Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
August 1
[edit]Orphaned, with contents moved/merged into Category:Counties in Pennsylvania. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 03:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A black square seems utterly useless to me.--Wiggum 08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Kasimir Malewitsch: Black square (1913). utterly useless? nah... it's art!
Delete Bad copy of the Malewitsch (but I guess the uploader knows this, otherwide he wouldn't have called it 'Elvetritsch') Commons is not a place for homebrew art. --Rtc 09:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- The de:Elwetritsch is a German legendary creature and this picture a bad joke (Elwetritsch in the dark, look how perfectly camouflaged he is! a joke not very specific to Elwetritsches ;-) Therefore delete --::Slomox:: >< 15:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
A large, 17k, black JPEG is completely useless. In the unlikely event of a large black square being somehow useful, it should simply be created using CSS:
Derivative work using at least two copyrighted pictures (see #Bilder von Adolf Hitler)--Wiggum 09:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Tagged as derivative. If some admin will have the guts to finally eradicate #Bilder von Adolf Hitler? --Rtc 09:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
13:49, 1 August 2006 Raymond de (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Hitler .JPG" (derivative work of protected material)
Uploaded by me under the wrong filename - it was supposed to be Flag of Anorí.svg- --Fibonacci 21:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Marked with {{Badname}} for the speedy deletion. --Panther 09:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 11:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I want to delete it because it has several mistakes. I made better one. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Winiar (talk • contribs)
- To the nominator: Please check again the given file name. --ALE! 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 15:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a painting by Herb Kawainui Kane (pronounced Kah-nay), a currently living hawaiian painter whose livelihood is dependent on sale of his art. His site claims that images are all rights reserved. Painting details at http://hawaiiantrading.com/cgi-bin/mivavm?/store/merchant.mvc+Screen=PROD&Product_Code=hk-276&Category_Code=herb-kane&Store_Code=hieyes
The image page does not mention the painters name, nor the fact that it was painted recently. It asserts a contradictory statement that the image was released into the public domain, but is contracted by the limitation "for educational and historical purposes". It is either Public domain or it isn't. While it is concievable that Herb Kane signed away all rights to the state and they have released it into the public domain, or Mr. Kane has or allowed free use of this image, no such documentation has been provided. -Mak 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
For articles requiring replacements, there is an image at Image:Queen Kaahumanu.jpg. Though not as idealized, it is a period representation of her that is in agreement with other likenesses from that time. -Mak 08:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Astrokey44 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Infrogmation 00:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
(uploaded be me myself) according to http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=DNSN8309083&JPGPath=/Assets/1983/Navy/DN-SN-83-09083.JPG, picture was taken by Ingalls, not a navy sailor. As substitute, I uploaded Image:USS Cowpens (CG-63) drydocked.jpg --Schlendrian 10:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
double-image effect, image taken trough a window? --GeorgHH 16:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Infrogmation 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Infrogmation 00:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
bad quality and bad name. --GeorgHH 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
kept (Bad quality: yes. Bad name: yes. But the image is used.) --ALE! ¿…? 14:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
BadJPEG, superseded by SVG file. --Fibonacci 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
BadJPEG, superseded by SVG file. --Fibonacci 17:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Useless category. Actually, we have only one solar system to list in this category, and no chance to get all the planetary systems of the Galaxy. More, “milky way” is mispelled.
Present scheme : Category:Astronomy => Category:Astronomical objects => Category:Planets => Category:Planets outside the Sol system. --Juiced lemon 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted the empty category --ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, i am the uploader but it already exists. --Dada 23:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mark as {{Duplicate}} or {{Badname}} please. --Panther 09:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
kept (although there is Image:Francis Scott Fitzgerald 1937 June 4 (1) (photo by Carl van Vechten).jpg, this iamge has IMHO a better quality) --ALE! ¿…? 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Moved it from german wikipedia, but it's a press photo too. There seems to be some relation to Agencia Brasil, but no CC tag is on the pages. Perhaps you can get them to do this, too. --Rtc 08:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Agencia Brasil seems to be a subagency of Radiobras. The logo of Agencia Brasil is clearly displayed on the right top of the page linked from the image ([1]). Furthermore, when trying to search the picture on the http://agenciabrasil.gov.br site (busca: Banca de Imagens, searched for the term Praça dos três poderes, you get a notice stating (roughly translated): Attention: we are busy migrating our contents to our new site. To search images produced before the 28th of june, click here. If you click you go to the archives, where the old images (up to 2004) can be found. So at least not delete until it's clear that a) this is just a temporary thing, as the website seemes to state and b) it's clear that Radiobras is something else than Agencia Brasil (which I don't think). Seen that earlier debate about this template and subsequent communication with Agencia Brasil led them to slap a CC license on their pictures, considering this picture has the same copyright texts as all of the current pictures had before, considering that Agencia Brasil is a subagency of Radiobras, considering that they state they are migrating their content to a new structure, this leads me to the conclusion that the original license text (© Todas as fotos poderão ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte e o nome do repórter and O uso das fotos produzidas pela Agência Brasil é livre. De acordo com a legislação em vigor, é obrigatório registrar o crédito, como por exemplo : Nome do fotografo/ABr.) should be considered the same as the cc-by-2.5-Brasil license as used by Template:Agencia Brasil. NielsF 22:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (unclear license) and replaced the usages with another image --ALE! ¿…? 14:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It's a pure press license ("Der Nutzer des Fotos erklärt sich durch Klick des Buttons "OK" mit folgender Vereinbarung einverstanden: Das Foto darf nicht ohne den Quellen-Vermerk weitergegeben oder veröffentlicht werden. Der Quellen-Vermerk muss gut leserlich im Bild integriert werden oder unmittelbar neben dem Foto angegeben sein. Quelle: spdfraktion.de") [2]. Beyond such use, it does not explicitly permit redistribution, commercial use and derivative work, and, as we all know, all that is not permitted explicitely is forbidden by default. The according claims on the template are solely the invention of the template author. --Rtc 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Using a picture in a newspaper is commercial use. You can be shure that the newspapers also create derivative work by cropping, adjusting white balance etc. Then they redistribute it by selling their archive DVDs. I see this agreement as equal to cc-by-2.0 which is a legitime license. --Ikiwaner 07:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's simply wrong. A press license is a press license. So it permits redistribution, commercial use and derivative work only to the extend that it is needed for press use, so clearly not "for any purpose" as the template has written in bold letters. It is not equal to Template:Cc-by-2.0. Get them to put a CC-BY tag on their website as is the case with Agência Brasil if you want to keep – that should be easy if you are right, shouldn't it? We had this discussion again and again. What would not be permitted for these pictures is selling them on their own or similar things (making a calendar, etc.). En.wikipedia labels press photos even as only fair use. Press licenses are not free as in freedom, period. --Rtc 07:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of helping to clarify the situation of 200 useful pictures (may they be used on a calendar too?) you do a deletion request and let the others do the work. I don't like your proceeding. I will ask for explicit cc-by license. --Ikiwaner 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of provinding proper licencing informatin the respective uploaders did sloppy work and let others fix it. That's the point. Delete while there is no definite license.--Wiggum 16:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of helping to clarify the situation of 200 useful pictures (may they be used on a calendar too?) you do a deletion request and let the others do the work. I don't like your proceeding. I will ask for explicit cc-by license. --Ikiwaner 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is wrong. See my comment below. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Die SPD-Fraktion hat diese Bilder der Wikipedia zur Verfügung gestellt. Es gilt nicht der Text auf der Webseite. Ich bekam folgende E-Mail von Kerstin Villalobos, zuständig für Öffentlichkeitsarbeit: auch nach nochmaliger Rückversicherung bei den Vertragsaushandelnden: grünes Licht, wir haben die uneingeschränkten Nutzungsrechte (bis auf Film und 1/1 Plakat, aber das -wie gesagt- können wir aufgrund der Qualität der hochgeladenen Bilder auschließen) und geben sie hiermit an Wikipedia weiter. --JuergenL ✈ 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Wenn's jemand übersetzen will darf er das gerne, ich schaff das heute abend nicht mehr ;-)
- Hallo Jürgen, 'an wikipedia' reicht eben nicht. Wir brauchen eine Lizenz 'für jedermann'. Wikipedia ist da garnicht nicht relevant, alleine dass das Wort in ihrer Antwort auftaucht, zeigt deutlich, dass sie die Natur der Sache nicht erfasst haben. Dürfen die Bilder völlig frei weiterverbreitet, verändert und, auch einzeln, kommerziell genutzt werden, von jedermann? Ich glaube nicht, denn das steht im Konflikt zur Aussage "Es gilt nicht der Text auf der Webseite." 'für jedermann' geht entweder ganz oder garnicht, nicht für Wikipedia so, für die Besucher der Webseite anders, sondern nur auf gleiche Weise für jedermann. Bitte versteh den Unterschied. Sie sollen ein CC-PD, oder CC-BY, oder CC-BY-SA-Schild auf ihrer Webseite anbringen – Agencia Brasil schafft das ja auch – oder eine Einverständniserklärung an OTRS schicken. Ich glaube diesen Aussagen einfach nicht, die man problemlos im Streitfall auch anders auslegen könnte. --Rtc 02:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Die zuständigen haben es schon richtig verstanden und meiner Meinung nach auch richtig formuliert. Sie geben uns die uneingeschränkten Nutzungsrechte. Diese können wir auch weitergeben. Soll ich dir die Kontaktadresse von Fr. Villalobos geben? Dann kannst du versuchen eine genauere Lizenz zu bekommen. --JuergenL ✈ 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jürgen hat sehr wohl nachgefragt, bevor die Bilder hochgeladen wurden. Ich habe die von ihm erhaltene Einverständniserklärung auf der Diskussionsseite hinterlegt. „...die freie Nutzung der Bilder ist (...) erlaubt“ sollte uns Grund genug sein, die Bilder bedenkenlos zu verwenden. Die hier betriebene Paragraphenreiterei nervt mich, ich hoffe, das ist nun erledigt. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Man hat hier nur leider wieder den Fall, dass diese Formulierung interpretierbar ist. Ähnlich gelagert war das Spiegel-Cover, welches letztlich gelöscht wurde. Ich hatte damals zwar für behalten optiert, jedoch sind die zugrunde liegenden Überlegungen hier eine restriktive Interpretation (nämlich: Nutzung nur bei Wikipedia, keine kommerzielle Nutzung, Veränderung etc.pp.) anzusetzen absolut nachvollziehbar: wir müssen im Sinne eines wie auch immer gearteten Qualitätsstandards die freie Lizenz der Bilder sicherstellen, um auch für Nachnutzer Sicherheit zu schaffen. Das heisst, dass die Willenserklärung des Urhebers so eindeutig wie möglich sein muss - es reicht halt nicht "Ihr könnt die Bilder bei Wikipedia frei verwenden" (schon der Hinweis auf WP indiziert eigentlich, dass keine CC-Lizenz gemeint sein kann) sondern es muss schon explizit "Ja, die Bilder können als CC-BY verwendet werden" sein. Es gibt doch Formulierungsvorlagen für solche Anfragen, warum verwendet man die nicht? Alternativ könnten die Rechteinhaber auch ein CC-BY-Tag auf ihrer Website plazieren.--Wiggum 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Jürgen hat sehr wohl nachgefragt, bevor die Bilder hochgeladen wurden. Ich habe die von ihm erhaltene Einverständniserklärung auf der Diskussionsseite hinterlegt. „...die freie Nutzung der Bilder ist (...) erlaubt“ sollte uns Grund genug sein, die Bilder bedenkenlos zu verwenden. Die hier betriebene Paragraphenreiterei nervt mich, ich hoffe, das ist nun erledigt. --Ikiwaner 18:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
JuergenL, die zuständigen haben es mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit eben nicht richtig verstanden, sonst hätten sie sich nicht so ausgedrückt und würden auch keine widersprüchlichen Angaben auf der Webseite machen. Die Antwort an Ikiwaner ist noch deutlicher, dass es sich hier lediglich um eine Lizenz für die Verwendung in der Wikipedia handelt. Zwei Möglichkeiten: a) Sie machen ein CC-Lizenzschild auf ihre Seite, b) die Bilder werden gelöscht. So Trucksereien können wir uns jedenfalls nach dem in der Vergangenheit erlebten nicht erlauben. Wiggum: Ich halte die Klausel "von jedermann" für die wichtigste, die bei der erteilung der Lizenz genannt werden muss. also, "Ja, die Bilder können von jedermann unter CC-BY verwendet werden" z.B. --Rtc 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Da ich mehrmals mit Fr. Villalobos telefoniert habe weiß ich, dass zumindest Sie es verstanden hat. Daher sollte es auch kein Problem sein, diesen von Rtc gewünschten Zusatz "von jedermann" zu bekommen. --JuergenL ✈ 05:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Telefonieren: Auch das hatten wir schon, bei der CDU. Trotzdem haben sie's nicht kapiert. Versuch bitte sie dazu zu überreden, ein CC-Schild bei den Bildern auf ihrer Webseite anzubringen und wenn Du Dir irgendwelche Erklärungen geben lässt, dann sollte es die Einverständniserklärung an ORTS sein, nicht nochmal so ein halbgares Formulierungsgewurschtel. --Rtc 12:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weil du diese Einverständniserklärung geschrieben hast ist sie genau das was wir hier brauchen? Wenn du der Meinung bist dann frag doch bitte selbst bei der SPD nach oder lösch die Bilder. Ich hab mir schon genug Arbeit mit diesen Bildern gemacht und werde nicht noch mehr Zeit damit verschwenden. --JuergenL ✈ 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nein, sie verlinkt auf die offizielle Vorlage. Meine ist nur eine Überarbeitung davon und Anleitung dazu. Merkwürdig, immer wenn diese Vorlage mit der umfassenden Aufklärung kommt, dann ziehen die Lizenzbehaupter den Schwanz ein. Wie kommt das nur? Ich glaube, wir wissen beide ganz genau, dass die SPD diese Einverständniserklärung nicht abgeben würde und die Bilder deshalb wohl leider gelöscht werden müssen. Immer diese dümmlichen Versuche, faktische Presselizenzbilder irgendwie im angeblichen Interesse der Enzyklopädie zu behalten. Ich kann nur nochmal deutlich betonen, dass die Freiheit der Enzyklopädie zuerst kommt, dann erst ihre inhaltliche Qualität. Wenn wir Pressebilder akzeptieren, schwächen wir unsere Position. Anders können wir sagen: Wer eine wirkliche freie Lizenz erteilt, der darf ein Bild in der Wikipedia haben, wer das nicht tut, ist im Nachteil. --Rtc 15:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weil du diese Einverständniserklärung geschrieben hast ist sie genau das was wir hier brauchen? Wenn du der Meinung bist dann frag doch bitte selbst bei der SPD nach oder lösch die Bilder. Ich hab mir schon genug Arbeit mit diesen Bildern gemacht und werde nicht noch mehr Zeit damit verschwenden. --JuergenL ✈ 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Die offizielle Einverständniserklärung (auch in englischer Übersetzung hier auf Commons verfügbar) wurde ursprünglich von mir formuliert (nicht von Rtc). Rtc hat aber voll und ganz recht, dass uns windelweiche gutgemeinte Erlaubnisse NICHT nützen. --Historiograf 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ich denke, da es hier um etwa 200 Fotos von wichtigen Personen geht, sollten wir nicht einfach forfait geben. Um ganz kurz zusammenzufsassen: Auch ich würde es begrüssen, wenn die SPD eine klare CC-Lizenz abgeben würde. Auch ich bin der Meinung, dass man Bildbeiträge von Organisationen, die eine Genehmigung an Wikipedia geben, hier nicht annehmen sollte. In diesem Streit geht es aber um etwas anderes:
- Darf man Bilder annehmen, wenn man bloss sicher ist, dass der Rechteinhaber einer commons-kompatiblen Lizenz zustimmt, aber keinen expliziten schriftlichen Text hat? Konkret: Reicht Die Bilder dürfen frei verwendet werden oder braucht es die Bilder dürfen von Jedermann frei verwendet werden?
- Dürfen wir Bilder von Leuten annehmen, wo wir annehmen müssen, dass sie von Urheberrecht nicht sehr viel verstehen? Reicht eine Interpretation unsererseits, dass der Rechteinhaber die Bilder nicht nur an uns lizenziert, die Bilder verändert und kommerziell genutzt werden dürfen?
- Ich persönlich bejahe beide Fragen beherzt. Wer bestimmte Formulierungen auf der Homepage der deutschen SPD-Bundestagsfraktion verlangt, setzt die Messlatte zu hoch. Ich verstehe auch, wenn ein Sachbearbeiter ob Rtcs Einverständniserklärung kalte Füsse kriegen sollte. Ferner hat mir ein Blick auf rtc's Diskussionsseite geholfen, seinen Löschantrag in den richtigen Kontext zu setzen. --Ikiwaner 21:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nein, Ikiwaner. Beide Fragen sind ganz klar mit nein zu beantworten, so ein gewurschtel können wir nicht akzeptieren. Und wie ich schrieb ist völlig egal, ob es "200 wichtige personen" sind, man kann da kein Auge zudrücken, nur weil es vielleicht vermeintlich der Enzyklopädie zugute kommt, auch wenn viele immer wieder mit diesem Argument kommen. Wer bei der Einverständniserklärung kalte Füße bekommt, der bekommt sie zu recht. Assume Good Faith gilt nicht in Belangen, die so etwas betreffen und es ist davon auszugehen, dass, wer die Einverständniserklärung nicht abgibt, auch keine freie Lizenz erteilen will. Auch lese ich heraus, dass Du etwas akzeptieren würdest wenn "die Bilder dürfen von Jedermann frei verwendet werden" kommt. Auch das reicht nicht und darf nicht herangezogen werden, um auf die Einverständniserklärung zu verzichten. Sie ist dafür da, benutzt zu werden und ist einfach notwendig, weil sonst keine Sicherheit für Nachnutzer gegeben ist. PS: Was hast Du auf meiner Diskussionsseite gefunden, was Dir bei der einordnung geholfen hat? --Rtc 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- If a license "free use for everybody" is not enough and just the text from Rtc is valid this is not commons as I knew it anymore. --Ikiwaner 05:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nein, Ikiwaner. Beide Fragen sind ganz klar mit nein zu beantworten, so ein gewurschtel können wir nicht akzeptieren. Und wie ich schrieb ist völlig egal, ob es "200 wichtige personen" sind, man kann da kein Auge zudrücken, nur weil es vielleicht vermeintlich der Enzyklopädie zugute kommt, auch wenn viele immer wieder mit diesem Argument kommen. Wer bei der Einverständniserklärung kalte Füße bekommt, der bekommt sie zu recht. Assume Good Faith gilt nicht in Belangen, die so etwas betreffen und es ist davon auszugehen, dass, wer die Einverständniserklärung nicht abgibt, auch keine freie Lizenz erteilen will. Auch lese ich heraus, dass Du etwas akzeptieren würdest wenn "die Bilder dürfen von Jedermann frei verwendet werden" kommt. Auch das reicht nicht und darf nicht herangezogen werden, um auf die Einverständniserklärung zu verzichten. Sie ist dafür da, benutzt zu werden und ist einfach notwendig, weil sonst keine Sicherheit für Nachnutzer gegeben ist. PS: Was hast Du auf meiner Diskussionsseite gefunden, was Dir bei der einordnung geholfen hat? --Rtc 07:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ich denke, da es hier um etwa 200 Fotos von wichtigen Personen geht, sollten wir nicht einfach forfait geben. Um ganz kurz zusammenzufsassen: Auch ich würde es begrüssen, wenn die SPD eine klare CC-Lizenz abgeben würde. Auch ich bin der Meinung, dass man Bildbeiträge von Organisationen, die eine Genehmigung an Wikipedia geben, hier nicht annehmen sollte. In diesem Streit geht es aber um etwas anderes:
- Ehm, which part of the statement on the template's discussion page is the "free use for everybody"?--Wiggum 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- "free use for everybody" is not enough because it's too unclear. Does use also mean modification? Does it mean commercial use? Does it mean redistribution? We had so many unclarities in the past that we should really only use the email template. If somebody does not send the template permission, he does not really want to grant a free license. It's that easy. And no, the official text is not a text by me. --Rtc 12:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- The text you request is even in your user namespace though and no, to be free it's enough that the owner of the image gives a free license or uneingeschränkte Nutzungsrechte. No template needed. --Ikiwaner 17:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it is only a small part of the text and by no means sufficient. No, "free license" or "uneingeschränkte Nutzunsrechte" violates the fundamental ethical requirement of umfassende Aufklärung. You can't explain free licenses in two words. Those who reject to use the template are dishonest and committing license rubbery. Why are you refusing to use the template? Because you know that most would reject to grant the license after umfassende Aufklärung has taken place? Our wishes for nice pictures must step back here behind the need for clean, honest licenses. I make deletion requests on sight for each and every single picture that is the result of such dishonesty directed at the licensors. It's fahrlässige Irreführung and most likely invokes §119 BGB. --Rtc 19:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Apropos umfassende Aufklärung: Du willst die Leute aufklären die die Gesetzte in deinem Land erlassen... --Ikiwaner 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to close this deletion request soon. After having read the discussion I would say, that "for Wikipedia" is not enough and that we need to delete all the images. Any objections to my conclusion? --ALE! ¿…? 07:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wait -- Personally (not as a representative of Commons's administrators) my view is that the images can be kept. The SPD said "die freie Nutzung der Bilder ist mit Quellenangabe ‚spdfraktion.de‘ erlaubt." which means "the free use of the images is allowed with a source reference 'spdfraction.de'". IMO, why assume that people don't understand what they are saying?
- But certainly the license should be confirmed by the OTRS people. I think we should wait with deletion until an OTRS person has confirmed that the image are free enough for Wikipedia. I will ask somone from OTRS right now.
- Fred Chess 08:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete if we do not receive a written confirmation into OTRS with the "Einverständniserklärung". All other is not really free. On Template talk:SPDFraktion: "dürfen bei www.wikipedia.de veröffentlicht werden. Das Urheberrecht liegt beim jeweiligen Fotografen" That is not a free licence. It's limited to Wikipedia. Do the SPD Fraktion has really got all rights from the authors ("ausschließliche Nutzungsrechte")? --Raymond Disc. 18:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite I do not see a necessity for this, I sent another email to the Bundestagsfraktion. Lets see their reaction. --Ikiwaner 22:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please accept the truth that there will be no free license for PR photos; such licenses are an illusion. The Bundestagsfraktion cannot give any free license; you need to ask the photographers themselves, they are the only ones who have the relevant rights. The Bundestagsfraktion has only non-exclusive permission for PR related use, which is not a free license. Take your camera and make some photos yourself instead of diligently trying to merely collect them. Collection is not the purpose of commons. --Rtc 01:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright concerns have not been sufficiently answered. / Fred Chess 12:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
August 2
[edit]2 incorrect svg version of Nuvola kmoon icons
[edit]Image:Nuvola_apps_kmoon.svg and Image:Nuvola_apps_kmoon2.svg are test svg versions of Image:Nuvola_apps_kmoon.png and should be deleted. NERV 10:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 11:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded in wrong format (gif). There's the same picture in PNG.--Darz Mol 19:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted, please use {{Duplicate}} or {{Badname}} next time and do not list the image here. --ALE! 21:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong pic uploaded in wrong format and under wrong name. God, I hate lag... Halibutt 03:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mark {{Speedy}} or {{Badname}} please. --Panther 09:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! 09:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: promotion. --Juiced lemon 08:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- WATCH OUT! The author has removed the delete templates from these pages. --Juiced lemon 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Thuresson --ALE! 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Source given is a magazine webpage and a forum webpage. This image is a copyvio from the magazine. --Abu badali 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Not used, vector version available -- rayx talk 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Lizenzkonflikt (siehe Copyright-Hinweis), Autor reagiert nicht auf Anfrage: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Christoph Balzar
license conflict: VG Bildkunst is claiming the copyright, while author says its GFDL. The author didnt answer in the German Wikipedia to the questions concerning this (see de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Christoph_Balzar#Copyright_?). -- 141.30.81.164 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC) aka Amtiss
- For me this image is a case for {{PD-ineligible}} --ALE! 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep with PD-ineligible or delete for futility and copyright as well.--Wiggum 14:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't keep it. It seems as if the author won't come back so soon. -- 141.30.81.164 13:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. It's ineligible for copyright, but that's not enough reason to keep it. It's a bad JPG, it's unused, and it could always be replaced by simply typing (*)*, couldn't it? Angr 09:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that your're impertinently ignoring the matter of fine art which is with this picture ;-) --Wiggum 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- It has been used before, but now it has been removed, because of the copyright problems. -- Amtiss 16:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Please understand: It is not ineligible for copyright. You cannot compare copyright for works of applied art and copyright for fine art. This is fine art, and of course it's copyrighted. Sure you may write (*)*, but you may not copy this work (or draw from it as a template, or trace it), or claim, for any (*)*, by context or otherwise, that it's this "(*)*" of Chris Balzar. --Rtc 07:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would never concern that such a ridiculous "work" is fine art 8-) but on that premise you're right. Delete.--Wiggum 10:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 14:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
3 Echinops pictures to be deleted
[edit]Both Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus.jpeg and Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus_blatt.jpeg have a duplicate name. Image:Echinops_sphaerocephalus_bluete.jpeg is obsolete now and should be deleted. Thanks. The author of these pictures. Fabelfroh 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment The third image is still used. --ALE! 11:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Both of these images were tests, but they appear the same as Image:Light bulb icon2.svg while having slightly different code (hence no {{duplicate}} tag). Elembis 10:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- My account is now old enough that I've been able to upload the proper version of the icon to Image:Light bulb icon.svg. This makes Image:Light bulb icon2.svg unnecessary as well, so icon2, icon3 and icon4 are all now marked for deletion as broken copies of the correct one. Elembis 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete - All icon3 icon4 and icon2 per the nom.--Nilfanion 22:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Midnightcomm 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-commercial license --ALE! ¿…? 09:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
not cc-by, is cc-by-nc-nd-2.0, see[3]--Shizhao 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! ¿…? 07:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
not cc-by2.0, is cc-by-nc-sa-2.0, see [4]--Shizhao 12:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Raymond Disc. 06:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for statues in the U.S. Statue was created in 1994 by Omri and Julie Rotblatt-Amrany.[5] -- howcheng {chat} 16:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
unrestricted commercial use is not allowed, therefore against the Commons policy --ALE! 12:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- when the copyright holder reserves his right to have the final say about usage, the image shouldn't be on Commons. But it would be perfectly acceptable as fair use on those Wikipedia that accept it. / Fred Chess 16:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Alberto Korda sued that vodka maker based on his moral rights that are independent of copyright status. Moral rights are included in Berne Convention, so if the photographer is still alive, he still might sue you even if the picture is public domain. The moral rights are not transferrable, and when Korda died 2001, no one can control the use of those pictures anymore. --Mikko Paananen 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is not the way it works in the United States, and we do expect creators to waive some portion of their moral rights as much as we expect them to waive their economic rights. Jkelly 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- In that case we should delete everything that is taken by Finns and maybe other citizens of the EU. I can not waive my moral rights. -Samulili 09:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The license says "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that it is not used for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che Guevara.". This is too unspecific to be called "free material". Be warned that the files will very likely be deleted, so you should better upload it as fair use on the Wikipedia you want to use it, if it allows fair use. / Fred Chess 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Mikko said above, what I wanted to say. --VinceB 12:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- This photo is against policy. I will be very surprised if it is kept. Can not be used for a “purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che”? Not a free image at all then. Delete --Kjetil_r 12:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment A related debate [6]. Very interesting! / Fred Chess 19:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, images are unfree. They can be undeleted on January 1, 2072. Angr 09:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Images deleted. I am not allowed to upload my own photos under these conditions. Thuresson 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
this Image has a coyrigth. --- Aineias 06:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This image is free for distribution upon proper attribution. You may read more in details here: http://taganrogcity.com/copyright.html ISasha 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Image deleted. Web site claims "However, The City of Taganrog makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of copyright claims or other restrictions or limitations on fair use or display.". Thuresson 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
SVG-version available: Image:Flag of Abkhazia.svg. Please look at Image:Abchaziëvlag.png and Image:Abjasia.png, i think they should be delete, too. (the three png-images are not in use)--GeorgHH 18:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Keep the SVG and delete the PNGs --jed 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Flag of Abkhazia.svg does not have a copyright license. Thuresson 08:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the two smaller PNGs, but Image:Flag of Abkhazia.png is currently the only image with a proper license tag. (Also, it's being used now.) If it is orphaned and the SVG license is fixed and in the meantime no one else objects, then the PNG can be deleted. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment The shades of green in the two flags are quite different too. --Himasaram 23:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)- Comment very different colours --ALE! ¿…? 15:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
kept (the superseding SVG has no proper license tag) --ALE! ¿…? 14:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
World War I era images
[edit]The following halftone images I've uploaded, their status as PD-old etc. was contested a while ago. No help from the village pump. One admin suggested that I'd research who actually the photographer is, something which I can't (needle in a haystack..). More detail here.
Original upload: Image:Horse simulator WWI.jpg, Image:East Prussia war grave 1914.jpg, Image:Ferdinand Foch pre 1915.jpg, Image:Friedrich von Ingenohl pre-1915.jpg, Image:Paul von Hindenburg pre-1915.jpg, Image:Rear Admiral David Beatty pre-1915.jpg, Image:SMS Mainz sinking (photo).jpg, Image:Imperial Russian artillery ammunition baskets WWI.jpg, Image:Crew of Unterseeboot 9 (WWI).jpg
Later addition: Image:HMS E7 (WWI).jpg, Image:HMS Shark (WWI).jpg, Image:George V and Admiral Callaghan onboard HMS Iron Duke.jpg, Image:HMS D1 (WWI).jpg
The latter series and some of the original ones I would put as {{PD-BritishGov}} (British armed forces photos), the rest as perhaps {{Anonymous work}} because it will be very difficult to determine the original author. That they were in widespread circulation (newspapers etc.) I do know, some of the images in the book I scanned them from have been put on commons via Project Gutenberg and the Imperial War Museum.
What to do? Scoo 06:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose those credited to "Det stora världskriget vol. II, p. 347. Printed in Stockholm 1915." would fall under whatever the copyright status of that 1915 Swedish book is? -- Infrogmation 01:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd consider the book PD, though apparently the photos status as PD is contested. See also the discussion at Image talk:Horse simulator WWI.jpg. Scoo 07:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Based on [7], it seems that these photos published in 1915 or earlier are out of copyright in the USA. Even if the main editor/author of the book, Major General Carl Otto Nordensvan who died 1924 had individual's copyright, Swedish copyright duration of life + 70 years would have expired.--Jusjih 14:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- There seems to be an error in the logic of your quote: Normally, an unregistered foreign work's copyright would have expired and then be restored by the URAA. The court case you are quoting claims that there is nothing to be restored because the work is to be regarded as unpublished in the US, so copyright was determined by the URAA to begin with (without restoring anything). In both scenarios, such images are not PD in the US. It's only the rational that changes. --Wikipeder 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We do not know if the authors died more than 70 years ago, and we have no reason to be sure any exception to this will apply. As long as we are not 100 per cent sure images are free content we must not use them. --Wikipeder 12:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Isn't this exactly what {{Anonymous work}} is for? What we are saying otherwise is that we can never be sure that a work was truly anonymous and that thus all images on Commons which are PD due to having been published (without known photographer) after say 1850 would have to be deleted. I'd like to point out that this probably includes several thousand images. /Lokal_Profil 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- The 70 year provision is for anonymous images, i. e. images of which the author never claimed authorship. That we, after glancing at a scanned image, do not know who the author was, is something completely different and does not at all mean that the image is in the public domain after 70 years.
