Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
July 1
[edit]redundant to TSV 1860 München, which is the official name --Ahellwig 15:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete not the official name. Could be speedable. --ALE! 16:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)- Blank and redirect, even easier. NielsF 21:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted it. The name of the page was just plainly wrong. No need for a redirect. --::Slomox:: >< 16:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Lithospermum
[edit]Reason: wrong identification. My own uploads.
- Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.43.36.JPG
- Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.44.06.JPG
- Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.44.34.JPG
- Image:Lithospermum purpurocaeruleum 16-06-2006 19.45.34.JPG
TeunSpaans 19:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} and indicate the properly named file in the future. NielsF 21:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
(has been tagged since May 24, but never listed) This is not a flag, but a logo, and is copyrighted as such. --Circeus 01:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination --ALE! 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted logo. -Samulili 20:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by User:Mattes who claim that this photo is public domain as long as it is not used for personal gain and only for educational purposes. Thuresson 13:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete That is not what I read. Anyway, on en.wikipedia.org the image is tagged as undetermined copyright. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tito_Rodriguez.JPG . Therefore I vote delete. --ALE! 15:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- See Image talk:Tito Rodriguez.jpg. Thuresson 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, but the law cited in the license "template" states something differnt in IMO. --ALE! 21:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- See Image talk:Tito Rodriguez.jpg. Thuresson 23:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Unless someone can prove that this image was PD, delete. The Spanish text on the image talk page comes from here, and says that (a) their web site may contain copyrighted works of third parties, and furthermore they claim copyright on all their original web contents. Please note that according to the Compendium of Office Practices II, section 206.02(d) of the U.S. Copyright Office, works of the government of Puerto Rico are not U.S. governmental works and do not fall under 17 USC 105. Lupo 12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
stolen from: http://www.croatianemb.ca/images/girl_konavle.jpg --Decius 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Uploader has on Nov 12, 2005 uploaded a large number of scans from brochures of the Croat National Tourist Office. These brochures were labelled as "gratis" and credited several photographers for their images. Nowehere did they say it was PD, and it isn't PD-self for sure. Although the particular source given above is not the immediate image source (it's too small), it is clear to me that the version we have was also scanned from such a brochure. The Croatian Embassy has other images, evidently from the tourist office; see e.g. Image:Lavender fields, Island of Hvar, Croatia.JPG, which exists at the Croation embassy in Canada as http://www.croatianemb.ca/images/hvar_tour.jpg: the file name clearly indicates that this comes from the tourist office. Lupo 06:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 08:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON (the author is not the one i asked permission :()
- Don't be so cryptic. Could you explain a bit more. --::Slomox:: >< 11:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- This makes sense, he obtained 'permission' for the image, but later discovered that the person he asked was not the copyright holder. This is not uncommon, but it's uncommon that we catch it before the copyright holder complains. --Gmaxwell 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- But whom did he ask? And who is the copyright holder? And why is Image:Ecusson souillac.jpg OK, but this not? --::Slomox:: >< 16:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's all lies, they are not the authors. They use a vector drawing package to copy a template. But copying doesn't make you being an author; in fact, copyright prohibits that. But CoAs are often not protected by copyright, but by other rights.--Rtc 09:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyritgh status for images from this site are sketchy at best, see the disclaimer. --Circeus 00:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems unlikely that he is the copyright holder of these images, he merely scanned them. See where he says "It is source of photos that are BELIEVED to be in the public domain, so they can be used by anyone, for any purpose, without obtaining permission". Although we can't tell if the image is actually public domain, so perhaps we should still delete. --Gmaxwell 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is highly probable this image (and other images regarding british naval ships of that time) had been made by Royal Navy sailors so {{PD-BritishGov}} should be used. --Denniss 20:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Without further information, the probability of "made by Royal Navy sailors" is 0.5 which is far away from being enough. Note: I couldn't find anything about "HMS Commonwealth" at IWM.--Wiggum 10:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- The photograph could not possibly have been taken after 1916, as the vessel sunk then. If it was an official photograph (as seems highly likely - at the time, photography equipement would not have been available to sailors to use in thier own time whilst aboard ship), then the Crown Copyright expired at the very latest in 1966, and probably in 1955. If it was a personal image, but published within roughly a decade of being taken, which is certainly the next most likely status, the copyright will have expired (image published before 1923). If it was not published, then the copyright will (have) expire(d) 70 years after the death of the photographer (possibly, but not necessarily, in the past), or 120 years after creation (in the future - 2025 or possibly 2036) if photographer remains unknown. There are also fun issues if it was ever published in the US. As such, we can sit on it for three decades and then use it. Or, possibly, find out the actual status of the image. :-) James F. (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's a much better reproduction of that image on Phil Curme's web site, and yeat another version is here. I've asked Phil Curme whether he could tell me more about this picture, such as where he got it from or whether he knows when it was published or who took it. Lupo 07:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to HMS Commonwealth, she did not sink in 1916 but was sold for scrap in 1921. Anyway, the image was taken in 1912 and comes from a postcard available at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, UK. Phil was unclear about whether that was an old postcard (or a facsimile of one), or a new postcard showing an image for the NMMs collection. I have not found any 1912 image in the NMM catalogue of negatives. I think there is reason to believe that it was indeed an old postcard, given the existence of this version... if so, it is reasonable to assume that it was published between 1912 and 1918. As such, the image would be {{PD-US}} (pre-1923), unless you insist on the stricter 1909 date (see below). In the UK, I think it would be out of copyright (author unknown, photograph created before June 1, 1957: copyrighted until 70 years after creation or 70 after publication, if published within 70 years since creation). Lupo 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Got an e-mail from the NMM today; they state that the image came from the collection of Dr. Oscar Parkes, some of which is now held at the IWM. This Mr. Parkes is probably the author of several books on British ships, see e.g. ISBN 0-850-52604-3 or ISBN 1-557-50075-4, at one time also editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and I bet he was also the painter of this picture... The NMM doesn't know the photographer's identity, but acknowledges having reprinted the image as a postcard. See also [1] for some additional trivia on the ship, or see its listing in Jane's Fighting Ships 1919. BTW, it appears that Jane's Fighting Ships 1919 is still copyrighted... can they really do this?? Unfortunately, I still don't know more about this photograph, and in particular not if it was published as an old postcard. Lupo 15:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to HMS Commonwealth, she did not sink in 1916 but was sold for scrap in 1921. Anyway, the image was taken in 1912 and comes from a postcard available at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, UK. Phil was unclear about whether that was an old postcard (or a facsimile of one), or a new postcard showing an image for the NMMs collection. I have not found any 1912 image in the NMM catalogue of negatives. I think there is reason to believe that it was indeed an old postcard, given the existence of this version... if so, it is reasonable to assume that it was published between 1912 and 1918. As such, the image would be {{PD-US}} (pre-1923), unless you insist on the stricter 1909 date (see below). In the UK, I think it would be out of copyright (author unknown, photograph created before June 1, 1957: copyrighted until 70 years after creation or 70 after publication, if published within 70 years since creation). Lupo 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's a much better reproduction of that image on Phil Curme's web site, and yeat another version is here. I've asked Phil Curme whether he could tell me more about this picture, such as where he got it from or whether he knows when it was published or who took it. Lupo 07:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The photograph could not possibly have been taken after 1916, as the vessel sunk then. If it was an official photograph (as seems highly likely - at the time, photography equipement would not have been available to sailors to use in thier own time whilst aboard ship), then the Crown Copyright expired at the very latest in 1966, and probably in 1955. If it was a personal image, but published within roughly a decade of being taken, which is certainly the next most likely status, the copyright will have expired (image published before 1923). If it was not published, then the copyright will (have) expire(d) 70 years after the death of the photographer (possibly, but not necessarily, in the past), or 120 years after creation (in the future - 2025 or possibly 2036) if photographer remains unknown. There are also fun issues if it was ever published in the US. As such, we can sit on it for three decades and then use it. Or, possibly, find out the actual status of the image. :-) James F. (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted - No conclusive evidence of freedom of image. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 15:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
July 2
[edit]Forgot to rotate it; uploaded it well (Image:Catal Hüyük Restauration B).--Mathae 09:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --JeremyA 16:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The same problem like above.--Mathae 10:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --JeremyA 16:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Over-categorisation; duplicates existing Taxodium distichum page - MPF 09:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 15:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Requires that author be notified of use, contrary to Commons:Licensing --bjh21 00:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, license against commons policy. --Tomia 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Requires that author be notified of use, contrary to Commons:Licensing --bjh21 00:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, license against commons policy. --Tomia 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Against policy --ALE! 14:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Just some pixels, I can't see what's the use of this for any Wikimedia project at all. -- Andre Engels 01:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- From the summary, it's intended as a computer desktop (presumably tiled). I set it on my computer and it does look reasonably cool, although I can't read anything. :) Also can't see any Wikimedia use though. pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (out of the scope of the Commons project) --ALE! 13:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright information is missing and it belongs in the text (not "... knows the source") Mattes 21:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just delete this thing. The image was tagged no source on 16 October 2005 and then an IP added that stupid source. Besides, it is only used on User pages on en and de.wikipedia. --ALE! 22:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 17:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 10:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible copyvio, as incorrect license given. The manuscript might be 18th century, but the work of art as it is, is obviously modern Adobe photoshop days. The uploader has also provided the source. --202.164.136.210 04:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your complaint. As far as I know, the manuscript included the art. --Gmaxwell 06:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- I dont see how it could be, considering the manuscript is some sort of leaf like pupyrus written around or even before the time of Christ. But nonetheless, the liscence given is incorrect. The copyright of the manuscript might have expired. However, the copyright of the photograph of the manuscript (which cerrtainly isnt over 60 years old), hasnt expired. --202.164.139.88 12:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I sincerely doubt that any of the computer files in category:PD Art are more than 60 or even 70 years old. However, whoever scanned or photographed them haven't added anything substantial to the image, and therefore cannot claim copyright. The manuscript with the artwork in question is estimated to be from the 18th century, and is therefore not quite as old as you think. -- Ranveig 13:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I dont see how it could be, considering the manuscript is some sort of leaf like pupyrus written around or even before the time of Christ. But nonetheless, the liscence given is incorrect. The copyright of the manuscript might have expired. However, the copyright of the photograph of the manuscript (which cerrtainly isnt over 60 years old), hasnt expired. --202.164.139.88 12:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kept. 2D for US. -Samulili 20:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The source says "Copyright 2000-2004 Virginia Department of Transportation" ([2]). Kjetil_r 10:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Jaranda wat's sup 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, copyvio. -Samulili 20:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Images uploaded by user:Tarokun1005
[edit]The following images all seem to have been sourced from websites and there is no evidence of right to release under a commons license. All were previously uploaded to en.wikipedia with fairuse rationale.
image:Alekos_Panagoulis_Palazzo_Medici.jpg
image:Alekos_panagoulis_Nov_68.jpg - User claims this one is his own work.
Delete -- unless correct licence information can be found. JeremyA 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Some comments have been put on my English Wikipedia talk page. How quickly one gets déjà lu around here. William Avery 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Copyrighted images. ~Pyb 11:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Photographer only allows use in Wikipedia. Thuresson 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep I think at least that some further inquiry should be made before deleting, because You have my full consent to use the photos for the Wikipedia project. and I'm happy to share these photos with the world. to me sound quite positive.. The first upload of this image (on de:| was done in 2004 when there probably wasn't a completely clear procedure. So until original uploader has had time to sort this out, keep this image, although this version should be replaced with the original hi-res image from de:. NielsF 00:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)- Speedy keep and add {{ConfirmationOTRS}} for ticket #2006070510014176. See de:Bild:Blick über den Rio Douro auf Porto.jpg. Lupo 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! 07:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted Image of Dame Edna. --Steschke 13:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Should be moved to Wikipedia under fair use. — Erin (talk) 09:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete clearly a derivative work of a copyrighted work and therefore a copyvio itself. --ALE! 15:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted' --Raymond Disc. 05:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a debate about the licence. I believe the licence is free for website and publication"Pictures are free for use in publications and websites on condition that they are accurately labeled. There are no copyright restrictions on use. When downloading pictures , you are agreeing to the above condition." [3]. Before uploading more images from the AMD website, I want to be sure of the licence. --~Pyb 11:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's an AMD press image. Your citation missed some essential parts: Low res version for use in webpages and Hi res version for use in publications. This is a website here and it has the Hi res version thus braking the agreement. Also the AMD site does not mention derivative works or event third party (commercial) use. See also usage guidelines here. These image should fall under the fair use regulation but nothing really freely usable.
- The same problem with Image:AMD Opteron.jpg and Image:AMD 64X2 Dual-Core.jpg. --Denniss 12:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (Sorry Denniss I forgot this issue, should have commented earlier).
- I would like to draw your attention to the text of the website which goes:
- This page includes both AMD product imagery and logos. The listed pictures come in two formats:
- Low-resolution pictures (for use in websites)
- High resolution pictures (for use in print publications)
- Pictures are free for use in publications and websites on condition that they are accurately labeled. There are no copyright restrictions on use.
- Now, as I interpret it, the distinction of website-image and printing-image has nothing to do with copyrights, it is just a suggestion from the nice people of AMD who realizes that website developers need not to download a 3.5 MB image when they need only a 50KB thumbnail. / Fred Chess 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete press license. They should put a regular CC-whatever-they-want there, then we can keep. --Rtc 09:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep IMO 'No copyright restrictions on use' is quite clear. Morven 05:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Morven Jaranda wat's sup 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
July 3
[edit]Sorry,I Upload error Filename,proper is in here:Image:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside.png (My English Is Very Poor)陈少举 03:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as a unused misnamed duplicate --grmwnr (homewiki) 16:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
i would be surprised if this photo has a "warranty of existence" --Brightster 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- "made with consent of the photographer"? Thuresson 14:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The photograph shows a person run over by a train. This only as a warning to persons who think they will see the picture of the nice torso of a nude female or something like that. I don't think Commons should host images like that. I can't think of any use of this particular photo. Anyway there is no release notice, so Delete. --::Slomox:: >< 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete {{subst:nsd}}
Deleted. Ugly snuff photo, license doubtful (uploader is not photographer). --Fb78 09:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither in use nor will be used. Was proposition for de:wikinews article, I'm the uploader. --Thoken 17:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by uploader request --ALE! 20:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm the uploader. The file neither in use nor will be used. --Hill 17:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 20:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Inadequate licence information, presumably copyvio. Uploader has an offending / troll user name (TeleportingHitler) and should be banned. Wischmob 19:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete, as it has been deleted some time ago.--Wiggum 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Slomox --ALE! 15:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Outside of Commons:Project scope --JeremyA 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Outside of Commons:Project scope --JeremyA 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
both deleted --ALE! 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded this with the wrong filename to delete at en:. Now at Image:Italian coa.png. Craigy 02:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Use the {{Badname}} tag for this purpose, please. Sanbec ✉ 08:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
will be handled elsewhere --ALE! 16:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This image seems to violate copyright. It is not tagged with any license and seems to be a derivative of a work of Dru Blair. The uploaded version can also be found on several websites, such as this. --NEUROtiker 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed this picture too and i agree to Neurotiker. Obviously the lower left corner of the pic has been edited, looks like a text notice or logo has been removed.--Wiggum 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Derivative work of http://www.drublair.com/productgroup.asp?0=203&1=&33=47 painted by Dru Blair. Therefore a copyvio. --ALE! 15:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (Copyvio!) --ALE! 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Lucca 1.jpg, Image:Lucca 2.jpg, Image:Lucca 3.jpg, Image:Tanakayasuonantonakukurisutaru.JPG
[edit]Awfully poor quality. -Samulili 15:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination --ALE! 06:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- uploader informed; it would be good if the person who tags an image with deletewould do so --gildemax 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless --jed 12:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No author provided, the license is just an unproven claim.--Wiggum 21:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Was first published without author's name in Poland. Shaqspeare 11:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Poland is member of the EU -> 70 years pma. Besides, to prove that a) the picture is really anonymous und b) that it has actually been published first in Poland might be somehow difficult. ;-)
- Not in this case. You cannot aply European law to it, it doesn't work backwards - anything published and not marked with ©-sign went into public domain. I don't have to prove anything - we should assume good faith of the uploader. And I didn't say it is anonymous - but it was published without any autorship comment and without ©. Shaqspeare 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The author's copyright is independent from the existence of a (c). This picture is copyrighted throughout the European Union due to directives 93/98/EEC and 2001/29/EC which were implemented by Poland. Btw, the polish modernized copyright law of 1994 was retroactive as well as the EU law. Besides, the {{Copyrighted free use}} licensing causes this case to be much more bogus - if the author had released the picture into public domain, he most be known. This is obviously contrary to the "published without author's name" claim. Anyway, this picture cannot be PD.--Wiggum 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- But when one didn't put the ©-sign by the photo, we should assume he was willing to put this in PD. E.g. Polish postcards, press photos etc. were often marked "© CAF", "© PAP", "© TASS" etc. So the author had possibility not to put it in public domain. But he did. P.S. I changed the licence to {{PD-PRL}}, which applies here. Shaqspeare 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can just repeat what i said: the moral rights are independent from a (c)-sign. And no, you can't assume that the author was willing to put the picture in the PD when the (c) is missing - the complete opposite applies: the author has to agree to the publication explicitly. I don't have a (c) on any of my private picture but i surely don't want to put them in the PD.--Wiggum 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- But AFAIK it is generally treated just the way I described in Poland and wasn't questioned by Polish law practice yet. By the way, it accords not to private pictures, only the pictures that were published. The ©-sign hadn't to be on the picture itself but e.g. beyond it or on the other side of the postcard etc. Shaqspeare 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it is practice in poland as you described, it would be a highly questionable practice. Anyway, the picture is protected in all countries - maybe except poland. So it is useless here. It think it's also very unlikely that this is a polish photographers picture as the template states. Imagine an iraqi would be able to took such a picture of US troops...--Wiggum 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- But AFAIK it is generally treated just the way I described in Poland and wasn't questioned by Polish law practice yet. By the way, it accords not to private pictures, only the pictures that were published. The ©-sign hadn't to be on the picture itself but e.g. beyond it or on the other side of the postcard etc. Shaqspeare 15:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can just repeat what i said: the moral rights are independent from a (c)-sign. And no, you can't assume that the author was willing to put the picture in the PD when the (c) is missing - the complete opposite applies: the author has to agree to the publication explicitly. I don't have a (c) on any of my private picture but i surely don't want to put them in the PD.--Wiggum 15:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- But when one didn't put the ©-sign by the photo, we should assume he was willing to put this in PD. E.g. Polish postcards, press photos etc. were often marked "© CAF", "© PAP", "© TASS" etc. So the author had possibility not to put it in public domain. But he did. P.S. I changed the licence to {{PD-PRL}}, which applies here. Shaqspeare 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The author's copyright is independent from the existence of a (c). This picture is copyrighted throughout the European Union due to directives 93/98/EEC and 2001/29/EC which were implemented by Poland. Btw, the polish modernized copyright law of 1994 was retroactive as well as the EU law. Besides, the {{Copyrighted free use}} licensing causes this case to be much more bogus - if the author had released the picture into public domain, he most be known. This is obviously contrary to the "published without author's name" claim. Anyway, this picture cannot be PD.--Wiggum 23:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not in this case. You cannot aply European law to it, it doesn't work backwards - anything published and not marked with ©-sign went into public domain. I don't have to prove anything - we should assume good faith of the uploader. And I didn't say it is anonymous - but it was published without any autorship comment and without ©. Shaqspeare 19:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Poland is member of the EU -> 70 years pma. Besides, to prove that a) the picture is really anonymous und b) that it has actually been published first in Poland might be somehow difficult. ;-)
- This discussion doesn't make a sence any more, I think. I agree with Shaqspeare, but I don't know the EU copyright law good enough. Maybe ask some authority? Warsaw Rising Museum? --MStankie 11:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep PD-Polish rationale (source and date) for this photo is given. Mentioning the author eigher by (c) or fot. clause meant copyright restriction, therefore author is unknown for most of photos with this license... A.J. 15:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
These are artist's impressions of the Coat of Arms of Uganda, and do not even remotely look like the real one. The proper image is at Image:Uganda Coat of Arms large.jpg. I believe it is better to have no image than to have a false one. --Ezeu 03:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you think that the version you uploaded is "the real one"? Thuresson 12:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because he took it from an official site and it is the version used by the authorities of Uganda. But I don't know whether Uganda has a law, that specifies the exact design of the coat of arms. Perhaps even the authorities use the more inaccurate version on Internet (representation of Ugandan government on the Internet is not very professional). And perhaps all versions are problematic cause of copyright? The coat of arms is from 1962, so it is not PD-old. --::Slomox:: >< 15:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see the difference between the two/three, apart from the fact that one is lighter, slightly larger, has a source and copyright information, the other is darker and the source link is a dead one. They are both representing the same thing and of course it's an artist's representation of the coat of arms because it was drawn by someone other than the artist who drew the original. The only one which should be deleted should be the .gif one which isn't good for rescaling on pages. Craigy 20:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, then I guess I'll have to draw a more correct image myself. Wouldnt like to see a distorted Coat of Arms of Uganda being spread around. --Ezeu 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep In heraldry, what matters is how the coat of arms has been described in the blazon. There is a blazon available at www.ugandahighcommission.co.ke and within the limits of the blazon there is considerable artistic license to create the coat of arms. WikiCommons already has two correct coat of arms (the png- and gif version) with an acceptable copyright license. Thuresson 15:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- You shouldn't teach others, when you for yourself don't know exactly ;-) What you linked is a description, not a blazon. And it is not correct, that only the blazon matters. Some coats of arms have also one specific official design. For example the coat of arms of Lower Saxony is only the symbol of the state Lower Saxony, if the horse is depicted in exactly that way. But I don't know, whether this is also true for Uganda. --::Slomox:: >< 14:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment reply: According to the heraldic rules, Thuresson is correct in that a coat of arms can be illustrated in different ways. But coat of arms are sometimes used as symbols independant of the heraldic rules.- Anyways, as long as the image matches the description, I see no reason why this image shouldn't be Keep. / Fred Chess 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept - no rationale for deletion. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 15:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Incorrect/missing licence. The picture is licenced by GFDL, but should be - if ever - licenced as PD-old. Tho photographer is unknown, the date stated as "before 1910". That's not sufficient. The photographer has to be dead for seventy years. --Zinnmann 08:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- The text on the picture says that it's a photo of the Preussen when it ran out New York. Since the Preussen travelled from NYC to Yokohama in 1908, the picture is not old enough :-(--Wiggum 17:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- uploader informed, it would be good if the person who tags an image with {{delete|incorrect/missing licence}} would do so --gildemax 18:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image is now correctly tagged as PD-old. Morven 05:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- No it isn't. There is no indication that the author is dead for more than 70 years, so pd-old is not applicable--Wiggum 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete In doubt we should apply the 100 years rule. Anyway, there is a good usable substitute for this image, for instance on this page: http://www.seemotive.de/html/dpreussen.htm
- We could use the German stamp as {{PD-Deutsche Bundespost stamps}} (see also: de:Vorlage:Briefmarke-Deutschland and Commons:Stamps/Public domain) --ALE! ¿…? 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded stamp image over questionable image. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 15:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
the website doesnt state that it is a work of the United States federal Government, no hint where it is taken from --Schlendrian 09:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- new situation: a User of de.wiki stated that the picture was Formerly available at DOD'S official server till change Delta' status of classification (now higher). There are no official Delta-images available anymore. How to handle that? --Schlendrian 13:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- The version we have is evidently scanned from a magazine; witness the fold running vertically through the middle of the image. The publicly accessible images at the DVIC are generally sized 640 pixels wide and are original photos that do not have such artefacts. Remains the question why the uploader didn't use the corresponding DOD image then, if it was once available... Note that civilian press also took pictures during that military operation. Lupo 08:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Cause the picture is evidentely public domain (217.83.35.61 14:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC))
- and what is the evidence? --ALE! 14:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
A IP keeps deleting the Deletion request, and still states the pictures was also available at osd.dodmedia.mil. I dont see evidences for this, the pictures pretty obviously is a mag-scan, please delete --Schlendrian 11:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete The de.wiki image was uploaded in March this year, I don't think the classifcation increase alluded to would have occurred in the past few months. Besides its an obvious mag-scan...--Nilfanion 09:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The first Upload of the picture was in the en Wiki with Licence PD-USGov. --88.73.195.94 10:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Which was still this year, is there any source to the claim that DFs classification was changed recently? Besides, "en.wiki uploaded it as PD so it must be OK" is bad logic,--Nilfanion 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted - No verifiable source Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is probably this site. Certainly not NASA-PD. The policy of this site says: "For publication or display (electronic or otherwise), all images must be credited: „Photo Courtesy of the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes, La Palma“ unless otherwise noted. We appreciate you send a message to Javier Méndez (ING PR Officer) with all the details of the publication. For slides, prints or other photographic material please use the contact above." I am not sure if usage here is allowed with these restrictions. --Vesta 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Sounds like {{Attribution}} to me. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Marked as no source...left message for uploader Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nominated for deletion because (or similar) "Although this image comes originally from NASA sadly a person that post processed this image (the webmaster of solarviews.com) Calvin J. Hamilton claims own copyright on this image, see http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Janus (all images on NASA pages with such a sepia color are from Calvin J. Hamilton). So I fear that it has to be deleted. I have also created a free alternative out of the raw voyager image and will upload it the next time. Arnomane 12:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)" -Samulili 15:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete Venus image; taken from Astronomy Picture of the Day. Unsure about status of Janus image, the text on the page is copyrighted, not clear on status of the image.--Nilfanion 10:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted -- These versions are not free Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 20:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
July 4
[edit]The original source is http://www.travisruse.com/archives/2005/11/f_train_manhatt_2.php (via en.wikipedia). There is no evidence that the photographer has given permission for the licence used. The photographers website states: "All text and images, unless otherwise noted, are subject to US and international copyright laws and are the property of Travis Ruse. If you'd like to use one of my photographs on a personal website, or for any other non-commercial purpose, please ask first. If you have a commercial interest in any of my images, please contact me to discuss licensing and fees." As we require that commercial use be allowed I think that this image needs deleted unless the photographer marks it as an exception to the copyright notice on his website. --JeremyA 15:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- on this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NYC_subway_riders_with_their_newspapers.jpg, this image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. That's why I have uploaded it here. DeansFA 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I left a message for the editor who originally uploaded it to en.wikipedia as there is no transcript of the email permission anywhere that I can find. --JeremyA 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any news? --ALE! 09:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I left a message for the editor who originally uploaded it to en.wikipedia as there is no transcript of the email permission anywhere that I can find. --JeremyA 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I overwrote the image with a red cross. Maybe that gives us some attention from the en user(s). --ALE! ¿…? 12:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I just saw, that I will not get a reaction as the en Wikipedia is using a local duplicate. Therefore I will delete the image now. --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm the author and uploader of this photo. I uploaded .jpg version instead of .png, so this version is useless. C41n 13:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use
{{badname|Image:good name.xxx}}or{{duplicate|Image:good name.xxx}}next time. NielsF 13:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Coypvio of a tv program [4] CyrilB 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:WarX --ALE! 08:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Le Havre-Portiques.jpg. Captain Scarlet 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep High quality version uploaded by the original author. Replace the other, low quality, image. --Denniss 01:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kept and a little bit reworked. Duplicate deleted. --Raymond Disc. 06:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Has been replaced --Elop 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete very bad quality, but the replacement has also a bad quality! could you upload a file with better resolution and a low level of Jpeg compression? CyrilB 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- I could upload up to 2000px, but it wouldn't really improve it. When the weather and the light direction will be better, I will try to take the photo again. But this might take some time. Usually the conditions are even worse than on the photo.
- I have already seen that these two photos are candidates for speed deletion. --Elop 08:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Has been replaced --Elop 18:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Bad quality, and not used anywhere at the moment. CyrilB 22:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 12:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Portrait of Henri Matisse 1933 May 20.jpg, Category:PD Van Vechten, Template:PD-Van Vechten
[edit]- w:Carl Van Vechten died in 1966, so his photos are not in the public domain in the US or elsewhere, no matter what the Library of Congress believes.
- Usage restrictions: "the Carl Van Vechten estate has asked that use of Van Vechten's photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer." - Commons does not allow usage restrictions for image modifications like colorizing or cropping. --Fb78 09:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Here's the whole quote from Rights and reproductions of Carl van Vechten's photographs: Per the instrument of gift, "for a period of 20 years from the date of this Instrument [1966], none of the photographs contained in said collection may be sold, reproduced, published or given away in any form whatsoever except with my [Saul Mauriber, Photographic Executor for Van Vechten] express permission in writing." This restriction expired in 1986. In 1998 the Library's Publishing Office was contacted by Bruce Kellner, Successor Trustee for the Van Vechten estate, who disputes Mr. Mauriber's authority in executing the Instrument of Gift. Upon review of the relevant materials, the Library continues to believe that the photographs are in the public domain. However, patrons are advised that Mr. Kellner has expressed his concern that use of Van Vechten's photographs "preserve the integrity" of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer. Privacy and publicity rights may apply. (Emphasis added by Lupo.) The LoC has reviewed the case and continues to believe that the works are in the public domain. Period. That some successor trustee "expresses concerns" is irrelevant for us and not a legal restriction. If the U.S. Library of Congress says that some U.S. works were PD that's good enough for me to consider them {{PD-US}}. I certainly won't second-guess the experts at the Library of Congress. (Besides, van Vechten died 1964. Not that it mattered.) Lupo 09:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- A different question is of course whether we want to allow images that are "{{PD-US}} only" here at the commons... (I'm not arguing this either way.) Lupo 08:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' I trust Lupo reasoning Jaranda wat's sup 01:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Badly drawn, utterly useless... Computerjoe 18:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless Jaranda wat's sup 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 10:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
this picture ist stolen, see: http://dalmatia.250x.com/pejzaz.htm --Decius 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, although the given URL not necessarily is the source. The image comes in all likelihood from a brochure of the Croat national tourist office. See #Image:Costume from Konavle near Dubrovnik, Croatia.jpg above: the uploader had uploaded a number of images scanned from such brochures. Lupo 10:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The source provided does allow for free use of its photographs. However, modification of them is not permitted, meaning they aren't quite free enough to be on Commons --GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC) 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Where does it say that these types of images can't be used in Commons. And if they can't be used in Commons, can they be used in regular Wikipedia? Cantus 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- From Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed". The english Wikipedia also considers such restrictions to make an image non-free. However, if no free alternative can be found you might be able to upload under a claim of fair use (be sure to include a detailed fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in or the image will be deleted). --JeremyA 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Infrogmation 05:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- From Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed". The english Wikipedia also considers such restrictions to make an image non-free. However, if no free alternative can be found you might be able to upload under a claim of fair use (be sure to include a detailed fair use rationale for every article that the image is used in or the image will be deleted). --JeremyA 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Le Havre-Portiques.jpg. Captain Scarlet 23:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Which one of the three is then being kept ? There two still present. Captain Scarlet 10:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
July 5
[edit]Has been renamed to Image:Map Chiyoda-ku en.png. --Akanemoto 00:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:Danish coins is perfectly fit for this application. And the text has been copied to each individual coin image page (or a description is already available). --Chochopk 03:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Article is fine, no need to delete. The same with the norwegian and south african money article. If you don't like articles then ignore them. --Denniss 10:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:Norwegian coins is perfectly fit for this application. And the text has been copied to each individual coin image page (or a description is already available). --Chochopk 03:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep nothing wrong with having galleries here as well as categories is there? they are organised better, rather than just by whatever the filename happens to be --Astrokey44 13:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Category:South African money is perfectly fit for this application. And the text has been copied to each individual coin image page (or a description is already available). --Chochopk 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above --Astrokey44 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Thanks for cleaning up. --Fb78 18:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
redundant to Image:VanderWaals forze attrattive.png.--Shizhao 06:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Fb78 --ALE! 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
This article has nothing, and is linked from nothing
Deleted --JeremyA 03:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
do we really need to become a private webhoster? --Schlendrian 20:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. Don't forget to warn the uploader when you nominate a file. CyrilB 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, blödsinn --GeorgHH 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, quite funny pictures, but unfortunately images of minors are restricted legally. Longbow4u 23:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nonsense. -- King of Hearts 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --JeremyA 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
as per above --Schlendrian 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, children prank CyrilB 20:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, blödsinn --GeorgHH 23:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, quite funny pictures, but unfortunately images of minors are restricted legally. Longbow4u 23:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as nonsense. -- King of Hearts 23:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --JeremyA 03:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Source site on flickr states "C All rights reserved". I could not find the CC-license. Longbow4u 23:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --JeremyA 01:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Such a low quality that it's hardly useful. (If you agree that deeltion requests for images with low quality might need another section/page, please comment on the discussion page.) -Samulili 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete might only be useful for Commons:Quality images guidelines in the "out of focus" section CyrilB 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete out of focus, not used --ALE! 14:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted--Shizhao 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Has been replaced by a better SVG image: Image:Methanespacefillingmodel.svg. King of Hearts 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, delete the .svg instead maybe? Better is alway a subjective statement if both images aren't equal to the naked eye, in this case they aren't; in this case I think the .png is a (lot) better. I like the fact that you are willing to convert images to vector versions, but just use {{SupersededSVG}} instead of putting pngs up for deletion... NielsF 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Please don't use some tracing program to convert png's to svg, quality will always be worse than original. Draw images using svg primitives (lines, circles etc) instead. --Tomia 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion decisions should be based on quality rather than on file format. The svg-version is clearly of much lesser quality - Quistnix 15:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for now. The PNG is quite ugly and low quality, but this SVG is worse. A better SVG needs to be created and uploaded over the existing one. I would do it myself but I'm no good with 3D. — Erin (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replaced by Image:DRKB.Streckennetz.png Hostrod 14:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I put a superseded tag, but I also noticed that the size of the jpg version is twice that of the png one, so I'm not sure the png version has a better quality... ideal would be a svgCyrilB 20:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think the png is good enough for being used in wikipedia articles with its maximum resolution of 1656 x 2328px, so it should not be necessary to build another image. I just made a beginner's mistake creating and uploading a jpg, and that's why I'd like the jpg to be deleted. Hostrod 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- You saved the PNG as a 24-bit file. This was unnecessary, as the 8-bit type supports up to 256 colors. (Your image contains only 28 colors.) By converting the image to the PNG-8 format and optimizing the compression via the PNGOUT program, I've reduced the size from 205 KB to 72 KB. —Lifeisunfair 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's only one thing left to say: Thank you! :o) Hostrod 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:BajaDream.jpg, Image:P9120019 Peggys Cove sea.jpg, and Image:File cont4518 lang0 1579.jpg
[edit]None of the three are PD. All of them have incorrect licensing, and looking at the links provided, it says nothing about them being PD. 68.46.61.88 01:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all! Non of the stated sources provides any hint that the images are usabale under a free license. --ALE! 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 10:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Very probably copyrighted, according the the copyright notice at [5]. The source site given for the image, http://salt.camk.edu.pl/firstlight/, is Polish. Can anyone who dan read Ploish check for a ploicy notice there? ---09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Same problem for Image:47tuc salt.jpg Image:Ngc 6152.jpg, Image:Triffid nebula salt.jpg and Image:Lagoon nebula SALT.jpg. --Vesta 13:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep User:Polarianin, who uploaded the images, answered on my talk page: "Yes, the free license is granted on the polish site, where it is written that All photos placed on this site can be published without limitations (in polish: Wszystkie zdjęcia zamieszczone na tej stronie można publikować bez ograniczeń.)" --Vesta 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kept then. -- Infrogmation 20:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image appears to be a reduced version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg which is declared fair use. Is there any reason to believe that the Nobel Foundation have released the image of the medal into the public domain? --JeremyA 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- image was replaced, in 8jul06, by cutting of Image:Nobel prize medal.jpg; that is {{PD-self}} of Photos of Nobel Prize Medal. Photo taken 2005 by Bob Tubbs. --Chico 21:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the medal design has been the same since the prizes were instituted at the start of the twentieth century it will be out of copyright by now. From the quality of the image I am willing to believe that this is a self-made snapshot. William Avery 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, Sweden is in the EU therefore it is Death of author + 70 years, author being Erik Lindberg (1873 - 1966). William Avery 00:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Marked "copyvio" - To be deleted (this fair use image is on several hundred wiki pages, however. This is a big job, something a bot should do.) Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
July 6
[edit]Uploaded a poor version of the image, made redundant by a jpg version of the file: Image:Gare de Denfert-Rochereau - Batiment voyageur.jpg. Captain Scarlet 10:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted, please use the template {{Duplicate}} next time. --ALE! 13:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
urheberrechtlich geschützte Figur, Panoramafreiheit greift nicht 217.88.177.218 16:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Photograph of copyrighted FIFA mascot --Fb78 18:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
i doubt that the uploader at en wp is the author or holds any rights, therefore he cannot publish it under the gfdl. Furthermore the picture is not old enough so that copyright would have expired. Thus this image is a copyright infringment and should be deleted. (we already had this discussion at de wp some time ago) --C.Löser 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Fb78 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No discription, no license. --GeorgHH 17:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
deletion request replaced with a no-license-warning. --ALE! 21:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Several orphaned categories
[edit]The subcategories of the Camera type category are slowly being cleaned up and renamed with a consistent naming convention, which is "Taken with CameraManufacturer CameraModel". I have recently shuffled a few categories around to aid in this process, and as a result, the following categories are now empty, unreferenced and obsolete:
- Category:FinePix 1400Z
- Category:Taken with FinePix S9500
- Category:Taken with FinePixA201
- Category:Olympus E300
- Category:Taken with DSC-P92
- Category:Images created with Canon PowerShot G5
--Pomakis 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
all deleted --ALE! 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This map is incorect inappropriate, unusable and a irredentist provocation. The user who uploaded the image has been banned for 2 weeks for personal attacks and vandalism. The map shows Republika Srpska, a teritorial entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state in Europe. It is inappropriate representation and a presedent (no other entity and even some more sovereign states are not represented in such way). This is clearly a provocation and a quick deletion is reccomended --Dado 18:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- The map is absolutely appropriate, noone is suggesting that Republika Srpska is independent, the first sentence in every wikipedia states that the Republic of Srpska is a teritorial entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina and therefore a part of it. It is not a provocation, Republika Srpska has a status unlike any other territory in the world, according to the Dayton agreement of 1995, and deletion is not needed for a map that shows where Republika Srpska is in Europe (which helps a lot, because not everyone knows where Bosnia and Herzegovina is). User:Dado has tried to show that if the user that sent the photo is banned, the photo must be false too, which is really funny (and I even sent the photo long before I was blocked for 2 weeks). I'd like to say that another photo showing the location of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Europe was not mentioned by this user, which shows his obsession with destroying what little international status Republika Srpska has. Bottom line - no one is claiming it's independent, no one is claiming it's a country, but it is a political entity unlike any in the world, and the map is absolutely appropriate. --Bormalagurski 23:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:Dado also broke the rules by not notifying the uploader (me) that he has proposed this for deletion. As the deletion template clearly states: When applying this tag please list it as well on Commons:Deletion requests and notify the uploader with {{subst:idw|Image:Rs lokacija.PNG}} ~~~~. --Bormalagurski 23:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I actually agree that the other version of the map showing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that you mentioned should be deleted as well if such map was uploaded on the commons. Wikipedia and for that matter Commons is not the place to glorify "international status Republika Srpska has" which is none anyway. The map is nothing more than a provocation and a ligthning rod for future conflicts. Finally how do you expect me to discuss this with you when you made perfectly clear to avoid contacts with you through a personal attack for which you were banned. [6]. --Dado 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another attempt to denounce my arguments by pointing out that I did one thing wrong on English wiki. I agree that Wikipedia and Commons is not a place to glorify a status, but it isn't here to diminish it either. Saying that the international status of Republika Srpska is non existant only shows your destructive attitude towards the Dayton agreement, which clearly defines Republika Srpska as a separate entity, and NOT controlled by the majority of Bosnia - Bosnian Muslims. IT is not a "lightning rod for furure conflicts", noone is saying that Republika Srpska is independent or anything like that, you're making too much of a big deal over this. The map is usefull, but you keep on trolling, because of your own personal opinion, without the good of the Wikipedia community in your mind. I say good day to you, sir. --Bormalagurski 06:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I actually agree that the other version of the map showing the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that you mentioned should be deleted as well if such map was uploaded on the commons. Wikipedia and for that matter Commons is not the place to glorify "international status Republika Srpska has" which is none anyway. The map is nothing more than a provocation and a ligthning rod for future conflicts. Finally how do you expect me to discuss this with you when you made perfectly clear to avoid contacts with you through a personal attack for which you were banned. [6]. --Dado 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There are many similar maps, showing e.g. the location of Munich in Europe and nobody claims Munich is independent from Germany. Shaqspeare 12:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
kept. There is no problem with the image. It shows an existing entity. I have added 'part of Bosnia and Herzegovina' to the description, so nobody will consider it as an independent country. --::Slomox:: >< 12:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, good decision. --Bormalagurski 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio: clearly says "© C.P. Vick"; it is not a work of the US federal government but a work of a senior fellow of globalsecurity.org, a private website. --Fastfission 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above (same uploader). pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Showing a screenshot of a movie without proper licence. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 18:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Showing a screenshot of a movie without proper licence. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 18:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 22:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Copy of this image with incorrect name. --Panther 07:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate, not used. Deleted. Please use {{duplicate}} instead of {{delete}} in such cases! Shaqspeare 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Permission not clear, see User talk:Manerr. We need a written confirmation by Opel for a free licence. Image:Opel-antara.jpg, Image:Opel-corsa.jpg, Image:Opel-gt-hinten.jpg and Image:Opel-corsa-5tuerer.jpg are affected too. --Raymond Disc. 14:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can see more at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Manerr#Opel_Fotos and it is okay to delete, because Opel wants a licence which is not in the Wikipedia. --Manerr 20:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 09:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Please delete and block my account permanently. I´m out for good. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 17:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Können/dürfen Benutzerkonten auf Commons gelöscht werden? Auf der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia wird das nicht getan. --ALE! 10:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is it possible / allowed to delete user accounts on Commons. On the German Wikipedia this is not possible. --ALE! 10:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- AFAIK Lock on user's request is possible but not delete (unless it was a vandal-only account) --Denniss 11:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
blocked and protected --ALE! 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
bad quality, not in use --GeorgHH 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh no, has Commons run out of disk space again? I'm so glad you're doing something about it! --Fb78 18:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone have to do it...--GeorgHH 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I also see no use for it. So, why keep it? It shows an unspecified country road in southern Germany on a misty morning photographed from within in car with a mobile phone camera. delete --::Slomox:: >< 12:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Was soll der Trollantrag? Qualität ist kein Löschgrund, kann gut als Illustration des Bildrauschens genommen werden 217.88.156.78 12:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Translation: Why that troll request? Quality is no reason for deletion, the image could be well used to illustrate [digital] image noise. --ALE! 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Considering what the IP says, I vote Keep --ALE! 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Considering what the IP says, I vote
I don't call that useful. Delete. - Andre Engels 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bad quality image, Delete. NielsF 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Following through from a suggestion in the Wikipedia. None of these images provide a clear copyright status. They say they are copied from a website and are free to be used, but there is no indication on that website about their being free, nor does the image description give any other form of confirmation. --24.76.102.248 02:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Absentee uploader who has not responded to previous queries regarding licensing. No sign of a legit licence after a fortnight up for deletion. Deleted as copyvio. — Erin (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The image/license is copyright are saved only wikipedia use --GeorgHH 16:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally unfree. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio: clearly says "© C.P. Vick"; it is not a work of the US federal government but a work of a senior fellow of globalsecurity.org, a private website. --Fastfission 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Jaranda wat's sup 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ACK. Just tagged it again as copyvio in the hope that the CommonsTickers will unlink it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Raymond Disc. 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
logo, not PD --Shizhao 04:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could it be {{PD-ineligible}}? I do not know much about this. (Stichwort: Unzureichende Schöpfungehöhe) --ALE! 12:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Graphical work. Shaqspeare 12:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep there is no thresold of originality, imho {{PD-ineligible}}.--Wiggum 19:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the graphic designers work on such symbols really long. To create a good logo is a question of many days or weeks. And it is a well paid job. It would be rather applicable to say the "wikimedia commons"-logo has no thresold of originality. Shaqspeare 19:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- How long it takes or how much is paid for the logo doesn't matter. It's only a question of threshold of originality. I don't see that for two letters orbited by a black line. Ok, this point is disscusible, i know. :-)
- A short story for free: I remember a recent inquiry on de-Wiki where someone told us that he would be paid for a picture from wikipedia. Funny, isn't it? ;-)--Wiggum 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- What I said was not just a funny story. I wanted you to imagine that the graphic design is not just what you think - you said the creator of that did kinda nothing, but to do that nothing is still an intelectual work. To put the two letters of the right typeface in the right way together and to find the right composition for that was IMO much harder than to compose the funny commons logo. Shaqspeare 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-ineligible}} Shaqspeare does not understand what copyright is all about. It's exact the same old nonsense he tells us here as the typeright lobby repeats again and again. This stuff does not have and does not deserve copyright protection. What such mad claims always try to hide is the fact that there is a limited protection available under design patent law for these things, for up to around 20 years (depending on country) and if you pay for it properly. 70 years pma for such trivialities would really be outrageous—yet designers for some reason or another seem to be unable to accept this simple fact and arrogate for their three letters and four circles the same protection as a Picasso. No copyright for designs! --Rtc 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly above the threshold of originality. Not one of us would have thought of the same creation in a million years if given just "IG Farben Konzern". -Samulili 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is total nonsense; you do not have any idea what threshold of originality means. Threshold of originality is entirely different for utilitarian things (designs) compared to non-utilitarian things (art). Go read what I wrote and [7] (section 'Design patents and copyrights'). There is limited design patent and trademark protection available for designs, but generally not copyright protection. Please get this simple fact and do not continue to repeat these incorrect design copyright lobby views again and again. --Rtc 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting page. However, at the very top it says "The patent laws of the United States provide for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture." What we are dealing with here is not an article of manufacture. Also, from Commons:Licensing: "Consequently any licence to use the material should apply in all jurisdictions relevant". I would think that in this case Germany is a relevant jurisdiction.
