unbelievable and no one in zh-wikipedia believes what he said. --earthengine(〠✆ - ✉✍） 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The name and the date have been changed very crudely (in blue). Chinese speakers, please comment. 请会说中文的人来看看，说怎么样。 --pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete。这是一个恶搞。蓝色的签名明显是电脑制作上去的--Shizhao 12:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This image was uploaded and used by a user who submitted several patent nonsense articles in zh.wikipedia. Those articles have been deleted after AfD discussions. In this particular image, the blue name (upper left) and dates (lower right) are obviously fabricated, but that disrupting author (who is already discredited by his/her nonsense articles at zh and a false claim over another image here at commons) stated that this whole image was scanned from an irrelevant newspaper. This image need to be deleted. --roc (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, refer to roc. --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 13:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect title. New upload Image:Gewone veldbies (Luzula campestris).jpg.Rasbak 11:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – Kjetil r 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect title. New upload Image:Gewone veldbies bloemen (Luzula campestris flowers).jpg.Rasbak 11:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted – Kjetil r 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
May 11
[edit]Claimed by the original uploader at no.wikipedia to be his own work, but this seems unlikely for such a low resolution photo. A search at altavista shows that this image is labelled as “Illustrasjonsfoto Bildet tatt 1999 AP Solberg”. This image is most likely a copyright violation. Kjetil r 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 16:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I made and uploaded this animation months ago, but the ephemeris used to calculate the trajectory has been changed, so the image is useless now. And, the image is too large to generate thumbnail automatically, can't be used in an article. Please delete it. — Yaohua2000 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. I uploaded this because I thought it was fair use, but apparently fair use can only be used for local Wikipedias (like the English Wikipedia). Feel free to delete this, and speedily if necessary. Hurricanehink 01:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
{{PD-self}} not applicable. --ALE! 10:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 09:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This has been tagged {enkelwikipedia} (wikipedia only) on nl:. I suggest it is deleted here. Siebrand 21:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- However the text under the pic says copyright Regionale Beeldbank Mechelen Toestemming voor Wikipedia gegeven door Willy Van de Vijver, what is AFAIK copyright Regional Image Data Base Mechelen, approbation given to Wikipedia by Willy Van de Vijver. Shaqspeare 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that is 'wikipedia only'... FYI a license that has been declared no longer allowed from late 2005 on nl.wikipedia. Siebrand 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 09:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Tawker 01:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{Copyvio}} --gildemax 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 08:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Indicates "Used with permission", tagged as GFDL. No other license information, nothing useful at source. Jkelly 02:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- The source (german: Quelle) is given on the image description page (website of the band), the uploader is a trusted user of the German Wikipedia, he writes he asked for permission to upload it under GFDL and was given it. What exactly is your problem? --Elian Talk 03:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Permission to do what? Who gave the permission? GFDL requires credit to the photographer. Who is the photographer? Thuresson 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- I understand the concerns of Thuresson and Jkelly, but as there is both a source and a license I can't delete it in good faith. / Fred Chess 21:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Same as above. Jkelly 02:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Frist upload on de.wikipedia by de:Benutzer:Eike sauer --Atamari 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- The source (german: Quelle) is given on the image description page (website of the band), the uploader is a trusted user of the German Wikipedia, he writes he asked for permission to upload it under GFDL and was given it. What exactly is your problem? --Elian Talk 03:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Permission to do what? Who gave the permission? GFDL requires credit to the photographer. Who is the photographer? Thuresson 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thuresson, did you even look at the image before you asked who the photographer was? There isn't one. Seahen 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Another one? Kept as per above. / Fred Chess 21:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
May 12
[edit]Same as Image:Cubique centre A2.svg, but wrong name --Cdang 10:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- For an exact copy you can put the tag {{Duplicate}} on that page. (I have done it for you) --ALE! 15:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Has already a deletion request on de-wp: here: No reason for GFDL given --Kajk ✉ 11:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The uploader doubts that the image can be used for commercial purposes. I read somehwere (alas is cant remeber where) that all images here must be free, inclusing commercila use. TeunSpaans 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It seems the uploader didn't know what free licence means. Shaqspeare 17:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
sure, "I, the author of this work..." might be that there is some astronaut (or Kosmonaut) with us - but then i would like to see a proof for that ;) ..Sicherlich Post 08:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- the autor stated on my german talkpage that the image ist from google earth, so copy vio ..Sicherlich Post 09:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Shaqspeare 13:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The uploader claims this logo can be freely distrubated, but as this logo belongs to a commercial company i distrust this claim.
TeunSpaans 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is a TV show logo. Delete pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note that a user, Westermarck, removed the delete tag, but failed to provide info as to why he thinks the image is PD. TeunSpaans 20:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. --ALE! 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
No license given by author, SXC rules apply, see COM:SXC --A.J. 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A.J. 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The original image description page says that "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." It's {{Copyrighted free use}}. Why bother listing them here when it's the same for all SXC photos with that "restriction"? --Para 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- "No usage restrictions" on SXC means only that you don't have to credit or contact the author, but their Image License says that "selling or redistribution is prohibited", so unless there's no direct permission from the author, you cannot assume PD status. A.J. 11:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the Commons policy you are referring to, along with the related discussion pages and previous deletion nominations. There are hundreds of such images on Commons, and weeding them out one by one is not the way to go. Nobody is assuming PD status; copyrighted free use is different from public domain. SXC is a non-exclusive agent and holds no copyright on the images. The usage restrictions chosen by the photographer and displayed with the image and/or the user's profile is where we can see if a photo is usable here, as already explained in the referred Commons policy. In this case the photographer allows all use. --Para 12:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Para is right, You are expected to check the usage restriction at the bottom of the picture (COM:SXC). pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep SXC can't narrow the author's license, since they don't have an exclusive license. Only the author's permission is relevant. --Rtc 12:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
All rights reserved:[18] --Edub 08:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- [19] state they are public. Michiel1972 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no evidence of a free license. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, public means that any user of Flickr is allowed to see this image, not only it's uploader and friends. Shaqspeare 10:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploader's request. Redundant to Image:Tank in position to provide static road security.jpg. Bukvoed 18:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Images like this should be tagged {{Duplicate}}. (Please read the text of {{Redundant}} carefully.) Note that this is a speedy tag so it is NOT necessary to list such images here. pfctdayelise (translate?)
This image is really bad. We don't need it. — Erin (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is incomprehensible...is it a cat's face? in honey??? I have no idea. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep "You can't think of any use for it" does not mean "Noone will ever make use of it". You can't foresee future uses of any pictures, plus we're not running out of space. --Fb78 19:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't want to be swamped by anyone's amateurish shots that just happen do be properly licensed, do we? Don't forget that we're building an encyclopedia here; the commons is first and foremost a common repository for images useful in the Wikipedias. If the uploader feels the urge to publish this or other personal images he can do so at a wide range of other picture websites. Wikipedia is not a web hosting provider. Besides, this image is {{Nosource}}: the uploader didn't say that this was his or her own picture... Lupo 08:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Absolutely delete. Lupo's 1st sentence summed up my thoughts nicely. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no provenance. Wsiegmund 05:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 16:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I simply don't buy the PD license although I can't read the (c) footer of the given page -- Arnomane 12:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- We really need an Indonesian (ID) speaker around :( --pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I know of user:Meursault on the Dutch wiki who speaks Bahassa, I'll ask him. TeunSpaans 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- This image comes from a website of an Indonesian lad's magazine, so I think it is copyrighted. The uploader of this image hasn't asked any permission to this magazine. Thus the case is clear ... Meursault2004 08:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
no reason given why image is listed as PD. --Matt314 12:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 08:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All rights reserved: [20] --Edub 08:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- [21] state they are public. Michiel1972 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Note carefully that it was uploaded to en.wp by w:User:Wfresch. So we have good reason to believe the rights holder is choosing this license. He also asserts this much (see here). So the crucial element in this is that the en.wp uploader is the creator, not that another source says it's copyrighted. (If he chooses not tell people he's licensed it under CC-BY-SA, that's his business.) Also note that "public" as stated by Michiel1972 just means the image is publicly viewable (ie anyone can view it), not that it's freely licensed. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is not in the PD, AFAIK. Fritz Lang, the director of the movie, died in 1976. Husky 15:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- But the director wasn't the designer of the affiche. It was rather Erich Kettelhut, who painted the scenery used in this affiche - and died 1979. But we still don't know who made the affiche itself. Shaqspeare 12:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- The poster was designed by Kurt Degen (please see the signature!). I do not know when he died. But in 1943 he painted also a poster for the film "BARON MÜNCHHAUSEN". Therefore the poster will not enter into the public domain before 1943 + 70 = 2013, probably even later. Therefore: Delete --ALE! 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The poster was designed by Kurt Degen (please see the signature!). I do not know when he died. But in 1943 he painted also a poster for the film "BARON MÜNCHHAUSEN". Therefore the poster will not enter into the public domain before 1943 + 70 = 2013, probably even later. Therefore:
- Deleted, Thuresson 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photograph of a copyrighted map.--Wiggum 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- According to German Panoramafreiheit absolutely legal. We accept German Panoramafreiheit here until now --Historiograf 01:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's standing in public space for a long term, so it's free of copyright reserving. Shaqspeare 09:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Panoramafreiheit --gildemax 22:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but add a warning that it's been shot as 'panoramafreiheit' and that thus it may not be modified. --Rtc 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It can not be assumed that the publication is in the public domain. Please proof it by stating the publication and the license terms. --ALE! 21:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
From my discussion page:
- ALE, the "Manifiesto Liminar" is a non-author document produced by the Federación Universitaria Argentina at 1918.--Roblespepe 20:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- The "Manifesto" was signed by "Enrique F. Barros, Horacio Valdés, Ismael C. Bordabehere, presidentes — Gumersindo Sayago — Alfredo Castellanos — Luis M. Méndez — Jorge L. Bazante — Ceferino Garzón Maceda — Julio Molina — Carlos Suárez Pinto — Emilio R. Biagosh — Angel J. Nigro — Natalio J. Saibene — Antonio Medina Allende — Ernesto Garzón."
- Therefore it has authors. Entering into the public domain 70 years after the death of the last living author. --ALE! 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is it sure, to sign a memorandum makes one a co-author of it? It happens sometimes, such petitions are signed by some 10,000 people. Shaqspeare 10:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is not the manifesto itself. It's an extremely low res copy (as to be illegible) of the front page of it. It seems to me there might be some legal distinction here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image kept, I changed license from GFDL to PD-ineligible. Thuresson 21:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Images in Category:PD-AR-Presidency uploaded by User:Roblespepe
[edit]The Images in Category:PD-AR-Presidency uploaded by User:Roblespepe not showing the current President Kirchner are probably not from the website of the Argentine presidency (I can not find them on that website) or are not the copyright of the website owners (for example the frontpage of a newspaper).
Especially the following images not yet in the public domain (25 years after publication) should be considered for deletion (they are not yet tagged for deletion):
- Image:Alfonsín cansado en Casa Rosada.jpg
- Image:Alfonsín en la CGT.jpg
- Image:Alfonsín entrega mando a Menem.jpg
- Image:Alfonsín tomando juramento a ministros.jpg
- Image:Alfonsín y Sourrouille .jpg
- Image:Asunción de Alfonsín.jpg
- Image:Maradona con el presidente Alfonsín - Copa del Mundo -1986.jpg
- Image:Juicio a los Comandantes 22-abr-85.jpg
- Image:Nunca Mas sabato entrega informe a Alfonsín 003 0002.jpg
- Image:Raúl Alfonsín - Balcón Casa Rosada - 1983-899.jpg
- Image:Raúl Alfonsín - Encuentro con Madres de Plaza de Mayo - 1983-899.jpg
- Image:Raúl Alfonsín - Presidente - Maniobras militares -1983-1989 .jpg
- Image:Raúl Alfonsín - con banda presidencial - 1983.jpg
- Image:Raúl Alfonsín -Presidente - escoltado por soldados con sus caras pintadas.jpg
- Image:Seis presidentes radicales - Argentina .jpg (contains a disputed image)
- Image:Constitucion 1994-La Nacion-presidencia-govar.jpg (has allready a deletion request)
If these images are from the presidency website or a copyright of the presidency a "deeplink" with the proof should be provided. If no proof will be provided the images should be deleted. --ALE! 07:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. The permission mentioned at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Argentina/.gov.ar is clearly useless, since it only allows for "public use". Thuresson 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The permission is not useless (there is {{PD-AR-Presidency}} which is actually something like cc-by-sa). The images listed here are not official photographs from http://www.presidencia.gov.ar . That's the point. --ALE! 07:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
May 13
[edit]Giro images
[edit]Image:Giro 2006 -8- mountian.jpg, Image:Giro 2006 -8- profil.jpg and Image:Giro 2006 -8- trasa.jpg are copied from the official Giro d'Italia website. --Derbeth 21:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know now it, sorry and please delate this images. Krzysiu Jarzyna 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Image:HH47 animation.gif
[edit]by source http://sparky.rice.edu/~hartigan/movies.html this image is not from the NASA --gildemax 21:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Buddha lantau.jpg. --Minghong 16:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
May 14
[edit]Pictures from the Louvre website
[edit]- Image:Paris-Louvre-Etruscan Canopy.jpg
- Image:Paris-Louvre-Etruscan Couple.jpg
- Image:Paris-Louvre-Etruscan artefact.jpg
- Image:177px-CodeOfHammurabi.jpg
These pictures explicitly come from the Louvre website, with a reference to Wikipedia:Public domain image resources and a {{PD}} tag. However, these are clearly three-dimensional works of art and the {{PD-art}} license cannot apply. Jastrow 15:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deletion is fine with me. I trusted the judgement of polish wikipedian Radomil and the addition "public domain resources" at that time. It shows again that it is best only to use one's own photos. Perhaps we should prohibit uploads of images smaller than 100 kb altogether, since they orginate mostly on other websites. Longbow4u 20:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted two, but the other two are very widely used...sigh... pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, woot, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wrong license. --H.T. Chien (Discuss|Contributions) 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 13:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Lower resolution duplicate of Image:Eastbank Esplanade1.jpg --Cacophony 00:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded hi-res to first image and copied summary info, deleted second, since the first was already being used. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
copyvio --Rtc 14:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted (in future, please tag such images {{subst:nsd}} or {{Copyvio}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a redundancy, shows up again as Wappen_Weidenhausen_an_der_Salzböde.jpg in same category - it was the user's first try :). --MainhattanRoamer 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by me - new version is here Image:Claude Monet River Scene at Bennecourt, Seine.jpg --Rlbberlin 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Larger version is preferable. NOT deleted. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by me - new version is here Image:Gilbert Stuart George Washington full length.jpg --Rlbberlin 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
image is double see Image:HeidelbergMarktplatz.jpg --gildemax 19:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted —Kjetil r 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
REASON Upload error, doubles to existing Image:Grottole-Stemma.png--Lucarelli 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS (if needed to comment request)--Lucarelli 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted Kjetil r 21:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
May 15
[edit]I'm the author of the picture. The file name is wrong, I re-uploaded it as Image:Judgment Paris Louvre F287.jpg. Jastrow 18:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader is not the author of the mosaic, neither he received permission of the author or other legal copyrightholder --Mikkalai 17:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the author of the photo and I have the permission of the aurthor of the mosaic : Claudia von Aponte > aponte@aon.at, < www.edelstein.cc > And the uploader has the permission of both of us.Mr.Mikkalai has other reasons for his delition request, not the question of authorship af this piece of art. hugo-wien 08:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Rather than guesing my reasons, please provide the confirmation that the author of the mosaic allows the use of its image according to the copyrights policy of wikimedia commons. Please see section "Copyrights issues" in the Commons:Community Portal. Mikkalai 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm Claudia von Aponte (aponte@aon.at)(www.edelstein.cc)and I'm the author of the mosaic of the "duck". I give the permission to publish this piece of art.Claudia von Aponte 00:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Assuming good will, this will do. Mikkalai 18:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader is not the author of the mosaic, neither he received permission of the author or other legal copyrightholder --Mikkalai 17:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the author of the photo and I have the permission of the aurthor of the mosaic : Claudia von Aponte > aponte@aon.at, < www.edelstein.cc > And the uploader has the permission of both of us.Mr.Mikkalai has other reasons for his delition request, not the question of authorship af this piece of art.hugo-wien 08:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Rather than guesing my reasons, please provide the confirmation that the author of the mosaic allows the use of its image according to the copyrights policy of wikimedia commons. Please see section "Copyrights issues" in the Commons:Community Portal. Mikkalai 16:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm Claudia von Aponte (aponte@aon.at)(www.edelstein.cc)and I'm the author of the mosaic of the Aeskulap-snake. I give the permission to publish this piece of art.Claudia von Aponte 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Assuming the good faith, that will do. Mikkalai 18:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This information belongs to wikipedia. Teebeutel 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- ACK Delete --gildemax 23:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
copyright violation, taken from [26] --EvaK 15:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 08:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
copyright violation, taken from [27] --EvaK 15:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Operas by verdi is also without a capital "V". Teebeutel 16:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see who RDRs hurt, but eh... deleted pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
no media, uneccesary to exist Azuncha 05:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you put a {{Speedydelete}} tag on that page? --ALE! 10:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't bite the newcomers! Deleted Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 12:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
=== Image:Cpm2.jpg === http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ACpm2.JPG
I am the author and I want to delete this image / logo on Wikipedia Commons, because it's not correct. It's a mistake. --User:Romavip 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
=== Image:Logo gymawebmedia1.jpg === http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ALogo_gymawebmedia1.JPG
I am the author and founder of GymawebMedia, I want to delete this image / logo on Wikipedia Commons, because it's not correct. Not good format and not license. --User:Romavip 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a category named "Operas by Verdi" with a capital "V" so this category is not needed. Teebeutel 15:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure this category isn't linked anywhere? Shaqspeare 18:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Checked with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Operas_by_verdi&w=_100000&m=&x=&go=Check+Usage&b=0 Teebeutel 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Err, what? That tool checks the usage of *images* - it says nothing about where other pages are linked. That would be a separate tool. Maybe i'll write it some day. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 22:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. Checked with http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Operas_by_verdi&w=_100000&m=&x=&go=Check+Usage&b=0 Teebeutel 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
这张图片摄于1966年以后，按照中国的版权规定，要到2016年以后才属于公有领域--Shizhao 11:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please write it in some basic english? Shaqspeare 11:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- His sentence means: "This picture was taken after 1966. Pursuant to Chinese Copyright Law, it is in the public domain after 2016."--Jusjih 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- This pic is already discussed on 2005-08-15. The pic was released for public and no copyright claimed. Mao was a public figure and no any organization claimed for his pics right. （to Shizhao: 毛是公众人物，和蒋不一样的地方是没有一个组织或个人曾经声称对他的肖像具有版权，文化革命期间的照片是发送到公有领域的，具体到这张照片也没有任何人声称具有版权。另外按照国际惯例，法律一般没有追朔力，在中国知识产权法颁布以前发表的作品，你恐怕找不出胜诉的例子，例如周海婴状告人民出版社）。 --Fanghong 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept until it can be shown that anyone does indeed claim copyright of such images. / Fred Chess 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am the author and founder of GymawebMedia, I want to delete this image / logo on Wikipedia Commons, because it's not correct. Not good size. --User:Romavip 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as per uploader request
This a screenshot of SPSS and is 'fair use'. Please delete. Siebrand 17:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm the author of the photo and I have the permission of the aurthor of the mosaic : Claudia von Aponte > aponte@aon.at, < www.edelstein.cc > And the uploader has the permission of both of us.Mr.Mikkalai has other reasons for his delition request, not the question of authorship af this piece of art. <-- This comment is wrong. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.123.121.26
- Comment I don't know who wrote the above text but this should be verified. Is is permissions @wikimedia.org ? I'm not familiar with the procedures, maybe someone can fill me in. / Fred Chess 21:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted. A clear {{Screenshot}} issue Sanbec ✉ 11:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
May 16
[edit]Not a work of the U.S. federal government, and therefore, the PD rationale given is not valid. The image is tagged as PD because it came from state.gov, but I find it hard to believe that a U.S. State Department employee was assigned to paint a positive-looking portrait of the enemy. --Jiang 02:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- In Japan, the copyright is 50 years iirc. It could be PD if the author died before 1956. I agree with you about the positive-looking aspect of this picture. I found a version where one can see a japanese signature (?) : [28].. if someone is able to tell what's written. Note that the NationalGeographic tagged the picture as Photograph courtesy U.S. Naval Historical Center. Dake 21:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep This is PD. The USN's National Historical Center states that this is an official portrait of Yamamoto painted by Shugaku Homma, on 1943. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h79000/h79462kc.