- In fact, you are very right with your observation that there probably are loads of images that are not free content among those simply tagged "anonymous" for convenience. We can hardly ever proove that the author really never ever has claimed authorship. For that reason, e. g. the German WP does not accept anonymous images if they are not at least 100 years old (which is arbitrary, too, but certainly safer). --Wikipeder 08:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- And when would we ever know that an image is anonymous? Does it have to be signe anonymous, what about if the author used the pseudonym anonymous. What you are saying is basically that everything marked anonymous (less then ~170years old) should be deleted.
- Also what I was trying to point out is that this image is argued to fall under the copyright of the book it was published in since they didn't specify a source (wherby it's possible that the photographer was a contributor). An argument agaiinst this would mean that all(most) images tagged with e.g. {{PD-Ugglan}} and {{1922 cyc}} would have to be deleted. /Lokal_Profil 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep German copyright laws/WP rules can not be used generally for the works of the pictures here, some are being uploaded from Singapore, some from Argentine. This suggestion simply ignores the laws of other states. Do not implement this rule! MoRsE 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- This argumentation is not valid. You have to obbey the law of the country were the image was taken not from were it was uploaded. --ALE! ¿…? 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- What about {{PD-US}} then? It's a difficult question though. Scoo 16:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete in doubt delete --ALE! ¿…? 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep all the images of UK origin here at least. These all look fairly safe (and are quite likely to be government works). Unsure about the German pics, more sourcing would be good but as thats unavailable...--Nilfanion 19:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe to remember that the UK, US and French government didn't accept German copyright from prior and during WWI as a result of the war. Naturally this led to massive problems for the German economy and busted the development of new solutions. So we could look if these rules could apply. I will do some research (but I guess nobody minded to abolish the concerning laws). Wandalstouring 14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. While caution (as Wikipeder and ALE! urge) is good, in this case I think they're all anonymous, and covered by the 70 year doctrine and are safe to keep. If not, I suggest individual deletions, not en masse. ++Lar: t/c 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
August 3
[edit]A silly joke. --Panther 10:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Darkone --ALE! 11:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I accidently uploaded this image with .PNG with capital letters. A new one has been uploaded at Image:No-map.png, so this is only a unused duplicate. Mathias-S 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Slettet. Ingen grunn til å ta opp slike ting her, merk feilopplastinger med {{Bad name}}. Kjetil_r 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I the author ask for delete it for Wrong flag desing. Thank you, Loco085 18:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! 21:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation: the source of the image is [8]; NOAO images require permission for commercial use. Mangojuice 20:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Shizhao --ALE! ¿…? 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
bad name, right article is Stützerbach.--GeorgHH 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Article moved to Stützerbach im Thueringer Wald. No need for deletion.Article deleted; only image there is already at Stützerbach. Angr 14:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source of the image is [9]. I didn't find any information on the original author nor on the copyright status on Sandy's Opera Gallery. The licensing section claim this image to be PD-old. This is very unlikely to apply. Miss Schwarzkopf was born in 1915. So, if we assume her to be 21 years or older at the time of taking the image, it was in 1936 or later, so PD-old can not apply. Anyway, the image is certainly not older then 1930, so its unlikely that the author died before 1936. Rotkraut 21:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, free status cannot be confirmed. Angr 14:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, yes this was my personal error from the past. I'll look into some of my other opera singer uploads soon, some of them are copyvios. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 02:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Low resolution image, superseded by Image:Localització de l'Alcalatén respecte del País Valencià.png ; the other locator maps have gray backgrounds (see Category:Land of Valencia comarca locator maps). --Juiced lemon 07:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 08:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
An UML-compliant and public-domain version in SVG exists now: Image:Diamond_inheritance.svg. The en- and de-Wikipedia articles which used the image are already changed to refer the new image. --RokerHRO 13:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 08:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image contains at least 20 errors in mottos and a few other errors and is poorly sourced. See [10] for more details. Cmapm 09:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am working with this user to fix the errors in the SVG image. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept, work in progress is not a reason to delete. If you're not happy with it, you don't have to use it until it's improved. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Both images found in the "against policy category". However, I think both can be save applying the {{PD-ineligible}} license tag. Both images were downloaded from http://www.de.o2.com/ext/o2/media/index?preview_req=&category=Pressebilder+Logo --ALE! 14:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- They are as ineligible for copyright as about any other logo. --Rtc 09:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hmm, it seems that the UK, where O2 orginally comes from, uses the "sweat of the brow" concept. Which means, that these image are most probably copyrighted in the UK. (If it was a German logo, I would vote keep.) It is only used on the German Wikipedia, where a local duplicate was uploaded as a reaction to this deletion request. The template {{Logo-Germany}} IMO is not usable in this case. --ALE! ¿…? 09:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo by Anders Beer Wilse († 1949). The uploader claims that the copyright has expired, (I guess) because he considers it a non-artistic photo (without «verkshøyde»). Non-artistic photos are only protected for 50 years in Norway. I disagree with the uploader, nearly all Norwegian photos from 1924 should be considered works of art. --Kjetil_r 21:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The shorter protection period is for trivial works; this is a planned photo by a professional photographer, and not a trivial snapshot. Cnyborg 23:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Clearly a commericially produced postcard. If such 1924 commerical postcards are still typically protected under copyright by Norway law, this should be deleted as a copyright problem. - Infrogmation 18:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Es ist eine Farce, was hier abgeht, was hier alles behalten wird. Mit der Herangehensweise, krampfhaft alles behalten zu wollen, verschrecken die commons professionelle Fotografen! Die hiesigen Admins sollten sich einer Wiederwahl stellen, sonst verkommt das hier zu einer Sammlung irgendwelcher Fotos, die nicht frei sind, die man schlecht findet und deren Lizenzen sehr zweifelhaft sind, also eine äußerst unzuverlässige Quelle - Finger weg von commons! --217.88.160.79 23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- EN: Low quality is not a reason for deletion, except a better image with same or similar content exists. But a Non-free license is a reason for deletion. So please tell us, which image(s) do you mean. Thank you. --User:RokerHRO 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- DE: Schlechte Qualität ist kein Löschgrund, außer es existiert ein besseres Bild mit gleichem oder ähnlichem Inhalt. Nicht-freie Lizenzen dagegen sind ein Löschgrund. Es wäre nett, wenn du uns konkret sagen könntest, auf welche Bilder sich dein Kommentar bezieht. Danke. --User:RokerHRO 06:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Months ago I uploaded a pic of a ticket for the Winter olympics of Turin 2006. It was deleted because it was considered a copyviol (ediscussion here. If that was true, I think the same applies with this picture. Otherwise I will reload mine. --Snowdog 13:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - derivative work. A.J. 09:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - if I take a picture of a person walking in front of an advertisement, the advertiser can't sue me for copyright infringment. When I take a picture of a bunch of tickets randomly put on a table, it is not copyright violation.--FlagUploader 08:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is very, very widely used... :( I disagree with FlagUploader, because the intent here is clearly to show the tickets. Hope the CommonsTickers do some work soon... pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - merely a picture of some objects thrown on a table. --LimoWreck 12:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. They are copyrighted items on a table. / Fred Chess 19:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
August 4
[edit]Speedy delete requested by uploader - me. OB by Image:Uttower1.jpg -Nv8200p 03:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. Please use {{Bad name}} for such requests. --Kjetil_r 05:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Beatrix Potter died in 1943. Why is it PD? --171.23.128.1 11:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Beatrix's Potters books were published simultaneously in London and New York. Anything published in the United States before 1923 is in the public domain, even if the author has been dead less than 70 years. (According to w:Wikipedia:Public domain, in fact anything published anywhere in the world before 1923 is in the public domain in the United States, but I'm not sure if that claim is generally believed here at Commons.) The question of whether Beatrix Potter books can be uploaded to Wikisource was discussed here and answered positively. Angr 15:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the license tag from {{PD}} to {{PD-US}}. I hope that is ok. --ALE! 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I took the picture from the book in Project Gutenberg.. ;-) --Civvi 21:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Seems ok then. --171.23.128.1 17:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deletion request was withdrawn --ALE! 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded by mistake. Balcer 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Not useful here. --Panther 14:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both --GeorgHH 09:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Claimed to be free use because the website acknowledges that its images can be reproduced under the fair use doctrine. That's simply a statement acknowledging the existence of that doctrine, it isn't a license for unrestricted commercial and derivative work. Doesn't belong on Commons. Jkelly 19:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- This image is not claimed to be free, but rather a fair use of possibly copyrighted material available on MFA website. Obviously the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not taken those pictures, and has not paid anyone to bring them online. I think this image falls into the same category as this one. Anyways, following this deletion request, I have emailed the MFA website a request to explicitly approve this montage image. They're unlikely to reply earlier than Sunday local time, so I hope it's possible to keep the image online until then. Cheers. --Lior 22:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- That image is hosted at en:wikipedia. Fair use isn't allowed at commons. Jkelly 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- In this case it's my mistake of course. If MFA give their written consent for the publication of this image in Commons, will it be allowed on Commons? BTW, how do we know that Image:Qana_afp.jpg is free? There is no sign of prior contact with AFP, nor a link to its site of origin.--Lior 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- We need a license that allows commercial and derivative use. If they are willing to license the image in that manner, then we don't need to do anything here. Emails go to permissions AT wikimedia.org. I'll take a look at the image you are asking about. Jkelly 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Got a reply from the Information and Internet Department of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, saying the following: "The Foreign Ministry does not own the copyright to any of these photos and CANNOT give written consent to reproduce them." Therefore I'm afraid it's time to delete my montage, unless there are some other considerations I'm missing.--Lior 14:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- We need a license that allows commercial and derivative use. If they are willing to license the image in that manner, then we don't need to do anything here. Emails go to permissions AT wikimedia.org. I'll take a look at the image you are asking about. Jkelly 17:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- In this case it's my mistake of course. If MFA give their written consent for the publication of this image in Commons, will it be allowed on Commons? BTW, how do we know that Image:Qana_afp.jpg is free? There is no sign of prior contact with AFP, nor a link to its site of origin.--Lior 05:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- That image is hosted at en:wikipedia. Fair use isn't allowed at commons. Jkelly 03:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, fair use pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This picture has insufficient information on its source as to the fact that it is free because it comes from a US gov source. The only reference comes from a magazine, which could easily be a copyright violation. Also its wikipedia listing appears to have been deleted, which increases my suspicion that the image is not free for use. 82.32.20.159 18:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- The magazine in question is Armor Magazine, hosted on a .mil domain, and describes itself as the "professional journal of the US Army's Armor Branch". I expect that the bill is footed by the United States taxpayer, and that the magazine falls into the public domain as all other US federal intellectual property. Harald Hansen 10:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- If no one else disputes that, I'll remove the tag later on. 82.32.20.159 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Seems a little bit strange to me, that an U.S. military or Department of Defense employee is able to take take pictures of a chinese military parade in Beijing while in duty. --Rotkraut 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept Curious, but legitimate licence -- Infrogmation 03:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This image purports to represent the "Ten Thousand Corpse ditch", which was part of the "Nanking Massacre". However there is no evidence on the originating website listed on the image's Commons entry as to who the author of the picture was, nor to support the assertion that it actually occured during the Nanking Massacre. So I don't think that it can be taken to fairly represent the Nanking Massacre on the wikipedia article[11] and thus should be deleted. 82.32.20.159 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep。PD--Shizhao 14:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Further discussion in section below, to discuss deletion of all Nanking Massacre-related photos. Miborovsky 00:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
All Nanjing Massacre pictures (bar "Nanjing Ditch" and "Slayers")
[edit]These images (except for Nanjing Ditch) are not in use on wikipedia. Also they purport to represent Japanese war crimes, yet there is no evidence on the corresponding source websites as to where or when they were taken, or by whom. Thus it is not possible for them to have a proper encylopedic use, so I think they should be deleted. Also some of the images do not have sources listed.
However, the "Slayers" picture has been well sourced on wikipedia so I have no problems with it. "Nanjing Ditch" is listed above for a different reason. 82.32.20.159 17:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep both pictures. license seems fine to me and I don't see a reason for a deletion at all. If the the source is questionable this has to be verified, but they definitely have a encyclopedic value. -- Gorgo 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on Gorgo's talk page, I'm not sure if he was sure what the deletion listing was, as he said "both pictures". Obviously I said two particular pictures from the category are either ok (Slayers) or listed above (ditch). Plus I thought that if pictures were not in use in wikipedia articles (as is with the case with the pictures in the category), that was a justified reason to list for deletion. 82.32.20.159 18:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- sorry I meant both of your listed deletion requests are not valid in my opinion. "Not in use" is no reason, because pictures can be on a gallery in commons which is just linked from wikipedia, or they might be used in future articles/projects. -- Gorgo 18:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. So what the lack of information in regards to the source? You said that "If the the source is questionable this has to be verified". How can anyone verify their sources, given that the website links are far too vague? If the image purports to represent something, surely that "something" must be made clear in the source to ensure it is used properly.
- Also Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg has no source at all on the wikipedia file, as the URL link is broken. So at the very least that one should be deleted. 82.32.20.159 19:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep, this is a POV issue, nothing to do with licensing. When these editors run out of things to deny the Nanking Massacre with, they do this sort of thing to game the system. First they construe that "no/little sourcing is provided" when in reality thousands of sites as well as published bestsellers use these images, remove them from the article page, then try to delete them on en or commons to get rid of these images forever. Miborovsky 19:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see any information as to the veracity of these images - not that the images are fake, but that they actually show what they are supposed to. 82.32.20.159 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, as I have repeatedly said Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg has no source. If you want me to relist it separately, that's no problem. But at the same time you should acknowledge that picture can be removed. 82.32.20.159 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- that's what I meant with "If the the source is questionable this has to be verified" - but they seem ok and consistend with pictures about nanjing in other literature, so there is no need to rush any decision. If someone finds a source (e.g. a book) that states this/these pictures are indeed what they seem to be than this has to be added, if someone finds a different source they have to be renamed. Until that time maybe a note should be added that there is no verified source right now. -- Gorgo 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Plus what's this about "getting rid of these images forever"? These aren't the only copies of these pictures in existence. If there isn't anything wrong with them, it would be very easy to re-list them. I admit that I misunderstood the best way to list for deletion, but having been pointed in the correct direction I've worked out what to do. Now you, Mib, have consistently refused to either update tags properly (in some cases you edited so there were no tags) or indicate why pictures are justified, etc. You just "cry wolf" in regards to this being a POV issue, which is hardly fair. One should expect more from a moderator. 82.32.20.159 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Evidence abounds, but remains inacessible for most people. Wikipedia is one of the top 10 US websites, where our volunteer staff from all over th world writes about all sorts of articles on everything imaginable. Just add it up. As for my removal of the {{Unknown}} tags, these were to prevent Orphanbot from automatically removing them from articles in which they have resided since time immemorial, and to prevent unwary admins from accidentally deleting them. Miborovsky 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a top website, but fast becoming a joke for anyone trying to do serious research. Trying to justify current policy because of the number of hits is ridiculous. It's supposed to inform people correctly, not further misunderstanding. 82.32.20.159 11:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Image:Killednanjing.jpg, Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg, Image:Nanjing1937 self-organized burial team.jpeg, and Image:Slayers.jpg.
- Speedy delete Image:Lots of heads.jpg, Image:Nanjing massacre beheading.jpg and Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg as being entirely unsourced. Jkelly 22:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- according to this note, Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg badly needs renaming. Jkelly 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would support renaming the picture as an alternative to deletion. The article could be used as verification of the picture's true nature. 82.32.20.159 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is some ambiguity whether these were in Xuzhou or Suzhou. It's in the archived talk. Regardless, many of these pictures were used in various publications as evidence of the massacre and it is entirely inappropriate not make any mention of them. Miborovsky 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would support renaming the picture as an alternative to deletion. The article could be used as verification of the picture's true nature. 82.32.20.159 00:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Most of these pictures can be found on Rape of Nanking: An Undeniable History in Photographs, ISBN 0963223151. The book has a small website, http://www.tribo.org/nanking/index.html. And it just so happens that Image:Lots of heads.jpg, a
famousnotorious photo which I uploaded, is on its front page. Miborovsky 00:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just because pictures have been used in works doesn't mean they should be attributed like that. Besides, Suzhou is not Nanjing. For one thing it's much closer to Shanghai than Nanjing. 82.32.20.159 11:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also another site refuting the use of that picture[12]. 82.32.20.159 12:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder whether Mr. IP.82 have examined that article. The conclusion it made is absolutely weak. It's an absurd reasoning to say that the oringinal photo is not concerned with Nanking Massacre only because the author couldn't find a wall in Nanjing, while he even admitted that he was not sure about whether it was a wall since the photo is too obscure. The brave author even made a further assumption that "Most likely", the photo is about the confliction between the Nationalists and Communists, with no evidences provided. Why, Mr. IP.82 tends to trust such ridiculous passages rather than those well constructed works such as Chang's? --Alexcn 06:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- FACT: All these images are used as evidence of the Nanking Massacre. We can include these images, mention both sides' claims as to the photos' origins, and let the reader figure it out himself. Or, you can delete these images, and I can reupload them, ad infinitum. You are violating WP:POINT by trying to delete all Nanking Massacre-related photos all at once. I have offered you this compromise. It's up to you whether to take it. Miborovsky 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I can't delete pictures because I don't have sys-op abilities. If they are deleted, it will be because an admin agrees there are problems with them. So far only some of the photos here are eligable for deletion here according to the way the voting has gone, so you will still be able to use some of them.
- If you re-upload pictures having lost the argument, then you're abusing your admin powers and are a far more childish editor than you can accuse me of being. 82.32.20.159 11:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep.
- These pictures have sources. According to the description of Image:Nanjing ditch.jpg, this picture can be found in [13], on a Princton's website named An exhibition of photographs and missionary documents of the Nanking Massacre. image:Killednanjing.jpg and Image:Nanjing1937 self-organized burial team.jpeg are also illustrated in this website, which can be found in [14] and [15], respectively. Image:Lots of heads.jpg and Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg can be found in The Rape of Nanking, as what Miborovsky had mentioned. Image:Slayers.jpg is one of the most notorious, accepted by Tokyo Trials as an evidence of Nanjing Massacre.
- They are in the public domain.
- Even someone argues that one of these pictures are not related to Nanking Massacre, he would have asked for renaming but not deleting. In fact, kiling and raping, had already happened as the Jap troops marched to Nanking. And Suzhou was on their way, which was involved in the Battle of Nanking. --58.212.135.166 04:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
not found in flickr.--Shizhao 03:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep They took Image:Xbox 360.jpg from [16] and removed the carpet and such. The image description page could be more clear though. (That is, unless there is some problem with Image:Xbox 360.jpg too, but shizhao seems to think it doesn't have a source even though it says "origin"?) Kotepho 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Almost all logos would have to be tagged as {{Logo}} in this category, so would be eligible for speedy deletion. If you claim that logos are copyrighted (they are not, except, perhaps, if they are from UK-like territory with appropriate international treaties in effect, I have not checked that) then digitizing it or photographing it won't change that, but that's the way people unsuccesfully try to evade the (non-existing) copyright protection. Further, almost any logos in there are protected by trademark, and, even if (incorrectly) believed to be licensed under GPL (what's not protected can't be licensed) or something similar that does not change anything about trademark protection. Further, Panoramafreiheit does not apply to trademark. Either we delete the whole category including all logos or we make a resonable policy. --Rtc 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and make a reasonable policy; accept logos regardless of trademark status. Assume Germany's jurisdiction about copyright for logos, except for sweat of the brow countries. I started a tag Template:Trademarked and Template:Logo-Germany and labelled some. --Rtc 10:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if logo main subject of image. Could you use trademarked image for any purpose? I don't think so. --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you use a Coat of Arms for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a picture of a patented object for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a panorama freedom picture for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo where the logo is not the main subject of the image for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo of a person for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo for a nazi emblem for any purpose? I don't think so. --Rtc 15:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I think this is a very slippery ground and it is better to make a radical decision now than to periodically discuss in on each case. --Panther 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Could you use all those images to sell postcards, calendars or books without claim "fair use"? if you can then keep them. --Martin Rizzo 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you sell photos from celebrities here on postcards? If no delete all photos of living persons here --Historiograf 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep WMF legal dep. (Villy) has argued for the use of non-copyrighted logos. de has a reasonable policy and lives good with it --Historiograf 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Arguments, see rtc --ALE! 22:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Rtc is wasting his/her time... Trademarks are not allowed on Commons, as per Commons:Licensing. Any arbitrary interpretation that is not in line with that page will be reverted. / Fred Chess 00:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- That's why I wrote "make a reasonable policy". The restriction about Trademarks has been designed by Duesentrieb (even if he claims it was derived from earlier discussions), who has a clear point of view about these matters and from whom you'd not have expected something different. ---Rtc 04:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- These things have to be discussed with a broader audience (for example the commons mailinglist). You know why? Because we on Commons can't decide that by ourselves. Duesentrieb did not invent our policies. It will be a waste of time to try and change something that will be rejected by the Foundation. Most important, it has to be accepted by user:Eloquence (who proposed Commons in the first place) and by Jimbo Wales. / Fred Chess 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC) PS. Don't think that I haven't argued to keep trademarks on Commons -- in fact I wanted to create a Commons just for symbols and logos -- alas it is not my project... DS.
- ACK Delete NO LOGOS on Commons --- gildemax 11:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I understand Historiograf's comment you are the ones reject this, not the Foundation. --Rtc 13:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- ACK
- These things have to be discussed with a broader audience (for example the commons mailinglist). You know why? Because we on Commons can't decide that by ourselves. Duesentrieb did not invent our policies. It will be a waste of time to try and change something that will be rejected by the Foundation. Most important, it has to be accepted by user:Eloquence (who proposed Commons in the first place) and by Jimbo Wales. / Fred Chess 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC) PS. Don't think that I haven't argued to keep trademarks on Commons -- in fact I wanted to create a Commons just for symbols and logos -- alas it is not my project... DS.
- That's why I wrote "make a reasonable policy". The restriction about Trademarks has been designed by Duesentrieb (even if he claims it was derived from earlier discussions), who has a clear point of view about these matters and from whom you'd not have expected something different. ---Rtc 04:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep while a few of the logos are copyrighted thus fair use most in the category aren't. Jaranda wat's sup 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
keep and rivise the foolish Commons:Licensing restictions. Trademark protection is completely independend from copyright and we should care for copyright only. --h-stt !? 15:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lengthy arguments (Rtc) wont win the case, neither does votes and opinions. I have now asked for others' opinions on the mailinglist, lets see if anyone from the Foundation answers. / Fred Chess 00:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. See mailinglist and there is no reasen why german people should be allowed to upload logos because of missing "Schöpfungshöhe" and others not. And I have no idea why we should throw well established policies overboard. This should be a speedy deletion. greetings. --Paddy 13:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why can Germans upload photos using panorama freedom and why can others not? Why can Argentine people upload photos older than 25 years after its first publishing and why can others not? Why can Germans upload COAs as PD and why can others not? In different countries there are different laws. In Germany the threshold of orginiality (is that Schöpfungshöhe?) is very high, so we can upload logos. --ALE! ¿…? 22:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not true. You may not upload photos using "Panoramafreiheit" if it infringes some other law of a country (e.g. glass pyramid at the Louvre). In germany there is such thing as "Panoramafreiheit" in other countries there are other laws. What I am trying to say is that you try to apply the german law to all countries in the world. But that does not apply at all. @ALE! shure? Are you talking about a persuasive precedent? Or are you just guessing that most logos do not have any kind of "Schöpfungshöhe" in germany? greetings --Paddy 07:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- @Pamoramafreiheit: I am saying that users can upload photos taken in Germany in a public space applying German law. However, users can not upload photos taken in the US applying the same criteria than in Germany. Thus, we apply different criteria according to the law / jurisdiction applicable in the particular case.
- @Logos: In Germany the law and the jurisdication fixed a high level threshold for copyrightable originality (Schöpfungshöhe) like the laufendes Auge case in Germany (see: de:Schöpfungshöhe. That means, that a logo under German jurisdiction in the first place - like the IG Farben logo - has to be judged under the German legal criteria. Which means, that the IG Farben logo is not subject to copyright, but to other legal restrictions like the German Markenrecht (trademark law) or the Geschmacksmusterrecht (design patent). Therefore it can be uploaded. Concerning logos of other countries I am not really sure. It could be that the O2 logo is copyrightable in the UK but not in Germany. Therefore it could be, that the logo cannot be uploaded to Commons but the German Wikipedia. But: I am not a lawyer. Maybe we should ask one specialized in international copyright law to write an expertise for us. --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
keep --Steschke 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment -- (my comment pertains only to car badges' and hood ornaments' photos contained within this category) Perhaps the Commons is not the best place to keep such photos that can raise some controversy, but at least some of those pics are not the logos themselves but depictions of details of motor vehicles. Perhaps the legal status of such is varied from country to country, but I doubt it whether any manufacturer would oppose free publicity. I guess WP is a rather well-known medium and if any manufacturer had a problem with that, they would have emailed WP Foundation long ago.
Many articles on Wikipedias use those photos as the only available depictions of badges or hood ornaments that are discussed in this or another way in articles. Therefore, even if the category is deleted, please make sure every photo is transferred to all Wikipedias using them. Bravada 13:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC) - CommentIf Template:Deletion_requests#.7B.7BLogo-Germany.7D.7D is being kept, this category should be kept too. However, all logos in this category have to be revised for copyright. --ALE! ¿…? 13:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Logo-Germany is valid (if we trust those who argue in favour of it) in Germany. I looked through the category and don't see a problem with the category itself. Keep for the category. Some images might need to be deleted, they should be listed separately. For example Image:Evisu pocket.jpg, Image:ASBÖ Logo Jacke.jpg, in addition to already mentioned Category:Motorcycle company logos and Category:Car company logos. / Fred Chess 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again, please do not delete entire categories of images. If you find it inappropriate to host them in the Commons, please place notices in Wikipedia articles using them (giving us some reasonable time, e.g. a week) so that we could make Wikipedia-only copies of them. Bravada 01:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Logo-Germany is valid (if we trust those who argue in favour of it) in Germany. I looked through the category and don't see a problem with the category itself.
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
All paintings by Pavel Korin
[edit]These paintings have the disputed license {{PD-Soviet}} on them which claims that all works published in the former Soviet prior to 1973 are public domain.
Pavel Korin died on 1967-09-22, and I don't think that the license is valid.
Fred Chess 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete them all and this ridiculous template as well. These pictures are obviously protected in Russia and elsewhere. --Wiggum 17:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wiggum is right, the template is ridiculous. --Rtc 05:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all the paintings are copyrighted, keep Image:Pavel Korin photo.jpg Jaranda wat's sup 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Do you want to delete all the paintings by the PD-Soviet? He died in 1967, all his work were published before 1973. Keep Alex Bakharev 10:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, unless PD-Soviet is outlawed. MaxSem 10:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. You cannot selectively delete some articles from a category. All or none. SO fare there was not a singe legal issue with the template; it was extensively discussed. Mikkalai 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per MaxSem. --Panther 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Take your problems with the tag to the appropriate place, the tag's talk and TfD. Don't propagate randomly to the selected pages that use this tag. --Irpen 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- The template seems to be totally false. Delete these paintings along with lots of other PD-Soviet stuff. --Kjetil_r 08:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev. --Yakudza 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the rest. --Ghirlandajo 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. 83.237.229.9 19:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- actually I don't know why people think that this template has legal validity. I will gladly accept your proof of this. The evidence provided at Template talk:PD-Soviet does not confirm your view. / Fred Chess 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- That someone created an arbitrary license and now thinks that is had legal validity based on lack of proof of the opposite is improper. While some former Sovier works may be assumed to be public domain, this assumption can hardly be made in the case of world-renonwed paintings, which is why I believe it is a fair place to start clean-up. / Fred Chess 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev. 81.17.146.136 16:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete and ignore the Russian lobby voting for keep. Law is no case of voting --Historiograf 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev and en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo. Copyright paranoia only hampers wiki and does nothing to move it further. --Kuban kazak 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As per above. --TimBits 22:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- This RfC is a very interesting link. I cite a premise from the top of this page:
- Huge number of people use pre-1973 Soviet publications as the public domain works. Many use them commercially. The legal reasons to depreciate the tag are obscure and certainly are untested in the USA courts. I can not imagine that the first test case will be Wikipedia (noncommercial organization working for the common good). Depreciating the tag will be a catastrophe for a whole section of wiki and the risk is most probably just our imagination. I would suggest to stop the self-harming actions until a real danger (test case) will be present
- If en-wikipedia relies on what might be or what might not be instead of laws and facts - it's their problem but i emphatically insist that commons should keep a straight line and uses only justifiable licenses. Huge number of somebody using something is not an argument in copyright issues.--Wiggum 08:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would also quote another one:
- From reading this page, and a number of the previous discussions on this topic, it appears that we don't know that there is a case of copyright infringement here. It might be that we can't know this without a copyright lawyer's professional advice, or more likely, without referring to the precedent of a court case. And it's possible that no relevant precedent exists at all. Given this situation, since there has been no legal claim by a copyright holder against Wikipedia, nor even a request to take down any allegedly copyrighted work, there is no real evidence that copyright infringement exists, and therefore no reason to take down the materials in question. The assertion that we need to do this to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits seems to be without legal basis, given the facts that I have seen.
- Speaks for itself doesn't it.--Kuban kazak 14:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it does. I repeat myself: we should only use justifiable licenses. Your quotation shows that nobody knows anything precise so i see no reason why we should generelly accept such a bogus license, especially since Russia and most other countries of the former Soviet Union signed to the berne convention.--Wiggum 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, On May 23 1973 Soviet Union signed the Geneva copyright agreement. The recognition of the copyright law was not retroactive, thus Soviet Union and Russia were free to publish anything from abroad published before 1973 and people outside of Russia were free to use anything published in Russia as a public domain [17]. It is the common understanding of the matter through out the world (see [18] as an example). Nobody AFAIK have challenged this state in a court. On the other hand some bright legal wikiminds have found that theoretically this state of affairs is challenge-able and yes, if it would be challenged somewhere we do not know the outcome. The only thing we know for sure that Wikipedia would not be the first to be challenged. Wikipedia-wide the tag PD-USSR on commons and Sovietpd on en-wiki existed almost as long as Commons - from july 2004. Legal department of Wikimedia is well aware aware of this tag, nobody from foundation commanded us to pull it down or deprecate it. Alex Bakharev 07:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it does. I repeat myself: we should only use justifiable licenses. Your quotation shows that nobody knows anything precise so i see no reason why we should generelly accept such a bogus license, especially since Russia and most other countries of the former Soviet Union signed to the berne convention.--Wiggum 16:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would also quote another one:
- This RfC is a very interesting link. I cite a premise from the top of this page:
- Delete; my arguments are on the template's talk page. The template itself eventually should go as being completely unsourced. (The link to marxists.org, which Alex gave, just repeats the claim; it doesn't justify it. The PDF Alex linked, BTW, is an article of 1973. In view of the developments since the mid-1990s, the claim just is wrong.) Besides, as Korin died only in 1967, his works would still be copyrighted in all "70 years p.m.a." countries... Lupo 12:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Butko 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I suggest this ridiculous witch-hunting stop. -- Grafikm fr 20:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Khoikhoi 05:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Mikkalai 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Ulrike Meinhof
[edit]- Keep, same picture as below, private family picture published with the permission of the family. Kph 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice that there is permission from the daughter, but this permission is entirely irrelevant. Basically, we need permission from the photographer. --Rtc 14:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I upload this image. It is a privat familiy picture. Here daughter w:de:Bettina Röhl send me this picture after my request. -- Stefan Kühn 06:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, obviously. Kph 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason : The lightning of the Eiffel tower is copyrighted and no image of it by night can be published without the authorization of the company which has the exploitation rights of the tower. This image is at the edge of what could be made : there's the Seine river and a bridge (small) in the foreground, a skyscraper (with no point of interest) at the right and the tower well visible in the background, almost the main element of the picture. The possible deletion of this photo needs to be discussed. Sting 01:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the courts seemed to have ruled against SNTE in this matter, and it doesn't apply in the U.S. anyway. Andrew Levine 15:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note to Andrew Levine. It's Commons policy to respect EU laws in matters where the images were taken in the European Union, rather than say "it doesn't apply in the US anyway." However, I'd be interested in your note about the "courts ruling against the SNTE" in this matter. If this means what I think it does, then this would support our keeping it. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Was interessiert US-Recht? --217.88.173.194 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Translation of your comment: Who's interested in US law? Please comment in English only, thanks. Answer to your question: It's Commons's policy that images must be legal in the USA and the country where the image was made. In this case, that's French law. Commons is not the German Wikipedia. BTW: Delete, no freedom of panorama in France. In that case, all images on Tour Eiffel page must be Deleted. TZM de:T/T C 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well not all images as the effel tower is over 100 years old thus PD-old, and no longer affected with the freedom of panoama, only the night images. Jaranda wat's sup 23:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Platonides 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Plus, i can't see how they can copyright lightning. And i don't see any special pattern. Only light all over the Eiffel Tower.