- Finally, I would like to say that I regard myself to be a sensible person. If by bolding rude messages you're trying to imply that my skull might be too thick without a proper use of cluebat, you're not helping yourself in convinciong me over. -Samulili 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- If Germany is the jurisdiction, then things are clear: It's not protected by copyright. Please read de:Schöpfungshöhe. It has the nice example Laufendes Auge which was deemed by the german constitutional court as not protected. If Laufendes Auge is not protected by copyright, this logo is for sure not. Such logos are merely protected by trademark law (Markenrecht), and, sometimes, design patents (Geschmacksmuster). --Rtc 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Finally, I would like to say that I regard myself to be a sensible person. If by bolding rude messages you're trying to imply that my skull might be too thick without a proper use of cluebat, you're not helping yourself in convinciong me over. -Samulili 15:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- ACK ACK -- Stahlkocher 15:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
kept and tagged with {{Logo-Germany}} --ALE! 21:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Many things to delete
[edit]There are many files I would like to delete. They are all considered as not immediately useful to Commons. They are all in this category, and most of them are drawings : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:HV, but not all of the files (most of them, actually) need to be deleted. Niladmirari 01:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I think I will not tag them all in one shot, but the comment will be applicable to all the files that come in this category for the next days.
deleted all, except for the ogg files and some used files. --ALE! ¿…? 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Image sourced from here. Website displays copyright notice at bottom, but it is not certain that they own the copyright. Image tagged as PD "common property," but definitely does not qualify for such. ArmadniGeneral 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Pagan symbols
[edit]- Pagan symbol male phallus.png
- Pagan symbol male phallus2.png
- Pagan symbol female chalice.png
- Pagan symbol female chalice2.png
Orphaned and superseded by either Pagan symbol male phallus.svg or Pagan symbol female chalice.svg. --Fibonacci 15:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 12:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded. — Erin (talk) 11:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Image by Yousuf Karsh, which I had uploaded back in 2004. We've discussed this image several times back in 2005; it was kept because I wrongly argued that it was in the public domain because the Library and Archives Canada said so. I failed to notice that this applies to Canada only. The image was first published in Karsh's book Portraits of Greatness, University of Toronto Press, Toronto 1959, and Thomas Nelson & Sons, London, 1959, p. 68. (See [8].) Having been simultaneously published in both Canada and the UK and still under copyright in the UK, it is also copyrighted all over the EU, and, even if it should have never been published in the U.S., which is doubtful anyway, still copyrighted in the U.S. due to the copyright restoration of the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act. Note that Karsh for years maintained two offices, one in Ottawa and one in New York, and was in general rather diligent about registering and renewing his copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office. We had also been told by an anon IP that was later found to resolve to CameraPress in the UK that the image was copyrighted by CameraPress. CameraPress manages Karsh's copyrights in Europe. All evidence points to this image being copyrighted just about anywhere outside of Canada. Therefore, I'm asking to delete this image. (Note that a possible replacement image that is at least {{PD-US-not renewed}} exists at Image:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg.) Lupo 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lupo's reasoning looks pretty sound to me. There is no indication that this thing is not copyrighted outside of Canada which IMO is a bit too limiting for being on Commons (if it is not public domain in at least the US it also is a problem in hosting it on US servers). So I ruefully (it is a nice photo) agree that it should be deleted. --Fastfission 03:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete ACK Lupo --Historiograf 00:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Lupo should have considered these things earlier. --Rtc 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment This is a featured image on english wikipedia. Shouldn't it be reuploaded there and other places which accept fair use/where the copyright has expired? -Aknorals 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it could, if someone wants to do it. "Albert_Einstein.jpg is used on at least 447 pages in 85 projects". Ok I'll replace it with a red X and delete it without orphaning, in the way I described on the talk page (template_talk:Deletion requests). / Fred Chess 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This Image copyvio. from NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day. Authors & editors: Robert Nemiroff (GMU) & Jerry Bonnell (USRA). see About image permissions. and Image:Einstein patentoffice.jpg Crop --Shizhao 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Who is the photographer? NASA is certainly not, so they have no rights to the picture. --Fb78 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lucien Chavan (1868-1942), a friend of his when he lived in Berne. When was the image published? If pre-1923, it might be at least {{PD-US}}. If kept, there's a much larger version available at the Historical Museum of Berne. (The red text says that the images were cleared for use in a report on the museum; fo all other uses the permission from the archives listed with the images must be gotten. For our image here, the archive mentioned is the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem. It is unknown whether they really would hold the copyright.) I suggest asking at the first link I've given about the copyright status of this work; it's the web site of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property... I wonder if they got clearance from the Einstein Archive. Lupo 18:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- It would only be PD-US if published in the US pre-1923 (it is pre-1909 if published abroad). Without any evidence to its publication history we should probably delete it. --Fastfission 03:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am aware of this 1909 thing, see en:WP:PD#_note-0. Until now, common practice on (at least the English) Wikipedia was to apply the 1923 cut-off to works published anywhere in the world. If we want to change that, we'll have to re-evaluate and drop quite a lot of images... It appears that the 1909 date applies only to works first published outside of the U.S. without copyright notice, and is based on a court decision in the 9th circuit that is heavily disputed in legal commentaries. Lupo 07:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- The 1909 vs 1923 thing is really quite unclear, but it does look a bit dodgy, when the law is disputed, for us to decide to pick the version that is most convenient (even though that seems to be the most widely supported view). I think we really need two templates: Template:PD-US-Published-abroad-pre-1908 and Template:PD-US-Published-abroad-1909-1922 or similar. And whether we should be keeping the second category of images is debatable, but at least this way round it would be easier to sort the images. However, I am not convinced that the 1909 vs 1923 dispute is relevant here because that centers around publication. This image appears to be a private photograph - it has been published at some point, but it's not even clear that the date of publication was prior to 1923. If not, then I think that 70 years pma applies in which case this is still copyright in the United States too. TheGrappler 13:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- With regards to NASA, Robert Nemiroff and Jerry Bonnell are not credited with the photograph. They are, instead, presumed to be credited with authoring and editing the textual blurb beneath the photograph. Other photographs on their site, such as this, have a distinct credit line directly below the image. No such line is present on the Albert Einstein image page. Unless NASA somehow failed to get permission to use the image and/or failed to credit the copyright holder and their institution (as they claim they do on their about image permissions page), I think there's a good chance it's in the public domain. Punctured Bicycle 02:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's the assumption I was operating under when I uploaded the picture in question, as listed in my original Public Domain rationale. If the consensus is to delete the image due to possible copyright violations, there is nothing I can do, but please take the time to do a wikipedia useage check and re-upload the image to individual wikipedias where applicable. -Fadookie 22:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to the investigations of the Swiss Copyright Office (officially the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property), who show that image on one of their websites, Mr. Chavan donated the image to the archive of his last employer, the Swiss Post (then called PTT). This archive is now the Museum of Communication in Berne, Switzerland. Later, the image was transferred to the Albert Einstein Society in Berne. However, no written contracts on these transferrals exist. To be on the safe side, the Swiss Copyright Office got permission from both the Museum of Communication and the Albert Einstein Society. They write in their e-mail that they do not have any indication that the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem held any rights on this image. They do not know when the image was first published. In any case, the image is still copyrighted in Switzerland (and other "70 years p.m.a" countries) until the end of 2012 (but that was clear from the beginning). Therefore, regretfully, delete. Lupo 09:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete TheGrappler 15:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
July 7
[edit]Wrong name. And the same image with an appropriate name already exists: Image:BMWSafety.jpg--Morio 04:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Please use the template {{Badname}} in such cases. Will be handled elswehere --ALE! 10:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
logo, not free copyright --Shizhao 09:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --JeremyA 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obsoleted by Image:At sign.svg, unused. King of Hearts 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 14:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded — Erin (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded (although it is used on the French speaking Wikipedia) --ALE! 09:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted and changed all uses --ALE! 23:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Image is a screenshot of a copyrighted program (Abobe Photoshop) - and AFIAK that excludes it from falling under commons guidelines -- Tawker 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination CyrilB 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination --ALE! 09:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Material not suitable for the Commons, was moved here after deletion on en wiki. Also contributions by User:Artforum (all uploads of this artist, many could be considered as copyvios). -- Denniss 10:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (All images are released by consent of the artist in question) @ GFDL —the preceding unsigned comment is by Artforum (talk • contribs)
- Delete (again) Commons is not the place for this kind of articles. It was found not suitable even for the en wiki. --Denniss 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This type of article belongs on Wikipedia, but its content belongs nowhere. -- King of Hearts 22:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- He may be, but his site states copyright © andrew campbell 2006, with no creative commons notice. Commons is a repository for free images, not an encyclopedia. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete doesn't meet commons:project scope and please sign your comments! pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete contents have simply been transposed here after being deleted from WP. If artist was NN enough for WP then he isn't notable enough for here - the commons is not deviantart. SFC9394 21:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
clear copyright violation: Soviet-PD cannot be applied to music, furthermore there is no licence given by the artists. --Taxman(de) 10:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why can't Soviet-PD cannot be applied to music ?
- There is no licence because of the Soviet-PD, obviously (this is a recording of the 20s). Rama 12:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well now, it took me a while, but i got an e-Mail from sikorski's official for copyrights explaining, that Soviet-PD is (as mentioned by en:user:lupo) not correct for composers like Shostakovich, having died 1975. I got the same information from German GEMA. Therefore, as the music is still copyrighted it has to be deleted --Taxman(de) 09:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Artist died in 1970s. Not yet public domain. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only is there no source of the image, but it's obviously not GPL. The image features an alteration of the YTMND logo, which is copyrighted. Also, if I recall correctly, that poster was posted on YTMND itself, making it copyrighted to YTMND.
- Nominate and delete. Messedrocker 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep YTMND is rather lenient about its copyrights, but i also feel that this would fall under Fair Use guidelines 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- fair use is not applicable to commons - claiming fair use is in fact a reason for speedy deletion. Read Commons:Licensing and explain what exactly "rather lenient" means here. There's also a strong bias against trademark logos in general (registered or not). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Contained several copyrighted elements. Also orphaned and useless. — Erin (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither here nor on flickr is any hint that the pictured ladies have agreed to the publication of the photograph under free license. --217.111.50.205 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Photo is in a public place so no model release is needed. Johntex 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please noctice Commons:Licensing#Checklist, section "definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent". Location is irrelevant.
- Thnak you for calling my attention to that line in the policy. I was not aware of that. This is a bad policy since US law (where our servers are based) allows for any person to be photographed in any public place at any time. If other countries have different laws then we should at put this in a "case-by-case" category based on country where the image was take. I have begun a discussion on Commons talk:Licensing to try to get consensus to change this policy. Johntex 15:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- AFAIK the image was taken in Romania. --Pjacobi 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thnak you for calling my attention to that line in the policy. I was not aware of that. This is a bad policy since US law (where our servers are based) allows for any person to be photographed in any public place at any time. If other countries have different laws then we should at put this in a "case-by-case" category based on country where the image was take. I have begun a discussion on Commons talk:Licensing to try to get consensus to change this policy. Johntex 15:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please noctice Commons:Licensing#Checklist, section "definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent". Location is irrelevant.
- Delete we can recognise the second girl--Klum 19:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. User:Klum seems to be a sock on 217.111.50.205 ... --Haham hanuka 20:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep on the premise that the argument that 217.111.50.205 is trying to make is silly: User:217.111.50.205 is arguing that the ladies in the picture would have been ok with their picture taken and uploaded to wikipedia, had their picture been uploaded under a non-free licence. We do not have any indication of the ladies' desire or preference on their choise of licencing a picture of their buttocks. Therefore the argument 217.111.50.205 is trying to make is absurd. QED.
- The choise of licence falls upon the original uploader of the picture. The Wiki Community has to assume Good Faith on the part of the uploader that he is the creator of this contribution, unless proven otherwise. Project2501a | ΑΝΥΠΟΤΑΞΙΑ, ΑΠΑΛΛΑΓΗ, Ι-5 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- The argument is that they haven't agreed to any publication. --Wiggum 08:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (license on Flickr is "© All rights reserved" [9]) --ALE! 23:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
And again: Neither here nor on flickr is any hint about the model's permission to the publication of the photograph under a free license.--Wiggum 19:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Photo is a candid shot taken in a public place. The subjects permission is not needed. Johntex 07:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please noctice Commons:Licensing#Checklist, section "definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent". Location is irrelevant.
- löschen weil keine Einwilligung vorliegt 217.88.156.78 12:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thnak you for calling my attention to that line in the policy. I was not aware of that. This is a bad policy since US law (where our servers are based) allows for any person to be photographed in any public place at any time. If other countries have different laws then we should at put this in a "case-by-case" category based on country where the image was take. I have begun a discussion on Commons talk:Licensing to try to get consensus to change this policy. Johntex 15:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant whether a model release form is signed when talking about the copyright licence. Copyright is separate from a model release form. It is up to the copyright holder to decide which licence the picture is under. David Newton 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- In Germany it is not separated. As the policy (see the checklist) recognizes the problem i assume that this point has been discussed before.--Wiggum 12:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Have you asked the user on Flickr where the photo was taken? I see only a few indications that say it might have been taken in Germany. With only that to go on I'm not particularly inclined to see a copyright problem here. David Newton 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- No i didn't asked the Flickr user. I'm not the uploader's babysitter. I surely would have done it if it were an unique historical photograph but it's only some kind of bulk good.--Wiggum 20:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Have you asked the user on Flickr where the photo was taken? I see only a few indications that say it might have been taken in Germany. With only that to go on I'm not particularly inclined to see a copyright problem here. David Newton 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- In Germany it is not separated. As the policy (see the checklist) recognizes the problem i assume that this point has been discussed before.--Wiggum 12:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- . I guess this girl wouldn't be too happy to see this picture released on the net without her permission for anyone to use, even for commercial purposes... --88.134.45.204 01:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - seems like the girl was aware of taking the photo. --Haham hanuka 16:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete notably because my breasts are better --Klum 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- strong argument -.- --StYxXx 03:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Look at her constb and tell me this is not a sockpuppet... also User:Klum seems a sock. We should not count them. --Haham hanuka 20:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angr 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (license on Flickr is "© All rights reserved" [10]) --ALE! 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Another flickr image without model's permission.--Wiggum 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Photo was taken in a public place so no model release is needed. Especially since the person's face is not even clearly visible. Johntex 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Again, the first reasoning of Johntex is wrong, but as you can't recognize the person, I think this is ok. -Samulili 13:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that i will recognize any of my friends or co-workers photographed in this position.--Wiggum 13:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep nice girl and breast - girl's face is not clearly visible --gildemax 14:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Looks quite anonymous. — Erin (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Gosh, what a can of worms was opened here. If you look at the Flickr stream of this guy, it becomes apparent that almost all of his "models" were not even aware of the picture been taken, much less gave their consent. A person, who knows the person in the picture can easily identify the person on the picture. Fossa 14:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Above comment was deleted by 207.232.8.34 under the pretext of it being a "sockpuppet vote".[11]. I have reinstantiated it for two reasons: first, we don't vote here, and second, irrespective of who this is, he or she has presented a reasoning. Lupo 19:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ditto. It is not even a nice ass.--Klum 19:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could someone of the pro-deleters just ask the photgrapher, whats the status about this issue and whats the legal aspect reagarding this issue in Romania. Otherwise
Neutral -- Test-tools 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC) - Comment Romanian Copyright law states in Art. 88 (the only thing I could find that had to do with personal rights):
Art. 88 - (1) The distribution of a work containing a portrait shall require the authorization of the person represented in that portrait. Its author, owner or possessor shall not have the right to reproduce it or communicate it to the public without the consent of the person represented, or that of his successors, for a period of 20 years after the death of the said person. This is an old version of the law, but the amendment of 2005 was about enforcement and collective rights ([12]) I gather, so this article would still be in effect. Remains to define what a portrait is and if this article applies to this and other pictures. NielsF 14:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Iryna Nepomenko 20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (the comment above by Klum is stupid.)
- Keep - Identity is obscured. --66.71.222.118 04:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Herself, close friends and family may identify the person. As long as she can identify herself there, it's highly doubtful it can be used here. There also already are topless women on the article where it's used, and a topless man on a beach. How many more do we need, and why do we need controversial ones? And how pretty girl, breasts and butt she have is hardly relevant in a debate about she being able to identify herself. -- Northgrove 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - public place. --Haham hanuka 20:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Angr 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - The face isn't visible. 82.37.12.248 00:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - identity not recognizable --Avatar 21:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (license on Flickr is "© All rights reserved" [13]) --ALE! 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
poor quality, redundant with Image:Stopcontact.jpg which shows a very similar socket, not used anywhere according to check usage. -81.86.129.150 20:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Plugwash 21:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Maybe not redundant, but poor quality. -Samulili 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
images by user User:Xoxota
[edit]This user uploaded several pictures under public domain, but it is really unlikely. When I asked the user more details, he blanked his user page:
Delete
- Deletecopyvio--Klum 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Iryna Nepomenko 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be a clear copyvio --ALE! 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio obvious --Pierre André 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep
- Keep perhaps legitimate. --Klum 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete perhaps not. Obviously all images have to be deleted. --StYxXx 03:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Iryna Nepomenko 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- in doubt Delete --ALE! 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- in doubt but I would Keep --Pierre André 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete
CyrilB 21:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, obvious copyvios, the third image even has a sports illustraed logo on it so it's likely from there Jaranda wat's sup 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deletecopyvio--Klum 04:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Iryna Nepomenko 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be a clear copyvio --ALE! 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Pierre André 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted (one picture). No one questioned that it's unlikely that the image(s) is in public domain. -Samulili 12:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
From deactived Flickr account. So we are unable to assure license and model's permission. May well be one og the many weirdos who just upload stuff found on the web to Flickr. --Pjacobi 17:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It does say that it was "relased as CC-BY-SA-2.0 on Flickr". Perhaps we could assume good faith on that. As for model's permission, she is clearly posing for the pic. Is it a useful image though? — Erin (talk) 11:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- One of the weirdos. That pic has been on the Internet before October 2005. -Samulili 18:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete permission questionable. --Rtc 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- deletel assuming good faith doesn't seem to be appropriate in connection with flickr. Instead "flickr" should be a speedy deletion reason.--Wiggum 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither here nor on flickr is any hint about agreement of the pictured ladies to the publication of the photograph under a free license.--Wiggum 19:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Photo is a candid shot taken in a public place so no model release is needed. Especially since the person is difficult to recognize behind sunglasses. Johntex 06:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please noctice Commons:Licensing#Checklist, section "definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent". Location is irrelevant. I don't know about jurisdiction in other countries, but in germany a district court judged (in january) that even a noised Picture with anonymised face infringes about personality rights of the pictured person.--Wiggum 08:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Johntex has it completely wrong. -Samulili 13:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thnak you for calling my attention to that line in the policy. I was not aware of that. This is a bad policy since US law (where our servers are based) allows for any person to be photographed in any public place at any time. If other countries have different laws then we should at put this in a "case-by-case" category based on country where the image was take. I have begun a discussion on Commons talk:Licensing to try to get consensus to change this policy. Johntex 15:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --gildemax 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (Speedy Keep) Photo is in a public place so no model release is needed. Not to mention that she seems aware of taking the photo. --Haham hanuka 08:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it is just plain wrong that no model release is needed if a photo is taken in a public place—that would make the requirement for model releases absurd in the first place. There's no difference for America. Please read en:model release. There are only exceptions for prominent persons if the photo is of public interest (and not used for advertisements or similar purposes, but that restriction is independent from copyright.) This person does not seem prominent to me. --Rtc 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This image was published 1940 in the book "Die Soldaten des Führers im Felde". The photo was taken by "Hugo Jäger". I do not know when he died but anyway, 70 years after the first publication would be in 2011. And therefore the image chan not be in the public domain. --ALE! 12:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- on the website [14] (search identifier 559369),"unrestricted" use of the document is allowed. I don't know what that means. Also, when you nominate an image for deletion, please add the {{deletion request}} and notify the user. CyrilB 18:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- This means that NARA ignores author rights... Please see also the "Bilder von Adolf Hitler" section above where the trustability of Nara et.al. is discussed. In this case it's clear (imho, as everytime ;-) - we have an individual author so 70 years pma rule applies. As the picture cannot be taken before September 1939 the copyright is not yet expired.--Wiggum 19:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Natürlich löschen! 217.88.156.78 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. I replaced it with a red X instead of orphaning, as explained on Template_talk:Deletion_requests#A_different_approach.2C_red_cross.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Template:Norden.org and all of the many, many images in Category:Images by the Nordic Council
[edit]This is the first time I've ever nominated a licence template as opposed to individual images, so if I'm posting this in the wrong area feel free to bump me off to the correct place.
{{Norden.org}} is a fairly old template, but it appears no-one has actually ever checked on the real terms of the license the site gives. Quoting directly from the English version of the page http://www.norden.org/nordbild/imagedb.asp?lang=6 :
- "The photos can be used freely for editorial but not commercial use provided you quote the source (e.g. NN – norden.org)."
This seems to me to be a clear noncommercial licence, and images released under the licence don't really belong on Commons. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC) 10:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like they changed their license conditions somewhere in 2005, according to the internet archive it was not restricted in February 2005. See [16]
I am the uploader of many of these photos, and I am 100 % sure that the noncommercial clause was not there when I uploaded them (November 2005). But the licensing terms do not mention a right to make derivative works, maybe we have to delete them because of this? --Kjetil_r 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic.
Restored by User:Erin Silversmith. — Erin (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is a common misconception that journalistic licenses are free; they are not. See large list of such templates requested for deletion below. Let's get rid of them now. Don't use material from sites that do not explicitly grant an a) perpetual, irrevocable license, which permits b) commercial use and c) derivative work. --Rtc 02:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Brought out of archive here Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
July 8
[edit]I accidentaly uploaded this image under a mispelt filename (note the misssing "r" in "airport"). It is currently found in several articles here and one article in the English Wikipedia. User:Kimchi.sg tagged it for deletion but did not follow-throgh by listing it here. I am not an admin on commons so I cannot fix the problem. Johntex 06:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please change all uses of the image in all projects to the correct name, and tag it with {{Badname}}. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks! Johntex 15:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
now Category:Zuse --gildemax 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted, empty category --ALE! 16:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
same Image:Lulusuke.jpg--Shizhao 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted, please use {{Duplicate}} next time --ALE! 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Category:People of Korea --Ahellwig 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just use {{Category redirect|People of Korea}} — Erin (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I usually prefer to delete a category, because a red category link indicates quickly that the category pretended to use does not exist. If nobody opposes, I will delete this category. --ALE! 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very bad idea! Deleting it will very likely lead to people just recreating it in the future, since it is such a likely name for the category. Category RDR is a much better idea (with a bot doing regular sweeps to move images). Therefore Keep. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Very bad idea! Deleting it will very likely lead to people just recreating it in the future, since it is such a likely name for the category. Category RDR is a much better idea (with a bot doing regular sweeps to move images). Therefore
- I usually prefer to delete a category, because a red category link indicates quickly that the category pretended to use does not exist. If nobody opposes, I will delete this category. --ALE! 07:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
kept but with a redirect to Category:People of Korea --ALE! 08:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The SVG-version of this image is really equal to the png which is no more used in any wiki. --Sven 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete redundant — Erin (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the copyright status of this logo. First of all, where is the evidence that this logo has been released under a free license, and is thus OK for Commons to begin with? I realize that X11 is free software, but that doesn't neccesarily mean their logo is. On the English Wikipedia, the logo they are using for the X Window System article has actually been tagged as fair use. Second, I've noticed that the SVG version has a public domain tag. But if the PNG image that the SVG is based on is indeed GFDL, then isn't the SVG required to be GFDL as well? Punctured Bicycle 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 12:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Diese Bild ist eine geschützte Kopie von dieser Seite: [17] Last Update: 01 Apr 05 copyrighted 1989 August Brunsman, und wurde mit falschen PD Angaben versehen. --217.116.12.196 00:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bitte mal Brille aufsetzen und nochmals lesen: Drawing of the Wright brothers copyrighted 1989 August Brunsman. Betrift also nur Zeichnungen des Wright Flyers. --Denniss 01:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete source does not state this image is the work of the US govt, so PD status is not assured. Johntex 07:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete no reasonable indication that the license is correct (author?)--Wiggum 09:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Irrelevant opinions, see #1 and #2 --Denniss 17:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- The license template says This image is a work of a U.S. Air Force Airman or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.. The security notice of the link says Information presented on The ASC History Office website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. Not a word about a) U.S. Air Force Airmen b) U.S. federal government and c) public domain. While credits are requested it is obvious that the picture is not PD.--Wiggum 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- This photo is not noted as being copyrighted. If that is so and the main notice on the site says that it is public information then the photo is public domain. They do not demand a credit since they can't do that with public domain information. They merely request a credit. David Newton 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright of the picture does not depend on a "copyright notice" or whatever. The main site notice doesn't say a word about public domain. It says that the picture can be copied and distributed - it says nothing about modification or commercerial use. If it were in the public domain such usage restrictions would be crap. The point is the following: there is no copyright notice with the picture (author, date of creation...), the copyright notice of the main page is a) unclear and b) not very trustworthy and last but not least i can't see how our license template should fit to the site notice. We should respect the authors moral (and maybe commercial) rights - if we can't assure that the picture is PD we cannot use ist. Please see Image:MerkelBushWashington1.jpg for a properly licensend picture - there is name und role of the author, the source and a appropriate license template.--Wiggum 11:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- This photo is not noted as being copyrighted. If that is so and the main notice on the site says that it is public information then the photo is public domain. They do not demand a credit since they can't do that with public domain information. They merely request a credit. David Newton 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- This work is from a US Government site. With the US Government unless there is an indication otherwise it is fair to assume that the work is by the US Government and thus free from copyright. There is no indication otherwise here that the image is anything but that taken by a US Government employee. You are being ridiculous in this case. If the labelling is faulty then liability lies with the US Government, not with Wikipedia. There are some US Government sites which say that information contained on that site is not to be copied without permission as it comes from an external source. This is not one of those sites.
- You may have a point about the licence template on Wikisource being overly specific in claiming that a USAF person took the photograph. However that does not alter the fact that it is public domain image by all indications that I can see and that deleting it would ridiculous. David Newton 20:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly PD, as they say that "Information presented on The ASC History Office website is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." This image comes from an ASC History Office publication entitled "Remarkable Journey", edited by Diana Good Cornelisse of the ASC history Office. Clearly falls under a variant of {{PD-USGov}}. Besides, who else but a fellow USAF pilot could have taken this picture? Isn't that Wright Field visible on the ground? Lupo 08:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since it shows an USAF Aircraft it is likely that it has been photographed by another USAF pilot. I'm not very happy with accepting such kind of probability. Commons should be a reliable source for free content and not a reliable source for probably free content. As you will see with examples like Image:800px-German Troops In Warsaw.jpg (some sections above) the governmental sites are not as trustworthy as they should be. It might be somehow paradoxical but to assure that a picure is in the Public Domain we need the name, date of death or the role of the author. Few exceptions (such as the 100 years rule) should be defined by policy.--Wiggum 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is a USAF site, claiming that an image showing a USAF aircraft in flight, likely to have been photographed by a USAF pilot, and published in a USAF book written by a USAF employee was in the public domain. It's not that they made a PD claim on some image that evidently must have come from some other source. Lupo 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah i give up ;-). Strongest argument is your last remark.--Wiggum 07:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is a USAF site, claiming that an image showing a USAF aircraft in flight, likely to have been photographed by a USAF pilot, and published in a USAF book written by a USAF employee was in the public domain. It's not that they made a PD claim on some image that evidently must have come from some other source. Lupo 12:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since it shows an USAF Aircraft it is likely that it has been photographed by another USAF pilot. I'm not very happy with accepting such kind of probability. Commons should be a reliable source for free content and not a reliable source for probably free content. As you will see with examples like Image:800px-German Troops In Warsaw.jpg (some sections above) the governmental sites are not as trustworthy as they should be. It might be somehow paradoxical but to assure that a picure is in the Public Domain we need the name, date of death or the role of the author. Few exceptions (such as the 100 years rule) should be defined by policy.--Wiggum 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Lupo Public Domain Jaranda wat's sup 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- The license template says: The ASC History Office website is provided as a public service by the ASC History Office. [18] under Point 6. Unauthorized attempts to deny service, upload information, change information, or to attempt to access a non-public site from this service are strictly prohibited and may be punishable under Title 18 of the U.S. Code to include the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infra-structure Protection Act. --217.116.12.196 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- How should this be related to the image license ? --Denniss 01:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete That is main side of where the picture was copied, source does not state this image is the work of the US govt. --217.116.12.196 23:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept - PD -image. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The main subject of this photograph is a sculpture in copyright in the US. The photograph itself is therefore a derivative work and cannot be given a Commons licence without permission of the copyright holders in the original work. See Commons:Derivative works. William Avery 20:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- It has come to my attention that there is a souvenir shop inside this concrete dinosaur [19]. So can it be treated as a building, with freedom of panorama? William Avery 12:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- I say it can be treated as an building in a wat so Keep Jaranda wat's sup 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's a building looking like a sculpture or a sculpture with a shop in it, but since very little detail of the structure is shown, I'd say that even if it is a sculpture it would quite possibly be OK; with the doubts on its nature I'll go for Keep. Cnyborg 13:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
July 9
[edit]This image has been scanned from the main front of copyrighted book. --Yonderboy 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio — Erin (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Anna --ALE! 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
All images in Category:Seal script GIFs and Category:Great seal script GIFs
[edit]I am in the process of converting all the images in the above category into vector format. Many have already been done. For example Image:六書通 中.gif has been superseded by Image:中-bigseal.svg.
Once I have made sure that they are not being used on any project, I'd like to be able to delete them as I replace them. Can I get a consensus for that, please? — Erin (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
All files in the category that begin with "說文解字" and "六書通" have now been replaced and orphaned. Any objections to me deleting them? — Erin (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The images have been reorganised into the following categories:
- Category:Seal script GIFs
- Category:Great seal script GIFs
- Category:Bronze script GIFs
- Category:Oracle script GIFs
I would like to delete all images in the first two categories, as they have all been superseded and orphaned. I am in the process of replacing the images in the last two categories. — Erin (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The category is irrelevant for my work, and can be changed. The naming convention can be changed as well. Just tell me where to post my downloads. But the file format is imposed by the data, and should be preserved. Furthermore, the pictures shouldn't be deleted without notice, please revert them. Micheletb 08:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a strong objection indeed. My "personnal quest" is on Chineese etymology, for which I introduce some text on the french wictionnary (see there for an index of my work in this field). I have asked for (and obtained) permission to use pictures from http://www.internationalscientific.org/ to explain graphical evolutions (see list of etymological files). When I need to upload some files from internationalscientific, the upload will always be in .gif format, unless there is a magical trick that can change a .gif on my disk to a .svg on commons during the upload. The Category:Seal script, Category:Bronze script and Category:Bone and Shell script will be messy if both .gif and .svg are used, since no one can know which is the correct format for a given download, if .gif are suppressed. The other point is, the downloaded pictures are pictures of archaeological interests, which cannot be replaced as equivalent by drawings which are their modern interpretation. The idea that the "pictures have been orphaned" simply means that the link now points to the wrong picture, and should be reverted. See User talk:Erin Silversmith for more details. Micheletb 08:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is no "modern interpretation". The images are the same except that the ragged edges have been smoothed and the images are now scalable. The ragged edges are not of archaeological interest; there are purely the result of the GIFs being saved at very low resolution. — Erin (talk) 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is but an interpretation, and but one half of the problem. The other half is: they should be kept for compatibility, since newly incoming files will comme in .gif format. The fact that a .png is higher quality dosen't mean my work should be put to a mess and/or to a halt. Micheletb 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a "mass deletion" request, which should be vetoed out. If the only reason is "low quality", then please consider the guideline that says "Redundant or low quality files get only deleted on a case by case basis" and ends by "If you're in doubt do not delete such a file". Micheletb 10:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a strong objection indeed. My "personnal quest" is on Chineese etymology, for which I introduce some text on the french wictionnary (see there for an index of my work in this field). I have asked for (and obtained) permission to use pictures from http://www.internationalscientific.org/ to explain graphical evolutions (see list of etymological files). When I need to upload some files from internationalscientific, the upload will always be in .gif format, unless there is a magical trick that can change a .gif on my disk to a .svg on commons during the upload. The Category:Seal script, Category:Bronze script and Category:Bone and Shell script will be messy if both .gif and .svg are used, since no one can know which is the correct format for a given download, if .gif are suppressed. The other point is, the downloaded pictures are pictures of archaeological interests, which cannot be replaced as equivalent by drawings which are their modern interpretation. The idea that the "pictures have been orphaned" simply means that the link now points to the wrong picture, and should be reverted. See User talk:Erin Silversmith for more details. Micheletb 08:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, since deletion of these useless files would traumatise Micheletb so much, I withdraw the request. — Erin (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The {{PD}} license is an out-and-out lie. Todt was promoted to general in 1939 and died in 1942, therefore no reason for being PD.--Wiggum 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- ACK Delete --gildemax 18:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio — Erin (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Has been superseeded by Image:Mount-feathertop-from-south-enhanced.jpg
deleted --ALE! 08:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Puffy AmiYumi SVG files
[edit]Looks like copybio. A fictional character designed from an actual person is under the copyright. --Kasuga 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Er... I think fanarts belongs not to its representatives but to theirs creators... Hołek ҉ 16:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- If they are your design, it might be so. However, these are reproduction of official designs.(w:Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi) Cartoon Network owns the copyright of them. --Kasuga 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heh... I didn't know... Anyway: Do NOT delete them. Move them to English Wikipedia and change those poor graphics there. Hołek ҉ 17:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- If they are your design, it might be so. However, these are reproduction of official designs.(w:Hi Hi Puffy AmiYumi) Cartoon Network owns the copyright of them. --Kasuga 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete after moving to Wikipedia. — Erin (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Raymond Disc. 12:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Marie Tussaud.jpg Image:DIE BEATLES.JPG Image:BEYONCE.JPG Image:David Bowie at Madame Tussaud.jpg Image:SV400030.JPG Image:Samuel l jackson waxstatue.jpg Image:Mr T.jpg Image:Timothy Dalton as James Bond.jpg Image:Telly Savalas.jpg Image:Jane Seymour.jpg Image:Vincent van Gogh Wax Sculpture.jpg Image:Dalai Lama Wax.jpg Image:Sharon and Ozzy Osbourne Wax.jpg Image:Andrew Sachs.jpg Image:Hitchcock Tussaud.jpg Image:Grace Jones.jpg Image:Charles Dance.jpg Image:Honecker Wachs1.jpg Image:Hussein Schroeder Howard Chirac.jpg
- de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Fotos_von_Wachsfiguren
- de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Fotos von Wachsfiguren (Mme. Tussauds)
- de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Bilder/9. Juli 2006
- de:Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Gegenstände in geschlossenen Räumen
- ...Nicht erlaubt ist außerdem die Veröffentlichung von Fotos, auf denen Kunstwerke zu sehen sind, die noch urheberrechtlich geschützt sind. Diese Rechte verfallen jedoch 70 Jahre nach dem Tod des Künstlers (genauer: am 1. Januar des Jahres, das auf den 70. Todestag folgt, also für 1936 gestorbene Künstler am 1. Januar 2007).
Copyright infringement, because there is no permission of the sculptor - sculptures are copyrighted! --Tout (Diskussion) 19:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- In the UK at least, §62 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, allows to take pictures of sculptures, buildings, and works of artistic craftsmanship that are permanently located in public places or premises open to the public, and to publish such pictures in any way. This basically applies to three-dimensional works only; it does not apply to two-dimensional works such as e.g. murals. Remains the question whether Tussaud's is a "premise open to the public"... Lupo 08:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Es ist - das sollte Lupo besser als alle anderen wissen - ganz und gar irrelevant, was im UK gilt. Die EU kennt keine solche Ausnahme (schon gar nicht DE), also delete --Historiograf 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course - in the same way like any Museum or church when there is actually no religious service and no "Photography prohibited"-Sign - and you have lots of Images, that are taken in Museums. --Kathe 11:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete These wax figures are copyrighted sculptures, not permanently installed, not in a public place. Commons:Derivative works applies. --Fb78 06:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Take a look at Category:Wax figures... Lupo 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative works and really of very little wikimedia/encyclopaedic value. William Avery 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Many of these images have not had request for deletion notices put on them. -- Infrogmation 21:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
--- All deleted while no one speaks for their retentions. If anyone has pursuasively valid reasons, it is still possible to appeal the deletion and the deleted images may now be restored.--Jusjih 10:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
July 10
[edit]There is better file just uploaded by sb else as Image:Herb rinteln.jpg, there's no need to have both of them. Pilecka 19:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I made it the other way round and overwrote this with the better version. Wappen Rinteln.jpg is the better filename. As both are new, it shouldn't make a further difference which I deleted. This kept, the other deleted. --::Slomox:: >< 13:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think fair use isn't allowed on Commons. JYolkowski 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, fair use is not possible here. Template should not be deleted but redirected to fair use to prevent a recreation. --Denniss 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fair use --ALE! 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake. --Evrik 14:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I redirected it to {{Fair use}}, better than deleting this template. Every image copied from en wiki still using this template is now (and in future uploads) fair use and will be deleted. --Denniss 15:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Uploads of User:Charles wessex
[edit]Around 90 per cent of this author's upload seems to be Copyvio. See: [20] --84.168.212.248 20:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm, I already warned this user and they ignored me and reverted my no source tags. I reverted them back and blocked this account. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The original image was apparently uploaded for the sole and exclusive purpose of propagating deliberately false and misleading information, and User:Dcornio hasn't had the courtesy to reply to the message I left on his talk page. I've uploaded a little null graphic to prevent misuse of the original image, but the the whole thing should be deleted. AnonMoos 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- A feeble attempt at spreading deliberate misinformation (i.e. listing Freedom house ratings for every country in the world, but changing the value for the US so it appears to be a dictatorship). The title claims that this is Freedom House ratings which is thus deliberately misleading. The result is completely unencyclopedic. Strong delete ASAP. Valentinian (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Tagged as "no source" since 21 December 2005. The image is used on 22 projects. So maybe it can be kept if someone prrofs it to be PD. --ALE! 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- The BBC also has the full version of that image. Interestingly, they don't give any copyright or source indication, which is unusual—they usually give a source for all their images. Given the age of that image, there's indeed a fair chance that it is actually in the public domain by now. Lets see... got it now: according to the Gaudi and Barcelona Club, the photograph was taken on March 15, 1878, the day Gaudí received his title in architecture. Photographer was Pau Audouard (born 1857 in La Habana, Cuba, died 1918 in Barcelona, Spain). Therefore {{PD-old}}, and keep. Lupo 19:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Licence cleared, kept Shaqspeare 13:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Lolicons (child-porn manga characters) are legally forbidden in some countries (like Canada and UK i think). Wikipedia should not promote this kind of cartoons. Code Binaire 15:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's just your POV, as well-intentioned as it is. The image does not depict any actual person, or any sexual activity, so it cannot be child porn. We're not promoting lolicons; we're giving an example of one in an encyclopedia article. — Erin (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. This image was drawn with the explicit intention to use it to exemplify what lolicon can look like, without infringing on copyright or other laws. —Nightstallion (?) 07:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Erin Silversmith and Nightstallion. TZM de:T/T C 17:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep I have some doubt about the relevancy of this image on Commons. But I think the licence is ok and I don't see any problem about this picture. Shaqspeare 19:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- We need this picture on Commons so that it can be used on all Wikipedias (as opposed to a photo of a manga cover, which is legally ambiguous). Ashibaka 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept. — Erin (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON (This image is likely under copyright by VeloEuropa, Inc. See http://www.veloeuropa.com/.) --Mindfrieze 03:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: Includes logo of RATP which is copyrighted -- ♦ Pabix ℹ 10:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Logos are almost never copyrighted. They are protected by trademark law. --Rtc 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep You can stop the deletion request. I've removed the RATP logo now.... --Chumwa 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
kept (I deleted the first upload with the logo) --ALE! ¿…? 21:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: See discussion. Not GFDL but CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 --Jan Arkesteijn 09:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct. However, it looks like the author would be willing to license it differently. Contact him again and point out that while the GFDL does allow commercial uses of the photo, such commercial stand-alone use of the image is unlikely to occur because the full text of the GFDL must be distributed with any re-publication. Lupo 10:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Before me he sent me the mail which is copied to the discussion page, he wrote me this mail which seems clear to me:
"Hi - I am unwilling to make my photo freely available for commercial purposes and prefer to maintain the NonCommercial-ShareAlike protection. Sorry for the conflict - Frank
I also asked him to remove the other images he mentioned on en.wikipedia himself. I don't have an account there, and he uploaded the images himself. Jan Arkesteijn 15:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I still think it's worth a try. I've contacted him over at his talk page at the English Wikipedia. If he still wants the images gone, it's ok by me, but maybe the restrictions built into the GFDL are good enough for him. Lupo 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete He didn't reply. Lupo 07:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 07:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For the Pakistan-PD licensing tag to be effective, Ali Bhutto would have to be at most 28 years old when the image was taken. Also see en:User talk:Chatni#Image Tagging Image:BhuttoZ.jpg --Phrood 18:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - the same picture has also been deleted from English Wikipedia on the basis of inappropriate licencing info. --Lendu 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, orphaned on 4 projects. Cnyborg 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
F1 Corporate Logo featured in image which is a Copyvio as it is a registered trademark (see [21]) --Alexj2002 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The logo is not the main subject of the image and is partially overlaped by the F1 car. Also is the logo very small and not usable for other purposes. --ALE! 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment this was used for a template at EnWikipedia and it was removed since it was determined to be a violation of the fair use policies. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, but it is still used on the Russian Wikipedia (29 pages). --ALE! 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ALE!--Jusjih 10:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
July 11
[edit]Double of Image:Fabio cannavaro.jpg --Jacopo86 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
They should both be deleted unless one of the uploaders here has a written permission by the original uploader at Flickr, see COM:SXC --Denniss 01:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)- Ups, my fault; mixing Flickr with SXC --Denniss 09:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both. Volker Hartmann is a professional press photographer, see e.g. here. The uploader at Flickr, Beatrice Contardi, has no right to relicense this as CC-BY. It's a copyvio. Lupo 09:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted both as copyvio. NielsF 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
i have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
i have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available)--GeorgHH 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've deleted it because you are the creator and because with it being just a page, it is trivial to recreate it if anyone wants to. — Erin (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Intended for use freely, but You may not alter the Adobe PDF file icon in any manner is non-derivative -- Platonides 14:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
FIFA World cup photos
[edit]Image:Del piero01.jpg, Image:Fabio grosso.jpg, Image:Buffon01.jpg, Image:Lippi02.jpg. All copyvios of professional press photographers' works, distributed commercially by AP, AFP, and other news agencies. I had them all tagged as {{Copyvio}}, but the uploader reverted. The copyvio already occurred on Flickr, where these images wrongly are labelled as CC-BY. Delete 'em all. Lupo 18:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If they're still around tomorrow I'll delete 'em, just to give some opportunity for those opposed to deletion I'll wait a bit. NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Grr Image:Lippi02.jpg is a copy of Image:Lippi01.jpg which I already deleted. Delete --pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I actually saw some of these images on the official World Cup site, so as obvious copyvio's I didn't want to wait and deleted them. NielsF 00:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
An unused duplicate of Ylitornion vaakuna.png. --Hautala 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please tag with {{Badname}} or {{Duplicate}} instead of putting it here. NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 23:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Although free image, it contains non-free logos (derivative work). I would mark it as speedy, but I want a second opinion --jynus (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- should be Deleted since from stock.xchng, see COM:SXC, and, of course, your reason is also true. TZM de:T/T C 11:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:UED77 --ALE! 22:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[22]内「Ｑ．攻略ページなどでスナップショットを使用したいのですが」によると、改変が制限された自由に使用できない画像。 (free modification was not permitted.)
- Image:Satsujinn-Luna.png
- Image:Tohouhou07 danmaku.png
- Image:Touhou09 danmaku.png
- Image:Thouhou08 danmaku.png
- Image:Touhou 08 Logo.png
- Image:STB-Thumb1.jpg
- Image:Yougaku01 Logo.jpg
- Image:Bouyuutoukaidou Logo.jpg
- Image:Yumetagae.jpg
- Image:Rendai Logo.jpeg
- Image:Hourainingyou Logo.jpg
- Image:Touhou 06 Logo2.PNG
- Image:Touhou 08 Logo.png
- Image:Shanghai Alice Circle Logo.png
- Image:Touhou 07 Logo.jpeg
- Image:Touhou 075 Logo.jpeg
- Image:Touhou 09 Logo.jpeg
- Image:Touhou 06 Logo.jpeg
--Kkkdc 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC) added. --Kkkdc 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- 改変とは具体的に何を指すのですか？サイズの変更に関しては縦横比さえ変えなければOKとなっていますが。--Spail 04:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- 「イメージを加工をしたかどうか分からないような加工を施さないで下さい」。自由な加工が許可されていません。--Kkkdc 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OK, If I understood that, the licence does not permit any type of modification at all. That's unfree. Delete. — Erin (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 11:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Note: As far as I understand, the permission for modifying was given in between. Shaqspeare 09:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a collection of images and there is no indication of any sources for any of the image(s). I suspect thet there is a very strong possibility that this is a copyright violation.--Clawed 09:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually all contributions by this user[23] contain no sources.--Clawed 10:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--GeorgHH 11:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Shaqspeare 15:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Nothing makes me believe free images were compiled.