Article 6 of the old copyright law states:
- Article 6. Copyright in a work published or publicly performed under the name of a governmental or public agency, school, shrine or temple, association, company or any other organization as its author shall endure for thirty years from the time of such publication or public performance. [29]
As an official portrait commissioned by the Imperial government of Japan, this portrait became public domain on 1973. -Mak 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Other copies If it is decided that deletion is correct, then the uncropped copy I unploaded should also be deleted. Image:Yamamoto official portrait NH 79462.jpg -Mak 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Someone forgot to delete this logo after the nosource period expired. --Timichal 10:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - the uploader has not been notified. Kjetil r 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Come on guys, show some initiative!! Uploader now notified. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No reason for PD given, unable to verify: copyright violation suspected. --A.J. 19:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete A.J. 19:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete - copyright violation suspected --gildemax 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Shaqspeare 23:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete source: http://www.de-pl.info/_files/Image/Portrety/papst_benedikt_XVI_517x698.jpg, copyright: http://www.de-pl.info/de/page.php/article/53 --ALE! 21:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: all uploads by User:Hgisdugfisr should be considered suspicius, I'm going to check them soon. A.J. 15:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Fb78 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I placed this image originally heir. The parents of the children have asked me to remove the images if possible. So can this be deleted. --Belginusanl 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've speedied this given the nature of the request. The image was not used except on Commons.--Eloquence 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
More ESA images
[edit]- Image:COS-B.gif see [30] ("Credits: ESA")
- Image:Xmm-newton.jpg see [31] ("Credits: ESA")
- Image:Envisat.jpg see [32] ("Credits: ESA/Denmann production")
- Image:Integral observatory.jpg see [33] ("Credits: ESA. Illustration by D. Ducros")
- Image:Smart1.jpg see [34] ("Credits: ESA")
- Image:Columbus ISS laboratory.jpg see [35] ("Credits: ESA / D.Ducros")
- Image:Darwin satellites.jpg see [36] ("Copyright: ESA 2002. Illustration by Medialab.")
--Phrood 11:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- competely agreed: ESA Images, which were not credited correctly originally on NASA pages - delete--Gunter.krebs 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Arnomane 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Images from NASA servers with non NASA copyright
[edit]- Image:Bepposax.jpg Images courtesy of the Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (ASI) and the BeppoSAX Science Data Center (SDC). [37]
- Image:Astro-d.jpg Credit: Image courtesy of ISAS and NASA-GSFC [38]
--Gunter.krebs 11:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Arnomane 10:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong spelling, the correct category is Category:Guxhagen, Germany --Mazbln 05:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted. --::Slomox:: >< 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Although this image is published on a NASA web site, it was created by Thierry Lombry and can be found in the image gallery on his home page, http://astrosurf.com/lombry/alienworlds-renderings.htm . The FAQ on that site states: il est interdit de reproduire les images et les articles sans l'accord préalable écrit de l'auteur ou l'achat d'une licence. Ceci inclut mais n'est pas limité aux groupes de discussions, sites personnels et non commerciaux. Please be more careful when uploading images from a NASA web page. --Phrood 07:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete My mistake delete the picture. On the NASA page was no text that the picture is Copyrighted by Terry Lombry. So I thougt Terry Lombry is a NASA Artist = US-Gov-NASA License. --Uwe W. 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Arnomane 08:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know on which NASA web page this image was found, but it is also published on this ESA web page with the statement: Copyright: ESA. Illustration by Medialab. --Phrood 07:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Arnomane 08:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- addendum 1 May 2006
- wrong filename, sorry --80.122.238.18 19:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- that's correct, right is Image:Horizontal and vertical coordinates.svg, I didn't realise wrong upload --W!B: 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, in the future please tag such requests as {{Badname}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
-- 68.194.196.4 06:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think 68.194.196.4 means Gary Schaufeld. Kjetil r 07:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Right. I will put a {{Speedydelete}} tag on that page. --ALE! 07:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, ALE! is right that this is speedyable. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Self-made file should have been a pronunciation of Lautenburg (en:Lidzbark Welski), but instead was of Lautenberg. --Olessi 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- So? As long as the file's title is consistent with it's content, I see no reason to delete it... surely, tehre's *some* place called "Lautenberg"? At least it seems to be fairly common as a last name. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fine with keeping the file on the server, but I don't know of anything that would link to it at this time.Olessi 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- It's not a big deal, but if it really can't be used, it's just redundant . / Fred Chess 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Photo of author James Howell Street. Photographer unknown. Taken around the 1950s.
This picture can not be lic. with CC-BY-SA-2.5 nor it is PD = delete. --gildemax 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted but secured on our experimental new rescue server. / Fred Chess 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
May 17
[edit]This photo is a copyright violation from http://www.studentenwerk-hamburg.de/wohnen/haus.php?hausid=16&&mid=11 --viciarg ᚨ 11:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 18:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Image has been listed on en:Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2006_May_11 and the result was delete. Kilo-Lima 17:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment it isn't at all obvious that the result of the discussion would have been a consensus to delete. Furthermore, en: deletion discussions aren't a very compelling argument that media at Commons should be deleted. If you want this media deleted, I recommend an explanation specific to Commons about why we should delete it here. Jkelly 18:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- How about "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project"? Paolo Liberatore 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's being used on enwiki, and was only deleted from there because it was on Commons. --Rory096 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was deleted at uploader's request, but the IfD discussion also shows that many people find it of no use in wikipedia-en. So, unless another project may use it, it should be deleted. Paolo Liberatore 11:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- It's being used on enwiki, and was only deleted from there because it was on Commons. --Rory096 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The image was uploaded for the purpose of vandalizing a userbox that has now been deleted by the group of individuals who vandalized it. The only places on en it is in use are on a few user pages that show a copy of the vandalized userbox. As Liberatore says, it has no legitimate use. See [39] for a copy of the vandalized userbox. The practical applications for a spinning crucifix are quite limited - and few of them are positive. BigDT 20:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - actually, it's not solely used in the deleted userbox (and in any case, use in a subst-ed-but-now-deleted-userbox is still use). Take a look at this (warning - horrible userpage, may leave scarring). 88.111.142.88 21:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this image has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. There is no conceivable use for it in any Wikimedia project. Angr 22:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. (Sheesh, where are you guys when it comes to the dick photos? Why is this image getting so much attention?) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dick photos can at least potentially be used in an encyclopedic way, such as to illustrate an article on the penis. This one was created specifically for vandalism and has no use outside from vandalism. That is a valid reason for deletion. Angr 10:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The creator disputes that it was created for vandalism. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's why we are having this discussion: to establish whether there is any legitimate use of this image, as the creator says, or not. Nobody has yet presented a way of using this image for improving any of the current or future wikimedia projects. Paolo Liberatore 11:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- The creator disputes that it was created for vandalism. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dick photos can at least potentially be used in an encyclopedic way, such as to illustrate an article on the penis. This one was created specifically for vandalism and has no use outside from vandalism. That is a valid reason for deletion. Angr 10:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not useful. Unless you can come up with any place that this picture fit in to Wikipedia, let's get rid of it. 68.33.77.66 18:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete
- Was created to specifically to annoy Wikipedians,
- did annoy Wikipedians and
- will continue to be used to annoy Wikipedians unless deleted.
- On the English Wikipedia, at least one vandalism-only account has been used solely to harass people using this animation. Whether the image appals or amuses any particular person is irrelevant, because lots of people do find it objectionable. (I myself am greatly offended by the crudity of the animation.) And because of that fact, retaining it means that it will continue to be used to annoy Wikipedians. CWC(talk) 16:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to delete it. Many people find many different images offending, but there's no reason to throw them away. You should rather fight the trolls than this image. And private graphics for the use on the own user site are allowed on many wikis. Shaqspeare 16:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Re: CWC. It is not our problem whether an image is used to vandalize a Wikipedia. If you don't want your local Wikipedia to use the image, ask them to add the image to the Bad Image List file. For English Wikipedia, it is located at en:MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. / Fred Chess 18:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: I refer to the Clause 2.3 of the Commons:Deletion guidelines: The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist). From what I know, the creator of this image is indeed an unknown artist, not notable for having previously created artistic masterpieces of animation. As such, this is animated art that really serves no purpose to inform others, which is what Wikimedia's projects are all about. Brisvegas 11:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - No valid reason for deletion given. The "vandalism" that was committed with this template was actually a w:WP:POINT violation by people trying to get the image deleted. Those kinds of tactics should not be rewarded. --Cyde 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I will accept, with some difficulty, the claim that this image was created for some useful purpose on English Wikipedia. That useful purpose either never materialised, or turned out not to be so useful after all. Meanwhile we're stuck with a poorly constructed, ugly and insulting image. Delete to avoid bringing the Wikimedia projects into disrepute. --Tony Sidaway 03:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Contributions of User:Emperador Lord Fenix
[edit]Albums covers (see [40]):
- Image:So Far, So Good...So What!.JPG
- Image:Killing Is My Business... And Business Is Good!.jpg
- Image:Killing Is My Business album cover1.jpg
- Image:Killing Is My Business... And Business is Good!.jpg
Megadeths logos (see [41]):
--Edub 09:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC) PD: He wrotes: "Megadeth gives the permissions for the diffusion of this image under GFDL" Where?
- Delete all copyvivo: no evidence for the permission --- gildemax 13:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted —Kjetil_r 11:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk page for a speedy deleted duplicate image. --Eoghanacht 13:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC) (the creater/uploader)
Deleted, please note this is a speedy criterion. In the future please don't list such cases here. Thanks, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded it by error in the upload bot file. This image is meaningless. --Colegota 23:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
May 18
[edit]On the reference page is not a free content mentioned = Copyvio
Copyright © , Society for the Confluence of Festivals in India (SCFI). All Rights Reserved
Catch the spectacular festival of Pongal through this amazing collection of Pongal Pictures. You may download Pongal Images and share them with your friends to make this Pongal even more exciting and funfilled.'' --gildemax 20:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
A nice composition. Unfortunately, the Wikimedia logos are copyrighted by Wikimedia and do not allow derivative works without permission (see the Wikimedia visual identity guidelines), which is not free as per Commons:Licensing. We can allow exceptions for material which is only used "internally" (on non-article pages), but this definitely goes too far as it limits the freedom of the image for third parties. The example image should be replaced, otherwise this will have to be deleted.--Eloquence 13:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wait a few days, please, I'll try to get a permission from the board. --che 15:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- The permission would have to include the right to make derivative works and commercial use as per Commons:Licensing. This would effectively render the logos free content. It is very unlikely that the Board would assent to such a change.--Eloquence 23:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- I still got no reply, so feel free to delete it. --che 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It is redundant and no longer used by any project. Yuval Madar 11:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 13:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
REASON Copyvio from http://www.jardin-mundani.info/ -MPF 09:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
REASON Copyvio from http://usuarios.lycos.es/yoruga/ - MPF 09:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Same user User talk:Evelyn Z has uploaded numerous photos, all as far as I can tell copyvios - please check contribs! - MPF 09:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Image uploaded with better filename. This image is not used on any wiki. --Broadbeer 16:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- slettet Kjetil r 11:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
All of User:Gothiquegirl's contribs
[edit]As of this timestamp, everything uploaded by User:Gothiquegirl is either an album cover or music video screenshot. I've tagged them all as "speedydelete", but my impression is that nominating them here is sometimes a faster route to deletion than placing that tag on them is. Jkelly 17:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Are her pictures in use? Perhaps she's just a Music Junkie. as long as the copyright tags are correct, it should be OK. 68.33.77.66 18:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. We don't allow unfree content here. See Commons:Licensing for more information. Jkelly 19:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedydelete cases... if she uploads again without responding to her talk page messages please block her indefinitely. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
These are not pictures, but I don´t know where to place this...
[edit]Category:Satellite images of France is a simple duplicate/mistake. The correct name is Category:Satellite pictures of France like all the countries at Category:Satellite images of countries.
Category:Satellite photos of The Gambia and Category:Satellite photos of Gambia (last one is my own mistake) are similar to the case above. I allready created the correct Category:Satellite pictures of Gambia and transfered all images there.
Category:National insignia of The Gambia, instead of the correct Category:Coats of arms of Gambia. allready transfered everything.
Category:History of The Gambia, instead of the more correct Category:History of Gambia. allready transfered everything
Flamarande 21:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
No public Domain, ESA images are non commercial only! --Uwe W. 07:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Arnomane 10:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
empty TomAlt 13:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have put a {{Speedydelete}} tag in this category --ALE! 14:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted Kjetil r 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
May 19
[edit]there is no reason why this picture is US-PD, i think its not made by us-employee, it's with security copyrighted --Finanzer 21:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete looks like a Heinrich Hoffmann picture. I cannot see any reason for being PD (missing author and/or date of shooting).--Wiggum 15:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete definitively not US-PD --ALE! 21:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Source http://supertankers.topcities.com/id23.htm says "Copyright reserved" --Tomia 22:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
copyvio, not GFDL--Shizhao 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 18:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt that the original file is PD (no reason given) [42], Copyright has definitely not expired yet as written in the Commons description. --Matt314 20:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I thought en:Wp had everything all right, and not illegal stuff. I know en: has "fair use", but this is "public domain". I am pretty neutral over here. If it is not enough that it is stated "public domain", then delete it. Otherways, I appreciate a picture for my Harry Shearer-article. NorwegianMarcus 14:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, almost certainly a copyvio both here and at en:. Angr 23:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The user that uploaded this picture has uploaded many of this kind. NorwegianMarcus 09:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{Copyvio}} --- gildemax 21:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 17:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image:島村抱月.jpg
- Image:???北村透谷.jpg
- Image:????池田敏雄.jpg
- Image:???池田敏雄.jpg
- Image:???Hujiwaraseika.jpg
- Image:???近衛文麿.jpg
- Image:近衛文麿.jpg
- Image:???菊池寛.jpg
- Image:---高橋是清.jpg
- Image:---池田敏雄.jpg
- Image:---菊池寛.jpg
- Image:鬼頭史郎.jpg - living
low quality scribble. --Tietew 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't understand what these pictures to use for. --snty-tact (Talk) 13:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Don't you know this style of portrait pictures? This is not scribble, I think. --210.148.129.168 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)(-Nekosuki600 (Talk)) Sorry, I don't know the way to make signature on commons.--Nekosuki600 08:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)(add signature)
- KeepThey are portrait sketches, not scribble. I used some of them to illustrate the term ja:似顔絵 in comparison to their photographs.--Miya 08:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- (one delete) Image:鬼頭史郎.jpg is better to be deleted, for the man is still alive. --Miya 08:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- (comment)I quite agree with User:Calvero - The file names should be altered to appropriate ones.--Miya 05:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- (one delete) Image:鬼頭史郎.jpg is better to be deleted, for the man is still alive. --Miya 08:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If these portraits are deleted as scribble, it is necessary to establish in Commons the rule which refuses a portrait. A portrait is one of the genres of splendid pictures which extracted the person's feature. That it is visible to scribble if it glances should regard as one of the styles of the author. In a WIKIPEDIA project, there is room which improvement in quality can expect over the future by GFDL. Justification is not felt of a deletion request. Koba-chan 08:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Opponent 09:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC), Opponent 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (re-voting)
- Keep It is better that we have availabilty or options to select various pictures. In addition, as to these pictures, I can not find the right reasons to delete them. Exception ---Image:鬼頭史郎.jpg shall be deleted since he is the living person at present and there might exist degrading problems in the laws. --Maris stella 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --- gildemax 23:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --- If they are used, they should not be deleted. Kjetil_r 16:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- CommentApart from the quality and purpose for them, these pictures still have a problem. They have a kanji-character filename. A reader without the character set in her/his PC will not understand actually what these pictures are. Even those who want to utilize these portraits for non-ja-based Wikipedia may
Fine replacement available. --PiaCarrot 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Image not yet tagged with the template {{Delete}}. Apart from that I can not see any reason to delete this image. --ALE! 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image kept, Thuresson 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not so sure about the licence anymore. The source link states copyrighted. I think I copied it from another wikipedia (transwiki), but I cannot find it neither on en:WP nor IT:WP. I was new then and "move-to-commons-assistant" or exact guidelines faq did not exist. So I think if it is not overall important, it can be removed. Longbow4u 15:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 22:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
May 20
[edit]Better file, more focussed on the heli availble, see here --Denniss 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:Obcine cankova.png et alii duplicates
[edit]Image:Obcine cerkvenjak.png, Image:Obcine dobrepolje.png, Image:Obcine dobrna.png, Image:Obcine dobrova.png, Image:Obcine hajdina.png, Image:Obcine kobilje.png, Image:Obcine kostel.png, Image:Obcine kuzma.png, Image:Obcine lenart.png, Image:Obcine lukovica.png are obsolete. These have been uploaded later, the orginal images were already there but with lower resolution. These have now been improved, so the images above can be deleted.