Kept. Well this is not easy to judge. To Platonides: apprently they can. Please see w:Eiffel_tower#Image_copyright_claims. From there, I quote: In a recent decision, the Court of Cassation ruled that copyright could not be claimed over images including a copyrighted building if the photograph encompassed a larger area. This seems to indicate that SNTE cannot claim copyright on photographs of Paris incorporating the lit tower. Since this photograph encompasses a larger area, I think it is OK. If it cropped to only show the tower, and not the surrounds, then I would think that is not OK.
To TZM: comments in all languages are welcome. The Commons does not have an English-only discussion policy (or even practice). pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Restored. No copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Due to the EU copyright harmonisation, this image is not in the public domain outside of Sweden (if it is in Sweden at all) and should be removed since it cannot be freely used elsewhere.--Wikipeder 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- what is wrong of applying the country of origin's copyright? If I understand all the legal discussions that goes on this page, only artistical creations are protected for 70 years after death of author according to the EU copyright harmonisation. I wouldn't consider this to be artistical. / Fred Chess 00:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that this image cannot be used anywhere else if it is PD in Sweden at all. While it might be suitable for the Swedish WP, it is not for the Commons, which are meant to hold images that can be freely used in international projects. There are hardly any images that will not pass as works in the EEA and the US, see e. g. User:Lupo/Simple Photographs --Wikipeder 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I want to remind you that we base copyrights on the copyrights in the country of origin, which may regard copyrights differently for "simple" photos. Please see Commons:Copyright_tags. For this reason we also accept for example {{PD-US}} for works first published in the U.S., and {{PD-Finland50}} for "simple" Finnish photos; we have also been subjected to lobbying to accept German logos without Schöpfungshöhe, although this is a German concept, and there are hardly any logos that do not pass as works in the U.S. .
- If you wish to dispute the accuracy of {{PD-Sweden}} or other templates, you should do that at commons_talk:Licensing, not on a case-by-case basis.
- Fred Chess 05:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Fred is right: if you want to dispute a template, then discuss the template as a whole, not each individual image. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obviously the site does not have the copyright on the source material for the scans it offers, thus cannot grant such a permission in the first place. --Rtc 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyright of someone else --ALE! ¿…? 07:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- German speaking admin, please pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted insufficient source. / Fred Chess 08:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Looks like a tracing of the official press release photo [19], compare the diagonal shadow across the face. We have free photos of this device.
- Delete ed g2s • talk 14:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Against sweat of the brow arguments. Tracing in this case is perfectly okay, since the photo displays the controller in a standard position. --Rtc 15:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio. Angr 09:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep nothing copyrighted. What's next? Prohibition of photographs of refrigerators and walls? --Wiggum 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are completely missing the point. The photograph was taken by Nintendo. ed g2s • talk 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- [20] is a photograph taken by Nintendo. Image:WiiRemoteController.png is not? It's even more different than it needs to be. --Rtc 06:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see the point with that photo. Image:WiiRemoteController.png is just a picture of that stupid remote. Why should it be prohibited to make a picture of a doohickey just because another one made a picture of the same doohickey before?--Wiggum 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because this picture is an near identical copy, hence a derivative work. If I take a photo of a car, I can copyright it. If you copy my photo with a few tweaks, my copyright still applies. ed g2s • talk 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please stay resonable; this is not a photo of a car. The controller is in a standard position, thus there is basically not much variation possible. If you want to draw the controller in such a position, you will never come up with a many differces in the result. In fact anything that could be different for such a position is different in the drawing: Just take a close look at the buttons. Cleary not a copyvio. --Rtc 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because this picture is an near identical copy, hence a derivative work. If I take a photo of a car, I can copyright it. If you copy my photo with a few tweaks, my copyright still applies. ed g2s • talk 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are completely missing the point. The photograph was taken by Nintendo. ed g2s • talk 04:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --71.242.153.162 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, it even doesn't have any nintendo logo --Martin Rizzo 02:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is completely irrelevant. We can take our own photos of it, but Nintendo's publicity shots are copyrighted. ed g2s • talk 04:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Clearly a derivative work. Just take a picture of the actual remote control, which would be a perfectly suitable replacement. howcheng {chat} 23:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Tracing others' illustrations is not permitted. There's no reason to keep this image. / Fred Chess 08:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
August 5
[edit]I uploaded this image by mistake and i have also uploaded the same with a corect name Image:Terra Sigillata.jpg plese delte. Thanks --Bullenwächter ↑ 19:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} instead. --Panther 06:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Image no free
This image is not a work of NASA but of ESA (European Space Agency) which copyright its publications see here. Lundeux 23:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just checked the usage of the image on the wikipedias and delete it. The uploader, a colleague from es:wiki, died last year. Anna 02:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If I have understood this correctly pictures from the Swedish Road Administrations cannot be used commersially, and cannot be changed. They then ought to be deleted, all of them./Mannen av börd 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, that notice would seem to regard content on their website (image gallery) only. While it would seem that the SVG in question is directly off their website, I don't think that road signs are restricted in any of the Nordic countries (say one could photograph a sign and make a vector image of it). I'd re-upload as File:Swedish road construction warning sign.svg and put a {{Badname}} on the current one though (perhaps rename all at Road signs of Sweden. Scoo 09:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Se Template talk:PD-Vägverket. Så bilden kan sparas. /82.212.68.183 11:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In France, Lens is a very known town also i created a category called Category:Lens without Pas de Calais. Sofian 14:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (empty category) --ALE! ¿…? 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Strange/unclear license & strang look... Does not seem to be authentic... The image is derived from a private source, although the image depicts the official coat of arms of a state of F.Rep.GERM. This is the original: http://landesregierung.schleswig-holstein.de/coremedia/generator/Aktueller_20Bestand/A__Bilder/StK/Maximalansicht/Landeswappen,templateId=render.html --213.54.71.244 17:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
FYI: Image:Landeswappen_Schleswig-Holstein.png --213.54.71.244 08:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep For the license see Sodipodi's Clipart Gallery (and the gallery containing the image), this clearly has been released to public domain!
- See also Coat of Arms of Berlin and Flag of Zambia, these are only two examples of many flags etc. created by Tobias Jakobs, published on Sodipodi's Clipart Gallery and released to public domain.
- Comment The sodipodi license is bogus (at least regarding this particular image). The author merely redrew an already existing piece of art. This does not constitute a new original work. The sodipodi artist does not hold any rights on the image. It's the original author's right that counts. The original author's rights are ruled in § 5 Abs. 1 UrhG (Deutschland) and that's why this image is in the PD. Rotkraut 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would appreciate any correction to the license information, but I favor keeping this image! Drbashir117 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The licensing info on the image is clear and it is correct. The image depicts the coat of arms of a Land of Germany and therefore it is in the public domain no matter what the actual source of the image is. Rotkraut 07:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Suomen Puolustusvoimien tornileijona.svg. --Hautala 11:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. As the uploader I have no objections to the deletion. --Laisak 09:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Suomen Merivoimien tunnus.svg. --Hautala 11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 06:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Suomen Ilmavoimien tunnus.svg. --Hautala 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 06:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Suomen Maavoimien tunnus.svg. --Hautala 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this image: The image is redundant to Image:Claude Monet La cathédrale de Rouen, le portail.jpg, which i uploaded later and has a better quality. --Rlbberlin 18:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --GeorgHH 09:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted.--Nilfanion 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
bad image – Simon / ?! 18:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Der superseded-tag ist falsch, es handelt sich um ein anderes Bild, nicht um ein besseres. --GeorgHH 09:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Aber es ist trotzdem nicht gut ... Ist ja von mir – Simon / ?! 18:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self nomination --jed 09:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
August 6
[edit]Image:CoA Burgstaedt.svg (with space)
[edit]Reason: wrong page sizing. Corrected version: Image:CoABurgstaedt.svg (without space) --Der Burgstädter 11:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:EugeneZelenko --ALE! 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
These images were linked to the en article Joe Francis. On en, they would be speedy deleted as attack images. I'm not sure what the rules are here, but I can't see a legitimate use for this image. —Josiah Rowe 23:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did not find a rule about attack images here at Commons. Can they be speedy deleted? --Kjetil_r 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- As it says on the Upload box, "Useful content only - Wikimedia Commons is for educational or informational content." I don't think joke prank photoshops would fit, and the claim of "PD-self" is dubious as I quite doubt the uploader is the author of the original images used here. Speedy deleting. -- Infrogmation 01:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This image is not GFDL images. This is Fair use image. Copyright infringement. --Owerz 01:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you say this? Creater of image seems to have put GFDL right on image. -- Infrogmation 01:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Huh? The image says it's licensed under the GFDL, and I see no reason to believe artist User:Kasuga (who has personally uploaded other images of Wikipe-tan, all under under GFDL) does not intend to put it under the GFDL. —da Pete (ばか) 09:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The image says on it that it is GFDL, and User:Kasuga has claimed that he himself created the image, on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Mascot:
- "This is an oekaki that I posted to Futaba-channel before.
- It didn't expect to be used for Wikiproject. I redraw it and put on Comons. If you use it as mascot, I want you to use new one.
- --Kasuga 17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)"
- So. what gives? Why does Owerz believe this is not GFDL? -- Ned Scott 05:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps s/he will explain the reasoning in more detail, but honestly, I find it hard to assume good faith. —da Pete (ばか) 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as per above -- Alpha for knowledge 07:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The author is me. I admit it is under GFDL. --Kasuga 10:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Decisision:Keep. Bad nomination. -- Infrogmation 23:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I just do not believe that "Scumfrog" is the photographer. Jkelly 03:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted Per above. -- Infrogmation 13:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Uknown source and author, not used, better image image:Slot 1.jpg uploaded from en Wiki. Roo72 06:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The better image is only an other image. No reason to delete. commons are not a competition for the best images.--GeorgHH 09:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. License is incorrect because of author is unknown. --Panther 15:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Szwedzki --ALE! ¿…? 08:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
copyvio (and by the way trademarked, which according to the uploader is forbidden on commons). --Rtc 13:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- revenge ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Entrance_Museum_Beerparadise_Brussel.jpg&action=history: (Aktuell) (Vorherige) 15:32, 2006 Aug 6 Rtc (Diskussion | Beiträge) (Gegen copyrightfreie logos rumhetzen, aber selbst urheberrecht verletzen) Keep --- gildemax 16:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- And the argument is what? It's a copyvio, simple as that. --Rtc 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! ¿…? 10:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
copyvio. "Die Panoramafreiheit im Sinne der deutschen Regelung gilt in Belgien nicht. In Belgien darf daher ein moderner, künstlerisch gestalteter Brunnen auf einem öffentlichen Platz nur dann als Foto veröffentlicht werden, wenn er nicht das zentrale Bildmotiv darstellt." (de:Panoramafreiheit) --Rtc 13:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no {{Copyvio}}; published under a free license --- gildemax 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- What is it about "Die Panoramafreiheit im Sinne der deutschen Regelung gilt in Belgien nicht. In Belgien darf daher ein moderner, künstlerisch gestalteter Brunnen auf einem öffentlichen Platz nur dann als Foto veröffentlicht werden, wenn er nicht das zentrale Bildmotiv darstellt." that you do not understand? PS: changed to {{Derivative}} if you like that better. --Rtc 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep and block Rtc's zelotism. Panoramafreiheit is a human right we should fight for! --Historiograf 17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- @Historiograf: Please stay reasonable! Bleib vernünftig! --ALE! 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, clear copyvio. There is no Panoramafreiheit in Belgium. See Commons:Derivative work. Hr. Historiograf, we have to obey the law, no matter what your personal opinion is regarding Panoramafreiheit. --Kjetil_r 17:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. Which law? Belgian law? French law? Then you have to delete all Panorama freedom pictures from Germany because they are not allowed according French law and each creator is free to sue an uploader for a French court. You don't understand law thus shut up --Historiograf 17:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. But we need to make a difference. And this difference is the law where the photo has been taken. It wont rule out the risks you are describing, but it will minimize the overall risk, since the constellation your are talking about is an almost entirely academic one. --Rtc 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- @ Kjetil r There is no Panoramafreiheit in Belgium. If this is your rule you have to delete a lot of pictures in European_Parliament and others. Also I have see varios pictures of buildings of the European Parliament in newspapers. All {{Derivative}} ? I have never have heard about a concerning court case. Did you ? --gildemax 18:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, then we have to delete a lot of pictures from Belgium. Or should we wait until we get a letter like this? --Kjetil_r 18:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I was considering whether it might be PD-old, but the Euro symbol cast doubt on this. That's why I did the deletion request. --Rtc 19:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- The publication of the image clearly violates the copyright of the statue's author. Either get his permission or Delete. Rotkraut 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete agree with Rtc -- Gorgo 21:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted. A lot of other artwork in Belgie deleted the last weeks. No Panoramafreiheit. --Raymond Disc. 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- restored per [22]. --Rosenzweig τ 09:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
No author or source information is provided. PD-old does obviously not apply. Rotkraut 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Obvious bad PD-old claim; it's too bad this has been on Commons as long as it has. Also dubiously tagged by same uploader is Image:Pietro Nenni.gif. Other contributions by User:Xylon should probably be reviewed. -- Infrogmation 01:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted and three other images marked as nsd. --Raymond Disc. 07:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No author or source information provided. Has been deleted on en-wikipedia. The only one contribution of this user Glum 17:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Raymond Disc. 06:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Np gesaeuse.svg is simply better, I made a mistake with the filename when uploading. --Thire 18:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Please remove this image from your German user page and set {{Badname}} for the speedy deletion. --Panther 08:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
tagged with badname --ALE! ¿…? 09:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio of the right of the person. Not sure that the US gov had the authorisation from Saddam Hussein to take a picture and to broadcast it. The US government is so guilty of copyvio. I think the international treaties that protect humans and prisonners do apply. This is not a picture of Saddam as a public person in this case. Gloran 21:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's the same problem for all the mug shots. Okki 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep notable figure, not an random person, image in Public Domain as taken by US gov. Jaranda wat's sup 04:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep "right of person" is independent from copyright, so it cannot be a copyright violation. Prominent persons, such as saddam, have a very restricted "right of person", because of public interest. --Rtc 07:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep "right of person" is no problem here, as Saddam is a "public person". No copyvio! --ALE! 07:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep 1979-2003 Iraqi president is not a random person. Picture is US-Gov Public Domain. Julo 15:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - using it as main ilustration could be a problem because of NPOV, but there's no problem with copyright. A.J. 08:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Semimetal.PNG. Keenan Pepper 23:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but IMHO {{Duplicate}} maybe better here. --Panther 15:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Superseded --Der Burgstädter 17:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wrong file format --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted next time please use {{Duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
This user is uploading a lot of images of a single person, none of which have yet been used in a single Wikimedia project. I believe that this user is using the Wikimedia Commons for personal file storage. --JeremyA 02:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not all are of one person, but they all have the url of a website on them in large letters, and none seem to be in any categories nor pages. I suspect you are right. -- Infrogmation 11:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Strongly agree with Jeremy. If this user uploads any more 'personal' pictures without explanation they should be blocked. pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete - are there any valid information about their copyright status and their purpose?! delete it! --Frumpy 20:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:21, 14 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 02:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete both. Superseded. --Panther 06:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. and Superseded by SVG. -- Alpha for knowledge 08:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC) [Modify: 08:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)]
- deleted--Shizhao 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. --- gildemax 11:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep What you say is incorrect. That only refers to copyright. Images and media files with this tag can be used by anyone, for any purpose, as far as copyright is concerned. So what's the problem? We can't care about independent restrictions, else we must reject any picture which displays
- Coat of Arms. They are restricted in exactly the same way as trademarks: "This image shows a flag, a coat of arms, a seal or some other official insignia. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Compare this to "This image shows a logo or trademark. The use of such symbols is restricted in many countries. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depiction shown here." Why do we keep these if we may not keep trademarks? I do not see any rational argument for this. Why can we use words like 'SONY' if trademarks are forbidden? There is no difference between a logo trademark and a word trademark.
- pictures of persons (which are nonderivative, independent from copyright)
- pictures under freedom of panorama (which are nonderivative, by independent copyright of the displayed object)
- pictures of patented objects (may not be used to reproduce the displayed object)
- pictures of objects of daily use (they are basically "fair use" only, if protected by design patents)
- nazi emblems are in fact very restricted by criminal law in many countries, yet we keep them
- I have been told that trademarks that are not central to the picture are perfectly okay. Why? Trademark-wise there is no difference.
- Below the line, there simply is no "for any purpose". See also #Category:Logos. Logos are copyright free. You can take parts from them or the general design and make your own logo (if not restricted by design patent). They are not restricted in copying and distribution and derivative work. They are only restricted as far as displaying them in public is concerned. Copyright law and trademark law are entirely different. --Rtc 13:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep what Rtc said was said to gildemax on Commons:Forum. I wonder why he is ignoring that.--Wiggum 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep going aline with the reasoning of Rtc. (e.g. also COAs are not useable freely, yet they are permitted here. So, where is the difference between the two?) --ALE! 17:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We need clear rules on what is acceptable and what not. Therefore we should limit ourselves to copyright here. I.e. everything that can freely be published should be fine for us. If we start considering all kinds of other restriction, that depend more on the context of the publication than on the on the mere publishing by itself, then we'll have to wipe half of all commons in the end. Rotkraut 21:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep - Please take a look at the wording of the GFDL. The freedom of all wikimedia-projects is in regard to copyright only. Other kinds of restrictions are of no concern for us. All of us take that intuitivly when using verbal trademarks and protected names. We write about sun and apple, with regard to astronomy and fruits as well as to hard- and software. But these words are of course trademarks: Their restrictions just don't apply to our use of them, so we use them. It should be the same with grafic trademarks, coat of arms and the like, if the are ineligible to copyright or their copyright has expired. Please don't get paranoid about coat of arms and logos. Their specific kind of protection is of no concern for our use in wikimedia-projects. That's true in all signatory states of the WIPO-treaties (USA, EU, OECD). So let's keep them. --h-stt !? 10:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I do not think that these are copyright-free under international or US law. While the legal argument that they are copyright-unrestricted in Germany may be valid, I do not think that applies internationally, especially for trademarks of non-German entities. Morven 09:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Rtc. We are interested in copyright only, and don't care about other restrictions. TZM de:T/T C 10:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, because the legendary images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose is a idea, but, by far, not the truth. You may not even use the image of a Dodge Magnum or George W. Bush for any purpose. In this perception, commons has failed. It is not able to change the world, to make it "free". An the other site commons is a success, even with somehow unfree images -- Stahlkocher 16:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
These images are tagged PD-art but it is impossible as photos of a 3D object. --Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--GeorgHH 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Coat of Arms Burgstädt and Schleswig Holstein
[edit]Reason: much better svg version: Image:CoABurgstaedt.svg --Der Burgstädter 11:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 08:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by a SVG Version of the cross. There is no more practical use for this image in the commons --David Liuzzo 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
along with
All of them are copyvios, as Breker died only in 1991 and these images are derivative works from his copyrighted scuptures. --h-stt !? 09:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Pics are taken by me in the 2006 Schwerin exhibition "Breker-Zur Diskussion gestellt". There was the explicit permission to take pictures. Pl's check at [www.schwerin.de]. Viborg 12:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I told you before, this is not enough. You need an individual permission to publish these pictures by the artist (or in this case his hiers). --h-stt !? 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not true, I checked again. The explicit permission to take pictures is unrestricted. Viborg 07:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is a difference between the permission to take pictures (usually covered by the "Hausrecht" of the musuem whatsoever) and the permission to publish these pictures, especially under a free license which allows commercial use and derivative works. Since your photographs are derivative works of the statues, you need the permission of the artist (Breker in this case) or his heirs to distribute the pictures.--Wiggum 11:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- All deleted.--Jusjih 13:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As the name even already implies the image is redundant to Image:Bayern Wappen.svg. There are slight color changes between the files but they do not justify a new file with own crediting. If considered really neccessary those changes should be altered in the old file. --David Liuzzo 12:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't want to overwrite your oddly-coloured version, so I uploaded a new one somewhere else. If you want to change the crediting, by all means do so; I've never really known how to deal with that sort of situation, and I probably credited it wrongly. I did try to make it clear that it came from your work, but if it could be clearer, then let it be so. If you want to replace Image:Bayern Wappen.svg with Image:Bayern Wappen2.svg, then that would be fine by me, but the dull-coloured version is not very appealing. --Stemonitis 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- p.s. It would also have been nice if I'd been notified of this deletion request… --Stemonitis 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete change Bayern Wappen.svg and delete Bayern Wappen2.svg --jed 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, now they're the same, + please notify uploaders! >< --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Strange/invalid (private) source & strange look (the 3D effects r missing)... The license looks odd... --213.54.71.244 11:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This one looks better to me: Image:Landeswappen_Schleswig-Holstein.png --213.54.71.244 11:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- See also Coat of Arms of Berlin and Flag of Zambia, these are only two examples of many flags etc. created by Tobias Jakobs, published on Sodipodi's Clipart Gallery and released to public domain.
- I would appreciate any correction to the license information,
but I favor keeping this image!Drbashir117 12:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC) - Keep The license should be set to {{PD-Coa-Germany}}. Rotkraut 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC).
- OK, I corrected that, you're right! Drbashir117 10:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... And what about the 3D effects? And who uses this image? --213.54.69.172 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein (state).svg looks alike... So this copy(?) should be deleted asap. --213.54.69.172 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The 3D effects are not necessary IMHO, at least for low resolutions (e.g. in navigation bar templates). For usage see, e.g., [23]. But you are right, there are two images of the flag - and according to [24], the aspect ratio of Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein (state).svg is correct (5:3), while Image:Dienstflagge_Schleswig-Holstein.svg has a false ratio of 3:2. So I already changed [25], but there are still user sites left that use this image: [26]. Nevertheless, I would now vote for deleting this image! Drbashir117 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete and use Image:Flag of Schleswig-Holstein (state).svg --jed 09:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
August 7
[edit]Sorry, wrong name. New upload: "image:Ruebenvollernter.jpg" --H.-J. Sydow 10:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} instead. --Panther 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused gallery. It was created by commonist upload. Please delete. Thanks --Jacopo86 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Tag such galleries as {{Speedy}} in the future, there is no need to request a deletion here. --Kjetil_r 22:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is copyvio, but I don't understand the website. Source = http://6holy6devil6.giovani.it/ --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 10:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Shizhao --ALE! ¿…? 08:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Over-categorisation, wrongly titled. Images previously included now incorporated on the Stuartia pseudocamellia page in Category:Theaceae. - MPF 14:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 06:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Reason for deletion: Copyvio. See http://www.purevolume.com/guayra --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (please tag as {{Copyvio}} next time.) --ALE! ¿…? 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Reason for deletion request: Logo of http://www.elcasar.net/aboutme.htm & http://www.dguadalajara.es/municipios/casar_el.htm --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
See also: Image:Calvario.jpg--Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 12:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. I speak with the uploader. Copyvio. --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 22:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican Press Office is given as author, source and permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS: VPO publishes its photos so that can be used by World Wide Press
Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The Osservatore Romano is given as author and source, the Vatican Press office as permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC) VPO publishes its photos so that can be used by World Wide Press
Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican Press Office is given as author, source and permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The Vatican Press Office is given as author, source and permission. It is highly unlikely that the VPO publishes its photos under GFDL. Gugganij 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. odder 09:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The picture show easily identified persons who, as I can see by the picture description, has not sign off on any disclosure documents. --Bep 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Ref for example Datatilsynet - Bilder på Internett Situasjonsbilder kan defineres som bilder der selve situasjonen eller aktiviteten er det egentlige formålet med bildet. Akkurat hvem som er med på bildet er da mindre viktig enn hovedinnholdet i bildet. Eksempler på dette kan være en gruppe mennesker på en konsert, et idrettsarrangement, 17. mai-tog, eller hendelser som har allmenn interesse. — John Erling Blad (no) 13:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- First: this is borderline a portrait of a girl. Secondly: Norwegian law is not internation law. --Bep 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- This photo is taken in Oslo, it is according to Norwegian law, it is protected according to the Berne convention (as all work are gfdl or not) and according to that is under Norwegian jurisdiction, it s in a public place, during the greeting of the king, on the national holliday. Is it possible for anyone to be in a more public place in Norway at 17th of may? Other than the Berne convention, what is there of international law for photos? If you claim you should not follow Norwegian law, how do you define your international law? The norwegian text in a rough translation reads Situation photos can be defined as images whereby the situation itself or the (depicted) activity is the real purpose of the image. Who's on the image is of lesser importence then the content of the image. Examples of this can be a group of people on a concert, a sport event, 17th of May gatherings, or events of general interest. The excerpt is from no:Datatilsynet in Norway, there is also a deutch page. They also have english pages themselves. — John Erling Blad (no) 03:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- First: this is borderline a portrait of a girl. Secondly: Norwegian law is not internation law. --Bep 17:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The legal basis for the ruling Agtfjott mentions is found in Norwegian copyright law, § 45c (my translation): Photographs depicting a person can not be published or shown in public without consent from the depicted [person], except when: ... b) the depiction of the person is less important than the main motif of the picture; c) the picture shows gatherings, parades in open air or events of interest to the public. This photo clearly falls under c) and most likely also under b) (one of the is enough). Cnyborg 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just a question for future reference: Are pictures posted on commons taken in Norway protected by Norwegian law only? --Bep 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- They are protected under the Berne Convention, but the details of the protection are determined by Norwegian law. If the photographer and/or uploader is not a Norwegian citizen, other laws may also apply. Cnyborg 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- They are protected according to place of first publishing. This is the same for all countries which has signed the Berne convention. — John Erling Blad (no) 11:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- They are protected under the Berne Convention, but the details of the protection are determined by Norwegian law. If the photographer and/or uploader is not a Norwegian citizen, other laws may also apply. Cnyborg 22:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just a question for future reference: Are pictures posted on commons taken in Norway protected by Norwegian law only? --Bep 22:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Beholdt. 17.mai-tog kan fritt avbildes. --Kjetil_r 01:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This template is simply abused too much as a catch-all for about any kind of license you can imagine, free or not, especially press licenses and "You may use the picture if you cite the source" – Does that include commercial use? Does that include derivative work? Does that include redistribution? I guess not, in most of the cases, else the licensor would have mentioned it explicitly. Pictures should be checked if they are really free and the template should be changed appropriately. If no according template exists, new ones have to be made, so at least if some site's license turns out to be a problem, the affected pictures can easily be identified. --Rtc 07:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- KeepJust fix the template and remove the offending pictures. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- KeepAs suggested by User:Zscout370. --Tarawneh 03:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but Delete all non-free images tagged with this. TZM de:T/T C 12:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept, the template itself is not the problem as nearly all license templates can be (and are!) abused, but perhaps a review process does need to be started. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- For the same reason: Image:Laracroft-neu.jpg
Image was tagged with {{Derivative}}. But it is an image of a living people on a games convention. No trademarks to see (in the foreground). Can this kind of image fulfill the reasons for a derivative work? --Raymond Disc. 20:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Creator of this image is me. THOMAS 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteYou can draw a character, get a model with clothing and make a photograph of it, trace it, screenshot it, render it, whatever. Your result won't evade the fact that it is a derivative work as long as it is clearly Lara Croft, either by similarity or by context. --Rtc 10:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. In the US, You can actually can dress up like someone else, even a character. Else anybody's Halloween pictures would be considered unfree. I'm not certain how the law applies in Germany, where the photograph was taken. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Uhhh, it's a snapshot of a boothbabe dressed up as Lara Croft. So what. I hardly see how this qualifies as copyright infringement. Unless you're saying that anytime I dress up as someone famous I'm commiting copyright infringement. I highly doubt that is the case. --Cyde 16:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, if you dress up without permission as a famous character from a copyrighted work, it's copyright infingement, depending on circumstances, and especially if you make photos or a movie. Just think about it, somebody could simply make his own movie with lara croft. Clearly that's not permitted. (I guess halloween and private clothing can be considered fair use.) --Rtc 17:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work.--Wiggum 08:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What does derivative work mean? There exists another improved version of this image. THOMAS 11:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you dress up without permission as a famous character from a copyrighted work, it's copyright infingement, depending on circumstances, and especially if you make photos or a movie. Just think about it, somebody could simply make his own movie with lara croft. Clearly that's not permitted. (I guess halloween and private clothing can be considered fair use.) You derive your work (the photo) on creative elements (Lara Croft) from another work work, thus it's called derivative work. --Rtc 11:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you can delete THIS image, but there's a better version here.
This image was made at an official presentation of the Video game "Tombraider Legend" at the so called "Games Convention" in Leipzig/Germany. So this person is an official Lara Croft from ther official presentation by the games studio. Sorry, but my English isn't this perfect.THOMAS 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- See, we have to delete this one too. Your photo contains copyrighted elements for which you do not have a license – Lara Croft. It's hardly relevant if it was an official presentation or not; that only makes the presentation legal, not your photo. Compare to a CD cover: You may have an official, legal CD cover, yet you may not make a photo of it and publish it. It might fall under fair use to use the photo in journalistic context about the games convention, but fair use is not permitted here. --Rtc 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you are right, Rtc.