- deleted--Shizhao 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by an SVG version. --Hautala 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... Anyway, the colors are quite different, so which one is the truest to specifications (if they exist?). NielsF 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Lapua.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not perfectly good, it has a poor resolution and an improper format even for raster images. Why keep an inferior duplicate? --Hautala 10:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah ok. Got a point there. NielsF 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not perfectly good, it has a poor resolution and an improper format even for raster images. Why keep an inferior duplicate? --Hautala 10:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Lestijärvi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Vesilahti vaakuna.png with transparent background. --Hautala 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Maalahti.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete does't look as clean as the SVG version --StuartBrady 14:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused, superseded by Helsinki.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded — Erin (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The images are strongly different (gold versus yellow, silver versus white, thin line versus wide line etc.) Shaqspeare 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete at Heraldry gold is the same as yellow and silver is white --jed 12:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- But it isn't only a heraldic diadram, but a graphic work as well. If we have two different pics of W. Bush, should we leave only one, because the other one shows the same person? Shaqspeare 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Red Star of David.svg, nominated by jed.
- Delete --jed 16:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Why delete a perfectly good image? If it were a crappy version ok... NielsF 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Because this is exactly the sort of image that our policy says should be recreated as an SVG. The PNG is an orphan. My
keepdelete vote applies to all the images for which you supplied the same comment. — Erin (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)- Comment: shouldn't that be a delete vote? Our policy also says A clear example which is never a duplicate would be a SVG replacement of an PNG file, so why delete it. NielsF 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- What you are quoting is the policy regarding speedy deletion. An SVG version of a bitmap is not a 100% exact duplicate therefore it goes on this page for a while before being deleted instead of being instantly deleted. This is because the SVG version might conceivably be inferior. This is clearly not the case here, so delete. — Erin (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Got a point there, the quote wasn't completely appropriate. I however still not see the need to delete images of good quality just because they are orphaned or perceived to be in an "inferior" format. As the discussion in the Village Pump at the moment illustrates, the SVG format (and especially it's rendering in MediaWiki) still has some flaws. The SVG is indeed of the same quality as the PNG, but why should the PNG be deleted? Your argument that this is exactly the sort of image that our policy says should be recreated as an SVG is correct, I'm glad that an SVG version exists, but still I see no reason for deletion. The PNG is under a free license, is of a good quality, a contributor to Wikimedia projects has invested some time into it, so why delete? NielsF 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Redundancy (hey, this question was quite easy to answer) --jed 05:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, redundancy. NielsF's logic, taken to its logical conclusion, would lead us to keep unlimited redundant copies of the same image, perhaps in a variety of formats (GIF, JPEG, PNG, SVG...) on the basis of them all being "under a free license", "of good quality" and that we have nice big harddrives. Obviously, in a sane world there should only be one copy of each image... the highest-quality copy.
- Also, the idea that we are somehow throwing away the work of someone who has "invested some time into it" is incorrect. In most cases the SVG version is based on the bitmap up for deletion, which means that the fruit of the person's time and effort lives on in the new file. — Erin (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Redundancy (hey, this question was quite easy to answer) --jed 05:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Got a point there, the quote wasn't completely appropriate. I however still not see the need to delete images of good quality just because they are orphaned or perceived to be in an "inferior" format. As the discussion in the Village Pump at the moment illustrates, the SVG format (and especially it's rendering in MediaWiki) still has some flaws. The SVG is indeed of the same quality as the PNG, but why should the PNG be deleted? Your argument that this is exactly the sort of image that our policy says should be recreated as an SVG is correct, I'm glad that an SVG version exists, but still I see no reason for deletion. The PNG is under a free license, is of a good quality, a contributor to Wikimedia projects has invested some time into it, so why delete? NielsF 01:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- What you are quoting is the policy regarding speedy deletion. An SVG version of a bitmap is not a 100% exact duplicate therefore it goes on this page for a while before being deleted instead of being instantly deleted. This is because the SVG version might conceivably be inferior. This is clearly not the case here, so delete. — Erin (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: shouldn't that be a delete vote? Our policy also says A clear example which is never a duplicate would be a SVG replacement of an PNG file, so why delete it. NielsF 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The text of this template is:
"This image of a postage stamp has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder, its copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright. This applies worldwide."
This is in my opinion misleading, as a user could think, that this applies to all stamps in the world. Which in my opinion is not true or at least not for all countries. Therefore this template - which is currently used by 24 images - should be deleted and the affected images should be retagged or deleted. --ALE! 11:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. A licence template, which does not state the reason, why the image is free, is useless. Delete and retag the images. --::Slomox:: >< 12:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, delete, unless someone can explain why the fact of an image being of a stamp needs a template instead of simply being in a category. Jkelly 20:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, what do we do? I would suggest to remove all {{PD-stamp}} tags and to tag the images with {{subst:nld}} so the authors have chance to choose another license. --ALE! 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the template and {{timebombdelete}} the stamps. Oh, MediaWiki can't do it? --Rtc 09:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the template and will tag all images with the following text:
{{PD-stamp}}The template was deleted, because it did not show the reason for the images to be free. Please add a new valid license and source. --ALE! 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC) {{subst:nld}}
Please give me some time to get through all images that used this template and do not close the discussion yet. --ALE! 21:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Next time please use a little more common sense - my images had perfectly valid tags before some anon loser came along and applied the bogus tag. I have to go through and fix my own images because nobody else can be bothered to take a moment to think. Stan Shebs 06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not my task to look through the change history of all images that used the template {{PD-stamp}}. The point is, that the template is useless and a new license has to be applied to all images. That is your task. --ALE! 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
template deleted and all images tagged with {{subst:nld}} --ALE! 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It has been superseded by the SVG Image:US Court of Appeals and District Court map.svg, created from the same PDF source. I've already orphaned the image; the uploader has no page on Commons. -- Tintazul 09:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an ugly scan of a bit of Japanese written with a marker pen. Orphaned and horrible. — Erin (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The current form of the coat of arms of Denmark's royal family was created in 1972. Danish coats of arms are (unfortunately) not public domain, and it is impossible for the artist to have been dead for 70 years. Delete --Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This version of the coat of arms of Denmark's royal family was used circa 1944-1972. Danish coats of arms are (unfortunately) not public domain, and it is impossible for the artist to have been dead for 70 years. Delete --Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Much as I hate listing this image, the current version of the Danish national coat of arms was created in 1986, so too new and not public domain (alas). Delete Valentinian (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No metadata. Image is low resolution. Uploader has only one upload and image is looks professional.Geni 00:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I suspect a copyvio. — Erin (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please note that the file was listed here without tagging it or informing the uploader as per Commons:Deletion requests, which I have now done. William Avery 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I'm quite sure that this isn't a copyvio. The image seems to be made by Microkitten, where the Uploader seems to work. Looking at that Yahoo Group Message, we see that
- Author has already provided (his) pictures to others
- Author has also same nickname on Yahoo
- It's not unlikely that Microkitten is willing to license some pictures for free
- So, then we have to check whether the Uploader is really that person. So the pro-deleters should contact Microkitten directly, if in doubt. -- Test-tools 08:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clear "Too good to be true" case. Test-tools has his points, but I my nose tells me something's wrong with the picture. --Rtc 05:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep "it's my own work", the author says ! François Haffner 09:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted We have no permissions for this image from Microkitten. Orphaned and usage removed. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
edited version of Image:Kirschbluetenfest Hamburg.png (water mark deleted). --GeorgHH 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: why is the edited image a PNG? This sort of image should be stored in JPG-format I think. PNG is now 350 kb instead of 150 kb for the JPG. Furthermore I'm curious if there is a policy that says watermarks shouldn't be on pictures. NielsF 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- No doubt the new version was saved as a PNG because quality is lost each time a JPEG is saved. However, I don't think that this image really loses anything. I have uploaded a watermark-free version over the top of the JPEG, so the images are now identical. I counsel the deletion of one of them, preferably the PNG. — Erin (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, but in this case I really prefer the PNG. It is far better than the jpeg which really shows its limitation when it comes to fine structures. --ALE! ¿…? 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, I agree with ALE!, and as a bonus the png is the one with the correct name. Cnyborg 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Kept both, because the PNG is better, but it is derived from the JPG which should be kept for license reasons. / Fred Chess 10:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
July 12
[edit]REASON: I uploaded the file, but something went wrong and there's no image to be seen... Still trying to understand SVG files. (Maybe the map should be uploaded in PNG format anyway. --Leinad-Z 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No need to delete it. Just check your file and re-upload it (if you are using Inkscape, consider saving it as "plain SVG" instead of "Inkscape SVG"). There was probably a server error when you tried the first time. Then give it time. — Erin (talk) 02:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh god, I've just realised what you did. That is not a vector image file. You just opened a PNG in Inkscape and then saved it as SVG, which created an empty SVG with a link to the PNG on your harddrive (I can even see that it is drive J: on your computer) which is visible only if the SVG is opened on your computer. Please either create a real vector image file, or just stick to bitmap editors. — Erin (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Erin Silversmith --ALE! 07:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The same as Image:Spiridon louis.jpg --Ante Perkovic 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, please use {{Duplicate}} in the future. NielsF 19:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Original image Image:Hamburg.Grossmarkthallen.wmt.jpg updated, it´s now a duplicate. Not in use. --GeorgHH 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (next time, please do *not* nominate such an image here. Putting the {{Duplicate}} tag on the decription page of the image is enough. --ALE! 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
For Deletion marked on 20:41, 25. Mai 2006 by the author. --GeorgHH 13:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (by uploader request, not used) --ALE! 08:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) --GeorgHH 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 22:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged as PD-flag and fair use on en.wp (ie, they have no idea what the true copyright status is). Anyone else? (Oh, and it's the flag of Afghanistan.) -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 06:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A flag of Afghanistan? Loads of questions in this image... Siebrand 15:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 12:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like derivative work to me, but I'm ont an expert in manga, so if someone can confirm, I'd appreciate CyrilB 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be used only on a user page and the author kindof says it's a derivative work (but not of what exactly). Siebrand 15:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --JeremyA 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this image shouldn't be under "PD-Switzerland-photo" but not sure, could someone checked it, please? Anna 01:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Anna, if you click on the mentioned source of the picture, you can read: «Copyright, Swiss federal authorities, 2005. Information on the federal authorities' websites is accessible to the public. Downloading or copying of texts, illustrations, photos or any other data does not entail any transfer of rights on the content. Copyright and any other rights relating to texts, illustrations, photos or any other data available on the Federal authorities' websites are the exclusive property of the federal authorities or of any other expressly mentioned owners. Any reproduction requires the prior written consent of the copyright holder. Federal Chancellery: webmaster@admin.ch» so, please just ask at the Federal Chanellery. I am sure, that they will send you a picture of every of the seven members of the Swiss gvernement for the commons CC-BY or other wiki-compatible license! --Eruedin 13:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. {{PD-Switzerland-photo}} is a next to useless template. Based on a decision by the Swiss Supreme Court in one case some people like to argue that simple press conference shots such as this one were PD in Switzerland. Even if that might be so, it is a personal interpretation only, not backed by any reputable legal opinions, and the decision itself was rather heavily criticized. Furthermore, even if such photos might be PD in Switzerland, they'd be PD in Switzerland only. Such images do pass the threshold of originality in many other countries, the EU and the U.S. included. That's not good enough for Wikipedia. We even deleted for that reason the very image this whole case was about, namely Image:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg! That said, contacting the Federal Chancellery and asking for PD or GFDL images of all seven Bundesräte indeed is a good idea. Lupo 19:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Until appropriate consent is given by the Swiss government. Thereby, we could upload other images from the federal council without hinderance.
Booksworm 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't understand the logic behind that... Lupo 07:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, no evidence of the required permission. -- Infrogmation 04:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
A drawing of Patrice Lumumba, PM of Congo 1960-1961. Uploader tagged this drawing from Congo's Mission to the UN as GFDL, although I can't find any mention of licensing there. Thuresson 02:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I asked the MONUC about the source of the picture (on their homepage). I will tell you the answer as soon as they answer me. --Eruedin 13:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any answer? If not, we should delete the image soon. --ALE! 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I asked the MONUC about the source of the picture (on their homepage). I will tell you the answer as soon as they answer me. --Eruedin 13:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted no evidence nor reason to assume GFDL licence. -- Infrogmation 04:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this image has neither adequate source information or an acceptable copyright status. The uploader states that this is an inartistic picture under Commons:Licensing#Finland, and as such, the copyright expired sometime in the 1990s, and since it's in the public domain, it doesn't need detailed source information. I don't agree with any of it.
The uploader has been notified on the English Wikipedia. --Carnildo 21:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the photographer is unknown, then how can one be sure that the Finnish copyright law applies and not some other.
- The uploader claims that it is a photograph of Finnish soldiers during World War II. --Carnildo 20:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Too vaugue: no year of creation, no author, no origin, not anything. Siebrand 15:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
These are identical photos of Congo politician Joseph Kasa Vubu (1917-1969). The only source is English Wikipedia from where it has been deleted following a nomination at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images (log). Thuresson 03:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- This picture is only on the commons today. I couldnt find it on other places in the internet with google or alltheweb. So it's probably not stolen from an onther website. Who was the original uploader to the en:wiki? Only he could help. --Eruedin 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Uploader to en: was Raju1. Thuresson 16:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- This picture is only on the commons today. I couldnt find it on other places in the internet with google or alltheweb. So it's probably not stolen from an onther website. Who was the original uploader to the en:wiki? Only he could help. --Eruedin 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete in case of doubt. Siebrand 15:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted since no one has spoken to keep them with valid reasons.--Jusjih 16:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
July 13
[edit]Why is this image PD? Can't be PD-old (book is from 1977). --Kajk ✉ 06:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep The original mural is a two dimensional artwork eligible for PD-old, and the illustration in the book is a 'slavish copy' so w:Bridgeman_Art_Library_Ltd._v._Corel_Corporation applies and no new copyright has been created. The tag does need to be changed to PD-old or PD-art. William Avery 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep arguments see: Avery. --ALE! 07:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for clarification. Request withdrawn. --Kajk ✉ 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Only scanned in by the uploader, not created by him. --HAH 22:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure the uploader did not paint this, so how can he be the autor? --HAH 22:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure the uploader did not paint this, so how can he be the autor? --HAH 23:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure the uploader did not paint this, so how can he be the autor? --HAH 23:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Please tag all these images with {{Nsd}} and notify the uploader. Tag is wrong, OK, but I think in almost all cases {{PD-old}} would be appropiate. NielsF 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but MediaWiki SVG to PNG rendering is too buggy (for me at least). I've given up trying to find a way to get the “center-circle transparency” to work. Firefox renders SVG to PNG just fine, and because there's no preview of SVG to PNG rendering, it's a real drag to have to keep uploading a new version just to see that it won't work. -- ParaDox 04:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'll leave it for the devs to have a look at, so they're aware of the issue (bugzilla:6665). To save you tearing your hair out though, I suggest you use rsvg to check your SVGs, since this is what MediaWiki uses. According to w:Wikipedia:Preparing_images_for_upload#Use_SVG_over_PNG: Editors on Linux and other UNIX-like systems [...] can use rsvg-view to preview SVGs exactly as Mediawiki will render them. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- See also unix man command for rsvg-view. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 10:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Don't be so hasty. I have tweaked the file in Inkscape and fixed it. — Erin (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Thank you Erin :-) Request withdrawn. -- ParaDox 03:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I followed a wrong link (speedy deletion request notice in my talk) and so created the wrong page --Cubitus 08:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedily deleted. — Erin (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
photo of a copyrighted object can't be put under a free licence --Schlendrian 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination --ALE! 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Siebrand 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio — Erin (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! 22:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Red Lion with Sun.svg --jed 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete --jed 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep superseeded is not a reason for deletion, especially if the .png version isn't bad. There's still a lot of issues with .svg, so why delete? We're here as a central repository for images for the Wikimedia community, why don't we leave the choice to them? You haven't even notified the original uploader, which would have been the civil thing to do. IMHO this is needless "pollution" of this page. NielsF 00:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete redundant. — Erin (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. If there is some good technical reason why the PNG is better to use than the SVG for some applications, even under specific circumstances, then the PNG should be kept. On the other hand, I have no problem with deletion if there are no such reasons. --Uwe 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete same reasons as for Image:Red Diamond.png below. Siebrand 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
3/4 majority for deletion. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Flag of the Red Crystal.svg --jed 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 22:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep superseeded is not a reason for deletion, especially if the .png version isn't bad. There's still a lot of issues with .svg, so why delete? We're here as a central repository for images for the Wikimedia community, why don't we leave the choice to them? You haven't even notified the original uploader, which would have been the civil thing to do. IMHO this is needless "pollution" of this page. NielsF 00:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sigh. — Erin (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I sigh as well... NielsF 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep pngs are better to handle. Shaqspeare 12:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- In what sense of the word? — Erin (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete SVG files are quite easy to handle. --StuartBrady 14:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. If there is some good technical reason why the PNG is better to use than the SVG for some applications, even under specific circumstances, then the PNG should be kept. On the other hand, I have no problem with deletion if there are no such reasons. --Uwe 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete SVG is a better alternative in most cases. Supporting 'duplicates' here will only slow down adoption of SVG. Take a chance now and then... Siebrand 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's the wrong way around I'd think. I'm all for SVG but why everyone is this eager I don't see, what's the point in pushing for SVG? Commons isn't here to promote file formats, just as Wikipedia isn't here to promote new views on things. The reality is SVG is starting to get accepted, this shouldn't be a reason to just delete other files, some backward compatibility should be offered. NielsF 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any backward compatibility issues are resolved by the automatic production of PNGs by the Mediawiki software. — Erin (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which is seriously flawed... But I think my stance is clear so let's not waste more time on this. NielsF 01:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any backward compatibility issues are resolved by the automatic production of PNGs by the Mediawiki software. — Erin (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's the wrong way around I'd think. I'm all for SVG but why everyone is this eager I don't see, what's the point in pushing for SVG? Commons isn't here to promote file formats, just as Wikipedia isn't here to promote new views on things. The reality is SVG is starting to get accepted, this shouldn't be a reason to just delete other files, some backward compatibility should be offered. NielsF 03:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
2/3 majority for deletion. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Logo-fpnl.png (and now also Image:Fpnl.jpg)
[edit]I don't understan nothing. You must see Image:Fpnl.jpg and you compare --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 01:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It seems to me that both images are of a copyrighted logo, so they should be deleted. On the other hand, if they really are public domain, an SVG version should be created, then they should be deleted. — Erin (talk) 03:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment These appear to be logos from http://www.ligafpnl.com/ , not related to the NFL (?). Keep? Siebrand 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was about to delete these as copyvios, but then I noticed that the PNG was uploaded by a certain User:Chuzo, and the website that it comes from is run by a certain chuzo@ligafpnl.com. This makes me think that he did indeed have a right to release it into the public domain. — Erin (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- These have now been superseded by a vector version (Image:FPNL logo.svg). Delete the lo-res PNG and the lossy JPEG. — Erin (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was about to delete these as copyvios, but then I noticed that the PNG was uploaded by a certain User:Chuzo, and the website that it comes from is run by a certain chuzo@ligafpnl.com. This makes me think that he did indeed have a right to release it into the public domain. — Erin (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Kirchner died in 1938. 2006-1938 is only 68 years -> not old enough for PD. and GPL it's surely not. --BLueFiSH ✉ 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Restore in 2 years... Siebrand 15:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -Samulili 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
wrong interpretation, I'm quite sure all the flowers are milk thistles. Vijverln 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete, edit the description perhaps --Astrokey44 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kept. Description can be changed instead. -Samulili 11:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Abludomelita obtusata.jpg and replaced everywhere -- Lycaon 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't forget your own userpages here and at en wiki. --Denniss 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. You can use {{Badname}} instead if you make the file an orphan first. -Samulili 11:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
invalid name - Lycaon 11:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
You just needed to turn it into a redirect. — Erin (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
photo of a copyrighted object can't be put under a free licence --Schlendrian 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination --ALE! 13:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Siebrand 15:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
it is said that the image was taken in 1933 which is not old enough if the author is not known. and GPL it's surely not. --BLueFiSH ✉ 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- If the author wasn't ever known, 70 years should be counted just from the date of publishing, so i would be PD since 2004. We aren't only sure, if the author is known but omitted by the uploader. Shaqspeare 17:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If author is not known, isn't it PD 70 years after publication? Siebrand 15:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but do you know, when it was first published? --ALE! ¿…? 07:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete No author named on commons does not mean that this is an anonymous publication. For such cases we have the more than 100 years old rule.--Wiggum 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- in doubt Delete --ALE! ¿…? 14:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a photo of a car logo-thing. Seems like too close a crop and too simple a shot to gain any new copyright. -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There's not much else besides the logo and to my understanding, shots such as this should be deleted. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as the uploader has never responded and no one has spoken for retention.--Jusjih 13:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
July 14
[edit]This style of sign is not used for four-digit routes. [24] shows the three styles of signs that are used. --SPUI 22:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
both deleted --ALE! 21:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Upload by mistake. Better pic of the monument is already up here: image:Heilbronn-landwehr-inf-rgt-121.JPG. Please delete image:Heilbronn-gefallene-landwehr-inf-rgt-121.JPG. Thx.--Bufu 22:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please just ask an administrator, when you upload something by mistake. Shaqspeare 12:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON -- duplication with Pseudotriton montanus --Juiced lemon 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted, please use {{Duplicate}} next time --ALE! 07:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON (it is a logo and is published with a public domain license without any permission. the user has already a delete request in his userpage) --LadyofHats 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS (if needed to comment request)- -LadyofHats 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. — Erin (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON -- superseded by Image:Pfeil_unten.svg, all links removed --Buschaot 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete --jed 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON -- superseded by Image:Pfeil_oben.svg, all links removed --Buschaot 14:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete --jed 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Is Rubik's cube protected by copyright or is it a mere consumer article? --Wikipeder 19:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If we decide to delete this, copyright paranoia has gone too far. Jon Harald Søby 12:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Who who like to rebuild such kubes will get no statisfaction with this Image, he would have to buy his own ;) --Stefan-Xp 15:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright design patent law --Rtc 18:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept. — Erin (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a new image showing the location of Kosovo in Europe here, and it has been agreed upon that Image:LocationKosova.PNG is not how a province should be marked, after looking at examples of the England and Scotland articles. The new image has been agreed upon on the Kosovo talk page, and this old image is no longer needed. Thank you. --Bože pravde 00:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The image shows the truth about the position of Kosovo in Europe, the licence is ok. The picture is used in manz Wikipedias, the discussion on English Wikipedia hasn't got any impact and isn't any reson to throw this picture away. Shaqspeare 12:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Kept. Accurate, not a duplicate. -Samulili 10:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
July 15
[edit]accidentally uploaded gimp file instead of .png --Sarefo 03:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just tag it with {{Badname}}. — Erin (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Please delete this image the information contains errors and has now been replaced with this corrected version. Image:Banksia aus dist map colour gnangarra.png, and I created both versions. Gnangarra 13:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Its the wrong name. --Ussschrotti 14:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate. Deleted. Please don't put duplicates, {{duplicate}} on the image page is enough. Shaqspeare 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No pertinent category (too hazy); see Category:Judaism by country or Category:Jews. --Juiced lemon 15:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 13:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Empty, complicated and Milky Way has no capitals. --Juiced lemon 16:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 08:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON : Specie Nepenthes rajah, no category. --Juiced lemon 18:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
These three images all have the wrong name. The calligraphy is of the word "Allah", not "Islam". Moreover, we don't need it in three formats. All three of these are obsoleted by Image:Allah-green.svg.
If anyone wants another colour, I can do that. But there is no need for this misnamed files, or for bitmap versions. — Erin (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wrong name --jed 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded images, wrong file names --ALE! 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep on Image:Islam.png for policy reasons explained and discussed at length at Commons:Village_pump#Stop_deleting_.22redundant.22_images_in_.22inferior.22_formats.21 (Image:Islam.png is the PNG from which the SVG's were made).
Delete on Image:Islam.gif (which was an older somewhat unsuccessful green-colorizing effort which has now fallen by the wayside).
If Image:Allah-green.svg and Image:Islam.svg are exactly the same, then there's no harm in deleting Image:Islam.svg , but it doesn't in fact have a so-called "wrong name"[sic], because it these pics were never claimed to be calligraphy for the word "Islam" itself -- but rather were claimed to be suitable as stub-markers for Islam related articles. (Calligraphy of the word "Islam" would actually not be suitable as a stub-marker for Islam related articles.) AnonMoos- I know. — Erin (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously scanned from a book or newspaper. Hence not PD as indicated on the imamge description. --Mazbln 08:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio Jaranda wat's sup 23:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. — Erin (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
All contributions of User:Charhally
[edit]From Village pump#Need for admin assistance:
Charhally (talk · contribs) was blocked recently for repeatedly uploading unsourced images. After the expiration of the block, he uploaded more unsourced images, and removed the no source tag on the previously uploaded ones without providing any source info on most, and applied a GPL (?) license tag. Those for which he has provided author info do not make clear why there is permission to use the images here. I've retagged some but not all of the 50+ images; I think a block is in order as well. Apologies if there is a more appropriate place to have posted this; I'm more familiar with Wikipedia. Cheers, Postdlf 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- At least some of images came (for example Image:LoveFeast.jpg ) from http://www.flickr.com/photos/okiboi/, who licensed images under cc-by-nc-nd-2.0. --EugeneZelenko 15:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. Delete with prejudice. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Text is copied from http://www.petit.com.br/biografias/resultado.asp?Codigo=25, image has unknown licence status, identical to Image:Ana Rosa.jpg --Ahellwig 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No source information at all. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON This image is of a very bad quality, as much in content as in technical means, it does neither allow the exact determination of the plants species nor the reason why it is so damaged. It has only been uploaded to get a "free" diagnosis of the plants damage. The picture itself is, as much as I can say, without any use for any wiki-project and should thus be deleted. --Denisoliver 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless --jed 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with both above. Siebrand 14:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as useless. — Erin (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: Appears to be a screenshot from MacOS "Keyboard Viewer" app (or older "Key Caps"). Not free. --Blahedo 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Dvorak keyboard.png is also a violation. And probably Image:Dvorak keyboard classicnum.png, too. --StuartBrady 04:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Okay... Image:Dvorak keyboard2.png, Image:Left-hand-dvorak-keyboard.png, Image:Right-hand-dvorak-keyboard.png, Image:Svorak keyboard.png, Image:Qwerty2.png and Image:Qwerty3.png are all violations for the same reason. (Note to self: aslo w:Image:Hcesar.png, w:Image:Right-hand-dvorak-keyboard.png, w:Image:Left-hand-dvorak-keyboard.png, too). --StuartBrady 05:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just spotted w:af:Beeld:Right-hand-dvorak-keyboard.png and w:af:Beeld:Left-hand-dvorak-keyboard.png, too. --StuartBrady 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any copyrightable GUI elements or icons. It would be nice to have better images for the keyboard layouts, though. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't buy that argument — if I were to write a program that generated images such as these, I expect Apple would have a case against me. --StuartBrady 13:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it to be really copyrightable. I'd ask for creating SVG versions from the images and then deleting them Platonides 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep not copyrighted. --Rtc 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It think there are no copyright issues here. --ALE! 08:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
July 15
[edit]it is taged with PD-Polishsymbol .. just IMO it is not a offical govermental symbol ...Sicherlich Post 17:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course Delete. A.J. 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Infrogmation 03:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
July 16
[edit]Empty category. --Interiot 01:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Stahlkocher --ALE! 22:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate at Image:Center_Harbor_Town_Seal.gif - I wanted the gif (with transparent background), not the jpg... --SatyrTN 05:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't both of them a copyvio? — Erin (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio. Siebrand 14:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted them both as an obvious copyright violation. If anyone wants this (rather unnecessary) picture on Commons, then they should write to the website and request a release under a CC licence or into the public domain, and upload it as a PNG image. — Erin (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON Same photo uploaded with different name Image:Krzywousty hill tower 01.jpg --Jojo 08:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{duplicate}}-template in such cases! Shaqspeare 20:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Should be renamed in Category:Saint Florian according to the other saints, or? 08:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Done. — Erin (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
"Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for e.g. private party photos" [25] -Samulili 11:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- But Delete as long it stays unused. Shaqspeare 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- But
- Delete Shaqspeare is right in principle, but this picture isn't being used on any userpages. Angr 20:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Very much against 'home page' like material. This one's unused and can be considered 'non encyclopedic' Siebrand 13:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Very ugly, useless image. — Erin (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless --jed 06:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Got the wrong licence, on Flickr it's non commercial. Darkone 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that it's a FP, I suspect the Flickr user changed the license. pfctdayelise (translate?) 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not a FP, though it was a candidate. I don't know any way to find out if it's always been NC or has been changed to it, but either way we have no choice but to delete. Angr 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Given that User:Solipsist, a sysop, uploaded a higher-res version while this nomination was going on, I feel pretty certain the license must have been OK at that time. We have killed plenty of FPCs on discovering their true license, Flickr or otherwise. We also have Template:Flickr-change-of-license and User:Eloquence is aware of this problem (as he runs the FlickrLickr). But as I said on the talk page of that template, I'm not really certain it's strong enough proof... damn flickr pages not having a history tab :/ --pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Damn flickr not clearly showing proper license, only Cc icon... Platonides 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (license on Flickr is "cc-by-nc" [26]) --ALE! 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation. (Screenshot of Apple Mac "Keyboard Viewer") --StuartBrady 04:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any coprightable GUI elements. On the other hand, the image is pretty poor. It would be nice to have a better one. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above reason. Siebrand 14:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept. — Erin (talk) 05:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Each of these was originally two GIF images that somebody combined into a single JPEG. They are not used anywhere. We don't need these two characters together in one file (both images are of different ancient versions of the two characters 漢 and 字). We don't need lossy bitmaps of these characters; they are obsoleted by Image:漢-seal.svg, Image:字-seal.svg, Image:漢-bronze.svg and Image:字-bronze.svg. — Erin (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Erin's reasoning. Siebrand 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 06:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Haben die Eltern des Kindes der Veröffentlichung des Bildes überhaupt zugestimmt? (Und kommt mir blos nicht wieder mit dem nicht lesen und schreiben können Mist!) 82.207.251.233 19:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Translation: "Did the child's parents agree to the publication of the picture? (And don't give me that "they can't read or write" crap.)
- Pending an answer from the uploader/photographer to the contrary, I say assume good faith that the photographer wouldn't upload the picture without the parents' or guardian's consent; therefore, keep. Angr 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Entweder Beweise, oder löschen. Sowas nennt man Rechtsstaat... 82.207.213.188 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Pending an answer from the uploader/photographer to the contrary, I say assume good faith that the photographer wouldn't upload the picture without the parents' or guardian's consent; therefore, keep. Angr 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep nix Beweise, behalten --- gildemax 20:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wie ich diese substanzlosen Beiträge liebe... 82.207.204.235 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Assume good faith: yes. But faith is not enough. When people load up images with no source or licence provided, what are we doing then? We delete the images, cause we have no evidence for the freeness. In dubio pro the potential victim, and that is the child in this case. If we have no evidence for a publishing approval, we have to delete. --::Slomox:: >< 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep At least in most countries the unwritten agreements are still accepted. Shaqspeare 09:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete according to our policy we cannot accept pictures of normal people without consent. I would appreciate if we stop ignoring the personal rights of other people.--Wiggum 19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Assume good faith in this context is to assume that, if there's indeed no permission of the parents, the author was not aware of the immorality of ignoring the child's personality rights. --Wikipeder 13:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Assume good faith about activities merely relevant to policies; assume bad faith when it comes to law. --Rtc 02:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete despite I´ve the unwritten consent of the parents, I would like the picture to be deleted!
--Kolumbusjogger 11:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The uploader falsely claims this image is a public domain NASA Landsat image (collected using NASA World Wind), but the resolution is many times better than Landsat's. It's clearly copyrighted DigitalGlobe satellite imagery collected using Google Earth (the same image is available, without the perspective added with google earth, at this google maps link. Compare this image to the actual Landsat image of the same location, Image:Wfm area 51 landsat geocover 2000.jpg. The terms of this commercial image's copyright are clearly entirely incompatible with Commons' policy. -- Finlay McWalter 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Clear violation. See archive with "©2005 Google" and "Image © 2005 DigitalGlobe" Platonides 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Has clearly been obtained through use of Google Earth with perspective added.Nilfanion 17:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteThis is a derivative work that violates the Peanuts copyright. Angr 18:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete See above. Siebrand 13:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- When I loaded the image up here at commons, I did so assuming the picture falls under de:Panoramafreiheit as it is known in German law. In short this says, that a (copyrighted) work of art, when permanently placed in a public place or, as in this case, applied to a building may be reproduced by taking a picture of this public place or building. If this does not apply to US law, and thus to commons, I undertsand that the image will have to be deleted. --Tsui 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure even Panoramafreiheit would apply. It's an advertisement and will only stay painted on the side of the building as long as the advertiser has paid for it. Eventually it will be painted over by a different advertisement, so it's not really permanently there at all. Angr 09:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nothing made by humans (or at all) is really permanent ;-) I don't know how "permanent" is defined by law (Panaramafreiheit). But in the end it doesn't matter if there is serious reason to believe that the image violates copyright, it should be deleted. --Tsui 08:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Image is primarily a depiction of the copyrighted work, rather than a view which incidentally includes a copyrighted work in public space. US law not de:Panoramafreiheit. Deleted. -- Infrogmation 03:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
July 17
[edit]An SVG of a registered trademark infringes on that trademark. Keeping this image here could land us in legal hot water with Sony Corporation. --Denelson83 01:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a copyvio to me. — Erin (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{Logo}} -> speedy delete --ALE! 07:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The infobox says permission granted but there's no permission anywhere and the source web doesn't show the copyright status of the photos either. Anna 02:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I uploaded the image because I thought I needed it - I don't anymore because it isn't in use on the page at all. Jordanhatch 07:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (uploader agrees, not used) --ALE! 07:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
logo, not GFDL --Shizhao 06:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{Logo}} --> speedy delete --ALE! 07:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Images by User:StreborKram
[edit]Looks like incorrect PD tag using. --Panther 09:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Appears to have been deleted. Siebrand 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The licence of the file explicitely forbids commercial use
- Delete Obvious case. Siebrand 13:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{Noncommercial}} --ALE! 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON : inaccurate (see en:Carol White) and inappropriate for Wikimedia Commons. --Juiced lemon 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope for this wiki: article without images. Siebrand 13:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 16:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Pirkanmaa.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Moottoritie-561.svg. --Hautala 10:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Excellent SVG replacement. Siebrand 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment SVG looks good, but what's the official colour as there seems to be quite some difference. NielsF 03:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- The official colour is "reflecting green". That is for the sign boards, so there's some room for its RGB interpretation. --Hautala 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded — Erin (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ununsed and superseded by Etelä-Pohjanmaan maakunnan vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fine replacement. Siebrand 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded — Erin (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Traced "cartoons" of copyrighted photos. From my talk page:
- Are these not just derivitave works of copyright photographs, that you have traced? (e.g. this and this). ed g2s • talk 12:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- i suppose. I did those when I was fairly new here and I had seen other cartoons on wp which had been done where no photo was available. --Astrokey44 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Would you agree that they should be deleted then? ed g2s • talk 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- ok, put them up for deletion if you want --Astrokey44 05:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Would you agree that they should be deleted then? ed g2s • talk 16:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- i suppose. I did those when I was fairly new here and I had seen other cartoons on wp which had been done where no photo was available. --Astrokey44 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ed g2s • talk 11:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work. Siebrand 12:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
This file is unused and unnecessary. There is vector version of this image with much better quality. Jakub Hałun 12:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Colours of images differ. Please show me an 'original' somewhere. These images are not duplicates or superseded. Siebrand 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Colours of this image are improper. Here is another file taken from Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski homepage. As you can see it also differs a bit from vector version but not as much as this file. You can also check on the city homepage . Jakub Hałun 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Thank you for the additional info. You convinced me. The SVG is of superior quality. Please add this info in the future to speed up the process. Siebrand 14:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I've corrected the colour to #0492DC, the colour used on the website. — Erin (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded it before I knew what I was doing with my image editor, then promptly uploaded an SVG version. -- Northenglish 13:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per author's request. Siebrand 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Pohjois-Karjala.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Excellent replacement. Siebrand 19:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Platonides 13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Joensuu.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Excellent replacement. Siebrand 19:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Liegt eine Einverständniserklärung der Eltern zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes vor? Auch arme Menschen haben ein Recht am eigenen Bild! 82.207.213.188 17:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: It doesn't look like the people had anything against beeing photographed and published. And they don't look poor as you say. Shaqspeare 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Das war ein Seitenhieb auf die, wie ich finde, geschmacklose Bildbeschreibung. "Glücklich trotz Armut" oder so stand beim Bildwettbewerb... 82.207.204.235 16:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- From what do you know about their attitude to being published? People have personal rights. Not having images of oneself being published is one of it. And as children can't assert their rights, the parents have to. This means permission by the parents is needed. --::Slomox:: >< 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Erledigt, die Erlaubnis wurde nachgetragen. 84.63.118.33 17:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Appears to be original work. Siebrand 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- See below, author has admitted they are not. ed g2s • talk 14:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of copyrighted image. Uploader consents to deletion. — Erin (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be original work. Siebrand 22:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean keep? Anyway, see below, author has admitted they are derivatives. ed g2s • talk 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of copyrighted image. Uploader consents to deletion. — Erin (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Really? Shaqspeare 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- No. Keep Appears to be original work. Siebrand 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- No.
- See below, author has admitted they are not. ed g2s • talk 14:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Really? Shaqspeare 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of copyrighted image. Uploader consents to deletion. — Erin (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Pohjois-Pohjanmaan vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Details of the coa are not the same. Siebrand 13:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heraldically they are identical. --Hautala 15:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Heraldically identical, keep svg --Tomia 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Jarvenpaa.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as long as there's no clarity on colour (also see http://www.jarvenpaa.fi/). Siebrand 13:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which colour? It should be in obvious that all these three examples have the heraldic blue and silver, no other colours. --Hautala 15:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until a perfect replacement. Why is the drop shadow missing from the SVG? — Erin (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Heraldically identical, no need for shadow. --Tomia 23:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Raisio.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 16:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Heraldically identical --Tomia 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Ilmajoki.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 16:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. All heraldically identical --Tomia 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: I want to replace this picture with a better one (png format). The picture is brand new and I am the author. --Carlosar 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please upload the better one first (and link it here). pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
kept (no reaction of the uploader) --ALE! 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
copyvio--Shizhao 14:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- ACK Delete --- gildemax 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 14:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Bad color correction of Image:Panthera tigris tigris.jpg. A better one exists at Image:Panthera tigris tigris edited2.jpg. -- howcheng {chat} 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 21:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like incorrect PD tag using. --Panther 09:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (canadian stamps are PD after 50 years, this one is from 1996) --ALE! 21:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This file is unused and has very bad quality. There is vector version of this image available. Jakub Hałun 12:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Colours of images differ. Please show me an 'original' somewhere. These images are not duplicates or superseded. Siebrand 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The PNG is low-quality and the SVG is pretty good quality. Heraldic "gules" does not have a pantone color. AnonMoos 21:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Signs in Category:Road signs of Poland
[edit]- Image:Znak A-34.png,
- Image:Znak A-5.png,
- Image:Znak A-7.png,
- Image:Znak B-1.png,
- Image:Znak B-2.png,
- Image:Znak B-3.png,
- Image:Znak B-5.png,
have been superseded by SVGs. SVGs are 100% compatible with the polish highway code.
--MStankie 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If not all instances have been replaced, please add the {superseded} tag to all images involved. These image are not tagged, so with provided information I say: keep. Siebrand 13:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete now all images are orphan and marked with {Vector version available} --jed 07:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
all deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
URL mentioned on the image twice, almost impossible to remove. Really ugly. Siebrand 14:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly is your argument for deletion? — Erin (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to guess it is the overlayed advertising text which is almost impossible to remove... I know that I find it objectionable. --Gmaxwell 06:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe I didn't use the right words. I checked all uploads of this user and removed all overlay text where possible. This image was one where I couldn't see where to start retouching. Siebrand 07:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm going to guess it is the overlayed advertising text which is almost impossible to remove... I know that I find it objectionable. --Gmaxwell 06:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Request uploader submit image without text. He is still active and most of his images are not tagged. If he is unable I might find that cause to question the copyright status of this image.. in any case, I support getting rid of the current version. --Gmaxwell 06:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader is a red link. I reckon he won't reply. We're not desperate for pix of crayfish. — Erin (talk) 07:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Text is not so disturbing when thumbnailed. It sends to www.armeniapedia.org, and original version is [27] so you can contact the uploader (the same on commons and armeniapedia) here (he's active and the webmaster) Platonides 13:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The watermarking renders the image unusable. --Carnildo 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep been bold - message removed - Lycaon 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Watermark removed. Image kept. — Erin (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Savonia coat of arms.svg. --Hautala 10:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep These images differ. Placement of the 'bubbles' is very different. Siebrand 13:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The .svg image is faulty. Look at the fastening of the string at each end of the bow. --Juiced lemon 08:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Heraldically identical --Tomia 23:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep until the fastening of the string is improved in the SVG version. /Lokal Profil 20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept - Images are not identical and we don't automatically PNGs "superseded" by SVGs.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Pudasjarvi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Images differ a lot in colour and both differ from a possible source image on http://www.pudasjarvi.fi/. Please clear this up, correct in the SVG and I'm all for deletion of the old version. Siebrand 13:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heraldically all these three are identical. --Hautala 15:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The .svg image use a greenish yellow shade (#e3dd00) which is very far from the gold color as expected : hideous. --Juiced lemon 09:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until fixed. Why are the bubbles and jewels so different? Why is the fletching further along? — Erin (talk) 07:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Heraldically identical. We also have municipal webmaster approve here. --Tomia 23:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept - Images are not identical and we don't automatically PNGs "superseded" by SVGs. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 15:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
July 18
[edit]REASON: inappropriate for Wikimedia Commons (now, the image is categorized). I have transfered the text here. --Juiced lemon 11:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: This is a copyright violation. The original source specifically says, all rights reserved. This means that the right to redistribute or make derivative works does not extend to users. lensovet 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- The original uploader has called this "vandalism" and refuses to understand basic copyright principles. lensovet 00:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious copyvio. Speedy delete. — Erin (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I found this with a speedy delete tag on it, but it is not an exact duplicate, so it belongs here. — Erin (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded. — Erin (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This version contains no national land names written (Rügen is not everywhere called like that). Shaqspeare 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 08:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Was deleted on enwiki, reason: invalid fair use claim.--Gunther 07:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: inappropriate for Wikimedia Commons. --Juiced lemon 09:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the description this picture is Violation of rights of portrait and Violation of rule of event Japan Expo 2006.
Please do not up-load it to the Internet. It warned in the Japan Expo 2006. She would like you to delete it at once because the person in question also dislikes it.
Image was marked as speedy, but after deletion I was contacted by User:Traroth with note, there is no reason to delete. Well. I don't know... --Zirland 11:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I dont't see any reason to delete this picture. The person on the picture smiles friendly to the photographer and doesn't seem to dislike to be pictured, and the rule of an event, like Japan Expo, apply only to this event, and not outside. Traroth 09:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Restore (a second time...) and keep. There is no real reason to delete this picture. Hégésippe Cormier 11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Restore idem Hegesippe C --Padawane 11:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I know that all we care about here on commons is a free license and that the subject is not trademarked. But if it was not legaly made I disagree to keep it. That is if the people of the EXPO do not want anybody to publish the fotos that they made (private use only). Or if nobody was allowed to make fotos without press card at all. If it was legal to make photos there without any restriction I appeal for a strong keep. --Paddy 13:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see anything about rules for photos on the website of the JE, but there are tons of photos taken during the expo on the forum of this site... If there were restrictions, they should apply them on their official website first. -Ash Crow 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep je n'ai trouvé aucune information concernant une interdiction de prendre des photos sur le site.--Emmanuel legrand 17:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason to delete this picture. Okki 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see the point to delete this picture. However can someone clarify the state of this vote? Greatpatton 09:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the description this picture is Violation of rights of portrait and Violation of rule of event Japan Expo 2006.
Please do not up-load it to the Internet. It warned in the Japan Expo 2006. She would like you to delete it at once because the person in question also dislikes it.
Image was marked as speedy, but after deletion I was contacted by User:Traroth with note, there is no reason to delete. Well. I don't know... --Zirland 11:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I dont't see any reason to delete this picture. The person on the picture smiles friendly to the photographer and doesn't seem to dislike to be pictured, and the rule of an event, like Japan Expo, apply only to this event, and not outside. Traroth 09:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Restore (a second time...) and keep. There is no real reason to delete this picture. Hégésippe Cormier 11:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Restore idem Hegesippe C --Padawane 11:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep je n'ai trouvé aucune information concernant une interdiction de prendre des photos sur le site.--Emmanuel legrand 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reason to delete this picture. Okki 19:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 10:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) restored by Paddy comment same as above User:Paddy --Paddy 13:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
No license given. There are several other files uploaded by the same user suffering from the same problem.--Gunther 11:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (copyvio) --ALE! 12:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Has been marked unknown copyright status for almost a month. --rayx talk 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not used anywhere and
- there's an image with the same name in the german wikipedia that might be moved here soon.--rayx talk 13:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The fact that a new image may be moved here is no reason to expedite the deletion. In fact, it makes it less important because it would simply overwrite the bad pic solving the problem. In any case, I'll delete it as an orphan copyvio. — Erin (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
(a new image was uploaded in the meantime. --ALE! 08:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC))
This pictures shows the wrong plant. Please delete it. Fabelfroh 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This pictures shows the wrong plant. Please delete it. Fabelfroh 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
This pictures shows the wrong plant. Please delete it. Fabelfroh 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by uploader request --ALE! 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I have created this page, but it´s unnecessary (only one picture available) GeorgHH 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (by request of the author) --ALE! 22:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I am the author of this image, and request deletion. A better quality version of this image has been created Image:Flag of Indianapolis.svg. The corners should not be rounded, and the positioning of the star is a bit off, so this is an inaccurate image. --Invitatious 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd also like to add Image:IndyFlag.png to that.