- Delete obsolete Besednjak 09:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Etruscan alphabet is only one aspect of etruscan(people, life, art, archeological sites....). This redirect is misleading. -- AlMare 14:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded for vanity purpose by the same person. No other value, IMO. / Fred Chess 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The license is unknown, perhaps a Copyright validation. I have no Copyright note found on the ISRO Webpage--Uwe W. 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 23:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -Edbrown05 02:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
100% clear copyvio from http://www.apple.com/pr/products/macbook/macbook_13.html . I recommend speedy deletion, but I want at least another pair of eyeballs on this. --grmwnr (homewiki) 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is a speedy in my opinion. Kjetil_r 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio --- gildemax 21:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the licence of apple on this image is definitely incompatible with commons - CyrilB 21:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedied after a suitable replacement (Image:MacBook_white.jpg) has been found and substituted where this one had been used (pl:MacBook). --grmwnr (homewiki) 15:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
More likely an unfree image than a GFDL. This image of the cover art of a board game was gleaned from amazon.co.uk --Zzyzx11 19:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedied this since it cited amazon.co.uk as a source.--Eloquence 05:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
No PD! So probably copyvio. (1950) --Effeietsanders 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
May 21
[edit]Videogame screenshot, copyrighted and not a free image. --PS2pcGAMER 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvivo --- gildemax 12:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont know what is on the picture.--Uwe W. 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete does not show anything --- gildemax 12:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it is not used anywhere --Edub 14:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Ich war nicht ganz bei mir als ich es hochlud 2felda 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- 2felda 19:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - error from uploader --gildemax 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, in future please use a speedy delete tag like {{speedy|reason}}. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This article does not really belongs to the Commons, does not belong to Wikipedia at all. --Denniss 01:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 12:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Edub 14:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, definitely speedy material. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
A logo of French national football team - it's a derivative work of a copyrighted design. Shaqspeare 22:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- A lot of the other images uploaded by the same user has questionable licensing. ZorroIII 11:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. All his images are clear copyvios, none are published under a free license. I will delete them all. Kjetil_r 16:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The image is braking copyright policy ----serbiana 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- This photo was accidentaly labeled as public domain, but is actually copyrighted by AP. Delete it. --serbiana 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
--- Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
No source except that it comes from en:, but was uploaded there by a user who has been blocked twice for vandalism since he started edit in April 2006. There is no good reason to believe this to be his own photograph. Celsius 09:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no source on en:wiki --- gildemax 12:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Image is not currently used on any projects and serves no real purpose as far as I can see. -- malo (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ACK gildemax. I think, this picture wasn't ment to be used in one of the wikimedia projects norro 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Here: "aus englischer Wiki überommen". Uploader en wiki: [44]. Also [45]. Sorry, I don't speak english --Edub 09:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 11:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
television screenshot --84.133.107.20 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is no television screenshot. See history and original picture at flickr. Nonetheless most probably the photographer wasn't allowed to relese it under a cc-license. See also (german!): de:Benutzer Diskussion:-jha-#Lordi-Bild --Avatar 00:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- According to Flickr, this photo was taken on May 18, the same day as the Eurovision song contest semifinals where "Lordi" performed. Is it possible that Flickr user "Ansik" is Finnish (his/her Flickr contributions suggest that) and that the broadcast of the semifinals were shown on a giant screen somewhere in Finland? Thuresson 01:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - This is a public image of a public people, bad quality, nobody can a ridiculous trial about it ! - Siren-Com 07:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I wrote ansik a flickr-mail to get more info. --Avatar 10:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the image was broadcast on a big screen. The broadcaster holds the copyright. What we have done is simply a rather round about way of getting a screenshot.Geni 12:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed a very very bad quality photo of a giant video screen picturing Lordi in Ruisrock 2003. I guess the copyright to the complete photo belongs to me, but when cropped it's a little more complicated. --ansik
- Keep Ruisrock 2003 took place in Turku in July 2003. If this is a photo from a rock concert and not the Eurovision it can be kept. Thuresson 21:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete television screenshot --Shizhao 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no TV Scrs.... but could we also get this one? --Stefan-Xp 19:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Taking a photo of a screen or TV doesnt give you the copyright on the broadcasted material. --Fb78 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot of online computer game. Thuresson 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{Game-screenshot}} --- gildemax 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The important thing is what is the license of the game? Maybe a Swedish speaker could ascertain this from sv:Ecrana or http://ecrana.se/ ? pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Neither the website nor the Swedish Wikipedia article mention the license. I doubt that an online game has a free license. Kjetil_r 06:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)- Keep Sorry, I now see that the website says “No copyright 2006”. {{Copyrightedfreeuse}}? Kjetil_r 16:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Is it referring to the contents of the website or the game itself? pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. No evidence given that there is actually a free license . --Fb78 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Various Star Wars pictures
[edit]Note: Unless we get some really strong expert opinion here, I propose to move this discussion, and related ones, to a separate page, Commons:Derivative works, before making a final decision on these matters.--Eloquence 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
C-3PO.jpg Chewbacca Head.jpg Darth Vader and storm Truper 2.jpg Luke Skywalker2.jpg R2-D2.jpg Yoda Figur2.jpg Jarjar-Zanaq.png
Star Wars is a copyrighted work. All reproductions of Star Wars characters, including derivative works, are therefore infringements of copyright. They may be fair use, but they are not and cannot be free content until Star Wars copyrighs expire. Trying to circumvent copyright by photographing models or masks or creating your own drawings does not work.--Eloquence 22:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care, but we decided in the "pringles case" to keep the pictures (sorry, can't find the discussion at the moment). Where is the difference to Image:Darth Vader and storm Truper 2.jpg? --Avatar 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would argue that the Pringles box photo is also non-free to an extent which we cannot accept here on Commons (highly visible logo and package design are at the center of the image), but the subject of the illustration is not a copyrighted work per se, which is the case in the Darth Vader photo. Still, I'm not comfortable about hosting the Pringles photo on Commons. I have sent an inquiry regarding the Pringles case to two members of Wikimedia's legal team.--Eloquence 02:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think drawings are perfectly acceptable, since it is a subjective impression. Zanaq 09:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding drawings (sketches), some comment above at #Image:Midori_fanart.jpg would be welcome please! pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I think we need the legal team to weight in on this, if it was down to personal preference I'd be inclined to allow such images, but this is not something a vote (or consensus) can solve, either it's ok to to photo action figures, figurines, spaceship models and toys and "cosplaying" people and relese it as free licensed or it is an unacceptable use of a copyrighted characters/content. An interesting question is where to draw the line for how much copyrighted content to allow in an image, for example Image:Timessquareapril2005.jpg contains numerous copyrighted logos and stuff, or how about Image:RallyOnLeveeYellowSubShirt.jpg that t-shirt design is copyrighted no doubht. Basicaly we need to get someone who know theyr stuff (preferably the foundation legal team) to lay down at least a guideline for this kind of thing: Models/faction figures/costumes of copyrighted characters, ok or not? Drawings of copyrighted characters, ok or not? Pictures containing copyrighted logos or advertising banners and such, ok or not? Pictures of product packages (pringles, coke cans et all) with the conpany logo and stuff clearly visible, ok or not? --Sherool 10:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think an obvious line to draw is to always ask: "What is being illustrated?" In the Times Square photo, it is clear that the subject of the photo is Times Square, and any copyrighted imagery appearing there is incidental. Unless we receive input to the contrary from the legal team, I think we can keep images where the copyrighted element is not the central part of the picture, the subject of the photo. To me, those cases parallel the use of a quotation from a copyrighted work in a Wikipedia article which is labeled GFDL. I should point out that people have been extremely anal about copyrighted elements in screenshots, which is probably a good analogy to the Times Square case.
- But when a clearly copyrighted character from a movie or cartoon is the subject of the image, and is recognizable as such, it does not matter what the specific expression is: it is a derivative work. All, please read the Wikipedia article derivative work which discusses this concept and also cites Star Wars as an example. Also take a look at http://illegal-art.org/ for some examples of art which has been subject of lawsuits for being derivative. Note that we are going further because a) we claim that our works are free content, rather than fair use, b) we do not try to parody, but to accurately represent.
- So I think there's a fairly strong case for deleting these pictures now. The one remaining question is where to draw the line of copyrightability. Is Han Solo copyrightable, given that it's just a young Harrison Ford in a particular set of clothes, maybe with a laser gun? My intution would be no. But for Chewbacca, R2D2 or Darth Vader with their unique looks, the answer is clearly yes.--Eloquence 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I would keep those of human actors in a particular set of clothes, and delete the others.--Eloquence 13:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wikimedia has servers in Florida and the Florida statutes include personality rights legislation : No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by: (a) Such person; or (b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness; or (c) If such person is deceased, any person, firm or corporation authorized in writing to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness, or if no person, firm or corporation is so authorized, then by any one from among a class composed of her or his surviving spouse and surviving children. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0540/SEC08.HTM&Title=->2004->Ch0540->Section%2008#0540.08 . As Wikipedia is published on the internet without advertisements, its activity is non commercial, but as a rule, non commercial contents are not allowed on Commons. Teofilo 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- But this is not a copyright restriction. This is a different-law restriction. So we are still providing images that are as free as they possibly can be, by copyright. So we should keep such images by my understanding, because they are not imposing any copyright restriction. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If all this would not be allowed, what about images of candy bars and/or all images containing company logos, however small? Siebrand 12:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I've deleted all of these pictures. You should definitely learn the difference between derivative works (copyright issue) and trademarks (not a copyright issue). --Fb78 19:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please give me some links to info that I can digest within an hour to explain the differences. Definately willing to learn. Also not clear to me: which law is applied to images on here - please link. From what I can see we're having discussing based on many different countries' laws. Siebrand 07:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
YOU'VE FORGOTTEN THESE PICTURES: Image:Darth Vader and storm Truper.jpg Image:Darth-Vader LS.jpg Image:Yoda Figur.jpg Category:Darth Vader Category:Star Wars !!
- Keep Anthony DiPierro, on the Commons mailing list, said: "Photos of copyrighted characters also are generally not considered copyright infringements, in the US. If you take the photo and build a comic book around it, then maybe it would be. " / Fred Chess 12:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- My answer on those cases is below in the discussion on Image:Bulbasaur toy.JPG. --Fb78 18:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should close down wikimedia commons, because there are hundreds of pictures that show copyrighed stuff Image:Torino Comics 2006 C1P8 with a Jawa.jpg ....
- We should close down Commons, just because you can't upload pictures of R2D2? Come on, there's plenty of other photographs that don't violate third party copyrights. One of our most central guidelines is that you can use every picture commercially. But George Lucas won't like it if you print a Commons picture of Darth Vader on a billboard and not ask him for permission. --Fb78 10:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Closed because the images have by now been deleted. / Fred Chess 22:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
This image is being replaced by a vector version, Image:Flag of Hong Kong.svg, and the image is not currently used in any wiki projects. --Hunter 09:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Obvious discrepancies between this image and image:flag of Hong Kong.svg have been discovered [46] [47]. — Instantnood 20:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on Instantnood's argument. Instantnood is currently being blocked in the English Wiki [48], and also being banned on various articles (e.g. Hong Kong as shown in Talk:Hong Kong). He has raised some doubts in the English wiki about the flag before, though failed to tell what's wrong in the vector version.The differences between the two flags, if any, is minor, and the community consensus across wiki projects is to use the svg version, only Instantnood has the opposite opinion. Hunter 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Communities can use any version they like. It's not our position to limit their choices or enforce a preference. Is there any pressing reason to delete the PNG? Is any harm done by keeping it? From the side-by-side comparison, the red in the PNG does seem slightly darker and detail (stars) seem slightly "fuzzier" around the edges. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, but it appears the community already made a choice. You can that from both images' usage across wiki projects: PNG, SVG. Surely there are no pressing reasons to delete the png, no harm to keep it, as in the case of all other redundant images. As I have said earlier, there may be differences between the two images, but are the differences significant? Does the differences stop one from identifying either one as the Flag of Hong Kong? Also, svg version is easily modifyable, if it is discovered to be in error later, one can easily modify it, much more easier than in the case of png. Hunter 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm afraid I've to say it's quite dishonest to say " the community has already made a choice ". It was user:Winhunter herself/himself who orphaned it, including replacing it on other users' personal pages. The .png and the .svg images are not identical, and the former should not be replaced by the latter until all inaccuracies are fixed. As an encyclopædia even most minor inaccuracy, no matter generally noticeable or not, is not acceptable. There are detailed laws regulating the specifications of the flag. — Instantnood 06:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, but it appears the community already made a choice. You can that from both images' usage across wiki projects: PNG, SVG. Surely there are no pressing reasons to delete the png, no harm to keep it, as in the case of all other redundant images. As I have said earlier, there may be differences between the two images, but are the differences significant? Does the differences stop one from identifying either one as the Flag of Hong Kong? Also, svg version is easily modifyable, if it is discovered to be in error later, one can easily modify it, much more easier than in the case of png. Hunter 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Communities can use any version they like. It's not our position to limit their choices or enforce a preference. Is there any pressing reason to delete the PNG? Is any harm done by keeping it? From the side-by-side comparison, the red in the PNG does seem slightly darker and detail (stars) seem slightly "fuzzier" around the edges. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I did part of the work on the English wiki by community consensus, which is show in, for example w:Image_talk:Flag of Hong Kong SAR.png. Please remember how others reverted your desperate attempts to reinstate the png version (e.g. in [49]) and how your actions has got you banned in various articles [50] and the English wiki. And please take note that English wiki is not the only wiki project, other wiki projects' users also decides to use the svg version. And do you think I (or any user) can actually make others choose? I can only enact the community consensus (i.e. Retiring the image.) There exist ONLY one user having the opposite opinion, you. -Hunter 07:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I am afraid that's not what "consensus" meant to be. Actual facts cannot be overturned by so called consensus. Further, something agreed upon by two persons is hardly a consensus in the true sense. As long as obvious discrepancies between the two images are discovered, and neither is confirmed to be accurate, the conversion should be temporarily suspended. — Instantnood 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on Instantnood's argument. Instantnood is currently being blocked in the English Wiki [48], and also being banned on various articles (e.g. Hong Kong as shown in Talk:Hong Kong). He has raised some doubts in the English wiki about the flag before, though failed to tell what's wrong in the vector version.The differences between the two flags, if any, is minor, and the community consensus across wiki projects is to use the svg version, only Instantnood has the opposite opinion. Hunter 03:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh, you still don't get it, people "vote" for the svg version when they do their edits. I know you'll accuse me of making this up, or replacing all of them myself, so feel free to check for all the pages that uses svg version, check their histories and see who put the svg version of the flag in there and make up a statistics. I only did the finishing touches when I did the retiring of the png version, vast majority of pages already uses the svg version at tat time. And what's wrong with the svg version? You don't know and you can't tell. Unless you can point out what exactly is wrong about the svg version, I don't see a reason why not use the svg version and retiring, and as I mentioned AGAIN AND AGAIN, svg version is easily modifiable should it is found out to be wrong, while modifying the png version is a nightmare.Hunter 14:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If the two images are not identical, its accuracy is still in question, no matter how people vote or act. You are not justifying yourself if you cannot justify its accuracy. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. — Instantnood 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia runs on a consensus system, and obviously the consensus is towards the svg version (from various talk pages and their usages). There are no absolute truths in this world (e.g. on the Taiwan issue), just a more correct one as perceived by the Wikipedians. In this case, Wikipedians decides that the svg version should be the one which is more correct. Hunter 09:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please kindly don't avoid the point. Actual fact cannot be overturned by community consensus. The actual fact is that the two images are not identical. Only when they're identical or when both images satisfy the legal/official specifications of the flag can the .png images be replaced by the .svg counterparts. — Instantnood 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's the "actual facts" as perceived by you only. How other Wikipedians perceive it is pretty clear Hunter 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC){{}}
- You have yet to demonstrate if these users actually notice those discrepancies. — Instantnood 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- If discrepancies are not noticeable then I would say both images are defacto the same? --Hunter 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- There was huge discrepancies. Discrepancies still exist after I've uploaded an accurate .png one. — Instantnood 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- If discrepancies are not noticeable then I would say both images are defacto the same? --Hunter 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have yet to demonstrate if these users actually notice those discrepancies. — Instantnood 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's the "actual facts" as perceived by you only. How other Wikipedians perceive it is pretty clear Hunter 00:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC){{}}
- Please kindly don't avoid the point. Actual fact cannot be overturned by community consensus. The actual fact is that the two images are not identical. Only when they're identical or when both images satisfy the legal/official specifications of the flag can the .png images be replaced by the .svg counterparts. — Instantnood 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia runs on a consensus system, and obviously the consensus is towards the svg version (from various talk pages and their usages). There are no absolute truths in this world (e.g. on the Taiwan issue), just a more correct one as perceived by the Wikipedians. In this case, Wikipedians decides that the svg version should be the one which is more correct. Hunter 09:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If the two images are not identical, its accuracy is still in question, no matter how people vote or act. You are not justifying yourself if you cannot justify its accuracy. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopædia. — Instantnood 17:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. same --Shizhao 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- keep Effeietsanders 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I have replaced the original .png image with one very recently retrieved from government website. — Instantnood 19:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter, it still isn't vector thus the image's redundant and orphan status is unchanged. --Hunter 14:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We don't have to keep wrong just because it's different. Samulili 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The .png is now replaced with an accurate one (very recently retrieved from government website), while discrepancies still exist with the .svg one. The accurate (.png) one cannot and should not be deleted unless the .svg one is also replaced with an accurate one. — Instantnood 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see that it's from a government website which gives it a lot of accuracy. However, the jagged edges should not be there. Furthermore, I don't see why we should have an svg rendered as png, and a png. Samulili 09:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The .png is now replaced with an accurate one (very recently retrieved from government website), while discrepancies still exist with the .svg one. The accurate (.png) one cannot and should not be deleted unless the .svg one is also replaced with an accurate one. — Instantnood 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this superfluous one is the source of edit wars. 131.107.0.78 18:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Do anonymous votes count? — Instantnood 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 05:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- because the image is used on at least three Wikipedia projects, because Brion Vibber requested us not to deleted redundant png flags, and because there is consensus of not forcing onto projects which image format they should use. / Fred Chess 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It is redundant to Image:Ichthus.svg. I delinked Ichthus.png and overwrote it with a cross. User:Zanaq reverted it and wrote on my talk page: please do not replace good png's with unusable and incredibly ugly ones. But i can't see any difference.
- Delete --jed 18:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: you cannot see any difference because I have overwritten the bad png with the original. I certainly see a difference in the anti-aliasing of svg vs. png: do not delete, this file is in use. Zanaq 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
*Delete the image was broadcast on a big screen. The broadcaster holds the copyright. What we have done is simply a rather round about way of getting a screenshot.Geni 09:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- wtf? This is an age-old symbol, and not eligible for copyright: this is not a copyright-issue. Zanaq 11:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think Geni meant to vote for the next image, not this one. BTW, delete. — Erin (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ah yes the section linking appears to be mixed up.Geni 12:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think Geni meant to vote for the next image, not this one. BTW, delete. — Erin (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- wtf? This is an age-old symbol, and not eligible for copyright: this is not a copyright-issue. Zanaq 11:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (for now) before "crossing" or filing deletion requests for a superceeded image, always unlink it in all projects - this image is used in the nl and en wikipedias. Deletion of "superceded" images is not a priority and should only be done if indisputed and convenient. But I also don't see a difference, and I would like to hear User:Zanaq's resoning. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 11:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was unlinked, but reverted on nl. en is new usage. --jed 20:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- please check Image_talk:Yin_yang.png and compare
. which one is "better" could be source for debate, but the difference is undeniable. Zanaq 15:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- They do look significantly different at 20px. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 11:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Effeietsanders 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (for now). Ian13 19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
May 22
[edit]- It is redundant and no longer used by any project. --Ultratomio 09:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Schaengel89 09:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploader claims this map of Tallinn is PD but www.tallinn.ee claims "© 2002-2005 Tallinn". Thuresson 13:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. copyvio--Shizhao 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Deleted. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Image was uploaded under {{PD-old}}. However, the creator (Bruno Paul) died in 1968, a far cry from 70 years ago. GeeJo
- Delete --- gildemax 20:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- I will try to get hims family, if he have heirs but this is not a work of art and printed in a PD-old-book. haabet 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Double to: Image:Mont-Royal Fortification 1693.jpg
This is the logo of a commercial website [www.pipex.com], so it is unlikely to be free. - CyrilB 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted,pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please delete it, wrong license. -Cometa-14:55, 22 May 2006
Album cover Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The image has been copied from the French Wikipedia, where the claimed CC-BY-SA was questioned and the image then speedydeleted, as it was the only contribution of the uploader. The image was called Audrey20Tautou2017.jpg, and coincidentally a photo site on the net has an image called Audrey Tautou 17.jpg (picture 17 out of 24). Looking at their copyright statement "All images can be found elsewhere on the internet, either as scanned images or as wallpaper images and are believed to be in the public domain", it is most likely a copyvio to begin with. --Para 23:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for uploading this image, my french isn't that good. I believed that the image at the french WP was clearly marked CC-BY-SA. --Ernstl 09:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete
REASON: a new version Image:NYW-TransmissieL-Smith04new.png has been uploaded
- Deleted, User:Nijdam uploaded both versions. Thuresson 11:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Commons is not the place for this kind of articles, a copy of the version at the de wiki --Denniss 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 20:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Move to one of the pedias. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This image (without licence) seems to come from a website, and apparently the character depicted is famous in the manga world (I searched "Sasuke" with google image, I'm not an expert... CyrilB 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 19:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
OB by Image:Halibutt.svg --Halibutt 11:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: many (81!) links on pl, sv and hu.wikipedia.org. Apparently, Hallibutt, they are used in your templates... I think they should be replaced before the image can actually be deleted. CyrilB 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep unless someone volunteers to replace the usage, AND none of the replacements are reverted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think I got all of them. Delete now. Valentinian (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The uploader stated he was thinking he was alowed to tag as copyrighted free use everything he had found on the web. He wasn't able to show he was allowed by the copyholders of this image to tag this like that.Shaqspeare 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at the images uploaded by this user. Before looking at the copyvio issues, the following images are duplicates:
- Image:Aleksander II.jpg is not used whereas Image:Alekssander II.jpg is used on pl.wikipedia.org
- Image:Krak des Chevaliers.jpg is not used and is identical to Image:Krak1.jpg which is used on commons. This latter filename, however, already exists for a different image on en.wikipedia.org. Anyway, both images come from [51], where they simply mention that they hold the copyright.