- See, we have to delete this one too. Your photo contains copyrighted elements for which you do not have a license – Lara Croft. It's hardly relevant if it was an official presentation or not; that only makes the presentation legal, not your photo. Compare to a CD cover: You may have an official, legal CD cover, yet you may not make a photo of it and publish it. It might fall under fair use to use the photo in journalistic context about the games convention, but fair use is not permitted here. --Rtc 14:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
But I think that there are big differences between my photo and a DVD cover. If you are sure, you can delete it! Thanks for the information. THOMAS 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the photo is free, it's OK for me. / Fred Chess 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a derivative Work. --Rtc 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly is a derivative work here? Are Lara's clothing, guns, hair and breasts copyrighted? / Fred Chess 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly do you think is copyrighted on Picasso's paintings? The blue color? The style? No - it is the work as a whole. Same with the Lara Croft character, it's clearly identifieable what this photograph is about. Try using it commercial - i.e. in computer games - if you think it's free.--Wiggum 15:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- What exactly is a derivative work here? Are Lara's clothing, guns, hair and breasts copyrighted? / Fred Chess 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a derivative Work. --Rtc 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I think a lot of us are confusing copyright and trademark [27]. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that a character's appearance cannot be copyrighted. Only a specific rendering/photo/video of a character can qualify for copyright. However, characters can be trademarked, and I am sure that Lara Croft is trademarked, but I don't see how that has any bearing here. For example, a picture of a bottle of Coca-Cola is apparently fine on Commons, even though the Coca-Cola logo is a registered trademark. So, I do not see this is a trademark violation, as the usage here is not in direct competition with any of the Lara Croft games, and is far from likely to confuse consumers. I think the distinction between copyright and trademark needs to be made clear somewhere in the Commons Help/Documentation. I'd hate to see too many free images of trademarked products deleted. —TheMuuj Talk 18:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Bastique has nominated the image again. It is not a model, it is a mannequin/doll, clearly meant to resemble Lara Croft. It should be deleted. Siebrand 06:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No new arguments to take up deletion request again. --Ikiwaner 14:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This picture is unclear, and useless. 84.63.106.127 17:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep can't see any good reason for deletion, it's already used in the german articles de:Lara Croft and de:Diana Maria Dorow. --Haeber 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Another statue in Norway, cf. previous discussions. Cnyborg 11:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Is this image significantly different fra the other images of sculptures adorning Nidarosdomen? __meco 22:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's different in the sense that there is no architectural element in the photo at all, so it can't be defended by calling it architectural decoration. Cnyborg 23:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is not very clear by Norwegian law - we should await the legal investigations done by the norwegian wikipedia before we delete such pictures. Mortendreier 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- As quoted in earlier discussions, Norwegian law states "Works of art and photographic works may also be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or thoroughfare. However, this shall not apply when the work is clearly the main motif and the reproduction is exploited commercially". In what way is that unclear? We know that this photo can't be used commercially; anything else is just wishful thinking and attempts to muddy water which is actually very clear. The discussion on the Norwegian Wikipedia concerns the possibility of using it as an illustration; that's simply not possible on Commons (cf. the policy on fair use). Cnyborg 16:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Even this interpretation of the law is being clarified right now by people in the norwegian wikipedia - you will be informed ablut the outcome. Mortendreier 08:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted while no one has argued for its retention.--Jusjih 14:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All other pictures uploaded by this user were copyvios with false "self" tags. This one looks like another promotional picture but no source details are given. However, I can not find a copyvio on the Internet. --jynus (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all the images of this band uploaded by the same user. --Panther 15:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted all pictures uploaded by this user, including Image:Mitimaesactu.jpg, per your request while there is no good reason to verify the PD-self claims.--Jusjih 14:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Picture of 1936, not in public domain. Don't believe that "most historical posters hasn't got any copyright". ~Pyb 11:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, actually this PD is quite probable. Remember that it's a poster from Spain 1936, marketing leftist Olimpic Games organized by the republican government of Spain. In this situation PD-gov is pretty probable and I don't believe the republican government restricted the copyrights; and even if they rather wouldn't be valid anyway.
- Summing up, not to judge on beliefs some more data would be helpful. If Spaniards knew more about origins of this poster and Olimpic Games (it would be a nice article anyway :) ). aegis maelstrom δ 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- You bring some really weird arguments. --ALE! ¿…? 07:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- As Aegis has pointed out, the poster was created in a very specific context, and apparently the authors didn't bother to mark their "author right" (instead of "copyright"). In any cases, it certainly qualifies as "fair use" under US law, thus the comment on "most historical posters hasn't got any copyright" (the checklist on copyright material is a bit too much limited, thus explaining why much material has been titled "stamps" although they had nothing to do with stamps - another subject, but to put it clearly, when dealing with revolutionary events like this, "copyright" is... an irrelevant notion, not because of my opinions (whatever those might be), but because of the turmoil of the period and the openless and will to publicize of such things. This kind of poster is like a logo. 82.43.184.110 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please stop talking nonsense. Also a revolutionary can own copyrights. --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- You stop speaking nonsense, with all respect due. [28].
- Please stop talking nonsense. Also a revolutionary can own copyrights. --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- As Aegis has pointed out, the poster was created in a very specific context, and apparently the authors didn't bother to mark their "author right" (instead of "copyright"). In any cases, it certainly qualifies as "fair use" under US law, thus the comment on "most historical posters hasn't got any copyright" (the checklist on copyright material is a bit too much limited, thus explaining why much material has been titled "stamps" although they had nothing to do with stamps - another subject, but to put it clearly, when dealing with revolutionary events like this, "copyright" is... an irrelevant notion, not because of my opinions (whatever those might be), but because of the turmoil of the period and the openless and will to publicize of such things. This kind of poster is like a logo. 82.43.184.110 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You bring some really weird arguments. --ALE! ¿…? 07:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, not sufficiently sourced to show that it is public domain. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Name of the photographer is missing so it's impossible to know if it is really in PD. ~Pyb 11:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a photo taked for an anonymous photographer in 1915 and used by Arthur Cravan like promotional card when he was boxer. Zerep11 12:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, this is what {{subst:nsd}} is for...! pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON I suppose a custommade motorcycle such as this must be treated same as a sculpture and we would need permission and an appropriate licence from the builder(s) of the motorcycle. --meco 22:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- For me personally this is not a sculpture. --ALE! ¿…? 11:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- In this instance the bikes are on public display in the official OCC store and customers are encouraged to take pictures. Cameras are allowed in the store (where the bikes are on display) and there is no sign prohibiting photography of any kind. --jimerb (Photographer) 20:17, 29 August 2006
Kept, a vehicle is not a statue! pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The license probably was handed over to the publishing company Urban & Schwarzenberg.--Dr.Bobo 09:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if no one can give good reason to keep them.--Jusjih 13:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment usually the authors only give the permission to use their work to the editors. They usually do not transfer the copyright. It therefore depends on the contract between the author and the editor whether the author can paralelly exploit his rights or not. --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- German speaking admin, please --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted while no one has spoken for its retention with valid reasons.--Jusjih 12:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Statue created in 1936. Sculptor died in 1963, so not public domain yet and no freedom of panorama in the US for statues. -- howcheng {chat} 18:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Who is the sculptor? --ALE! ¿…? 09:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- DeleteDerivative work of a (still) copyrighted statue --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- If a work was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 WITH a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain ONLY IF the copyright was not renewed. I am unsure of the statue copyright and I can find nothing at the copyright renewals.--Jusjih 07:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Does not the link you are providing only cover books? --Kjetil_r 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think this statue is copyrighted per PD-not-renewed, nothing in the link that Jusjih gave so Keep Jaranda wat's sup 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Sanbec ✉ 09:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted for lack of evidence that the image is public domain. / Fred Chess 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [29]. Yann (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
permission for wikipedia only (see talk page). Please use Commons:Email templates and CC licenses. --Rtc 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I added {{template deletion request}} to the tmeplate. Maybe we get some more echo like this ;-) . --ALE! ¿…? 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- User:Saperaud is an admin. I think we should wait to see what he says first. It seems he hasn't been active for a while. Maybe one of the Germans can email him? pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. From [30]: "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." It is unacceptable here.--Jusjih 14:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The permission says "you can use the images as long as...", not "you can use the images on Wikipedia as long as..."--FlagUploader 17:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. (see FlagUploader) --Carlomorino 13:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep(uncertain), "General Terms" as cited above are "general" and as such you can't expect puplic domain or anything like that for the whole site but you can expect it for some parts of it. Other websites which I can't recall just now (a german coin wiki f.e. i think) used cng too with the given condition, so I followed these are well considered terms and not a lost "on Wikipedia" in our permission. --Saperaud 22:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've searched some sites again and my results are mixed (found some formulation like "to use outside our xy-project you need permission of cng" + CC license), so I can't be certain about CC status without some waterprofed permission of CNG. The template was actually made by me after some research for permissions and original uploaders, I never had contact with cng myself or uploaded one of their images directly form their site. In my memory there was some numismatican (from there) who declared CNG images as CC but that was perhaps hearsay and I can't really remember it well. So it could be a case of "be content with the shit you have and spare you the trouble of dwelling too deep" (I was young and in need of my nerves). I dont have time now to formulate an e-mail masterpiece of diplomatic poesy but I look forward to saturday. --Saperaud 05:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely Keep, quoting FlagUploader. Bye --Salli 17:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's valuable for educational purposes--Odysses 15:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Very valuable and the permission seems to be very clear.--Eupator 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
August 8
[edit]No license. --Ferdinand Porsche 01:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is cc-by-nc-nd. I have tagged it as such, we can delete it in a couple of days when the projects with a CommonsTicker (hopefully) have unlinked it. --Kjetil_r 00:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted as copyvio. --Raymond Disc. 07:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Zhé.svg
- Delete Superseded. — Erin (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — Erin (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a mistake creating this article while thinking I was working on User:BigonL. Sorry ! Can you do something ? BigonL 14:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Bad version, new (better) one will be uploaded --BjörnF 17:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. --Panther 15:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong name, correctly named at Image:Karte Strzelin.png. --Rdb 17:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} instead. --Panther 15:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The licence says that the shot is in public domain "because of the reason above". The reason is : the original website says that the image is in public domain. Not so sure. The site only affirm : "We do not own the copyright to the images used on this website. We believe that most of the images are in the public domain. (...)We have not kept a record of where we found any of the images we have used. If you believe that you own the rights to any of the images we use, please contact us and we will either withdraw that picture or add an acknowledgement."
Furthermore The Times credit a photographer, Alfred Eisenstaedt (died in 1995). See this link : http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/godel.html
62.35.127.20 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for researching the photographer. So of course it's a copyvio. Tagged as {{copyvio}} --Rtc 20:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Raymond Disc. 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone edited the Wikipedia article Feces[31], apparently believing that the image there was not free, but simply a photograph of a work by artist Tom Friedman. In searching, I found this, but I'm not sure if the user is correct or not. Either way, I felt it should be investigated.--68.64.65.89 02:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- So... does no one want to go through the hassle of removing the image, or is this page backlogged, or what? If we've got an unfree image sitting on several of our projects, we should probably do something about it... :-/ --68.64.65.89 19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -Samulili 19:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
not found copyright info in [32]--Shizhao 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep [33], which is the page linked as the source, clearly states it's CC-BY-2.5. I can't find the icon itself in the gallery there, but it's part of other icons. —da Pete (ばか) 08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept Appears ok. -- Infrogmation 04:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Etelä-Savo.vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Superseded by Södra Savolax vapen.svg, too. --Hautala 09:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
License(s) not credible. First upload of the user. --ALE! ¿…? 23:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- On a side note, such a flag does not exist, but that should not factor in the deletion. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It had 3 license tags, it was also tagged as "official insignia" of Argentina (which is not), and while it is stated to be on the public domain, it is a derivative work from the flag (which is not copyrighted) and a portrait whose source is not specified. Barcex 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Delete
- Image pushed by single anon editor in the German, French, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and Catalan Wikipedias. Since the image has no ecyclopedic value and is used for Vandalism under false claims, I strongly support its deletion. Mariano 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- It had 3 license tags, it was also tagged as "official insignia" of Argentina (which is not), and while it is stated to be on the public domain, it is a derivative work from the flag (which is not copyrighted) and a portrait whose source is not specified. Barcex 06:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wagner51 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Is {{PD-Italy}} applicable for magazine covers? / Fred Chess 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete With the EU directive the template has become invalid retrospectively entirely. Delete it. --Rtc 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, a magazine cover from 1982 is clearly not a simple documentary photo. deleted. -- Infrogmation 18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The map presents Frisian and Dutch as part of the German language, eventhough the latter is older than German and has had a standard form for nearly 400 years. It also gives a false view of the German speakers in eastern Europe making them seem more numerous and dominant than they ever were. It compiles different sources in an arbitrary and misleading way in order to prove the author's biased POV. It also does not refer to any particular point in history, thus mixing up different periods. A result of non-scholarly original reseach.
- Delete Halibutt 07:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Improvements can be made, but what you say is not quite true. Dutch-speaking areas are in a different colour on the map, so the author is not saying that Dutch is exactly the same as German. However, he is right to include Dutch as Dutch and German are historically the same language. Even today, Dutch spoken near the German border is virtually the same as the Plattdeutsch spoken on the other side. There is a dialect continuum in place. Both modern languages descend from Old German. As for German speakers in Eastern Europe, the map correctly represents them as being very few and far between. — Erin (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- That a language is Germanic does not mean it is German, see e.g. Image:Germanictree.PNG. As for Eastern Europe it is pure fiction, e.g. the blue dot immediately south of Warsaw where there was never a German speaking minority (just an example). Wojsyl 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Wojsyl 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Might might be improved, but is still useful. The Dutch speaking area is marked as de:Niederdeutsche Sprache in the German Article de:Deutsche Sprache using it. The dutch Wikipedia uses this term also: nl:Nederduits. Furthermore: Do you want to delete en:Image:GermanicDialectAreas.PNG too? --ALE! 08:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete per nom. The uploader of this map has been blocked in german wikipedia for spreading ethnical POV or at least a blatant ignorance concerning peoples.--Wiggum 09:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if the map contains errors, fix it. I also agree with Erin. Btw, you forgot to notify the uploader. --Kjetil_r 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry Kjetil but if the map contains errors and you are for keeping it - you fix it. Wikipedia should not contain errors and you cannot tell others to put their time in fixing it. DIY or delete - that's how it works. It's that simple. Best, aegis maelstrom δ 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Valid point, Mr. Maelstrom, the users wanting to keep it have the main responsibility for fixing it. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, Mr. Ree. :) I'm glad we agree here, too few people understand this IMHO healthy mechanism. aegis maelstrom δ 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Valid point, Mr. Maelstrom, the users wanting to keep it have the main responsibility for fixing it. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry Kjetil but if the map contains errors and you are for keeping it - you fix it. Wikipedia should not contain errors and you cannot tell others to put their time in fixing it. DIY or delete - that's how it works. It's that simple. Best, aegis maelstrom δ 19:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete The uploader of this map is reknowed nationalist and nearly every map he created is the source of heated debates and are often innacurate. This map is no different and should be deleted. Rex Germanus 11:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I would keep it and fix it. Maybe he exagurated a bit but but dont doubt that in Eastern Europ germans lived. AFAIK the picture show the situation until 1945. Wasent many germans from bessarabia and the baltics settelt in poland in this timeframe ? I will not doubt that Postmans idiology had effect on his work, but i would rather try to fix anything instead of deleting it.
- No, actually they weren't. Since 1918 there is an independent Polish state, so it would be hardly imaginable... as well as German settlers in Polish Kingdom (part of Russian Empire). German settlers were limited to the territories controlled by Prussia. If you want to see true settlers from Germany and Netherlands in Poland you have to go back to the late Medevial...
- Delete Map is a source of endless controversy due to the original research it contains. Balcer 17:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Hoax. I would be for saving and fixing the map but let's face the facts - nobody is going to do that and nobody really knows how. The map is a pure fiction. It doesn't show which territories are with mixed populations. It is false while considering germanic languages - Lower Saxon is definitely different than Hochdeutsch, not to mention Dutch. It doesn't show what time we are actually talking about neither. And there are complete bollocks while we are talking about Eastern Europe - significant German speaking population in Ukraine? Only when you count in European Jews and jidysz as German... Summing up - whole lot of major errors difficult to spot for ignorants in this matter. And when I read AFAIK the picture show the situation until 1945. I am pretty sure that these errors are harmful. Delete. aegis maelstrom δ 19:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let it be very clear that the Dutch language nor its dialects is a form of German. The only common ancestor German and Dutch have is Common West Germanic (AD 400), which also the ancestor of English, Frisian, Yiddish, and Scots. I suggest that the people who are unaware of this READ the article on English wikipedia. Rex Germanus 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Patently untrue, and the article on en: should be fixed. Language-genetically, Dutch and German belong to a common Dutch-German subgroup, while English and Frisian form the Anglo-Frisian subgroup. There is a dialect continuum on the Dutch east border, which isn't there between Dutch and Frisian. – gpvos (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment what about Image:Deutsche Mundarten.PNG, maybe you want to delete it as well? --Kjetil_r 11:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, looks like a different version of the same map. No article uses it. Looks like a candidate for deletion for me. aegis maelstrom δ 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- No article? It is used in 3 pages in 3 projects, in addition to local copies used in 3 pages in 2 projects. But if Image:Historisches deutsches Sprachgebiet.PNG is deleted, Image:Deutsche Mundarten.PNG should be deleted as well. --Kjetil_r 22:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, looks like a different version of the same map. No article uses it. Looks like a candidate for deletion for me. aegis maelstrom δ 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if you want keep at least mark clearly as highly likely revisionist and non-trustable. Especially, no source is given. Postmann Michel was blocked because he had this revisionist behaviour pattern, overflowing nazi related articles with tons of highly irrelevant facts (assumed they were facts in the first place) to bury the really relevant information. --Rtc 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing about the dutchs (which sound to me like an english men try to speak the german word Deutsch, which is similar to the dutch word duits) and flamic: As ALE! said and also in german articles it is said that it belongs to the german language tree (not germanic). --Modgamers 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Source proofs and notes of Postmann Michael: The available map is based mainly on the language map "Fischer of the information Atlas Federal Republic of Germany" (Fischer paperback publishing house, S. 63) from the year 1990. Besides calibrations with the "dtv Atlas found to the German language" (German paperbacks publishing house, S. 230/231) and the "Volkskunde - history of the German way of life and culture" (Elard Hugo Meyer, S. 363) from the year 1898 instead of. Furthermore also the books became "the Germanic languages - their history included in fundamentals" (Claus Juergen Hutterer, 1975) of the Akademiai Kiado, "Sudeten German regional studies" (Hans Krebs/Emil Lehmann, 1992), "east Prussian regional studies" (Walther Franz, 1993), all this in the Arndt publishing house appeared to Budapest, "Schlesien regional studies" (Alfred Pudelko, 1993). Also - probably most exact map of the German linguistic area - the dialect map "the spreading of the Germans in Europe had completely large influence 1844-1888" (Heinrich Nabert, 1890), which developed in the course of 30 years and which was presented as reproduction with the federation for German writing and language 1994 (series of publications number 12) again. Furthermore an alignment with the books became "Atlas contemporary history: Europe in 20. Century "(Manfred Scheuch, 1992) appeared in the publishing house Christian Brandstaetter, S. 51, and "small Atlas to German territorial history" (P. 137) of the culture donation of the German refugees (1990), the "Putzger historical world Atlas" (Cornelsen publishing house, 1991) - there S. 99 - made. Furthermore the information of the books "historical and political geography of Europe" (N. J. G. Pounds, the lecturer of the geographical faculty of the University of Cambridge), appeared 1950 in George Westermann publishing house (P. 296, 319, 327), of "Germany borders in history" (Alexander Demandt, 1990) from the publishing house C H. Beck Munich (P. 66) and the language map of "area and population losses of the German Reich and German Austria after the year 1918" (Dr. Karl Hans Ertl, 1996) from the row "German history in 20. Century "of the German publishing house company rose home. For the situation of the German settlement area Pounds on S gives. 295 on: In Czechoslovakia 3.5 millions. In Poland (including Danzigs) 2.2 millions. In Russia 1.6 millions. In France 1.5 millions. In Romania 0.9 millions. In Yugoslavia 0.7 millions. In the Baltic 0.27 millions. In Italy 0.25 millions. In Hungary 0.25 millions and in Belgium 0.15 millions.
Dr. Ertl indicates the following numbers for the tuning areas in west and east Prussia: east Prussia population to 8.10.1919: 577.001 enfranchised: 422.067 voices for Germany: 363.159 (= 97,9%) voices for Poland: 7.924 West Prussia Population to 8.10.1919: 164.183 enfranchised: 121.176 voices for Germany: 96.895 (= 92,4%) voices for Poland: 7.947 For the areas Memel, Soldauer hit a corner, Danzig and environment (retired west Prussia), Brandenburg, Pommern and Posen, which had to be retired without tuning, indicates to Ertl (P. 72) speaker numbers (after native language):
Memelgebiet
German: 71.781 speakers, German and others: 2.028, speakers Polish: 126 speakers, litauisch: 67.138 speakers, other languages: 165 speakers
Soldauer Laendchen
German: 9.232 speakers, German and others: 895 speakers, Polish: 5.289 speakers, Masurian: 9.134 speakers, other languages: 237 speakers
Danzig
German: 315.336 speakers, German and others: 3.039 speakers, Polish: 9.490 speakers, Kashubian: 2.254 speakers, other languages: 511 speakers
retired west Prussia (Danziger surrounding countryside)
German: 411.621 speakers, German and others: 14.807 speakers, Polish: 104.585 speakers, other languages: 410 speakers
Brandenburg
no language prevailing, there uninhabited area
Pommern
German: 180 speakers, Polish: 44 speakers
Posen
German: 699,859 speakers, German and others: 11.194 speakers, Polish: 1.263.346 speakers, Kashubian and Masurian: 69 speakers, other languages: 1.993 speakers
It is also expressly mentioned that according to the official census of the German Reich of the yearly 1914 alone the province west Prussia had a German population portion of over 63%; however in the province floats were those Poland the clear population of majority! But in the time between 1920 and 23 from Poland (above all west Prussia and east Upper Silesia) approximately 1.1 millions Germans were illegally driven out. That had even some objections of the German Reich with the voelkerbund in Geneva according to, since Poland refused those to the German of assured minority rights and/or stepped these with feet!
For the retired east Upper Silesia Ertl gives the following numbers to (P. 83): "the voting result was however for Poland and concomitantly for France disappointing (...) (it) obviously it became that with the tuning the majority of the water-Polish speaking population of Upper Silesia had decided for whereabouts with the German Reich. For the German Reich at that time 702,045 voices (= 59.4%) were delivered, for Poland 479,232 (= 40.6%). Only in the circles Beuthen-Land, Gross-Strelitz, Kattowitz-Land, Pless, Rybnik and Tarnowitz a weak became (sig!) Polish majority obtains (...)"
For the later Sudetenland and the language islands in Zentralboehmen Ertl (P. 146) indicates the following numbers:
Deutschboehmen
German: 2.070.438, Czechs: 116.275
Sudetenland
German: 643.804, Czechs: 25.028
Boehmerwaldgau
German: 176.237; Czechs: 6.131
Suedmaehren
German: 155.791, Czechs: 66.633
(All numbers for 1919, see also for this the representation maps on S. 150/151!)
I know this books and all datas in there are correct! 172.181.62.54 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. Nobody says there were no German speaking people in Lower/Upper Silesia or region of Poznan. Even the numbers given, even I would rather verify them (it was German research but let's assume it was quite fair), are not the most confusing. The most amusing things are: how do you explain significant German minorities in present Eastern Poland or Ukraine on the map (the numbers here say nothing about it) and, secondly, how were this people put on the map. The numbers say about whole regions - here we have some detailed map. Who is the author? What are the sources? Is it OR? It looks so. The author has been accused of bias and banned. So is this OR reliable? The numbers say for instance that the population in Pommern was mixed - it that on the map? Was the German population so monolithic while the ones of all the neighbours were not? Was that 100& German speaking population in Strasburg region? Or in Warsaw(?!)? My common sense says something different. aegis maelstrom δ 17:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep It gives the situation before WWII. Electionworld 22:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Contradicts scholary research and maps on ethnic groups in that region in Europe. False and biased.--Molobo 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment
- The map conflicts credible scholary data on German population in Eastern Europe.
Few examples of scholary maps- [34] Above map is from Historical Atlas of Central Europe. University of Washington Press: 2002. It clearly contradicts the author's map in regards to presence of German population in Poland. Image:HistPol-narodowosci1931.png Above map is from Henryk Zieliński, "Historia Polski 1914-1939", edited by Wydawnictwo Ossolineum, printed in Poland in 1983, it presents various nationalities in pre-war Poland. As can be seen German population isn't as widespread as presented by the author. [35] Above map is from Map of ethnic groups in Europe in 1896 from The Times Atlas This map also contradicts the author's map, showing quite different situation. Another example, a list of Polish areas with German minority listed: [36] In 1921 Pomerania 1921-18 % of population is German Poznan 1921-16 % of population is German This numbers obviously don't support the map presented here where the impression is that in those areas Germans made up almost total majority. And in 1931: Pomerania 1931-9% % of population is German Poznan 1931-9 % of population is German Upper Silesia 1931- 6 % of population is German
- The author has ignored massive settlement of Germans into Poland after 1939 (estimated by some at over 1 million with certain number of hundreds of thousands).
- The author doesn't explain why the same map is used for several different era's-1937, 1945 and WWII ignoring the fact of major population changes in WW2 ?
- The map doesn't show the exact date and as German population changed in very significant way during XX century in Central Europe it isn't neutral.
- It isn't clear what the map presents, if the map presents those Germans born in Poland or those people who spoke German as mother language ? Second option would indicate he counts occupation forces moved into Poland in his map.
- No mention is made that hundreds of thousands of Germans were settled into Poland during WW2 further adding to POV. The use of colours is very strange since it hardly shows significant populations of Poles in Silesia left after 1921.
- Another data contradicting the map:
According to p.27 of the Reich Statistical Yearbook for 1941 the population of the territories annexed from Poland was as follows in June 1940: Province Ostpreussen: 994,092. Reichsgau Danzig-West-Preussen (not including Danzig): 1,487,452. Reichsgau Wartheland: 4,538,922. Prov. Schlesien: 2,603,550. General Gouvernment: 12,107,000 According to p.6 of "Documents on the Expulsion of the Germans from East-Central Europe" Volume 1, (Bonn, 1954) the following was the German population of these areas when they were annexed from Poland in 1939: Polish Territories attached to the Provinz of Ostpreussen: 31,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Danzig-Westpreussen: 210,000. Polish Territories of the Reichsgau Wartheland: 230,000. Eastern Upper Silesia: 238,000. Generalgouvernment: 80,000.
The map is obviously biased towards representing the German population as dominating Central Europe, it is innaccurate compared to scholary sources on ethnic distribution of Germans in the time period, and is unclear at all what time period the author means-1910 ? 1939 ? 1945 ? In all these periods the situation and distribution of German population was different due to various events relating to German colonisation attempts made in Central Europe. For example many German communities were in 1910 result of colonisation attempts by German Eastern March Society, in 1939 Poles were being expelled from their homes in Gdynia to make room for German settlers, in 1945 large parts of Poland were settled by Nazi sponsored German colonists for example in Poznan area. However as pointed out earlier this map is showing datat that other scholary maps disprove.The presentiation is made in such way that it can be seen as portaying even small presence of German settles as being the dominant ethnic group in a region, whereas it was not.For example 100,000 Germans in Pomorze are almost dominating the region according to the map(although Poles made up 1.000.000 people there) , but 530,000 Poles in German held Silesia are hardly seen as existing. It certainly can be seen as nationalisticaly biased map to serve in some disputes relating to WW2 and Polish-German issues, for example claims that some regions had German majority(due to its biased presentation) --Molobo 00:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This argument will always be biasd. Well have a look at http://csumc.wisc.edu/AmericanLanguages/german/states/wisconsin/europeanroots.htm . This would be a little bit more neutral although it is a not very detailed map. Does anybody have the "dtv-Atlas der deutschen Sprache" and can give some more detailed information? Are there other maps that support the view represented in this map? --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The map presented by you is much more neutral then the author's map and also contradicts him..There have been similiar maps but I only have seen such from Nazi era,or made during disputes over territories in 1920s period. I do have maps made at the beginning at the beginning of XX century by German sources(when it seemed unlikely Poland would be restored) and they both show much smaller German population as well as larger Polish presence in comparison to the map of the author.--Molobo 12:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- sorry the above was me, jadger [37]
- Keep - please keep nationalist and scientific items separated! --213.150.1.76 09:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Even if the map were reflecting a certain biased view, which is btw. clearly stated on the page describing the image, e.g. is says West-Prussian inhabitants were 63% German speaking per census while ethnically Germans were a minority (so we may conclude that also far more than 50% were Polish speaking giving so-and-so many bilingual people) if it is used in the right context, such as - I am brainstorming - "how Germanocentrics see/saw the German language distribution in and around Germany at a certain time in history", then it is a useful ressource. I am unable to check all the given sources, and it may be problematic to combine them, and there may be certain errors needing improvement. These improvements should rather be made, than the image deleted. Npov, btw. is not an argument not to mention pov's if they exist(ed) and are/were influential. (A personal side-note on Dutch, and German. I am grown up in a central area of the dialect continuum between Dutch, Low German, High German, and Luxembourgian. I never ever had any education in any language of those but Standard High German. Of course do I listen to Dutch radio/tv broadcasts, but it is hard for me to follow since people tend to talk too fast, and 'mumble'; but I read Dutch, Afrikaans, Luxemburgish, Low German, because of their closeness to the local language I grew up with, at a Babel level between xx-1 and xx-2 without having much writing skills leave alone practice speaking. I am very confident though, living two or three months among supportive natives would allow me to improve and handle most everydays talks in any of those languages fairly well. Thus I - and likely hundreds of thousands with me - experience a relative closeness of our own language (called German) and Dutch. So we feel it appropriate to call them related. I am certainly not a nationalist, I hate biased views disguised as (imho fake) scientific theories. Btw. if it comes to Frisian, another language group at the distance of an afternoons bike ride, my understanding is next to zilch. So while not opposing authors who state Dutch and German were close, I cannot support authors who see Frisian languages as Dutch, respective German, dialects.) --Purodha Blissenbach 09:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is tagged PD-self. Need explanation of why the same image is posted at http://www.corporinoquia.gov.co/imag/image/Villavo1.jpg None of this user's other uploads to date are properly sourced and tagged. --William Avery 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete User has shown reckelessness at licenses, all of his other images either already or soon to be deleted due to copyright concerns. Drini 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Jusjih 08:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work. A photo of somebody else's image, which is publicity for an Italian production of Death of a Salesman. William Avery 20:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I'm sure that this is copyrighted as an screenshot. I already orphaned it in the spanish and german wiki and tagged as fair use in english wikipedia, where it also doesn't have an source. But I just want to make sure. Jaranda wat's sup 02:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete speedily. Copyrighted screenshot. ~MDD4696 03:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- If it's from the XScreensaver software as the description page claims, it may be GFDL or (indeed) PD. And not all screenshots are fair use, eg. w:Template:free screenshot 68.39.174.238 06:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted (fair use on en.wikipedia.org) --ALE! ¿…? 14:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
August 9
[edit]Unused and superseded by Pohjanmaan maakunnan vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 09:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as another version (the colors are slightly different). --Panther 14:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Heraldically, the colours are identical. --Hautala 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Superseding version is better. Wagner51 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Lapin maakunnan vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 09:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 14:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Image:Päijät-Hämeen vaakuna.png /Lokal Profil 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Slip from my side to not convert to png with transparancy directly. The jpg version no longer contributes anything after Hautala fixed my slip/Lokal Profil 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The existing cat Rijksmuseum Amsterdam was not in the cat Art museums, therefore I made a new one with a different name. Sorry. Fransvannes 09:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Use {{Bad name}} for such deletion requests. —Kjetil_r 10:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Licence unverified. This coat of arms has been drawn by the College of Arms and British Royal House, but no written authorization is given. This user Alquimia has been previously warned with no reaction. Wagner51 14:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wagner51 11:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted —JeremyA 00:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and replaced by Image:Disambig RTL.svg. – rotemliss – Talk 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete – rotemliss – Talk 15:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
not 2-dimesional, 3-dimensional because of picture frame
Keep I removed the frame and corrected slightly the perspective. Now it should be Ok, isn't it? An admin should delete the framed version. (Astrokey44, please sign your messages). Wagner51 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- I only fixed the link, it was User:172.176.161.24 that nominated it --Astrokey44 13:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
new version withou the frame kept, the old version deleted ---ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
No source given, dubious licence claim, user has uploaded numerous Aaliyah images before which had to be deleted. regards, High on a tree 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- You can use {{subst:nsd}} on images with no source given, rather than bringing them here William Avery 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I know that and have done so in the past, but in my experience it is not appropriate in clear cases like this one. For example, this obvious copyvio is still there over a month after I tagged it with {{subst:nsd}}.
- regards, High on a tree 22:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Retagged as {{Nsd}}. I have also warned the uploader, he will be blocked if he continue to upload copyvios. Ku3 seems to be Spanish, feel free to translate my warning (or add your own). --Kjetil_r 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"no one could make profit with that picture and it's uploaded on myspace" does not consist a valid replacement for a permission of the original author to publish the image under a free licence. regards, High on a tree 23:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as a copyvio from www.trafficjam.de. --Kjetil_r 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Fotos vom ICE unterliegen dem Vermarktungsrecht der DB AG, keine freie Lizenz möglich --217.88.166.97 10:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep no copyright problem--Wiggum 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep for the same reason. Wagner51 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And other images marked by User:Dodo as copyvio.