- Delete both — Erin (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete both --jed 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Image:Lappajärvi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The PNG is quite crappy, but the SVG lacks detail. Delete the bitmap but don't forget to improve the vector version. — Erin (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Jyväskylä.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 20:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The PNG is quite crappy, but the SVG lacks the drop shadow. Delete the bitmap but don't forget to improve the vector version. — Erin (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Itä-Uusimaa.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 09:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --Tomia 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Nurmo.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 13:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 06:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --Tomia 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON I uploaded this from Russian wiki where it is labelled {GFDL}, but have since found it is copyvio from http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/boga/html/Fitzroya_cupressoides_Foto3.html (it should also be listed for deletion at ru:Изображение:Fitsroya.jpg, my Russian isn't good enough to do so) - MPF 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Please someone hurry up and delete this copyvio pic! This is a clear 'speedy' delete - MPF 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Raymond Disc. 11:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: duplicate of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2006#Image:ExtremeFishing.jpg, not featured. --Juiced lemon 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: duplicate of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2006#Image:Rosary 2006-01-16.jpg, not featured.--Juiced lemon 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Featured pictures candidates/Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Dante And Virgil In Hell (1850).jpg
[edit]REASON: duplicate of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2006#Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Dante And Virgil In Hell (1850).jpg, featured. --Juiced lemon 08:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
all deleted --ALE! 15:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Rastop (and Image:John1234.jpg)
[edit]advertisement for probably nonfamous "DJ" --Ahellwig 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete vanity page. — Erin (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! ¿…? 09:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Please close the discussions when you delete an image!
The image clearly shows copyright by Mark Conlin. --Humus sapiens 08:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've sent an e-mail to the contact person at http://www.markconlin.com/ I will let you know if he returns the e-mail. 24.196.67.58 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No reason given why this should be considered PD, despite the usual silly "PD according to en.wikipedia", where there's no reason given either (as with most pictures there). --AndreasPraefcke 07:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Original is here: Copyright: Expired, Restrictions on use/reproduction: Nil. Platonides 14:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep That looks like an official confirmation of PD status to me. — Erin (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The picture likely is in the Public Domain in Canada only. The template used was blatantly wrong. Also the Library and Archives Canada does not make official confirmations. If you use their pictures, you do so at your own risk. --Rtc 17:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No reason given to assume that Donald I. Grant is not a member of the Canadian Department of National Defence. We need to be aware that Library and Archives Canada is only concerned with copyright status in Canada, but I don't think it is reasonable to need proof of citizenship for every WWII Canadian soldier with a camera. Delete it if Donald I. Grant is shown to be of some other nationality. Jkelly 00:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON: Commons is not a dictionnary: this page is a wrong track (search “cluster”). --Juiced lemon 10:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean it's a "wrong track"? Please explain. There are images, they look like clusters to me. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I let the images because they show a funny likeness. The problem here is the english slant of the page : when you translate “cluster” in other languages, you must choose between numberous words, according to the subject. That's the reason why I said it is a "wrong track" : because you must do a thematic search.
- English-speaking people will find easily the disambiguation page en:cluster. --Juiced lemon 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- But why not just improve it, or else convert it to a disambig page? pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that we can do a page about quantities of anything
File:Many coins.jpg 
. But is it useful ? Is “cluster” a good title ? - A disambiguation page about a common word is for english-speaking people only. --Juiced lemon 07:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that we can do a page about quantities of anything
- But why not just improve it, or else convert it to a disambig page? pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- So rename it to Star cluster? Anyone can do a page move, remember.
- Your statement that a dab page is for English-speakers only is odd. Of course it is. But there's nothing stopping us having dab pages in other languages too. I don't see how this is an English bias thing... pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not yet accustomed to the singular or plural uses. Commons has a Star clusters category, but no page with this title. --Juiced lemon 07:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Redirected on August 5, by User:Emijrp. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyright violation (see discussion)
- Well, on the discussion page it says:
- "8. All software on the Site is the property of CNG or its software suppliers and is protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws and international conventions. The content of the Site may be used as a shopping and educational resource. Any other use of the Site, including the reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission or display of the content, is strictly prohibited."
- They can prohibit what they want, an antique coin does not have a copyright. A photograph of an antique coin in my opinion does not fulfill the criteria of artistic threshold. (It is a simple photo of a coin.)
- Therfore I vote Keep and the photos should be tagged with {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}} or maybe {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! 13:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- what about the rights of the photographer? 128.40.184.108 14:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept, per Template talk:CNG, Classical Numismatic Group has released any rights they might have held (which indeed is probably none anyway) to this photograph. Angr 09:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
July 19
[edit]I uploaded this and I request for it to be deleted because it is a copyrighted screenshot. Sorry. Arbitrary 04:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 08:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Uploader request: Erroneously uploaded. Incompatible licence. --TheBernFiles 05:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Pfctdayelise --ALE! 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Non-free image. --Hello World! 08:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Blatantly. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Contains only text -- EugeneZelenko 15:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 16:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 08:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON:Incorrect upload, thanks for deleting, Brett 14:30 July 19, 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. NielsF 01:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC) deleted by User:NielsF --ALE! 09:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I made a typo in the name uploading it, It is now replaced by Image:George_Mifflin_Dallas.jpg --Poulos 20:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please use {{Badname}} in future. — Erin (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
This page has little value. There is already a category for this (Category:Money of Brazil). The description of the image has been copied or is already on the image page. --Chochopk 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The category is more appropriate for this. — Erin (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Redirected to Category:Money of Brazil. Seemed the simplest thing to do. NielsF 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Images of Laval were uploaded on de.wiki by a newbie, asked about source he didn't answer (see: [28]), description of photos looks absolutely unrealiable, these are not self-made portraits, but screenshots. Szwedzki 22:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Almost certainly copyvios. — Erin (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nope they are not! I know the guy who uploaded them to the de.wikipedia in the first places. He works as a photographer and took theses pictures really himself, when taking promotional pictures of Mrs. Laval. Keep. 84.63.116.52 11:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose 84.63.116.52 does not "know the guy who uploaded them" but is the guy who uploaded them. Don't believe his claims until he shows proof by uploading a higher resolution. --Rtc 15:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nope they are not! I know the guy who uploaded them to the de.wikipedia in the first places. He works as a photographer and took theses pictures really himself, when taking promotional pictures of Mrs. Laval. Keep. 84.63.116.52 11:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Uploader already years ago claimed to be photographer, but never showed proof in form of higher resolution. Now it's time to take the consequences and delete the pictures. --Rtc 02:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader had had enough time to prove he took these pics. But he showed us no prove. Shaqspeare 15:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Fake licence. Deleted. Shaqspeare 15:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I just happened to check the linked source of the picture (Wars of Lebanon) and found that this is not "based" on the map on that website, as the uploader claims, but is a pure copy of it. The only difference is that he has removed a year in the map and removed the text stating what it's based on --Thomas Blomberg 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio --Platonides 14:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Astrokey44 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded this one, but I didn't check it on English Wiki. Sorry, delete it! Shalom 18:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as a copyvio. -Samulili 10:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am the uploader, I request deletion as Nevada State Route 215 is an Interstate Highway; the sign doesn't exist. --Geopgeop 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 10:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Low-quality picture of an unidentified person. - Andre Engels 09:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Vanity — Erin (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -Samulili 10:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Created in error, now replaced by this gallery page. --Gpvos 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: I have replaced the image by a better one: Image:Americana SP Brazil Photo.jpg --Carlosar 16:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both. The image is too blurry (both versions) to illustrate anything. NielsF 02:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both per NielsF. --Panther 10:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This page has little value. There is already a category for this (Category:Coins of Belarus). The description of the image has been copied or is already on the image page. --Chochopk 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The category is more appropriate for this. — Erin (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, only one image --Astrokey44 12:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This page has little value. There is already a category for this (Category:Bills of Belarus, 2000). The description of the image has been copied or is already on the image page. --Chochopk 22:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The category is more appropriate for this. — Erin (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep nice to see them organised like this, rather than in whatever order the filename happened to be in the category. --Astrokey44 11:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep definitely adds information! If anything delete the category! pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As far as I remember consensus in page/category battle was "category for all images, gallery pages for selected images". --EugeneZelenko 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- See above (Belarusian bills, 1992). NielsF 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
While this image appears on a U.S. Government website, it provides an image credit stating that it is not a work of the U.S. government, but is derived from a poster from the movie Wyatt Earp (1994). No mention of a release is made. --GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 01:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There is a big misconception among Wikipedians that everything that appears on US Government websites is public domain. In this case it's a picture from an exhibition held in 2003 at the Hoover Archives, full of film posters and studio pictures of various Hollywood cowboys. Obviously those pictures are not "the work of the United States Federal Government" and the copyright remains with the studios. On the Hoover Archives website they have also pictures from an exhibition about Bob Hope. In that case they state that the exhibition material was on loan from Hope Enterprises Inc, (the estate of Bob Hope, I assume), but there agin they don't clearly say that the material is copyrighted, which it clearly is. Thomas Blomberg 02:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wsiegmund 23:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no government work --ALE! 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 22:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: duplicate of Jacques-Louis David and Category:Jacques-Louis David. --Juiced lemon 10:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no need.--Nilfanion 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 03:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User's repeat upload of image previously deleted (multiple times) as a copyvio of Alexa datum. Amgine 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The image is in fact different to the previously deleted file. For admins:the original copyvio file The Alexa graph. To my mind, there's little to nothing of the Alexa data in the current graph. So as a copyvio, I don't really buy it. If you wanted to delete this because the user is making a point, I find that argument more persuasive... --pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Completely crazy image. Platonides 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Metainfo: The user was blocked on wikinews for (Reblocking; his flagrant violation of Wikinews policy, and attempts to circumvent his blocks, leave me with no reasonable belief for his unblock.) and used this image to prove he's useful [29]
- Delete Not useful to any project. Just someone trying to use Commons to make a point. — Erin (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment; How is this useful to any project? 70.48.204.222 22:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as above --Astrokey44 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- 'Keep'KeepThe copyvio reason is bogus so this DR must be refused if the DR process has any integrity.
- If someone wishes to place a deletion request based upon point or "not useful" please do so and I will respond more fully at that time; but,imo, "not useful" is quite subjective and could be used for any type of censorship and this image does not address any wikinews' policies at all so does not fit into the point parameters. Unfortunately the objections Platonides brings to this do not assume good faith and I do not think that is constructive.Neutralizer 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Angr 09:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON: duplicate of Leonardo da Vinci and Category:Leonardo da Vinci. --Juiced lemon 10:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no need.--Nilfanion 16:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not needed. --Dodo 16:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Angr 09:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All pictures of DKM Bismarck
[edit]This deletion request concerns all pictures listed at Battleship Bismarck except the Model (Image:Bundeswehrmuseum Dresden 13.jpg). This page contains three sections:
Pictures in the section "Construction" are taken from the U.S. Naval Historical Center where no copyright information is provided.
The pictures in section "Bismarck's Atlantic Sortie, May 1941" are obviously photographed from the convoying ship "Prinz Eugen" (see also the U.S: Naval Historical Center site). Therefore it's clear they are not PD and particularly not made by U.S. Navy officers.
The section "Other Images" contains further pictures from the U.S. Naval Historical Center website without copyright information.
I think it is clear that not a single of these pictures is made by US officials so they all have to be deleted. I do not tag all pictures as this would be a work of some hours.--Wiggum 19:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- All the pictures in there seems to be shot by germans, some even from other german warships. Source as provided is Naval Historical Center, but no photographer is specified, some are even marked Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen, with identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970. I did not put a deletion warning in each pic but informed the two uploaders --Schlendrian 11:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry, didn't see this section, thanks for moving my text in here --Schlendrian 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Some of these pictures might have been taken by spies, we don't know, but for sure, most of them were taken by German sea men. The big point is that the pictures were seized during the war by the U.S. Government/Navy which placed them in the PD. I'm not lawyer (who is, here ?), but I think that because of the war and as seized material, the original author lost its rights.
- Anyway, the purpose of Wiki Commons is not to discuss the validity of the licenses of the Naval Historical Center's site, that's their problem and any claim of an author should be posted there as they are the source of the files : we only reproduce here these pictures as « authorized material ». If anybody here doesn't agree with the license under which some pictures are placed, I invite them to write to the NHC and expose their claims. Until further notice, these pictures are still in PD (and the fact that they are available under PD since many years seems that I'm right).
- More : if some people here want to discuss the validity of the material of each governmental site, well, I wish them good luck. But please, make your claims there, not here. Sting 13:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Only the author can release his pictures into the PD. It doesn't matter if they were seized by the US Government. According to German and European copyright laws, they are still copyrighted until 70 years after the photographer's death. --88.134.45.6 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're not lawyer and know nothing about the history of these pictures, as we. Commons is based in the USA and because of this, follows the US laws (like the fair use used in the Wikipedias, which doesn't exist in many countries but is used in the WP of these language). I told it : the purpose on Commons is not to doubt of governmental sources but to check if the uploaded material is under a license (in the source, whatever it is) compliant with the ones in Commons. Sting 12:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, so what ?!? If you don't agree that these images are under PD, write to the NHC (but I understand that it's easier to make your claims here). What I see is that Commons is clear : it only reproduces pictures under the same free license as the original source of the files, I mean the owner of the pictures. If the NHC is in the illegality, some lawyer will open a process against them and make them change the license of all these pictures and of course, we will follow. But again, and until further notice, they are under PD. It is not to us to say black where an original source says white or doubt of the legitimacy of the possession of photo negatives by a governmental organization. I think that's far from our purpose here in Wikipedia. Sting 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- So I can take any picture I want and pretend that it is PD, and therefore everybody is allowed to use it freely until the copyright holder notices and sues me? I don't think so.
- It's clearly a copyvio, regardless what the NHC pretends and whether they are sued or not. We know that it is not PD so we have to delete it to prevent further copyright violations. --88.134.45.6 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't read what I wrote. I'm talking about an original source, not one of these sites that copy data (picture, sound, movie, text, etc.) from an other site or book without authorization and/or place this material under a fake license : NHC owns the negative of these photos and only NHC can tell what license can be put on them. Further more, we don't know if an agreement was made between the photographers and the Navy. For example, a photographer can sell a picture to an organism : he still remains the author of the artwork but looses his rights which are now owned by that organism. And they will make what they want with this picture (depending on the contract). Sting 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- What does "original source" mean? The NHC hasn't made the pictures and by far not a US Navy Seaman as the license tags claim. Instead we can read at the NHC site: Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen, with identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970. NHC may own the pictures but only the author can determine if they can be published. He doesn't "loose" anything. Further reading: en:Moral rights. It is obvious that NHC is errant about PD status in this case they even say it (see the quotation)! Relying on the unspecific "To the best of our knowledge..." would not be good faith it would just be ignorant.--Wiggum 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- By original source of a photo, I mean a source which owns the negative and what is on your screen was directly made from this negative. Other sites which would propose the same picture will display a copy of that original source or a scan of a reproduction.
- About the license tag of the pictures of the NHC, I created in June a new tag for that purpose, because many photos weren't taken by US sailors (like the ones of the Bismarck, but there are many others) and the original tag didn't fit well in that case. I started to modify the pages with this tag but there are still many to modify. Be patient.
- « He doesn't "loose" anything » : you're wrong. Depending on the contract between the photographer and the third party, he can sell (or even give) his rights for a specific use, a period, a number of copies, etc. These limits may drastically change from one contract to another and the new owner of the picture may (or not) have large possibilities of use. The author will continue to own the moral rights which, as it is said in the page, apply to the integrity of the artwork. About the use, the owner of the copyright (= the third party) will be the only one to decide (in the limits of its contract).
- In fact and to tell the truth, your problem is not about the fact that these photos are placed in PD, but about the doubt you have to know if the possession of these negatives by the NHC is legal. Unfortunately for you, like I wrote it earlier, this is a question far beyond the possibilities of Commons. Because nobody here knows the history of these photos, the only ones who could give a response would be : #1 the authors ; #2 the NHC.
- Until now, you didn't give one information to support your supposition that the NHC isn't the legal owner of these negatives and that they don't have the right to put them in PD. Sting 04:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- PS : You misunderstand the meanings of moral rights and copyright holder. If the first always belongs to the author, the second can be sold or given.
- I think we talk at cross-purposes somehow. I'll condense it: Owning the negatives means nothing in the first place (I tried to point this out with the hint to moral rights). You said yourself "Depending on the contract [...]" which is right there might be a contract which expands the exploitation rights of NHC so far that they can put the pictures into PD. The point is there is no indication that such a contract exists. The wording "to the best of our knowledge" rather indicates quit the contrary.--Wiggum 10:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wiggum, you make me laugh. Have you ever seen, even one time, a copyright holder furnishing the whole contract with a copy of an artwork put online ? But you want the NHC to do so. And yes, being in possession of a negative means everything, because there is a reason if the photographer gave this negative, and he gave it only with associated rights.
- Strange in fact that here are only pointed the photos of the Bismarck. I understand that you, as German, are concerned with that, but if we follow your suppositions, hundreds (thousands ?) of images should be deleted because the copyright holder doesn't furnish a copy of the contract online, text that you will never find anywhere. Sting 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to hear that i bring some humor into your life ;-) Seriously, i see your point but i think your premise is wrong. You can't know (imho) under what circumstances these pictures came to NHC. At first i found no indication that they really possess the negatives, but assume they do. Maybe there was a contract, maybe the photographer said "Use it for educational purpose", maybe a soldier just found them in an abandoned office. We don't know it. The assumption that no one will give away the negatives with restricted exploitation rights is a convienient one but not necessary correct. For example, a thief who has stolen pictures doesn't obtain any exploitation rights. Furthermore i do not request NHC or someone else to put there contracts online that would be ridiculous. I just request a comprehensible reason why a picture should be PD. Such reaons can be: Author dead for more than 70 years, obviously, Pictures of US forces with "made by US federal employee" claim or just something like "The photographer XYZ allowed us to publish the pictures in PD. Compared to such statements "To the best of out knowledge" is not a reason, only an assumption. That i put the Bismarck pictures to test is only coincident because the article of the Bismarck was in the review shortly before. Please witness also the section of the Adolf Hitler pictures above.--Wiggum 13:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's blatant nonsense that full copyright transfer ever occurs implicitly, for example by handing over negatives. There's only one notable exception from this: Corporate copyright (automatic copyright transfer from employee to employer). If the NHC only possesses the negatives but not a copyright transfer agreement, signed by the actual author, it does not have any right whatsoever to release these pictures into the public domain, it does not even have the right make and distribute copies of the negatives! There is no difference between copying an 'original source' and copying data (picture, sound, movie, text, etc.) from another site or book without authorization. So the question is not if the NHC is the legal owner of the negatives, the question is if the NHC has a signed copyright transfer agreement. I don't see any indication for this, and it would clearly be against their interests then to release them into public domain. The bottom line is that the licensing templates "This image is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain" are factually incorrect in any case. --Rtc 05:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc, you're too much : after I indicate the existence of Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC, you put a deletion request on that license template and come here talk about the old Navy tag that was used wrongly on the NHC images.
- Of course that a transfer of negatives implicates a transfer of copyright, otherwise the photos would be useless and that would be silly : no organism would accept a photo if they can't use it. Here is the big difference between an original source and a mirror site. The NHC didn't find these films on the ground, they were given by the authors and with them, copyright terms. You want to see that contract of the NHC, despite the fact that you will never find it neither in a book, nor in sites in all other cases. You suppose that because NHC didn't put online the contract (nobody do it) they aren't the copyright owners, but there is no information that they don't have it. Suppositions, suppositions… Sting 14:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- "The NHC didn't find these films on the ground, they were given by the authors and with them, copyright terms." How do you know that the author himself gave them to the museum? Above you said "The big point is that the pictures were seized during the war by the U.S. Government/Navy which placed them in the PD.". So a) we don't know how the museum acquired the pictures and b) we don't know under what conditions they acquired them. If the author himself gave them to the museum (which we don't know), it doesn't mean that he allows everyone to use them for every purpose, including derivative works and commercial use. --88.134.45.6 18:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- "they were given by the authors and with them, copyright terms" There is no indication for that and then they'd not release them with "to the best of our knowledge". And, as the IP correcty said, it contradicts what you told us earlier (which casts doubt on your argumentation, you are just making arbitrary claims just to keep the pictures here). I can always make such claims, they can't be refuted even if they were false. I suppose the opposite as long as I don't see a proof. It's that easy. My supposition is more sane and probably reflects truth; in contrast to yours it can easily be refuted if you show only one real indication. We assume bad faith when it comes to copyright, and those who want to keep have to give the arguments, not the other way around. --Rtc 19:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I made a supposition about the way they obtained these pictures, like all you are making here, and all this in fact doesn't matter in the argumentation. The point is to know if the NHC is in the legal possession of these films and with this, if they are the copyright holders. Usually in that case contributors ask confirmation to the source. It's sad that you didn't start with that procedure.
- Find illegal and copyrighted material in second hand sites is unfortunately common, but I think really hard to believe that an official governmental site will risk a procedure without having a very good knowledge of the material they are displaying.
- You don't accept that an American organism can hold the copyright of German pictures and will doubt whatever evidence may be shown. As nothing will change your mind, I don't see the need for further explanation. Sting 20:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would accept quickly and change my mind if sufficient proof would be given. There is no proof, only speculations on your part. Did you write them a mail and tell them about the doubts we have and ask for clarification? Obviously not, since it would refute your position. Nobody can be trusted, not even 'official governmental site'. It's a common misconception that alleged authorities will not make mistakes. --Rtc 21:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
These Pictures were "Copied from the report of officers of Prinz Eugen...". the Naval Historical Center don't even know who the Authors are, otherwise they would not have needet a "...identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach, 1970." And this one http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h85000/h85749.jpg] is by expicite information of the Naval Historical Center a copy out of a spanish journal, no negative, no handed over, no agreement, no Author known! Why should we keep good faith if they make such mistakes?-WerWil 13:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep some, the photos of the construction phase might be taken by a military attaché. Scoo 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep none until with can change the "might be taken" to "were surely be taken".--Wiggum 23:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Closed to save space. The outcome of this discussion will be based on the outcome of Template:Deletion requests#Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC.
- WTH? Did the server's disk space ran out? I've been impudent and reopened the debate. The status of those pics does not depend on silly templates.--Wiggum 21:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Closed. This is being discussed elsewhere, and this is causing havoc on an already bloated page. Please don't reopen it. Thank you. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image was originally uploaded on the english Wikipedia by a new user whose only contributions was to upload and add the picture to an article. It was deleted with the comment "uploaded by vandal", and as there were quite some vandals who did exactly that on the english Wikipedia at that time, I think this is true. So I don't believe that this is a GFDL image, and it should be deleted. --Conti|✉ 21:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- This image has been accepted on en.Wikipedia for quite some time. We will probably never know whether it is truly GDFL or not. Should be assume good faith? I don't know. How about keeping it for now, and deleting it when we get an unambiguously free image? — Erin (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- There are currently two pictures on en:Anus, and the second one does seem to be really free. I think no one noticed that a copy of a deleted image still existed, and I very much doubt that the image really is GFDL. --Conti|✉ 19:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Assume good faith doesn't require us to hold an irrational belief that all people are competent. Please don't gunk up commons with questionable images. --Gmaxwell 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not clearly free content. --Gmaxwell 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If nobody can provide evidence of original image's free license then we have to delete this one. --Dodo 16:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If you don't know, only believe that this image is a copyvio, and have no reason (you instead assume bad faith), you can't request it for deletion. Also, you've forgotten to put {{Deletionrequest}} on the page. TZM de:T/T C 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete for sure. The way it works is like that: we assume that it is free licenced but we don't know. Therefore we have to delete it. The template is an obvious lie of the local uploader. --Wiggum 21:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, free status cannot be confirmed. Angr 09:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This page has little value. There is already a category for this (Category:Bills of Belarus, 1992). The description of the image has been copied or is already on the image page. --Chochopk 22:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The category is more appropriate for this. — Erin (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep nice to see them organised like this, rather than in whatever order the filename happened to be in the category. --Astrokey44 11:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As far as I remember consensus in page/category battle was "category for all images, gallery pages for selected images". --EugeneZelenko 14:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Put all Belarusian bills into the category:Bills of Belarus and make 1 article/gallery Bills of Belarus in which you can order them in chronological order. 3 categories and 3 articles for 22 images is a bit too specific for my taste. NielsF 01:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept - Category duplication is no reason to delete a Gallery page Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I am the uploader. Photo taken in Melbourne Museum without authorization. Sorry! Nezumidumousseau 14:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Seems a dissected animal. Who whould be carrying the ©? Platonides 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course and it is now an artefact © Melbourne Museum Nezumidumousseau 21:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- These images are used on a large number of wikimedia projects. Melbourne Museum, like other Museums, probably is only interested in attribution, which is completely within our policy. Please determine for certain before deleting. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of course and it is now an artefact © Melbourne Museum Nezumidumousseau 21:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept. The images do show (dead) wild animals only and are even not an arrangement. So the museum can hardly claim a (c) on the appearance of these animals or on the (not visible) arrangement itself. A completely other topic would be a reconstruction or a arrangment of objects. Such works would be indeed copyrighted by the museum (for example a Neandertaler reconstruction). Arnomane 18:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
July 20
[edit]Copyvio. This isn't a pic of Pettinato in a public place, it's a pic of him making his tv show, the producers of the show are the copyright owners. I tagged this pic with {copyvio} but a administrator tell me that my reason isn't so strong :S
Copyvio. Esta no es una foto de petinato en un lugar público, esta es una foto de él haciendo el programa de tv, el copyright pertenece a los productores o dueños del espectáculo. Había marcado esta foto como {copyvio} pero un moderador me dijo que la causa que puse no estaba muy clara :S
--Martin Rizzo 01:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
TV screenshots are a blatant copyvio. Speedy deleted. — Erin (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: promotional. See es:José Mirelli. --Juiced lemon 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, articles without media can be speedy deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: When I originally uploaded this image I inadvertantly used a name that broke an informal standard used by the other Trek rank insignia images. I've since uploaded a new version under the correct name, Image:Star Trek Tos OF4a.png. --Bryan Derksen 05:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please use {{Badname}} in future. — Erin (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: promotional. --Juiced lemon 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems someone tries to promote himself ..., see also Image:882092L.jpg and Image:Corey Andrew Pickelsimer.jpg --Denniss 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted--I marked Image:882092L.jpg as a dupe. I guess that Image:Corey Andrew Pickelsimer.jpg could go too. JeremyA 23:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
According to German law this is a copyvio. Alexander 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete --Historiograf 18:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Warum denn das? CyborgMax 11:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete obvious copyvio. coin is protected by copyright. --Rtc 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (copyvio) --ALE! 12:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Keine Erlaubnis der abgebildeten Person zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes zu finden. 82.207.204.235 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Photographer and model are claimed to be the same person. It's a self-portrait. Alexander 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mea culp, das hatte ich übersehen! 84.63.116.52 11:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: promotional. --Juiced lemon 16:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, it looks promotional. Delete the image too. — Erin (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete As above. Shaqspeare 15:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Keine Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Person zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes. Auch Chinesen haben wohl ein Recht am eigenen Bild will ich meinen. 82.207.204.235 16:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Google translation: "Is a permission of the shown persons for the publication present? Also Chinese have rights!"
- Comment We need a policy on personality rights as a matter of some urgency. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- We already have a policy: Definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent--Wiggum 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a guideline written by a fallible user, not a watertight policy. And it's wrong. It's fine to photograph people at marches and protests in public, for example. No restriction whatsoever on that. pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- We already have a policy: Definitly not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent--Wiggum 11:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Those people are only a part of a larger view. It's not showing each person his/herself. Shaqspeare 15:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- This was my first thought too. But i think the girl in the foreground is at least a borderline case. In my opinion the two trolley tables and the girl are the main focus of the composition.--Wiggum 19:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral --- gildemax 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think we should follow local laws with regard to privacy (unless US law is more strict), in this case that of China. Now, I don't know what the Chinese law says, but I know that according to Finish law this is ok because the lady in the foreground is not the subject of the photo (the photo is not of her) but makes part of a larger pub (?) scene. -Samulili 21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Citizens shall enjoy the right of portrait." [30] According to my dictionary, this is not a portrait, but maybe it is in Chinese (PRC) law. -Samulili 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Die Frau im Vordergrund ist bildbestimmend und hat ein Recht am eigenen Bild. 217.88.173.176 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Week kept. From the comments it seems that we don't quite know where to draw the line. It would seem at the moment that portraits and the like of non-celebrities are not accepted, but images like these are in the gray zone. They are in the gray zone because legal and/or moral issues have not been discussed with enough expertise. As I loath Case law I wish that no-one interprets this as a precedent but rather as an incentive to start crafting a policy. -Samulili 08:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON:
- Promotional.
- Insufficient explanation of the Author --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 19:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I was going to speedy it as an obvious copyvio, but the uploader has a username suggesting that he might be a doctor, in which case he may have the copyright on the poster for this medical seminar. On the other hand, this image is promotional material which is useless to our project. — Erin (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep i have the copyright on the poster since i made it, it provides informations about an international medical meeting celebrated in mexico city every two years, my intention is not to advertise the meeting, it is only to inform people who might be looking for information about it. Dr. Adrian Medina Castellanos
- Deleteuseless promotional material, out of scope of the project --ALE! 15:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (out of scope) --ALE! 08:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The author Claus Bergen died in 1964, therefore not PD.--Wiggum 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a Photograph not the Painitn itself. The rigth of reproduction of a painting ist at the owner. If the painting ist shown in public everyone has the right of photographing it and the Painter has no rights on the taken pictures. -> not delete--WerWil 11:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a derivative work which could only be licensed by the copyright owner which is Bergen in this case.--Wiggum 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- This do not fit with Paintings. Remember this Case of Corel against a Museum. Photografs of Paintings do not fall under the copyright of the painter.--WerWil 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Vergiss meinen Mist, da hab ich mich vergaloppiert--WerWil 20:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a derivative work which could only be licensed by the copyright owner which is Bergen in this case.--Wiggum 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unless clearly stated otherwise, the right of reproduction of a painting belongs to the artist, not to the owner. Jastrow 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 06:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Out of place with the rest of the MA town maps, is superseded by Image:New Bedford ma highlight.png. grendel|khan 15:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The blue surround is misleading too.--Nilfanion 16:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - The new one looks better than my version of it. Go ahead and get rid of it. -- LGagnon 01:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The tag is nonsense and misleading: Files created prior to 1945 are only in the public domain in the UK if they are in any other EEA country as well, that is 70 years after the death of the author for the most part.
- UK Copyright in photographs last taken before 1 January 1945
- How long does copyright last in the UK?
- Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection
--Wikipeder 12:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and all tagged pictures as well. Even the link in the template clearly says: "However, if such a photograph was protected on 1 July 1995 in another European Economic Area (EEA) state under legislation relating to copyright or related rights, copyright would have been revived from 1 January 1996 to the end of the term applying to photographs taken on or after 1 January 1996."--Wiggum 12:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, it does say that right in the template. So why blanket tag them all? - Themadchopper 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because there are no pictures which are free under this license exclusively. Either they are old enough (70 years pma/older than 100 years) or they are not PD. That's it. Please witness that most tagged images are WWII-pics which were protected before 1945 in European Union states, therefore they are protected today.--Wiggum 20:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, it does say that right in the template. So why blanket tag them all? - Themadchopper 03:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the template, but let us sort out the images, a few maybe PD like Image:Tsar Nicholas and King George Nw nicholas george 01.jpg. Jaranda wat's sup 04:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Beware the EUCD magic wand wavers. As stated in Commons Licensing, under US law, any work which was PD in the country of origin on January 1, 1996 was PD in the US. This was permitted under the Uruguay rounds, and many other countries may have similar laws. It may not be so in other countries of the EU, but it is a speculative point. As the article on the EU directives points out, EU directives are not laws, and have no force of law until they are embodied in the laws of the local governments. The EUCD wand wavers would have you believe that the laws of the UK and Italy for example are illegal. This is highly speculative and asks us to believe that Italian and UK legislators did not understand the EUCD when they declared their copyright laws were in compliance with it. -Mak 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The UK has implemented the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (as have all EU members, by the way), effective date July 1, 1995. Hence any such restored copyrights were also restored in the U.S. under the URAA on January 1, 1996 because at that date, the restoration in the EU had already happened and thus any works subject to it were no longer PD in their EU country of origin. To Mak: to what extent local legislation for "simple (non-artistic) photographs" or for "government-owned photographs"—which are the two cases your dabates about Italian law are about—might exempt some photographs from the copyright restorations under the EU directive of 1993 and whether such exemptions for government-owned photographs might also be valid in other countries are questions that we should ask a real lawyer. I suggest you contact Soufron about it. Lupo 07:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted. Redirect to Template:Copyvio --Shizhao 12:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot containing, among other things, the logo of en:Konami. I doubt that is free. --Lhademmor 09:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It should be possible to find some homebrew or demoscene NES ROM and screenshot that to replace this image. Does anything here look good? (I don't have an emulator at the moment to do it myself.) Grendelkhan 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted screenshot, even if it's from an simulator, please upload as fair use in the english wiki Jaranda wat's sup 02:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted-- copyrighted screenshot. / Fred Chess 10:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Dito. Keine Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Person zur Veröffentlichung. Ich würde vorschlagen dem Uploader links und rechts...keines seiner Bilder hat sowas. 82.207.204.235 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We need a speedy template for them. --Rtc 03:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As established elsewhere, we do not delete pictures based on lack of signed model releases. -- Ranveig 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Unless a signed release is required under Ethiopian law, no reason to assume this a problem image. -- Infrogmation 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept No model release policy. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Photo of protected work. --Rtc 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The content of the image is not the - still protected - thesis but the promotional poster to a lecture of the thesis. This poster was created by the uploader. It is used on the German wikipedia to illustrate two articles related to the subject. --ALE! 15:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The poster was created and photographed by the uploader? The image description page does not make that clear and needs to be updated then. Please do if you have the information. --Rtc 06:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you are really giving me second thoughts... The description says "own work". Well, I think we should contact him on the German Wikipedia. Can you do that? I have to go. --ALE! 14:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The poster was created and photographed by the uploader? The image description page does not make that clear and needs to be updated then. Please do if you have the information. --Rtc 06:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete it does not fall under de:panoramafreiheit because it is not a permanent installation – and the poster is copyrighted. TZM de:T/T C 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentI have contacted the uploader on the German Wikipedia. Please stand by ;-) --ALE! ¿…? 09:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- The user was not active on the German Wikipedia since May 15th, 2006. So in doubt: Delete --ALE! ¿…? 15:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Angr 09:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Auch dieses Bild verletzt die Persönlichkeitsrechte der abgebildeten Person, da keine Zustimmung zur Veröffentlichung vorliegt. 82.207.204.235 16:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bildnisse dürfen nur mit Einwilligung des Abgebildeten verbreitet oder öffentlich zur Schau gestellt werden und das ist auch gut so! Die Genehmigung liegt mündlich vor. Beachtet bitte jedoch auch § 22 KUG: Die Einwilligung gilt im Zweifel als erteilt, wenn der Abgebildete dafür, daß er sich abbilden ließ, eine Entlohnung erhielt. Die Entlohnung für das Einverständnis hält das Model auf dem Foto noch in der Hand! --Kolumbusjogger 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Zumindest in DE könne Minderjährigen solchen Vereinbarungen nicht rechtskräftig zustimmen, dafür ist die Einwilligung der Eltern erforderlich. Insbesondere bei Fotos von Kindern bin ich für strikte Zurückhaltung und würde nichts akzeptieren, wo die Einwilligung nicht schriftlich im OTRS vorliegt.--Wiggum 10:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- offensichtlich wurde das Foto nicht in Deutschland gemacht, deswegen kann hier ja wohl keine deutsche Sonderregelung anwendung finden. -- Gorgo 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Zumindest in DE könne Minderjährigen solchen Vereinbarungen nicht rechtskräftig zustimmen, dafür ist die Einwilligung der Eltern erforderlich. Insbesondere bei Fotos von Kindern bin ich für strikte Zurückhaltung und würde nichts akzeptieren, wo die Einwilligung nicht schriftlich im OTRS vorliegt.--Wiggum 10:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Kolumbusjogger 11:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Ranveig 09:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, correctly licensed. Commons policy does not cover personality rights for either adults or children. Angr 08:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep seems fine to me since she was paid for it. (according to the author) -- Gorgo 16:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Haapavesi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 13:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The .svg image does not respect the original colors (additional colors : “darkgolden rod” and “dimgray”, which do not exist in heraldry !!). --Juiced lemon 14:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment I think my drawing matches better finnish description, png misses golden pins. It also matches better for kunnat.net version: http://www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path=1;29;102942;486;84531;84541 --Tomia 17:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your version differs from the kunnet.net version :
- the axe of the wheel is azur (silver)
- the leaves nervures have 2 side branches (4 side branches).
- I notice also that, in the previous version of the image (png), the nervures were black, different on each leaf. --Juiced lemon 12:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your version differs from the kunnet.net version :
- Keep The two images both look good and are sufficeintly different to warrent the existence of both. The only incorrect thing seems to be the pins in the png which should be gold. /Lokal_Profil 19:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images tagged with OAS & RIGIS license tags
[edit]Months ago I started the discussion Commons talk:Licensing/Review of license templates#List of templates in question (Moved here from Commons:Deletion requests). Template:Agência Brasil has been resolved, they adopted a clear Creative Commons statement on their website. That's great and was done very well. There are dozens of probably nonderivative and/or noncommercial licenses left however, including such blatantly policy breaking ones such as
- Template:OAS: "Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes so long as the GS/OAS is cited as the source of the originating material, however, they may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS."[31]
- Template:RIGIS: "Prohibited Use -- Unauthorized Distribution. Any sale, distribution, loan, or offering for use of RIGIS digital data, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the approval of the Licensor."[32]
These have constantly been ignored and now silently been moved to the archive. I think there has been enough time now to resolve the situation and show ANY progess for the rest of these templates, so I request again to delete the images associated with these templates (except those tagged Template:Agência Brasil). --Rtc 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted both tags and their associated images:
OAS:
- Image:OEA Paniagua 1.jpg
- Image:OEA Paniagua.jpg
- Image:OEA Gaviria Toledo.jpg
- Image:Eduardo Montealegre.jpg
- Image:CostaRica.MiguelAngelRodriguez.02.jpg
- Image:José Miguel Insulza.jpg
- Image:Chile.JoseMiguel.Insulza.01.jpg
- Image:Insulza elected OAS Secretary General.jpg
- Image:OAS Secretary General election 2005.jpg
- Image:Jorge Batlle 01.jpg
- Image:Enrique V Iglesias.jpg
- Image:Argentina.FdoDelaRua.01.jpg
- Image:EnriqueBolanos.JPG
RIGIS:
- Image:RI State Highways base.png
- Image:Meshanticut Interchange.jpg
- Image:I-95 RI exit 27.jpg
- Image:RI 10 at RI 2.jpg
- Image:RI towns labeled.png
- Image:RI towns Tiverton.png
- Image:RI towns North Kingstown.png
- Image:RI towns Scituate.png
- Image:RI towns Foster.png
- Image:RI towns Burrillville.png
- Image:RI towns Glocester.png
- Image:RI towns Smithfield.png
- Image:RI towns North Smithfield.png
- Image:RI towns Woonsocket.png
- Image:RI towns Lincoln.png
- Image:RI towns Cumberland.png
- Image:RI towns New Shoreham.png
- Image:RI towns Central Falls.png
- Image:RI towns North Providence.png
- Image:RI towns Johnston.png
- Image:RI towns Cranston.png
- Image:RI towns Pawtucket.png
- Image:RI towns Providence.png
- Image:RI towns East Providence.png
- Image:RI towns Exeter.png
- Image:RI towns Richmond.png
- Image:RI towns Hopkinton.png
- Image:RI towns Westerly.png
- Image:RI towns Charlestown.png
- Image:RI towns South Kingstown.png
- Image:RI towns Narragansett.png
- Image:RI towns Jamestown.png
- Image:RI towns Newport.png
- Image:RI towns Little Compton.png
- Image:RI towns Middletown.png
- Image:RI towns Portsmouth.png
- Image:RI towns Bristol.png
- Image:RI towns Warren.png
- Image:RI towns Barrington.png
- Image:RI towns Warwick.png
- Image:RI towns East Greenwich.png
- Image:RI towns West Greenwich.png
- Image:RI towns Coventry.png
- Image:RI towns West Warwick.png
- Image:RI towns.png
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader doesn't seem to be the author – see original description ("Author:Scan") =>no licence =>delete--Hannes2·wp 20:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- The document is 83 years old though. It may be PD-old. — Erin (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --- gildemax 20:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's ineligible for copyright. Tagged as PD-ineligible. --Rtc 03:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete - der Autor ist nicht sicher 70 Jahre tot --> URV 217.88.173.176 12:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- What is the status of newspapers from Austria in 1929? -- Infrogmation 21:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is as eligible for copyright as any other written text (song, poem, book, etc.). PD cannot be proved. Angr 10:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as per Angr / Fred Chess 09:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON: This file is unused and unnecessary. --Wsiegmund 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Branta_canadensis has 40 images, most better than this one. This low resolution image, illuminated from behind, doesn't depict distinguishing features well, and has an unnatural appearing background. -Wsiegmund 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Low-quality image of subject for which we have many excellent images. — Erin (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Rklawton 05:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It illustrates goose behaviour, is fairly good and the license is fine. Why on Earth waste our time deleting it? -- Ranveig 12:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Ranveig -- Arvind 12:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please, please, please could people accept quality as a criterion, and not just copyright status? We have several superior images, some of which I think are even of the same individual goose.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Erin Silversmith (talk • contribs)
- Delete-I agree with Erin. This particular image is not very good at all, Image:Geese 3.jpg shows the same goose doing much the same thing and is a much better picture.--Nilfanion 12:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't object to deleting particularly bad images, but see no reason to delete a free licence image for the sole reason that we also have other different better images related to the subject. Undistinguished but not bad image, of possible use. -- Infrogmation 21:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary. --Dodo 16:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Ranveig Kneiphof 14:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with Wsiegmund and Erin. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Kept, it is not universally accepted that quality alone is a criterion for deletion. Since several people oppose deletion we can keep it without harming anything or anyone. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I make this work, it's based on this public domain NASA pic hosting at commons, the pic is about a NASA emblem but reading the guidelines regarding the use of NASA material i found this point:
"12. NASA emblems should be reproduced only from original reproduction proofs, transparencies, or computer files available from NASA Headquarters. Please be advised that approval must be granted by the Public Services Division (see above) before any reproduction materials can be obtained.".
Should i delete my image?, isn't any image at commons able to be modified?. sorry for write my question here but i dont know another place to put it. --Martin Rizzo 04:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- "should"-rules can be ignored there is nothing legally binding to them. --ALE! ¿…? 07:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
kept and changed the license to {{PD-NASA}} --ALE! ¿…? 07:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
July 21
[edit]Essentially a duplicate of Image:Alberto 2006 track.png, but it is not a byte-for-byte copy. It is 3 times larger than the other image and seems broken. In addition it is out of date.--Nilfanion 14:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. File appears to contain some error. — Erin (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Image name error! It should be Image:Taipei_MRT_Taipei_Zoo_Station.JPG(Do not remove this one)
but it became "Image:Taipei_MRT_Taipei_Zoo%E2%80%8E_Station.JPG". -Jiahwang 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. You can use {{Badname}} instead. -Samulili 19:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyright TV program. William Avery 16:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Ruth Elisson is not author but the bride and this image is not licensed under free licesnse.
- I contacted Ruth Elisson on Flickr when this photo was put there, because I wanted this images on my webpage. I found that the author is professional photographer who did not released it on free license. I was really disapointed but it should be deleted here as well... :( -A.J. 09:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh. Delete. *grumbles* Flickr users are stupid... pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (license on Flickr is "© All rights reserved" [33]) --ALE! 23:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Its copyright tag GNU-FDL is not correct. It is a logo and copyrighted, in addition I don't think, that the author had drawn it themselve. Cottbus 10:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- ACK. Delete pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Flominator --ALE! 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"autor: unbekannt" --Rtc 18:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Author unknown for an image only 7 years old? It can never be correctly licensed then, especially since we can never know whether the subject consented either. It is also a low-quality pic. Speedy deleted. — Erin (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for e.g. private party photos, self created artwork without educational purpose and such."
- No consent from the person on the photo.