- Image:Meczet Muhammada Alego.jpg (linked nowhere) is a bad quality version of Image:Meczet Muhammada Alego1.jpg (linked on pl.wikipediq.org)
Deleted. In future please mark things {{Duplicate}} or NSD if possible, and don't list here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploader claims that this 2003 United Nations photo is PD but www.un.org claims that photos can only be used for editorial purposes and never for commercial use. Thuresson 11:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete http://www.un.org/av/photo/contactus.htm --gildemax 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. copyvio--Shizhao 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
May 23
[edit]This image isn't copyvio(PD-USGov-Military), but its description contains ja:真珠湾攻撃(and some language editions?) but doesn't contain the description's timestamp. Does its description seem GFDL-vio?--PiaCarrot 14:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I heard the probrem is not in its description but in Template:Info-Pearl Harbor attack at ja:Wikipedia:即時削除. --PiaCarrot 14:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please explain what the problem is. One line from an article can hardly be a copyright violation. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Compare following pages:
- First version of this template(2006/04/25 14:32(JST))
- 2006/04/25 01:25:17(JST) version of ja:真珠湾攻撃]
- This template contains exact copy of ja:真珠湾攻撃, but History of this template doesn't contain timestamp (or history info) of ja:真珠湾攻撃.--PiaCarrot 11:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- GFDL history is important for GFDL licensed images, not public domain images. / Fred Chess 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- (comment) Which do you vote "Keep" to, Image or Template? If your vote is for image, you're right. First I found GFDL-vio in description of this image, but now I recognize this probrem is occured in Template:Info-Pearl Harbor attack. --PiaCarrot 10:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- I voted keep on the image. When it comes to the template, it is my opinion that GFDL-timestamps is superstition. However, I do think that authors need to be attributed with their user names and their contribution. But -- again IMO -- this can be added manually to the article discussion page by copying the history of the template on Japanese Wikipedia, or by manually describing "User:XXX wrote YYY and user:XXX2 modified it in YYY2 way, " etc., as well of (of course) linking back to the location of the template on Japanese Wikipedia. / Fred Chess 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- (comment) Which do you vote "Keep" to, Image or Template? If your vote is for image, you're right. First I found GFDL-vio in description of this image, but now I recognize this probrem is occured in Template:Info-Pearl Harbor attack. --PiaCarrot 10:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Compare following pages:
- Keep the image per Fred Chess. Valentinian (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
better verison uploaded at Image:TomDeLay.jpg --Hbdragon88 04:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete--Uwe W. 10:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
On the reference page is not a free content mentioned = Copyvio
http://www.viw.be/pioniers_argentinie.htm
© Vlamingen in de Wereld
Delete--Uwe W. 10:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This photo is yellowed and nealy identical photo Image:Titan 3E Centaur launches Voyager 2.jpg is it not. --Uwe W. 08:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Valentinian (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm the uploader of this image. --Bricktop 14:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
probably copyvio, as being an albumcover. The user tagged it as GFDL. He also tagged an image GFDL which stated on the image itself that it was (c), so maybe the uploads of this user should be checked. Effeietsanders 12:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Definitively an album cover [52], I can't find any licence for the material on their website. CyrilB 20:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
To bad photo quality! --Uwe W. 13:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted,pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- In the Source: http://mabelnash.com.ar/index1.htm,
© Copyright 2006 - Mabel Nash
- But in Copyright page: http://www.mabelnash.com.ar/Copyright.htm
El contenido de esta Web (www.mabelnash.com.ar) se encuentra protegida bajo los derechos de autor. Todos los contenidos escritos, archivos, aplicaciones, imágenes y diseños gráficos que conforman el sitio son propiedad de la Web de Mabel Nash y de sus respectivos autores. La reproducción total o parcial de contenidos de la Web de Mabel Nash es libre . Únicamente se permitirá la reproducción de contenidos escritos o imágenes de la Web de Mabel Nash.
Axxgreazz (consultas?) 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Anna --ALE! 13:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
A Mauritania bank note from Ron Wise's banknoteworld.com. Ron Wise clearly explains " I do not give permission for any of the images to be sold, for profit or otherwise.". Obviously it is possible that the Central bank in Mauritania own the copyright in the first place. Thuresson 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Malawi bank note, same as above. Thuresson 23:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 19:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This Webpage wrote [53] that the Image is from Ball Aerospace [54]. I don‘t know if the Webpage is right. --84.60.106.74 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep : another version of this image can be found on [55]. Following the terms of the licence, credit has to be given to 'Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, Caltech/JPL'. IPAC belongs to NASA, so I don't know exactly which licence can be applied, I leave that to those who know... By the way, the image on [56] is of far better quality, so when the proper licence is applied, it it might be interesting to change the image as well. CyrilB 20:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
- The best way where, if someone ask Ball Aerospace and NASA were has the Copyright of the picture.--Uwe W. 21:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
May 24
[edit]CD cover, most likely not PD -- Kjetil_r 23:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Album covers are speedyable pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I now see that the uploaded claims to be a member of the band (see Användare:Anton klepke), but it seems like the the articles about him and the band were speedy deleted (not notable), thus (some of) his uploads are no longer needed:
Kjetil_r 10:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats right, how do I delete pics?—the preceding unsigned comment is by 82.182.24.22 (talk • contribs)
- You can not delete pictures, only admins are able to do that. Are you Anton klepke, and do you want me to delete these images? Kjetil_r 16:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
yeah, I am anton klepke, and I want these pics to be deleted ,Kjetil r, can you do it, are you admin?
Deleted --Kjetil_r 18:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Tierbilder aus dem Krefelder Zoo
[edit]Tierbilder aus dem Krefelder Zoo dürfen nur mit schriftlicher Genehmigung des Zoos veröffentlicht werden. Liegt diese Genehmigung nicht vor, sollte das Bild gelöscht werden -- RvM 12:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Es gibt kein Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache. Der Fotograf hat legal eine Lizenz für jedermann erteilt, ob er jetzt Ärger mit dem Zoo bekommt, ist seine Privatangelegenheit und nicht das Problem von Commons. Das Bild ist hier völlig legal und im Einklang mit den Richtlinien auch kann auch vöölig legal genutzt werden. --Rtc 12:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep See also discussion here (first paragraph, in german)--Denniss 14:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wir sollten bedenken, dass wir zumindest in eine rechtliche Grauzone eintauchen, wenn wir Bilder verbreiten, die unter Bruch des Hausrechts des Zoos entstanden sind. Der Zoo hat das Recht, dem Fotografen die Verbreitung zu untersagen. Es besteht zwar im Grunde keine rechtliche Handhabe gegen uns als Weitervertreiber, sondern vornehmlich gegen den Fotografen, aber wir nehmen zumindest eine sehr fragwürdige Position ein, wenn wir uns wissentlich als Hehler von „hausrechtsbrecherischen“ Bildern betätigen. Wenn es jetzt wertvolle Bilder von Kulturgütern wären, an die man sonst nicht rankommt, würde ich es ja verstehen, aber bei Bildern von Allerweltszootieren würde ich doch lieber den sauberen und weniger fragwürdigen Weg der Löschung gehen. --141.35.17.32 15:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC) das war ich --::Slomox:: >< 15:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Ack. to Rtc and Denniss. --Raymond de 16:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep Animals and natural objects like landscapes are in the PD. Jimbo Wales has decided that no one has the right to prevent Wikipesia projects using images of works in the PD (10 things which should be free). There is no other case as with the National Portrait Gallery of which Jimbo has spoken --Historiograf 18:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Das Nutzungsrecht solcher Bilder liegt einwandfei beim Krefelder Zoo. Die Bilder sind auf einem Privatgelände erstellt worden, unterliegen also nicht der Panoramafreiheit. Die Tiere sind Eigentum des Krefelder Zoos und keine Wildtiere in freier Laufbahn. Der Krefelder Zoo kann u.U. Wikipedia und den Fotografen wegen Verletzung der Nutzungsrechte verklagen. Ich wäre da sehr vorsichtig. --RvM 10:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The image is incorrectly named and has been re-uploaded as Image:Ahaggar-Tit.jpg --Vermondo 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
logo, not free--Shizhao 07:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fair use. --Ultratomio 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Redundant and superseded by Image:MangaStoreJapan.jpg. Please verify links to file before deleting it (actually I can't). --Dzag 09:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
* Keep Both are in use... I'll correct that CyrilB 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete I removed the links to Image:Tiendamanga.jpg, it shouldn't be used anymore. Please check again in one or two hours (because of the replication lag). CyrilB 20:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, you help in orphaning the image is very much appreciated, but in future please use {{Duplicate}} instead of listing here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The licensing info says: "This low-res image is available from a number of web pages; it's origin is not known." Well, does that mean you can assume it's available under a free license? No you can't. It just means that people don't care. Delete. --Fb78 14:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I feel your pina, Fb. Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate of/replaced by Image:Wappen Landkreis Bautzen.svg. --TM 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC) User forgot to add it here --Denniss 14:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This served as model for the SVG version and should be kept as a reference. SVGs are not exact duplicates, they are recreations. Tag it as "vector version available/superseded" and keep. --Rosenzweig 19:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Kept, format conversion is not a reason for deletion. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Wenn kein Model-Release-Vertrag vorliegt, sollte das Bild gelöscht werden, da sonst Persönlichkeitsrechte verletzt werden. -- RvM 12:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless a permission from Bratwurst-Paule was given to publish this image --Denniss 14:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete "Persönlichkeitsrechte" --ALE! 14:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The uploader mentioned jp.wiki as the source. jp.wiki hasn't had information about this image since 2004. See http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Caracas001.jpg --Alhen .::··¨ 14:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted and orphaned from Spanish Wikipedia were it was used thrice / Fred Chess 23:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Replaced with Image:Etlig.svg. Kimbar 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Orphaned and deleted. In case someone wants it back I'll save it on my harddrive. / Fred Chess 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation. See [59] "Copyright © 2006 Israel Defense Forces. All rights reserved" Hashekemist 13:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the uploader was not notified until now. Give the image another week in case the uploader has some information about the copyright of the image. Kjetil_r 21:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. This image has actually been deleted before (in February). / Fred Chess 09:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
See [60]. --Tolanor 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete uploader loaded it with "fair use", someone changed to GFDL. --Tomia 21:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Andre Engels --ALE! 09:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
According to the provided source - the british imperial war museum - this 1936 picture has unknown copyright. I doubt that it really is PD as it is obviously a propaganda photograph.--Wiggum 20:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a historical photograph. Were the rights to such German military photographs not ceded to the allies when the war was won? Netscott 16:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, per reasons stated above. 70.19.217.181 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- This is a frequently debunked argument. Though it doesn't seem fair, the "spoils of war" argument often runs afoul of German copyright law. -Mak 07:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- This picture was taken by de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), who died in 1957, therefor copyright will expire 2028-01-01. Until then: delete along with every single other picture of adult Hitler. All british claims regarding copyrights of german works were abandoned after a law suit in 1974. The imperial war museum is in violation of german, british and international copyright. --h-stt !? 07:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; if it's good enough for the British government, it's good enough for me. --Delirium 10:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Replaced with Image:Hypsographic_curve_PL.svg Kimbar 22:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - the small letters in the png are missing in the svg. Information will be lost when the png is deleted. It is not redundant. Keep. Effeietsanders 23:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
May 25
[edit]Just a headshot, nearly been there for a year and not linked to anything, also low quality. --DuLithgow 09:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep No reason to delete. No orphan, see [61] Sanbec ✉ 14:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- used on uploader's user pages. / Fred Chess 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The Tolkien Estate's icon (which is incorporated in Angband's icon) is most certainly not free. -- Jon Harald Søby 15:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 20:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
This 1941 nazi picture is hardly a US-Government work. The provided source ([62]) states: "Rights status not evaluated".--Wiggum 15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Wait Just notified uploader. / Fred Chess 22:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Copyed from [63]. (not completely the same) --Kkkdc 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- (Yes, they are identical; [64].) Jon Harald Søby 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 22:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Just someone wasting space as far as I can tell. --DuLithgow 09:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I combined these because they are my own work. The first was just an example of a panorama that didn't work so that I could get help making a good one (solution was using a better application). The second was reuploaded because I used the wrong name. It is now at Image:Mohave Generating Station 1.jpg. -- Kjkolb 08:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please use {{badname|"Right name"}} instead of {{Delete}} Sanbec ✉ 14:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong latin name. New upload: Image:Negentienpuntlieveheersbeestje kop (Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata).jpg. Rasbak 12:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Because of wrong latin name. New upload: Image:Negentienpuntlieveheersbeestje (Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata).jpg.Rasbak 12:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrong latin name. Anisosticta novemdecimpunctata is correct name.Rasbak 12:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Please, use {{badname|"Right name"}} instead of {{Delete}} Sanbec ✉ 14:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted cover. --Hautala 14:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No source information, doesn't exactly look free (screencap)… -- Jon Harald Søby 16:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. -- Jon Harald Søby 16:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, Wikipedia-only permission is not strong enough anyway. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Another screencap, this time from a porn movie (perhaps the earlier one was too). Southdixie should perhaps be blocked. -- Jon Harald Søby 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This is en empty file.CyrilB 20:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Österreichs Bundesländerbilder
[edit]- Image:Karte oesterreich wien.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich vorarlberg.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich tirol.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich steiermark.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich salzburg.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich oberoe.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich niederoe.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich kaernten.png
- Image:Karte oesterreich burgenland.png
Grund: ich habe all diese neun Bilder durch die SVG-Bilder von Andreas Griessner ersetzt (alle Verweise und Kategorien hab ich umgearbeitet), die Bilder sind farblich und gestalterisch beinahe ident, aber eben SVG hier ein Bsp:
- I strongly
Oppose deletion, the .pngs are much clearer in identifying the location of a certain Bundesland in Austria. Beinahe ident (almost identical) is not the case. Furthermore I think the .pngs should also be kept because they are the source of the svg-work. Please use {{Vector version available}} instead of {{Delete}} NielsF 01:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Translation/Übersetzung: Ich bin gegen die Löschung diese Bilder, weil die .pngs besser sind, sie weisen die Lage eines Bundeslands innerhalb Österreich viel besser an. Beinahe ident ist nicht ganz die Situation. Ausserdem ich denke es wäre besser die .pngs zu bewahren weil sie die Quelle des Werkes sein. Bitte {{Vector version available}} benutzen. - Keep png is always better to handle for the common user. Scalable in browser at any time without any plug-ins up to the pixel-for-pixel resolution. Shaqspeare 02:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- okay you've convinced me i've replaced {{Delete}} with {{Vector version available}} - Anatol 14:45 25.mai 2006 (AUT)
- I strongly
Resolved, pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded an improved version with more info as Image:Machu-picchu-c04-info-c.jpg --Colegota 15:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Para estos casos usa mejor {{Badname}} o {{Duplicate}} Sanbec ✉ 10:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Sanbec --ALE! 15:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The image was originally tagged with {{self2|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}}. When I asked the uploader to identify the building. He said, that he does not know what building it is. I wrote to him, that he should know it, as he has presumingly taken the image himself. The uploader now changed the license to {{PD-old}} which is not credible for me. Therefore I put the deletion request tag. User:Barcex has similar problems with that user concerning other images. Maybe it should also be considered to block this User:Federal Corps for some time. --ALE! 21:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Most pictures from this user seem to be copyright violations Barcex 21:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Reason for deletion request: screenshot, logo of german tv-broadcaster Pro7 visible in upper right corner --Schlendrian 19:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Simpson screenshot. --Tomia 22:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not free --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted Netscape icon, most likely not allowed for commercial uses. -- Jon Harald Søby 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, have to agree. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Remake of MSN's icon, wouldn't be free for commercial use. -- Jon Harald Søby 15:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, have to agree. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 11:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
logo, not free--Shizhao 16:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ss181292 09:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC) -- I believe it may be {{Copyrighted free use}} or even {{PD-author|Jerzy Janiszewski}}. It should be verified, by I think that was the intention of tha author.
Images like this one have been discussed before. Speedy? -- Kjetil_r 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- It was (last?) discussed here Commons:Village_pump_archive-23#Image:Atomium.jpg Sometimes pictures like this involve a lot of discussions, so a "slow" deletion is better. I add the other pictures below : #Various Atomium pictures and category Teofilo 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know nothing about laws in Belgium; I downloded it from flickr as it was complaint with licensing policy here. I trust in your experience for this case. --mac 07:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Arnomane --ALE! 09:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Various Atomium pictures and category
[edit]Discussion
[edit]The 4 above Atomium picture and the category have to be deleted because the building is an art work copyrighted by the company which manages it. Teofilo 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The pictures of that art work are copyrighted by its authors. Sanbec ✉ 10:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The author of the Atomium is André Waterkeyn. After he died, copyright was transfered to the company or public service that is currently running the Atomium. Teofilo 16:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know if some disposition of the Belgian law restricts the reproduction of photographs of public places. At first sight in the law on copyright it doesn't say anything. An interpretation of copyright like that limits the freedom of speech and I don't believe that it's possible. --Prevert(talk) 08:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- delete It is not permitted to show pictures of it. The edit-window says 'Copyright violations will be deleted! This is copyright violation. Deleted it--Walter 13:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI find this thread and this pdf about copyright of Atomiun (in dutch). But it seems very uncertain, although the SABAM imposes the duty to request permission. I want to know if there is some judicial statement on this subject? --Prevert(talk) 14:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Have deleted, all Atomium images as freedom of panorama does not apply in Belgium and this building is copyrighted. As we had these images again and again here with always the same result all future Atomium images are now speedy deletion on sight (as long as the Atomium is not a very minor part of the image). Arnomane 20:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's like pfctdayelise said, that we don't write policies here -- we follow them. Present reasonable arguments why these images should be kept at Commons_talk:Licensing. / Fred Chess 23:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Images deleted by User:Arnomane, categories kept with warning --ALE! 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
May 26
[edit]Bilder von Adolf Hitler
[edit]Fast alle dortigen Bilder unterliegen dem Urheberrecht 70 Jahre pma und sind weder PD-old noch aus irgendeinem anderen Grund PD. 217.88.159.32 19:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The IP tagged many of the Adolf Hitler pictures with Template:deletionrequest. I tend to agree to those request, hardly any of those pictures might really be PD. For most of them 70 years pma will not apply, also the US-PDGov will normally not apply because those pictures where taken (and published) by german photographers.--Wiggum 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- There simple isn't a single free picture of adult Hitler yet and for many years. All of the licences are bogus, all of the pictures have to be deleted. --h-stt !? 07:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Definitive statement, so please cite your source for this. Two reasons for doubt: It seems to me that Hitler visited other countries like Italy and Austria, so german law is not the only one in play, and not only the nazi government was generating photos. Also there are adult pictures of Hitler from WWI, so those ought to be in range of falling out of copyright. Do you have a source that blows away the WWI pictures? -Mak 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nice try. But let's keep that straight: The burden of proof lays with those who want to keep a certain photograph. And have you seen the so called licences of our files? Are you familiar with british Crown Copyright? It is utterly impoosible, that any of those pictures can be free after Crown Copyright has expired. All those claims are bogus, including the ones made by the Imperial War Museum themself on their website. To be free under german Copyright, or austrian or italian (as they are identical in this regard), the photographer must have died before 1936, no exceptions, whatsoever! And this fact has to be proven here on commons. Unless you can show me a single photograph, that meets this requirements, I say delete to all of them. --h-stt !? 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- That still doesn't support the claim that "all" pictures of Hitler are copyrighted. In particular, not all photographs of Hitler were taken by German authors, and therefore German copyright law does not apply to all of them. I agree that the burden of proof lays with people who want to keep a specific photograph, but you should also refrain from making sweeping claims you don't have the evidence to defend. --Delirium 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Nice try. But let's keep that straight: The burden of proof lays with those who want to keep a certain photograph. And have you seen the so called licences of our files? Are you familiar with british Crown Copyright? It is utterly impoosible, that any of those pictures can be free after Crown Copyright has expired. All those claims are bogus, including the ones made by the Imperial War Museum themself on their website. To be free under german Copyright, or austrian or italian (as they are identical in this regard), the photographer must have died before 1936, no exceptions, whatsoever! And this fact has to be proven here on commons. Unless you can show me a single photograph, that meets this requirements, I say delete to all of them. --h-stt !? 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Definitive statement, so please cite your source for this. Two reasons for doubt: It seems to me that Hitler visited other countries like Italy and Austria, so german law is not the only one in play, and not only the nazi government was generating photos. Also there are adult pictures of Hitler from WWI, so those ought to be in range of falling out of copyright. Do you have a source that blows away the WWI pictures? -Mak 09:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
To be honest: There are lots of pictures from WWI and WWII with questionable licensing (mostly simple PD-tags). This doesn't apply to pictures showing Hitler himself but also to pictures of other nazi party "celebrities" and pictures of german troops in WWI and WWII. In my mind the commons policies are very strictly, so most of them unfortunately have to be deleted.--Wiggum 12:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you nuts? a) person of notable public interest, b) treshhold of originality? Not likely. Get your ideas about copyright straight people. --139.18.1.5 13:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Usually I don't discuss legal matters with persons, who don't identify themselfs, but as this is important, I will answer to this IP: You (and everyone else who wishes to keep these photographs suffer from a misconception over the purpose of the Wikimedia Commons. This is not the database of illustrations for the Wikipedia Projects, but the Commons are a depository for free content - free for every third party to use in their projects inside or outside of the Wikimedia System. Historic value, encyclopedic usefulness and the like are secondary to the single most important point: content free from copyright limitations. Anyone who doesn't accept this primary goal of the commons, must not contribute to this project. --h-stt !? 07:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Are we talking of the same thing? I'm talking of those photographs which were made by German state employees for official purposes and where the exclusive usage rights (or indeed the copyright) rests with the German state. The copyright status in these cases should be "published with no restrictions". Your above claim that the copyright rests with the photographer (H. Hoffmann) or his heirs is most certainly false. --139.18.1.5 10:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Even if the exclusive usage rights lay with the state of germany, the basic copyright expires only 70 years pma, meaning the individual creator. An image from 1936 can't be free by now, one from WW I probably is not free yet. And we have to be sure before we can accept it on the commons. There is no exeption regarding pictures "for official purposes" in the german law. You obviously have only very limited understanding on german copyright and no idea on the origin of those pictures. --h-stt !? 22:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I guess you are aware that Hoffmann forfeited all his property, quite plausibly including all rights to his images, when he was sentenced after the war. That would mean your claim of 70 years pma is bogus. --139.18.1.5 08:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Completely irrelevant under german law. The fundamental auctorial rights can't be forfeit, lost, transfered, sold or what ever. They are linked with the creative author of the work. And expire 70 pma. Hoffmann died in 1957, so the copyrights of any of his photos expire on 2028-01-01. And not a single day earlier. --h-stt !? 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
There might be images of Hitler in the public domain (Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG seems to be an example)) - Image:Hitler in the crowd.jpg tagged by 217.88.159.32 apparently is not: The IWM, which is named as the image's source, clearly states that photographer and copyright are unknown.--Wikipeder 23:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The pictures of his car were taken by me. Keep them at last. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 17:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- please note (see template:PD-Italy) that pictures of Hitler in the PD exist if they were first published in Italy. Italian law states that non-artistic photographs have a 20 years copyright. I'm not completely sure of what is meant by italian photographs but I assume that if the photographer was Italian or the first publication was in Italy then they are PD --Marco Bonavoglia 12:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- As a formality, please list the photos nominated for deletion so that we know what we are talking about and so that uploaders can be properly notified. Thuresson 11:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now selected all pictures the IP had tagged, i hope i didn't forget any. The respective comments are the mine.--Wiggum 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another note: It is quite possible that there are PD-US photos of Hitler taken by U.S. news services. By US law at the time copyrights were for a limited time and would expire if not renewed, and some news services, being mainly concerned with short term use of materials, did not always bother to renew. One would need to check for renewals or lack there of for individual US reporters/photographers' images to determine this. I mention this as another counter to the blanket claim that there are no free images of adult Hitler; I suspect anyone willing to do some serious research in to U.S. news backfiles could find a good number. -- Infrogmation 15:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Pictures without or with inappropriate licensing information
[edit]taken in Munich in 1914, no photographer provided -> no 70 years pma, not exceeding the "older than 100 years" rule of thumb, How should this be Crown copyright? The IWM states "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown". -> delete
- Is deletion considered according to the law applicable in the United States? How about countries where the applicable law does not grant this photohraph any copyright protection?--194.251.240.116 02:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteThere is no copyright violation even within 100 miles of this statement. There is not one in any place. Copyright violations hold no place in Commons. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion.[65] --Rtc 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
No photographer provided, picture taken after 1923. IWM states "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown" -> not older than 100 years, no 70 years pma, Crown copyright - lol -> delete
1934 picture, not a single word about photographer or source -> delete
- This photo is by Leni Riefenstahl who's work will have to be deleted anyway. Due to the fact that she died only in 2003. --ALE! 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1938 picture rom [66] - no copyright information provided -> delete
the source is IWM, telling us: "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown" -> delete
This is a Heinrich Hoffmann photograph, therefore not in the public domain before 2028 -> delete
- The risen in de: (for not deletion) was - AFAIR - that this picture was distrain by the USA after the war. May be, we need a copy-right-specialist for this. --DaB. 00:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright expires 70 year pma irrespective who is the owner of a picture. --Wiggum 10:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
As with all the IWM pics: "Copyright Status: Copyright unknown" -> delete
All deleted --Raymond Disc. 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Pictures claimed to be PD
[edit]WWI-picture (>1914), no photographer provided. NARA claims that the creator is the "Office for Emergency Management" what i really really doubt. -> delete
- Photo was taken before 1923 - PD in USA
- Only if it was first published in the USA. Kjetil_r 10:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty clear case, this was under no circumstances made by an US federal government employee. --Wiggum 19:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Only if it was first published in the USA. Kjetil_r 10:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- The photo was taken before 1923 but noz first published in the US I reckon. It is definitivly no Government work. Howebver, it could be an anonymous work. In that case (1918 + 70 years = 1988) it would be in the public domain or not? But before we keep this image, we should find out whether the Author is known or not. --ALE! 08:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please, accept anonymous photos only 100 years after publication, as is done on German wikipedia. . --Rtc 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also in Germany it is date of first publication + 70 years. If you were right, than the case would be clear: The image will enter into the public domain between (1914 + 100 =) 2014 and (1918 + 100 = 2018) and the photo should be deleted then. But I think if we get the proof, that it was an anonymous work, then we could keep the image. --ALE! 10:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- According to http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2400549,00.html the photo was taken 1915 in fr:Fournes-en-Weppes. --ALE! ¿…? 15:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also in Germany it is date of first publication + 70 years. If you were right, than the case would be clear: The image will enter into the public domain between (1914 + 100 =) 2014 and (1918 + 100 = 2018) and the photo should be deleted then. But I think if we get the proof, that it was an anonymous work, then we could keep the image. --ALE! 10:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please, accept anonymous photos only 100 years after publication, as is done on German wikipedia. . --Rtc 09:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
1937 picture, USHMM is the source and says: "Credit: USHMM, courtesy of William Gallagher; Copyright: Public Domain" -> no photographer, no 70 years pma, not older than 100 years -> delete
- It is definitvly no US Government work. It is probably a photo of Leni Riefenstahl or some other photographer of the time. Anyway. 1937+70 = 2007. The photo is not yet in the public domain and has to be deleted. --ALE! 08:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As "Adolf Hitler greets an autobahn worker", same year, same source, same credit, same conditions -> delete
- It is definitvely no US Government work. It is probably a photo of Leni Riefenstahl or some other photographer of the time. Anyway. 1937+70 = 2007. The photo is not yet in the public domain and has to be deleted. --ALE! 08:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyright status in the U.S.?