Because I don't understand Spanish I asked User Dodo why it is a copyvio. His answer from my talk page:
- "Yes, of course! According to this site (in my opinion a trustworthy one), the current Spanish copyright law says that "the rights of exploitation [copyright] of works created by authors died before December 7th, 1987 will have the duration stated in the Intellectual Property Law of January 10th, 1879". That 1879 law said that copyright lasted 80 years (not 70!) after the death of the last author (post mortem auctoris). Of course, for pseudonymous, anonymous and collective works where the author are not really known, the term is computed from the first "lawful publishing" date.
- So, according to the Spanish law, only the works whose authors died in 1926 or before, or whose authors are unknown and were first published in 1926 or before, are considered to be in the public domain. That's why I tagged all those images...
- The problem is that IANAL :( --Dodo 09:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)"
IANAL too, so please verify this argument before deleting. Thank you. --Raymond Disc. 08:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Angr --ALE! ¿…? 16:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Images of some Pills are not needed. Some User abuse this image for commercials in de:Methylphenidat. And the Designer of the Pills have the Image not allowed, no free licence possible. Furthermore is the image in a wrong format (png) and therefore to big. PNG is only good for 256 colors or less, for such images like this is the JPG-Format needed, the Image can be in JPG very smaller by the same resolution. But the Image should be deleted cause my first declaration. Regards--Matze6587 11:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Wiggum 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I made a smaller Version with the same resolution Image:Ritalin-SR-20mg-full.jpg, this need only 1/10 of the space. --Matze6587 15:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep The pills design is somewhat classical in my opinion. Wagner51 17:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, but ive made a smaller version, the big png-version can be deleted--Matze6587 17:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep The disign of a pill isn't copyrighted, is it? I can't see anything that's special. And it may be used in several articles that mention pills in general. Why not?
Keep it's nice. Halibutt 18:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete But: keep the JPG. --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep PNG, delete JPG. --Rtc 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with ALE --Rtc 12:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete PNG - it has no value over the jpeg version - but it's 900% larger. -Samulili 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept the JPEG (no copyvio). Deleted the bloated PNG. — Erin (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This was taken from here. While the author has agreed to license his images as CC-by-2.5, he has essentially photographed a poster here, the copyright to which is no doubt held by someone else, making it a copyvio we can't use here. --Rosenzweig 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! ¿…? 10:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Unused and superseded by Kymenlaakson maakunnan vaakuna.svg. --Hautala 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as another version. --Panther 14:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We don't need a another, and may I say worse, version. All projects seem to be already using the .svg version. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- So, deleted. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work, the sculptor is Nina Akamu. --Kjetil_r 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree. Wagner51 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Nina Akamu's work is also a derivative work since it's based on Leonardo's design for the Horse. Second point: a twin statue is in Milan and it follows the Italian law, so its photograph can be published. The two Horses are identical! --Marco Bonavoglia 19:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Mrs. Akamu can of course make a derative of something in the public domain, but we can not make a derivative of her work again, because it is not in the public domain. If you go to Italy and make a photo of the identical statue, ok, but the photo of the one in Grand Rapids follows American law. --Kjetil_r 01:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- If I use a PD photo and make an identical copy of it, the copy will also be PD. The horse thing should be the same, or not? --ALE! ¿…? 12:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- If this statue is an identical copy of the original then it is not a derivative work—in a copy there is no new creative work and so no new copyright is established. If this statue differs from the original, then it is a derivative work, in which case the artist has copyright protection of her work. —JeremyA 02:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
kept (derivative work of a sculpture which itself is a derivative work of a PD sculpture) --ALE! ¿…? 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys after discussion on Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:Meijer_Gardens_01.jpg. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
All contributions of User:Chuck es dios
[edit]See Image:Ourense mapa.jpg, Image:Ocarrabouxo.jpg,Image:Carrab.jpg, Image:Ocarrabouxo...jpg, Image:Carra.jpg --Edub 20:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete all. At least most of them are copyvios and the licenses are therefore notcredible. --ALE! ¿…? 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
August 10
[edit]Derivative work. A.J. 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a composite. And it has been nominated before. As the image history shows. Do you have some new argument? pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. A.J. 10:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Derivative work. A.J. 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - how one can check if an image was nominated for deletion before? A.J. 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Click on the history of the image description page. You will see a deletion notice added then removed. — Erin (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The structure of UDP-glucose is not correct --Toxicologytoday 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- As this is one of your own uploads you can tag it with {{speedydelete|This structure is not correct}}, if it's not possible to upload a file with the correct structure under the same name. William Avery 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Use {{Speedy}} for such deletion requests, there is no need to put it here. --Kjetil_r 06:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Scanning copyrighted material doesn't make it one's own work. regards, High on a tree 19:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Redundant - the quality of Image:Gogh4.jpg is much better. regards, High on a tree 23:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. NielsF 01:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (next time please use {{duplicate|Image:OTHER FILE NAME}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint, but strictly speaking this was'nt an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of Image:Gogh4.jpg (it was a different replication, sombody might have argued that the colors were better in this one, for example). regards, High on a tree 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
See Image talk:Closeup of redhead Daisy with freckles.jpg. Previosly market as copyrighted, but since you can change license on flickr any time, it could really be CC-BY-SA before. A.J. 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It could be... but the flickr page says: all rights reserved --ALE! ¿…? 12:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think we sould consult uploader and author first. I had problem with certain author who uploaded picures with GFDL and CC-BY licence, and suddenly withdrawn them because he didn't like NPOV in article (he is a huge fan of controversial singer). I don't like idea of removing images whenever author removes them or changes usage terms at the source. A.J. 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- If something like this happens, you should immediately complain loudly, let people know on the village pump and ask an admin for help. He can revert the withdrawal and lock the page. Free licenses de facto cannot be withdrawn, and we need to be very strict about it if people try. Else, many will start to say "But everyone withdraws them, so I thought that's my right when I uploaded it under GFDL/CC/whatever", being a threat for the reliability of the licenses, because people can claim to have been mislead about the nature of free licenses by this bad habit of not taking immediate action against withdrawals, and thus in an extreme case can claim their permission to be void, since it was based on incorrect presuppositions. --Rtc 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that many people sent requests for permission are misled by those asking. There are also many people on flikr specifically that do not understand the terms of the licensing. Surely, complying in cases where someone misundertood or was mistaken falls under being polite. There is also the issue that such a broad statement as "Free licenses cannot be withdrawn" cannot be backed up. While cc-by-sa specifically says it is perpetual, this is not the case with all free licenses, such as the GFDL. Will the license be judged under contract law (where w:en:Promissory estoppel, might apply depending upon consideration, etc) or solely under copyright? Kotepho 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc, we do not need to be "very strict" about people who misunderstand what they have agreed to, asking for their images to be withdrawn. In fact in some circles it would just be called "polite" to accede to their request. Is Wikimedia going to suffer massive losses from requests of this type? Very unlikely. For Wikimedians, it is a slightly different matter - we can have higher expectations of them than random Flickr users - but still, we do a disservice if we are sticklers for the rules to the point that we alienate people. Besides which, how is asking an admin going to help? It's not like we can see a "history" tab on the Flickr pages that regular users can't. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- We cannot accept withdrawals from people uploading their own pictures under a free license, since it's their problem if they have misunderstood what they agreed to. In fact, free licenses are "to everyone". Merely deleting the picture from or change the license tag on commons does not invalidate the license. I can simply re-upload it and say that I received it under under this free license—free licenses are perpetual as long as you don't violate them, ALL free licenses are that way. If we accept such withdrawals, that would have MAJOR impact. Say I sell a CD with commons pictures and anybody comes along and says "I withdraw the license", I'd need to immediately stop and destroy all the remaining CDs. The picture makers would actually have my business in their hands, at any time being able to stop me completely. Commons is not a kindergarten, and even if not accepting withdrawals (legally not having taken place anyways) should be alienating people, there's simply no way we can let this happen this. We need to be serious about these things. A license is always judged solely under copyright, since it's a copyright license, not a contract. --Rtc 09:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc, we do not need to be "very strict" about people who misunderstand what they have agreed to, asking for their images to be withdrawn. In fact in some circles it would just be called "polite" to accede to their request. Is Wikimedia going to suffer massive losses from requests of this type? Very unlikely. For Wikimedians, it is a slightly different matter - we can have higher expectations of them than random Flickr users - but still, we do a disservice if we are sticklers for the rules to the point that we alienate people. Besides which, how is asking an admin going to help? It's not like we can see a "history" tab on the Flickr pages that regular users can't. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that many people sent requests for permission are misled by those asking. There are also many people on flikr specifically that do not understand the terms of the licensing. Surely, complying in cases where someone misundertood or was mistaken falls under being polite. There is also the issue that such a broad statement as "Free licenses cannot be withdrawn" cannot be backed up. While cc-by-sa specifically says it is perpetual, this is not the case with all free licenses, such as the GFDL. Will the license be judged under contract law (where w:en:Promissory estoppel, might apply depending upon consideration, etc) or solely under copyright? Kotepho 23:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- If something like this happens, you should immediately complain loudly, let people know on the village pump and ask an admin for help. He can revert the withdrawal and lock the page. Free licenses de facto cannot be withdrawn, and we need to be very strict about it if people try. Else, many will start to say "But everyone withdraws them, so I thought that's my right when I uploaded it under GFDL/CC/whatever", being a threat for the reliability of the licenses, because people can claim to have been mislead about the nature of free licenses by this bad habit of not taking immediate action against withdrawals, and thus in an extreme case can claim their permission to be void, since it was based on incorrect presuppositions. --Rtc 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Another question is: Did the girl give permission to publish this photo? For the copyright thing I'm with Rtc, you can't withdraw a free licence (without a very good legal reason, but as no reason is known, this is not the case). But for the personal rights it has to go. --::Slomox:: >< 12:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- You discuss hypothetical matters hete. What happened is: our editor noticed a picture on Flickr with CC license and copied it to commons. Flickr user changed his mind and stopped publishing his picture on CC license on Flickr. This does not affect Commons though. The author did not complain about it, the model either. So Keep, unless someone contacts one of them and they express their request to delete this image. If they do so, we'll create another section here and discuss. A.J. 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept. You can't withdraw free licences. — Erin (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Reopened on request. — Erin (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Erin. There's no certainty at this moment that this image was ever uploaded to Flickr under a free license. We cannot provide proof that it was released under a free license. Presently the image is listed at "All Rights Reserved" at Flickr. Our policy says that if we cannot provide evidence that an image is free, it must be deleted. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. When we cannot provide evidence that an image is free, but there is seriously contradicting evidence, the image must be deleted. -Samulili 08:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are laws and I believe there are similar laws in other countries like en:Informational self-determination, de:Bundesdatenschutzgesetz, de:Teledienstedatenschutzgesetz,... A very similar incident has been posted here: [38]. I already posted some doubts on the commons mailing list. Sorry that most of the articles or information are in german. Basically I disagree on statistics about my activities made publicly available. I never agreed on that. I agreed to the Special:Log and thats it "informational self-determination". greetings --Paddy 08:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Full ACK, personal statistics only with opt-in. Delete --Wiggum 08:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep They are already publicly available, firstly from Special:Log and secondly from Interiot's tool. (And no, you don't need to opt-in for totals information.) Where have you been? It's been running for, what, years? This is ridiculous. It is the entire nature of Wikimedia that edits are public information. And why does the German Constitution apply anyway? pfctdayelise (translate?) 09:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not only a matter of law but also of commons sense. --Paddy 10:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's not an obligation to be sysop. IMHO sysops should accept statistics on their activities. It's a question of transparency. ~Pyb 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Besides the formal "I don't want" argument, I don't see what the problem with the page is.... I understand that showing a user's edits per day/hour might be invasive, for example my employer would probably not be happy to see what I do on working hours ;-) ... but what is the problem with displaying deletions / month? / Fred Chess 11:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really care either way. Even one person objecting, to me, is sufficient reason and as such I blanked all but the first section (if you do object to just a total of deletions a day... well blank that too), hopefully before the googlebots and such have come around. I strongly dispute that it is 'common sense' that someone would object to this though--to me it is common sense that there wouldn't be a big deal about counting how many times Foo appears in a list, along with the prevelance of edit count, but common sense is not common. If you want to opt-in or out (150 people isn't that many to kep track of), or think this page is useless or useful, or whatever let me know. Does anyone have a problem with the overall totals? or just the monthly statistics? Do you care about this information being distrubuted privately? Kotepho 22:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to opt-out please and no I do not care if you make such statistics privatly. Just not publically. And as I wrote on the ML it would be nice to ask if sysops like such a statistic about them to be published and maybe why you do so before publishing. If you do so we can delete the page and you can start feshly with those who op-in. That is my suggestion.
- By commons sense I mean that it is obvious that not necessarily everybody might agree. If I choose a nickname that is not related to my real name than it might be OK. But not having done so I still can disagree about some things being published about me. Fakt is that you do not have black or white but also grey. And please do not tell me thinks like: "you have chosen such a nick so you do not have any privacy whatsoever". greetings. --Paddy 13:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not at all obvious to me that anyone would disagree to such statistics, which is why I think I and so many others were very baffled by your oppposition. But, whatever. I guess you would be horrified to be an admin on en.wp with things like w:User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project. But adminship means different things on different projects. It is not important enough to upset people over. pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, I thought of a solution to keep everyone happy - Commons:Administrator permission for statistics. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image appears to be unfree according to this license: "SELLING AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE IMAGE (INDIVIDUALLY OR ALONG WITH OTHER IMAGES) IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN! DO NOT SHARE THE IMAGE WITH OTHERS!" Also currency may be copyrighted, as on EN at least there is a fair use {{money}} template to use for currency images. Xt 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also I have created a suitable replacement image [39] (my camera's not as good but it conveys the same information) that carries no such restrictions. Xt 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unfree licence -- Infrogmation 20:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I review the license, it looks like it may allow the images to be freely available after all. In particular, the following line seems to allow that: "All rights are reserved unless otherwise granted to You." As this image's page says both "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." and "Please feel free to use my foto...", I guess that should be sufficient to allow us to use this as a PD image.
This is not the first time images from SXC.hu have caused confusion. It would be nice if someone with more legal background than I could enlighten the rest of us, once and for all, whether the above interpretation is correct and we can use their images here. Xt 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted for now. Even with "There are no usage restrictions for this photo." and "Please feel free to use my foto...", the picture shows Frehcn coins as the main subject whose designs may still be copyrighted.--Jusjih 08:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Claimed to be PD-author according to e-mail, but author has stated that the credit and watermark should be kept, which is inconsistent with a PD-licence, and rather indicates a non-derivative license. Cnyborg 15:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is only a request, not demand! BTW A self portrait, who else could have shot the picture? Text is revised accordingly to the PD-licence --PaulVIF 15:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, Keep since the demand has been adjusted to a request. I don't doubt that she shot the picture, but I still have doubts that she understands the concept of licencing ut as PD; it sounds like she would have been much more comfortable with GFDL or CC-BY-SA, since she could then have demanded to be credited. Cnyborg 16:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK,
- Please note: I have been informed by the uploader that the photographer has been informed about this, and that the license might be changed to CC-BY-SA or GFDL. While it is ordinarily not possible to withdraw a free license, the photographer was not aware of her options and did not make an informed judgment when she agreed to a PD license. Cnyborg 00:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Author had not understood that she accepted modification and commercial use; she had intended a Wikipedia-only license. As the original PD license was not given with informed consent, the image had to be deleted. Cnyborg 17:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
copyvio, Helen Humes died in 1981, thus the stated 70-years-rule doesn't fit. Denisoliver 08:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not sure, it's possible that copyright was not renewed. Jaranda wat's sup 21:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- For US recordings from the first half of the 20th century, death date of recording artist is not a factor in the copyrights. Many US recordings from this era are indeed PD-US. However, unless some reason is provided to show a particular recording is PD, we should play it safe and not assume it is. In this case, the uploader seems to be taking the word of http://www.publicdomain4u.com. Is this website a reliable source in copyright determination? -- Infrogmation 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is indeed likely that the copyright was not renewed, but I cannot find a source that affirmatevely states this. Raul654 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- For US recordings from the first half of the 20th century, death date of recording artist is not a factor in the copyrights. Many US recordings from this era are indeed PD-US. However, unless some reason is provided to show a particular recording is PD, we should play it safe and not assume it is. In this case, the uploader seems to be taking the word of http://www.publicdomain4u.com. Is this website a reliable source in copyright determination? -- Infrogmation 00:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was just about to delete this, when I noticed the uploader was never notified, and the {{delete}} was not added to the image. Now I will do that, and then the process will drag on. / Fred Chess 09:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted--copyright status could not be confirmed / Fred Chess 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source. Duplicate of Image:Coat of Arms of Yekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk oblast) (1998).png but have a little different colors. I think it was also taken from vector-images ealier, but the expected template was not set. Orphan. --Panther 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Lacks source statement --Himasaram 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Satesclop (talk • contribs) claims it's the "official" flag, but according to FOTW and the UK's official pages on the bases, it isn't. —Nightstallion (?) 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, he even admits having designed the flag based on the CoA. —Nightstallion (?) 07:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know we have unofficial flags here, but I cannot even find this flag at all using Google or anything else. Delete. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see two issues here. The flag image appears to be bogus. FOTW, World Statesmen, the CIA, and even the "header" on the SBA website says or has a Union flag. From that, it's pretty clear that the Union flag is the only flag for WSBA and ESBA. Because of that, I say Delete. As for the CoA it appear that this is a true image. However in sayting that, it appears that the CoA is for Dhekelia Garrison and not for the whole of ESBA or WSBA. If the arms are used only for Dhekelia Garrison, I say Keep. If the arms are to be used for both SBAs, I say Delete. Hoshie 21:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see two issues here. The flag image appears to be bogus. FOTW, World Statesmen, the CIA, and even the "header" on the SBA website says or has a Union flag. From that, it's pretty clear that the Union flag is the only flag for WSBA and ESBA. Because of that, I say
- I know we have unofficial flags here, but I cannot even find this flag at all using Google or anything else.
- Delete unless information can be provided that this is the real deal (which I strongly doubt). Valentinian (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- based on the information above I would say Delete --ALE! ¿…? 11:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded copies of the UK flag and COAs over the top of these images, and marked them as {{duplicate}}s. After some time they may be orphaned and deleted. :) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is a copyright violation: The photo cannot be public domain, so this retouched version, although widely spread, cannot be used, either.--Hannes2·wp 17:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS: When deleting the image, please notice that there is another version of the same file, Image:CheGuevara.jpg!17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- See en:Talk:Che Guevara (photo) for relevent discussion. That is a derivitive work of the famous photo of Che from 1960 by Alberto Korda. Korda said when asked for permission to reproduce the image, "As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world. So it's used with permission." The derivitive work based on the photograph was by Jim Fitzpatrick, who renounced any copyright restrictions on it. So I suppose if to keep or delete the images from Commons comes down to whether Korda's request it be used "to propagate (Che Guevara's) memory" is an acceptable conditional use restriction for Wikimedia Commons. -- Infrogmation 23:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not an acceptable condition, because it restricts the commercial usability of the image and makes it unfree in this sense. --ALE! ¿…? 07:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- And the Commons are not the right place to propagate somebody's memory. memory. This condition is not fullfilled here and can't be fullfilled.--Hannes2·wp 07:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Alas, delete then. -- Infrogmation 04:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Urheberrecht gegeben - Löschen! --217.88.173.194 23:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I initiated a discussion on the Village Pimp about two other of Kordas images. Isn't Korda just applying his non-revocable w:moral rights? It is well known that Korda allows commercial use of the images on, for example, T-shirts. I collected the arguments at Che Guevara/deleted images. If I misunderstood something, please tell me. / Fred Chess 06:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete To propagate Guevara's memory is not an acceptable use restriction. --Kjetil_r 14:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This discussion also applies to Image:Che Guevara2.jpg and Image:CheHigh.jpg, duplicates or variations of the same image (and Che1.jpg Samulili). First, lets take a look at the facts:
- Cuba is a signatory of the Berne Convention since 1997. For details see WIPO's records
- Copyright on this photografph belongs to the heirs or succesors of the late Cuban photographer Alberto Diaz Gutierrez (AKA Alberto Korda). In 2000, Korda sued Lowe Lintas, Rex Features and Smirnoff under allegations of copyright violation. See BBC news).
- Korda's copyright on the photo has been asserted by the British High Court. See The Guardian
- In the words of Korda himself, «As a supporter of the ideals for which Che Guevara died, I am not averse to its reproduction by those who wish to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice throughout the world. But I am categorically against the exploitation of Che's image for the promotion of products such as alcohol, or for any purpose that denigrates the reputation of Che.» See http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/16/cheguevaraphoto.ap/ CNN
From the facts, it's clear that the image is copyrighted and therefore any derivatives require author's permission. From Korda's words we can make two inferences:
- Korda's statement is some sort of license, or could be bona fide understood as such. In that case, the statement, as well-intended as it can be, is incompatible with a free license since it requires that the image be used "to propagate his memory and the cause of social justice". It's obvious from the Lowe Lintas case that the image cannot be used, e.g., in alcoholic beverages advertising. Unfortunately, as I have had no access to the Lowe Lintas filings, I can't say wether Korda sued to claim moral rights according to Section 80 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 or not. However, in these matters, we must ever stay in the safe side.
- Korda's statement cannot be construed as a license, therefore standard copyright rules apply and the image is non-free.
Therefore, Delete. Cinabrium 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think that we will never have any problem with hosting these images and in using them in the ways we want to. The matter is different from general non-commercial restrictions, because with a non-commercial restriction you can't even put the image on a CD and sell it for 1$. That is the reason why non-commercial images aren't allowed on Commons and Wikipedia in general.
- So that's why I think that this image can be safely kept.... / Fred Chess 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fred, I really appreciate your input. However, on what legal basis do you think we could support keeping that image? AFAICT, if you do not "propagate his (Che Guevara's) memory and the cause of social justice", you don't have author's permission to use the image, and that restriction is unacceptable for Commons. Perhaps I'm being overcautious here, so if you have any good legal arguments I could see the issue from a different standpoint. Thanks, Cinabrium 22:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Similar files and derivative works on Wikimedia and en.Wikipedia
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CheHigh.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Che Guevara2.jpg
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CheGuevara.png (blurry stylised)
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Che Guevara.jpg (picture of picture)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Famousphotoche.jpg (low resolution, not just close up)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cheicon.jpg (Jim Fitzpatrick's version)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Che.svg (blurry stylised)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chered.svg (blurry stylised)
Furthermore:
- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:CheyFidel.jpg Different image of Che by Alberto Korda, (presumably) same licence/copyright issue applies
Feel free to add to the list if I missed any.
For more information:
- There's a Wikipedia article on the picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_(photo)
- The OpenClipart library had a vector (SVG) version uploaded once (I believe it was a more detailed SVG as Wikipedia's) but it was decided not to include it. Rationale: http://lists.freedesktop.org/pipermail/clipart/2004-August/001075.html
If we decide not to delete this file/these files, we should get all the copyright tags consistent with each other. — Adhemar
All Commons images of this debate have been deleted (not only by me). / Fred Chess 01:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
August 11
[edit]requests by User:Srfortes
[edit]- Image:SaoPaulo Municip Tremembe.png, Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Tremembe.svg
- Image:SaoPaulo Municip Taubate.png, Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Taubate.svg
- Image:SaoPaulo Municip Piquete.png, Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Piquete.svg
- Image:Lorena bandeira.png, Same flag from Image:Bandeira Lorena SaoPaulo Brasil.svg
- Image:SaoPaulo Municip Bananal.png, Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Bananal.svg
- Image:SaoPaulo Municip Arapei.png, Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Arapei.svg
- Image:SaoPaulo Municip SaoJosedoBarreiro.png, Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip SaoJosedoBarreiro.svg
- Image:SaoPaulo Municip Areias.png, Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Areias.svg
All requests by the uploader of the image: User:Srfortes (information added by ALE! ¿…?)
Deleted. Unused, same images (.svg and .png), nominator uploader of both .svg and .png, made from an .svg source. NielsF 23:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON This pie chart, uploaded by Lior on 8 August, isn't a case of copyvio, but an example of original research that is highly questionable, not supported by the quoted source, and of no use to Wikipedia. I have just removed it from the English Wiki, and I don't think it exists anywhere else. Lior has already, although he/she has only been a registered user since 4 August, had one picture removed from Commons because of copyvio. I have strong reason to suspect that this Lior is the same Lior who was blocked from English Wiki on 17 July, which would explain why he/she has suddenly started using Commons instead of English Wiki for uploads. See my report on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive127#Blocked user Lior back with new IP addresses and on Commons as well? Best regards. Thomas Blomberg 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- The original research is the breakdown of religion, right? I couldn't find that information in the source, either. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Israeli media has covered the story of each and every fatality in the ongoing conflict, and so it is easy to verify the details provided in the description page of this image.
For instance, this page on the Hebrew edition of Ynet News provides links to the news stories published on each of the fatalities, on Ynet News alone. Similar reports in English may be found using Google News, as listed below. These reports go to finer details which I found irrelevant for Wikipedia, such as that Fadiya, Samira & Sultana Juma'a are Bedouins [40][41], whereas Habib Isa Awad is an Eastern Orthodox Christian[42], and Hana Hamam and Labiba Mazawi are Catholics [43][44].
Citing from WP:OR: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."
The persent tragic situation of the Arab citizens of Israel, who are cruelly blamed by both sides for disloyalty, is an important aspect of the current conflict that should not be overlooked. This is why I find this information of relevance to Wikipedia.
The present chart should be updated (see Miriam & Fathi Ahmad Asadi), names should be corrected and sources should be added. I think it should be kept, as a collection of information from existing primary sources.
The personal accusations brought by Mr. Blomberg above and elsewhere are addressed in his talk page.
To remove further speculation, here's a listing of English news stories regarding the Israeli civilian fatalities in the present conflict. Many more may be found using Google News. This is of course redundant as the more detailed Hebrew sources also qualify according to WP:RS:
- Habib Isa Awad - (Ynet News)
- Hana Hamam and Labiba Mazawi - (Jerusalem Post)
- Manal Azzam - (IMEMC)
- Monica Seidman - (Newsday)
- Nitzo Rubin - (Haaretz)
- Yehudit Itzkowitz & Omer Pesachov - (Jerusalem Post)
- Shmuel Ben Shimon, Asael Damti, Nissim Elharar, David Feldman, Rafi Hazan, Dennis Lapidos, Reuven Levy & Shlomi Mansura - (Ynet News)
- Andrei Zelinksy - (Philadelphia Inquirer)
- Shimon Glikblich - (Ynet News)
- David Mazen - (Jewish Ledger)
- David Martin Lelchook - (Daily News Tribune)
- Shimon & Mazal Zribi, Albert Ben-Abu, Arieh & Tiran Tamam - (Jerusalem Post)
- Frida Kellner - (Haaretz)
- Roni Rubinsky - (Jerusalem Post)
- Dr. Tamara Lucca - (AJN)
- Mahmoud & Rabia Abed Taluzi - (The Independent)
- Doua Abbas - (SF Gate)
- Shanati Shanati, Amir Naeem & Muhammed Fa'ur - (International Herald Tribune)
- Bahaa Fayed Karim Mana & Muhammed Subhi Salim Mana - (Reuters)
- Fadiya, Samira & Sultana Juma'a - (Ynet News)
I hope this makes the pie chart less questionable. --Lior 09:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Pie charts should never be JPEGs!! Never! This is uneditable. Assuming the information is accurate and NPOV (and that may be quite an assumption), this should immediately be converted to SVG. — Erin (talk) 11:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've found some online JPEG to SVG converter and successfully created a SVG file. Which I can't open as I've never heard of SVG, but that's solvable. Anyways, this chart is being used since August 8 on the Hebrew Wikipedia. While the entire article over there is intensely debated, semi-protected and such, the accuracy and relevance of this chart has not been contested yet. I really want to get going with updating this chart, for the benefit of those using it. I'll convert it to SVG if that's the issue. I urge you to remove the deletion tag so I could go on updating the chart and its sources, while the discussion may proceed as for its relevance to the English wikipedia etc. If images may be updated while their deletion is discussed, please tell me and I'll do it pronto. BTW, my argument with Thomas Blomberg has evolved into a peaceful and heartwarming discussion. --Lior 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, that automatic conversion may not be optimal. It may be better to create a new one from scratch. But never mind. Just upload the SVG and I'll improve it later. You can easily view an SVG file in a modern browser (e.g. Firefox [45]). You can easily edit an SVG in a vector image program (e.g. Inkscape [46]). In fact, an SVG can even be edited in Notepad if you know how. — Erin (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. I've installed Inkspace and uploaded an SVG file. My Firefox won't show it and I'm sure I've done it terribly wrong, but I hope you could correct it. Unfortunately there are three names to be added to the list, but I'm really late for work :) --Lior 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Erin for creating the better Image:Israeli civilians killed.svg. For some reason I fail to save it in SVG format and update it myself. It should be updated to include 24 Jews, 13 Sunni Muslims, 4 Christians and 1 Druze civilians (see listing thereunder). Please note the typo on the legend for the Druze section - fortunately only one Druze woman, and not four, was killed. Let's hope these gloomy statistics have been finalized at last.--Lior 16:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. I've installed Inkspace and uploaded an SVG file. My Firefox won't show it and I'm sure I've done it terribly wrong, but I hope you could correct it. Unfortunately there are three names to be added to the list, but I'm really late for work :) --Lior 04:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, that automatic conversion may not be optimal. It may be better to create a new one from scratch. But never mind. Just upload the SVG and I'll improve it later. You can easily view an SVG file in a modern browser (e.g. Firefox [45]). You can easily edit an SVG in a vector image program (e.g. Inkscape [46]). In fact, an SVG can even be edited in Notepad if you know how. — Erin (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've found some online JPEG to SVG converter and successfully created a SVG file. Which I can't open as I've never heard of SVG, but that's solvable. Anyways, this chart is being used since August 8 on the Hebrew Wikipedia. While the entire article over there is intensely debated, semi-protected and such, the accuracy and relevance of this chart has not been contested yet. I really want to get going with updating this chart, for the benefit of those using it. I'll convert it to SVG if that's the issue. I urge you to remove the deletion tag so I could go on updating the chart and its sources, while the discussion may proceed as for its relevance to the English wikipedia etc. If images may be updated while their deletion is discussed, please tell me and I'll do it pronto. BTW, my argument with Thomas Blomberg has evolved into a peaceful and heartwarming discussion. --Lior 15:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see my easy timeline chart on the talk page of the SVG. I don't think a pie chart is a good choice to represent data like this. But anyway -- does the deletion requester withdraw their request? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have now orphaned the original JPEG image under discussion, replacing its usage on the Hebrew Wikipedia with its updated version on Commons. Therefore I withdraw my objection to the deletion of this image. I'm not sure Thomas Blomberg (who requested this deletion) still follows this discussion, but who knows :) —Lior 07:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see my easy timeline chart on the talk page of the SVG. I don't think a pie chart is a good choice to represent data like this. But anyway -- does the deletion requester withdraw their request? pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Clear case of copy violation, as this is a picture from AFP. Best regards, Thomas Blomberg 02:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedied by me as clear copyvio. Jkelly 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- REASON:
This image has wrong colors and low quality. The Image:Caspar David Friedrich 044.jpg is better in correct coloring and brightness. I have checked that with Google and by visiting the owner's website. Check Usage shows (now) no reference. Augiasstallputzer 13:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Flominator. Nilfanion 16:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- REASON:
This image has wrong colors and low quality. The Image:Caspar David Friedrich 006.jpg is better in correct coloring, quality, size and brightness. This version is so dark, that an important part, the broken ship, is only a black area. I have checked that with Google and by visiting the owner's website. Check Usage shows (now) no reference. Augiasstallputzer 13:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Flominator. Nilfanion 16:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- REASON:
This image only contain text and seems to be an advertisement. It does not appear to be useable in any Wikimedia project.