-Samulili 19:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted - private photo, no consent, not used, love letter in description. Shaqspeare 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Tagged with the generic PD-tag. Moved from en.wp, where it is now tagged as fair use†. From the book "The Trial of William Joyce" (Jarrolds Publishers, 1946), thus not PD. Kjetil_r 23:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fairuse. — Erin (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete situation is unambiguous. Tagged as {{fairuse}}.--Rtc 00:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! 22:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Probably was not created by user. Can be found on several sites by entering "Kobe bryant" into Google image search. --Punctured Bicycle 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete PD-release probably bogus. — Erin (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! 20:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for e.g. private party photos, self created artwork without educational purpose and such." NB. the uploader is not this de:Anna Schramm. -Samulili 16:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree — Erin (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Kempele.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 16:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded. — Erin (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded. --Tomia 23:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The US Navy is unclear, the source site looks like a doorway. --Panther 07:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
DeleteThis is a totally pointless image. — Erin (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)- OK, I vote neutral if you say this is useful. — Erin (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleteas nominator. --Panther 10:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)- Neutral per Erin. --Panther 07:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This image is being used in a wikibooks module that I am writing. The chapter provides instruction for laying brick, and this is illustration shows how to perform one of the steps in the process. It is not pointless. The source site is an aggregator of miltary instruction manuals (which they reprint and sell), but the manual itself was produced by the U.S. Navy, and is in the public domain. As far as I know, the Navy does not publish this material online. Is it is better to not list the URL where the image is found? - Jomegat 17:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC).
- Add the source (does it have an ISBN?) to the description, I think that will make a difference. -Samulili 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- OK, no ISBN, but I found several other places that provide the same document, all of which identify it as a U.S. Navy publication, document id "NAVEDTRA 14043", with a title of "Builder 3 & 2, Volume 1." I have entered all of this in the information template, and I hope that's sufficient to establish its pedigree. -- Jomegat 03:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Add the source (does it have an ISBN?) to the description, I think that will make a difference. -Samulili 18:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep NAVEDTRA books don't normally have ISBN. The ones I've seen have stock numbers on them and the PD ones all say Distribution Statement:Approved for public release, though some of the rates have confidential books, the vast majority are PD. If its on tpub it was a publicly released book. You can also find them for sale all over the place. I've seen some of the electronics ones republished at a local chain bookstores. Several years ago you could download them from public Navy servers, but that has been discontinued (I don't know why). They are also available at the Government Printing Office.[34] No ISBN listed there either. Slap a {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}} on it and call it a day. --Dual Freq 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate png file uploaded. I already changed the links referring to this image. NielsB 07:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 20:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea what this is. It's dates of August on certain years and then there are something ranging from 0 to 160. It's not used anywhere so there's no way to tell. -Samulili 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless the uploader can explain some use for this image. — Erin (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader was active on Commons after the deletion request and did not come here to explain a possible use of the file. --ALE! 20:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! ¿…? 09:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Its copyright tag is PD-too trivial, but I disagree. I think I can read "Design Group" in small letters and image is probably copyrighted. Conscious 07:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The text around the edge looks like © SF Design Group 1977 to me.--Nilfanion 16:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted Clearly copyrighted; bad tag. -- Infrogmation 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
work from a US state -- ~Pyb 17:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Work from an US state -- ~Pyb 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The copyright holder of this picture is almost certainly the Scania company, as the photograper, Carl-Erik Andersson, is/was employed by them and obviously took this picture as part of his work. As Scania hasn't declared that any other of their pictures can be freely used, I doubt very much that they would have applied such a rule for this specific picture. Thomas Blomberg 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Could be. Furthermore, there is no evidence that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose". -Samulili 16:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Even if the photographer is employed by Scania HE is still holds the copyright. Whether he "allows anyone to use..." seems to be unclear however. And even if he is the uploder EU law requires {{Attribution}} /Lokal_Profil 23:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a bogus licence. — Erin (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Erin. --Dodo 16:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment pleae wait. I just notified the user. / Fred Chess 18:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 14:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have no idea what this is ("Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for e.g. private party photos, self created artwork without educational purpose and such.") and judging by the resolution, it doesn't seem to be own work. -Samulili 15:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a stamp from a nazi related organization. I put {{Nazi symbol}} in there. --Rtc 00:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Crappy image. Two stamps superimposed over something else, obscuring it. What is the point of this image? There is so little info. If the uploader really possesses these objects, he can create a better image. If he doesn't, then this is probably a copyvio. — Erin (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess the thing in the background is the stamp as a whole, the lower left is its head with the engraved seal, and the lower right is the result when applied to ink and paper. The text of the seal reads "Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau". The skull is one of the SS-Totenkopfverbände skull variants. --Rtc 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc is right. This picture needs explanation but it think we should keep it.--Wiggum 10:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's not a matter of urgency. We may wait for better images. --Juiced lemon 13:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
July 22
[edit]The image was uploaded on 10 March 2006. The source URL leads to a notice "© KIM Info-Service, Serbian Orthodox Church". The uploader has never specified any license.--Jusjih 02:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No licence at all. Speedy deleted. — Erin (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No source. Image has been deleted on English Wikipedia. -- Arcimboldo 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia has deleted it for having no source info, we with our even stricter rules should speedy delete it. — Erin (talk) 04:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Another self-made Penis pic we do really not need as we already have enough better quality pics. See Penis for more. --Denniss 07:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete What a crap pic. — Erin (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:WarX --ALE! 22:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"no copyright stated" --Rtc 01:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Replaced {{Delete}} with {{subst:nsd}} and {{subst:nld}} by User:Samulili. --ALE! 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The caption makes the picture useless. With it, I see no possible use for any wikimedia project, let alone encyclopedic use. It is not used anywhere, anyway. Commons is not a webspace provider for private use. --AndreasPraefcke 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Borderline vandalism. — Erin (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear Erin,
This is the wikipedia definition of vandalism: Vandalism is the conspicuous defacement or destruction of a structure or symbol against the will of the owner/governing body.
So, by definition, I disagree with your reason. However, I agree with AndreasPraefcke. As the uloader I request that the image be deleted.
Delete
--Tomascastelazo 13:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted per uploader request. NielsF 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
On the source web page it says "Copyright © 1999-2000 Bicycling Life Website", GPL seems a bit odd as a license for this image. --Matt314 22:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Let me guess what he wants to say: He took a screenshot while the picture was displayed in a GPL licensed browser? --Rtc 03:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Obvious copyvio and not very good image. Speedied. — Erin (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It´s nothing to see on this image. It´s very dark. --GeorgHH 14:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Terrible image. — Erin (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; possibly a logo violation. --Bigtop 07:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unknown copyright status. --Hautala 13:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader wrote an email a month ago to clearify the copyright status. As there is no new information: Delete --ALE! 07:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader of this image, and indeed i've requsted the permission for this logo. Unfortunately i still have no reply from them, so i guess it should be deleted... --Redline 10:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
--h-stt !? 10:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Users may download, copy and reprint information from the site for non-commercial purposes so long as the GS/OAS is cited as the source of the originating material, however, they may not resell, redistribute, or create derivative works absent the express written permission of GS/OAS.
- We already have a pending deletionrequest for this template, please see Template:Deletion_requests#Lots_of_pictures_(again) (July 20).--Wiggum 10:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- IIRC, when I created the template I followed the terms of http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/photo_main.asp. Now, checking it again, it states "Photographs of official events are available through OAS website and can be used, free of charge, as long as the source is acknowledged". Of course, free as in beer isn't free as in free speech; I can't really say if their terms have changed or I misread them the first time around. Taragüí @ 16:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
this is a duplicate discussion of Template:Deletion_requests#Lots_of_pictures_(again) and is therefore being closed. Please look above. --ALE! 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's impossible to put an image under public domain on Flickr and the true license is CC-NC-SA -- ~Pyb 10:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can not finde the image on flickr. Could you provide the link? --ALE! ¿…? 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The flickr image is here.--Nilfanion 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, noncommercial licence.--Nilfanion 16:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: No freedom of panorama for art works within the USA. William Avery 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What does that mean? 24.52.28.34 15:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)photographer
Whos permission do i need for this to be okay to use for the city's wiki entry?
- You need the permission of the artist who created the sculpture... --Stefan-Xp 16:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not a sculpture it's a fountain.
- In this case you'll need the permission of the Creator of the Fountian. --Stefan-Xp 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete it for now, I'll see what i can do about finding the creator and obtaining permission. What sort of Documentation will to need to verify the legitimacy of the authorization?
Deleted — Erin (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded this photograph of a statue in Oranjestad, Aruba. It later occurred to me that this might be a derivative work of the statue itself, and so the photograph may be a violation of the copyright of the sculptor. I would prefer that this image remain available on the Commons if there is no legal problem, but I decided to nominate it for deletion to bring this possible problem to others' attention. —Bkell (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to w:Politics_of_Aruba Aruba law is based on the Netherlands, which Commons:Derivative_works says is negative on freedom of panorama. William Avery 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Dutch copyright law clearly states in article 18 of the copyright law of 1912:
Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 6°, of op een werk, betrekkelijk tot de bouwkunde als bedoeld in artikel 10, eerste lid, onder 8°, dat is gemaakt om permanent in openbare plaatsen te worden geplaatst, wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging of openbaarmaking van afbeeldingen van het werk zoals het zich aldaar bevindt. Waar het betreft het overnemen in een compilatiewerk, mag van dezelfde maker niet meer worden overgenomen dan enkele van zijn werken.
- --> rough translation: if a work meant in article 10, eerste lid, 6° (first paragraph, 6°)(drawings, paintings, sculptures, buildings etc.) is made to be permanently installed in a public space, reproduction and publishing of pictures of the work as it is to be seen in public space isn't an infraction of copyright. AFAIK this law applies to the whole Kingdom of the Netherlands. Maybe commons:derivative works needs updating. However, I don't know if it being no infraction upon copyright in the Kingdom of the Netherlands means it's good enough for Commons. NielsF 00:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- So does that mean that the Netherlands does have freedom of panorama, in spite of what is said at Commons:Derivative works? —Bkell (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, never mind, I see that the list has been changed. —Bkell (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
What the devil is this for an outdated law. There is evidence that NL has no Panoramafreiheit citing the modern law at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Alx/Sandbox#The_Netherlands --Historiograf 00:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not anymore ;-). The current version of the law is what I stated above, which is from wetten.nl, Dutch goverment website, and http://www.ivir.nl/wetten/nl/auteurswet_01_04_2006.html, a website of the University of Amsterdam. NielsF 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- PS: I've tried to find out where this change happened, but couldn't find it. I however suspect that it occured when Dutch copyright law was harmonised with the EU directives. The WIPO unfortunately only has an English version of 1972!!! NielsF 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It was in 2004. Give a proof that not only buildings are relevant and do not revert Alx/Sandbox without proof. I have quoted the Dutch version there --Historiograf 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't read Dutch, so I'm basing all of what I'm about to say on Babel Fish translations. The relevant portion of [35] that you posted at Alx/Sandbox seems to say that it applies to works as meant in Article 10, first paragraph, under 6°, and also engineering works (does this mean buildings?) as meant in as meant in Article 10, first paragraph, under 8°. Now, 6° says "teeken-, schilder-, bouw- en beeldhouwwerken, lithografieën, graveer- en andere plaatwerken", which I guess means "Works of teeken (photographers?), painters, constructors (artists?), and sculptors; lithographs, engravings, and other platework". So it would seem that what you posted applies not only to buildings but to forms of art as well. Of course, I need a Dutch speaker to confirm that these shaky translations are correct. —Bkell (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, teeken clearly does not mean photographer, as photographic works are covered in 9°. I just realized that I'm sitting in a library right by the foreign language section, so I picked up a Dutch–English dictionary, but it doesn't seem to list teeken. It does confirm that bouw means a building, construction, or erection; I'm not sure why I guessed that meant artist. I guess I don't trust Babel Fish enough. —Bkell (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've updated User:Alx/Sandbox with a more accurate translation. Bkell is correct in his assumption. Article 18 refers to the reproduction or publishing of depictions (aka photographs, drawings) of a work as meant in article 16, first paragraph, 6° and 8°. Teekenwerken = drawings, Schilderwerken = paintings, Bouwwerken = architectural ("building") works, Beeldhouwwerken = sculptures and so on and so on. NielsF 00:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- PS: you probably couldn't find teeken because it's old spelling, it's now spelled as teken. Check under tekenen (infinitive). NielsF 00:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, teeken clearly does not mean photographer, as photographic works are covered in 9°. I just realized that I'm sitting in a library right by the foreign language section, so I picked up a Dutch–English dictionary, but it doesn't seem to list teeken. It does confirm that bouw means a building, construction, or erection; I'm not sure why I guessed that meant artist. I guess I don't trust Babel Fish enough. —Bkell (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- And for those of us who don't speak Dutch: is there freedom to use pictures of statues and buildings. Is Aruba law the same as Netherlands? It looked like a separate dominion to me. William Avery 01:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Learn it ;-). On a serious note: Aruban and Netherlands Antillean law is sometimes slightly different from European Netherlands law. However Aruban and/or Netherlands Antillean law isn't available on the internet afaik. The only thing I know is that changes to the Dutch law because of EU Copyright Directive 2001/29 where also submitted to Aruban and/or Netherland Antillean parliaments, so in good faith I have no reason to doubt that the aforementionted text doesn't apply to those areas. In the statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in article 39 it's also mentioned that: Het burgerlijk en handelsrecht, de burgerlijke rechtsvordering, het strafrecht, de strafvordering, het auteursrecht, de industriële eigendom, het notarisambt, zomede bepalingen omtrent maten en gewichten worden in Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba zoveel mogelijk op overeenkomstige wijze geregeld. Rough translation: "the civil and commercial law, civil claims, criminal law, criminal claims, copyright, industrial property, notary law, as well as decisions about sizes and weights, will be regulated in the same way as much is possible in the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles, and Aruba."
- I'll try to get hold of a Dutch law expert, but don't get your hopes up. NielsF 02:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Until there is a proof that in Aruba (dependency of the Netherlands) there does not apply Freedom of Panorama as in the Netherlands. Arnomane 19:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This copyright template is bogus. RIGIS publishes their maps under a strict noncommercial licence, as seen in their License Agreement at: http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis-spf/license.html
1.4 Prohibited Use -- Unauthorized Distribution. Any sale, distribution, loan, or offering for use of RIGIS digital data, in whole or in part, is prohibited without the approval of the Licensor.
The template as well as all images tagged that way have to be deleted. --h-stt !? 10:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- We already have a pending deletionrequest for this template, please see Template:Deletion_requests#Lots_of_pictures_(again) (July 20).--Wiggum 10:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is for the actual GIS data. Maps derived from such data are however not covered by that, but by a separate license. What RIGIS publishes is files that contain definitions of geographic features. From that, one can make maps like Image:RI towns West Warwick.png. RIGIS did not create the map. --SPUI 18:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- What separate license? You link is the same as the one at the top, and states in sect 1.4 that distribution is not permitted. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Graphic displays and printed tabular listings derived from RIGIS data may be used in publications and presentations, provided that credit is given to RIGIS as the source of the information or that notice of copyright [(c) 1990 RIGIS] be shown." --SPUI 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed that. Seems OK to me, then. The template should quote that in full, though, to avoid confusion. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- No! It's not a free license, it is about "in publications and presentations", a pure press license. I cannot use the displays and tabular listings and convert them back to data and sell the result on its own. --Rtc 09:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, I missed that. Seems OK to me, then. The template should quote that in full, though, to avoid confusion. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- That would be a publication. --SPUI 10:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"may be used in publications and presentations, provided that credit is given to RIGIS" doesn't sound like "commercial use and derivative works are allowed" to me... --Dodo 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- But not arbitrary commercial use and derivative works, but only appropriately in the context of publications and presentations. --Rtc 16:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Jusjih --ALE! ¿…? 15:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
July 23
[edit]Album cover. --Edub 13:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete tagged as copyvio. --Rtc 16:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedied. NielsF 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Taking a photo of a DVD cover does not change that the DVD cover is probably copyrighted, Commons:Derivative works. Kotepho 19:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Tagged as {{copyvio}} --Rtc 19:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Changed to {{Derivative}}. Clear copyvio, should be a speedy delete. Kjetil_r 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you not an admin...? pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Even worse: the uploader is one as well. NielsF 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Are you not an admin...? pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as copyvio (the article Nine Inch Nails as well). NielsF 23:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Self-made usercruft that I'm having deleted (unused, wastes server space).--HereToHelp (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted as per uploader request. NielsF 23:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted." This image is not used on a user page. -Samulili 07:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unused personal pic — Erin (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Erin. Serves no purpose here. - Tangotango 16:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- I just added this to Goatee. Could easily be used in an article showing early facial hair growth or facial hair styles. Jkelly 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Poor quality, questionable license, possible copyvio ripped from the forum of a news website. --Dual Freq 19:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. — Erin (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
From the image talk page at en.wp: "I don't think this should be on Commons or tagged as GFDL, being a derivative work from works of the Tolkien estate, Warner Bros. and related." -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously contains copyrighted elements that WB and the Tolkien estate would never release. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved this from my talk page — Erin (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi. In reference to this, what elements did you feel were copyrighted? While I did not verify that the uploader had really created the image in the way he stated, it seemed to me that if his claims were true it would be a 'GFDL valid' image. However, I know more about Tolkien than I do about copyright so I might have missed something.
The Tolkien estate has never published a 'detailed' image of the Ring. Early hard-cover versions of the book showed a simple circle, which was meant to represent the Ring, with other elements around it (the eye of Sauron inside the circle, the inscription coiled around the outside of the circle, and the ring Narya above it in symbolic opposition). The Tolkien estate has never exerted copyright over Ring images because (again, my understanding) copyright over a written description does not extend to visual representations of the thing described... and a painting/drawing/whatever of a golden ring with inscriptions on the inside and outside of the band, as Tolkien wrote about, can't be considered a 'derivative work' of a simple geometric circle with a similar inscription around it, as Tolkien drew.
The Ring was then famous and extensively illustrated for nearly fifty years before New Line (a different subsidiary of Time Warner than WB) came up with a version for their movies and merchandizing (which were done in conjunction with 'Tolkien Enterprises', a company with no connection to the 'Tolkien estate'). Again, my understanding has been that you can't exert copyright over something which has been used extensively for years before you did so.
If there are copyright violations in the image then it shouldn't be on Commons, but given the history I didn't think copyright would apply. --CBDunkerson 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure. Let's hear others' opinions. — Erin (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't the background a screenshot from the film or something like that? Isn't the inscription and the script it is in an original work of Tolkien not in the public domain? — Erin (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Erin, thanks for re-opening this for discussion. Let's go over the elements one at a time.
- Ring - First, it seems I mis-remembered the content while it was deleted - this Ring doesn't show the inscription on it, which makes that part of the image just a plain gold ring like billions of others. The description page states that this was computer generated and it is definitely not the Ring image used by New Line.
- Background - This is said to be a computer generated landscape.
- Latin text - In the lower right corner is a fragment of the inscription on the Ring transliterated to the modern Latin alphabet ('Ash Nazg...'). The full Latin text of this inscription was included in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings as two lines in a standard italic font.
- Runes - Across the top and bottom are Anglo-saxon runes, from which Tolkien derived his Cirth lettering. Offhand they don't appear to 'say' anything but there are numerous different modes I'd have to review to verify that. Many of Tolkien's books have been published with Cirth on the top and/or bottom of the cover page similar to this but giving the title, author, and other information.
- Tengwar - The 'arch' of characters are the full Ring inscription in a Tengwar font. This is somewhat similar to Tolkien's proposed cover art for the first volume, viewable here, which was used in modified form (reduced to one color and the rings at lower left and right removed) as the original cover for all three volumes. Careful study will show numerous minor differences in the text (lower left of image under consideration should correspond to upper right of Tolkien's). A few minor variations on this (ring at top pointing the other way, Tolkien's original art with all three rings, slightly different Tengwar lettering, et cetera) have been released over the years, but none matching the image under discussion.
- Based on this I'd say the image contains nothing which is directly copied from Tolkien or New Line and the only area for possible concern would be 'derivative work'. Even there only the Tengwar and Latin ring inscriptions seem to be possible issues, but I didn't think the mere use of particular symbols/words qualified something as 'derivative' - especially if they are shown differently and used in a unique combination with other elements. Finally, note that Tengwar was entirely Tolkien's invention, but again I didn't think that use of a script could be copyrighted. --CBDunkerson 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a pretty good analysis, convinces me. Keep I think we're afraid this image must be a copyvio simply because it looks so professional! pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's a pretty good analysis, convinces me.
- Delete The background is copyrighted work by Markus Gann, see: http://www.begann.de/pic/terr12/lava2004.html and http://www.begann.de/startbig.html --ALE! 15:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Doh! All that and the acknowledged source which has nothing to do with Tolkien turns out to be copyrighted. Oh well. In which case several other images by the same user incorporating computer generated landscapes here are likely suspect. --CBDunkerson 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's double-copvio. copyrighted background was used and it's clearly a derivative work of Tolkien, because the overall composition of the scene has deliberately been derived from the movie. CBDunkerson is wrong. --Rtc 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the delete, based on the background, but I don't recall an instance of the Ring 'floating' with tengwar lettering around it, or anything remotely similar, anywhere in the movies. What scene are you referring to? --CBDunkerson 11:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- derivative work includes much more than simply copying or look-a-likes. Copyright protects the creative elements, not some specific instance of them. There is a very specific ring. Of course rings as such can't be copyrighted. But specific rings tied closely to a protected work can. It depends on the context. Suggesting that an arbitrary ring is exactly Tolkien's ring is already a derivative work and a copyright violation. And this picture's very purpose is to make this suggestion! --Rtc 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Peter Jackon didn't create the Middle Earth. The rights to make films don't grant you to control all images about the world of Tolkien. --Juiced lemon 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Right, it's Tolkien's copyright too, not only Jackson's. That however hardly makes a difference concering the outcome. --Rtc 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The differences are:
- the Tolkien's novel will be sooner in the public domain
- the background of this image does not match the Tolkiens's descriptions
- --Juiced lemon 22:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which is more or less irrelevant concerning the outcome that the picture is a copyright violation. --Rtc 22:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The differences are:
- Right, it's Tolkien's copyright too, not only Jackson's. That however hardly makes a difference concering the outcome. --Rtc 18:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hrrm? Are you saying that once Tolkien writes about a golden ring anyone making paintings, drawings, photographs, computer images, actual rings, et cetera meant to represent that ring is infringing on his copyright unless they get permission? That was not my understanding of 'derivative works', but if true... wouldn't that make all artistic representations of characters/things from books copyright violations? There are numerous examples of such on Commons; [36] [37] [38] [39]. Are these and dozens of others like them all copyvios? We've got entire categories for images like these. --CBDunkerson 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Stricly speaking, yes, I am saying that. And the pictures you refer to are clearly all copyright violations. Basically all fan art is copyright violation, it is merely tolerated by the copyright owner. Rarely, fan art may be fair use (parodies) but that's against policy here. --Rtc 18:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Peter Jackon didn't create the Middle Earth. The rights to make films don't grant you to control all images about the world of Tolkien. --Juiced lemon 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- derivative work includes much more than simply copying or look-a-likes. Copyright protects the creative elements, not some specific instance of them. There is a very specific ring. Of course rings as such can't be copyrighted. But specific rings tied closely to a protected work can. It depends on the context. Suggesting that an arbitrary ring is exactly Tolkien's ring is already a derivative work and a copyright violation. And this picture's very purpose is to make this suggestion! --Rtc 18:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with the delete, based on the background, but I don't recall an instance of the Ring 'floating' with tengwar lettering around it, or anything remotely similar, anywhere in the movies. What scene are you referring to? --CBDunkerson 11:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The 'derivative works' aspect of copyright gives me a headache, but the background is a (non-Tolkien/New Line) copyvio in any case. --CBDunkerson 14:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that the autor on en did the image himself; see this website. the talkpage of the user shows an other copy right problem ...Sicherlich Post 23:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC) - how is it on de? changing the tag to fair use? I'm not familiar with that
- Delete Suspect release. — Erin (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
From en.wp: "This appears to be an Oregon State Gov't photo, not federal." -- pfctdayelise (translate?) 23:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--GeorgHH 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete work of state government and not of the US federal gov.. --ALE! 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
(this refers only to the template, not the pictures. these can be changed to the standard GFDL template plus appropriate copyright notices) (only if the author agreed, I guess - Halibutt)
Let's avoid that it becomes a habit that commons users make their private license templates and please let's be clear about one point: You may not add further restrictions to the GFDL. This may be little known, but please understand the following trick the FSF has done to ensure you do not do this:
- The GFDL requires itself to be part of any work in which it is used
- The GFDL itself is copyrighted. " Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. [...]"
- The GFDL states "changing it is not allowed."
And that also excludes indirect changing by reference. You may thus not add additional restictions to the GFDL. Why does the FSF do that? They do not want you to say "it uses a GNU license" when you added restrictions that the FSF does not approve of. So while you as the author are not bound to the GFDL in that you can dual-license your work under a different license, you are very well bound to certain restrictions for the usage of the GFDL itself, since the FSF does only allow the license to be printed under aforementioned conditions.
The attribution you want is already ensured by the GFDL. Make a section 'copyright notices' on the image description page and add your desired credit there. --Rtc 05:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- What additional restriction you're talking about? I can't see any... A.J. 18:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Under moral rights the user requires that this work be properly attributed to its creator. For photographs, this is traditionally done in the image caption. Where a copyright notice is present, using the copyright notice in the caption will be sufficient." Where the original license merely requires copyright notices to be kept, Halibutt additionally demands the author to be credited under all possible circumstances, even if no copyright notice is present. He also adds a strong rationale for how he would like the license to be interpreted, ie. where copyright notices have to be placed in his opinion. It's essentially the conjunction of something-like-CC-by and GFDL, but these licenses are not compatible. . --Rtc 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see it that way: it's just an little more explanation for what "attribution" means and what forms of attribution are prefered by Halibutt, thats all... Is it really against GFDL? A.J. 10:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Under moral rights the user requires that this work be properly attributed to its creator. For photographs, this is traditionally done in the image caption. Where a copyright notice is present, using the copyright notice in the caption will be sufficient." Where the original license merely requires copyright notices to be kept, Halibutt additionally demands the author to be credited under all possible circumstances, even if no copyright notice is present. He also adds a strong rationale for how he would like the license to be interpreted, ie. where copyright notices have to be placed in his opinion. It's essentially the conjunction of something-like-CC-by and GFDL, but these licenses are not compatible. . --Rtc 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, this is not a modified GFDL. In fact it is my personal license, with GFDL added to it. So it's not adding further restrictions to GFDL, it's adding the restrictions of the GFDL to Halibutt's copyright license. The GFDL itself requires attribution, but it does not specify that - and people usually violate that part anyway (believe me, some of my pics published under GFDL were even published in newspapers without any source credited, not even the English wiki where I uploaded them). That's why I'm releasing all my pics under my own personal license, which in itself is compliant with the GFDL, with the exception of the disclaimer. As A.J. put it, it's merely my explanation of what I mean by attribution - an explanation that is lacking in plain GFDL. As is explicitly said, if anyone wanted me to, I could release my pics under PD, CC-by or any other license as well, so it's not a problem. However, all I need is credit, for the rest plain GFDL is enough.
- Now then, I would not agree to release all my work under plain GFDL as long as it's violated as often as it is. I demand nothing more than already is in the GFDL, including what you call demand of credit under all possible circumstances. It also demands the license to be repeated, so there's no my invention in that. I merely underline what's already in the GFDL, and state explicitly what in GFDL is left up to the good will of the user. I'm not an idealist now and I don't leave it up to others to decide. So the rules are pretty simple: want to use my work - credit me this way or another. Want to change its license to PD and pretend it was you to made the picture - contact me and I will allow you to. Want to use my picture under plain GFDL - contact me and I will also allow you to. But don't use my work as if it was your own without letting me know. It's pretty fair I believe. Halibutt
- Sorry, it's not a disclaimer. You don't disclaim anything. "I would not agree to release all my work under plain GFDL" that exactly shows that it's incompatible with the GFDL. "So it's not adding further restrictions to GFDL, it's adding the restrictions of the GFDL to Halibutt's copyright license." Effectively that's the same. You may not add further restrictions to the GFDL if you want to use it. Please understand that. If people are violating the GFDL terms, please sue them and please let them pay you for it, but please don't imprudently add restrictions. Why don't you use CC-by-sa instead? That seems to be a license that would perhaps be better suited for your desires. No, it's not acceptable that people start doing such things. We don't want 1000 personal licenses, all incompatible and legally questionable. What's next? Users adding statements like "You may use it under GFDL, but not to harm animals" etc? Anybody else is fine with the plain GFDL, so please be fine with it, too. --Rtc 15:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- So what would be a better wording? "Except for the disclaimer above the license is compatible with GFDL"? That's what the tag says anyway... and besides, as an author of the said works I am allowed to release them under any license I please, don't you think? Halibutt 06:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I explained the situation several times. a) Please understand that the GFDL is copyrighted. That means everybody needs the FSF's permission to redistribute it if he wants to do so. The FSF hat granted permission to do this, however it added a condition: Only if the GFDL has not been changed. That especially means no further restrictions, not even indirectly. If you release Image X under "GFDL"-Halibutt, and somebody wants to redistribute X, he can only do so by including the GFDL. But including the GFDL in a work that has imposed further restrictions immediately voids the FSF's permission to redistribute the GFDL itself and results in a copyright violation. This is an intentional provision by the FSF so you do not do add restrictions and still call it GFDL, and it is also one of the reasons for why the license needs to be included in the first place. So effectively you cannot release your work under the GFDL with additional restrictions, even if you are the author. You may release it under equivalent terms, however, you must make a completely new license for this. You may not re-use the GFDL's preamble, you may not call it GFDL, not call it a GNU or FSF license etc. b) Even if you may release your stuff under any licensing terms you want, Commons only wants pictures which are using one of the existing licenses. A better wording would be simply using one of the existing templates. I don't see how this should be a problem. FSF and CC have done their job very well and have spent lots of time carefully writing the licenses. There's no problem with them that would need to be fixed by you. --Rtc 08:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then how about changing that license to something that would explicitly say that it's my own license that is identical to GFDL with the exception that I take the liberty to use invariant sections (as in GFDL, BTW)? It's not even modifying the original GFDL, it's merely pointing to the fact that I request everyone to abide by the invariant sections? Also, where is the rule stating that I cannot release my work under my own license? As long as it's a free license all is ok. Anyway, of course if the Commons do not like my work to be freely modifiable nor free for further distribution, then I could of course mark it as CC (is it possible to withdraw any document that's been released under GFDL and claim it's no longer free?). However, it was not my intention and I was happy with the current license. Why exactly do you want my work removed? Halibutt 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- No! You may not base your license in any way on the GFDL if you want to make additional restrictions. You have to write it from scratch! Invariant sections won't help you there and are not accepted on commons. GFDL with invariant sections is not a free license anymore. I repeated several times it does not matter if you modify the GFDL itself, or include it by reference and state the differences to yours. You can license your work under your own license, but you may not license your work under the GFDL if you do not respect the copyright terms the FSF has made for copying and distributing the GFDL itself! Is it so hard to understand? Please avoid making new 'free' licenses. Use one of the existing templates. You cannot withdraw any document you already released under the GFDL. You can additionally mark it CC, but none of the -NC or -ND licenses are accepted here. I do not want your work removed but merely your licensing template, as I wrote at the very beginning. Please simply replace your template by the boilerplate GFDL one. Anybody else is fine with it and we can't make an exception just because it's you. Thanks. --Rtc 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then how about changing that license to something that would explicitly say that it's my own license that is identical to GFDL with the exception that I take the liberty to use invariant sections (as in GFDL, BTW)? It's not even modifying the original GFDL, it's merely pointing to the fact that I request everyone to abide by the invariant sections? Also, where is the rule stating that I cannot release my work under my own license? As long as it's a free license all is ok. Anyway, of course if the Commons do not like my work to be freely modifiable nor free for further distribution, then I could of course mark it as CC (is it possible to withdraw any document that's been released under GFDL and claim it's no longer free?). However, it was not my intention and I was happy with the current license. Why exactly do you want my work removed? Halibutt 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let me quote GFDL then:
- You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: (...) G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant Sections and required Cover Texts given in the Document's license notice.. So apparently the authors of the GFDL license saw no problem with including the invariant sections whatsoever. How so they did not consider invariant sections as violating the GFDL, while you argue to the contrary? Or is there something I'm missing here?
- Let's get further down that road then. My disclaimer is by no means a violation of the GFDL, as it is legally a part of the document, not the license. But even if it was, it simply states what already is a part of GFDL: You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium (...) provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. I add no new conditions to the license as it already requests the copyright notices to be repeated.
- Oh, and I already said that apparently the plain GFDL does not work the way it was meant to be and the wiki community frequently violates it. As long as there is acceptance to such breaching of my moral rights to my work, I will continue to add the invariant section to all the documents I create, just as I did in the past. And from the above fragment it seems clear that it's perfectly ok to do so, as the GFDL notice is a license template, while my notification is legally part of the image itself. Oh, and to paraphrase your comment: everybody was fine with my license and I don't know why should I change it just because it's you. Halibutt 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and another idea: perhaps I could release all of my work under plain GFDL if only we modified the {{GFDL}} tag to include the mention that the license requires proper credit for the author of the original work. That would do I guess, as such a notice would look more or less the way it does in my license anyway. Halibutt 22:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again: I did not say "invariant sections as violating the GFDL". They however make your document non-free and are against policy here. Further, your abuse of invariant sections to add additional restrictions to the GFDL makes redistribution of your work illegal: People can only either violate your copyright by not including the GFDL, or, in any other case, they violate the FSF's copyright by including the GFDL, but with your additional restrictions. That's a legal trap built in by the FSF especially for this reason so you do not abuse the GFDL and using its good name, but by adding further restrictions to it..
- You are not violating anything. Redistributors of your work do, as just said. And again: What you added was not a disclaimer. A disclaimer is something such as "I am not responsible for what you do with the image." What you added was an additional restriction, which makes it illegal to distribute your work together with the GFDL text. Please get this simple fact. The GFDL does not require proper credit for the author. It requires copyright notices to be kept. That's something entirely different. As I said, if people are violating the GFDL, that is not to be fixed your homebrew restrictions to it. Instead, I recommend you start enforcing the GFDL that will have much more the promised effect and will help to spread the word and thus, help other people too. Let's make a deal: We stop the discussion now, which only repeats itself, and you change your templates to plain GFDL, alternatively, you can pick a CC license. Else I will request deletion, because the invariant section makes them partly nonderivative, and thus non free and against policy. If you want to keep your pictures on commons you have to comply with the policies. You are in fact free to "release [your] work under any license [you] like", however, commons is just as free to reject your work for any reason it likes. Okay? --Rtc 22:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- And now you're assuming my bad faith and intentions, which is wrong. Let me respond in points:
- Technically speaking, the GFDL does not cover the picture as such but rather its binary form, as the license was not meant for graphic works. So what I am placing under the GFDL is not a picture of a horse, but rather a lengthy set of zeroes and ones, with some short signature in the beginning.
- Anyway, the GFDL is a "kind of" free license. The GFDL includes a possibility to add invariant sections to the document without the document being less free when tagged with GFDL. Hence I have no idea what are you talking about. If we treat my disclaimer (or whatever you call the bilingual text by yours truly) as an invariant section, it fits perfectly into the GFDL. Whoever distributes or modifies the lengthy set of 0-1 chains, has to include the section no matter what - in order not to violate the GFDL.
- On the other hand you have a point that all those who redistribute my work should not only include the original license and credit the author, but also repeat my entire disclaimer, which is not what I wanted, as my name is enough. So I could simply change the entire lengthy bilingual text into simple Invariant section: original image made by Halibutt. Or...
- we could treat the disclaimer (call it any way you like) as simply repeating what's already said in the license. In that case it is also perfectly ok, as there is no statement that would be in conflict with the GFDL. The license itself requires the users of my work to credit me anyway, so whether I ask them for that specifically or not is left up to me.
- The copyright notice is the notice of who owns the copyright. Since GFDL is not PD, I retain my copyrights as the author (as per the Berne Convention, for instance) of the work, regardless of the fact that - under the terms of the GFDL - I limit my rights to let the others do what they please with it. Yet I'm still the owner of some of the copyrights. If I offend someone with my work and get sued for that - it is me to go to jail. If I commit plagiarism - it is still me to be held responsible for that. As a journalist I use such licenses almost every day, as by selling my articles to my publisher I also sell some of the rights (specifically the right to copy and distribute the material, even without my consent; that's the strict-sense-copyrights), while I retain my undisclaimable rights to my work (that's the broad-sense-copyright). This is exactly what I do in commons as well: I allow anyone to become the publisher or co-author of my work and its derivates, yet I do not (and possibly even cannot) disclaim of some of my rights as the author. Which is why a copyright notice is where my name could be mentioned.
- Also, check the ADDENDUM to the GFDL, where the specific example of a license tag is prepared. There's place for my name (as the copyright owner) and the year of the creation, so such notices are perfectly ok with the license. It's up to me whether I say "Copyright: Halibutt (2004)" or "The owner of the copyright (Halibutt) releases this picture under the GFDL and requests proper attribution". I could even put my entire biography there.
- Finally, as my tag is perfectly ok with the GFDL, whichever way we turn the cat, the text by yours truly could be treated simply as a handy way to add my signature to every file I upload to commons without having to write it again and again. As a compromise I could move my tag to where it originally was, that is my own namespace. It was not me to move it to main commons space and I'm perfectly ok with the idea that it is returned to where it was (User:Halibutt/GFDL). How about that? Halibutt 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- And now you're assuming my bad faith and intentions, which is wrong. Let me respond in points:
- I do not assume bad faith, I just see that you hardly try to understand the issue and do not see that using your private license template in this fashion not necessary and even harmful.
- Wrong. Copyright always protects the creativity, redardless of the license.
- the GFDL is "kind of" a free license only as long as the list of invariant sections is empty. There are two independent issues here: a) You use invariant sections, which is against policy here, since it makes the license non-free, b) You abuse invariant sections to indirectly add restrictions to the GFDL, which to prevent the FSF has taken legal provisions for.
- Again: all those who redistribute your work are forced to commit a copyright violation, as I said. Either they violate your copyright (they do not redistribute the GFDL text) or they violate the FSF's copyright on the GFDL license text (because they redistribute the GFDL text in a document that has only been licensed under a license more restrictive than the GFDL, which the FSF does not permit). It's a Catch-22, deliberately introduced by the FSF so you do not add such further restrictions. You could simply change the entire license template by the usual GFDL.
- Again: Your "disclaimer" does not simply repeat what's already said in the license. The license does not require the users of your work to credit you. It requires copyright statements to be kept.
- Entirely unrelated to the problem.
- Yes, check the ADDENDUM and stick to it. It's not up to you to say "Copyright: Halibutt (2004)" or "The owner of the copyright (Halibutt) releases this picture under the GFDL and requests proper attribution", because the latter is an invalid restriction of the GFDL.
- As a compromise you could change your template to redirect to the standard Commons GFDL template and add the copyright statement as given in the GFDL addendum to your pictures:
Copyright (c) 2006 Halibutt {{GFDL}}
- (The {{GFDL}} adds the rest)
- You may add an informal statement such as "Note that the above copyright notice is part of the document and section 4 of the GFDL requires that 'you must [...] [p]reserve all the copyright notices of the Document."
- --Rtc 00:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Duh... and you state that it's me who doesn't listen...
- You might be right, that doesn't change much here. The GFDL does not mention my creattivity but rather textual documents, but what the heck.
- a) only as long as the list of invariant sections is empty - says who? So you suggest that Wikipedia is not free because it is subject to disclaimers that are not part of the GFDL? What I request for my work is exactly what Wikipedia requires from those who copy its' content (specifically here). Wikipedia, the non-free encyclopedia...? b) I do not abuse the invariant sections as that is what they were invented for and if we treat my text as an invariant section, it does not add any more provisions that are already within the standard GFDL, as already explained above. I do not require people to ask me for permission every time someone uses my work, I do not restrict the usage of my work to non-commercial appliances, nor do I limit the terms of the GFDL in any way. I simply repeat what is already there.
- Absurd, you apparently don't read my explanation. Either they violate your copyright (they do not redistribute the GFDL text) - they have to include it as per the GFDL, so there is no problem here. or they violate the FSF's copyright on the GFDL license text (because they redistribute the GFDL text in a document that has only been licensed under a license more restrictive than the GFDL) - absurd as well, since my text is by no means more restrictive. It does not add any more provisions. If it does - what are the provisions that would not be within the GFDL? Name them specifically please.
- Which means 100% the same in this case: the license requires people to mention my name, I require the same. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not even requiring the people to cite the original year of publication, so I even make it less restrictive - which is perfectly ok with the GFDL as well.
- Not really unrelated to the problem, check No. 4 above.
- How so? Stating that I request proper attribution as per section 4 is ok, while stating that I request proper attribution is not? That does not make sense, dear. Really.
- Sure, I could do the same with the entire text: I could mark it as an informal statement (which it is). Would adding the words "Informal statement" or "Advise" suit you? Halibutt 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is hard to discuss with you. Of course I listen and I have seen such argumentation really a dozen of times, but it's sad you don't see the problems with your position.
- Yes, it's among other things about text. Text, as such, also has creative elements.
- This is common knowledge.[40][41]. If commons would allow invariant sections, it would specifically mention this.
- a) The Wikipedia list of invariant sections is empty: "with no Invariant Sections". Yes, they include disclaimers. That's fine. Disclaimers are not invariant sections in the sense of the license. You don't include disclaimers. You include additional restrictions. Please look up what a disclaimer is. It's not an arbitrary declaration. b) The invariant sections were invented for you to express your personal opinion about philosophy, politics and such. Not to play legal tricks.
- Please accept this simple fact that it is something entirely different to keep copyright notices and to require attribution. The GFDL is not an attribution license. It is primarily a copyleft license.
- Your text is more restrictive, as you require attribution and not merely copyright notices to be kept. I can only repeat it. At best, you are suggesting a very specific interpretation of the GFDL, but that's effectively a restriction to this specific interpretation. Don't do this. You risk redistributors of your version being sued by the FSF for inappropriate distribution of the GFDL text.
- section 4 does not request proper attribution. It requests copyright notices to be kept. Get this simple fact.
- Do as I described and use the GFDL tag as anybody else does. I will request the deletion for all your pictures for deletion if you don't. It's a fair compromise and very well takes care of the problems you have. I don't see a reason for you to reject this compromise and I can hardly assume good faith anymore if you insist on this specific "solution". Don't be so stubborn, you won't do you a favour. --Rtc 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, commons is not Debian. Secondly, if the Commons had any problems with invariant sections, it would specifically be said so in one of our rules here. I mean our rules, not those of Debian or any other society/company/whatever. What's not forbidden is accepted. OTOH feel free to propose such a rule and pass it by some voting. I'd be happy to take part too.
- And again, I'm not playing legal tricks as I'm pretty straight-forward on this one. But this is not important here as, let m repeat for the umpteenth time, my request/notification/disclaimer/note/invariant section/whatever is by no means more restrictive than the GFDL itself. I already explained that and I consider the matter solved.
- I require my name to be mentioned as the author. GFDL requires my name to be mentioned as the copyright holder. The name is the same, the reason is a secondary matter. I could modify the text and change the moral rights to GFDL. Would that sound better?
- That's right. I am suggesting certain ways, while I by no means require anyone to follow my advise. As long as they follow standard GFDL and mention my name (for whatever reason they chose, be it moral rights, good will, decency, copyright law, anything) it's ok with me. If the people ignore my suggestion - it's still fine with me, as long as the name is there. How is that any more restrictive?
- As per the above
- It's not a compromise, it's basically blackmail. Give up your rights to your work or I'll delete it, including the featured pics you've made. You stick to your own interpretation of both the GFDL and my own words, yet it's apparently little more than that: your own interpretation. I already released my work under GFDL and I'm merely using a personal tag. No rule forbids me to do it, I don't violate any laws or regulations, not even the copyright of the GFDL. If you believe that the tag should be deleted anyway - fine. But please invent some better explanation, as the one you presented does not hold the water. All is based on your assumption that I restrict the GFDL to my own interpretation, which is wrong. I do not, I'm merely suggesting it. And it's my right to do that, just like it is the right of other people to ignore it. Halibutt 18:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's my last message here before I am putting your pictures for deletion. You are still not seeing the difference between requiring attribution and merely keeping copyright notices. "GFDL requires my name to be mentioned as the copyright holder" That is just plain wrong and I repeated it again and again. It requires copyright notices to be kept. I'm sorry if you don't understand this basic difference, but then again I can't change it. I urge you again to take the advice and do as I suggested (which is not a specific interpretation, not a restriction but merely a restatement of the license). I simply ask you to use the plain GFDL as anybody else is fine with. Alternatively, use a Cc-by license if you want attribution. Your position can't be tolerated because that would result in each user making his own private GFDL license with his own invariant section, his own interpretation and his own additional restrictions. Yes, free licenses are exactly about giving up many of your rights. --Rtc 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- First you'd have to explain why exactly each user should not create his own tag for him or herself. Then you'd have to explain (which you did not so far) how are the invariant sections banned on commons. After that you'd have to find some evidence that my name looks different when quoted within a copyright notice and separately. But I can't force you to do anything like that. Perhaps posting all of my work for deletion just because you did not understand the GFDL license is easier than reading it - and my arguments - again. Whichever way you go - be sure to get enough attention from yours truly.