[edit]While I agree that probably none of these pictures is PD in Germany, we should also consider the situation in other countries. All the images coming from the USHMM or the NARA might actually be PD in the U.S. as having been confiscated. If so, they were placed under the authority of the U.S. Alien Property Custodian (see also [67] and [68]), and might fall under the copyright resoration exceptions in 17 USC 104A(a)(2). I do not know whether that's indeed the case, but it is something to ponder. After all, there must be a reason that a number of U.S. agencies consider these photographs to be in the public domain. It's somewhat unlikely that they all make a mistake, isn't it? Lupo 07:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe they don't care. I think the risk that an author is still alive and will claim his rights on the pictures is low. Because we're demanding to be a source of free content - where the content is free beyond any reasonable doubt, we cannot rely on such probabilities. Regarding international contracts like berne convention i doubt that US authorities are able to "erase" copyright, but i don't know. The IWM files are subject to another argumentation: they do not claim that the pictures are under a free license (usually they noted "copyright unknown").--Wiggum 09:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt, that 17 USC 104A(a)(2) is applicable to some or all of those pictures, because I don't see how we should prove beyond resonable doubt, that any of them were taken by an photographer who acted on behalf of a gouvernment entity, as that is the only way how the usage rights could be held by "the gouvernment or instrumentality thereof". The auctorial rights are always held by an individual under german law. So I repeat my advice to delete them all. --h-stt !? 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to rain on your parade here, but that the copyright rests always with a real person in Germany is a feature of the modern German UrhG introduced in 1965. Since then, the author is always an individual, and can at most grant some exploitation rights to others, including legal entities, a proces that appears to not include a transfer of the economic rights. However, under the old Kunsturhebergesetz (KUG), which was effective from 1907 until 1965, (a) legal entities could be "authors" (see §5 and also §9(2)) and (b) copyrights could be transferred (see §10(3)). Current German legislation recognizes these cases: §134 explicitly states that legal entities that were considered authors under the old law continued to be considered as such, and §137 acknowledges the continued validity of copyright transfers done under the KUG. §134 is most interesting, because it also stipulates that if a legal entity was considered the author, the old copyright terms had to be applied, not the ones of the new law! Lupo 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- It just occurred to me that this might also be interesting for the "SS uniforms" discussion below. Comments? Am I howling up the wrong tree? Lupo 10:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Scrap that whole KUG §134 thing; I forgot about the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, implemented in German law by §137f. It retroactively puts works that were already out of copyright in 1995 under copyright again if they were still copyrighted in some other EU country. Thus even if their KUG-copyright might have been expired once, they are today under copyright until 70 years p.m.a. (Because Spain has had 70 years p.m.a. (or even 80) since 1879.) Drats. Lupo 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It just occurred to me that this might also be interesting for the "SS uniforms" discussion below. Comments? Am I howling up the wrong tree? Lupo 10:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, do I understand you correctly that "auctorial rights" = "moral rights", and "usage rights" = "economic rights"?
- As to your other point (I don't see how we should prove beyond resonable doubt, that any of them were taken by an photographer who acted on behalf of a gouvernment entity, as that is the only way how the usage rights could be held by "the gouvernment or instrumentality thereof" [which is a necessary condition for 17 USC 104A(a)(2)]): that of course depends on the definition of "reasonable doubt". I guess a lot of people would accept "the NARA or the USHMM say so" as evidence enough to consider such images PD-US. (Kinda playing devil's advocate here.) Lupo 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does your trust in US-gouvernmental agencies include the IRS and the DHS? Here in Germany offical archives are well known for their copyfraudulent claims and/or ignorance for third-party-rights. --h-stt !? 10:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) PS: Thanks for correcting my terminology
- Difficult. I do trust the NARA; I should think images taken e.g. from the SS service records (which they have in their holdings, though not online) might indeed fall under that very exceptional provision of 17 USC 104A(a)(2) and thus be PD-US. I don't generally trust the USHMM, though; they too often label images as "© USHMM" when it is entirely unclear on what grounds they do so. If the USHMM says something was PD and came from the National Archives, I tend to believe them and consider the works PD-US. What are IRS and DHS? Taxes and "homeland safety"? I don't think I've ever come across any image from there, so I'll have to pass on those lacking experience with their practice of labelling images. Lupo 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- The "trustablity" might just be a question of policy. Can you agree, that the IWM-pictures with "Copyright unknown" and the NARA/USHMM pictures without any copyright notice cannot be kept? Besides, i don't think that the old KUG law could be useful, a legal entity could have hold the copyrights only if no author was known. This special case is difficult to prove. Concerning the SS-Uniforms: how can we know if this nazi party manual was published without notice about the authors or the artist(s) who draw the pictures?--Wiggum 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, agree. If these institutions give no indication or say "copyright unknown", we should not consider the works PD unless we can ascertain (to a reasonable level of confidence) the PD status of a particular image in other ways. Note that I even extend this to the Library of Congress: if the library of congress says "status not evaluated", I do not consider an image PD, even if it is available at the LoC and despite the wording of {{PD-LOC}}. And yes, the special case on 17 USC 104A(a)(2) is very hard to prove. I would only apply it to images coming from the U.S. National Archives, where we can reasonably believe that the image came from a document in their holding that might have belonged to the government (such as the SS service records I mentioned). "Reasonably believe" of course again involves some level of trust, since many such documents are not available online and we'd have to believe the uploader's say-so. We had a case on the English Wikipedia recently, where en:User:Husnock (a trusted user and U.S. Army officer working for the NARA!) had uploaded such an image. It was kept (see en:Image:HLHimmler.jpg and en:Image_talk:HLHimmler.jpg). I don't think that's bad; whenever we post some external confirmation for some fact, we essentially extend our trust to people we know even less... On the SS-Uniforms: well, we could find out easily by having someone look at the physical manual and tell us. Lupo 07:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The "trustablity" might just be a question of policy. Can you agree, that the IWM-pictures with "Copyright unknown" and the NARA/USHMM pictures without any copyright notice cannot be kept? Besides, i don't think that the old KUG law could be useful, a legal entity could have hold the copyrights only if no author was known. This special case is difficult to prove. Concerning the SS-Uniforms: how can we know if this nazi party manual was published without notice about the authors or the artist(s) who draw the pictures?--Wiggum 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Difficult. I do trust the NARA; I should think images taken e.g. from the SS service records (which they have in their holdings, though not online) might indeed fall under that very exceptional provision of 17 USC 104A(a)(2) and thus be PD-US. I don't generally trust the USHMM, though; they too often label images as "© USHMM" when it is entirely unclear on what grounds they do so. If the USHMM says something was PD and came from the National Archives, I tend to believe them and consider the works PD-US. What are IRS and DHS? Taxes and "homeland safety"? I don't think I've ever come across any image from there, so I'll have to pass on those lacking experience with their practice of labelling images. Lupo 10:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does your trust in US-gouvernmental agencies include the IRS and the DHS? Here in Germany offical archives are well known for their copyfraudulent claims and/or ignorance for third-party-rights. --h-stt !? 10:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC) PS: Thanks for correcting my terminology
- Sorry to rain on your parade here, but that the copyright rests always with a real person in Germany is a feature of the modern German UrhG introduced in 1965. Since then, the author is always an individual, and can at most grant some exploitation rights to others, including legal entities, a proces that appears to not include a transfer of the economic rights. However, under the old Kunsturhebergesetz (KUG), which was effective from 1907 until 1965, (a) legal entities could be "authors" (see §5 and also §9(2)) and (b) copyrights could be transferred (see §10(3)). Current German legislation recognizes these cases: §134 explicitly states that legal entities that were considered authors under the old law continued to be considered as such, and §137 acknowledges the continued validity of copyright transfers done under the KUG. §134 is most interesting, because it also stipulates that if a legal entity was considered the author, the old copyright terms had to be applied, not the ones of the new law! Lupo 07:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I seriously doubt, that 17 USC 104A(a)(2) is applicable to some or all of those pictures, because I don't see how we should prove beyond resonable doubt, that any of them were taken by an photographer who acted on behalf of a gouvernment entity, as that is the only way how the usage rights could be held by "the gouvernment or instrumentality thereof". The auctorial rights are always held by an individual under german law. So I repeat my advice to delete them all. --h-stt !? 18:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
(back to the left) I resorted the pictures. There are only three of the images in question which are claimed to be PD by NARA or USHMM. I'm pretty sure the Himmler picture will have not a chance at commons, but you're right - in cases of third party pictures which are not older than 100 years and where the photographer is actually or presumably not known the acceptance of an upload is a matter of trust. There should be a community consensus about what is trustworthy, otherwise we will conduct such a discussion regularly. The question of trust applies to the SS-Uniforms as well: I don't have the manual at my disposal. The Uploader of the pictures has been blocked in de-Wiki for POV-proliferation in articles about turkic peoples and for referring his information to books of former SS-Obergruppenführer like Felix Steiner. Trustworthy? I don't think so.--Wiggum 13:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe not trustworthy :-) But anyway, see my comment above on the KUG §134 reasoning: let's just forget it; it's probably a red herring. The EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, implemented in German law by §137f makes such works copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a. anyway. Would've been too good. Lupo 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- So you give up resistance? ;-) What about the thre pictures with PD claim? I think the 1914 picture is bogus, this was most likely not made by an US authority. While the two others were taken in 1937 there is at least the possibility that this Mr. Gallagher was the author. On the other hand, he or a family member could have fought in Germany during WW II and brought the pictures as spoils of war. With a very strict interpretation we cannot keep the pictures while there is no author provided. I don't know.--Wiggum 12:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Na toll, ich habe den LA gestellt und verstehe kein Wort von der Diskussion. 217.88.177.218 16:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wenn du magst, kann ich dich auf meiner Diskussionsseite etwas auf dem laufenden halten, sag einfach Bescheid, wenn du Interesse hast.--Wiggum 20:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kann bitte über deutsche Bilder mit deutschen Fotografen nach deutschem Recht deutsch diskutiert werden? Was interessiert es, was die Ami's denken? Wir haben deutsches Urheberrecht! --217.88.165.234 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
One of my uploads -- Image:Hitler with children and Baldur von Schirach.jpg needs to be added to this deletion request. I was under the mistaken impression that material from the Borden-Clarke collection was governed by Canadian copyright, but this image is one of Hoffman's (PD in Canada, but that doesn't help us). I apologise for the additional work. Jkelly 22:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, since this is a Hoffmann picture, it has to be deleteed--Wiggum 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- ... and User:139.18.1.5 tagged Image:Goering, Mussolini, Hitler, Hess.jpg as a speedy delete for "Very likely not a Canadian work." Library and Archives Canada gives authorship as "Unkown", and there isn't any further information about the collection. Jkelly 16:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the template this should be a work of a Canadian while the source site tells us that the creator is actually unknown. Since it has been created in 1938 i don't see any reason for PD.--Wiggum 13:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (statement moved from a duplicate discussion below. --ALE! 15:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC))
deleted by User:Jkelly --ALE! 08:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If nobody opposes: I would like to close the case and delete the three remaining images. Any comments? --ALE! ¿…? 09:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
As there was no opposition, I deleted the three remaining images and finally closed this case. --ALE! ¿…? 22:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this might have a use, but it's missing copyright information and is probably just a joke. --Hautala 17:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Se also the other contributions, they all look like jokes or copyvios, no source specified in all two/three images. --Denniss
Has been replaced by Image:Hobøl kart.png. JohnM 22:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Misspelled name. Has been replaced by Image:Skiptvet kart.png. JohnM 22:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Same author, can use {{Badname}} for own uploads next time. --Tomia 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 18:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Fair use: en:Image:KratosgowII.jpg -- Platonides 17:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Screenshot - should be speedy del. Shaqspeare 20:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, please mark cases like this as speedy in future. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
picked wrong license, new file at image:Espresso_01.jpg(sry, i'm a noob ;-)) thx --Bjb-de 20:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- You can always correct the license after the upload by editing the article desciption page and inserting another licensing template (here for instance you could've changed {{GDFL}} into {{PD-self}}. See for a list of available templates Commons:Copyright_tags. Re-uploading is only required if the name of the image isn't clear or just plainly wrong. NielsF 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Redundant to Image:Symbol merge vote.svg. --HereToHelp (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Better yet, just have it redirect to the good image.--HereToHelp (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Images can't redirect. bugzilla:709, more or less. The new image is quite better though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the monstrosity, it was only a place-holder as there wasn't a merge symbol I was aware of when uploading. Now that there is a svg version, the one I uploaded is redundant. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Images can't redirect. bugzilla:709, more or less. The new image is quite better though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Please delete, filename is incorrect, has been superseeded by the correctly namedImage:Hoppet-2005-start.jpg. Shogun 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded twice, same image as Image:Phosphatidylcholine.png --Likeitsmyjob 05:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, in the future please just tag such images as {{bad name|bettername.jpg}}, it's not necessary to list them here. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Clear violation of copyright, no free licence, no commercial use. Warning since 25. March. --80.137.54.187 09:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
For Mies v.d. Rohe died in 1969, copyright is not expired. Speedy? Shaqspeare 00:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --ALE! 20:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
this is a book cover, PD tag does not apply CyrilB 19:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please, don't remove! It's not PD: I have permission of the spanish book publisher to publish in Wikipedia. Yonderboy 23:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's not strong enough, see Commons:Licensing. Either upload it somewhere else under fair use guidelines or get them to agree to a stronger license (see Commons:Email templates). Either way, Delete. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- That's not strong enough, see Commons:Licensing. Either upload it somewhere else under fair use guidelines or get them to agree to a stronger license (see Commons:Email templates). Either way,
- Delete, not free for redistribution/derivatives. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:Journalisten cover 2006.jpg, Image:Hitra-Frøya cover 2005.jpg, Image:Ny Tid cover 2006.jpg and Image:Bergens Tidende cover 2006.jpg
[edit]Covers of news magazines or newspapers, not GFDL. Uploader notified in his talk page in no.wp. Kjetil_r 21:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree, this copyrighted material is totally unsuitable for commons CyrilB 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- you can also add Image:Dagens_Næringsliv_1.jpg, Image:Dagsavisen.jpg, Image:Aftenposten_1.jpg, Image:Morgenbladet.jpg, Image:Verdens_gang_1.jpg and maybe also Image:Bergens_tidende_1.jpg, Image:Norske_aviser_1.jpg and Image:Dagbladet_noreg_1.jpg. These are also newspaper covers. CyrilB 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaders now notified by me. Please always notify the uploader when requesting images for deletion. Kjetil_r 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. I did believe that a photo of a newspaper in a sales-rack content should OK by law. At least the Image:Norske_aviser_1.jpg should be fine. But delete it if you have to. --Bep 20:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Uploaders now notified by me. Please always notify the uploader when requesting images for deletion. Kjetil_r 18:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- you can also add Image:Dagens_Næringsliv_1.jpg, Image:Dagsavisen.jpg, Image:Aftenposten_1.jpg, Image:Morgenbladet.jpg, Image:Verdens_gang_1.jpg and maybe also Image:Bergens_tidende_1.jpg, Image:Norske_aviser_1.jpg and Image:Dagbladet_noreg_1.jpg. These are also newspaper covers. CyrilB 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unfree. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- All deleted--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment - the images were not removed from use! Please do so before deleting! Kjetil_r 21:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This photo was marked as copyright violation, but is a photo of a doll a "derivative work"? Do we have some policy for such photos? A.J. 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A.J. 10:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, was discussed several times earlier. Short: Image of copyrighted protected object does not create a new copyright for the photographer, copyright belongs to the copyright holder of the protected object. --Denniss 11:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... Was that subject discussed in general or in similar cases only? A.J. 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- See Commons:Licensing#Derivative Works for an example with Mickey Mouse --Denniss 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... that means we have to delete some more photos: Category:Action figures. And what about my dolly, is she copyrighted? Even when it's dressed in non-copyrighted clothes? A.J. 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Derivative work. --Fb78 16:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no real need to delete these PNG files. They served as model for the SVG files, which are not 100% identical. It is sufficient to mark them as obsolete and make a reference to the SVG versions, but they should be kept as a reference. --Rosenzweig 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It looks different because of the colors. Please keep, this will have another effect on pages as the svg-file. Effeietsanders 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete They are not identical, but I think that the png should be better in someway for there to be a reason to keep it. I think a model can always be found at the website of Bremen. Samulili 08:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- if people want to keep an image -- for whatever reason-- then it is not redundant. / Fred Chess 08:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep pngs are better to handle for a common user, especially for those who have older computers. Shaqspeare 20:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Err, it seems you have misunderstood the concept, Shaqspeare. MediaWiki renders SVGs as PNG, but SVGs are fully scalable, as opposed to PNG. Jon Harald Søby 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but not for the "common" user. If one wants to download it converted in high resolution, he has to have some knowledge in informatics or at least in wiki. Shaqspeare 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- But can’t your "common" user just download the png generated from the svg? -moyogo 10:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but not for the "common" user. If one wants to download it converted in high resolution, he has to have some knowledge in informatics or at least in wiki. Shaqspeare 23:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Err, it seems you have misunderstood the concept, Shaqspeare. MediaWiki renders SVGs as PNG, but SVGs are fully scalable, as opposed to PNG. Jon Harald Søby 21:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no real need to delete these PNG files. They served as model for the SVG files, which are not 100% identical. It is sufficient to mark them as obsolete and make a reference to the SVG versions, but they should be kept as a reference. --Rosenzweig 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept as per above / Fred Chess 08:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no real need to delete these PNG files. They served as model for the SVG files, which are not 100% identical. It is sufficient to mark them as obsolete and make a reference to the SVG versions, but they should be kept as a reference. --Rosenzweig 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept as per above / Fred Chess 08:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep pngs are better to handle for a common user. Shaqspeare 20:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no real need to delete these PNG files. They served as model for the SVG files, which are not 100% identical. It is sufficient to mark them as obsolete and make a reference to the SVG versions, but they should be kept as a reference. --Rosenzweig 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept as per above / Fred Chess 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