-- AlNo (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Unuseful. --Panther 09:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- REASON:
Free use is not an accepted licence on Commons. ----EIRIK\talk 14:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- You mean fair use?! --ALE! ¿…? 08:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant fair use, but now the uploader has licensed it as cc-sa-by, but is this right? --EIRIK\talk 13:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- You mean fair use?! --ALE! ¿…? 08:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio — Erin (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- REASON:
Low quality, orphaned, replaced by higher-quality Image:Haditha location map.png. -- ChrisO 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The png is a lot better. NielsF 22:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 10:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
There is another image better and larger at Image:Bandeira de Santa Catarina.png and the copyright status is unclear. --Giro720 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - the png is better.--Nilfanion 16:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as superseded. — Erin (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Liger uploaded this without noting source, yet claiming GFDL. The image is a well known portrait of the King of Thailand taken many years ago while on official duty - the copyright owner is either the Royal Thai Government or the Bureau of the Royal Household. Neither of these agencies license anything with the GFDL. Patiwat 22:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Bogus licence. Deleted. — Erin (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- REASON:
This image has wrong colors and low quality. The Image:Caspar David Friedrich 044.jpg is better in correct coloring, quality, size and brightness. I have checked that with Google and by visiting the owner's website. Check Usage shows (now) no reference. Augiasstallputzer 13:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted because of no objections. --Panther 06:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Obsoleted by better quality version (Image:Marie Antoinette - Duykinck.jpg). -- howcheng {chat} 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 09:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 10:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have already deleted a number of unused or not widely used images of this sculpture, however this image is used across a large number of wikimedia projects, and has even been POTD here on the commons, so I thought it better to allow discussion of its deletion. This is a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture and so it cannot be published without authorisation from the copyright holder. --JeremyA 23:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep
It is NOT an illustration of the sculpture. The subject of this in picture is Millenium Park and "Chicago in a false mirror". You see crowding people in the Park and skyscrapers in the mirror - that is what you see and that was my first impression. Julo 15:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete, it is clearly an illustration of the sculpture. --Kjetil_r 15:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deletearguments see: Kjetil_r --ALE! ¿…? 09:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I understand Julo's reasoning, but the mirror effect is clearly an important aspect of the sculpture, so it's a derivative work. Cnyborg 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, this is an image of the sculpture. The fact that the image shows a reflection of the skyline does not affect how that reflection was produced...--Nilfanion 22:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Over-categorisation and duplication; all images transferred to Quercus ilex page - MPF 23:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- ... It is common use, to have categories for species. Please undo your uncategorisation and keep. --::Slomox:: >< 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and undo --museo8bits 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! ¿…? 07:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
BVerfG pictures
[edit]Copyright © 2006 BVerfG.[47] Uploader claims UrhG §5 Absatz 2, but UrhG §5 "Absatz 2 wird von der Rechtsprechung sehr eng ausgelegt." (de:Amtliches Werk) and surely does not extend to website photos not even declared as for press use. You should rather not argue with the highest court about its rights, since they decide as the last judicial authority about them anyway... ;) --Rtc 11:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
delete (BTW: 5 II says that the pictures cannot be changed. Rtc's opinion that one should'nt argue with the highest court is nonsense. BVerfG is evidently breaking German law by asserting protection for the texts of its decisions (against 5 I)) --Historiograf 15:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 14:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I rather dislike doing this, but this seems a violation of GFDL. User:El Comandante uploaded this without source nor attribution; it is clearly identical to the image I uploaded to en:Wikipedia at en:Image:UxmalCornerChacMask.jpg. -- Infrogmation 02:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - just add the proper information to the image description page and tag the original with {{NowCommons}}. Are you averse to moving this image to Commons or anything? howcheng {chat} 23:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Similarly to above, El Comandante uploaded this without attribution or source. It appears identical to de:Bild:Uxmal adivino 03.jpg, uploaded earlier to de:Wikipedia by User FJK71. I asked El Comandante about it on 20 July and there has been no reply. -- Infrogmation 02:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Image:Uxmal adivino 03.jpg has the proper file history and the corresponding German one has since been deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
everything in Category:Djanira
[edit]The artist died in 1979. Therefore the photos of his 2D work is still copyrighted. --ALE! ¿…? 22:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Just curious, anyone know the term when images become PD in Brasil? Alhough I can't imagine it being less than 25 years, seeing that Brazil is a signee of the Berne Convention. So it should be more than 50 years at least which warrants a speedy delete and retagging as {{copyvio}} in my opinion. NielsF 23:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not a reproduction of the image (paint), and yes photo (in perspective) of the flame that is at museum in the city of Avaré (the artist's Birthplace). Is not this also allowed?
Excuse my English. 
--Reynaldo 03:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Commons:Derivative works on the subject. -Samulili 04:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
errornous licence tag, the original creator of the image is unknown. the image is lifted from the website of a museum. At en-wikipedia this might or might not be fair use, here on commons it is not endorsed. --h-stt !? 12:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- the uploader was never informed, so please wait a little --ALE! ¿…? 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah sorry! Was a mistake to upload this image. I totally forgot about it since. I asked the original author in the english wikipedia for the exact licence, but he seams not to care about these things. As the image is not used anywhere else and does not have an appropriate licence I have no problem with it being deleted. Again, sorry for this mistake. Since then, I'm a bit more careful with licences and uploads of other peoples images. Regards --17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is used on 6 pages on 2 projects! --ALE! ¿…? 14:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 19:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of User:EPiracy
[edit]I believe that these images are a violation of copywright. I do not believe that and author is to uploader --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
August 12
[edit]Well the name of the license speaks for itself. /Lokal Profil 01:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I pasted the text from {{Noncommercial}} into this tag. --JeremyA 01:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good. Doesn't look like any Images are using it though and I've contacted the uploader so actually deleting it may be an option./Lokal Profil 02:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Redirected to Template:Noncommercial by User:Rtc. --Kjetil_r 06:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The objekt is protected by copyright laws. --Jarlhelm 23:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, its pretty ugly too. --Stefan-Xp 07:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete derivitive depiction of copyrighted work. Everything I saw in Category:Barbie looks like it should go too. -- Infrogmation 13:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and everything in Category:Barbie --ALE! ¿…? 08:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete A.J. 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Album cover, fair use. --Roo72 04:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have speedied with {{copyvio}} in similar cases. Let the uploader appeal it here if they think that's wrong. William Avery 23:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Tag album covers as {{Cover}}. --Kjetil_r 06:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Album cover, fair use. --Roo72 04:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, plase tag such images as {{Cover}}. --Kjetil_r 06:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
These are two images I made, but it was not until after upload I could see that they are badly scaled. Please delete. --Mfrosz 09:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, uploader request--Nilfanion 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused. Superseded by Image:Eye of Horus.svg. Uploader consents to deletion. — Erin (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by internationalisable vector image: Image:Schematic diagram of the human eye.svg. — Erin (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep — Barcex 09:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC) I would support the deletion if both images were the same, but they have clearly different captions and I do not think that the "internationalisable" version is more didactic as is right now.
- You mean you want a version with English labels? No prob. One is available here: en:Image:Schematic diagram of the human eye with English annotations.svg. — Erin (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Barcex 10:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Ok, it is not on Commons but in the English Wikipedia. Anyway, it can be it can be brought here.
Deleted — Erin (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The pictures he drew are anti Semitic, and have no value whatsoever. Yellow up 16:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I now see the world as closer to a great war than ever since WW2, and the unreasonable protection of a nation to wage its military offensive over another has fueled the anger of a significant amount of people in the globe, and the UN has lost its power to maintain world peace, being handicapped on issuing a condemnation to the aforementioned nation, and as such a growing part of the world is getting extremely enthusiastic for revenge which has set a perfect stage for a possible WW3, so I am in dire search of an air raid shelter, thus am too occupied to issue a statement for my vindication here, if you know what I mean.--281457 17:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentWhat are the images of anyways. I am looking at them and I am confused. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 20:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentYou must be thinking this place is for a political debate. WikiCommons is a project of collecting public images (either pictures, drawings or sketches), and that does not include anti-Semetic, anti-Israeli and also pro-Israeli text. I wouldn't think of uploading here a text which condemns Hezbollah or even Hitler, that's not what WikiCommons is about. You can start your own WikiCondemnIsrael project if you wish. Yellow up 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am just trying to find out what they are, but Erin answered my question. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I belive Yellow up was addressing 281457, and not you. Indents and stuff, you know. conio.h • talk 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, I am just trying to find out what they are, but Erin answered my question. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete These are all images with slogans in Chinese protesting against Israeli warcrimes. A noble aim, but this is not what Commons is for. The images are not useful for us. — Erin (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Call me crazy here, but I don't see how "Israeli dog" is "a protest against Israeli warcrimes" (regardless of whether there were any). But, hey - that's just me... conio.h • talk 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you implying that the "Israeli dog" is a general statement of dislike of Israelis that has nothing to do with the recent murders of 1000 Lebanese men, women and children? That would seem unlikely. One of the other images in the series specifically says 反對以色列入侵黎巴嫩 "oppose the Israeli invasion of Lebanon". If someone during WW2 had created images saying "Nazi dogs" (or indeed "German dogs") and "Resist the German invasion of France", I doubt anyone would claim they were not protests against military aggression but merely "antigermanic". Do try to see through the veil of ideology. — Erin (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I could have mentioned that war casualties aren't "murdered", and that the one who started this one is Hizbollah (which isn't a regular army, and considered by insane fascisto-imperialistic contries like the US a terror organization). I could have tried to explain that there's a difference between "Nazi dogs" and "German dogs" (but it probably wouldn't have made it through the brick wall of pathetic ignorant ranting you've built here). I could have said lots of things, but I won't. Instead, I will supply the readers with a single article from the English Wikipedia. This one. conio.h • talk 11:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please cease the personal attacks. Also note that Godwin's Law is internet humour, not a grown-up argument. See also [48], [49] — Erin (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't the whole discussion about wheter or not the images are anti-semitic entierly irrelevant? After all we would allow anti-semitic WW2 propaganda (assuming no copyright violations) since it might be usefull in WW2 articles. The main question is are these images usefull on any Wikipedia project? and the answer to this seems to be no. /Lokal Profil 12:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are of course right. You probably noticed that I said they were not anti-Semitic but should be deleted anyway. User:AlexKarpman (conio.h) agreed that they should be deleted, but felt the need to troll. — Erin (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- And this[50] comes from the hypocrite who dares to ask "stopping the personal attacks". The question whether or not spreading antisemitic propoganda is "a noble aim" is indeed irrelevant to the question whether or not this images should reside on WikiCommons. You felt the need to throw in this utterly useless comment, and I felt the same need to reply. conio.h • talk 13:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I made no personal attack. If you feel the need to get the final word, reply below this line. — Erin (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- WikiCommons is not the place for political debates! It doesn't matter who is right, it doesn't matter who started the war - if anyone wants to condemn Israel, call us dogs or say we should all go to crematoriums he can do that in his own website, but not here. Here is a place to share useful images, not self-created propaganda.Yellow up 14:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I made no personal attack. If you feel the need to get the final word, reply below this line. — Erin (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- And this[50] comes from the hypocrite who dares to ask "stopping the personal attacks". The question whether or not spreading antisemitic propoganda is "a noble aim" is indeed irrelevant to the question whether or not this images should reside on WikiCommons. You felt the need to throw in this utterly useless comment, and I felt the same need to reply. conio.h • talk 13:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are of course right. You probably noticed that I said they were not anti-Semitic but should be deleted anyway. User:AlexKarpman (conio.h) agreed that they should be deleted, but felt the need to troll. — Erin (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't the whole discussion about wheter or not the images are anti-semitic entierly irrelevant? After all we would allow anti-semitic WW2 propaganda (assuming no copyright violations) since it might be usefull in WW2 articles. The main question is are these images usefull on any Wikipedia project? and the answer to this seems to be no. /Lokal Profil 12:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please cease the personal attacks. Also note that Godwin's Law is internet humour, not a grown-up argument. See also [48], [49] — Erin (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I could have mentioned that war casualties aren't "murdered", and that the one who started this one is Hizbollah (which isn't a regular army, and considered by insane fascisto-imperialistic contries like the US a terror organization). I could have tried to explain that there's a difference between "Nazi dogs" and "German dogs" (but it probably wouldn't have made it through the brick wall of pathetic ignorant ranting you've built here). I could have said lots of things, but I won't. Instead, I will supply the readers with a single article from the English Wikipedia. This one. conio.h • talk 11:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Are you implying that the "Israeli dog" is a general statement of dislike of Israelis that has nothing to do with the recent murders of 1000 Lebanese men, women and children? That would seem unlikely. One of the other images in the series specifically says 反對以色列入侵黎巴嫩 "oppose the Israeli invasion of Lebanon". If someone during WW2 had created images saying "Nazi dogs" (or indeed "German dogs") and "Resist the German invasion of France", I doubt anyone would claim they were not protests against military aggression but merely "antigermanic". Do try to see through the veil of ideology. — Erin (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Call me crazy here, but I don't see how "Israeli dog" is "a protest against Israeli warcrimes" (regardless of whether there were any). But, hey - that's just me... conio.h • talk 05:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for e.g. private party photos, self created artwork without educational purpose and such. -Samulili 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the text-only ones - I see little reason we should keep images of any text unless they are scans of some signficance - for the modified characters I seek input from native Chinese speakers. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The modified images are a word in Chinese, such as "dogs", with the David Shield (sign of Judaism) in the middle. It's obviously useless. Yellow up 12:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. — Erin (talk) 04:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Photograph of an undoubtedly copyrighted image. - Andre Engels 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative. Cnyborg 01:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
tagged as {{Copyvio}} --ALE! ¿…? 08:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Logo, probably not GFDL. --EIRIK\talk 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, tag as a {{Logo}} next time. --Kjetil_r 13:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No source and no licence. The uploader doesn't answer, so I assume it is a copyvio (PD-art can't apply because they are 3D objects). Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Kjetil_r 13:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The vector image is broken and has been superseded by a new vector image: Image:Tear system.svg.
The GIFs are superseded by the same image.
- Delete — Erin (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Sistema lacrimal.svg, Keep Image:Sistema lacrimal.gif and Image:Tränenapparat.gif unless a translated SVG version is available.
- Delete Delete all - the SVG has all 3 languages now.--Nilfanion 22:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where are them? If you refere to the legends attached to the desription I do not agree at all, it has not the same didactic value. Technicalities like PNG vs. SVG should not be more important than didactics Barcex 10:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let me explain. As well as wanting to convert the image to a vector format, my main reason for creating the new image was to remove the text labels. You see, putting labels in a certain language means that the image can only be used on one project. I wanted to be able to use this image on en.wiki and elsewhere, so I made it international. My image is now in use at pt:Sistema_lacrimal [51] and I think that the labelling is perfectly clear and educational. — Erin (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Where are them? If you refere to the legends attached to the desription I do not agree at all, it has not the same didactic value. Technicalities like PNG vs. SVG should not be more important than didactics Barcex 10:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not agree. You are not here to decide what is educational or not for a given project. The editorial decisions of that kind should be left to the user of the projects. Commons is a repository that should not decide that some content is better or worse at the educational level. Barcex 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please, Keep, I'm the author, see:
(GIF)
(SVG)
is very different! FML 
hi 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you are referring to the most obvious difference (eye colour), I don't think it is significant. — Erin (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The svg is slightly different but I think can be used for the exact same purpose (or otherwise adjusted to look like the GIF). I wouldn't delete the GIF just because of this; but the version with just the text labels and the easier editing the SVG format provides, seeing that the previous authors are attributed, I think the GIF can be deleted. Translated versions could always be uploaded of course. NielsF 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, at least until labelled versions in all relevant languages have been uploaded. Otherwise, it dos not supersed the bitmap because it does not provide all relevant information. Images should not be deleted because another version is available, unless everything the older image provides is provided by the newer one as well. Taragüí @ 13:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
NielsF, the difference isn't only the colour, but the quality. Please, see more once time, see the details, for me, the author, it's relevant:
(GIF)
(SVG)
Thank you. <;font color="green">FML hi 16:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- What specifically is of lesser quality? The iris has less detail, but it was false detail anyway. The gland in the top right is just an arbitrary blob in both versions. There are no significant differences. You seem to be the only person to think your image is higher quality. Let's delete this orphan. — Erin (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry FML, but I don't see that much difference, I'm sure the svg could be adapted a bit. There's no reason why the GIF is better in any part, it contains more detail, yes, but that's not needed IMHO. As long as no translated versions of the originals are uploaded that's a good argument. I however don't see the difference between the educational value of the GIF and the SVG at the moment, all the parts described in the GIF are mentioned in the SVG, it's just a matter of taste. The SVG can always be adapted to taste. So, if you're so set on adapting to make the SVG to your taste please do so. NielsF 02:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I strong disagree. FML
hi 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I strong disagree. FML
Delete, svg is better. Kjetil_r 14:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Only the uploader believes the GIF has significant advantages. — Erin (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reopened. I don't think it's proper to close your own deletion requests if contested and not clear copvyios. NielsF 03:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if contested by just a single person? If you don't want me to close it, then you close it. It's not the person that matters, but the project. — Erin (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Erin, TWO person, me and es:Usuario:Taragui user. FML hi 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, that person said "until labelled versions in all relevant languages have been uploaded", which I think had actually already happened before he made the comment.
- Please note that a copy of FML's original has now been uploaded to the Portuguese Wikipedia, making it even more totally unnecessary to have a bitmap here on Commons. — Erin (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, commons must be an universal repository, even if usable at all wikipedias, even if usable just in one of them. Also, it is clear that the *.gif versions is in better quality. And I think it is mutch more didatic to see the names expressed at the picture dispite letters a, b, c and d. With the second version, if any one see only the picture will not have all the information he needs at all. Sorry abou the poor english . I sugest you translate the *.gif. I would do it if i had enought expertiese Glum 22:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, we are not http://photobucket.com/. We should only have good images. It is not at all clear that the GIF is better quality; no one has managed to point to a single aspect of it that is superior. It is not more educational to have the labels directly in the image as they cannot then be Wikilinks, and furthermore your argument makes no sense since there are versions of this with Portuguese and German labels directly in the image. — Erin (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I did not expressed well. I do not think we have a fotobooked here. Fotobooked has any picture, wikimedia has only good and nice picture. Let me try to express it at another way. This should be an universal repository of pictures to be used at only one wikipedia or at all wikipedias. If we have translated version at german one, i think it is a good signal of the usuability of these image. Glum 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I prefer the GIF image. --Juiced lemon 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I did not expressed well. I do not think we have a fotobooked here. Fotobooked has any picture, wikimedia has only good and nice picture. Let me try to express it at another way. This should be an universal repository of pictures to be used at only one wikipedia or at all wikipedias. If we have translated version at german one, i think it is a good signal of the usuability of these image. Glum 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the original for historical reasons. FML hi 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Summary of opinions so far:
- Erin Silversmith, Nilfanion, NielsF and Kjetil_r all agree that the SVG supersedes the GIF and that the latter should therefore be deleted.
- Taragui and Barcex both said the SVG supersedes the GIF as along as localised SVGs exist (User:Taragui in particular did not seem to realise that a localised SVG did already exist when he made that comment).
- FML said that the GIF was of better quality. When asked several times what was better, he refused to reply. A horrible cynic might conclude that he didn't want to give any help to people who might improve the SVG, as he'd then have to admit that it superseded the GIF. Later, Juiced lemon appeared and agreed that the GIF was of better quality. Again, queries as to what was better were ignored.
- Glum is a late arrival, arguing that the GIF should be kept because there is no Portuguese translation of the SVG, which has been untrue for three days. I would just count Glum in the same group as Taragui and Barcex, except that he also threw in the comment "Also, it is clear that the *.gif versions is in better quality", again without giving any indication regarding what is better about the GIF. He also didn't make it clear whether this would be enough to maintain his keep vote in the absence of the localisation issue.
So, if we make a raw count of the number of people initially "voting", then we have four deletes and five keeps. If we take into consideration that fact that several of those were conditional upon localised versions being uploaded, then we have six deletes and two keeps (plus Glum's ambiguous comments). If we take that into consideration, and we also decide that keep "votes" on the basis of quality only count if there is at least some sort of half-hearted attempt to give a vague idea of want quality elements are missing from the SVG, then we have nine keeps. — Erin (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a more relevant summary:
- We have a freely-licensed, high-quality image.
- Several people wish to keep it and use it.
- This is not a majority vote. With no copyright concerns, the onus is on the deletionists to justify their stance via logical rationales (not merely the number of votes).
- No one has provided any explanation of how the project(s) will be harmed by keeping the image.
- No one has provided any explanation of how the project(s) will benefit from the image's deletion.
- According to Erik Möller (conceiver of the Wikimedia Commons), policy dictates that "'obsolete' images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're orphaned and there's clearly no opposition." (diff)
- —David Levy 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, that does nothing but summarise your belief that only copyvios should be deleted. My summary was of the opinions expressed here. You don't get to override all those opinions. — Erin (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I never claimed that "only copyvios should be deleted." I noted that according to Erik Möller's interpretation of policy (as well as that of other users), an image's "superseded" nature is not valid justification to delete it if someone wants to keep it.
- Again, this is not a majority vote. No one has cited a single way that the project will be harmed by keeping the image (or improved via its deletion). You don't get to override common sense with raw numbers. —David Levy 01:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not see this like you are seing it. I am not ambiguose, my opinion is a caracterised by a strong Keep, you decided that it is ambiguose, what you mean about that. You interpretate all the other ones opinions in favor of your argument. Keep, because the portugues (original) *.gif verision is in use at pt.wikipedia. Keep because it is better to mantain all the images at a central repository (this is commons). Keep, because the *.gif with the names attached to the file, inspite of letters associated with a legend is mutch more didatic, specialy for those that has a visual memory. Keep, bacause there is not a clearly superseeded version, because they are yoused in differetn ways. One is a template, and another one, is a complete squematic picture. Keep, bacause we have just seen that the idea can be used at others wikipedias, see the german wikipedia you have told us.
- Keep, because "'Obsolete' images should indeed no longer be deleted except where they're **orphaned** and there's clearly **no opposition**" quoting the project rules and policy. keep, because of this discussion.
- Also, I would like to expose here that your conclusio in the first paragraphy is wrong, maybe you are in good faith, trying to abreviate the discussion, but what I understand of their opinion is that "Unless and until someone can explain how keeping a "superseded" file harms the project(s), the desire of even one person to use it (provided that there are no quality or copyright concerns) should prevail. - from nilfaniun"
- Glum 01:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, your comments were quite hard to understand. It is completely unfair to say "You interpretate all the other ones opinions in favor of your argument". It is crystal clear that Taragui and Barcex's votes were both conditional. Can't you see that? They said keep "until labelled versions in all relevant languages have been uploaded". Portuguese and German labelled versions were uploaded! And the original GIF is not being used at the Portuguese Wikipedia! A locally-uploaded PNG is being used! Your comment "One is a template, and another one, is a complete squematic picture" strongly implies that you think that I have not uploaded a version with Portuguese labels. But I have! The complete schematic GIF has been superseded by a complete schematic SVG. Virtually nothing you have said it true. Why didn't you read what I wrote on your Portuguese talk page? This is very frustrating. — Erin (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I dont understand what's the problem of keeping the .gif image. It's labelled in Portuguese and that is in itself a reason to keep it, since (perhaps this is difficult to envisage for some) not everybody in the planet speaks English. I know, there are numbers, but words are important! And by the way, wiki-pt doesnt have the 3RR (yet) but thats no reason to justify edit war behaviour. Lets just assume that the comment in question was a lapse of Erin, who otherwise looks like a responsible person. Cheers, muriel@pt 14:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept because the deletion is not worth the grief. Judging quality is a subjective matter where people may value different things. On copyright and legal matters, sometimes we may decide to delete things even when there is disagreement. But on quality, the gains of removing redundancy (?) don't justify upsetting so many people.
FWIW I think it is perfectly OK to have many versions of a diagram or map. We may have a base image with colours or numbered labels (or even none at all), and then we may also have versions that have the labels in different languages. In different types of articles and situations, different ones may be suitable, and the article editors can choose which they prefer. I also think it is fine to upload images with language labels here, there is no need to restrict them to local uploads. For example images like this might also be used in Wikibooks or Wikinews. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Mapa minas de oro.jpg, Image:Iglesiahonduras.JPG, Image:Escudomo.jpg, Image:Iglesia minas de oro.jpg, Image:Iglesiahonduras2.JPG
[edit]Considering all the pictures uploaded by this user, it seems that licenses are fake --Barcex 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Most of the pictures are PD-Self, one seems to be a scan of a postcard, picture sizes are small, another has no source nor license.... - -Barcex 12:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 01:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There is no panorama freedom in Ukraine. See User:Alx/Sandbox#Ukraine. While the author of the statue is unknown, the image must be deleted. --Panther 14:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: Who told you that there (in Ukraine) is no panorama freedom? So, then lets delet all the Ukrainian pictures of statues on Wikipedia. Also, who gave you right to put this picture for deletion? Put your communist Lenin for deletion....
- Keep'Keep' . I am the author!!! Don't believe me? In three weeks I am going to Lviv Ukraine, I will take 10 more picture of Svejk statue in Lviv. --Oleg Kikta
- Mr. Kikta, did you make the statue? --Kjetil_r 18:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: Mr. Kjetil_r|_r, you only take the pictures of what you are the owner? LOL you are funny. This statue stands on the street in Lviv Ukraine, next to the cafe "Videnska Kava" it is open for public.
- Panorama freedom allows to take pictures in public places. It is usually subject to special regulations in the copyright laws the goal of which is to grant reasonable freedom for those who want to make photos in public places. Please see User:Alx/Sandbox. --Panther 09:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like User:Alx used this PDF. Mr. Kikta, are you saying that he is wrong, and that there is panorama freedom in Ukraine?
PS: Read it again: this PDF. But read it carefully. Thanks --Oleg Kikta
- Please indicate a particular passage and/or article that is about panorama freedom in Ukraine, that makes it a lot easier... If you want to keep this picture please indicate things more closely, nobody is going to read 42 pages of legal text for fun. NielsF 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, as a derivative work from a country without panorama freedom. --Kjetil_r 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader requests deletion, no reason given thougt. Images replased with "No photo" image by author. Should be deleted or reverted. Images not used in any wikis. --Tomia 19:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reverted. Pictures might be very useful; no right to withdraw a picture. --Rtc 10:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
For the same reason:
- Image:GREAT RIVER location map in middle earth.PNG
- Image:Orthanc.jpeg
- Image:GONDOR PROVINCES location map in middle earth.PNG
- Image:Map of the Shire from lord of the rings.PNG
- Image:Metalbeast Hobbingen1.jpg
- Image:Tolkien The two trees.jpg
- Image:Aman Valinor.jpg
- Image:Andûril.jpg
- Image:Narsil andúril final.jpg
- Image:Glamdring.jpg
- All pictures in Category:Middle Earth maps
- All pictures in Category:Middle Earth except Image:Peter Jackson01.jpg
- Most pictures in Middle-earth (some tengwar are ok, since typeface usage is not affected by copyright even in countries that copyright typefaces, regardless of whether the font used had been a violation of the typeface copyright)
- can stay: Image:Arda.Tengwar.png
- can stay: Image:Tengwar sample.png
- can stay: Image:Parmatéma.png
- can stay: Image:Gothmog-Tengwar.png
- Most pictures in Category:Maps of alternate histories (for some, copyright has expired)
- can stay: Image:Germany future 1917.jpg
- Most pictures in Category:Maps of fictional countries (for some, copyright has expired)
- can stay: Image:Islandia Map.jpeg
- can stay? Image:R'lyeh map.png (copyright expires Jan 1 2008)
- Most pictures in Category:Maps of fictional places or locations (for some, copyright has expired)
- can stay: Image:Athanasius Kircher's.gif
- can stay: Image:Martian Odyssey Map.jpg (expired at Jan 1 this year)
- can stay: Image:Moll - Map of Lilliput.png
- can stay: Image:Oz Mapa.svg
- can stay: Image:Thule carta marina Olaus Magnus.jpg
- can stay: Image:Valley of Dreams Map.jpg
- All pictures in Category:Harry Potter Characters
- Almost all pictures in Category:Harry Potter
- and many pictures in Harry Potter (especially the fan art; icon is okay, some of the photos are ok; scan with copyright expired is okay too. Here is a list of pictures that are okay).