- Anyway, I already asked you how would you like my personal tag to be modified. I already said that I don't accept blackmail and that I will not use plain GFDL, especially that I cannot retag my pictures that were already released under certain license. However, it is up to me to reword the tag and I'd be happy to do so, if only you see such need. Feel free to propose some wording. By now I specifically marked my comment as a copyright notice. Halibutt 06:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It does not suffice to merely call something a 'disclaimer' or 'copyright notices', they actually have to be a disclaimer/copyright notice! A copyright notice to me looks like "Copyright (c) 2006 Halibutt". Your additional restrictions simply won't become any better if you call them in a different way. Since you have made no effort to understand the problem and because you seem not to even consider to use the plain GFDL template or a CC license, I did not have a choice than to list your pictures for deletion. It's really sad because there are many good ones, but Commons just can't accept restrictions and personal license tags in exchange for a few good fotos. That is some kind of blackmailing. But we'll surely find unencumbered replacements for your pictures. --Rtc 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think changing to a CC-BY variant would fix the problem.--Wiggum 18:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, please stop w:wikilawyering and assume good faith, the bottomline is this is a copyleft open source license, which does not in anyway prevent those images from being used by Wikimedia projects, and that's all that matters.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are not understanding the problem that the pictures with Halibutts License cannot be redistributed legally. Even they could, they would have the problems of the obnoxious BSD advertising clause, rendering it effectively a non-free license. --Rtc 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Piotrus. Let me also state that Halibutt has contributed hundreds of images which have been of great value to the Wikipedia project, especially for articles related to Poland. If those graphics are thrown out, this will vastly downgrade the quality of many excellent articles, including some which achieved FA status on English Wiki. Balcer 03:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- The user was given several reasonable alternatives (copyright notice + plain GFDL, CC-BY-SA) none of which he accepted. He wanted to have his own homebrew license with invariant sections. That, in turn, can't be accepted on commons. May I make my own license tomorrow, with my own restrictions? --Rtc 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all I did accept your proposal to consider the text as a copyright notice rather than invariant section, eventhough invariant sections are perfectly ok with the commons. What I did not accept was your blackmail, which is a different thing. As to your question above - of course you may create your own license. If you are the copyright holder of certain document, you are entitled to do almost anything. In most legal systems you cannot renounce all of your rights to the document, but you could release most of it. For instance under your own license similar to the PD. Or under the plain GFDL, as I did. Or under CC-by-SA you promote. Or you could simply state that you renounce your rights and allow anyone to do anything with your work. Such a statement would be a license in itself, thus equalling a lengthy license with lots of clauses. There is no rule on Commons forcing you to chose any particular license, it is left up to the copyright owners. The only restriction is that the license should be of a free type, which is clearly the case here. Halibutt 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your license isn't free, because invariant sections are nonderivative and because your pictures effectively cannot be redistributed legally, as I stressed several times. Why don't you simply change to CC-BY-SA or plain GFDL with copyright notice? I don't see any reason at all for it not to be done. You are blackmailing Commons with your own license, not the other way around. Also, if your request to keep the template would be successful, other users will start to do the same and we'll soon have thousands of personal licenses, all with their own invariant section. If you want your own license, write it from scratch and request its acceptance on commons, but you may not derive a new license from a GNU one. --Rtc 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- First of all I did accept your proposal to consider the text as a copyright notice rather than invariant section, eventhough invariant sections are perfectly ok with the commons. What I did not accept was your blackmail, which is a different thing. As to your question above - of course you may create your own license. If you are the copyright holder of certain document, you are entitled to do almost anything. In most legal systems you cannot renounce all of your rights to the document, but you could release most of it. For instance under your own license similar to the PD. Or under the plain GFDL, as I did. Or under CC-by-SA you promote. Or you could simply state that you renounce your rights and allow anyone to do anything with your work. Such a statement would be a license in itself, thus equalling a lengthy license with lots of clauses. There is no rule on Commons forcing you to chose any particular license, it is left up to the copyright owners. The only restriction is that the license should be of a free type, which is clearly the case here. Halibutt 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... in case you had not noticed, I already asked you to provide a link to a rule prohibiting:
- freedom of choice of a proper license
- usage of lengthy comments at image description pages
- use of invariant sections on commons
- use of invariant sections within the GFDL
- redistribution of pictures licensed under GFDL
- I request nothing more than already is in the GFDL and I already said that. Whatever the intepretation of my comment there be (invariant section/copyright notice/legal advise/comment/image description/...), it is still the same old GFDL, and it's still the same free license. Also, it is you to question that and it is you who should provide some rationale for your accusations. Links to specific rules on commons preferred. Halibutt 19:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is no such policy yet, but you can clearily see that it's the way it's going here. No picture with personal licenses, except yours. No pictures with additional restrictions, except yours. No pictures with invariant sections, except yours. You are requesting more than already is in the GFDL, see, for the companion GPL license they actually added an exception (in the current version 3, still draft) to allow exactly that specific additional restriction you are making here. At best, you are introducing legal hassles with your license. You did not provide an explanation for why you reject to change to CC-BY-SA, which would solve your problems without at the same time introducing new ones. Be reasonable and change to CC-BY-SA please. --Rtc 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- The user was given several reasonable alternatives (copyright notice + plain GFDL, CC-BY-SA) none of which he accepted. He wanted to have his own homebrew license with invariant sections. That, in turn, can't be accepted on commons. May I make my own license tomorrow, with my own restrictions? --Rtc 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Template does not have legal problems anymore, I'd still like to see it without invariant section, but that's a policy thing and policy does not clearly forbid it. --Rtc 20:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If such personal licensing tags and invariant sections become prolific commons would be a quagmire. The users's concern is that people do not follow the GFDL, so why would they not ignore this non-standard tag? Having a template (that is not an invariant section or otherwise) that says you are willing to relicense and other things would be fine, but this is just weird. If there really isn't policy against invariant sections, someone should propose it. Kotepho 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide a link to a Commons policy that would prohibit such tags. If there is no such policy, then there is quite simply no justification for deleting the tag, which would likely lead to the removal of hundreds of excellent graphics that Halibutt uploaded. I understand your concern about proliferation of tags, but as you mentioned, this has not yet become a problem, and Halibutt and his excellent contributions deserve a lot of leeway in any case. Balcer 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Commons:Project scope. If you want to be a policy wonk about it, "Valid licenses can be found at Commons:Copyright tags.". It isn't listed, ergo, it isn't a license accepted by commons (it is a license, no it isn't, it is a copyright notice, no it isn't, it is a fish, no it isn't.. i'm not even sure what people think it is). There is also the issue that it may not even be a valid invariant section, as an invariant section must be a secondary section and it may not be considered one for various reasons.
- His images may be fantastic, but that does not change the fact that a bright line against such things is quite useful, otherwise we will have to debate this with every single one created with this one being cited as precendent. This does not further the goal of commons, to provide free content media, as it is not "free". (Maybe I'm a bit of an outlier, I don't really think the GPL is free enough, much less the GFDL.) Should we wait until people start making licensing tags and including invariant sections promoting holocaust denial? I would rather nip it in the bud. Kotepho 03:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, if Halibutt adds his tag to Commons:Copyright tags, everything will be all right as far as you are concerned? Then I invite him to do that. Commons does after all accept copyright tags made by single individuals, for example Template:Picswiss. BTW, I fail to follow the reasoning by which Halibutt's innocent tag would be a first step on a slippery slope to tags promoting Holocaust denial. Obviously, any tag which would go beyond presenting copyright information and try to promote some POV would be fit for deletion in any case. Balcer 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Picswiss example is a tag for a site, not the contributor. If it was up for deletion, I would suggest the same thing. Use the normal gfdl template, but also make a template that says "This image is from site foo, images released under the gdfl by them with permission at bar." or whatever. And no, just adding it to the list is not make everything "all right" in my mind. Policy is not designed to enumerate every possible scenario, thus just because something is not forbidden (or accepted) does not mean it should or should not be. Kotepho 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- So if Halibutt created a website and made his images available there as well, everything would be all right? Then I invite him to do that as well :). More seriously, your comment about the other tag: "If it was up for deletion, I would suggest the same thing" suggests that you not only have a problem with Halibutt's tag, but with a whole family of tags on Commons, in which users add their comments to GFDL policy (for example Template:Photo-by-Wojciechowscy-GFDL). Well, if that is your concern, then you should propose instituting a specific policy on Commons that would expressly forbid any such tags (i.e. Template:GFDL would be the only one allowed in all circumstances when GFDL is mentioned in any way). That would be the proper way to resolve this problem. Going after individual users' tags, while leaving others alone, is simply unfair. Anyway, removing hundreds high quality images from Commons is a serious thing and should only be done when a specific policy has been violated. I still await a link that would explicitly state why Halibutt's tags (and others like it on Commons) are forbidden. Balcer 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- If you look at the history of that tag you will notice that it started out life as a tag blatantly against commons policy. That is why these tags are bad, too much nonsense to keep track of. Obviously {{gfdl}} is not the only valid gfdl tag, as there is version 1.1, 1.2, some with disclaimers, some with no disclaimers, etc. These tags just saying "licensed under the gfdl" are not helpful. "Going after individual user' tags...", so we should not delete copyright violations because other copyright violations exist that are being 'left alone'? I don't buy this argument of "but these are great pictures". I'm sure I could find many professional pictures that are under non-commercial restrictions. Should I upload them and then complain when people try to delete them because they are not free? No, that would be violating w:en:WP:POINT. With this tag, these images are not free. Non-free images are against policy. Kotepho 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- So if Halibutt created a website and made his images available there as well, everything would be all right? Then I invite him to do that as well :). More seriously, your comment about the other tag: "If it was up for deletion, I would suggest the same thing" suggests that you not only have a problem with Halibutt's tag, but with a whole family of tags on Commons, in which users add their comments to GFDL policy (for example Template:Photo-by-Wojciechowscy-GFDL). Well, if that is your concern, then you should propose instituting a specific policy on Commons that would expressly forbid any such tags (i.e. Template:GFDL would be the only one allowed in all circumstances when GFDL is mentioned in any way). That would be the proper way to resolve this problem. Going after individual users' tags, while leaving others alone, is simply unfair. Anyway, removing hundreds high quality images from Commons is a serious thing and should only be done when a specific policy has been violated. I still await a link that would explicitly state why Halibutt's tags (and others like it on Commons) are forbidden. Balcer 12:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Picswiss example is a tag for a site, not the contributor. If it was up for deletion, I would suggest the same thing. Use the normal gfdl template, but also make a template that says "This image is from site foo, images released under the gdfl by them with permission at bar." or whatever. And no, just adding it to the list is not make everything "all right" in my mind. Policy is not designed to enumerate every possible scenario, thus just because something is not forbidden (or accepted) does not mean it should or should not be. Kotepho 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, if Halibutt adds his tag to Commons:Copyright tags, everything will be all right as far as you are concerned? Then I invite him to do that. Commons does after all accept copyright tags made by single individuals, for example Template:Picswiss. BTW, I fail to follow the reasoning by which Halibutt's innocent tag would be a first step on a slippery slope to tags promoting Holocaust denial. Obviously, any tag which would go beyond presenting copyright information and try to promote some POV would be fit for deletion in any case. Balcer 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously I am not suggesting violating copyright if the pictures are particularly nice. All I am saying is that perfect legal clarity and tidiness should not be the only values to guide Commons policies. Yes, if all personal tags were banned, Commons would be more tidy and there would be fewer tags to keep track of, but the price of that would be that some contributors who value personal tags would not work as hard to upload their graphics. In my personal opinion, Commons needs to find some midpoint between legal clarity and simplicity, and the desires of contributing users, who after all are what keeps this project going in the first place.
- In that spirit, instead of just voting to delete Halibutt's tag on the basis that the pictures it labels are not free, could you please suggest how the tag could be reworded, so that your legal concerns could be addressed? Please note that Halibutt has already modified the tag as a result of this discussion, and the changes seem to me to have eliminated the problem. Balcer 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The legal problems that the pictures were not redistributable legally have been solved, though very inelegantly. The picture is still not entirely free, because of the invariant section. I gave several suggestions about how it could be done instead. Either copyright notice + plain GFDL + informal statement, but not as an invariant section, or CC-BY-SA. Halibutt does not accept either of them. The personal tag would be much less problematic if it were only related to one of the existing licenses plus an informal visual indication that it's been done by him (basically as done for existing tags used for websites). But in this case, it is done as an invariant section and we need to be careful about that. --Rtc 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete at all. I suggested above that changing to CC-BY would fix the problem, i just saw that Rtc pointed out this possibility before. I would prefer if we stick to the existing templates so straightforward use of the Commons stuff is assured. I wouldn't like if anybody creates his personal license in terms of usage conditions.--Wiggum 22:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if Halibutt switched his license to CC-BY, that would go some way towards resolving the problem. Still, it is human nature to often have an emotional attachment to one's creative work, and if Halibutt feels that his graphics descriptions require an additional personal touch as far as the license is concerned, that should be his prerogative, given the huge quantity and quality of his contributions.Balcer 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's it. If I used plain CC-by, I would add such a note to every single picture anyway. The only difference would be my own convenience. And this was warranted enough by the original version of this tag that was in my own user space. It was moved to main space - fine with me. It is to be moved back to my user space - fine as well. However, it's simply easier to tag all pics with a single tag than to add the text by hand. Halibutt 03:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Besides, as Rtc noted above, the legal problems have been solved, so I consider the case closed. Halibutt 09:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this discussion now closed or what? What is the result? ---ALE! ¿…? 09:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- After being modified, it at least complies with GFDL. / Fred Chess 23:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by User:Hurricane Devon, who has been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia for endlessly repeated copyright violations. VCG.jpg is taken from a site that claims copyright on its images, and I couldn't find where permission was granted; the other was taken from a site with no statement of the copyright of its images. Because of the uploader, and his history of ignoring copyrights, we should view these licenses very skeptically. Mangojuice 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Both deleted as copyvios. Angr 10:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Die Person ist gerade noch so zu erkennen (insbesondere in Verbindung mit dem Firmenschild) und es liegt keine Erlaubnis zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes vor. -> Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung. 84.63.116.52 11:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- True, the person probably did not give permission to be photographed. — Erin (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap. How should you know? Strongly keep.--AndreasPraefcke 08:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. How should anybody know if a model's permission is available? In doubt delete.--Wiggum 10:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The persons knows that he will be photogtafed a lot. --- gildemax 20:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Was keinerlei Unterschied macht. Die Erlaubnis fotografieren zu dürfen unterscheidet sich zudem von der Erlaubnis das Bild zu veröffentlichen! Das sind zweierlei Paar Schuhe. 84.63.120.205 16:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete no written permission. --Rtc 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep He's barely visible, but if you really think he is, you could just blur his face, there really is no need to delete this picture -- Gorgo 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in the absence of any convincing evidence of policy violation. Angr 09:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Varsinais-Suomen.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 12:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until the SVG is improved. Assuming that the bitmap is accurate, I see various problems with the vector version. For example, the faded colours, and the lack of drop shadow on the top parts. — Erin (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Look at the coat of arms on this page : two standards behind a helmet. Do you recognize these items on the .svg image ? notice that the shafts are not straight in this last one. --Juiced lemon 13:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Both images matches heraldic description. Svg versio also more close to kunnat.net version. --Tomia 23:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Tomia. --Dodo 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Muhos.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 13:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until the SVG is improved. Assuming that the bitmap is accurate, I see various problems with the vector version. For example, the excessive contrast in the fish's colours, and the lack of a white line at the wave separating the two background colours. — Erin (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Erin, the images are not equal. --Panther 11:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Both images matches heraldic description. --Tomia 23:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Tomia. --Dodo 16:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Es liegt keine Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Personen zur Veröffentlichung des Bildes vor. Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung. 84.63.120.205 16:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We should make a speedy template for them. --Rtc 16:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Ranveig 12:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - No basis for deletion. See the discussion in relation to Personlichkeitsrecht and model rights in #Image:Alter Mann Nordäthiopien.jpg. The same principle applies. --Arvind 12:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image kept, Thuresson 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Sievi.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: why the colour difference? The png has a golden colour, SVG more brownish. What's the heraldic description say? NielsF 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Both match heraldic descriptio. Colors are from http://www.kunnat.net/k_perussivu.asp?path=1;29;102942;486;84531;84552 --Tomia 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The heraldical description says golden not brownish, at least Babelfish says so... The current colour doesn't look anything like golden to me. NielsF 02:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image deleted, Babelfish do not have an option for translating Finnish, at least not at babelfish.altavista.com. Thuresson 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Per discussion at Template talk:PD-US-mugshot#Freeness and w:Template talk:Mugshot#Freeness, I believe the public-domain rationale given has no sound basis in copyright law. Mugshots are not edicts of legislature and so are not denied copyright by the United States. They are public records, and copyright on them varies from state to state (see also Template:PD-CAGov). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think a case by case listing would be better than a blanket deletion of the entire category. If this is a grey area in US law, even assuming they possess an initial copyright note that pre 1960s mugshots at least are PD-US unless a specific copyright renewal was filed after 28 years. -- Infrogmation 03:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Couldn't the foundation's lawyers make a determination about this? How are non-legal editors in a position to decide such a thing? Netscott 23:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- The WMF lawyers certainly could. If you know of a working way to make them do so, please tell us... there are quite a couple of other hairy legal questions where we would need an official word as to what the legal situation is and what Wikipedia's policy should be. BTW, us non-legal volunteer editors can decide on such issues in the same way we always make decisions: by making a good faith best effort, and trying to reach consensus. Only that consensus amongst non-specialist volunteers isn't a good way to decide legal issues, and the consensus opinion may be wrong. Lupo 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Couldn't the foundation's lawyers make a determination about this? How are non-legal editors in a position to decide such a thing? Netscott 23:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In Hungarian law, mugshots are ineligible for copyright because they lack originality and creativity. Maybe a similar claim could be made in US law? IANAL and I'm not familiar with US law, but I've read somewhere that Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service took a similar stance. --Tgr 14:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out differences exist between this licence template and the one on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Template:Mugshot, and take a look. I should mention it was considered for deletion on July 23, 2006. The decision was to keep, please see the discussion. -- Reaper X 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Will be deleted: All such images not taken by the FBI/CIA/NSA and other federal police (like) organisations will be deleted. Furthermore all such of persons that doe not qualify as famous enough will be deleted too, regardless of the organisation that took them. Arnomane 21:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
July 24
[edit]There is nothing here. --Chochopk 00:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I've speedied it. Being empty, it is trivial to recreate if anyone wants to. — Erin (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Non-commercial according the source page http://www.profi1a.de/dogwiki/index.php/Bild:Anglofrancais.jpg. ::Slomox:: >< 18:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I withdraw the request. The licence of the original was changed only after the upload here. --::Slomox:: >< 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
SVG-Version available, see Image:Altona 93-Wappen.svg. --GeorgHH 16:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded — Erin (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 07:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned, made obsolete by Image:PA-28.svg. --TwinsMetsFan 17:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I presume the slight different in proportions is intentional. — Erin (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- See [42], [43], [44] (that one's kinda dark, however), and [45]. As you can see, all new two-digit state route signs installed by PennDOT use Series C (narrow) font if that shield does not contain a 1. --TwinsMetsFan 04:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as the new image is apparently more accurate. —Scott5114↗ 07:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (original uploader)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Lapin läänin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Replaced by Image:Skatole.svg. --Andel 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded --Panther 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Länsi-Suomen läänin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 19:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a good replacement. --Panther 11:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted -- Infrogmation 03:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This picture can't be in the Public Domain, because it obviously was taken by a German photographer in Germany. The photographer can't possibly be dead for more than 70 years by now (because he was alive in 1942 when the picture was taken) and there's no evidence that he released his picture into the PD. --88.134.45.6 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The anon's deletion logic is an argument from ignorance. The picture itself comes from the US Holocaust musuem, and is in all likelihood covered by the terms of the recently concluded agreement with them. Raul654 16:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It may come from the Holocaust museum, but how does this museum have the right to release it into the PD? It's only PD if the author is dead for more than 70 years (which is impossible) or if he gave his permission. So who is the author? --88.134.45.6 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
delete H Museum is ignoring German copyrights --Historiograf 22:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
delete eindeutige Verletzung des deutschen Urheberrechtes 217.88.173.176 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
delete I cannot see a PD claim on USHMM'S picture page--Wiggum 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Nobody cares about a photographer who have no proof. Probably, the Wehrmacht archived the negative, later it was seized by the US army. --Juiced lemon 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- So, you're saying "F**k copyright laws, I don't care about the author's rights" ? --88.134.45.6 17:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. --Rtc 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
keep Consider the likely context of the photo. The White Rose itself would not have taken such a dangerous photo. Therefore, it was taken by the Gestapo. Such a photographer deserves no consideration. If he disagrees, let him come forward.
OK, after a short google search i found the photographer. According to the de:Deutsches Historisches Museum (German historical museum) it was taken by Jürgen Wittenstein (today Dr. George J. Wittenstein) who was a member or a close confidant of the white rose - see here. And according to this website Wittenstein was alive as of 2005. So the photographer is not unknown and not a nazi who "deserves no consideration". --88.134.45.6 02:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's more than a little likely that he donated or otherwise assigned his copyright to the US Holocaust Musuem (hence the reason for them hosting the picture). Raul654 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, maybe he donated the picture. The problem is, that we don't know whether he did or not. The Holocaust Museum doesn't even credit him as the author of the picture. --88.134.45.6 07:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Additionally, the USHMM website says " The text, images, audio and video clips, and other content on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Museum) Web site are protected by copyright and may also be subject to other restrictions. The Museum retains all rights, including copyright, in and to the text, images, audio and video clips, and other content on this Web site. Copyright and other proprietary rights may be held by individuals and entities other than or in addition to the Museum." --88.134.45.6 09:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deletecopyvio, see: http://www.dhm.de/lemo/objekte/pict/f52_1073/index.html --ALE! 09:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete where is stated, that ushmm is PD? I only can find "Terms and Conditions for Use of Photo Archives Images - Individuals and institutions downloading images from the online Photo Archives catalog must contact the Photo Archives regarding terms and conditions of use.". And also I would say its (c), becouse no U.S.-Photographer created it. -- John N. (@ me) 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep on these grounds for deletion most of the WW2 archive is unavailable. How about somebody contacts Jürgen Wittenstein. I would find it most unlikley that he would object. 155.205.201.12 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about if you contact Jürgen Wittenstein? Otherwise, I would say: delete the image and re-upload when we have a permission. With regards to the WW2 archive: Well that's the way international copyright restricts the free use of photos. --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the mess! I'm very much aware of copyright problems so i'm sure i checked this but... I cant remember! So delete if its the best. But its a pity. Doesnt it apply the US-Gov PD thing? (probably silly question...) muriel@pt 14:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
deleteTHIS PICTURE IS COPYRIGHTED!!!! The owner is exclusively Dr. George J. Wittenstein who was also the photographer and currently lives in the USA. The published source: Scholl, Igne. The White Rose. Wesleyan University Press, 1983. I got this information directly for the USHMM photo archives. I am going to try to contact Dr. Wittenstein and get permission to use some of his photographs. Please delete it until permission is authorized.
- deleted--Shizhao 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Image:Satakunta.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 13:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's a good replacement. --Panther 11:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 08:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted material (Pikachu of Pokemon). Possively copyvio. --163.139.215.193 15:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is by far not a derivative works, the main object is the tail of a plane. It may be a derivative work with only the ruder fin with the large pokemon visible but not at the current status of the image. --Denniss 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Does it not matter how the photo is used? It is used in de:Pikachu. Kjetil_r 19:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Pikachu is clearly central to the picture. --Rtc 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keeppart of a larger picture, pikachu might be in the middle of the picture, but the tail of the aircraft is still the main object. And no it doesn't matter how and where it is used. -- Gorgo 20:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I do not believe copyrights work like that. Over 50% of the image is clouds and non-pokemon related natural stuff. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If you delete this image, you'll have to delete all photos of planes where a copyrighted work (such as a logo) is visible. Also, it's the only free (unfortunately fair use not allowed on de:
) illustration for de:Pikachu, and such an article looks really embarassing without a picture. TZM de:T/T C 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This pokemon is central to the picture and not just "beiwerk". No workaround like panoramafreiheit fits here, derivative work. Try photograph a Picasso and claim you just photographed the wall. That's ridiculous. Neither "i don't believe" nor "the german pokemon text has no other pictures" are valid reasons for keeping it.--Wiggum 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted; derivative work & copyvio. Angr 10:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
A bunch of orphaned superseded images
[edit]Hi, I orphaned the following ugly badJPEGs from every wikipedia edition where they were still used. el.wikipedia.org appears to have duplicate copies of all of them (which are not currently used, and have no copyright info there, so they should be speedied, but i know not the template that is used over there). They all are orphaned everwhere and have been superseded by better looking non-artifacted SVGs.
Here's the list:
Image:Small-triangle-Armed-Forces.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-Czech.jpg
image:Small-triangle-Pole.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-band.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-black.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-blue.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-escape.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-green.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-jew-black.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-jew-blue.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-jew-green.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-jew-pink.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-jew-purple.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-jew-red.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-penal-black.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-penal-blue.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-penal-green.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-penal-pink.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-penal-purple.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-penal-red.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-pink.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-purple.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-raccce-defile-fem.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-raccce-defile-male.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-red.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-rep-black.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-rep-blue.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-rep-green.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-rep-purple.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-rep-red.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-serial.jpg
Image:Small-triangle-sleeve.jpg
--Aknorals 06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Most of the .svg images does not look like original badges (see [46] and [47]), which were made with fabric, not plastic. For example, this picture 
shows bad color, bad shape, bad font. --Juiced lemon 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- When people create SVGs to replace bitmaps, and at the same time make changes to the look of the image, I so wish that they would explain and justify the changes. Otherwise, we will assume that they are f***-ups and vote "keep". The triangles have been changed from isoceles to equilateral without explanation, and the font is quite different on those that contain letters. — Erin (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well, my main issue with them was that they shouldn't have been jpeg to begin with... the low color images that they were, the artifacts stick out like a sore thumb.... hrm, maybe we can contact the person who made the SVGs? -Aknorals 10:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep User:Juiced lemon is perfectly right. This reproduction work has not been done in a good fashion. --Rtc 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Arguments see: User:Juiced lemon --ALE! 08:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept svg replacements aren't that good.--Nilfanion 23:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
July 25
[edit]copyvio, not GFDL--Shizhao 07:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you delete it then? NielsF 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
image deleted by User:Shizhao, description page deleted by me --ALE! 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Image was transfered from en.wikipedia but does not have a permission from the copyright holder. On the webpage the image is taken from it says "all rights reserved", license here is GLP (!). --Matt314 20:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The copyvio trolls have learned that if they place some random template to their picture it's likely to stay longer. We need to be careful about this strategy. --Rtc 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. NielsF 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It´s a cd-cover. See also other images from User:Hebertvs. --GeorgHH 21:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deletetagged as copyvio. --Rtc 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted (as well as other images. NielsF 21:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
placard from 1967 - not old enough to be depicted as two-dimensional reproduction. --BLueFiSH ✉ 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
placard from 1974 - not old enough to be depicted as two-dimensional reproduction. --BLueFiSH ✉ 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
placard from 1958 - not old enough to be depicted as two-dimensional reproduction. --BLueFiSH ✉ 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
programme from 1959 - not old enough to be depicted as two-dimensional reproduction. --BLueFiSH ✉ 19:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 07:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Backsteinbebauung am Suhrsweg in Hamburg-Barmbek-Nord.jpg and Image:Backsteinbebauung am Suhrsweg in Hamburg-Barmbek-Nord 2.jpg
[edit]The images shown the same with another angle. One of these have to be deleted. --GeorgHH 19:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Warum? Ist der Speicherplatz auf dem Server plötzlich alle?!? 84.63.118.33 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ja sag mal, hörst du denn keine Nachrichten?? --GeorgHH 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Almost equal images. One of the two could be deleted. GeorgHH please specify one picture that should be deleted. --ALE! 09:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ja sag mal, hörst du denn keine Nachrichten?? --GeorgHH 18:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the second one --ALE! 07:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: bad quality, better quality picture available -- Ss181292 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--GeorgHH 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 08:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Orphaned images with horrible resolution. Already superseded (same user), but not by exact duplicates --jynus (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete new files are much better. --Matt314 19:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Escudo de Ólvega.jpg: Delete
- Image:Bandera de Olvega.jpg: Keep: the colours are different. --GeorgHH 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
The sides should be switched. Unused and superseded by the accurate Itä-Suomen läänin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Hautala. --Panther 11:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Image is incorrect --Tomia 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This image is basicly to show the hotel logo, plain and simple. i dont think it can be classed as gfdl. It needs to be deleted and uploaded (if required) to wikipedia under fair use doctrine.
(If you oppose the deletion, state why it can be used as gfdl) --MatthewFenton 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. ed g2s • talk 16:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why can it be used as GFDL then, are you claiming you own the hotel and release all rights? MatthewFenton 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: L'Hôtel de Ville here means the City Hall, not a hotel in the English sense. This is not the logo of a private business but of the Paris 2012 olympic bid as seen here. This won't make any difference to the copyright issue. William Avery 18:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why can it be used as GFDL then, are you claiming you own the hotel and release all rights? MatthewFenton 17:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep The logo is not copyrighted, only trademarked. The GFDL is a copyright license, not a trademark license. The two laws are independent. --Rtc 17:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is something I don't really understand. Doesn't nearly all creative work in graphic design enjoy automatic copyright protection? Why not this? Are are you saying trademarks are treated similarly to patent drawings or something? William Avery 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- nearly no work in graphic design enjoys copyright protection. Works of applied art, ie., Designs, are generally not protected by copyright. They're protected by trademark law and/or design patents. I can only repeat what I said. "Why not this?" because lex specialis derogat legi generali. BTW, creativity is not a factor at all for treademark protection. Words as simple as SONY enjoy trademark protection. May we not use them anymore in Wikipedia? --Rtc 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- w:Trademark#Comparison_with_patents.2C_designs_and_copyright says the two can coexist to protect the same object, but I think you would need to produce proper evidence that this design is indeed an actual registered trademark before your arguments about lex specialis became relevant. William Avery 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, design patent is the lex specialis, and it prevents a design from being copyrighted even if it has not been registered. It is sufficient that it could be. Just think about it, it would be absurd otherwise. Nobody would ever register a design patent if they could enjoy the much stronger copyright protection if they'd not do. Yes, a logo can be protected by trademark and copyright or by trademark and design patent. It can however not be eligible for copyright and for design patent at the same time, except perhaps in obscure cases. --Rtc 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- w:Trademark#Comparison_with_patents.2C_designs_and_copyright says the two can coexist to protect the same object, but I think you would need to produce proper evidence that this design is indeed an actual registered trademark before your arguments about lex specialis became relevant. William Avery 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- nearly no work in graphic design enjoys copyright protection. Works of applied art, ie., Designs, are generally not protected by copyright. They're protected by trademark law and/or design patents. I can only repeat what I said. "Why not this?" because lex specialis derogat legi generali. BTW, creativity is not a factor at all for treademark protection. Words as simple as SONY enjoy trademark protection. May we not use them anymore in Wikipedia? --Rtc 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is something I don't really understand. Doesn't nearly all creative work in graphic design enjoy automatic copyright protection? Why not this? Are are you saying trademarks are treated similarly to patent drawings or something? William Avery 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- In fact the Wikimedia logo is copyright and a trademark. See Image:Commons-logo-en.svg. It says (c) and TM. William Avery 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- In fact the Wikimedia logo claims to be copyrighted. However, this coypright claim is bogus. --Rtc 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- In fact the Wikimedia logo is copyright and a trademark. See Image:Commons-logo-en.svg. It says (c) and TM. William Avery 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Info Commons:Licensing#Checklist says of Logos that they are "questionable" and "only very simple designs are OK". William Avery 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Info We have Category:Car_company_logos. By no means all simple. Would they all have to go too? William Avery 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes -- Claim fair use. MatthewFenton 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can't claim fair use, since fair use is only available only for copyright. You don't need to claim fair use, because the logo is not protected by copyright and trademark law does not sanction copying and distributing, only displaying the logo as if it were yours. --Rtc 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's a bit of a grey area. If the photo has its own creative input and artistic merits, then that can be copyrighted. If it is just a derivative work of the origianl, then the original copyright still holds. ed g2s • talk 19:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- You presuppose incorrectly that the logo is protected by copyright in the first place. --Rtc 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any logo is protected by copyright. Any work is protected by copyright unless stated otherwise "an individual's work is placed under copyright law as soon as it leaves that person's mind and is placed in some physical form, be it a painting, a musical work written in manuscript or an architectural schematic." (from w:Copyright). ed g2s • talk 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- A logo is not a work as the term is used in copyright. You did not quote the relevant part, which says "These include poems, [...] and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs." We can safely ignore said 'some jurisdictions'. We can never respect all copyright laws in the world at the same time. We probably need to delete commons entirely then. --Rtc 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- WIPO says logos can be copyright and nolo's agees. This particular one does seem to go considerably beyond the Bass red triangle. William Avery 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- WIPO and Nolo say basically nothing specific at all, and, at most, their statements are misleading. There are, in fact, logos which are clearly copyrighted. Here is an example: [48] These are copyrighted because it contains a nontrivial element for which design patent protection is not available. In this case you actually get copyright on the logo. However, such cases are definitely very rare. --Rtc 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- What about this? Image:Sprite.png, it's look like a artwork, must something like that be tagged with copyvio? --Martin Rizzo 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's not copyrighted, but even if it were, the foundation would hold that the bottle is central to the image and not the logo, and that it's thus okay.[49] --Rtc 17:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- What about this? Image:Sprite.png, it's look like a artwork, must something like that be tagged with copyvio? --Martin Rizzo 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- WIPO and Nolo say basically nothing specific at all, and, at most, their statements are misleading. There are, in fact, logos which are clearly copyrighted. Here is an example: [48] These are copyrighted because it contains a nontrivial element for which design patent protection is not available. In this case you actually get copyright on the logo. However, such cases are definitely very rare. --Rtc 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- WIPO says logos can be copyright and nolo's agees. This particular one does seem to go considerably beyond the Bass red triangle. William Avery 22:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- A logo is not a work as the term is used in copyright. You did not quote the relevant part, which says "These include poems, [...] and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs." We can safely ignore said 'some jurisdictions'. We can never respect all copyright laws in the world at the same time. We probably need to delete commons entirely then. --Rtc 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Any logo is protected by copyright. Any work is protected by copyright unless stated otherwise "an individual's work is placed under copyright law as soon as it leaves that person's mind and is placed in some physical form, be it a painting, a musical work written in manuscript or an architectural schematic." (from w:Copyright). ed g2s • talk 20:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- You presuppose incorrectly that the logo is protected by copyright in the first place. --Rtc 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This image is probably OK. — Erin (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep fully agree with Rtc --Historiograf 14:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- 2006-07-24 22:52, Skreech: Skreech.jpg: untagged!
- 2006-07-24 22:54, Skreech: Backstage1 002 0002.jpg: untagged!
- 2006-07-24 22:57, Skreech: 0245 ROL.JPG: untagged!
- 2006-07-24 22:59, Skreech: Skraggres 0001.jpg: untagged!
- 2006-07-24 23:00, Skreech: Skrsk8fh 0001.jpg: untagged!
- 2006-07-24 23:01, Skreech: Uniti 006 0001.jpg: untagged!
This images are untagged and have used only in the Italian userpage. IMHO they are not useful here. --Panther 08:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This user's portraits clearly serve no purpose on Commons; they should be uploaded on the it: wiki. As for the others, I doubt they're useful for skateboarding/roller skating articles, given the poor resolution and lack of sharpness. Jastrow 11:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Barcex --ALE! ¿…? 09:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Derivative work. The artist, Nils Aas, died in 2004. Kjetil_r 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep According to Commons:Derivative works, Norway is one of the countries where sculptures do not fall under "derivative works" category (because this sculpture is permanently installed and in Norway, isn't it?) --jynus (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You misread that, it's the other way around. NielsF 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, you were right- :( Thanks to the new edit, the explanation it is clearer now than when I read it. --jynus (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unfortunately as with the Vigeland images. Dura lex, sed lex. NielsF 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, commercial use is not allowed under Norwegian copyright law. Cnyborg 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Uusimaa.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 10:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a good replacement. --Panther 11:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The colors are different.--GeorgHH 22:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Heraldically it doesn't matter. --Hautala 15:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: The SVG image has ugly colors, and the drawing of the boat doesn't respect its different constructive parts. --Juiced lemon 09:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If it is not absolutely clear that it is an improvement, there's no harm keeping both versions. TheGrappler 14:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. :The only problem with this image is that the waves should be in silver (currently white). This image is different from the raster version yes but it seems to be baseed on the official version on [50] so this is more correct. This link also verifies that the waves should be silver. /Lokal Profil 20:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Silver waves fixed /Lokal Profil 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The png version is still better than the svg one. --Juiced lemon 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- In which way? It's small and doesn't specify a source./Lokal Profil 11:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The png version is still better than the svg one. --Juiced lemon 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Silver waves fixed /Lokal Profil 20:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 08:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Tampere.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 11:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The SVG file looks like a simple auto-tracing. It's not nice. See the wings. --Panther 11:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The wings are alright. --jed 08:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Fotos des ICE sind als Geschmacksmuster gesetzlich geschützt. Eine gewerbliche Vermarktung ist nicht ohne Zustimmung der DB AG möglich. Außerdem muß bei Aufnahmen in Bahnhöfen eine Genehmigung vorliegen. 217.88.173.176 12:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Völlig richtig. --80.81.19.34 10:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dann müßte überlegt werden was mit der Category:ICE und dem Artikel ICE geschehen soll, da eigentlich alle Bilder darin geschützt wären. Oder gilt dies nicht für alle Modelle?--GeorgHH 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Die Bilder müssen alle weg! --217.88.166.97 10:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Dann müßte überlegt werden was mit der Category:ICE und dem Artikel ICE geschehen soll, da eigentlich alle Bilder darin geschützt wären. Oder gilt dies nicht für alle Modelle?--GeorgHH 13:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep - we don't care for "Geschmacksmuster" (~ design patent) but only for copyright, and this image has a valid copyright licence. It is as free as we need it to be. --h-stt !? 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Könntest du bitte deutsche Diskussionen um deutsches Recht auf deutsch weiterführen? --217.88.166.97 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Gerne doch. Geschmacksmusterschutz (wie der den die Deutsche Bahn AG für das Design des ICE angemeldet hat) hat andere Wirkungen als ein urheberrechtlicher Schutz. Insbesondere ist die Verwendung von Fotos in einer Enzyklopädie (oder einem anderen Zusammenhang, wo ein ICE abgebildet wird, um etwas über einen ICE auszusagen) durch das Geschmacksmusterrecht nicht eingeschränkt. Kurz: Geschmacksmuster betreffen die Wikipedia nicht, das Foto ist vom urheberrechtlichen Standpunkt frei und nur darauf kommt es für die Wikipedia und die Wikimedia Commons an. behalten --h-stt !? 15:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (en: short explanation about the differences between copyright and design patents with regard to an encyclopedia, and a emphasised keep)
- Könntest du bitte deutsche Diskussionen um deutsches Recht auf deutsch weiterführen? --217.88.166.97 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wollen wir mal hoffen, dass h-stt recht hat, die ausführliche Darstellung im Artikel Geschmacksmuster de bleibt zu vergleichen --Historiograf 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image kept. Please discuss in English so that others can take part and also learn about copyright. Thuresson 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
July 26
[edit]REASON: wrong title. Gubbubu 09:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please tag with {{Badname}} instead of listing it here. — Erin (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: wrong title. -Gubbubu 09:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please tag with {{Badname}} instead of listing it here. — Erin (talk) 09:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON: Derivative, nintendo artwork. (i tagged it with copyvio but a user removed the tag).
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 12:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Lack of Licensing info --Nikopoley尼可波里 POP-it! 00:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete See w:en:Kikyo, obviously not free. Kotepho 20:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 21:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Wikimedia.png and others
[edit]I am proposing this in good faith and hopes of starting a good conversation instead of making a point. The wikimedia logo is not released under a free license and according to Commons:Project scope only free content is allowed here. Wikimedia must obey by the rules just like everyone else. So I propose it (and other media on the commons that is owned by wikimedia foundation that is not under a free license). Commons:Project scope specifically states that they are not under the GFDL by default. I would prefer that the wikimedia foundation release these images under a free license so that it can stay here and be used. Until they do it is unfree and, by policy, cannot be on the commons.
NOTE: image has not been tagged because I do not have edit permission. Cburnett 04:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Let me repeat it again: The copyright claim is bogus. The logo is ineligible for copyright. I can basically© put© a© Copyright© symbol© on© everything©. Contrary to popular belief, that is neither sufficient nor necessary for copyright protection. --Rtc 05:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- (Original reply deleted.) You know, if you're going to reference another discussion then you should not assume someone else knows about it.
- If the copyright claim is bogus then what does that put this Image:Wikimedia.png at? Public domain? What? Would not the image itself enjoy copyright protection regardless of what the content of that image is? So Image:Wikimedia.png the image is copyrightable but the logo (as you claim) no matter what their copyright status. It seems to me that either they are an exception, or they should go and live on Metis not but the image itself is still copyrighted. Cburnett 06:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image files themselves can't be copyrighted; it's the content of the image that is copyrightable. This is why scanning a photograph from a magazine, for example, does not give you any copyright—the copyright is held by the photographer, even though you created the image file.
- Having said that, however, I have to say that I find Rtc's position to be interesting. I've always taken it for granted that logos are copyrightable, and this seems to be the prevailing opinion by far on the English Wikipedia, at least. I suppose it's possible that most logos are not copyrightable, as Rtc claims, if they are considered to be design work rather than artistic expression. But I am not a lawyer. The possible uncopyrightability of logos intrigues me, though, and I'd like someone to investigate it further, possibly citing relevant legal decisions. —Bkell (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here are some German ones:
- de:Bild:1-ARD-Dachmarke.svg. OLG Köln, GRUR 1986, 889: Ineligible for copyright.
- de:Bild:Laufendes-Auge.jpg. BVerfG 26. Januar 2005, 1 BvR 1571/02 = GRUR 2005, 410: Ineligible for copyright.
- Image:SED-Logo.png. LG Hamburg 10.12.2004, 308 O 207/04 = GRUR-RR 2005, 106: Ineligible for copyright.
- Hope that helps. --Rtc 08:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Here are some German ones:
Delete per nom; You are tottaly right (Maybe they could be released under a free license?)! MatthewFenton 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dear MatthewFenton. You are fairly new to the project and maybe you should just obstain at the moment. Anyway this is not a vote. --ALE! 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I may be new to this one, but i am not new to wikipedia and i think i know enough to participate here. MatthewFenton 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dear MatthewFenton. You are fairly new to the project and maybe you should just obstain at the moment. Anyway this is not a vote. --ALE! 07:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
While I in principle agree that the logos should be under a free license, I sadly do not see a way to protect them from abuse at the same time. In theory, registering them as a trademark should be sufficient - in practice, that is much more complicated and expensive to do internationally than to rely on copyright. It's also much harder to defend, since trademarks only apply in a narrow field of busines - and it's harder tio defend still for a project that does not any money and does not "trade" anything.
As far as I know, this has been investigated thoroughly by the foundation's lawyers, and they explicitely recommended not to rely on trademarks, and not to put the logos under a free license, stating that even if the logos where trademarked, the wording of the free license could undermine the trademark protection. I would expect them to know if logos where not copyrightable for some reason - until now, I have only heard wild claims from Rtc.
Having these logos on commons was discussed in length and depth some tiem ago - here, on the village pump and on the mailing list. It was decided to make an exception for them. All in all I think it would be great to have a free license that explicitely addresses the issue of logos - I even wrote to the CC mailing list about it once [51] (and got no response whatsoever, sadly). For now, there does not appear to be such a possibility, so we have to live with this compromise. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 08:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Duesentrieb, stop making these wrong claims. It is impossible to give any copyright license at all for these logos, since they are not protected by copyright in the first place. There is no and there has never been any doubt about this. If anybody relies on copyright for these logos and did not register a trademark and/or design patent (and properly pay the fees), he's done a mistake. Since there is no copyright protection, there would be no protection at all except perhaps a very weak one for these logos already being well known to refer to Wikipedia etc. If the Foundation's lawyers have given such recommendations, it should definitely fire them. If the Foundation should ever try to stop people from using the logos basing their claims on copyright, it does basically completely destroy its own position in case this should ever go to court, because such copyfraud claims are not enforceable. And, not only they would have to pay all the legal expenses, they would further possibly face themselves being sued for damages resulting from their inappropriate claim: "Die [...] unberechtigte Schutzrechtsverwarnung [kann] unter dem Gesichtspunkt eines rechtswidrigen und schuldhaften Eingriffs in das Recht am eingerichteten und ausgeübten Gewerbebetrieb zum Schadensersatz verpflichten" BTW, I have not made "only [...] wild claims", this is simply the actual situation. You are pretending that something would be special about what I tell you. It's not. Please get it. It's on your side to show any proof for your strange views and crazy claims that logos are protectable in this fashion. German courts have been very reluctant to give copyright protection to designs, in several prominent lawsuits, as I cited several times. It's basically not different at all in the US, as has been confirmed in several well-known lawsuits concering typeface designs. These are not wild claims, that's simply reality. --Rtc 08:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm only repeating what I have been told several times by foundation officials. If you think they are totally wrong, please talk to them. It would help a lot if you could point to a court ruling stating that (most) logos (not typefaces) are not copyrightable in the the US (which is our main concern, since the foundation is located in the US).
- As I stated, I'm also unhappy with the situation. If logos like ours are in fact not copyrightable, they could of course not be under a free license. I'm wondering how they can be protected at all - registering each logo as a trademark in every country would mean a lot of effort and money - which is simply not available. And, if this is in fact the case, I'm wondering too what the foundation lawyers where talking about. But until I see something definitive, I'm sorry to say that I have more faith in their statements than in yours. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are neglecting that you are in the position to prove that logos can be protected by copyright. You are speaking as if it were the most natural thing in the world that they are copyrighted and that lawsuits are regularily won. This is not the case and you have not shown even a single lawsuit where copyright protection for such logos has ever been confirmed. Please, see the deepest absurdness of your views. If you were right, nobody would ever register any trademarks. Don't you see that? Instead of dogmatically believing some unsubstantiated claims, you should make use of reason and see that your position is doomed to fail. If you tie yourself to alleged authorities, expect to fall with them. --Rtc 09:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bah - I wouldn't have a problem with being proven wrong here. I don't take this personally, so why would I "fall" with anything?
- As far as I know, copyright applies to anything that has "creative originality". That appears to include even the most basic and "trivial" paintings by, say, Picasso and Miro. I don't see any reason why that would be different for a work that is used as a logo - that would be against commons sons. Now, commons sense does not always apply in legal matters, true. So I'm asking you for the reasoning behind the claim that equivalent artwork is copyrighted on one case but not in the other.