New better quality SVG Version available; File obsolete --David Liuzzo 15:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep pngs are better to handle for a common user. Shaqspeare 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no real need to delete these PNG files. They served as model for the SVG files, which are not 100% identical. It is sufficient to mark them as obsolete and make a reference to the SVG versions, but they should be kept as a reference. --Rosenzweig 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete svg is more flexibel. Redundant images has to be deleted. --Raymond de 22:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, they don't! We're not running out of disk space. Redundancy is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Kept as per above / Fred Chess 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Makes use of copyrighted Real logo. -- Jon Harald Søby 18:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; have to agree. Reproductions of a copyrighted logo don't make the new image free. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete agree, should be deleted --ALE! 12:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot of copyrighted Photoshop software. See also rest of Category:Image of tutorial. -- Jon Harald Søby 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The objective of these pictures is clearly not to violate adobe's copyright, but photoshop is copyrighted. Yet another example of limitations due to copyright for the end-users!CyrilB 11:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Argh ! Well, I'm confuse. I have to admit that, totally dedicated in creating the tutorial, I've completely forgotten that even screenshots of a software fall into the same license which, in this case, is copyrighted. So please delete all these images (but not the category), and I will make new ones only of the main picture showing the steps of the enhancement. Sorry. Sting 12:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at your tutorial, so I don't know wether photoshop is mandatory for it or not, but maybe you could use the gimp instead, which is free software. When high productivity is not required, switching from one to another is quite straightforward, and could allows you to show important parts of the software (levels window for example...). But once again, I don't know if this can apply to you. - CyrilB 21:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I was thinking about do that. I didn't use The Gimp for years but there must be quiet the same tools that in Photoshop and it will be clearer to show the whole screen that the picture alone. I will wait the deletion before making a new upload to avoid the access to these ones through the file history. Sting 14:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The note on the licensing page says that photos of works of art exhibited in public spaces can only be used for non-commercial purposes, unless it is clear that the work is not the main subject in the photo. As Commons images are supposed to be used for commercial purposes too, pictures like this should either be banned or clearly marked. In any case, the issue has to be discussed. Alx 12:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- The creator, en:Gustav Vigeland, died in 1943. Copyright of his sculptures should expire in 2014. As long as his sculptures are the main object of an image it may be not suitable for the Commons. --Denniss 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The note referred to above is consistent with the Norwegian Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Act, section 24, 2: «Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially.» (From the unofficial translation at http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ulovdata/lov-19610512-002-eng.doc, Norwegian original at http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19610512-002.html). The decision reached here should (must) also be applied to any other image on Commons where a work of art by Vigeland is the main subject. Cnyborg 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Images on Wikimedia projects are not 'supposed' to be used for commercial purposes, only supposed for the free Wikimedia projects. However they can be copied by others to use them for commercial purposes, but that is not the same. JePe 08:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Siebrand 09:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please present your arguments in favour, this page is not for voting. Thuresson 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As the photographer, I am very disappointed that Wikipedia has taken the commercial road. We prefer to provide commercial users with a free image and text library over giving encyclopedic information to the everyday user. If this image is deleted, almost all images on Vigeland Sculpture Park will have to be deleted, too - Quistnix 09:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- WikiCommons is not Wikipedia: See also Commons:Project scope. Thuresson 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep idem above Besednjak 09:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Waerth 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please present your arguments in favour, this page is not for voting. Thuresson 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Christoffel K 19:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC) - I don't understand why images like this should be deleted. Some Wikipedians spend a lot of time to make there own picture to get the articles complete. Deleting pictures like this disables us to make complete articles.
- Keep Flyingbird 27 may 2006 23:16 (CEST)
- Please present your arguments in favour, this page is not for voting. Thuresson 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep FvS 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Please present your arguments in favour, this page is not for voting. Thuresson 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - won't keeping this image mean that {{Noncommercial}} material will be allowed in Commons? Kjetil_r 11:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This seems to be same situation as for Commons:Deletion_requests#Category:Atomium. The object is outside in public view but is forbidden to use pictures of it. --Walter 13:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It is also similar to discussions about panoramafreiheit, French copyright law (specifically on the lights on the Eiffel Tower and the pyramid outside the Louvre, and derivative works in general. Cnyborg 17:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have sent an email to BONO [69] about norwegian visual arts at commons. Please do not delete these images until they have had an opportunity to answare. — John Erling Blad (no) 19:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- The meeting is scheduled for 13th og 14th of june, 2006. — John Erling Blad (no) 03:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- This image is planned to be on a slide, used as an example so don't delete the image until further notice. — John Erling Blad (no) 08:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as noncommercial is considered non free on commons. I still don't understand that there is a copyright on a work exposed in public but it's the law. Dura lex sed lex - CyrilB 21:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep pictures of objects in public places should never been deleted. Commonsfreak 21:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This is currently discussed at the no: Village Pump (no:Wikipedia:Tinget) and I understand that the copyright owner of Vigeland's works has been contacted. Let's see what the result of that will be. The Norwegian copyright law is quite clear though, as mentioned by Alx. Thuresson 22:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- CommentRegarding the contact please see the remark of John Erling Blad, posted a few lines above what Thuresson writes here. Noorse 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- keep like all Panoramafreiheit pictures --Historiograf 03:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - I didn't think Wikipedia was commercial.. Noorse 18:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- WikiCommons is not Wikipedia: See also Commons:Project scope. Thuresson 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; the fact that Wikipedia/Wikimedia foundation is noncommercial itself does not automatically mean these images can be used. For images to be on the Commons, they must be under a free license, and one prohibiting non-commercial use is unfortunately unfree. See template:noncommercial. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- kept--Shizhao 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- opened again. Don't be persuaded by the voters. / Fred Chess 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Does the norwegian law apply in other countries as well, under one of the copyright conventions? If so, delete. If not, keep but clearly mark as free only in some countries. --Delirium 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- From Commons:Licensing#Berne_Convention: "we should always care about the laws of the country of origin of the work" --Kjetil_r 21:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete then, unfortunately. Seems plain enough and hard to ignore; the consequences for having questionably-licensed material in Commons are worse than the consequences of having to delete some of it. --Delirium 22:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's a stupid law that shouldn't even affect us, but it's the law in Norway nonetheless. Looks like this one's gonna have to be uploaded to the individual wikis that accept fair use. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- This image is on a slide for a presentation of the consequences of the present law. A meeting is to be held with BONO about this. Se also Agenda for møte med BONO (in Norwegian) — John Erling Blad (no) 08:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete} Those who vote keep, should first read this. I did, and the case is obvious. -Samulili 09:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment For those who don't read Norwegian, a translation can be found here (Word document). Cnyborg 22:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- comment CheckUsage. This image is used in alot of Wikipidias so if you wanted to delete it you would have alot of work to do to move it. Any Volenteres? I think Pictues of things foung outside are what the commons is for so i would vote keep but you guys spewed loads of Read this first XYZ etc. I'm not going to read pages and pages of Legal Text before i vote.--Yskyflyer 00:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Well just think what a fun job being an admin here is sometimes. I also find it unbelievable that it is possible to copyright buildings and statues but in some countries it's a fact... ignoring it here won't make it any less a copyvio. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. The Norwegian copyright law is explicit and no arguments were made to contradict this. -Samulili 11:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Official paintings held by the U.S. Government
[edit]I am nominating the following images for deletion because I believe they are copyrighted:
- Image:Jimmycarter.jpg
- Image:Johnkennedy.jpg
- Image:Lyndonjohnson.jpg
- Image:Richardnixon.jpg
- Image:Ronaldreagan.jpg
- Image:Mamie eisenhower.gif
- Image:Lady Bird Johnson.gif
- Image:Grace Coolidge.gif
- Image:Pat nixon.jpg
- Image:Elizabeth Truman.gif
- Image:Betty Ford.gif
- Image:Fordportrait.gif
- Image:HRC.jpg
- Image:Georgehwbush.jpg
- Image:Geraldford.jpg
- Image:Herberthoover.jpg
- Image:Harrytruman.jpg
- Image:Calvincoolidge.jpg
- Image:George H. W. Bush - portrait.gif
- Image:Hhover.gif
- Image:Lyndon B. Johnson - portrait.gif
- Image:Clinton.jpg
- Image:Image-Fordportrait.gif
All of these images are official paintings of presidents and first ladies produced under commission for the White House. They are not "works of the United States government" as claimed because they were not "prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" (17 U.S.C. § 101). The painters of official portraits received individual commissions for these specific works, and were not employees of the Executive Office. As such, copyright of these paintings are held either by the original painter or if the painter explicitly transferred the copyright, the U.S. government. Specifically, 17 U.S.C. § 105 states "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." A lengthy discussion on Wikipedia-en has persisted on this issue, but while claims of fair use for these images may be permissible on Wikipedia, copyrighted images not under a free license cannot be permitted to remain on Wikicommons. --Jiang 09:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We have no need for icons. We can get real portraits by clicking on each president. But these little headshots (I only looked at a few; they are all those little headshots, right?) are worthless.--HereToHelp (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh... I like how en.wp just offloaded the debate onto us. ;P Looks like Delete to me. Some are quite a shame to lose, like Image:Clinton.jpg. But what can you do... pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- It wasn't offloaded, as much as it was escaleted. This all started with one image, and each time Jiang seems to be losing the debate, he escaltes it. There has been a dispoute going on over at . It just spilled over onto the commons. These images are all PD, and each Jiang keeps escalating the dispute. Since the images have been incorrectly tagged, and since Jiang is only targeting 14 of the 40 or so images, I am going to revert the tagging.
- As far as I can remember, there are no copyright attorneys that have weighed in on the issue. I spoke to Bill Alman, the White House curator, who said the following.
Generally, the portraits are property of the federal government and are in the public domain. In the case of the White House portraits, the photograph of the portrait may have copyright restrictions, but that it should be generally okay to use the images as long as the publisher of the electronic image is credited.
- Is there a copyright attorney in the house? --Evrik 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- For images to be used here, the burden lies on us (i.e. Wikicommons) to prove that the image is freely licensed or in the public domain. First, the White House curator does not have the authority of the law and is also not qualified to interpret the law. The second sentence in his reply completely disregarded Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Even if he were right, his opinion on the matter should not be used to sway us either way. Second, we do not know if he is referring to "public domain" in the legal sense of the term. In any case, the burden of proof is on us: what is the legal justification here? who declared these portraits to be public domain? what law or statute made them non-copyrightable? Please show how 17 U.S.C. § 105 does not apply here. --Jiang 19:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh, I made a wrongly placed comment below that was in fact intended for this section. So I'm sorry that you have to respond twice (if you want to respond).... -- Keep You who argue about deleting these portraits, can you even find anyone who actually claims copyright of them, or someone who claims they are not public domain? Usually people are happy to claim copyright, but here everyone who's been contacted says we can use them as we wish. / Fred Chess 08:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the validity of your logic. Works are by default copyrighted, not public domain. The burden of proof lies on us to show how these works were declared or released to be in the public domain. The burden of proof is never to show that works are copyrighted. --Jiang 23:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ugh, I made a wrongly placed comment below that was in fact intended for this section. So I'm sorry that you have to respond twice (if you want to respond).... --
- Is it okay to close this debate now and Keep all images?
- I'm sorry that I had to break the discussion by moving a part of it to Commons_talk:Licensing, but to have two batches of images where each image should possibly be judged independantly made the whole thing confusing.
- Anyways, there is still no claim of anyone claiming copyright of the works, and I won't delete lots of images based on someone's assumption of them being copyrighted.
- Fred Chess 17:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see why these images should be "kept". In the very least, the issue is not resolved. I have notified Wikimedia General Counsel Brad Patrick on this issue. He responded on en:, but we still haven't heard back from Evrik.
- No one needs to claim copyright. By default, copyright belongs to the artists who painted the portraits, unless they or their contracts designated otherwise. The burden of proof is on us to show that these images are PD: can you prove that these images are PD? Under what terms are these images PD? --Jiang 16:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Is it okay to close this debate now and
- Kept -- one person is not consensus. Consensus-making should be made at Commons_talk:Licensing. If it can be established that the paintings aren't OK, then lets delete them. / Fred Chess 10:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
May 27
[edit]Uploads by User:Diyako
[edit]- Image:Corduene.png
- cited source contains images that look nothing like the one on wikipedia. There is a PD license and a GNU license presented.
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not from the cited source --ALE! 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Duhok.jpg
- Areal view. "first published in Iraq before Iraq signed a copyright treaty with the United States" doesnt sound right since judging from the picture quality this has been taken recently perhaps.
- The picture is labeled "www.krg.org", but I can't find it on this website. CyrilB 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:EhmedeXani.png
- I do not believe that image is ineligable for copyright.
- This image can be found on [70] and [71]. I can't speak this language, but as far as I understand, I think that {{PD-old}} applies here. CyrilB 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Kurdish dance.jpg
- Artwork, released under creative commons, no source
- Apparently, available on [72]], but I was not patient enough fo find it among the 900 others. No information about the licence, nor the author, as far as I know. CyrilB 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:KurdishEmblem.gif
- No info on copyrights... Government emblems are generaly copyrighted.
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Leyla Qasim.jpg
- No source or info regarding copyright.
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:PJAK-ALA.jpg
- Released under CC, I dont think thats a commons compatible license. No information about author. This is the flag of an organisation
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Sherefxan.png
- No info on copyrights. If this is an old drawing it isnt GNU compatible and should be PD. But no info on copyrights.
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Slemani.jpg Image:SlemaniNight.jpg
- No info on copyrights, no reason to assume image was published before the signing of the copyright agreement.
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Yonis Reuf.jpg
- No information on copyrights
- Image:Geli Elibeg.jpg
- Nothing suggests when it was published. No reason to believe its PD
- Delete This image has a really bad quality. It might come from [73], although the quality seems even worse on this website, and they do not seem to be very worried about copyright (many of their pictures are available on [www.krg.org]. This image is only used on en.wikipedia, but alongside another, better quality image CyrilB 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Hemin.jpg
- No information on copyright.
- Delete if no information about the origin: this looks like a scan of a printed document. CyrilB 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image:HewlerNight.jpg
- Nothing suggests when it was published. No reason to believe its PD
- Delete This image is available on [74] (gallery:kurdistan/cities), with the following notice: "© 1998 - 2006 Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)" CyrilB 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image:KurdishKew.gif
- Looks like a poor scan. I dont believe this is GNU compatible.
- Delete gif format and small size make this picture unusable CyrilB 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image:MelayeCiziri.png
- No source, I do not see why this is CC licensed.
- As per Image:EhmedeXani.png, above CyrilB 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I am no expert in copyrights but I believe some of those images are copyrighted. Also among some of the images released under GNU should either be PD or Fair-use since I do not believe Diyako created them himself. He seems to be choosing license s at random. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Half of these could just be tagged NSD. It's only necessary to list items here that require discussion. And please notify the uploader, especially when you nominate so many of their images for deletion! pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Uploader should be notified, and the images should be tagged properly when they are requested for deletion. CyrilB 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader has been banned off of en.wiki so I am not certain if he is around. I nominate you to notify :) . --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- The proper procedure would be to tag unsourced images with the {{subst:nsd}} tag so that people would be made aware that the image has been tagged with a deletion-warranting tag. / Fred Chess 10:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader has been banned off of en.wiki so I am not certain if he is around. I nominate you to notify :) . --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The "selfmade" ??? images with CC licenses were taken with different digital cameras. This should be an indication that the images were taken by different persons. Anyway, {{Self}} should be used for own images. --ALE! 12:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- They don't seem to be self made. For one picture, the real author spotted Diaykos offence and corrected a false CC-license. Image:Geli_Ali_Beg.jpg -Samulili 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Anything by the Kodak 6330 seems to be actually taken by Twanger (based on http://www.tolaris.com/album/kurdistan/100_2314, why would someone steal that image?), so I would fix the source on those and keep them. Of the images that are by different cameras, but are still from http://www.tolaris.com/gallery/kurdistan/, we should just e-mail Twanger. It isn't that odd to have multiple cameras or swap pictures with others on a trip. The rest should probably be deleted. Kotepho 21:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can certainly "swap pictures with others on a trip", but that wouldn't make it right to upload them to the commons as selfmade. William Avery 13:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it doesn't, but we don't know for sure that a) he didn't take them and b) that he would not ask and get permision from the photographers. Kotepho 20:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
To finish with this deletion request I propose the following: As the uploader does not help to clarify the issue, any image that still shows any slightest doubt about its license will be deleted. This goes for all images still listed above. (Some where already resolved.) If nobody opposes, I will delete all images in three days from now. I hope this is ok. --ALE! 15:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Three days from now would be today. Hello?! Anybody opposing the deletion of all images above? --ALE! 06:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds OK to me. Thuresson 15:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Images that can be kept
[edit]Please feel free to add more, if you think that a image's license is ok or is ok after adding the source. --ALE! 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Kurdistan Canyon.jpg
- Image:KurdistanMount.jpg
- Image:Dukan Lake.jpg
- Image:Dukan LakeView.jpg
- Image:Geli Ali Beg.jpg
- Image:KurdistanBexalView.jpg
- Image:KurdistanDukan.jpg
- Image:KurdistanNature.jpg
- Image:Skies over Kurdistan in Fall.jpg
- Image:HewlerCitadel.jpg
- Image:HewlerMosque.jpg
kept, sources added and license is cc-by-sa --ALE! 10:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Amediye.jpg
- Image:Amediye.jpg looks like an old picture (hard to tell whatever it is) no source.
- This image can be found on [75], and information about the date seems to be available on the website, but I'm not sure (this is not a language I can speak...) CyrilB 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep taken from the book Sherefname ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherefname ) author died 1599. Therefore PD-old or PD-art (I never quite know what to use). --ALE! 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Kurdistan rojname.gif
- Script is imposible to read, horrible quality. Dont see why it exists.