- can stay: Image:Magical books.jpg
- can stay: Image:Harry Potter VI boxes.jpg
- can stay: Image:Kings Cross Platform 9,75.jpg
- can stay: Image:GWR 'Hall' 5972 'Olton Hall' at Doncaster Works.JPG
- can stay: Image:Plateforme 9 3 4.jpg
- can stay: Image:Harry Potter lines.jpg
- can stay: Image:Gloucester Cathedral in 1828. engraved by J.LeKeux after a picture by W.H.Bartlett.jpg
- can stay: Image:Alnwick Castle - Northumberland - 140804.jpg
- can stay: Image:Australia House.jpg
- can stay: Image:Hall of Christ Church College.jpg
- can stay: Image:StPancrasMidlandHotel.jpg
- can stay: Image:Goathland Station Nov2005.jpg
- can stay: Image:Goathland station.jpg
- can stay: Image:HP books.png
Sorry, it's a derivative work. Middle earth is purely fictional and thus in contrast to factual data protected by copyright. Would be fair use only. Also please note that commons is not a storage for your personal art, drawings with non-technical, artistic content, etc, because it's original research. Only famous artists, please.--Rtc 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have advised the Middle Earth portal on en.Wikipedia who articles extensively use this media. Also as some of the maps are on en.Wikipedia featured articles I have left a message there. Gnangarra 10:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Rtc 10:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc, as we discussed on the ring image previously, I didn't think that 'derivative works' applied to anything 'representing' some aspect of a copyrighted work. I said then that if it does then all of the above should go, but let's be clear on the law. The most extreme case here would be Image:Aman Valinor.jpg. Tolkien never created a map of Aman. Neither did any of the various movie productions. Thus, this map is wholly an original creation except that it uses names from Tolkien's stories and attempts to place them in a way fitting his descriptions (A was west of B, C was nearby D, et cetera). Is an artwork based on a copyrighted written description really 'derivative'? That is, does 'derivative works' cover so wide a ground that it is impossible to have any 'free use' image of any character / item / map / whatever described or shown in any copyrighted work of fiction? You seemed to say it was before, but I don't understand how that can be given the vast array of apparently contradictory images in existence. I have maps of various parts of Middle-earth created and sold by half a dozen different people.... all themselves listing a separate copyright for the work. If 'derivative' functions the way you say, that would mean that they all must have received permission from the Tolkien estate, but shouldn't there be a notice to that effect somewhere on the copyright page if that were the case? Or to put it another way... how did so many images get onto Commons and stay here for so long? I don't know copyright law, but... I know what I see, and it doesn't seem consistent. --70.111.41.133 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
a) Image:Aman Valinor.jpg. There are two problems here: 1) it's a copyright violation, indeed, and a very clear one, from the context and the intention of the drawer. I'm sorry to say that. He does not want to use a little idea from Tolkien for his own story, no, he explicitely wants to base his work on Tolkien's. That's derivative work in the very meaning of the term! 2) Tolkien never created a map of Aman? Then it's even Original Reseach and for sure does not belong here and especially not into wikipedia. b) Yes, fan art is respected by many people and tolerated even by the rights holders (or at least they look the other way), but that does not mean it's legal, strictly speaking. I can't say if the prople you bought the maps from have permission to do so. If they shouldn't have, it's a very risky game. Yes, "'derivative works' cover so wide a ground that it is impossible to have any 'free use' image of any character / item / map / whatever described or shown in any copyrighted work of fiction". That's trivial, because if it were not that way, copyright would be entirely powerless. Please read the last paragraph in en:fan art and please see that we can only have pictures here which are legal in a strict sense. And also understand that we can't spoil the encyclopedic integrity of Wikipedia and use fan art instead of original, authorized material. Just in the same sense as you would not put your own picture in picasso style into en:Picasso (Uh, there are lots of copyvios in there I just see), just because his works are still copyrighted. You can surely use some original pictures under fair use in the Tolkien articles and be both legal AND preserve encyclopedic integrity. --Rtc 17:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete In regards to the maps I made here, most were done before Commons:Derivative works became policy on commons. I had made the map showing the prominent locations because the names are widely known - you would not have to read the books to have heard of Mordor. With all the websites, games and movies relating to middle earth now you could have a basic idea of where things are in middle earth without ever having read the original work. However this probably is as you point out more of an argument for fair use. Also there is a map on wikipedia currently licenced as GNU - I suppose this should be changed to fair use --Astrokey44 05:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously this is a change in practices (hence the large number of images violating the principle), but it does seem that the law on derivative works applies to anything meant to represent copyrighted material/some aspect thereof. The 'Cliff and Norm' from 'Cheers' case is instructive... images of two similar guys sitting on bar stools were ruled to be intended to represent those characters - even though the people in the 'copy' merely looked like them and had different names. If even an imputed representation is subject to the original copyright then a deliberate one must be... and all the thousands of examples seemingly to the contrary are just copyright holders letting people get away with it. Though that does open the question of whether we shouldn't just try to get permission. If I understand correctly, if permission is given to represent the original copyrighted work then the new image is a 'derivative work' which the creator can use as they see fit (including GFDL and the like) without impacting the original copyright. 'Fair use' doesn't really cut it as a replacement because such images are barred from featured articles, portals, templates, et cetera... and often limited even in general articles. --CBDunkerson 13:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Why is Image:Metalbeast Hobbingen1.jpg a derivative work? Who has made the original painting? -Samulili 09:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- As has been described, derivative work covers much more than just copying something. It also covers basing your work on creative elements of another copyrighted work. In this case it is the fictional town Hobbingen which the painting has been derived from. Basically all fan art tied to a certain work (in contrast to a genre) is a derivative work. "Fan art is usually a violation of the original creator's copyright" (en:Fan art). On the other hand, if you remove the context which claims the relation to the work (remove any reference, don't embed in a related article), and for example call it "Painting 'trees and flowers' by Jennifer Heinen", the copyright violation goes away. But there remains the original research. "Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for [...] self created artwork without educational purpose" --Rtc 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't believe for a second that derivative works cover this. Changing name could only help with, say, trademark issues and such. But if you give me the lines from the book which describe this picture I will change my mind. (And this has clear educational purpose). -Samulili 18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- As has been described, derivative work covers much more than just copying something. It also covers basing your work on creative elements of another copyrighted work. In this case it is the fictional town Hobbingen which the painting has been derived from. Basically all fan art tied to a certain work (in contrast to a genre) is a derivative work. "Fan art is usually a violation of the original creator's copyright" (en:Fan art). On the other hand, if you remove the context which claims the relation to the work (remove any reference, don't embed in a related article), and for example call it "Painting 'trees and flowers' by Jennifer Heinen", the copyright violation goes away. But there remains the original research. "Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for [...] self created artwork without educational purpose" --Rtc 15:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- They do. Just think about for a second what copyright was made for and what you could do if it were not that way. I can counter any argument with "I don't believe for a second". Fan art is copyright violation. Get this simple fact. In any case it would fall under the "Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for [...] self created artwork without educational purpose". --Rtc 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you often seem to want people to get your simple facts that are neither simple nor factual - or at least you've got nothing to prove your point. You want me to remind you about that source for lex specialis on trademarks and copyright? -Samulili 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Let me cite as an example from the US law as described here: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. What's unclear about it?--Wiggum 17:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you often seem to want people to get your simple facts that are neither simple nor factual - or at least you've got nothing to prove your point. You want me to remind you about that source for lex specialis on trademarks and copyright? -Samulili 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- They do. Just think about for a second what copyright was made for and what you could do if it were not that way. I can counter any argument with "I don't believe for a second". Fan art is copyright violation. Get this simple fact. In any case it would fall under the "Wikimedia Commons is no web hoster for [...] self created artwork without educational purpose". --Rtc 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep A deleation for so much pictures can't be ok. Maby some pictures not ok, maby some are, so every pictures must be checked. An example for a picute that is ok, is the pictures that shows a castle.It's a little bit like a Harry Potter image, but only a little. And that is allwowed. In Germany an satire magazin of Asterix named Alkolix was produced. This magazin was at court of justice to check if its against copyright. But it is not! Because you can see its an Satire against asterix, but the figure looks different to asterix. But in this book an satire against TinTin must be deleted in the 2nd print, because this image looks complety the same as the original TinTin. So if an image ist look not to much like the Original, it ok to keep it. And Germany has the most restrigted copyright law in the world. --Hhp4 07:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- what you cite is under the fair use provision of parody (not satire). It is not about how much the picture looks the same, but it is about the objective intention behind the picture. If the picture's intention is supposed to be a harry potter castle, it is a derivative work and thus a copyright violation. All pictures listed here are fan art and are supposed from their very intention to represent the exact same character/whatever. They are inherently a derivative work and thus a copyright violation from their very purpose. It has all been discussed above. --Rtc 10:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Marcela 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, violates Commons:Derivative works.--84.175.229.71 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- delete derivative works. The comparison to parodies has a lack of rationale.--Wiggum 16:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Image:Tolkien The two trees.jpg has been listed above but not tagged for deletion, so I juat tagged it unless someone can prove otherwise. If anyone has any valid reason to keep any of them, please specify which one. Otherwise, all of them will have to deleted sometime soon.--Jusjih 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've deleted some of the Tolkien works. Deleting all will take a while. / Fred Chess 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Ridiculous voting! --WarX 23:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep imo those graphics aren't derivative works Herr Kriss 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above Nejmlez 23:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep for ALL, this is no longer a coherent deletion request. While some of these images are valid deletion candidates this del req is frankly absurd in scope. Please see COM:AN#Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Middle earth map showing prominent locations.PNG.--Nilfanion 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Maire 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Ridiculous. Most works of art are inspired by something.
- Keep tsca @ 23:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Such images are certainly encyclopedic. Maps of fictional worlds are not a well-explored area of copyright, so there won't be many laws or precedents here, and we need to use some common sense. I think in most cases level of borrowing is really tiny. Taw 23:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- The making, copying, distribution and commercial exploitation of maps of ficitional places is, as a derivative work, clearly the exclusive privilege of the copyright holder. That is the very purpose of the derivative work provision in copyright. --Rtc 02:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Closing due to the procedural breach. All images, categories and galleries listed here should be kept for now and further discussion held on this topic elsewhere (see COM:AN).--Nilfanion 23:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
why PD? he lived 1895-1944. if delete please correct [52] as well ...Sicherlich Post 05:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- just to mention it: PD-PRL does not apply as he died before the PRL ...Sicherlich Post 05:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Nonsense, Sicherlich, Rowecki was neither the author of this pic, its publisher nor owner. Check here for a broader description. Halibutt 20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense; just because it was published in Poland it cant change it copyright in the whole world. Example; someone made a photo in Germany in 1990; a third person takes it and publishes it without permission in Poland. Following your argumentation it would mean that the Person lost it copyright as well in Germany! You dont have to study law to see the mistake ...Sicherlich Post 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- But this picture was both made and published in Poland, under the Polish law, and released under the specific regulation of the Polish armed forces. The tag for pre-1952 Polish pics has been on my to-do list for a long time, I did not have much time to create it, but I can assure you that it would not be different from the one we have. It's simply easier to use the existing tag than to explain the whole story everywhere. Halibutt 09:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense; just because it was published in Poland it cant change it copyright in the whole world. Example; someone made a photo in Germany in 1990; a third person takes it and publishes it without permission in Poland. Following your argumentation it would mean that the Person lost it copyright as well in Germany! You dont have to study law to see the mistake ...Sicherlich Post 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- the law of the People republic of poland is for the pictures of the PRP. If someone made an image before it cant be valid; e.g. a french made this image in Poland under the specific law of this time; he went back to france and published this image; and later the PRP wants to take his copy right in france? not possible. - law is not about making things easy but making them correct ...Sicherlich Post 11:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-US}} refers to times when US didn't exits as well. A.J. 08:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. No source. Unverifiable public domain claim. / Fred Chess 16:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
August 13
[edit]Image is tagged as {{PD-Polish}}, meaning that it should have been taken no later than 1944. Mr. Zietek was born in 1901, and I find it very hard to believe that he was no older than 43 when this photo was taken, especially when compared to Image:Jerzy zietek military dress.jpg. Cnyborg 23:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please reread then template: that's no later then 1994, not 1944.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept, requested deletion by mistake. Sorry, I saw the date 1952 for the law, and my brain told me the next date had to be before that. Cnyborg 00:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This image has been superceded by a higher resolution file. Image:Prokudin-Gorskii-30v2.jpg. Nearly every Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii image can be replaced in this fashion. Many of his photos stored on the commons are the low-res versions; very high-res versions are available on the Library of Congress' website and there's no reason not to use them (download the TIFF, convert it to jpg). --Zantastik 06:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- please use {{Duplicate}} and please always upload the pristine version (tiff), not the jpg mangled one. there are no space problems. Thanks. --Rtc 10:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that uploading the 25MB TIFF would be overkill. If we losslessly convert it to PNG, it goes down to 17.7MB. However, I think that even that would be overkill for this image, as there is not very good resolution if you look close up. Nothing signifiant is lost in the conversion to JPEG.
- Furthermore, why was this uploaded under a different name? I see no possible reason for that. I have now uploaded the new version over the top of the original and deleted the pointless duplicate. — Erin (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
wrong name, see Dorcus parallelipipedus. (with an 'e' ) B kimmel 16:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirected to right name. NielsF 16:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Special purpose colorized version of Image:Sthelens3.jpg, made by me for use in a specific Wikipedia template, and then not used for that purpose (there turns out to be some better pictures of this type anyway). Not good for much of anything else. Phr 17:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, per uploader request. Not of much use as an image in an article.--Nilfanion 21:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted per uploader request.
Given source does not specify free use --JeremyA 23:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. --Panther 09:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedied — Erin (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Given source does not specify free use --JeremyA 23:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. --Panther 09:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 12:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:IP polytope with LP relaxation.jpg and others
[edit]Several months ago, I had uploaded the images Image:IP polytope with LP relaxation.jpg, Image:Branch-and-bound-polytopes.jpg, Image:Convex hull.jpg, Image:Cutting plane algorithm.jpg and Image:Untere und obere Schranken.jpg. Since png is better suited for this kind of images, I have now uploaded png replacements Image:IP polytope with LP relaxation.png, Image:Branch-and-bound-polytopes.png, Image:Convex hull.png, Image:Cutting plane algorithm.png and Image:Untere und obere Schranken.png. In fact, I had some problems with correctly displaying svg versions of the images, so I used png instead. The corresponding de-Wikipedia articles have been changed to include the png images, so the jpgs can be deleted now. -- Sdo 23:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Duplicate}} or {{Badname}} (if you are the author) in such cases. --Panther 09:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded that image, and it was marked for speedy deletion, I changed the request because I don't understand the reason. It was taken from a site http://www.josteingaarder.net, and there is a notice on that site that the content is available under GFDL. I do not understand why User:Eirik says that the notice refers to the Wiki software. It does not say so, it says about "content", and documentation license referring to a software would be nonsense. Can please someone explain ? ГорныйСинийАллах 22:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The symbol in the corner is a part of the Wiki software setup. There is a notice about content being released under GFDL on the English version, but nothing on the Norwegian one which probably explains why Eirik didn't see it. However, there is no notice of any licence on the photo itself; it's very likely that they either don't care (another photo there has a note saying that it's copied from the internet but «no one makes any claim to the photo as [he] knows»; it's very clear that they don't care about copyright. The image uploaded here also looks like one of the many press photos used on the net, so I'm 99.999% sure that it's a copyvio. Cnyborg 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 13:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged as PD. Found the image on BBC site (here) where it has the AP watermark. Probable copyvio, delete.--Nilfanion 17:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Interestingly, while clearly the same photo, the one with the AP tag is cropped to show less of the image than the one we have here. Unless info is provided showing image originates with a free source, delete. -- Infrogmation 15:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. No evidence of free licence; Uploader removed request for more information from their talk page without providing more info. -- Infrogmation 00:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some of the photos in this category are very badly damaged, so they are almost certainly fine; the subject of the photograph is the water-damage not the subject of the original. However, in some of them the subject of the original photo is clearly visible and so these might count as derivatives of the original image; and so conflict with the original photographers copyright.--Nilfanion 23:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: If you think only some of the images in the category are problems, I suggest listing only those individual images rather than the category. However commentary on the use of the category as a whole is welcome. -- Infrogmation 14:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that's a slight misunderstanding of the listing procedure on my part. The images I am most concerned about are:
- Image:Gentilly24Ap06PhotoAlbum2.jpg
- Image:Gentilly24Ap06WarpedFamilyPhoto1.jpg
- Image:GentillyAKissPhoto.jpg
- Image:Lower9thWardGraduate.jpg
The main subject of the original photograph is still fairly clear in these images. However, comments on the others is sensible.--Nilfanion 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As an example case, could we please get opinions on Image:Lower9thWardGraduate.jpg, as that is the image where the largest part of the original photo is most visible, and the only one of the bunch that has anything recognizable that looks to have been taken by a professional photographer. I will put forth the argument that the subject of my image is an example of the debris seen in the aftermath of the flooding and that it does not reproduce the original photo in full in any way that would infringe on the copyrights of the photographer of the photo visible here. If the majority opinion is that this is inapproriate for commons, I will delete this and the other listed images. -- Infrogmation 18:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Lower9thWardGraduate.jpg as the most visible and taken by an professional photographer, not sure about Image:Gentilly24Ap06PhotoAlbum2.jpg, Image:Gentilly24Ap06WarpedFamilyPhoto1.jpg, keep Image:GentillyAKissPhoto.jpg as the face isn't visible, and the other pics in the category. Jaranda wat's sup 01:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment why not see if we(commons) can help identify these people they may actually be thankful enough for some record of the images to be willing to release them for use. If they dont release them or we are unable to identify them then we can delete them. Gnangarra 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I had some slim hopes that putting them on the internet might lead to an identification. I have copied the images to be deleted, and plan to either put them somewhere else on the web where fair use could apply for any possible copyright concerns &/or donate a copy to one of the local post-Katrina projects. -- Infrogmation 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Result: 3 images judged of potential concern deleted, others in category kept. -- Infrogmation 17:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by Image:Unnamed subtropical storm (2005).jpg. Delete, uploader informed.Nilfanion 19:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if that's entirely necessary. Yes, it's superseded, but it doesn't hurt to have more than one image of a storm, especially if they are different. As long as they aren't orphaned completely by linking to 2005 AHS and Subtropical Storm categories, there's no real harm, right? Hurricanehink 02:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
August 14
[edit]wrong duplicates; superseded ?
[edit]- Image:200px-Sdilogo.png
- Image:1 Ceres med res.jpg
- Image:1956-Stadtbild Dresden.jpg
- Image:1948londonlogo.jpg
- Image:109644 m.jpg
- Image:28-1241a Ebensee.gif
- Image:400px-Wenceslau Pereira de Lima.jpg
- Image:401px-Notre Dame Cathedral Paris Entrance.jpg
- Image:726px-Nikolai Astrup-Natlys Rabarbra Gaas og Haegg.jpg
- Image:73P-Schwassmann-Wachmann-Spitzer.jpg
- Image:A2 Freeway Romania with sections detailed english.JPG
- Image:800px-Dragunov on range.jpg
- Image:Abakan.jpg
- Image:Abjasia-escut.png
- Image:Abraxas.png
- Image:Achievement-Bachuil-small.gif
- Image:Aggersborg.jpg
- Image:Aggersborg guldarmring.jpg
- Image:Agnosiewicz-mariusz.jpg
- Image:Alice par John Tenniel 01.png
- Image:Alice par John Tenniel 17.png
- Image:Alice par John Tenniel 18.png
- Image:Alice par John Tenniel 19.png
Found as wrong Duplicates. Superseded ? Augiasstallputzer 00:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
all deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON License is "no commercial", "no derivative". --Mats Halldin 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- ARGUMENTS I uploaded these images believing the copyright status was ok. I've now lurned that cc-by-nc-nd-2.0 is not. -Mats Halldin 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Raymond de. --Panther 08:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This is just one version picked from the history of Image:Yes check.svg and uploaded under a separate name for some unknown reason. I actually created this version, but I see no purpose for it as a separate file. We only need one SVG of a green tick mark, and that's Image:Yes check.svg. Image:Yes check.svg is used on hundreds of pages, whereas this image is and always will be an orphan. — Erin (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete duplicate — Erin (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is not used. --Kjetil_r 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting, you're voting to delete an image you created, which is a speedy deletion criterion. Well, I've deleted it. Alphax (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I created it, but didn't upload it at Image:Green check.svg. Also, I don't see anything at Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Speedy_deletion that says I can summarily delete any image created by me. If I did delete this, I'd certainly have to deal with the nonsense that I have just noticed was posted at Village_pump#Erin_Silversmith.27s_conduct. It's best to list things here. — Erin (talk) 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Alphax --ALE! ¿…? 08:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Symbol question.svg. Uploader consents to deletion. — Erin (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete changes from PNG to SVG trivial, delete please.
how hard is it notify the uploader?NielsF 02:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete Indeed, the SVG image looks much better. -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair use image from English Wikipedia. Also see User talk:SimonLarsen. --Pred 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Tag such images as {{Fair use}}. --Kjetil_r 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Windows screenshot. Hardly PD. --Pred 18:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, a typical {{Screenshot}}. --Kjetil_r 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by Image:Symbol support vote.svg. — Erin (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete good work on the SVG.
but please be so kind as to notify the original creator of the png, that might even speed things up (if the uploader agrees, it's maybe speedyable), when that's done I'll gladly change my vote.NielsF 02:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - Delete I'm the original creator and I agree norro 07:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Can somebody change the uses with a bot? --ALE! ¿…? 09:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and tag with {{obsolete}}. It's far too much work to replace all instances of it to save a few Kb of space. howcheng {chat} 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{obsolete}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to the NARA description page this is a Heinrich Hoffmann photograph. Therefore still protected, again and again... --Wiggum 08:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Hoffmann died in 1957, so his pictures are protected until the year 2028. --88.134.45.6 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, orphaned on all projects using it. Cnyborg 17:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- no reason for PD given, deletionrequest on de as well ...Sicherlich Post 09:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- uściśliłem licencje na polską "Polishsymbol". Topory 09:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I learned that hardly anybody is interested in it but the PD-Polish license is crap. 70 years pma, throughout the European Union... delete, just for the minutes.--Wiggum 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- it is not an offical symbol of the 3rd. rep. of Poland. the Polishsymbol-tag does not apply! ...Sicherlich Post 09:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, military insignia can not be copyrighted as per Geneva Convention. Check en:Template:Military Insignia for a brief description. Halibutt 20:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- The NSZ was a guerilla group so i don't think that this is a military insignia. The template also covers just rank insignias.--Wiggum 13:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. There is nothing in the Geneva conventions that say insignias can not be copyrighted. Thuresson 14:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Permission from maritimequest.com to use on Wikipedia (Image talk:01 graf zeppelin.jpg), not for Copyrighted free use. It is also unlikely that maritimequest.com owns the copyright. --Kjetil_r 11:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if the image has an author it will definitivly not become PD before 2009, if it has no author it can not be uploaded according to the 100 years rule until 2038. I do not see why maritimequest.com should own the copyright. --ALE! ¿…? 09:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Chances are they don't know who the copyright holder is either. There could be NO holder. The danger of a lawsuit, which must always be the prime consideration, is virtually nill.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. The prime consideration must always be Commons:Licensing. Thuresson 14:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I was asked permission from a Wikipedia user to use the photo from my site on his Wikipedia page. The photo came from a private collection and I have persmission to use and distribute the photo. At this time nobody knows who took the photo but it was probably an official Kriegsmarine photo. So my opinion is if anyone from the Kriegsmarine or the NSDAP wishes to make a complaint than the photo should come down. However since the photo is of a ship that does not exhist, from a Government that does not exhist taken by a photographer who is probably dead I am not sure what the problem is.
Michael, www.maritimequest.com
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images at Category:Stamps of United Nations
[edit]As the works published at the UN Headquarters in New York are subject to the same copyright as other works published in the United States, those published there after 1 March 1989 are automatically copyrighted for 95 years since publication even if there is no copyright notice or registration. See also s:en:Template:PD-UN. This is why unless the uploader (notified) did make these works, I doubt the acceptability of the PD-self claim. Different rules may apply to Geneva and Vienna and I wonder if they are also indeed copyrighted.--Jusjih 14:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
kept (no reason to delete a whole category) --ALE! ¿…? 15:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
August 15
[edit]copyvio--Shizhao 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
No CD-covers allowed on commons.--GeorgHH 18:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious copyright violation; speedy deleted. -- Infrogmation 18:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The girl in the picture is easily identifiable, and shows rather a lot of herself. Besides the question of what (decent) use this could have, I'm concerned about the lack of a model release. Since there is no statement about what country the picture was taken in, it should be assumed that such a release is necessary for a photo like this. Cnyborg 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Unless some sort of information is inserted regarding who this is and what the value of the image is, this orphan file should be deleted. — Erin (talk) 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am a little suspicious of this user, because he has done nothing but upload rude pix: [53] Image:Femmasturbation.JPG, Image:Vaginaopen.jpg, Image:Hodensack.JPG, Image:Vagina10.jpg, Image:Baby230.jpg. They may be pictures of himself and his girlfriend, but they may not. Some of them are quite low quality. Image:Vagina10.jpg stands out as the quality is better than the others and... well... the pussy doesn't look the same. I wouldn't be surprised if that one was a porn pic. — Erin (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I speedy deleted Baby230 because there was zero source info and the subject was clearly identifiable and also quite young. I strongly believe we have to speedy delete cases like that ASAP. A body shot is pretty different to a random groin shot. Imagine checking your boyfriend's computer and finding out he had uploaded that for the world to see. Besides needing to dump him immediately, it's pretty disturbing. Anyway I leave this discussion open for the other images. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Stationary front symbol.svg. --Hautala 08:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- good replacement.--Nilfanion 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Cold front symbol.svg. --Hautala 08:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- good replacement.--Nilfanion 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Occluded front symbol.svg. --Hautala 08:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- good replacement.--Nilfanion 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Warm front symbol.svg. --Hautala 08:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete- good replacement.--Nilfanion 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
My son Moritz
[edit]User:Onkelbo uploaded a large number of photos of his/her son Moritz. According to Commons:Project scope, WikiCommons is not meant to host private photos not useful to a Wikimedia project. I have checked a few and these private photographs do not seem to be used anywhere, not even on a user page. Thuresson 02:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Mareike.jpg Image:06-06-25(55).jpg Image:06-05-27(06).jpg Image:06-04-21(11).jpg Image:06-04-22(04).jpg Image:06-03-09(04).jpg Image:P1020146.JPG Image:Matze01.jpg Image:Claudia02.jpg Image:Claudia01.jpg Image:P1020146 Kopie1.jpg Image:P1020146 Kopie.jpg
- delete private images --Wikipeder 11:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless --jed 12:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Focus in an eye.svg. — Erin (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason: superseded by Image:Tropical Storm Alex (1998).jpg. Other version removes text from middle of the image.
- Delete this one.--Nilfanion 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
DuPage County Shields
[edit]This request is regarding a large amount of shields for DuPage County, Illinois. These shields, named "Dupage County Route (X) IL.svg" (where X is the route number) have been made obsolete by shields named "DuPage County Route (X) IL.svg". The changes between the two versions include the correct spelling of the county name in the file name and the spacing between Du and Page on the sign. See Image:Dupage County Route 1 IL.svg (old image) and Image:DuPage County Route 1 IL.svg (new image) for a visual aid of the aforementioned changes. The way that "DuPage" appears on the shield was determined from here.
I apologize for not following standard procedure by not listing every shield for deletion or tagging every shield with {{Delete}}, but it seems unnecessarily tedious to list all 40+ shields here or to tag them all.
Ineligible for speedy deletion as duplicates due to the changes mentioned in the opening paragraph. --TwinsMetsFan 06:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Since no one's opposed the deletion of the superseded shields over the near-month that this has been posted, will someone please delete these? I hate to sound uncivil or rude, but it's a pain to have to check COM:DEL every day just to see if 40 superseded route shields have been deleted. --TwinsMetsFan 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Put this subpage on your watchlist and now you won't have to. :) How can we delete them if we don't know which files they exactly are? Are they in a category or on a subpage or something somewhere? I will delete them if you provide a list...! --pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The images were found on Illinois_County_Route_shields#Dupage_County and are:
- Image:Dupage County Route 1 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 2 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 3 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 4 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 5 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 6 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 7 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 8 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 9 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 10 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 11 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 13 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 14 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 15 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 17 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 20 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 21 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 22 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 23 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 24 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 25 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 26 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 27 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 28 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 29 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 31 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 32 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 33 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 34 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 35 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 38 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 40 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 41 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 43 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 51 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 53 IL.svg
- Image:Dupage County Route 56 IL.svg
- Illinois_County_Route_shields#Dupage_County]] has been changed to Illinois_County_Route_shields#DuPage_County containing the correct shields. /Lokal_Profil 16:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have also informed the uploader about the deletion. /Lokal_Profil 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- My thanks to all those who have commented above. Yes, that is the complete list of the obsolete shields and, as stated in my initial request, I support their deletion. --TwinsMetsFan 02:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have also informed the uploader about the deletion. /Lokal_Profil 16:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photographie d'Abraham del pozo - SPAM
[edit]Bonjour, j'attire votre attention sur un spam déguisé par les titres des photographie. L'intéressé ci-dessus a été bloqué pour 3 jours le 12 aout 2006 à 21H48 pour spam manifeste sur fr:wp. Refusant toutes les remarques, les avertissements, les avis de blocage, l'intéressé se contente de blanchir sa page de discussion. De plus, afin de se faire référencer par les différents moteurs de recherches, il se permet d'inclure son nom dans tous les liens et tous les titres des photographies. Celles-ci on été supprimées sur Wikipédia pour spam manifeste.
Ayant appris qu'il téléchargeait sur commons, il recommence son même système en y incluant toujours son nom sur l'intégralité des photographies qu'il télécharge. Le problème du spam va se poser en aval sur tous les projets wiki auquel il serait susceptible de contribuer, se donnant, ainsi, une notoriété artificielle.
C'est pourquoi je sollicite de la communauté commons pour décider de la suite qu'il convient de donner à ce genre de contribution.
Ceci concerne les photographies sur le lien ci-dessus dont, notamment, : Begin (rough) English translation by NielsF, please improve if needed Hello, I'd like to draw your attention to spam, concealed (disguised/camouflaged) in the titles of the images. The aforementioned user has been blocked on fr.wikipedia for three days because of spamming. Refusing to acknowledge any remark or warning, the user just blanked his talk page. Furthermore, in order to link his name in different search engines, he proceeded to include his name in all links and all image titles. These have all been deleted on fr.wikipedia because of obvious spamming. Having learned how to upload to the Commons, he has continued the same system by always including his name with all his contributions. This spamming problem will flow downstream from Commons to all wiki projects where it will be possible for him to contribute, giving him in this way artificial renown. This is why I sollicit the Commons community to decide on the actions to be taken with this sort of contributions. This concerns the images in the link above, mainly: end translation
- Image:Police Genevoise (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Police Genevoise.jpg
- Image:La Jonction (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:La Jonction Geneve.jpg
- Image:Parc de Saint Jean (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Parc de Saint Jean Geneve.jpg
- Image:Route de Meyrin (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Route de Meyrin.jpg
- 2 images identiques :
- 2 images identiques :
- 3 images identiques :
- Image:Cristobal Colon (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Cristobal Colon_N&B.jpg
- Image:La Palmera (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:La Palmera.jpg
- Image:Cycliste Suisse (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Cycliste Suisse.jpg
- Image:Fontaine Genevoise (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Fontaine Genevoise.jpg
- Image:Marteau Piqueur (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Marteau Piqueur.jpg
- Image:Les Nations Unies a Geneve (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Les Nations Unies a Geneve.jpg
- Image:Nuages dans le Ciel (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Nuages dans le Ciel.jpg
- Image:Centre Commercial de Balexert (Abraham del Pozo).jpg.jpg remplacée par Image:Centre Commercial de Balexert.jpg
- Image:Palais de Justice de Geneve (Abraham del Pozo).jpg.jpg remplacée par Image:Palais de Justice de Geneve.jpg
- Image:Eglise Orthodoxe Russe de Geneve (Abraham del Pozo).JPG.jpg remplacée par Image:Eglise Orthodoxe Russe de Geneve.jpg
- Image:Le Grand Theatre de Geneve (Abraham del Pozo).JPG.jpg remplacée par Image:Le Grand Theatre de Geneve.jpg
- Image:Delorean (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Delorean.jpg
- Image:Delorean 2 (Abraham del Pozo).JPG.jpg remplacée par Image:Delorean 2.jpg
- Image:Syndicats Patronaux Geneve (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Syndicats Patronaux Geneve.jpg
- Image:La Rade (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:La Rade.jpg
- Image:Junta de Andalucia (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Junta de Andalucia.jpg
- Image:Circuito Impreso (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Circuito Impreso.jpg
- Image:Skateboard (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Skateboard_Geneve.jpg
- Image:Volleyball (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Volleyball_N&B.jpg
- Image:Relampago (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Relampago.jpg
- Image:Talkbox (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Talkbox.jpg
- Image:Paloma (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Paloma.jpg
- Image:Golden Idol (Abraham del Pozo.JPG remplacée par Image:Golden Idol.jpg
- Image:Playa del Portil (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Playa del Portil.jpg
- Image:Pie (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Pie_N&B.jpg
- Image:Cisne (abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Cisne.jpg
- Image:Gallina (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Gallina.jpg
- Image:Nadador (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Nadador.jpg
- Image:Insecto (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Insecto.jpg
- Image:Vaca (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Vaca_N&B.jpg
- Image:Grafiti (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Grafiti_Geneve.jpg
- Image:Tag (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Tag_Geneve.jpg
- Image:Kid koala.jpg (pas de problème en principe pour cette image dont le nom est correct)
- Image:Camiseta (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Camiseta_2.jpg
- Image:Seat Panda (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Seat Panda.jpg
- Image:Volkswagen Passat (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Volkswagen Passat.jpg
- Image:Confederados (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Confederados.jpg
- Image:Confederados II (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Confederados II.jpg
- Image:Rue de la Servette (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Rue de la Servette.jpg
- Image:Parc de Saint Jean (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Parc de Saint Jean Geneve.jpg
- Image:Musee Rath (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Musee Rath.jpg
- Image:Barbacoa (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Barbacoa.jpg
- Image:Citroen 2cv (Abraham del Pozo).jpg remplacée par Image:Citroen 2cv.jpg
- Image:UN (abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:UN_Geneve.jpg
- Image:Lac Leman (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Lac_Leman.jpg
- Image:Hotel Cornavin (Abraham del Pozo).JPG remplacée par Image:Hotel Cornavin.jpg
--Bertrand GRONDIN 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Admininstrateur fr:Wikipedia, fr:Wiktionnaire, fr:Wikisource, fr:Wikilivres) Liste complétée avec images correspondantes François Haffner 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Bertrand GRONDIN 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fmaunier talkmail 13:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam. Oblic blabla 14:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam. Le nom de l'« artiste » suffit dans la description pour ce genre d'image. VIGNERON 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Je sais pas si j'ai le droit de voter avec le peu de contrib sur commons... Mais j'ai pas envie de voir apparaître ce spam sur fr:. ^^ DainDwarf 14:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete spam déguisé. -- 64.229.146.58 10:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Il y a trop de problèmes avec ces photos qui changent perpétuellement de nom, apparaissent, disparaissent, ... En premioer lieu, je suis opposé à l'insertion du nom de l'artiste dans le nom de l'image, qui est pour moi une forme d'utilisation de Wikipédia pour des visées personnelles, probablement profiter de la notoriété de Wikipédia en faisant apparaître son nom un peu partout et donc dans les moteurs de recherche. Ensuite, M. Di Pozo ne fait aucun effort pour catégoriser les photos qu'il télécharge. Il ne consavcre ses efforts qu'à abimer des articles en y insérant ses photos n'importe comment. J'ai essayé en toute bonne foi de croire qu'il s'agissait de l'incompétence d'un débutant. J'ai réparé ses bétises et tenté d'établir un dialogue pour lui expliquer les bonnes méthodes. Je n'ai récolté que mépris et effacage de mes messages. Je constate aujourd'hui que ce monsieur m'a fait perdre beaucoup de temps à réparer plusieurs fois les articles qu'il a endommagés avec ses photos posés, retirées, remises, ... Je ne peux plus voir ses photos en peinture ! François Haffner 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I just don't want to see Wikipedia becoming a way for some people to get artificial fame. Manchot 22:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Je ne sais pas si j'ai le droit de prendre position...mais je prends mes responsabilités:. - --zivax-Discuter 09:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep So what? They are photos, licensed under perfectly fine free licenses and surely usable. What's the problem? Perhaps I did not understand the French reasoning, but to me, there's no problem with these photos. If they are used for spam in fr, just ask an admin to list them on fr:Mediawiki:Bad image list and they will be excluded automatically from display! That's not a problem of commons... --Rtc 14:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC) - Voir (1) plus bas
- Keep No copyright problems. I hardly understand why the Authors name in the file name should be considered spam.--Wiggum 15:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Il n'ya pas de probleme. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Le nom du photographeur dans les titres des photographies n'est pas <<spam>>. Jkelly 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Il est l'auteur. Ce n'est pas Spam. Si les images sont mises dans les endroits faux elles devraient être enlevées mais non supprimées. --Gmaxwell 21:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep (Si j'ai assez de contributions pour voter...) La présence du nom dans le titre ne me paraît interdite par aucun des principes de WP ; elle est même dans l'esprit de l'obligation faite par la GFDL de citer les noms des contributeurs. --Touriste 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep We are deciding on images when we should be discussing names. The images are okay, the names can be improved: Image names should be short descriptions of what is in the images. Unless it is a self-portrait, this is not the place for the author's name. Just rename them.--Wikipeder 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The pictures could be renamed, I don't see the point in deleting them. Sébastien Savard 14:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep ~Pyb 15:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep But attribution is best kept on the image's page, not in its name. William Avery 19:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I see no problem with these filenames; at least the images won't get accidentally overwritten. tsca @ 08:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If the principle to sign in the name of pics is critical nothing prohibit that. After, nothing prohibits to re-upload these pics with an other name and to use the second. Lundeux 09:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Neutral Rename : well, why deleting the pictures ? I heard them can be renamed here. Darkoneko 10:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- We should relax about that matter. The image names doesn't contain anything abusive so there is no reason to start a discussion about renaming them. I don't know whether AdP has become a persona non grate in the french wikipedia, but assumed he has this doesn't turn the images to bad things. A "filename policy" would be hyperfluid.--Wiggum 13:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
(1) Discussion
- fr:Mediawiki:Bad image list don't exist on french wikipedia project. --Bertrand GRONDIN 15:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obviously it does exist. --Rtc 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: tried to translate the French reasoning, not sure if I got it completely; please improve the translation if possible. NielsF 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, now I see, although I don't really see the point with links and search engines. Wikipedia does REL="NOFOLLOW", so link spamming is pointless. If the name is really not appropriate in the filename, that's not a reason for deletion, but merely for renaming the files! --Rtc 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Je persiste et signe, ceci constitue un spam déguisé au vu du comportement général relevé sur fr:wikipédia. Que chacun prenne ses responsabilités. Accepter ce principe fera aller Commons de Charybde en Scylla.