- See, all I'm saying is what is official foundation policy. We as a community should adher to the claims of the (alleged) rights holder, unless some very sound legal precedence is provided to the effect that the copyright claims are void. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 09:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ich konnte das Bild schlecht ins englische übersetzen, es soll heißen, wenn Du Dich in Deiner Position fest an die Anwälte kettest, solltest Du Dich nicht wundern, wenn sie irgendwann damit auf die Schnauze fallen und Du mit ihnen.
- No, it is not against common sense that works of applied art are treated differently from other works. It actually makes perfect sense. If you want the reasoning, why don't you read in detail de:Schöpfungshöhe and the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht? It clearly states that it would render design patents senseless if copyright would be granted for all applied art. You simply do not want such strong and long lasting protection for most applied art, simply because its framework is an entirely different one compared to fine art. If you would grant the same protection, design industry would completely stop to develop; everyone would make a few easy designs and sue anybody for derivative work who use any element from them. Also, photographers would be sued for about any photo they take which displays an object of utility as part of the scene. The world would be very different.
- "We as a community should adher to the claims of the (alleged) rights holder" No, neither should we nor do we. If we would, we would need to delete any reproduction. If you accept such fraudulent claims, things will only get worse. --Rtc 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of the copyright/trademark discussion (I personally fail to see how the Wikipedia logo can't be copyrighted), this matter has been discussed before at great length, and it is now in our policy (see Commons:Licensing). These images will not be deleted. ed g2s • talk 13:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please, explain why you fail to see that it would be absurd for designs to enjoy the very strong copyright protection if there are design patents as a lex specialis available? --Rtc 18:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the question if logos are in general copyrighted/copyrightable, there's a parallel discussion ongoing. Since it appears relevant here, I would like to summarize some points: Rtc has claimed there that Logos are works of applied art, not fine art, and hence are not copyrightable (or at least require a higher level of originality to be copyrightable). After some quick and superficial research, I have found some sources that indicate the opposite:
- Federal Law on Copyright and Neighboring Rights states that works of applied art are covered by copyright.
- A footnote to this page sais: The legislative history makes clear that Congress intended to distinguish between "copyrightable works of applied art and uncopyrighted works of industrial design." H.R.Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 54, reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad. News 5659, 5668 (hereinafter referred to as House Report).
- 17 USC Sec. 102 also differentiates between copyrightable works of applied art and uncopyrightable works of industrial design.
Now, it's still unclear to me when a logo would be considered fine are or applied art (or even industrial design). It's also not clear to me if the required level of creative originality is any different for works of applied art, and thus which logos would be copyrighted, and which would not. But the matter does generally not appear to be as simple as Rtc is putting it.
I'm putting this here as background info. The question if we want to make an exception from the "free content only" rule for the "nonfree" wikimedia logos is a different one. But since this has been discussed before, repeatedly and in length, always with the same outcome, I suggest to simply keept the images an live with the inconsistency. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your questions are answered easily and with a little bit of thinking the answers are obvious: 1. Applied Art is anything of utility. A nicely designed computer mouse is applied art because its primary purpose is to be utilized as an input device for the computer. A logo is applied art because its primary purpose is to be utilized to brand a corporation or its wares. A Picasso, novel, article, music etc. are not applied art because they aren't there to be utilized for anything. Their primary purpose is for people to enjoy them. Yes, you can dig a hole with a picasso and you can use a heavy novel to train your muscles, but that's not their primary purpose. 2. Every applied art that is eligible for design patent in principle is an uncopyrightable work of industrial design, because design patent law is a lex specialis here. Think of the threshold of originality being risen appropriately. --Rtc 17:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- This UK High Court case concerned the ownership of the copyright in an simple logo that was registered as a trademark. William Avery 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the ruling! It is based on the 'sweat of the brow' doctrine ("Copyright law protects the skill and labour that has gone into the creation of an original work"). --Rtc 19:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The phrase "an original work" indicates he is not talking about "sweat of brow". William Avery 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- UK is well known to be a 'sweat of the brow' country. What the ruling is talking about is that an original work is protected by copyright if only skill and labour were required to make it. That exactly is sweat of the brow. Read the next sentences (especially "So if an artist uses his skill and labour to draw a word or phrase in a stylised way, as in the case of a logo, his drawing is capable of being an original work, protected by copyright law"), they make this very clear. The ruling mentions neither design patents nor the nature of applied art. Such a decision would be unthinkable in this manner in non-sweat-of-the-brow countries. --Rtc 20:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The phrase "an original work" indicates he is not talking about "sweat of brow". William Avery 20:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the connection between applied art and sweat of brow (concerns databases of facts, compilations). The notes on visual art works on the US copyright office website explicitly include applied art. Their list of examples of visual arts include "artwork applied to clothing or to other useful articles, bumper stickers, decals, stickers". Their understanding seems to flatly contradict your assertions. William Avery 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, sweat of the brow is the basis for any protection in the UK, not just for databases. Protection for the latter is just a consequence of the former. No, their understanding does not flatly contradict my assertions, since you miss the point that there is a difference between artwork applied to some useful object and artwork being the useful object. I can put a sticker on my lamp, that does not make the sticker being the lamp. What flatly contradicts your assertions are the crystal clear German (ie. non-sweat-of-the-brow) court rulings I have cited, while you fail to cite a ruling supporting your claims at all. Show me a ruling that deems a logo as such eligible for copyright in Germany or in the US or some other non-sweat-of-the-brow country. --Rtc 21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the connection between applied art and sweat of brow (concerns databases of facts, compilations). The notes on visual art works on the US copyright office website explicitly include applied art. Their list of examples of visual arts include "artwork applied to clothing or to other useful articles, bumper stickers, decals, stickers". Their understanding seems to flatly contradict your assertions. William Avery 21:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
So it would seem the discussion comes down to two points:
- The logos are not copyrightable therefore their licensing needs to be changed (but what do we change them to?)
- The logos are copyrighted therefore do not belong here. I'm sure there are plenty of images that would be nice to enjoy the convenience of having them available to all projects.
Is there any other points here? Cburnett 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The status quo is that the logos are copyrighted (see template), but that they do belong here as an exception, but also that no other exceptions should be made. You may disagree with that, but it is our policy as was reached after lots of debate - in which all the points you have made were raised. ed g2s • talk 00:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- The status quo is that the template claims the logos are copyrighted, while they are most likely not. I agree that the logos can be kept, but I disagree about the reason. --Rtc 00:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW I now follow the reasoning that such items are not protected by copyright in the US. But, since active trademark status is being asserted, with its own set of limitations on use by others, I still have doubts about describing them as 'free content'. William Avery 07:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Don't you guys have anything better to do? Seriously. The (seemingly) German view that simple logos cannot be copyrighted is definitely not shared by the WMF. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, we most definitely respect copyright on logos. If you (Rtc) disagree so strongly with this, you should contact the Foundation and take it up with them. ed g2s • talk 14:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Luckily, it is not the WMF who decides if logos can be copyrighted or not and I gave very strong arguments for them not to be protected. The WMF merely decides which logos it keeps on their servers. A more honest policy admitting that they are not copyrighted would be much better. Of course they won't do that because it's against their interests. They don't want to pay design patent (with a very limited period of protection) and/or trademark registration fees. It's that simple. That's why they incorrectly claim the logos to be copyrighted. They will see their mistake as soon as they actually try to enforce the alleged copyright. --Rtc 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Oh dear, your conspiracy theory is starting to make your claims look less and less credible. Furthermore the foundation has registered their trademarks.
- And from copyright.gov:
- How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?
- Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.
- If someone in the US would like to give them a call, I'm sure they'd agree that our logos contain sufficient authorship (especially the Wikipedia logo). ed g2s • talk 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Luckily, it is not the WMF who decides if logos can be copyrighted or not and I gave very strong arguments for them not to be protected. The WMF merely decides which logos it keeps on their servers. A more honest policy admitting that they are not copyrighted would be much better. Of course they won't do that because it's against their interests. They don't want to pay design patent (with a very limited period of protection) and/or trademark registration fees. It's that simple. That's why they incorrectly claim the logos to be copyrighted. They will see their mistake as soon as they actually try to enforce the alleged copyright. --Rtc 18:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sufficient authorship is only given if the logo is not eligible for design patents, because the latter is a lex specialis for works of applied art. You have to prove your position by showing copyright on such a logo ever being enforced in court. What the office agrees (they don't give legal advice) or not or what you are sure of is entirely irrelevant here. Oh, and it's not a conspiracy theory, but what they told me why the WMF wants these pictures labelled as (c). --Rtc 23:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you're saying that we should disregard the opinion of U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (because they don't give legal advice) and instead we should listen to some anonymous RtC who speaks of the unnamed "they" and denies conspiracy theory? Although I agree entirely on ed_g2s's point of view on credibility, I'm still interested in seeing this lex specialis that takes away copyright from trademarks. -Samulili 10:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Patent or Trademark law does not take away copyright from anything. Far from it, it grants protection to things which are not protected by copyright law. The word "Sony" is not protected by copyright but due to trademark law it's use is restricted (you cannot sell electronic devices with the word "Sony" on it).--Wiggum 11:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- 'They' told me at just in this section above "In theory, registering [the logos] as a trademark should be sufficient - in practice, that is much more complicated and expensive to do internationally than to rely on copyright. It's also much harder to defend, since trademarks only apply in a narrow field of busines - and it's harder tio defend still for a project that does not any money and does not 'trade' anything." It's not a conspiracy theory. There was also no indication that the office agrees with anything ed_g2s said, it was his pure speculation. The copyright office makes the statement that "copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship" which is perfectly right (though misleading). Copyright protection may be available. May. Just in case there is enough 'artistic excess' present in the logo and if there is an element of the picture that is ineligible for design patent, then the logo can in fact be protected by copyright. But such cases are extremely rare. Design patent law may 'take away' copyright from a logo, but at the same time, it grants a limited (couple of years) protection if it has been registered and paid for properly (EU countries now have an automatic design patent even for unregistered designs, granting protection for three years!). It's the same for all design – a more prominent example are typefaces, they cannot be copyrighted either in the US. That's simply to avoid design patents becoming entirely irrelevant as they would be if designs were eligible for copyright easily. Non-existing copyright protection for designs has always been a very emotional and heated topic and there is a whole lobby behind which wants to change that. Many designers take it as a personal attack that their work is not restricted by copyright and that they only get a few years and even have to pay for it. But hey, that's life. --Rtc 19:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- The reason given above (not explicitly by the Foundation) states why they don't freely license the images, not that they think the images are ineligible for copyright. Copyright and trademark are completely separate entities and independent in their application. Are you saying that the Wikipedia logo is not eligible for copyright at all (which is absurd), or that it became ineligible for copyright protection once we registered it as a trademark?
- I am saying that the Wikipedia logo is not eligible for copyright at all (which is not absurd), because if it would be, that would render design patents absurd. Why would anybody ever pay a design patent fee for a limited protection of a couple of years if he can get copyright for 70 pma for free? You should see yourself that it would be nonsense to assume copyright protection for these kind of things. Your logos are protected from use only if you register them as a design patent and pay your fee. If you register them as a trademark, they are merely restricted from being displayed in a misleading way (see, that's entirely different. If I buy clothings with a logo on them, you may not remove the logo and put it on my own clothing. That would not be restricted by copyright ). Designs have always been protected by copyright only if there was massive artistic excess, which in practice is reached only for some exceptional cases. Average logos don't deserve copyright protection, they're trivial. It's industry, not fine art, different rules apply, even if the designers want to be seen as little Picassos, they are not. The limited design patent protection is good enough for their four dots and three lines and the price is just high enough so they think twice before they register their trivialities. --Rtc 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that you're saying that we should disregard the opinion of U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (because they don't give legal advice) and instead we should listen to some anonymous RtC who speaks of the unnamed "they" and denies conspiracy theory? Although I agree entirely on ed_g2s's point of view on credibility, I'm still interested in seeing this lex specialis that takes away copyright from trademarks. -Samulili 10:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep with {{PD-ineligible}}. It's merely a matter of form. This tiny logo is not copyrighted but use might restricted due to trademark law issues. We shouldn't bother about that.--Wiggum 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- keep with {{PD-ineligible}}. No copyrihts. --Steschke 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-ineligible}}. Ignore the "copyright for design" lobby's claims. --Rtc 20:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The reason why we have logos of the Foundation on here is that this, among other projects, are run by Wikimedia. We decided that it maybe a good idea to stick WMF related logos from all projects on here, since various templates, boxes and other things use the logos. Plus, it would be easier to announce changes and things like that. If the Foundation said it is alright to use them, let's not bite the hand that is feeding us. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
kept--Shizhao 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept as PD-ineligible...? Cburnett 01:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Imágen de carácter personal [52] a la que no enlaza nadie, solicito su borrado para preservar mi intimidad. Gracias. Manuel Joseph (discusión 
Email) 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image of personal caracter, with no links to it. I request its deletion to preserve my privacy (rough translation). Delete per uploader request, if unlinked (still used in es:Carta astral). NielsF 17:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Esta imágen fué enlazada por [53] el 22/7/2006 [54] Este usuario puede ser el mismo [55] que el mismo dia revirtió sin ninguna explicación una solicitud de borrado de esta imágen que habia realizado el 20/7/2006 [56] si bien no existía ninguna entrada en [57] por creer que no era necesaria ya que yo era el autor de la imágen y en aquel momento no existía ningún enlace en la misma. Esta imágen se subió en su día para una página de usuario y no estaba categorizada. En la categoría correspondiente [58] existen otras imágenes similares con carácter anónimo. Para mi no es posible ponerme en contacto con el usuario que utilizó esta imágen porque como el sabe perfectamente, me han retirado del proyecto local es.wikipedia por diferencia de opiniones. Manuel Joseph (discusión Email) 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Image:Ignatius von Loyola.jpg --GeorgHH 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Image:Ignatius von Loyola.jpg --GeorgHH 21:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
both deleted --ALE! 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Image was speedydeleted by me as copyvio, but uploader Jaranda disputed: "One card is of course copyrighted but 30 I doubt." --Raymond Disc. 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete, even one card being copyrighted is a problem. And I think any card where part of it is recognizable is a separate violation. Andrew Levine 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Funny guy! Of course one card makes one copyright violation, 30 cards make 30 copyright violations.--Rtc 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete until I contact Topps if I could reupload only that image under cc-by-2.5, I know about copyright laws enough, but I forgot that I had a full showing of an card there, part a card I doubt is copyrigted though as it's too much of a plain design, I reuploaded in my local wiki as both fair use and cc-by-2.5 so it's not needed. I was only upset that I didn't get an warning. Jaranda wat's sup 06:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Image is primarily of corporate logo. Copyright violation per Commons:Derivative works. -- howcheng {chat} 19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Stop trolling. The logo is not protected by copyright, since it's eligible for design patent. --Rtc 19:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The image was deleted by User:Bouncey2k. However I do not want to close the discussion as the issue does not seem to be solved. --ALE! 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have taken the photo back. I was in a hurry and didn't know about this discussion. My opinion is that the logo is copyrighted. In Commons everyone can use and edit photos even for making money. But i can't take this logo to create something and sell it. Think about this. --Bouncey2k 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That you can't use the logo and display as your own does not automatically mean that it must be copyrighted. That's a restriction imposed by trademark law. It's something entirely different. Else we need to delete any article which has a trademarked word in it, such as en:SONY any many others. --Rtc 02:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I have taken the photo back. I was in a hurry and didn't know about this discussion. My opinion is that the logo is copyrighted. In Commons everyone can use and edit photos even for making money. But i can't take this logo to create something and sell it. Think about this. --Bouncey2k 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The image was deleted by User:Bouncey2k. However I do not want to close the discussion as the issue does not seem to be solved. --ALE! 09:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- You cannot copyright words, but some logos can be protected. copyright.gov says:
- How do I copyright a name, title, slogan or logo?
Copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases. In some cases, these things may be protected as trademarks. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information. However, copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship. In some circumstances, an artistic logo may also be protected as a trademark.
- So articles about sony or coca-cola are not a problem. /^81.229.39.230 09:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- What it doesn't say is that while the logo may in fact be restricted by copyright, that applies only to very few, those, which whouldn't be eligible for design patents as a lex specialis. But this logo clearly is. --Rtc 19:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- You cannot copyright words, but some logos can be protected. copyright.gov says:
- The image was deleted by User:Lumijaguaari although we have discussion on logos goin on below. Therefore this discussion here should not be closed until the cases below are solved. --ALE! ¿…? 10:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Lumijaguaari
It´s simple dark, not in use. --GeorgHH 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It´s simple dark, not in use. --GeorgHH 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Undistinguished photo, but properly licenced by uploader/photographer. Possibly of reference use to someone. Relevent category added. -- Infrogmation 02:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:JeremyA --ALE! ¿…? 10:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Redundant to Image:Attention niels epting.svg // Liftarn
- Delete--GeorgHH 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is still used on more than a hundred pages (mostly on the ru.wikipedia.org) please help to change the links. --ALE! 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Supported by User Bricktop i have the png-version in ru.wikipedia changed to the svg. --GeorgHH 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is now still used on the following protected pages:
- Anyone can help with these? We could then delete the png. --ALE! 22:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Auf en.wiktionary and no.wikipedia habe ich jeweils einen Admin angeschrieben, mit der bitte zu helfen. Auf it.wikibooks bin ich sprachlich leider nicht weitergekommen...--GeorgHH 19:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Supported by User Bricktop i have the png-version in ru.wikipedia changed to the svg. --GeorgHH 20:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Inzwischen sind en.wiktionary und it.wikibooks auch erledigt. Wer einen User kennt der Norwegisch-Kenntnisse hat, möge doch bitte mal das bild auf http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project%3AWikipedia_1.0 austauschen lassen. --GeorgHH 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have now replaced it at no.wikipedia. --Kjetil_r 15:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Danke!!!!! --GeorgHH 20:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by a SVG Version of the flag. There is no more practical use for this image in the commons. --David Liuzzo 14:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--GeorgHH 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 15:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Uploading to Commons was a mistake, the active copy is on en.wikipedia. Superseded by now as well.--Keith Edkins 08:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deletedeletionrequest by user--GeorgHH 21:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - in future these tracks should be uploaded to commons though not en.wiki --Nilfanion 16:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! ¿…? 10:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Images in Category:Gaston Lagaffe
[edit]All five of the images in this category fall under en:Wikipedia:Derivative works of a copyright comic strip. See also the Various Star Wars pictures precedent. The photo of the office is maybe debatable but the statues and figure are clear violations. Andrew Levine 14:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agree; delete. -- Infrogmation 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
An old, ugly version of the map which were misspelled. With a town in the same region, but not in the same municipality with the misspelled name, this may lead to confusion. --Emuzesto 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
lack of licensing info.Nikopoley尼可波里 POP-it! 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Panzergrenadier.jpg Image:Panzer.jpg Image:RomMTN72x72.gif Image:EasternFrontIL-2.gif Image:EFCover240.jpg
[edit]all Lacking licensing info and source.Nikopoley尼可波里 POP-it! 01:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)* Deleted -- Infrogmation 21:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
wrong SVG → PNG conversion MADe 07:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No need to delete, just to fix. I have uploaded an improved version, but it still needs work. At least now it does display correctly if you view it in Firefox (your version didn't even do that). I have no idea what to do to make the wiki PNG conversion work. BTW, do the arrows have to be red? Are the differences in relation to Image:Equilibrium infinitesimal area.png intentional? — Erin (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The wiki PNG conversion doesn't accept flowed text and the arrowheads, so you'll have to draw the arrowheads yourself (see for example: Image:Basketball court metric en.svg). NielsF 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Which I just did... NielsF 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- The wiki PNG conversion doesn't accept flowed text and the arrowheads, so you'll have to draw the arrowheads yourself (see for example: Image:Basketball court metric en.svg). NielsF 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, corrected version uploaded. NielsF 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it more, but you seem to have altered and removed information. For example, you took out the "dx" and "dy" text, and changed the direction of the arrows. You also decloned the arrows. — Erin (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, didn't take that dx and dy out on purpose, small error on my part. As for the cloning, simply couln't be bothered. The arrow direction wás intentional, because I tried to recreate the PNG. So fixed that in a new upload. Let's hear what MADe has to say about it. NielsF 15:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing it more, but you seem to have altered and removed information. For example, you took out the "dx" and "dy" text, and changed the direction of the arrows. You also decloned the arrows. — Erin (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Kept. — Erin (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung, es liegt keine Einverständniserklärung der abgebildeten Person zur Veröffentlichung des Bilder vor. 84.63.118.33 17:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Violation of personal rights, there's no declaration of consent of the depicted person for publication of the image (rough translation). NielsF 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep The image does not violate copyright, which is what concerns us. -- Ranveig 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete no written permission. This is a personality rights issue, but we can't keep the picture without permission because the photographed person may also persecute the publisher (and not only the photographer).--Wiggum 17:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep "Persönlichkeitsrecht" is a German legal concept with does not have an exact analogue in common law, particularly when it comes to the requirement of consent. Hosting this photo on commons and using it in Wikipedia articles is not likely to require consent in most common law jurisdictions. Certain limited, specific uses of photographs of people may be problematic (under, for example, the laws relating to defamation or merchandising) but that is not a ground for deletion on Commons. Commons policy only requires that we be able to assign to people the right to use an image for all purposes under copyright law, which we can do here. Commons policy does not demand that we only host images that can be freely modified and used for all purposes under all applicable laws. And rightly so: if it were, we would have a big problem hosting - to give only one example - any out of copyright work due to the restrictions imposed by, for example, the author's rights to the integrity of his work under French law ("le droit au respect de l'intégrité de l'œuvre"). -- Arvind 01:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is one of the central issues here: which copyright law should Commons try to abide to? Common law is one thing, the German law (and with it a lot of other EU countries since the harmonization) the other... NielsF 01:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That isn't quite the point I was making. The point is that this is not even an issue of copyright law. This issue is brought about by an entirely different German legal rule, unconnected with copyright law or the copyright status of this image, and which is not the subject of EU harmonisation (at least, not yet). It would be different if it were prohibited by the law of the country where the photo was taken, but we can't possibly start deleting images because they violate some law somewhere in the world. -- Arvind 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- As i understand en:Model release, what is in Germany "Recht am eigenen Bild" exists similarly in other countries.--Wiggum 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it does not exist to the same extent as it does in Germany. You may find their work in progress of the University of Edinburgh law school's project on personality rights of interest. Additionally, as I said, as far as I understand it Commons only requires that the copyright in an image be freely licensable. Commons policies - very sensibly - do not require that every conceivable use of an image be permitted under other laws not related to its IP status before it can be uploaded. -- Arvind 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. As far as policy is concerned it seems that there was a debate before since on Commons:Licensing#Checklist is written: "Definitely not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent".--Wiggum 12:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to be talking about sneaky photos (like the famous underwear pictures that were listed here some time ago), that is, "given their consent to be photographed" rather than talking about the requirement of specific consent for uploading the photo on wikipedia - at least, that's how I've always read it, and a search doesn't throw up any sign of a debate. A policy on personality rights would require at least as much detail as a policy on copyright, and I don't think a one-sentence policy can be intended to cover that. -- Arvind 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per Arvind. As I remember it, the "people who have not given their consent" was spurred by an image of two women walking down a street who did not know they were being photographed. But I don't think there is any restriction when people know they are being photographed. / Fred Chess 23:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- "Publishing an identifiable photo of a person without a model release signed by that person can result in civil liability for the photographer. [...] The act of taking a photo of someone in a public setting without a model release, or of viewing or noncommercially showing such a photo in private, generally does not create legal exposure, at least in the United States." (en:Model release) You need to make a difference; taking a photo does not means permission to publish. A written model release is required. See also [59]. --Rtc 06:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- That seems to be talking about sneaky photos (like the famous underwear pictures that were listed here some time ago), that is, "given their consent to be photographed" rather than talking about the requirement of specific consent for uploading the photo on wikipedia - at least, that's how I've always read it, and a search doesn't throw up any sign of a debate. A policy on personality rights would require at least as much detail as a policy on copyright, and I don't think a one-sentence policy can be intended to cover that. -- Arvind 13:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. As far as policy is concerned it seems that there was a debate before since on Commons:Licensing#Checklist is written: "Definitely not ok: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent".--Wiggum 12:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it does not exist to the same extent as it does in Germany. You may find their work in progress of the University of Edinburgh law school's project on personality rights of interest. Additionally, as I said, as far as I understand it Commons only requires that the copyright in an image be freely licensable. Commons policies - very sensibly - do not require that every conceivable use of an image be permitted under other laws not related to its IP status before it can be uploaded. -- Arvind 20:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- As i understand en:Model release, what is in Germany "Recht am eigenen Bild" exists similarly in other countries.--Wiggum 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- That isn't quite the point I was making. The point is that this is not even an issue of copyright law. This issue is brought about by an entirely different German legal rule, unconnected with copyright law or the copyright status of this image, and which is not the subject of EU harmonisation (at least, not yet). It would be different if it were prohibited by the law of the country where the photo was taken, but we can't possibly start deleting images because they violate some law somewhere in the world. -- Arvind 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The page en:Model release shows how Wikipedia articles are sometimes inaccurate. Better to look at http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html where it is described that editorial use doesn't need a release. This includes use in book or magazine, as opposed to commercial exploitations such as post-cards, adverts, or (political) statements.
Here is a quote:
So, to be clear: Newspapers, magazines, or other sources of news/editorial can use images for editorial (news) usage without a model release. (not my bolding)
If you were to be consistant with your arguments on the Wikimedia symbols, you'd see that this issue is unrelated to Wikimedia use.
Fred Chess 09:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- So this implies a somehow noncommercial license? Another question would be which law should apply. German jurisdiction is a little more stricter with that but i don't know how it is in all or most of the other countries.--Wiggum 12:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please read the exact context. "As for 'news,' here's the baseline premise: in the United States and other parts of the world where "free speech" is generally protected by law or constitution, the government cannot interfere with journalism and other forms of expression (opinion, art, etc., with many exceptions and limitations, of course). This sometimes trumps people's individual rights because news is deemed to be in the greater public interest, and people cannot stop pictures of themselves from being used in this context." That's exactly the way it is in German law, it's called 'relative Person der Zeitgeschichte'. Please understand that this exception can only be applied if there is undoubtly and objectively a 'greater public interest' in the picture. This clearly does not apply to this specific picture, in fact, it applies to hardly any picture at all. This picture would only be appropriate in an article about this specific person. By no means a picture becomes legal just because it's used in an editorial context. --Rtc 21:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, Rtc, it's the other way around. Let's start from the beginning. In common law, there is no equivalent to "Persönlichkeitsrecht". Model rights, therefore, only exist to the extent they are expressly granted by statute, or by jurisdiction-specific case law. The statutes of most jurisdictions only grant model rights if the image is used for advertising, selling or promoting goods or services. Take a look, for example, at the Californian statute. It is not, therefore, an exception. The photographed person only has model rights when the statute gives it to him or her, and the statute does not do so in relation to such use. I hope this explanation makes things clear. I know the protection is much stronger in Germany, but common law is different. If you take a look at the link I provided a few comments above, it should make things even clearer. -- Arvind 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, let's not start from the beginning, there is no reason for that. [60] is very specific, there needs to be a greater public interest. Show a court decision if you claim it's different. Ask any professional photographer, he will tell you that you are simply wrong. --Rtc 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Messenger v Gruner is a good decision with which to start. Read the reasoning carefully, and note particularly the way "public interest" is used. I suspect you may have misunderstood the signficance of the phrase, which is not uncommon amongst non-specialists because it can mean so many different things. What it means in this context is merely that the article must be on a matter of interest to the public, which is a very broad test, as the decision in Messenger should make clear, particularly given its facts. Joseph Finger v Omni Publications is of similar import. Each of these cites plenty of other cases which you can look up if you are interested, but these two ought to give you a good idea of how narrow the concept of personality rights is in common law. Note the very broad range of uses allowed by the law in the precedents cited in Messenger, and how slight the relationship between the article and the photo needs to be to be "genuine". If you have any further questions on this area of law, feel free to ask. -- Arvind 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Not thinkable in Germany, but you have a point, they hold that "the 'newsworthiness exception' should be liberally applied", so according to this jurisdiction I agree that you are right. I request anyway that a policy be made and pictures with people be properly tagged as "no model release"/"model release, with permission given for ..." etc. just as is done for copyright, and we need to discuss whether, despite of the legality in some jurisdictions, we should accept the former. If only discussion would start that way (clear facts, ie, courts decisions) it would be much less of a hassle. --Rtc 02:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Messenger v Gruner is a good decision with which to start. Read the reasoning carefully, and note particularly the way "public interest" is used. I suspect you may have misunderstood the signficance of the phrase, which is not uncommon amongst non-specialists because it can mean so many different things. What it means in this context is merely that the article must be on a matter of interest to the public, which is a very broad test, as the decision in Messenger should make clear, particularly given its facts. Joseph Finger v Omni Publications is of similar import. Each of these cites plenty of other cases which you can look up if you are interested, but these two ought to give you a good idea of how narrow the concept of personality rights is in common law. Note the very broad range of uses allowed by the law in the precedents cited in Messenger, and how slight the relationship between the article and the photo needs to be to be "genuine". If you have any further questions on this area of law, feel free to ask. -- Arvind 02:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, let's not start from the beginning, there is no reason for that. [60] is very specific, there needs to be a greater public interest. Show a court decision if you claim it's different. Ask any professional photographer, he will tell you that you are simply wrong. --Rtc 01:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, Rtc, it's the other way around. Let's start from the beginning. In common law, there is no equivalent to "Persönlichkeitsrecht". Model rights, therefore, only exist to the extent they are expressly granted by statute, or by jurisdiction-specific case law. The statutes of most jurisdictions only grant model rights if the image is used for advertising, selling or promoting goods or services. Take a look, for example, at the Californian statute. It is not, therefore, an exception. The photographed person only has model rights when the statute gives it to him or her, and the statute does not do so in relation to such use. I hope this explanation makes things clear. I know the protection is much stronger in Germany, but common law is different. If you take a look at the link I provided a few comments above, it should make things even clearer. -- Arvind 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
@Arvind: "Persönlichkeitsrecht" is a German legal concept with does not have an exact analogue in common law, particularly when it comes to the requirement of consent. Hosting this photo on commons and using it in Wikipedia articles is not likely to require consent in most common law I know [...] the protection is much stronger in Germany, but common law is different. - I am wondering if you are aware of the landmark "Caroline decision" (2004) of the European Court of Human Rights (see also de:Caroline-Urteil), which held that a even famous person need not tolerate the publication of photos taken of herself in a public place in scenes of daily life. (It was a German case, but actually the decision overturned a previous ruling of the German Constitutional Court and tightened previous German limits on publication considerably.) Much less some random old man walking over a market street, I presume.
The decision applies to all member states of the Council of Europe, which is basically the whole of Europe (including, say, Norway) and Russia.
For example, in the UK, definitely a common law country, it had a decisive impact on the Zeta Jones case about photos taken at the wedding of Catherine Zeta Jones and Michael Douglas in 2000. From a BBC article about the 2003 ruling in this case:
- [...] High Court judge Mr Justice Lindsay rejected the couple's claim that the magazine breached their right to privacy because there was no such right under UK law. The BBC's Nick Higham said: "He's decided there's no privacy law in Britain and he's not about to invent one. [...]"
That was before Caroline. From a Guardian article about the 2005 appeal court ruling in the same case:
- The landmark judgment will also aid celebrities seeking injunctions to protect their privacy.
- The judges held that the courts have a duty to protect privacy interests, following a ruling by the European court of human rights over snatched photographs of Princess Caroline of Monaco last year.
Lawyer Dan Tench commented in the Guardian:
- It was the first substantial privacy judgment from a court in the U.K. since the landmark decision last June from the European court of human rights in the case brought by Princess Caroline of Monaco. In this, the European court signalled that all European states must give a high degree of protection to individuals from privacy invasions by the press. The court of appeal has now handed down perhaps the first judgment in English legal history with the distinctive character of a privacy law.
- [...] it looks as if, for all practical purposes, we now have a full and proper privacy law in the U.K.
Oh, and the wedding was in New York. That is in the U.S.A.
Now, I sympathize with the opinion that we can't obey any obscure law which exists in one or two insignificant countries, but should Commons really contain images which are illegal in 46 countries, the whole of Europe?
regards, High on a tree 11:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with the Caroline of Monaco case. I would strongly recommend you read the original text of the decision. Grauniad articles are not a very good source of the law. The decision in the case was heavily influenced by the facts - the fact that the details revealed in the photos related to intimate features of her family life, the fact that the photographing was so excessive that it amounted to a denial of privacy, and the fact that years of snooping by the tabloid press had created a sense of harrassment. The decision does most expressly not say that a single photo of someone in a public place violates their right of privacy. Similarly, in the Catherine Zeta-Jones wedding, the court was much influenced by the fact that the couple had taken an express decision to separate the public aspects of the life from the private, and had consigned the wedding to the private sphere. Again, the decision does not mean that a single photo of someone in a public place will violate their right of privacy.
- Finally, Commons currently does host a lot of photos which are legally PD in the US, but not in any part of Europe (or most other parts of the world). This is a policy decision - reversing it to say that we take account of European law will require another policy decision. -- Arvind 08:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Requiring a model release for images such as these is not in our policy. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Source not properly indicated, other contributions of user where spam for the same attorney; furthermore no Wikipedia article about this man so I think it's outside of Commons:Project scope. NielsF 22:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 23:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Images in Category:Peanuts (comic)
[edit]See Gaston Lagaffe example, above. Andrew Levine 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Mostly agree it is clearly derivitive illustration of copyrighted work, though the photo of a billboard in a public place which includes a Peanuts character may be an allowable different case. -- Infrogmation 18:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- That case discussed seperately above. Deleted. -- Infrogmation 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Are these images may be uploaded here? And at any case, GFDL using is incorrect. --Panther 14:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted while these French stamps are dated in 1995 and 1979 so they look like copyrighted.--Jusjih 13:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
screenshot is not old enough Mattes 15:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm the Wikipedia article w:Carnival of Souls says it's PD. Hard to believe tough, not in the EU I think. NielsF 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Carnival of Souls is indeed public domain. (Ibaranoff24 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC))
- I changed the license to PD-US, as it may still be subjected to copyrights in other countries (perhaps most notably in Germany). / Fred Chess 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then you should change the licenses of all images in Carnival of Souls and close the discussion. --ALE! ¿…? 13:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Closed / Fred Chess 09:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
July 27
[edit]Because it is an exact replica of Image:ITER reactor cutout.png. Should this be speedily deleted? - Jack (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted. Next time please use {{duplicate|new file name}} instead and do not list the image here. --ALE! 09:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
REASON Uploaded with wrong name by myself --Jorchr 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Please use {{Badname}} in future. — Erin (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Image mocked up solely for the purpose of supporting a hoax at Wikipedia. Derived from the non-GFDL image w:en:Image:Snakesonaplane1js.jpg. Uncle G 09:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Ed g2s --ALE! 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- There's no origen for this image nor a clear permission link from their owners. Hispa 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- And the same thing for all these images:
- See extensive discussion aquí: [61]. As far as I'm concerned Keep all images and close this discussion as well. NielsF 17:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I must disagree with this point of view. In all these images, there's no origin, and there isn't a real license for them. The user says he's a permission, but I can't demonstrate this point. Can you? Hispa 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- We can trust User:Danny, he knows what he is doing. Kjetil_r 21:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) There's absolutely nothing wrong with the license, it meets all of the criteria. The origin is clearly stated in the license template; the user states he has a permission and quotes from it. Now this last would be a bit too thin, but the fact that the user is a paid employee of the Foundation balances that. NielsF 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I must disagree with this point of view. In all these images, there's no origin, and there isn't a real license for them. The user says he's a permission, but I can't demonstrate this point. Can you? Hispa 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Previously kept, no new evidence. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
kept (no new evidence, no need for a new discussion) --ALE! 12:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- copyrighted map Michiel1972 22:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedied as copyvio. NielsF 00:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Broken image. Superseded by Image:Galla.svg. --Fibonacci 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- No need to upload under different names. I have reuploaded Image:Galla.svg over the top of Image:Gallae.svg. Now, whichever has the more correct name should be kept and the other deleted. — Erin (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, "Gallae" is more correct, so I will speedy the other one as a duplicate unless anyone objects. — Erin (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Image:Galla.svg deleted, Image:Gallae.svg kept, (but with Fibonacci's superior image uploaded over the top of the latter). — Erin (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
why should it be PD? the autor of the original died 1953 (see en:Emil Filla) so not 70 years. the 70 years seem to apply as well in tscheck see [62] ...Sicherlich Post 21:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
delete brazen copyvio --Wiggum 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 10:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This category was essentially a duplicate of Category:State Roads in Florida. The contents were moved and Category:Florida State Roads is now an empty and redundant category. --Epolk 22:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 10:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
PA PNG Shields
[edit]- Image:291.PNG
- Image:PA route 137.PNG
- Image:PA route 320.PNG
- Image:PA route 332.PNG
- Image:PA route 352.PNG
- Image:PA route 413.PNG
- Image:PA route 420.PNG
- Image:PA route 452.PNG
- Image:PA route 611.PNG
- Image:PA route 63.PNG
- Image:PA route 73.PNG
All images have been orphaned and replaced by SVGs (Image:PA-291.svg, Image:PA-137.svg, Image:PA-320.svg, Image:PA-332.svg, Image:PA-352.svg, Image:PA-413.svg, Image:PA-420.svg, Image:PA-452.svg, Image:PA-611.svg, Image:PA-63.svg, Image:PA-73.svg, respectively). Also, the deletion of these images will empty Category:Pennsylvania State Routes (which is a duplicate of Category:Pennsylvania Route shields) and should be deleted as well. --TwinsMetsFan 15:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The SVG images are indisputably the better ones. --Juiced lemon 21:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I created the PNG images (since I couldn't make SVGs), and am glad someone saw the need and made SVGs. The purpose is served, and I vote delete. MPD01605 01:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded Etelä-Suomen läänin vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 11:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Kanta-Häme.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 11:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep a lynx have tufted ears, no snail antennas. --Juiced lemon 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is Image:Egentliga Tavastlands vapen.svg better? It has tuffed ears. /Lokal Profil 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Verily, I don't like this svg image : the big feet, the white eye, the colors, the size (17kb). I prefer clearly the png version.--Juiced lemon 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept. I more like the PNG too. --Panther 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Image:Kainuu.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 20:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 07:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The site where the image comes from (http://www.prometheus-imports.com/) is a commercial site under copyright: "all rights reserved". So licence seems to be wrong. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tag it {{Copyvio}} and speedy delete. Jastrow 08:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Old deletion request from the author of the page (19:21, 28. Mai 2006). Contents of the page are also in Category:Weidenhausen (Gladenbach), Germany. --GeorgHH 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see any reason why to delete this page. --ALE! 09:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm not clear that German currency is PD. Making this image a copyvio. Can someone find somewhere that clearly states that German currency IS public domain. --Megapixie 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- As you can read there, the de:Deutsche Bundesbank permits the publication of parts of german currency as long as it can not be used to falsify. --Steschke 06:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is a stronger argument than Steschke's. The picture is in the public domain because the copyright of the template painting (I guess [63]) has expired. The trivial colorization is not enough to get a new copyright. --Rtc 20:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no copyvivo, see above --- gildemax 16:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Behalten, 1) Urheberrechtsschutz für das Ursprungsbild abgelaufen, 2) Die Banknote ist als Amtliches Werk nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt, 3) Da sich das Bild nicht zur Banknotenfälschung eignet, gibt es auch sonst keine Probleme mit dem Bild. --Mogelzahn 11:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
kept and tagged with {{PD-Germany}} (amtliches Werk nach §5) --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source is unreachable, but PD-old seems to be unjustifiable. And PD-art can't apply because it is a 3D object. --Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Classic confusion between PD-old and PD-Art, with no attention paid to the 2D/3D problem. Jastrow 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted per above.--Jusjih 13:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The uploader says he has created this image "based upon" a copyrighted one. I think it's a clear plagiarism. --Dodo 06:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- Although the design of the shield should be PD (ages old), this is just a bad copy of the original website so Delete. NielsF 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Perdon, pero si la imagen base se alteró por última vez en 1517 y el plagio lo es sobre una obra que reproduce sin añadir una coma de nueva creatividad un trabajo ya en dominio público ¿cómo lo sostenéis? Porque entonces como he subido a Wikisource y a mi web todos los Episodios Nacionales de Galdós, aplicando ese razonamiento ahora toda reproducción a partir de ahí sería una obra derivada. Por favor, dejemos de buscarle tres pies al gato, y si queréis pasaros de puritanos, entonces hagamos una obra derivada de Image:Bandera ayuntam avila.jpg que sí que se lo ha currado el solito en lugar de dejar huérfanas seis páginas de Wikipedia english if the plagiated work is only a reprouction witout new work from a PD due 1517 is last change how are the arguments for deletion? a copy of a copy of a PD work? are crazy? Plese, if you preferer make a derivative work for Image:Bandera ayuntam avila.jpg (best work) and not orphan six pages at Wikipedia. Keep --museo8bits 15:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Tres pies al gato. Precisely. Which is more original, artistic threshold, whatever: a good copy of PD, or a bad copy of the good copy? I'd definitely say the latter.--Ixchel 08:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
kept (the design was changed in 1517 for the last time. Therefore, PD-old) --ALE! ¿…? 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
July 28
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nobel Prize and all medal photos within
[edit]All three images are photos of the medal and are marked as PD-self/PD-user. The photos themselves might be PD, but their subject is not; they are derivative works of a copyrighted work, therefore copyvios. The medal is a copyrighted artistic work by the Swedish sculptor and engraver Erik Lindberg (1873–1966) [64]. See the Copyright and Trademark information:
Permission in writing is required for:
Photos or Images of the Nobel Prize Medal
Permission to use an image or a photo of a Nobel Prize medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration to an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize or a Nobel Laureate.
An image of the Nobel Prize medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc., nor for publicity or commercial purposes.
To apply for a permit, e-mail info@nobel.se.
If permission is granted, ”®© The Nobel Foundation ” must be indicated.
I considered speedy deleting them as copyvios, or tagging as copyvios, but as they are used many times on many projects, I'd like to be sure I am not mistaken. (Note that Image:NobelPrizeMedal.jpg has already been tagged as nosource for the very same reason.)
--Mormegil 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
delete --Historiograf 14:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Rtc 20:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to make it clear - I don't think that Nobel Prize is copyrighted - there is no such information on the Nobel Foundation website and it's quite unlikely (XIX/XX centrury is not XX/XXI century; in 1901 artists rather didn't moved their copyrights to institutions, and I guess copyrigths simply inspired). The case is we have a trademark which is to some extent protected. aegis maelstrom δ 08:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Self edit - wrong, I've just learned the creator of "Swedish Medals" lived to 1966. So it's a question of rights of his family rather than of the Foundation. Well, one way is to track his family and ask if it were possible to issue at least small file (too small to use in print but good enough for Internet) on FOSS licences... the same with Foundation, probably. aegis maelstrom δ 08:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- löschen Wenn der Schöpfer bis 1966 lebte, ist das Werk in keinem Fall frei. --Mogelzahn 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- There are some notes at w:Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg regarding the copyright status of the medal. To correct a few misunderstandings - the copyright notice on nobelprize.org only pertains to photos on nobelprize.org, this is self-evident if you read the entire notice.
- Also, according to nobelprize.org, Erik Lindberg was commissioned to create the engraving, thus it is a work for hire.
- The critical question is whether or not the medal itself is considered an "unpublished work", which would be the difference between the copyright on the work for hire being expired (date of publication (1902) + 75 years - published work) vs. unexpired (publication + 120 years - unpublished). That question bears on the very specific question of whether the award was distributed "for a limited purpose, without the right of further reproduction, distribution or sale" - see Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 9th Circuit, 1991 for more information. I have been researching this and have found no information that Nobel implicitly or explicitly prevents the recipient from selling the medal for profit, and in fact I have found example that it is not distributed "without the right of further … sale". (the counterexample is the Academy Award or "Oscar", where recipients must agree to give the Academy right of first refusal if they decide to sell their Oscar). On that basis I am leaning toward the medal being a published work and out of copyright, although I continue to research the matter. Kwh 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete even if they can be used on fair use, it will still be disallwoed on the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I am discussing this image on my talk page with the uploader, and it appears that he has no real basis for tagging it as GFDL. — Erin (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio — Erin (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedied. Uploader unable to justify GFDL tag. — Erin (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think source site finn.no doesn't have PD copyrights for images, site is in norwegian. One image from here. --Tomia 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, «© 1996-2006 FINN.no AS. alt innhold er opphavsrettslig beskyttet» = "© 1996-2006 FINN.no Ltd. all content is protected by copyright". Kjetil_r 21:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Very crappy image. Superseded by Image:Galla.svg (deleted as duplicate) or Image:Gallae.svg. — Erin (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded — Erin (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 07:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Grund: falsche Lizenz, nicht gemeinfrei
Argumente: Das Foto stammt von Max Missmann. Dieser verstarb am 03.10.1945.