- Delete too bad quality CyrilB 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
kept (Although the quality is very bad, we should keep this image of an very old newspaper until we have a better version.) --ALE! 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Iran ethnoreligious distribution 2004.jpg
- I am having difficulty locating a map for 2004 and iran on that page resembling the one on wikipedia.
- Keep As far as I can tell, this map is identical to that given in reference [76] CyrilB 10:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
kept This map is in fact by the CIA. --ALE! 11:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:KurdistanRegion Governorates.png
- Unless the orogonal map is GNU cmpatible this image is violating someones copyrights
- Keep This map is GFDL (see [:Category:Maps_of_Iraq]) CyrilB
kept --ALE! 11:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Middle East Levant.jpg
- Released under CC, I dont think thats a commons compatible license. No information about author. I dont see the point of the image...
- Keep This image is under GFDL anyway, and made using a CIA map. CyrilB 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
kept made from a CIA map, which PD. --ALE! 11:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, it is done now. Some images were kept, others were deleted. --ALE! 11:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please would somebody delete that picture? It has no license, it shows the wrong moss. The deletion procedure is pending since the 10th of april !! Fabelfroh 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please would somebody delete that picture? It has no license, it shows the wrong moss. The deletion procedure is pending since the 10th of april !! Fabelfroh 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please would somebody delete that picture? It has no license, it shows the wrong moss. The deletion procedure is pending since the 10th of april !! Fabelfroh 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Please would somebody delete that picture? It has no license, it shows the wrong moss. The deletion procedure is pending since the 10th of april !! Fabelfroh 08:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Claiming they have no license is a bit disingenuous since you are the uploader and the page history is right there. 6 weeks, well, we are speedy like snails, what can I say. (Hint: if you have some urgent speedy request, posting on the talk page of an active admin usually gives a quicker result.) pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
150 pics of Kanji Stroke Order
[edit]- All this pics are not use, better ones are avalable in a better quality. I already deleted 20 today, please to each admin to delete 5 or 10 that will help me to sleep earlier today ~ Yug (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete them by hand, Yug, they can be deleted by a script... pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, any problems, talk to Yug! :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
bitte Löschen - Upload war ein versehen, Bild doppelt vorhanden Marcela 16:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader writes on talk page "Please delete, I forgot the license." Its also duplicate of Image:Gina_erotic1_009.jpg --Tomia 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
It's is the same Pic--Sanandros 16:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Makes use of copyrighted Flash logo. -- Jon Harald Søby 17:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; flash logo not free. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 21:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I highly doubt that the uploader of this image holds copyright of w:Kanon from which the little blue-haired anime girl was swiped. Ashibaka 06:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, even if it's based on that character, I don't see enough distinguishing features for such a claim. I've seen a lot of anime, and that looks like a run-of-the-mill big eyed, blue hair anime girl. -- Ned Scott 11:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hair color for this head was random choosed by me. It's abstract anime picture width blue hairs and green eyes not based any source. (Sorry for terrible English).--Nesusvet 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, I can't believe this image got deleted despite the fact that the author just said it wasn't based on any source, and that the "character" didn't hold any real distinguishing features, and was rather generic. THANKS LERK for jumping to conclusions and waiting for some kind of consensus or conclusion on the identity of the character. It's anime, people, after a while one character is bound to look a little bit like another one (which isn't always agreed upon by different people). There's thousands of characters, and an image at that size, it's easy to see how it could be mistaken for something that it isn't. What the hell is the point of having these discussions if someone's just going to jump in and delete it without even saying anything about it here. If there is a process for requesting un-deletions I'd like to make one. -- Ned Scott 11:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Very low quality. We have many more photos with much better quality...
- Keep, it's fine. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- as the uploader, I'm
Neutral. I don't think it's that aweful, but there are much better ones, so the likelihood it'll ever be used is low. Felagund 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC) - Keep; low quality? --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Duplicates image Image:Alcedo_atthis_1_(Marek_Szczepanek).jpg
- Keep: It's not a duplicate. I have increased the bird, so that the bird appears bigger in the taxbox --Merops
- Keep as Merops says, if it is useful for a taxbox it should not be deleted. (This was Barcex 20:05, 29. Mai 2006 (UTC) -- norro 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC))
- Keep norro 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate image of Image:MML approaches at St Pancras 2.JPG Captain Scarlet 09:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the images are very similar but not idetical. --ALE! 21:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, They may be different photographs but they show the exact same view, with no useful differences. --JeremyA 16:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, The file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is because they are very, if not extermely similar tha tone does not have encyclopedic value. Wikipédia is not Imageshack. Captain Scarlet 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 12:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Claimed to be own work, yet it is very low-res and has no metadata, and has video-style watermarks. -- Jon Harald Søby 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted (was not used) --ALE! 13:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploads by User:Diyako
[edit]
- Image:Ebdurehman sherefkendi.jpg
- Uploader was notified on 13 April 2006 to provide information regarding copyright. I do not believe this is GNU compatible.
- Delete --ßøuñçêY2K 12:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Essjay --ALE! 11:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Roj tv.png
- Image/logo of a TV network. Definately copyrighted.
- Delete as per nomination CyrilB 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{Logo}} Will be handled elsewhere --ALE! 12:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Seal of solomon simple.png
- I'd prefer to have a source. This could be the logo of a corporation or something...
- Keep this image is available on en.wikipedia [77], under the same licence. CyrilB 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I fixed this using the CommonsHelper. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Iraq kurdish areas 2003.jpg
- No source, nothing indicating this is from the CIA
- Keep, it is available on [78] CyrilB 11:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
kept Source is the CIA, see: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/iraq.html
- Image:Shaikh said Kurd.jpg
- No info on copyrights or source. Looks like scaned and croped image of a book cover .
- available on de.wikipedia as PD [79] CyrilB 12:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
corrected license according to the information de.wikipedia --ALE! 12:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Very low quality. We have many more photos with much better quality...
- Keep, not that bad. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This image has missing source information tagged since October 2005. The uploader is no longer active and cannot be reached via email. I just find his/her uploadings with a pattern of licensing the images under GFDL, but this one is missing copyright info. May we just assume it under GFDL?--Jusjih 16:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Image:Preparation pizza pancetta 2.JPG is same pizza with same camera 7 minutes after. Same user has done pizza recipe in b:fr:Pizza_à_la_pancetta wich uses both images. I think we can guess its GFDL. --Tomia 21:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree your opinion. Perhaps the uploader forgot to tag my nominated image in question. If no one objects, we should tag it GFDL with our reasoning.--Jusjih 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and add the forgotten tag. Shaqspeare 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No source and licens--Shizhao 17:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Grön --ALE! 10:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Terms of protection of works bearing the name of a corporate body have not elapsed already（§53(1), Copyright Law of Japan）.--K1-yamamoto 01:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as per nominator who was also the uploader / Fred Chess 00:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Poor quality image and quasi duplicate of Image:Classes 319 and 222 at St Pancras 2.JPG. Captain Scarlet 09:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I corrected the contrast on Image:Classes_319_and_222_at_St_Pancras_1.JPG. It is still not a good image though. What is the copyright status of the train stations in UK? I know that in France, they are considered private, so you need autorization to take a picture in a station. How is it in the UK? CyrilB 22:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; considerably different views. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I beg your pardon ? Considerably ? I don't what you consider different, but two trains on the same platform in the same place, at the same time with the camera pointing towards the same place is similar to me. One photo may have an encyclopedic interest, but not both. Captain Scarlet 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, there are not too many versions of the same theme, and these are clearly different. -Samulili 17:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
May 28
[edit]
Images uploaded by User:Federal Corps
[edit]After User:Barcex has contacted User:Federal Corps asking him to proof that the images uploaded by him are really GNU FDL he has answered:
Mirá flaco, todas las images las saqué de http://www.mindef.gov.ar/ o http://www.ejercito.mil.ar/, si te interesa el copyright date una vuelta por ahí que de seguro vas a encontrarlas. Por lo demás te agredecería que tuvieras un poco más de respeto y dejaras de acusarme de violaciones, parece que el que tiene que informarse acerca de licencia sos vos. Actitudes como el de ALE! son sinceramente patéticas, quién se va a pensar que "lo hago de mala fe"??? Por mí borrá las imágenes, de última el que pierde sos vos.
Which could be translated in short as:
Look dude, I have taken all these images from http://www.mindef.gov.ar/ or http://www.ejercito.mil.ar/, if you are interested in the copyright, have a look at these sites and you will surely find it. Apart from that I would appreciate if you could show a little more respect and would refrain from accousing me of violations, it seems that the persons who should inform himself about the license is you. Attitudes like the one of ALE! are sincerely pathetic, who is think that I did it in "bad faith". If you want delete the images, in the end it is you that is loosing.
Well, I do not know whether he uploaded the copyrighted images in good or bad faith but still I will propose them here for deletion. Maybe the cases more than obvious and can be delete fast:
- Image:Argentina CAECO PAZ 01.jpg from http://www.fuerzas-armadas.mil.ar/caecopaz/index.htm
- Image:Argentina EDN 01.jpg from http://www.edn.mil.ar/
- Image:Argentina SDN 01.jpg from http://www.iifa.mil.ar/imagenes/INTERARMAS.JPG
- Image:Argentina MINDEF 01.gif from http://www.mindef.gov.ar/
- Image:Argentina IIFA 01.jpg from http://www.iifa.mil.ar/imagenes/Esc_emco_iifa.jpg
- Image:Royal Spanish Academy 02.jpg without source
- Image:Royal Spanish Academy 01.gif without source
- Image:North American Spanish Language Academy.gif without source
- Image:Desfile Militar Argentino 04.jpg without license tag
- Image:Desfile Militar Argentino 03.jpg without license tag
- Image:Desfile Militar Argentino 02.jpg without license tag
- Image:Desfile Militar Argentino 01.jpg without license tag
- Image:Regimiento de Granaderos 02.jpg without source
- Image:Regimiento de Granaderos 01.jpg without source
- Image:Buenos Aires Edificio Libertador.jpg from http://www.mindef.gov.ar/secciones/Fotos/nuevas/edificio_puerta.jpg
and
- Image:Buenos Aires Palacio Antiguo.jpg which was already placed here a few days ago.
That's all for the moment. --ALE! 20:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All these pictures have problems, the user has been warned many days before and reacted agressively. The few explanations he gave are not valid and confirm that his image's licenses are fake. Also there are more suspect pictures from this user. Barcex 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't check all those pictures, but the license informations doesn't seem to be adequate. Due to the impertinent reaction of the user Delete norro 15:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- All deleted--Shizhao 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake, meant an update to ImageRDCongo-200px.png --moyogo 19:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is wrongly created as article by myself. Should be removed quickly. Thx. --MainhattanRoamer 17:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Almost identical to Image:Nurul aini.jpg for which the user has been asked to give a licence (and uploaded after having asked to do so). CyrilB 15:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete lower resolution version. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 15:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Picture under "Free Art License". The licence says: "You can freely distribute the copies of these works, modified or not, whatever their medium, wherever you wish, for a fee or for free, if you observe all the following conditions: [...] - specify to the recipient the name of the author of the originals[...]" But there is no name on that page, so we now violate the licence. --Eilmeldung
- Keep I agree the page should be more complete, but this is not a condition for deletion! Until further notice, we'll simply consider that the author's name is Jean-no CyrilB 21:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hi CyrilB. The name is Jean-no. And I made it a little more complete on the page. Gosh I hope I don't have too much photographs without a full name attached. Jean-no
- Thanks a lot! --Eilmeldung
- Hi CyrilB. The name is Jean-no. And I made it a little more complete on the page. Gosh I hope I don't have too much photographs without a full name attached. Jean-no
- It was an experiment by me, but it didn't work out. Sorry, please delete :-( G®iffen 19:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
All contributions of User:Daniol
[edit]I think this is trouble user: tagging promo photos with free licenses, historical images with {{Cc-by-sa-2.1-es}}, some photos as {{PD-ineligible}}. --EugeneZelenko 14:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agree Delete --ALE! 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have now checked again all images and none has a credible license. The uploader was already contacted by various useres of the catalan wikipedia to verify the licenses. But the uploader does not correct them. Furthermore he is insulting User:EugeneZelenko on his talk page. --ALE! 10:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. All images deleted --ALE! 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
own work unlikely: this image is used on at least two websites, and has a small size. Furthermore, the actress depicted also hold copyright. CyrilB 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Also, many other photographs uploaded by this editor--after being tagged with nld, he added a number of 'self' licences to these images. JeremyA 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader has changed the licence to PD, but i'm far from sure that it is their own work - CyrilB 19:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:JeremyA --ALE! 09:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Images of copyrighted material does not create new copyright for photographer --Denniss
- comment--my understanding of US copyright law is that photographs of three-dimensional objects might be considered to satisfy a a minimal level of originality, and so could be copyright to the photographer. See the 'Aftermath' section of the wikipedia article on w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. JeremyA 15:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- reaction - You are right in that this establishes copyright for the photographer; however, that does not change the possibility that publishing the photograph violates the copyright of the copyright owner of the object as well. Just like a translation is copyrighted by the translator, but may not be published without the permission of the copyright owner of the original work as well. - Andre Engels 07:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
delete potential copyright violation. Taking a picture of a copyrighted three-dimensional item does not void the original copyright. Please read Commons:Licensing (the section on derivative works). --Fb78 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. See Commons:Derivative works --Fb78 15:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Claims to be PD because it was found on an Indian gov't website. Nothing suggests that any material posted on Gov't of India websites is automatically PD. Jkelly 19:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This has been tagged not having information on its copyright status since 15 January 2006 but there are unclear opinion as to whether it is okay to copy from Vector-Images.com . Delete or keep?--Jusjih 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Raster versions from vector-images.com are ok when the source is cited. In this case, on the description page of the images it says: "Source: The TRNC arms was sent to me by the TRNC Deputy Prime Ministry and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I received the ok to use it on WIKIPEDIA by the TRNC Ho. Rep. here in Los Angeles. en:User:Expatkiwi". Which means for me that the images is not from vector-images.com and therefore the current license tag can not be used. --ALE! 20:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it is not from vector-images. Vector-images' corresponding image is coloured (see: http://vector-images.com/image.php?epsid=5107) Valentinian (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 07:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The official flag of Bouvet Island is the Norwegian flag. This flag is just a fantasy flag. mali 10:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- As far as described as fantasy flag and use for anything there should be no problem with it. Shaqspeare 22:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just because it is a flag doesn't make it pd. Since it isn't official/internationaly recognised (according to nom), the flag might be copyrighted. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. For one thing, it is clearly not a work of art. Substituting one colour for another on a flag in use for more than 100 years with a (forgive the expression, dear Norwegians) trivial design, is not art. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that anyone has filed an patent application for a flag, and I strongly doubt such material can be protected under Norwegian copyright laws. The info page states that it is inspired by a flag on a webpage, meaning that somebody must have taken a PD Norwegian flag and replaced its colours to get the same result as on the website. Scandinavian laws protect official flags and flags of private companies but they'd either have to be registred as trademarks or as officials symbols. Neither seems the case here. Valentinian (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm adding this comment because the flag may indeed have enough creativity/artistic value to be protected by copyright. I say this because the laws of the Nordic countries are very similar and that flag might be protected in Finland, so maybe also in Norway. Or not. -Samulili 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, Norwegian and Danish copyright laws are pretty close, and I doubt the image would be protected in Denmark. Anyway, I guess we need a Norwegian expert. Valentinian (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. So what it is a fantasy flag, that is what the description page is for. We have plenty of fantasy/historic/variant flags on here for many nations, and this is just one out of many. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, Norwegian and Danish copyright laws are pretty close, and I doubt the image would be protected in Denmark. Anyway, I guess we need a Norwegian expert. Valentinian (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm adding this comment because the flag may indeed have enough creativity/artistic value to be protected by copyright. I say this because the laws of the Nordic countries are very similar and that flag might be protected in Finland, so maybe also in Norway. Or not. -Samulili 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. For one thing, it is clearly not a work of art. Substituting one colour for another on a flag in use for more than 100 years with a (forgive the expression, dear Norwegians) trivial design, is not art. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely that anyone has filed an patent application for a flag, and I strongly doubt such material can be protected under Norwegian copyright laws. The info page states that it is inspired by a flag on a webpage, meaning that somebody must have taken a PD Norwegian flag and replaced its colours to get the same result as on the website. Scandinavian laws protect official flags and flags of private companies but they'd either have to be registred as trademarks or as officials symbols. Neither seems the case here. Valentinian (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just because it is a flag doesn't make it pd. Since it isn't official/internationaly recognised (according to nom), the flag might be copyrighted. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Found this in speedy deletion category. But it is clearly no obvious speedy. The author is unknown (and very likely dead for more than 70 years) and the image is almost 100 years old. Does anybody know more about that image? Arnomane 19:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete In the case that the author is unknown it is usually consensus to use PD-old only for images older than 100 years.
--ALE! 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Assume author is dead. -- AM 21:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why should we assume that? Assume that the author was 20 years old a the time the photo was taken. And assume that he was not shot dead in WW I and lived until he was 80 years old. That would mean, that he died in 1976. Adding 70 years equals the year 2046, which would be the year, when the copyright expires. --ALE! 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- We have done as much as we can reasonably be assumed to: the image has a source, but the photographer is unknown. It would then, IMO, be reasonable to use the photo. After all, Fritz Walter, the author of "Im Kino erlebe ich die Welt - 100 Jahre Kino und Film in Österreich", Wien 1996 from where the image was scanned, used it. What does the German law actually say in such cases? The "assume public domain for photos 100 years old" was, if I understand it correctly, devised by Historiograf as a practical solution, but is there something preventing us from assuming public domain for photos 80 years old, if we have no reasons to think that anyone can claim copyright? / Fred Chess 13:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why should we assume that? Assume that the author was 20 years old a the time the photo was taken. And assume that he was not shot dead in WW I and lived until he was 80 years old. That would mean, that he died in 1976. Adding 70 years equals the year 2046, which would be the year, when the copyright expires. --ALE! 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Somebody else using it is no reason to keep it. Why not assume that that that the author of a 1930 photo is dead? As ALE! points out, it is possible this photo has many, many years of copyright still to run. TheGrappler 11:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted, possible copyright problems and not used in any article --ALE! 14:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
May 29
[edit]Mistakenly created several months ago. The creator of the template left a note on the talk page requesting that the template be deleted. --Philbert2.71828 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- wool - not an article GeeKaa <>< 06:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
im slowly phasing out my png maps in favour of svg ones, i dont see any point in keeping the old ones anylonger --PlaneMad 18:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete i say ! --PlaneMad 18:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Listed as PD, source is this website, which says "Fotos: Dr. Detlef Kramer, ©: Botanischer Garten TU Darmstadt, September 2004". As far as I know material published by german universities isn't PD ... --Carstor 15:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete You are right: material published by german universities isn't PD --- gildemax 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted and does not give permission for free use. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also Image:Tale of 10 pounds bill.JPG
Bank of England banknotes are copyright the Bank of England. The photographer states the work is in the public domain, which I guess must be inaccurate as it's a direct reproduction of another work. Also I quote from the Bank of England web site:
Under section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any Bank of England banknote or any part of a Bank of England banknote.
Which I guess fairly clearly makes these images illegal to show in the UK. Both images show notes in current circulation.
The Bank of England web site says it's possible to apply for a waiver to reproduce notes provided that the images meet certain conditions.
- Delete, this is pretty clear CyrilB 21:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I guess, you're right, CyrilB. The legitimation of these images should be clarified, otherwise Delete norro 17:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not free. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Also:
- Image:Riverviewhosp1.jpg
- Image:Riverviewhosp2.jpg
- Image:Riverviewhosp4.jpg
- Image:Riverviewhosp5.jpg
- Image:Riverviewhosp7.jpg
- Image:Riverviewhosp10.jpg
I am the author of these photos and it turns out that the owners of the property no longer wants these photos in circulation. I wish to abide by their request, due to possible privacy concerns. So I'd like to request the deletion of these photos. Buchanan-Hermit 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Buchanan-Hermit 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, uploader request. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This image is very low quality. I only uploaded it because there wasn't a picture of that speices. I now uploaded Porcupine Revivim 1.JPG, which is of much better quality (and the same porcupine, actually). Felagund 20:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No reason to keep it! CyrilB 21:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ACK Felagund norro 16:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ACK --gildemax 21:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, request of uploader. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
see here: 
Oppose
I suggest this template to be deleted. There are several templates to mark your vote at COM:FPC for example (like {{support}}, {{oppose}}, etc.), but this one is aggressive. It violates the community agreement no personal attacks and annoys the uploader, photographer or nominator. There is no reason to do this instead of just opposing due to factual reasons. norro 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see above --norro 22:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It can by use in an attack - but as far it isn't used against people, it can't be considered as a personal attack. It's rather only stronger for of criticism of some idea, article etc. Shaqspeare 22:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see why we should keep such an offensive template. I think it does not help to resolve problems calmly. --ALE! 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm a creator of this template (for use on COM:FPC). I've found that it sometimes important to expres very strong opposition, for example when someone nominate just another beautiful picture of sunset, or picture which is far below quality standards (for example 256 colour, 640x480px gif). Of course it may be used for personal attacks, but not every use is such. It may prevent nominator of committing another silly mistake. Ss181292 20:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Even if the picture is of very low quality or the umpteen nominated sunset, there is no need to get emotional and express your hate. norro 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, I think with 20 oppose votes, they will still get the point. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I like it --- gildemax 21:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete or rename to "Strongly oppose". Hatred has no place in civil discourse.--Eloquence 23:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)- Delete — Just because "
Support" ({{I love}}) exists, it doesn't mean "I hate" should exist. I agree that there is no place for hate in a civil discussion. Positive emotion is acceptable if it's backed up by facts, but negative emotions should be kept off of Commons, or any community project for that matter. I oppose the renaming to "stongly oppose", if it's really needed, strong opposition can be expressed with "Strongly {{Oppose}}", but in the vast majority of cases (ie. our votes), it is irrelevant how much one opposes (or likes, for that matter) something. —UED77 23:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC) - Delete ACK everyone above. Newbies to FPC already get their fingers burnt by not looking at the previous standards; I don't think we need to rub it in any more than a string of oppose votes. If you need to express such hate then probably you should not look at FPC so much. Or go find some brilliant images to nominate instead. pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above. I can't endorse the arguments of
NorroSs181292. / Fred Chess 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (fixing mistake 11:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)) 
Keep Though the name of the template is what it is, nowhere in the template there's a mention of hatred. It's a skull and crossbones - que terrible! Call the militia, army, navy...! Seriously, recently the FP-candidates page has been flooded with images of which you notice right away that the nominator didn't bother at all to acquaint him/herself with the process (= usual standards) - and I think you can ask for newbies to take that little trouble. So this pirate says "Ay, Capt'n!" to this template and urges the rest of the crew not to act like little girlie men!! --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 13:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)- Delete I do not like polling templates, much less polling templates with hate in them. This template is simply bad taste. Longbow4u 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Discussions should be polite and respectful, not like this. Thuresson 14:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{Oppose}} sould be enough to mark opposition, even a strong one. Jastrow 15:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it's too negative; could hurt some people's feelings (altho there are some awful pics put up!) --Rodge 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.fca07.de/bilder/fca_arena_lageplan.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.mapuche-nation.org/espanol/graficos/reino/mil21.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://www.tepro.de/images/profile.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://www.tepro.de/pictures_big/hamburg_bootsschleppe_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://corvalliscommunitypages.com/images_sounds/yamamoto2.jpg){kind=link}
![[42]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Harry_shearer.jpg){kind=link}
_01.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.JPG){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
![[44]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Artful_Dodger#Image_Tagging_Image:Elisio2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[60]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:Olivia_live_01.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=6952226){kind=link}
![[61]](http://tools.wikimedia.de/%7Edaniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Tequendamia.jpg&w=_100000#end){kind=link}
![[64]](http://www.nomatako.com/nomatako.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[65]](http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg){kind=link}
![[76]](http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_ethnoreligious_distribution_2004.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[77]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Seal_of_solomon_simple.png){kind=link}
![[78]](http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_kurdish_areas_2003.jpg){kind=link}
![[79]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Shaikh_said_Kurd.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
- REDIRECT Template:Oppose--Shizhao 12:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Poor quality: i doubt someone may need it. We have plenty images of Morchella to choose from. -- A.J. 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A.J. 09:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --- gildemax 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, low quality. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, low quality--Shizhao 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Kept, is being used and no copyright problem. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
May 30
[edit]
photo in 1977, Not PD --Shizhao 00:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
photo in 1970s, Not PD --Shizhao 00:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not PD (not 50 years from death), {{Derivative}}. -Samulili 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio. I have no idea, why that image should be "copyrighted free use"! --L.m.k 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, clearly. CyrilB 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete indeed norro 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. --Tomia 16:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio --ALE! 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, please mark obvious copyvios as speedy candidates --pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Permission for use was granted for Wikipedia only, and with a clause that two copies of the magazine they're printed in are sent (making it seem that permission was given thinking that they would be printed, not used on the internet). So use is restricted to Wikipedia (thus also non-commercial) and most it's most likely also non-derivative. --Cnyborg 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- This might need a second email to confirm they agree with putting this under one of the free licences of commons... CyrilB 12:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia-only is not a valid license for the Commons. Also really looks unlikely they will grant a free license, given the conditions of the current one. If anyone plans to contact them, please say so here and we will not delete it until we hear back. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, does not allow derivatives and redistribution. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The image is identical to Image:Bandera de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires.png with the only difference, that the latter is PNG instead of GIF. As Commons prefers PNG I nominate the GIF image for deletion. --ALE! 15:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ss181292 10:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) ACK ALE!
- Delete --Sking 20:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC). Yo he subido las dos imágenes, al parecer olvidé agregar la plantilla de borrado al .gif.
- Delete evil .gif --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until you (ALE! as you nominated it, or anyone else) change all references to the .png Then remove. Platonides 16:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- The references are no problem. That can be done shortly before the deletion. Anyway, references to an image are no reason to keep an image. --ALE! 11:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- The image is not used in any article any more. However, es:user:Sking who voted also delete here uses the gif as part of his signature and therefore there is quite some large number of uses in the spanish wikipedia. I asked him to change from GIF to PNG, so the image can be deleted. --ALE! 15:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- The references are no problem. That can be done shortly before the deletion. Anyway, references to an image are no reason to keep an image. --ALE! 11:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 12:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Unused, replaced by Image:Dixielandfestival05.jpg, the author agreed (see discussion, “kann gelöscht werden” means “can be deleted”). --TM 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ss181292 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC) absolutely keep, cropped version os also downsampled!
- Keep, images can be used for two different purposes. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Smaller duplicate of Image:FejérMegye.png. (All the other county maps are larger and in PNG format.) Alensha 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep SVG has also its advantages. So please keep. --ALE! 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep although this SVG is pretty poor, it may be considered more worthy that PNG version (for printing for example). Ss181292 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --gildemax 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's not hurting anything. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — I'm from Hungary, and the inaccuracy of the county borders in the SVG is truly an eyesore. If you really want to, it's usable for a locator map, but it's quite poor at that as well. I suggest deleting this, and using the PNG until a better SVG is made. —UED77 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep SVG is not Smaller But rather has infinite resolution. Does the Nominator know how SVG works on MediaWiki. When in an article MediaWiki converts it to PNG. You can even Convert the image larger up to a point (It gets pixelated when too large). If you leave the image undeleted somebody can edit the file to make it larger if that is what you want. If the quality of the image is what is bothering you then I don't know what to say. But the resolution is Infinite in SVG so Don't say it is smaller than the PNG. PNGs have size SVGs don't. Unless I'm getting something wrong.--Yskyflyer 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Claims to be CC-BY-SA; source given is Hemera.com, a commercial provider of royalty-free stock photography. This makes the license claim very unlikely; note that royalty-free only means that no further payments have to be made by the licensor for basic uses of the picture, it does not mean that the picture can be freely used by anyone.--Eloquence 22:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is stated (somewhere on the Hemera website, although I'm not sure it applies to all images) that the image cannot be redistributed - CyrilB 19:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
May 31
[edit]
Image:Die Uniformen der Allgemeinen SS.jpg and Image:Die Uniformen der SS-Verfügungstruppe.jpg
[edit]
As stated in the description the pictures are copied from the 1939 organisational manual of the german nazi party. Therefore there is no reason for being PD.--Wiggum 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Unbedingt behalten, da 100% authentisch. Auch sind die verbotenen Kennzeichen kaum zu sehen. Es besteht ein wesentlicher Unterschied zwischen den Uniformen der Allgemeinen SS und der Waffen-SS, die auf diesen Bildern gut zu erkennen sind. Die Bilder wurden bereits schon in den "Reichsorganisationshandbüchern der NSDAP" der Jahre 1934-38 verwendet. Sie sind damit wesentlich älter als das oben genannte von 1939!
Ferner sind auch alle Hinweise angebracht, die verdeutlichen, daß diese Bilder eventuell in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz verbotende Symbole beinhalten können. Ich finde, daß die Bilder für militär- bzw. NS-historisch interessierte Menschen eine gute und vor allem authentische Quelle darstellen...Neonazi brauchen die Wiki in der Regel nicht als "Quelle" für solche Sachen, da sie meistens über die Originale verfügen! Mit bestem Gruß 195.93.60.33 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep, there 100% authentically. Also the forbidden characteristics are hardly to be seen. There is a substantial difference between the uniforms of the general SS and the Waffen-SS, which are to be recognized in these pictures well. The pictures were already already used in the "realm organization manuals of the NSDAP" of the years 1934-38. They are substantially older thereby than specified the above from 1939! Furthermore also all references are appropriate, which clarify that these pictures possibly in Germany, Austria and Switzerland forbid-end symbols contain can. I find that the pictures for military and/or ns-HISTORICALLY do not represent interested humans a good and above all authentic source... to neo-Nazi need the Wiki usually as "source" for such things, since they mostly have the originals! With best greeting 195.93.60.33 20:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The SS has been founded in 1925 so those pictures cannot be old enough to be PD.--Wiggum 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I am nevertheless the opinion the fact that the pictures are in common-free since between their publication until today over 60 years lies. 195.93.60.33 02:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- The licence tag alleges that the pictures are PD. As i have shown, they cannot be PD by age. As there is no author provided, there is no reasonable proof that the author is dead for more then 70 years. Assuming the oldest version is from 1934 there's a very low probability that the author died about one year later.--Wiggum 12:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep, artist most likely anonymous, therefore PD-ineligible. @Wiggum: go find some better reasons, otherwise please stop trashing this page. Thanks. --139.18.1.5 11:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- "Most likely" is a very keen assumption. As of the "Prinzip des unzureichenden Grundes" (don't know what it is in english, but i guess the university of leipzig ip will understand german) the probability of "anonymous artist" ist 0,5. It's not my challenge to prove that the artist is known, it's the job of the uploader to prove the pictures are free content.--Wiggum 13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Being in doubt. Delete --ALE! 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keepnot only the posible owner of the copyright (artist) is anonimus, but also the image that is shown is from an organization that doesnt excist anymore. i agree with PD-ineligible. LadyofHats 10:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Keep (Incidentally it was me who uploaded the images so I should have been notified :-P ).
- AFIK, the "Organisationshandbuch der NSDAP (1939)" does not have a stated author/illustrator (these kind of books rarely had?) and it has no copyright claimant, which -- to me -- always makes me wonder whose right we are fighting for.
- But German copyrights isn't my field of expertise.
- Fred Chess 10:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- you can keep it with the PD-tag. The Copyright holder for works published by german gervernment before 1949 is still copyrighted by the german government(not those works stolen by US, UK or Russia) and are free to be used for documentational purpose. The occupied works mights be ruled by the similar US, UK and RF laws. Same goes for all Hitler pictures.
- So, they are still copyrighted and can not be used freely (only for documentational purpose) --> delete --ALE! 09:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- And anyway, I'd like the poster of that unsigned comment above to provide sources for his statement. Provide links to German legislature or other reliable and reputable sources that back this claim. Lupo 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- you can keep it with the PD-tag. The Copyright holder for works published by german gervernment before 1949 is still copyrighted by the german government(not those works stolen by US, UK or Russia) and are free to be used for documentational purpose. The occupied works mights be ruled by the similar US, UK and RF laws. Same goes for all Hitler pictures.
- I agree with
- Delete Im Zweifel gegen den Löschkandidaten. --Rtc 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- If, as it has been stated, the works are anonymous, and if they were published in 1934 or earlier, wouldn't it be possible to keep them? There is {{Anonymous work}} for such cases. / Fred Chess 21:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This debate has been going for too long. For now, I have tagged the images as {{Anonymous work}} and kept them. The debate can be reopened if new evidence comes to light. — Erin (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The description page states: "Copyright 2005 recetasgourmet.com.ar. Permitido el uso del contenido citando la fuente y link a www.recetasgourmet.com.ar" translation: "Copyright 2005 recetasgourmet.com.ar. It is allowed to use the content citing the source and putting a link to www.recetasgourmet.com.ar"
I am not quite sure whether this license is acceptable in commons. --ALE! 10:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- image can be tagged with {{Copyrighted free use provided that|attribution and link to www.recetasgourmet.com.ar is given}}. Howcheng 21:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, or {{attribution}}. --tomf688 (talk - email) 13:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep image can be tagged with {{Copyrighted free use provided that|attribution and link to www.recetasgourmet.com.ar is given}}. --- gildemax 18:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. Adding {{Copyrighted free use provided that|attribution and link to www.recetasgourmet.com.ar is given}} --ALE! 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Image was uploaded for vandalism purposes on en-wiki. See this discussion. Howcheng 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted (hm that was quite some time ago... how come it took so long to come here?) pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
copyvio. from http://www.thefarplane.com/mark/alanshearer.jpg --Shizhao 11:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- How did you find it? It is not on google images! Anyway, there is no copyright notice on this site (I'm not really sure the image is theirs...), so Delete - CyrilB 20:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty clear copyright violation. Deleted. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 01:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The image is poorly illuminated and useless and has low resolution. There is some better images about the canal in Heinävesi#Waters. Orginally loaded to fi-wiki by myself. 'Pertsa 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per above - CyrilB 20:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete 'Pertsa 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader's request. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 01:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted to speed things up. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
copyvio, not GFDL--Shizhao 11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Shizhao --ALE! 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Source states «All content is protected under the Copyright Act. When using material, source must be given». There is no way this is licenced under GFDL as uploader has stated, and I seriously doubt that the Norwegian Conservative Party have agreed to license it under a compatible license. --Cnyborg 22:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's no way this is the correct license, Røed 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete Blatant copyvio. Valentinian (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Image:Komstyret0404.jpg, Image:Terje-selnes1.jpg, Image:EBusterud 2.jpg, Image:Syk-innlandet.gif, Image:Hamar bygning.JPG, Image:Hamar luft1.jpg
[edit]
- Image:Komstyret0404.jpg
- Image:Terje-selnes1.jpg
- Image:EBusterud 2.jpg
- Image:Syk-innlandet.gif
- Image:Hamar bygning.JPG
- Image:Hamar luft1.jpg
The images belong to Hamar Couny in Norway, and are copyrighted. The uploader has previously uploaded copyvios at no.wp. He is notified in his talk page at no.wp. Kjetil_r 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
copyvio, not GFDL (image created less than 50 years ago, and (c) by the city of Lille) --FoeNyx 11:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio, {{BadGIF}} Sanbec ✉ 08:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Vector version is available --MB-one 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It is used on 109 pages! change it first. CyrilB 20:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion given. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. see Image:Sportcar sergio luiz ara 01.svg--Shizhao 18:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep because of large usage --Astrokey44 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It was fairly quick to change all the references, as the image was predominantly used in templates to mark stubs. IMHO it can be deleted now. (Please give "check usage" some time to update the database, which is quite slow right now.) --ALE! 15:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. svg is no valid reason to just delete the png! Effeietsanders 08:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Kept, being used and no copyright concern. pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Supposedly public domain, but although source page says, "All photographs identified as our original work are free to the world for any use you see fit," there is no claim to this photo (found at the end of the "Badger photographs" section) being the web site owner's original work. Howcheng 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The website's owner assumes that the pictures presented are PD, but I don't think we can take this chance... CyrilB 20:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --ALE! 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (It only assumed that the images are in the public domain. Quote from the website: "We at www.badgers.org strongly support an artist's right to retain creative control over their work, and to receive compensation for the fruits of their toil. This includes the work of photographers and naturalists. All photographs on this site, unless explicitly credited, were culled from the Usenet newsgroup alt.animals.badgers, or received via e-mail from friends and amatuer naturalists. Executing reasonable diligence, I believe these images to be in the public domain. As such, you may copy them for your personal use and non-commercial enjoyment. If you recognize any uncredited photograph as yours, and we are presenting it without your approval, simply contact us at bucky@badgers.org, include the name of the image, and we'll gladly remove it. All photographs identified as our original work are free to the world for any use you see fit.")
Tagged as PD, which is certainly not the case. Image appears to have been taken from [80] but that site doesn't indicate the original source either. Image was deleted by me on en-wiki for being a copyright violation. Howcheng 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The image is most probably not copyrighted. The investigation is under way, but clearly this very relevant picture should not be removed based on assumptions, rather information about source should be added. Also, it is not true that site is not the relevant source - responsibility for all published material is clearly stated here Maayaa 05:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- just discovered that in Croatia, this is not eligible for copyright as a trivial work which contains no original autorship. Note the famous case of Severina's amateur porn tape which was released in Croatia with no consent of Severina. Severina sued, but the case was rejected as the tape (which would be copyright protected in countries like US) is not eligible for copyright as a trivial work. The standards of eligibility for copyright in Croatia is therefore higher than in US. A low-resolution amateurish photo from public gathering is trivial work even by US standards, much more so in Croatia where copyrights are reserved only for cases where original autorship is substantial. I have changed the notice accordingly. Maayaa 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- furthermore, I have discovered that according to Croatian law, images that appear in news and other media to illustrate events are EXPLICITLY allowed to be used and reproduced freely, without consent of the author, i.e. they are PD (Copyright law, section 47, paragraph 3). Maayaa 13:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Maayaa, you are missing the point. The web site does not indicate the original source. This reason for deletion was clearly explained by the administrator Howcheng on the page w:en:Image talk:Lipadom.jpg. You cannot talk your way around it. --Zmaj 07:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- That is not true, source (index page) is provided. Moreover, all copyrights for anonimous art work is, according to Croatian copyright law, owned by the publisher (both "moral" and "comercial" rights). Of course, in this case the image is not art work and hence the comercial copyright does not apply (and also, there is another provision in Croatian law, for news images), but for the purpose of wikipedia, index is the source. Wiki does not require to have full name and address of the author when the author is anonimous, but a source that is responsible for the content (and index has claimed responsibility on its page). This is called "moral copyright" and wikipedia respects it strictly. This right has been respected here, while image is ineligible for copyright (i.e. commercial copyright). Had it been copyrighted, it would still be usable on wikipedia though not necessarily on commons, according to fair use provision. In any case, the real reason this image is considered for deletion has to do with attempt to hide this picture - it is a POV issue, not a copyright issue, and that is the truth behind all this. Maayaa 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Caption of this picture [81] says that it was taken in Austria. Why do you think that the author was a Croat? Maybe he was an Austrian reporter... We don't know who the author was and whose laws apply to this picture. 213.202.97.76 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The image is taken in Austria by Croatians, who published it on index portal. The event in question was a high profile celebration attended mostly by Croats, who have created a myth out of Bleiburg, to whitewash their horrible WWII crimes. 213.198.225.18 18:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Image was apparently taken in 2004 [82]. Copyrighted even in Croatia. On Maayaa's "legalistic" points: first, he is working from an outdated version of the Croat copyright law; there is a new law in effect since 2003. Secondly, §47(3) of the old law is more like a fair use provision and applies only to newspapers and other periodicals who are granted the right to re-publish single images published previously in another newspaper or periodical. It was a kind of image citation right, but it didn't make the image PD, and in any case, it didn't apply to that 2004 image because that law was effective only until 2003. It also is not applicable to Wikipedia, because WP is not a newspaper. The corresponding provision in the new law is §89(1)(2) and makes it quite clear that it is a "fair use" provision. Finally, I don't see anything about "trivial works" in the Croat copyright law, and I don't know whether the Severina case was a copyright case (en:Severina Vučković just says that she sued for damages and that the case was dismissed). Even if it might be a "trivial work" in Croatia, it would still be copyrighted just about anywhere else. (See en:Image:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg, a Swiss image first published in Switzerland, where it is PD. Unfortunately, it's very probably copyrighted elsewhere. That image was deleted here on the commons recently for precisely this reason.) Lupo 08:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
![[82]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Lipadom.jpg){kind=link}
- Deleted. Not PD. -Samulili 11:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)