--Axel.Mauruszat 12:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, published before 1923 and therefore public domain. License needs to be fixed, though. Angr 12:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Public Domain is death of the Author +70 years (see Commons:Lizenzen#Gemeinfreiheit.2FPublic_Domain) not publishing. --Axel.Mauruszat 13:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I should be more specific: published before 1923 and therefore public domain in the U.S., where Wikimedia Foundation is based. The correct tag is {{PD-US}}. Angr 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- {{PD-US}} says "This is because its first publication was in the United States prior to January 1, 1923,". Do we have any evidence that this picture was first published in the US prior to 1923? --88.134.45.6 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I should be more specific: published before 1923 and therefore public domain in the U.S., where Wikimedia Foundation is based. The correct tag is {{PD-US}}. Angr 14:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
delete, obvious copyvio --Wiggum 18:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio, no PD, as first publication was not in the United States --- gildemax 15:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Gildemax is correct. TheGrappler 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 07:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
copyvio from happycat.ru.Geni 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete This link points to a google page. There is no web site. --Juiced lemon 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I change my vote, owing to the no source argument (below). --Juiced lemon 09:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- happycat.ru exists. the image was on http://www.happycat.ru/champs/champions_1.htm but it isn't any more thus I link to the google search do show it did.Geni 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete No author or source (at least the uploader listed no source), copyright status unknown. The uploader added the {{No license}} template when he uploaded the picture, so it seems he doesn't know whether the picture was released under a free license. --88.134.45.6 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete As per above. TheGrappler 16:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 10:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
All pictures labelled as Template:Halibutt Copyright GFDL
[edit](See #Template:Halibutt Copyright GFDL)
- Uses an invariant section to add further, CC-BY-SA-like restrictions to the GFDL. That's abuse of invariant sections (considered as non-free anyway, see obnoxious BSD advertising clause) and restriction of the GFDL is not permitted; it voids FSF's permission to distribute the GFDL's text with the work. This is however required to be done by redistributors. Effectively, the pictures cannot be redistributed in a legal fashion; you can only decide between breaking the FSF's copyright on the GFDL text (including the GFDL text in a work with additional restrictions), or, alternatively, the GFDL terms themselves (by not including the GFDL text).
- Private license tags should not be accepted.
- The user refuses to accept any reasonable compromise such as changing it into a copyright notice together with an informal statement that the GFDL needs these to be kept; also refuses to change to a CC-BY-SA license.
--Rtc 23:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy close This is simply a repeat of the issues under discussion on #Template:Halibutt Copyright GFDL. Reopen the request only if the consensus there is to delete the template. -- Vadakkan 15:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy close as per Vadakkan. Also, this seems like some sort of a personal vendetta - and a campaign of slander. I already explained it is no more than plain GFDL, but even if it was, there is no rule preventing us from releasing our work under any license we chose. And I already accepted a compromise solution, which Rtc took the liberty to ignore... Halibutt 19:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Legal problem is not given anymore. Still has invariant section, which I can only suggest not to use, but that's a policy thing. --Rtc 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
duplicate discussion. Please look above! --ALE! 08:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No reason to believe this is expired Crown Copyright, as claimed. The BBC website obtained the photo from AP, as clearly indicated on the image. (I have my doubts that AP are the genuine copyright-holders, but there's no reason at all to believe it is a British government work!) Incidentally, even if it had been produced by the BBC, it would be copyright to the BBC, not Crown Copyright. TheGrappler 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete I wonder a bit, wheather this image was made by the british government and also I doubt that bbc or AP images are crown copyrighted. -- John N. (@ me) 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete The photo is most likely from a Nazi propaganda archive and if the image were found in Britsh post-war archives, I think BBC would've used those archives instead one from AP. --193.217.52.226 12:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong support Keep the picture. It is a part of history and claiming now copyrights on this picture may sound too bogus. Nobody will benefit of the CR, but by removing the picture many people won't have the opportunity to see this part of history. Or are people trying to enforce the copyrights just because is a German Nazi picture?
- Just to clarify: the reason for suggested deletion is that there is no reason to believe this image is out of copyright. Some very old images are still under copyright (I have specific examples dating to the 1890s that I am not able to upload for another 10 years, due to copyright). Discussion here is based not on usefulness or historical value, but purely the copyright issue. No evidence has been produced so far that suggests the image is out of copyright, therefore we are forced to assume it is not, in which case it has to be deleted. TheGrappler 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Rtc 20:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no reason for Crown Copyright.--Wiggum 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete No crown copyright. --ALE! 09:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON Incorrect license, should be non dirivitive non commercial --Komra 20:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (cc-nc-nd license) --ALE! 22:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Penis .jpg and Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg and Image:Erectpeniswhilemasturbating.jpg
[edit]REASON Images are used for vandalism by IP addresses and other accounts, and have limitted usage on other Wikipedias. --Ryulong 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, they are widely used. Kjetil_r 21:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I have listed these here because they were recently utilized in major vandalism at the English Wikipedia's daily featured article, and vandalism at templates that are used in that article to bypass temporary sprotection. There needs to be a way to watch for the inclusion of images such as these, among others that are often utilized in vandalism in the Wikimedia project. Ryulong 00:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Watch yes, deletion no. (Just about anything can be used to vandalise). -- Ranveig 11:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--it's been largely used for vandalism recently. It's just too easy for someone to find this picture and then add it to templates; it's been added to a Pokemon template all morning, which is making it appear frequently on all Pokemon pages. --71.227.248.167 19:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Images of human genitalia on Commons is necessary; they can be useful on many projects. Vandalism has to be fought in other ways than removing media from here. Cnyborg 23:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Cnyborg. NielsF 00:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep DGottschall 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep Or should we delete also all Hitler-Pics, Naziflags or Mardi Gras Pics, when Vandale use it? In DE-Wiki i know only one Vandale which used sometimes this ore other images. --Fg68at de:Disk 08:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We should delete the hitler pics because they are copyvios, but these here can stay. --Rtc 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! 22:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON Image is utilized in way too many ways for vandalism instead of constructive edits on the Wikimedia project. --Ryulong 20:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ano.jpg is used on 6 pages in 5 projects. Keep --Kjetil_r 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- See my comment above on the penis pictures. Ryulong 00:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Yukky pic but seems useful. — Erin (talk) 01:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Ranveig 11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's quite gross, however vandalism in en.wikipedia is not a reason to delete this from Commons. Fight your vandalism battles there but don't come here to complain. NielsF 00:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! 22:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Pantone has written to us and requested deletion. They consider our use a copyright violation. --UninvitedCompany 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see how this could be eligible for copyright. No originality. --Rtc 23:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The object of copyright violation is unknown. --Juiced lemon 09:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Pantone has written to us, who's us, where's the letter? is it a letter like this: [65]? How can they state it's a copyright violation? NielsF 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bah. While this is a good resource to have for us flag drawers, if Pantone wrote to use as said to take it down, then we should Delete take it down. We will still use Pantone colors for many of the flags we have, but we will use outside sources. As for "where's the letter," there are many letters that are sent to the Foundation that we do not see, and I trust UC's judgement very highly. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- We have no reason to delete this page which gives information about Pantone color chart. If it contains copyrighted components, these components must be removed, no more. I suggest to replace the removed components by links, in particular about rival color systems (example : http://www.visibone.com/). --Juiced lemon 08:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
previous discussion for reference -- Duesentrieb(?!) 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
image deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 06:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
restored by ALE! 06:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (discussion is not finished yet, new arguments)
- Keep - Bah, another chilling effect. Pantone colours are very widely used, so much so as to call them a standard. And I do not like standards that have intellectual property claims entrenched in them. -- Denelson83 07:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Almost everything in the category Battleship Bismarck Category:Battleship_Bismarck
[edit]Most of this Pictures came from Naval Historical Center. They were copied from german Reports and it is nearly impossible that all Photographers (if they are known at all) gave their permission vor PD. The named Author is false. On the original Site [66] it is written "identification by her Gunnery Officer, Paul S. Schmalenbach", not author!--WerWil 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think most of that stuff ist covered by the deletion request concerning DKM Bismarck. We should see what remains in the category after the above request(s). --Wiggum 18:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This is covered by the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC --ALE! ¿…? 13:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Was already listed for deletion, but declared as finished when "allowance for publishing is given by the head of the family clan (my friend Sattor, the grandfather)" was added. However, this claim is not falsifiable. I don't see a written model release. --Rtc 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am pro the enforcement of personal rights, but not pro to be annoying about it. Dobschütz seems really to be befriended with Sattor (Image:Hayat-02.JPG), so I think we can believe him. At least the legal responsibility is with Dobschütz, not with us, should that have been a false claim. I mean, what do you expect? An e-mail from Sattor@yahoo.uz with an allowance? Is this worthier than the affirmation of the uploader Dobschütz? Or a little slip of paper with scrawly cyrillic Uzbek letters confirming the allowance? --::Slomox:: >< 07:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- "the legal responsibility is with Dobschütz, not with us" You must consider that Commons wants to offer pictures to anyone. As far as the usage here is concerned, indeed Dubschütz has the responsibility, but when somebody else re-uses the picture, much of the reponsibility is on his side. Can Commons accept pictures which may be a significant risk for re-users? IMO, Commons should offer re-users only pictures which are relatively safe to use. What if somebody uses the picture in a way which Sattor dislikes? There should really be a written model release defining exactly and explicitly which use is permitted, else such pictures are not in any way safe to use and anything can happen if you do. Commons is lacking a clear separation of copyright and personal rights, which are entirely independent. We definitely need personality right templates (concerning personality rights, may the picture be used commercially? for advertising? in pornographic contexts? full model release given? May it be modified?) in addition to the copyright templates so you can see how the picture can be used copyright-wise and how it can be used personality-right-wise. --Rtc 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Commons policy at the moment only covers copyright. We need a very serious policy debate before we extend it to cover personality rights and - in particular - start requiring a written release for every photo featuring a person (and, by extension, deleting photos which do not have releases). I, for one, would be quite solidly against an extension. Let's not forget a few points:
- the primary purpose of commons is acting as a central repository for images to be used in Wikipedia projects, not as a central repository for images for the world generally.
- copyright has a special status on Commons and on Wikipedia which other rights - including personality rights - don't. The reason we are so worried about copyright on commons is that we license things under the GFDL (or compatible licenses), which is a license of copyright. We must therefore have the ability to license the rights we claim to license. The GFDL expressly does not apply to other rights, or make any warranties about any other legal provisions affecting the licensee's ability to use the licensed document or, for that matter, about whether pictures are "safe to use" for any purpose. Indeed, "safe to use" is affected not only by personallity rights, but potentially by any of hundreds of other laws. There is therefore absolutely no reason to give the same importance to personality rights that we do to copyright, unless we are changing the purpose for which Commons exists (which, I suspect, would need the Foundation's consent) and unless we intend to give equal importance to every law that might potentially restrict an image's use.
- -- Arvind 12:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Commons policy at the moment only covers copyright. We need a very serious policy debate before we extend it to cover personality rights and - in particular - start requiring a written release for every photo featuring a person (and, by extension, deleting photos which do not have releases). I, for one, would be quite solidly against an extension. Let's not forget a few points:
- "the legal responsibility is with Dobschütz, not with us" You must consider that Commons wants to offer pictures to anyone. As far as the usage here is concerned, indeed Dubschütz has the responsibility, but when somebody else re-uses the picture, much of the reponsibility is on his side. Can Commons accept pictures which may be a significant risk for re-users? IMO, Commons should offer re-users only pictures which are relatively safe to use. What if somebody uses the picture in a way which Sattor dislikes? There should really be a written model release defining exactly and explicitly which use is permitted, else such pictures are not in any way safe to use and anything can happen if you do. Commons is lacking a clear separation of copyright and personal rights, which are entirely independent. We definitely need personality right templates (concerning personality rights, may the picture be used commercially? for advertising? in pornographic contexts? full model release given? May it be modified?) in addition to the copyright templates so you can see how the picture can be used copyright-wise and how it can be used personality-right-wise. --Rtc 08:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete as we should use especially strict rules when it comes to children. In this case i would like to see a written permission regardless of the copyright status. Agree with the proposal of fixing this issue by policy.--Wiggum 14:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Image is correctly licensed, Commons policy does not cover personality rights. There are and should be no special rights for children. Angr 07:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
kept (no copyright issue) --ALE! ¿…? 07:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is a derivative work of a copyrighted figure and thus a copyright violation. --Angr 12:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Piglit.jpg is a figure made by a well known Wikipedian, with featured pictures to her name. Please point me at the image or thing copied - thanks. --Gordo 15:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep Which copyrighted figure ? --Juiced lemon 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- en:Piglet (Winnie the Pooh) --88.134.45.6 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article is not a copyrighted figure, and a teddy bear with a 'W' on it either. --Juiced lemon 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Images of the character of Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh are copyrighted until 1 January 2047 (70 years after E. H. Shepard's death). This is a derivative work of Shepard's drawings and therefore a copyright violation. Angr 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Shepard's drawings were inspired by stuffed animals. Stuffed animals are not derivature works from his drawings. There are numberous tales with pig characters, and many of them are in the public domain. You don't explain why this picture should be Piglet and not an another character, or any pig. --Juiced lemon 13:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Images of the character of Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh are copyrighted until 1 January 2047 (70 years after E. H. Shepard's death). This is a derivative work of Shepard's drawings and therefore a copyright violation. Angr 12:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- A Wikipedia article is not a copyrighted figure, and a teddy bear with a 'W' on it either. --Juiced lemon 23:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The argument for deletion would be sound if this is a derivative of the Piglet character. However, nomenclature aside, this does appear to be merely an unidentifiable stuffed pig. TheGrappler 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- As an answer to both the above comments, the stuffed toy looks unmistakably like Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh, not like any generic stuffed pig. This is borne out by the fact that the image is being used to illustrate articles on the Winnie-the-Pooh character in Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and Hungarian; see its CheckUsage. Up until yesterday, it was also being used at English Wikipedia to illustrate the article on Piglet (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piglet_%28Winnie_the_Pooh%29&oldid=65350720). Angr 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This is a circular argument. If I name Piglet a stuffed hedgehog, of course it will be a dressed Piglet and so a copyrighted figure! Actually, the toy on the picture doesn't like as a pig, and therefore doesn't like as a special pig. --Juiced lemon 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Your answer is so ungrammatical I can't understand what you're trying to say, but my point is that the picture is being used to illustrate articles about the Winnie-the-Pooh character "Piglet", therefore it is perceived by many people as being an illustration of that character, therefore it is a derivative work of the original illustration of that character. If this image is not intended to illustrate that character, then it should be removed from all those articles. Angr 08:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is a circular argument. If I name Piglet a stuffed hedgehog, of course it will be a dressed Piglet and so a copyrighted figure! Actually, the toy on the picture doesn't like as a pig, and therefore doesn't like as a special pig. --Juiced lemon 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- As an answer to both the above comments, the stuffed toy looks unmistakably like Piglet from Winnie-the-Pooh, not like any generic stuffed pig. This is borne out by the fact that the image is being used to illustrate articles on the Winnie-the-Pooh character in Swedish, Danish, Finnish, and Hungarian; see its CheckUsage. Up until yesterday, it was also being used at English Wikipedia to illustrate the article on Piglet (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piglet_%28Winnie_the_Pooh%29&oldid=65350720). Angr 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep There is enough originality so that it is not really a derivative --Astrokey44 04:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's still identifiable as Piglet, so it's derivative. Angr 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Piglit's front is sewn up reversed. It is therefore a representation that has deviated from the original. If there is an original. --Gordo 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the drawings are the original. There are plenty of 3D toys that are derivative of 2D drawings, like Mickey Mouse dolls, Opus the Penguin dolls, etc. This is no different from them, except that this toy isn't actually made by Disney (who now owns the rights to Shepard's drawings), meaning that not only is this photo a copyright infringement, so is the toy in the photo. Angr 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The toy was bought from a shop. I don't see how that infringes any copyright, since it must have been under some licence agreement? --Gordo 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please read Commons:Derivative works. If you take a picture of a toy, the original copyright of that toy remains. Photographs of copyrighted toys, like copyrighted works of art, are not acceptable on Commons. Angr 11:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The toy was bought from a shop. I don't see how that infringes any copyright, since it must have been under some licence agreement? --Gordo 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again, the drawings are the original. There are plenty of 3D toys that are derivative of 2D drawings, like Mickey Mouse dolls, Opus the Penguin dolls, etc. This is no different from them, except that this toy isn't actually made by Disney (who now owns the rights to Shepard's drawings), meaning that not only is this photo a copyright infringement, so is the toy in the photo. Angr 08:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Piglit's front is sewn up reversed. It is therefore a representation that has deviated from the original. If there is an original. --Gordo 20:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral It's not Winnie's Piglet. Compare with [67]. However, if it's a copyrighted toy, it shouldn't be here... Platonides 20:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is Winnie-the-Pooh's Piget; it's based on the original E.H. Shepard drawings, not on the Walt Disney version you linked to above. See [68], [69], and [70] for some examples. Angr 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep Ese bicho no se parece al piglit salvo en el color y en el nombre. ;-) Sanbec ✉ 14:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep --Chewie 14:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete It's obviously Piglet, but that's entirely beside the point. It's still a picture of a copyrighted object (namely, the toy); whether toy is itself a derivative work is irrelevant. Powers 19:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete If whoever made that toy had sufficient creation, taking a picture is a reproduction. We cannot keep it if there are sufficient doubts as whether it is okay here.--Jusjih 14:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted for now. The source of the toy bought in a shop is not so clear like no source info and the item looks like copyrighted. We cannot let this case hanging around forever. (per COM:DEL, "In contrast to Wikipedia the Wikimedia Commons deletion requests is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion." If anyone has a very good reason to appeal, please bring it up at Commons:Undeletion requests.--Jusjih 14:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
July 29
[edit]Logo. Non-free image.--Hello World! 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. No need to list it here, just tag it as a {{Logo}}. Kjetil_r 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
new version available, Image:Palace of popes Avignon.jpg: 90° rotated and new named. --GeorgHH 18:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Erin Silversmith
definitely a non-free image.--Hello World! 13:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --- gildemax 15:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete speedy delete, please --ALE! 08:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but image:World_Cup_2006_logo.png is used on 32 pages in 9 projects. :-( Somebody want to unlink? Kjetil_r 12:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You! You! You! Always the one who asks ;-) (maybe I can help you) --ALE! 14:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Two tables that should be html tables. Not used anywhere. --Tomia 16:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Figures from World of Worldcraft. --DaB. 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Raymond Disc. 06:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Charging Bull at Bowling Green 060621.JPG, Image:Nyc chargingbull.JPG, Image:Bull Wall St.JPG
[edit]Sculpture not in PD, no permission from sculptor. NielsF 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This sculpture was deliberately dumped on the public by the sculptor in 1989. Why would it not be PD ? --PFHLai 15:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Derivative_works#Casebook, sculptures installed in a public place are protected in the US. Sorry, should've mentioned that in the nomination. NielsF 16:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- This one is in fact speedable. Similar photos of the wallstreet bull were deleted just recently. I do not have time right now, but I will delete them tomorrow if nobody else does it before me. --ALE! 21:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (well I found still some time today) --ALE! 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This image was copied by User:D-udo from there. Chaddy 20:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Marked as {{Copyvio}}. --Panther 08:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
derivative work --Wiggum 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Clear copyvio. Could be speedied. --ALE! 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Kjetil_r 12:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
is now empty, all contents can be find in Category:Wikipedia Day 2006. --Manuel Schneider(bla) (+/-) 21:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 06:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A google image search reveals that this is a widely used image on the web. I do not belive en:User:Xephyrwing's {{GFDL-self}} claim. Kjetil_r 00:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't believe him either. — Erin (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- ACK Delete --- gildemax 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
why PD? you need no copyright notice to claim copyrights --Schlendrian 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, the site doesnt say they created the image anyway --Astrokey44 11:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete --- gildemax 15:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep free clipart available everywhere
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
...etc Pedant 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete being available everywhere doesn't make anything free, in fact, most likely these are simply copyright violations, too; three of links ([78] [79] [80]) you cited are actually wikipedia derived content, so they got the picture from here, also you cited pages with the picture and the picture they embed themselves ([81] → [82], [83] → [84], [85] → [86]). Removing these dupes and wikipedia derived pages from your list yields only [87] and [88]. BTW, Pedant is the uploader and knows where he took it from. --Rtc 23:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why this logo should not be copyrighted. --Matt314 15:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Found some more by the same uploader:
- --Matt314 15:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Clear copyvios. --ALE! 14:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 20:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio, as far as I can tell. The Nordic Council copyright template (Template:Norden.org) states that: "This is a photograph from the official Nordic Council website, and was uploaded to Commons no later than mid 2005. [...] The Nordic Council has since changed its copyright policy and forbids commercial use. Any new images uploaded under this licence can be speedily deleted." However, this image has been uploaded in January 2006, so unless the uploader otherwise got permission to upload it to the Commons under a free license, the image should be deleted. -- Schnee 16:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
this is covered by the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Reopen Template:Norden.org and all of the many, many images in Category:Images by the Nordic Council --ALE! ¿…? 13:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
They're saying "To the best of their knowledge" obviously as a rather euphemistic excuse for their copyright violations (see #All pictures of DKM Bismarck). Commons should never accept any pictures declared in "good" faith to be PD by some alleged authority, but only pictures for which a clear legitimation from the original author exists. --Rtc 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nomination, but keep in mind that not all pictures tagged are cpoyvios --Schlendrian 11:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- delete the template, the tagged pictures have to be reviewed separately. We should remove all those bogus templates. The reason for PD is for instance that pictures were made by US government employees but not that pictures are hosted by governmental institutions.--Wiggum 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep : See discussion at #All pictures of DKM Bismarck. Sting 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If pictures were taken by US government employees or are old enough to be PD, we should tag them with the according license. But as shown in the case of the Bismarck pictures above, we cannot and must not assume that all the pictures in the possession of the NHC are in the public domain. --88.134.45.6 18:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I am convinced by Wiggum's reasoning. TheGrappler 14:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I updated a few, but I noticed that most of the images are made by the U.S navy themselves thus in Public Domain, but yea delete the misleading template and the Bismarck pics Jaranda wat's sup 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I read somewhere that the US military seized German military material at the end of WWII, with one of the effects being that it would have acquired ownership of copyrights and the like. Some of this wasn't even completely resolved legally until German reunification. Somebody should poke into this more, but I'd be inclined to assume good faith on the part of the NHC; they have access to source material and experts that are not necessarily visible online. Stan Shebs 22:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Pictures of Battleship Bismarck published by NHC are de facto PD because they are published by US Navy. Most are indeed made by US personnel, other few may be not, but this does not in fact matter. Same would be for pictures of Japanese ships and so on. It does not change on the fact that US Navy holds copyright de facto as military organization of a winning power of WWII who seized photographic material of enemy ships, the same applies if they bought or exchanged photographic material. Everything US government or military organizations publishes from theis possession is de facto PUBLIC DOMAIN. If you do not believe me, try yourself or let those German guys who dispute this try to start legal action agaisnst the US Navy and you/they will learn what a humiliating and costly defeat means. And after all, Wikimedia Commons is located in USA and so here US law is relevant. Any other aspect has to be declined because legally not practicable as well as any German legal aspect can not overthrow these facts. We MUST assume that all the pictures in the possession of the NHC are in the public domain. No matter if German, Italian, Japanese, British, French, Russian or any other civilian or military vessel. This was legally never disputed because US agencies publish their material only with very good knowledge of facts and status. They do not publish if they do not possess he material and are able to give a picture an official US Navy archive number. I would suggest to re-upload those images with header of US Navy showing official US Navy registration number in order to make it visually clear that those pictures are taken from NHC archive and after all from US Navy. With that header no person or organization cabn ever dispute legal status of them. So why should we follow an absurd and completely wrong deletion request? If someone (e.g. the German photographer of some pictures – in these cases most probably long dead and gone) feels his rights violated, he may try legal action against US Navy – defeat guaranteed. No realistic thinking and mentally intact person would ever try this! I do fully agree with user Sting and see discussion at #All pictures of DKM Bismarck. Therefore KEEP ALL PICTURES and please stop this superfluous and unneccessary discussion that damaged every article about Battleship Bismarck in several Wikipedias in a very infamous way. Reptil (♣) 28. August 2006, 4:45 (UTC)
may your argumentation BURN IN HELL . --Rtc 06:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)- ROFL, i'm missing words for that "argumentation". Would you please stop your superfluous and unneccessary blah?--Wiggum 09:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing us that you have no clue of (international) copyright laws... --88.134.45.6 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I banned all pictures at deWP now. --Steschke 05:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why did you do that? And why only at deWP? --213.39.187.209 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I did that, because deWP doesn't support copyright violations. I did this only at deWP because I'm admin there. --Steschke 15:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why did you do that? And why only at deWP? --213.39.187.209 19:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete this misleading template and all images that are not doubtless PD. --Raymond Disc. 07:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep see Reptil --Snorky 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Marcela 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Modify The vast majority of these pictures were created by employees of the US government. The template name asserts it is a USGov image, but the template should make it clear that it should only be used for images that the USGov created, or those for which the NHC or another source declares is PD. Deleting the reference to NHC is disproportionate, since it is valuable to note the source of the image in a prominent way. The exceptions to the modified text may be individually copyvio'd. -Mak 15:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- We already have a PD-USGov template. I think a second one is unnecessary.--Wiggum 23:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why don't we write an e-mail to NHA and ask the for the copyright-status of their images? Or has anyone done this already? -- John N. (@ me) 13:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Pibwl 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Modify Perhaps this should be modified and renamed to be something like {{LOC-image}} or {{LOC-map}}; an informational box pointing to the source but which is not a licensing tag. The NHC source of these images is interesting and should not be lost, but it does not seem as though it should suffice as PD reasoning all by itself. The images should additionally be marked PD-old, PD-USGov, PD-USGov-Military-Navy, or similar as appropriate, or deleted if not free. The NHC did not create the photos, so it should not be used as a rationale of PD by itself – the underlying reason should be found and tagged as well. The vast majority of the images from the website probably are public domain, but details are often lacking, and some may not be. The site's FAQ page [89] seems to disclaim any responsibility if they are wrong -- they BELIEVE the images are PD but will not provide explicit permission if anyone else is unsure (probably because if the images are not PD, then the NHC is not the copyright holder either and so can't provide permission). That is probably good enough for a noncommercial, educational site but may not suffice for commons' image criteria. Carl Lindberg 05:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Best solution is probably to turn the template into a "no source" template. / Fred Chess 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
_coat_of_atms_(1993).png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_001.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_coat_of_atms_(1993).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1993).png){kind=link}
_coat_of_atms_(1993).png){kind=link}
_coat_of_atms_(1993).png){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[27]](http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Image:Crayfish-Astacus_astacusP1002890.JPG){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_(1850).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_big.jpg){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Thestral.jpg){kind=link}
![[38]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Indiana_Jones_full.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lsbleu.jpg){kind=link}
![[42]](http://www.state-ends.com/paends/state/PA28TRKendN.jpg){kind=link}
![[43]](http://www.state-ends.com/paends/state/pa28southend_westendbr1.jpg){kind=link}
![[44]](http://www.state-ends.com/paends/state/end28brockway-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[45]](http://www.state-ends.com/paends/state/pa28s-pine2.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Kennzeichen_f%C3%BCr_Schutzh%C3%A4ftlinge_in_den_Konzentrationslagern.jpg){kind=link}
_001.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_001.JPG){kind=link}
_001.JPG){kind=link}
![[48]](http://www.kidney.org.au/assets/images/Partner_logos/KFC%20Logo%20High%20Quality.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Estelsmjoseph.jpg&oldid=2459169){kind=link}
![[56]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AEstelsmjoseph.jpg&diff=2485565&oldid=2459169){kind=link}
![[61]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives11#Image:Pompeii_the_last_day_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](http://www.dreieichschule.de/deutsch/judenbuche/annette_8.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Image%3APiglet.jpg&file=0d14xy6u3564yvdcnancv10u4knc3k0g.jpg){kind=link}
![[68]](http://www.4c-wohndesign.de/product-images/thumbnails/EHS107.jpg){kind=link}
![[69]](http://watch.windsofchange.net/pics/2005/piglet_help.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/0525468455.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg){kind=link}
![[74]](http://images.indymedia.org/imc/canarias/image/11/moving-camera.gif){kind=link}
![[75]](http://z.about.com/f/wiki/e/en/1/1e/Moving-camera.gif){kind=link}
![[76]](http://www.crimethinc.com/supervision/moving-camera.gif){kind=link}
![[77]](http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/1/1e/Moving-camera.gif){kind=link}
![[82]](http://images.indymedia.org/imc/estrecho/image/11/moving-camera.gif){kind=link}
- Deprecated / Fred Chess 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
July 30
[edit]
Image is a duplicate of Image:Oleifera Antanimieva.jpg (which I also uploaded, sorry!). --Waitak 04:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is the copyright note in the top left corner OK with us? — Erin (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Erin Silversmith --ALE! 21:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is little use for an inverted check. If you know of a practical use, then please inform me. -- King of Hearts 06:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as pointless. If there is some use for it, create an SVG version and delete it anyway. — Erin (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted (not used, easy to create if someone really need it) --ALE! 06:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong name. Image is re-uploaded as Image:North American P51 Mustang parked 1985.jpg.Jan Arkesteijn 08:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Badname}}, please use this or {{Duplicate}} in the future. --Denniss 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Erin Silversmith --ALE! 08:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This image is substandard and needs to be deleted as soon as possible. It is actually a very large (some 600 kB) raster image embedded inside an SVG file. The other SVG version is technically a lot better and its drawbacks can be fixed. This version, on the other hand, is fundamentally flawed. --Hapo 11:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- I agree that this image is flawed and should be Deleted before it gets used. But could we not, while we're at it, create one coat of arms of the USSR? In Category:Coats of arms of Soviet Union there are currently 6 images: two are .jpg, one is .png, three are .svg. At least the .jpgs should be superseded by pngs and deleted. Additionally I'm not sure if svg is the best format for this type of image: the svg is ten times larger than the png image. / Fred Chess 12:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Speedied as a broken file. It throws an error when opened in Firefox directly, and appears blank when opened in Inkscape! I didn't even know it was possible to create fake vector images like this! —the preceding unsigned comment is by Erin Silversmith (talk • contribs)
[edit]
The last we need is a masturbation video. That's not educational in any way. --Denniss 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Why is a video clip of an ejaculation not educational? Unless it violates Florida law, I think it should be kept. -- Schnee 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Where is the Masturbation in this video ??? Masturbation, by en.wikipedia.org own definition is as follows : "Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs, most often to the point of orgasm". Where is the Manual Excitation of the penis in this video ??? Please go to the "Ejaculation" page at wikipedia.org and click on the Discussion Tab and read that discussion carefully. The still photograph that was on that page that the video replaced was a photoshopped image of a man masturbating and ejaculating and was obviously originally intended to be an erotic photograph. This video is an Educational depiction of Ejaculation ONLY, that compliments the Diagram and Article on that page. Consider the Categories that the video is in here at the Commons ....Biology, Reproduction, Sexology, Penis, Semen, Video (it is a video), Male reproductive system, and Sexual intercourse. All Categories where an Educational video of Ejaculation ONLY would be appropriate. There are no sex acts involved in this video and no manual manipulation or stimulation of the genitals in this video. Therefore, it is NOT Masturbation. Considering the Categories that it is included in here at the Commons and the nature of the video itself, this video could indeed be used for Educational and Teaching purposes in those Categories. Ima learner 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The video is useful. — Kjetil_r 00:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Oh dear, these people do love to upload pix of their private bits. Educational, though, I suppose. — Erin (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
---
Kept. --ALE! 22:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Undocumented license. I also doubt that Nintendo has put sprites from their games into public domain. --Pred 15:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvios Jaranda wat's sup 03:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 11:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Yes check.svg, if an image is really necessary. In fact, what is wrong with simply using the character "✓" (displayed to the right) for most purposes? — Erin (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseded. — Erin (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Yes.png because of its poor quality, not because of its format. —Lifeisunfair 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Its poor quality is due to its format. A vector image would have maximum quality at any scale. That's the point. — Erin (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, its poor quality is not due to its format. The quality is poor because the creator did a poor job. Vector graphics are more scalable than raster graphics, but a high-quality PNG of this size would be identical in appearance to a scaled version of the SVG. (It could even be a scaled version of the SVG.) In case you didn't realize, MediaWiki renders all SVGs as PNGs. —Lifeisunfair 03:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You just don't get it. Go back to GIFs. — Erin (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion that the image is of poor quality is based upon its sloppy appearance. You incorrectly stated that this is due to the file format. I noted this fact, and you responded with rudeness and sarcasm (as though I had no right to disagree). How was this remotely warranted? —Lifeisunfair 05:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You just don't get it. Go back to GIFs. — Erin (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- No, its poor quality is not due to its format. The quality is poor because the creator did a poor job. Vector graphics are more scalable than raster graphics, but a high-quality PNG of this size would be identical in appearance to a scaled version of the SVG. (It could even be a scaled version of the SVG.) In case you didn't realize, MediaWiki renders all SVGs as PNGs. —Lifeisunfair 03:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Its poor quality is due to its format. A vector image would have maximum quality at any scale. That's the point. — Erin (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The SVG looks pretty good to me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:ISL Dalvikurbyggdar COA.svg. — Erin (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Infrogmation 18:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Superseded by Image:Coat of arms of the Soviet Union.svg — Erin (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete — Erin (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Will be good idea to have high resolution image for reference purposes. At least now SVG version contain spelling mistake in Belarusian text. Should be "ПРАЛЕТАРЫІ ЎСІХ КРАІН, ЯДНАЙЦЕСЯ". --EugeneZelenko 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- SVGs are very easily corrected. — Erin (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The JPG is right now, since it is an official depicition of the arms. While I like to use SVG in the future, we should fix any mistakes before we use it full-speed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 08:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's better keep the reference version. I notice several differences between them. Probably irrelevant, but they're different. I don't see any reason to delete it. Keep both and use what you want. Simply add a reference to the svg at the page (note that what you listed for deletion was the svg!!). Platonides 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 04:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Kept. This is quite a complex image, with lots of text in multiple scripts. Since several people feel the SVG still needs work (and one person even wanted to nominate for deletion in favour of the JPG!), it should be kept to be improved. In the future it may be good enough that this JPG can be deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
July 31
[edit]
I must have read the license wrong. It now says at flickr that "all rights are reserved." Tortfeasor 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! 10:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Untrustworthy license by a user permanently blocked on German wikipedia. Sad for the picture. --Rtc 07:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyvio from here (Warning: site contains porn) --88.134.45.6 22:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Now tell me one thing... How the hell did you find the source of this copyvio? --Rtc 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Pure coincidence in this case :). I knew it had to be copied from some porn site, because there was a guy on one of my favourite message boards that repeatedly used porn pics from such sites in his signature (and got banned for it). So I used this search engine to find it (still took almost an hour). --88.134.45.6 11:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Amazing! It must have been a needle in the haystack. Great work, thanks. Hope you had fun searching ;) --Rtc 14:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Pure coincidence in this case :). I knew it had to be copied from some porn site, because there was a guy on one of my favourite message boards that repeatedly used porn pics from such sites in his signature (and got banned for it). So I used this search engine to find it (still took almost an hour). --88.134.45.6 11:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Now tell me one thing... How the hell did you find the source of this copyvio? --Rtc 22:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! 10:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Screenshot of proprietary program; same user. --Rtc 07:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Kjetil r --ALE! 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A duplicate of Image:Incubator-notext.svg. Dbmag9 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A duplicate of Image:Incubator-text.svg. Dbmag9 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A duplicate of Image:Incubator-text.png. Dbmag9 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
All three duplicates deleted. NielsF 01:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Images moved to Project Mercury, the correct title. --GeorgHH 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Use a redirect as a helpful searching aid and to preserve history. Jkelly 22:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 06:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
No source; PD-old seems uncorrect (is the author of photography died since more than 70 years?) and PD-art can't apply on 3D objects. The same image (where this one comes from) is to be deleted on WP en:. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 15:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete after orphaning as entirely unsourced. Jkelly 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: no source. Orphaned now. Jastrow 08:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted from en-wiki for being probably copyvio (see en:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 July 23). -- howcheng {chat} 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete (and fixed link to en: deletion listing) -- Infrogmation 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! ¿…? 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created this article, but it´s unnecessary - only one picture available. --GeorgHH 18:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: Every single image in this article is NOT from the year 1901. I left a note on User:Emijrp's talk page and reverted it as a redirect to Category:1901. Emijrp reverted it, and left a message on my talk page with an excuse. I say that using a 2005 licence plate to illustrate the year 1901, just because state mandated licence plates were mandated that year, is a very poor excuse for an illustration for 1901. ( I think Emijrp's other contributions need to be double checked if the user not only cannot accept that only 1901 images should illustrate the year 1901 article on Commons but insists on having an article only with images from other years even after that fact has been pointed out to them.) --Infrogmation 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- When I put "Media related with the year 1901" I mean "images that shows events in 1901". I understand your reason if the articles is called "1901 images". I think also that if George Bush was elected in 2001, and we only have got an image from 1999, to put that image in 2001 article isn't a madness because 2001 article want to show the notable persons in 2001. Cheers. --Emijrp 19:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- This seems to be a request for more sensible gallery editing. How would deletion of the article history help here? Jkelly 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I requested more sensible gallery editing, and have been rebuffed. I would favor discussion on guidelines. In the mean time, an article entitled "1901" which consists entirely of images from years other than 1901 (including one off by more than 100 years) seems misleading, IMO worse than useless. I have no objection to year pages consisting of images from the year in question; the current page is 100% misinformation. -- Infrogmation 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You didnt request anything, you destroyed the article by transforming in a redirect. If you aren't against this kind of articles why don't you improve it? If you want a category or article like "1901 paintings" or "1901 stamps", create "1901 images", but in articles years I think that we must to show what happened in that year with old photos or with new photos. --Emijrp 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I "destroyed" nothing. I reverted with an explanation, and you counter reverted. I thought that it should be obvious that images in an article page should be specific to the title topic (as opposed to only images which it is possible to make a broad suggestion are somehow tangentially related). Clearly I was wrong, and we need some sort of guidelines or project page discussion, and deletion requests is not the place for that. Perhaps others have suggestions on the best place for such discussions? -- Infrogmation 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- You didnt request anything, you destroyed the article by transforming in a redirect. If you aren't against this kind of articles why don't you improve it? If you want a category or article like "1901 paintings" or "1901 stamps", create "1901 images", but in articles years I think that we must to show what happened in that year with old photos or with new photos. --Emijrp 06:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I requested more sensible gallery editing, and have been rebuffed. I would favor discussion on guidelines. In the mean time, an article entitled "1901" which consists entirely of images from years other than 1901 (including one off by more than 100 years) seems misleading, IMO worse than useless. I have no objection to year pages consisting of images from the year in question; the current page is 100% misinformation. -- Infrogmation 02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a start at Commons:Wikiproject Time. Those interested in improving chronolgical categorization and discussing proposed organizational criteria, please sign up and share your thoughts. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Infrogmation. For example, the picture of Boxer forces was taken on 1900, and as a result must be transfered to the 1900 page. --Juiced lemon 20:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree that the selection of images is a bit odd, and reasons for why they are there -- such as the license plate -- should be given. However, with some work, articles for years such as these could become excellent. Illustrating articles on years, for instance, would become a lot easier. -- Ranveig 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, re-edited. -- Infrogmation 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The same picture is here and here and here and here. Clearly it's a news agency photo. The claims of the uploader de:Bild Diskussion:BenediktXVI.jpg are purely ad hoc and thus not credible. --Rtc 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader claims to have a oral permission by the photographer. I am not sure if we should belive him, it seems somewhat suspicious. Has there been any previous problems with Benutzer:Geoprofi? Kjetil_r 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- These claims are ad hoc and I don't believe him. Everyone can make such claims how do you want to test them? Commons doesn't accept dubious oral permissions. Written permission of the standard email template sent to OTRS by the original photographer is necessary. I never had any case where such a claim was not a lie (see also below #Image:Sex.jpg). --Rtc 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I wonder about the poor quality if this should be a professional made photograph. Regardless of that i agree with Rtc that we should only accept testable permissions which means written form.--Wiggum 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
delete ACK Rtc --Historiograf 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, highly likely to be a copyvio. Angr 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Images are not in jpeg format (maybe photoshop?) --Tomia 21:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Keep these are .jpg files, just a problem in how they are showing. See Commons:Village pump#Corrupted images?--Nilfanion 01:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: most images are derivative from copyrighted works (should i tag the pics one by one?). --Martin Rizzo 23:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- As there seem to be some apparently legitimate non copyright derivative pictures in the category (eg Image:Multiplane camera.jpg, I fear a blanket deletion of the entire cat and subcats is not warrented, even though that would be less work than sorting out the problem images (which may be the majority). -- Infrogmation 02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Image:DonaldDuck.jpg, Dumbo, Image:Pateta goofy (Disney).JPG and the related category, Image:Chip-Dale.jpg, and Category:Pluto (Disney) with the image, Keep the rest. Jaranda wat's sup 04:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image:DonaldDuck.jpg claims " This is a picture of a permanent art installation on public ground in Germany and was also taken from public ground. It is therefore legal according to German law (§ 59 UrhG). Please refer to Panoramafreiheit (in German) for details." Could we get an opinion on the validity of this argument? -- Infrogmation 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- According to German law that is completely correct AFAIK. However it's probably not so according to Florida and/or US law (which is also needed) so delete, I'd say. NielsF 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why do we have to apply both laws? That is nonesense. German law is enough in this case. --ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is it? The image is hosted on a Florida server...? NielsF 17:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why do we have to apply both laws? That is nonesense. German law is enough in this case. --ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- According to German law that is completely correct AFAIK. However it's probably not so according to Florida and/or US law (which is also needed) so delete, I'd say. NielsF 00:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image:DonaldDuck.jpg claims " This is a picture of a permanent art installation on public ground in Germany and was also taken from public ground. It is therefore legal according to German law (§ 59 UrhG). Please refer to Panoramafreiheit (in German) for details." Could we get an opinion on the validity of this argument? -- Infrogmation 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- what about Image:DisneylandGoofy.JPG?, it looks like copyright violation. --Martin Rizzo 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I doubt that's copyrighted, but I don't know if the uploader got the permission of the tourists though, unless it is his own family. Jaranda wat's sup 20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again, this is not a matter of copyright but of trademark. According to earlier decisions about trademarks on Commons, I'd say Delete. You can not print this image on a T-shirt, even if there are no copyright restrictions. / Fred Chess 22:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again, this is not a matter of copyright but of trademark. According to earlier decisions about trademarks on Commons, I'd say
- I doubt that's copyrighted, but I don't know if the uploader got the permission of the tourists though, unless it is his own family. Jaranda wat's sup 20:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image:DonaldDuck.jpg seems to be the only one left. If this is free in Germany, it can be uploaded locally to de:. But it does not seem to be free in the U.S., so it must be deleted from Commons. Angr 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Images within category judged to be problems deleted. -- Infrogmation 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
{{Morguefile}} redirects to non-commercial but since some of the pictures are heavily used I list them here after beeing reverted. --Matt314 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Still, there is no reason to list the template/photos here. The redirect to {{Noncommercial}} is sufficient and the file will be handled there. To list a photo here, means that there is a need for discussion. This is not the case with these photos. --ALE! 09:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The COM:VP discussion recommended listing them here, so that the images could be orphaned before being whacked. Your vandalism of sister projects is not helpful. As far as you marking it as a closed discussion, your reactions such as marking the only plausible discuassion area as "closed" indicate that you should not be entrusted with your current role. --Connel MacKenzie 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- First of all: What vandalism of sister projects are you refering to?
- Second: Images from morguefile are noncommercial: http://www.morguefile.com/archive/terms.php (point 2.1). Period. No need for discussion really. So why should we list the images here? It is an obvious case. --ALE! 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- PS: Wer nichts macht, macht auch nichts falsch. (English: Who does nothing, makes consequently nothing wrong.)
deleted—by various admins. --Rtc 07:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Kielitynkäkuva.png. --Hautala 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Colors are better on the JPG. Png should be corrected first. Platonides 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're right. The sixth mark had lost some of its purpleness. Now it's closer to the original. --Hautala 09:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
An image got by an illegal way; ballots cannot be taken out from polling stations, but I took out a ballot paper and scanned it. I, the author, apologize my mistake and request the deletion of this image. （In Japanese: 不正な手段（投票用紙の持ち出しは禁止されていますが、持ち出してスキャンしてしまいました）で取得した画像。投稿者として誤りをお詫びし、画像を削除していただきたいと思います）--Tamago915 23:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Bastique --ALE! ¿…? 09:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
REASON: Derivative work from a poster ad. --Martin Rizzo 17:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
deleted, derivative work --ALE! ¿…? 13:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image is claimed to be cc-by-sa-1.0. It comes from World66. The uploader argues that "the licensor chose that attribution be given to the company in publishing the image in that manner on their site" and continues: "there is no reason whatsoever to consider the image does not fulfill the license terms." [90]. I, on the other hand, believe that whoever uploaded the image to World66 may not have been the author or at least we have no way of knowing. Uploading an image with a by-license and then not telling who to credit for it, seems unlikely. Therefore, I think we should treat this image like a possible copyvio with no source and eventually delete it. -Samulili 16:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
![[90]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Samulili#License_tags_in_Image:Ciudad_Real_.28catedral.29.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
- Delete It's indeed Cc-by-sa 1.0. See the upload form, so whoever uploaded it agreed on that license (like we do with text, it's a kind of wiki). If phptographer field was left blank, it doesn't affect the licensing. However, was the uploader the photographer? It seems to me more like a scanned postcard than a photo. Platonides 11:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We have no way of knowing either if people who upload allegedly self-created images haven't ripped them from elsewhere. Unless we are going to request material proof that every image posted is indeed the copyright claimant's, it does not make sense to delete this one. We are fulfilling all of the license's criteria; if there is bad faith further upstream, there is nothing we can do to ascertain it. If, however, you can find one good proof that this isn't what the source claims it is, I would't object to its deletion. Taragüí @ 07:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- And what the source claims it is? It's like a source of english wikipedia. Very well, but what's the real source? Platonides 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The author must be provided if the license is cc-by Sanbec ✉ 11:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient source information. I also emailed the site to ask them about it. If they provide more source info, I may undelete it. Otherwise, maybe they'll remove it too. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 07:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}