- Okay, now I see, although I don't really see the point with links and search engines. Wikipedia does REL="NOFOLLOW", so link spamming is pointless. If the name is really not appropriate in the filename, that's not a reason for deletion, but merely for renaming the files! --Rtc 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment to Abraham Del Pozo: Your images will be more easily used if you keep their names short and precise and put your due credit into the images' description. --Wikipeder 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Merci à Jkelly, Wiggum, Gmaxwell and Bastic pour votre soutient. Je ne comprend pas pourquoi tant d'acharnement contre mes contributions.
Apparement certains administrateurs francais continuent à vouloir detruire mon travail. Je ne comprend pas pourquoi, si vous pouvez m'aider à les convaincre que je ne suis pas une machine à spam, mais que je suis un photographe Suisse qui amène ma pierre à la pyramide qu'est Wikipedia.
Merci encore aux gens qui me soutiennent.
Abraham Del Pozo
- Pourquoi, diable, donc persistes-tu de mettre ton nom dans le titre ? Quel est le but recherché ? Pourquoi effaces-tu systématiquement ta page de discussion quand un contributeur veut te faire une suggestion ou une remarque ? Questions dont je n'ai pas eu de réponse. --Bertrand GRONDIN 06:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment s'en sortir ? C'est assez simple
- Constatant que d'une part Abraham Del Pozo ne répond à aucune demande de dialogue, d'autre part que chacun semble d'accord pour dire que le nom de l'auteur doit être dans la description de l'image et non dans le titre de la photo, j'ai passé pas mal de temps à télécharger à nouveau ses images (même celles sans intérêt ou de qualité médiocre) sous un nouveau nom, débarrassé du nom de l'auteur. L'auteur lui-même m'a autorisé à le faire puisqu'il a placé ses images dans le domaine public ! J'ai bien sûr indiqué la source des images à l'aide du Template:PD-author. On peut donc maintenant détruire les images dont le nom pose problème sans aucun dommage. Vous trouverez la gallerie des images téléchargées sur ma page de discussion : User talk:François Haffner.
- Lorsqu'une même image avait été téléchargée en 2, 3 ou 4 exemplaires, je n'ai gardé qu'une version. À noter que dans la liste des images à supprimer, celle de Kid Koala ne pose pas de problème car son nom est correct. François Haffner 14:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
PS : Opération marketing réussie pour Abraham del Pozo. Recherches Google :
- « "Abraham del pozo" -site:wikipedia.org -site:wikimedia.org » : 54 résultats
- « "Abraham del pozo" » : 207 résultats
Grace aux titres de ses photos, et en abusant de Wikipédia, Abraham a quadruplé sa présence sur Google. Bravo !
François Haffner ✉ 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
closed (no copyright issue; please tag the redundant copies of the images with {{duplicate}} ) --ALE! ¿…? 10:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
As a derivate of a banner for a terrorist organization (that incidentally was responsible for killing former Italian Prime Minister w:Aldo Moro), it is quite inappropriate and offensive for Wikipedia admins to use this as a banner. -- tariqabjotu 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete certainly in poor taste. Unencylcopedic too. David D. 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep, nothing wrong with it; not used in article namespace; used in good humour and not to denigrate users or anything. Dbachmann 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to delete it. "Taste" is not grounds for deletion at Commons. It's free, and the creator is an editor in good standing. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note: I do, however, think this image is in extremely poor taste and will encourage the upload of a different image over it. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Bastique. Misza13 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I created the image long ago by Photoshopping the Red Brigades flag, but the idea came from the punk rock group The Clash, who used a parody/derivation in their press work. The intent was clearly not to glorify a terrorist group, but it was to parody the paranoia generated by that group. So much for intention: like The Clash, I wanted to make fun of the freaking out done by the people who "OMG rouge admin blocked me" and the reaction to the boogey man of the Red Brigades in the early 1980's. As for application of the banner, it has been solely self-applied or passed among friends as a compliment. Therefore, in intent and application, it is not offensively intended nor received. If a person seeing the banner's parody is offended, then one would assume that is a supporter of the Red Brigades itself who is offended that their logo has been trivialized. If it is a person scarred by the old Red Brigades themselves, then I can only assume they dare not look at much of Wikipedia, for it has other memorials of human inhumanity on it. My preference would be to keep, but I would abstain as creator. Geogre 17:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above Crzrussian 18:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Even I thought it would be tough to get the image deleted from Commons because its use in an inappropriate manner (if even that) on Wikipedia probably may not mean the image ought to be deleted outright. For the most part, I wanted to get this discussion into the right forum (as there was a bit of discussion regarding it on the English Wikipedia). -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the image itself gives offense, perhaps it should be changed, but I don't see parody images with hammers and sickles on them as being offensive per se (and the Soviet Union killed many more people than the Red Brigades did) either. I'm fine with the image being changed to be some other flag or banner that is ROUGE in color, if desired, but not with it being deleted outright. Keep (and what is with these voting icons? there is something to delete!) ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this crap. Paolo Liberatore 22:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, here is my rationale: if there is an agreement this logo should not be used, then it falls under the "not useful for any wikimedia project" clause of the commons deletion policy. In fact, I do believe this crap is harming any wikimedia project it is found in. Paolo Liberatore 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a copyvio if it is derived from someone's logo. en:WP:POINT aside, copyright supercedes cliques. BigDT 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll ignore the "this crap" sorts of votes, which should be discounted in any case as lacking rationale. What copyright is it derivative of? Did the illegal Red Brigades get a copyright? The Clash certainly would have, but I did not derive from theirs in any facet except the concept. A Marxist rock band identified with the Brigade Rosse, but the revolutionary, Marxist brigades are to have gone for intellectual property rights and acquired copyright? Huh? I'd like to see evidence of that. 68.220.6.196 12:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- "I created the image long ago by Photoshopping the Red Brigades flag". The Red Brigade was formed in 1970, so I would think/assume that their artwork is still under copyright. While you could argue "fair use" as a parody (and would be correct in life in general, though not on Wikipedia because we are an encyclopedia, not fark.com), Commons doesn't accept fair use images. BigDT 12:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Again, are Red Brigades an organization that can have a "logo?" They're not a corporation. They were rabidly against copyright, property, and all other capitalist encumberances. They weren't a recording artist, author, or company. In fact, they were not an admitted corporate entity with ever any announced members. The members were attributed by the police. You see how arguing copyright, of all things, is a morass. 68.220.6.196 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whoever owns the copyright, someone does. Whether an organization owns it or an individual owns it is immaterial. Somebody created the thing and unless that somebody has released it into the public domain, it's copyrighted and that somebody has sole discretion to authorize derivative works. Unless it can be proven who that somebody is and that they have released their work into the public domain, or, alternatively, that it is public domain by virtue of being ineligible for copyright in its home country, it cannot be used here. BigDT 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- This argument is ridiculous!
- In order to violate one's copyright that one should have protected it. If an artwork is publicly available and someone attempts to copyright it, the copy protection is nil and void.
- Have you read the copyright box on Moro's picture: "According to Italian law, no civil rights can be generated while committing a crime"!
- So in order to get hold of any copyright, one should prove a law-abiding use of the artwork before any illegal group have used it. Having said that it is quite obvious why the design is public domain. -- Zlatko + (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- This argument is ridiculous!
- Whoever owns the copyright, someone does. Whether an organization owns it or an individual owns it is immaterial. Somebody created the thing and unless that somebody has released it into the public domain, it's copyrighted and that somebody has sole discretion to authorize derivative works. Unless it can be proven who that somebody is and that they have released their work into the public domain, or, alternatively, that it is public domain by virtue of being ineligible for copyright in its home country, it cannot be used here. BigDT 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'll ignore the "this crap" sorts of votes, which should be discounted in any case as lacking rationale. What copyright is it derivative of? Did the illegal Red Brigades get a copyright? The Clash certainly would have, but I did not derive from theirs in any facet except the concept. A Marxist rock band identified with the Brigade Rosse, but the revolutionary, Marxist brigades are to have gone for intellectual property rights and acquired copyright? Huh? I'd like to see evidence of that. 68.220.6.196 12:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative of a logo. — Erin (talk) 05:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep, someone finds humor to be offensive? Also I don't think that this could be considered copyvio. MaxSem 09:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- In what way is it not a copyvio? The author admitted that he created it from photoshopping the logo of an organization that came into existence in 1970. Consider this image of the real Red Brigade's logo. Look familiar? The owner of a copyright owns all rights to create derivative works, which this obviously is. Unless I'm completely missing something, this image is non-free and should be deleted. BigDT 12:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Really bad taste. Admins are the faces of Wikipedia, I was told. Do they really have to make such tastless jokes on their user pages on Wikipedia? If they want to do so, please do it off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting provider for your personal bad taste. I think we do the relatives of Aldo Moro a very bad service if we decorate our user pages with this banner. Aldo Moro was pictured in front of that banner before he was murdered by the w:Brigate Rosse. Compare the admin banner with the picture taken by Brigate Rosse before they murdered him: w:Image:Moro br 1.jpg. I think the comparison with hammer and sickle is absolutely tasteless. I find it even tastless that we have to debate about this here. --Ligulem 10:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Supprimer, ce n'est qu'un logo terroriste utilisé comme blague sur en:Wikipedia (les "administrateurs rouges" qui peuvent faire ce qu'ils veulent sans souci des règlements). -- 64.229.146.58 10:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image in use on en.wikipedia --Kim Bruning / 80.126.238.189 19:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep whether it is bad taste/ofensive or whatever should be decided on en.wikipedia with the respective admin and not here on commons. As long as it is used in the user-namespace and the license is ok I don't see any reason to delete it. -- Gorgo 20:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have yet to hear anyone make a case for the license being ok. One of two things needs to be proven about the original source image: either (a) it is ineligible for copyright in the country where it was created/published or (b) the creator has released it into the public domain. Is there evidence of either? BigDT 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- it's a rather trival design (star with circle) so it's not eligible for copyright and since it's no official organisation it surely is no logo. -- Gorgo 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know that I would call that picture ineligible as a trivial design. A square circumscribed inside a circle is not creative. I don't think this image is in the same category. Consider this. If two people handed you a square circumscribed in a circle and you were asked to determine if one had copied the other, there would be no way to know. Every grade school student draws one at some point - two people working completely independantly could easily produce such a thing. On the other hand, if two people handed you an off-center star inside of a circle and the block-print word "ROSSE" below it, you would obviously conclude that one of them had gotten it from the other - they wouldn't have done that independantly. BigDT 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- it's a rather trival design (star with circle) so it's not eligible for copyright and since it's no official organisation it surely is no logo. -- Gorgo 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have yet to hear anyone make a case for the license being ok. One of two things needs to be proven about the original source image: either (a) it is ineligible for copyright in the country where it was created/published or (b) the creator has released it into the public domain. Is there evidence of either? BigDT 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. The source image en:Image:Moro_br_1.jpg is in PD. Also I doubt the terroist org. could claim copyright protection to the logo. feydey (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- If the original picture were just a photograph of the banner, it would be questionable to call it PD. Rather, it would be a slavish reproduction of a copyrighted work. On Wikipedia, I would say that a photo of the banner would only be available under fair use. But in this case, the real point is to illustrate the person. It's kinda like if you take a photo of ten of your friends and one of them is wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt. Nobody would seriously argue that Disney has rights to that photo. But, on the other hand, if you zoom in on Mickey Mouse and crop out the ten people, Disney does own rights to it. BigDT 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete poor taste and it adds nothing to the encyclopaedia. -- I@n 04:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It's a copyright infringement of the original design, and, as we know, the Foundation is very sensitive about copyright. Additionally its only use is for admins and, though it's a good joke, it can easily be taken the wrong way, and it's only a matter of time till it gets taken that way in a press article. It is therefore irresponsible for the good image of wikipedia to maintain its use, now that its origin has become known. Tyrenius 05:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete since it is a copyright violation. Plus, even if it is considered fair use, since it is only being used on the userpages of Wikipedians at EN, the image would have to be deleted there too under our current rules. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per DBachmann; this is not used in the article space, and is not used in any offensive manner. Moreover, "good taste" is not a requirement for inclusion. RandyWang 12:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The request is void. Some of the information in Wikipedia might be offensive but that is not a reason for deletion. The disagreement with someone's personal page should be covered by direct negotiation, or a blanket policy which should also include the userboxes, therefore is not subject of any deletion debate. It does not really matter whether one will use text, picture or combination of both in a small box. -- Zlatko + (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Delete A modified image of a murderous terror organization for a satirical Wiki essay is highly inappropriate. I doubt any essay would be allowed to adopt any kind of nazi or islamist imagery. --69.253.102.19 15:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Not used in any offensive manner. And I doubt it is a copyright violation as the Red Brigades does not seem to be a group to file for copyright. In fact we are dealing with an illegal organization, thus copyright does not apply. And even if there is some crazy argument to the former, it is safe to assume, since its creator was a Marxist, this image was not copyrighted. --68.214.117.237 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Wikipedia is not a party or a tool in the "War on Terror". -- Petri Krohn 00:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Of course it's in poor taste; that's exactly why it should be kept. Deletion of this image amounts to censorship, pure and simple.--Digitalme 22:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- So user pages of admins are intended to be also useable for bad taste images? Does "no censorship" apply to userpages? Well, I'm astonished. I just propose that admin candidates do put all their images they want to have on their user page before their RfA, so I do have a chance to oppose their RfA. We have had a tremendous userbox deletion rampage by some admins on en. It is was very interesting to see that it were exactly these admins that started said campaign who had this banner on their page. But I agree, taste is not debatable. I just would like to point out that Wikipedia's reputation might be influenced by the images found on user pages of admins. Outsiders do see "Administrators" as beeing more important than normal Wikipedians. As such, pages like this I feel do actually have potential to harm the project. But well. Be it what the consensus may ever be. In fact I would vote for a deadminning of such an admin (if we had such a process on en). --Ligulem 09:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment How would wikipedians react to a group calling itself "nazi admins" and posting swastikas on their pages? How about Al-Qaeda admins? --69.253.102.19 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Kept No copyright infringement. No consensus on removal for other reasons. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Uploader claims PD-USGov. However, is from a Virginia state govt site and produced by a Virginia state employee. Unsure of copyright status of VA govt work, delete if copyvio.--Nilfanion 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Images produced by state governments are not free unless otherwise specified. --SPUI 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unfree image per SPUI's explanation. --Coredesat 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this file and I DON'T want it deleted. I created the image myself and fully believe I have the right to license it as I see fit. However, I would like an expert to confirm this for the following reason: I drew this freehand (not traced) copying out of a book. The original image is obviously public domain, copyright expired over a thousand years ago. The image in the book is copyrighted but they traced the original, so mine is actually more original than theirs. I have more images like this scanned in, could I upload them if I traced them {just as original as original}? Or do I have to draw them all freehand? Or is there some easier way?
{{subst:vk}}I think that should be OK. — Erin (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)- Delete Now superseded by Image:Ixchel.svg — Erin (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Reproduction of out of copyright material. Note that as pre-Columbian Mesoamerican books are public domain from age, reproductions of them are as well. The book you referenced may be copyrighted for the total layout and the discussion or analyisis of the ancient work, but the reproductions of pages of the ancient codicies-- mechanical reproduction of 2 dimensional out of copyright material-- are themselves PD. -- Infrogmation 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep You have drawn it freehand and thus it's only a sloppy copy instead of an exact one originality. Take the consequences—your copy is PD-old, too, since it does not contain anything original, just a little bit of random variation. Please upload copies as exact as possible and please don'T claim copyright on things over thousand years old, thanks. --Rtc 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, superseded by Image:Ixchel.svg. Thuresson 14:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From enwiki: "Municipalities claim copyright, PD not automatic for states and localities" --Fritz Saalfeld 09:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, copyvio - site says "All Rights Reserved".--Nilfanion 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The uploader notified me on my talk page that according to the webiste's copyright notice it's PD, so I guess it's okay to keet it... --Fritz Saalfeld 10:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- From [54]: "Using or modifying this site's materials and information for commercial or profit making purposes is prohibited and may violate the copyrights and/or other proprietary rights of the City of Concord or third parties". Thuresson 14:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I cannot find the PD statement.--Jusjih 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains an unfree logo. A new photo would be better quality than a photoshop of this to blank the screen. --SPUI 22:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think placing {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} will over this proposal. Hołek ҉ 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Using « Copyright by Wikimedia » is not nice. Page of the encyclopedia must use free content, and this image will not be use in meta page. ~ bayo or talk 00:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Another think, it exists this picture Image:Gp2x.jpg (same picture), but the author is not the same. ~ bayo or talk 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Orphaned and deleted. Alphax (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I am the author of the original photo. I have made a new photo at Image:GP2X_taras.jpg to superceed this one. Hopefully it does not break any rules. --Taras 13:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. Delete this version and leave new image. Hołek ҉ 16:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Can you get a new photo with the colour range on it? Alphax (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Greudin. --GeorgHH 19:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
August 16
[edit]- Copyvio:
- Tag {{PD-self}}, but: http://oraclesyndicate.twoday.net/stories/2528304/
- Historial of the uploader: see User talk:Toc
Problem: Present in 15 wikipedias --Lmbuga gl, pt, es: contacta comigo 22:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Now 12. NielsF 22:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Read carefully: The articles is from August, 15th, the image on Commons from July, 28th. So they took the image from Wikipedia. --84.60.214.249 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- So? The image still isnt't properly sourced and the uploader has a very dubious history of uploading copyvio's. Seeing that I just can't assume good faith that he is in fact the photographer. NielsF 01:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as copyright violation by repeat offender. — Erin (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can make out permission is needed, the following is cited from [55]: Para las empresas, corporaciones o instituciones de cualquier tipo, públicas o privadas, con o sin ánimo de lucro y para los particulares con fines comerciales o lucrativos la disponibilidad está sujeta a lo estipulado por la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de Abril). Para cualquier uso de las imágenes, mas allá de la visualización, estos usuarios deberán contar con una autorización expresa de la FEDAC que pueden solicitar en: fondosaudiovisuales@fedac.org Anyone who can clarify this? NielsF 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted—commercial use is not permitted. JeremyA 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC) 'Restored after discussion with Jeremy. I've asked a native Spanish-speaking admin to deal with this. NielsF 03:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedily deleted. It states that the image is protected by copyright law when used by individuals commercially, or by any organisation at all. The implication is that (only) an individual using it for non-commercial purposes is permissible. That's unfree. — Erin (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Photograph of copyrighted characters from the animation film. --217.82.69.12 05:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Marked with {{Copyvio}}. --Panther 06:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Ejdzej --ALE! ¿…? 11:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No way to proof the permission, original on de: was deleted. --217.82.69.12 06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
delete, copyvio: This is a copyrighted dpa image of MP Julia Bonk, published e. g. here. SZ-online is in no position to licence the image. --Wikipeder 10:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Ejdzej --ALE! ¿…? 10:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Author: Mark Mainz/Getty Images, and license: cc-by? I doubt it. --Kjetil_r 08:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- I took it from flickr.com, there it stands under the cc-by-2.0 license, with the author Mark Mainz, I've written a comment to the flickr-uploader for more information. --Haeber 13:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete So just a copyvio. People on flickr don't take copyright seriously at all. pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted. And it's copyright "infringement", not violation :) Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
From my basic German vocabulary this picture literally means "Penis 15 years", which to me means "Penis of a 15 year old". This is touching the borderline of underage pornography! --202.169.218.64 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (Talk to me in Wikipedia)
Speedy deleted, pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio from http://www.galleriaborghese.it/borghese/en/eproserp.htm. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 10:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obvious copyright violation, tag it with {{Copyvio}}. Jastrow 10:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Unused and superseded by Image:OrderOfCristCross.svg.--GeorgHH 12:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded Sniperscope a few days ago, and today found out that somebody had already uploaded it with a strange name. One of them should be deleted, I'm not sure which one. The numerical name was uploaded in May. — [Mac Davis] (talk)
image with the cryptic name deleted, please use {{Duplicate}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Reason for deletion request: there is better quality version - Image:Rubens-Landscape.with.Rainbow1632-1635.jpg Julo 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 10:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Location maps for Brazilian municipalities
[edit]Image:SaoPaulo Municip Queluz.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Queluz.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Silveiras.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Silveiras.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Lavrinhas.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Lavrinhas.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Cunha.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Cunha.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Cruzeiro.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Cruzeiro.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip CachoeiraPaulista.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip CachoeiraPaulista.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Canas.png = Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Canas.svg
Deleted as nominator (User:Srfortes) was uploader of both .svg and .png, files were exactly the same and unused. NielsF 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure all the major Wikipedias has had discussions about the definition of terrorism. Is playing bagpipe terrorism? "People alleged to..."? The problem is that anybody can "allege". I suggest that this category is deleted before somebody includes George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon and Bob the Builder. Thuresson 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Such categories have caused problems on several projects, and I think it's better to nip it in the bud before the entire population of the Middle East, every US politican back to George Washington and… well, Bob the Builder I might accept – are added to the category. Cnyborg 21:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, figuring out what to do here takes some philosophising on the purpose of the Commons category scheme. Is it simply a folksonomy, or something more structured than that? We have this category because we used to have Category:Terrorists and it was complained that that was too POV. So - how should we better name such a category? Or should we pretend no one will ever want to use it? I mean it existed, so clearly people find it natural to use it. pfctdayelise (translate?) 01:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Deleting this category because you don't want anyone from the axis of good (Bush, Sharon...) in it is not a valid reason. However, this category is not helpful. I will only support a category with clear criteria for inclusion. For example, "people officially classified as terrorists by government/major NGO x". — Erin (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. Australia has such a list. I guess the US do, too. Also note w:Category:Terrorists. If WP can manage it, I guess we should be able to, too. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's been a huge source of edit warring on Wikipedia. — Erin (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hm. Australia has such a list. I guess the US do, too. Also note w:Category:Terrorists. If WP can manage it, I guess we should be able to, too. pfctdayelise (translate?) 04:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The individual language wikipedias can come up with their own solutions to difficulties like this. Commons is not really the place to thrash out controversial political issues... AnonMoos 01:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Atack, nn. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t17:39z
- Delete, copyvio (photograph is a derivative work of the original graffiti). Angr 07:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not white, not a flag, could be done with CSS instead. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t17:39z
I have speedied this orphan as a blank file. — Erin (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo copied from http://free.of.pl/k/kowalinio/gfx2/1a.jpg --Man 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This image is unnecessary, it's a miniature of Image:P lyszczak.jpg --Pilecka talk 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 07:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Non free tag created by User:SebCon. What about the pages that use it (not including this one)? -- William Avery 21:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Image:EinoViljamiPanula.jpg and any other that aren't SebCon images. The ones that actually are under this "license" should be deleted unless the uploader picks a suitable license. Kotepho 21:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the template. Non-free. ~MDD4696 03:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added
- {{speedydelete|Non-free license. Please delete all images using the license tag {{License}}. --ALE! ¿…? 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)}}
to the license tag, this should make the images and the template speediable. --ALE! ¿…? 21:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image itself of this old daguerreotype is a possible copyvio. The strong arguments in French : [56], by an expert who has published several articles on Daguerre in specialized reviews. --Myrabella 20:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- It would be nice if somebody could translate this french text since my knowledge of this language suffered since i left school. As far as i understand the author of the picture allegedly is not Daguerre himself but a man namend Georges Pontonienné who died in 1949.--Wiggum 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- The argument is that it doesn't represent the original image, since that's now faded to something that's more like a mirror (the bottom picture in the external image), but that it is a digital version of a reproduction on a glass plate (18x24 cm) made in 1925 by the archivist (mr. Pontonienné) of the French Fotography Society, which bought the picture in 1920 (when the original picture was already fading.) So the author is reasoning that the 1925 reproduction is still copyrighted. But for it to be copyrighted the reproduction should have passed the threshold of originality...and does it pass, I wonder? French law expert needed. NielsF 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- At least for the U.S., this argument doesn't wash; see Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain. For the legal situation in France, someone please ask m:User:Soufron by e-mail. Lupo 07:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork for me. This wouldn't be protected in Germany too, for US the reference is imho en:Bridgeman_v._Corel.--Wiggum 09:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- At most, the image might be protected by the Leistungsschutzrecht in Germany analogue to (OLG Düsseldorf, 13. Februar 1996, Az. 20 U 115/95, Beuys-Fotografien, GRUR 97, 49). The Bundesgerichtshof, however, came to a different conclusion in a similar case: (Urteil vom 7. Dezember 2000, Telefonkarte, Az. I ZR 146/98) (de:Bildrechte#Zweidimensionale_Vorlagen). --Wikipeder 11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like reproduction of a two-dimensional artwork for me. This wouldn't be protected in Germany too, for US the reference is imho en:Bridgeman_v._Corel.--Wiggum 09:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- At least for the U.S., this argument doesn't wash; see Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain. For the legal situation in France, someone please ask m:User:Soufron by e-mail. Lupo 07:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- The argument is that it doesn't represent the original image, since that's now faded to something that's more like a mirror (the bottom picture in the external image), but that it is a digital version of a reproduction on a glass plate (18x24 cm) made in 1925 by the archivist (mr. Pontonienné) of the French Fotography Society, which bought the picture in 1920 (when the original picture was already fading.) So the author is reasoning that the 1925 reproduction is still copyrighted. But for it to be copyrighted the reproduction should have passed the threshold of originality...and does it pass, I wonder? French law expert needed. NielsF 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep It is clear that a photograph of a photograph does'nt fit for the Leistungsschutzrecht (see BHG Bibelreproduktion). It is the opinion of a minority (including the cited OLG Düsseldorf) that photographs of art works (like Beuys designs) are protected. Wikipeder's statement is thus misleading. A photograph of a photograph is not a Urbild. I recommend Wikipeder reading some German legal commentaries before writing --Historiograf 04:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- The question here is whether a restoration of a poor original is a reproduction. If it is, the normal rules for reproductions of 2D originals apply. If a restoration somehow was eligible to a separate copyright (not in the U.S. according to that court case), then there might be something to the argument. What's the situation in the EU and in France in particular? Soufron? Lupo 13:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Mechanical reproduction of 2 dimensional PD image is also PD under US and UK law. Observation of this has been common practice on Commons. However if this is not the case under French law, please site this-- this would be a very important point, and if so, this will have major implications on Commons, as for example the photographs of paintings from French art galleries would similarly be copyrighted. -- Infrogmation 15:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably a copyright violation, no context given to determine encyclopedic use. BigDT 14:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I was about to create a vector version of this, when someone pointed out that Image:KB United States Dvorak.svg already exists. It is a different shade, but it has the same info, and a bit extra. I can create a version that looks like the PNG if anyone really wants it, but I don't think it's necessary. — Erin (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 13:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason for deletion request: there is better quality version: Image:Rubens-Wild-Boar Hunt.jpg Julo 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep keep this image and delete the other one --jed 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason for deletion request: there is better quality version Image:Rubens-Perseus&Andromeda.jpg Julo 16:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep keep this image and delete the other one --jed 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete - There is no proof that this is in the public domain. If another reason exists to allow this image here then this should at least be asserted by the uploader. -- Dissident 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I know that people like to keep pix regardless of quality, but I really think there is no reason to keep this thing when we have Image:Menschliches Auge.jpg. -- — Erin (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 15:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by Image:☑.svg. — Erin (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Would it be possible to rename the .svg into something that most people can type.
or something alike? NielsF 23:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you are free to do that yourself at any time, but is it necessary? It already has the most descriptive and international name possible. We have files like Image:中-order.gif, Image:的-bw.png and Image:我-seal.svg, so why not Image:☑.svg? Most people can't even type stuff like Image:Champs Élysées by night.jpg, but we don't change the name. Personally, I always copy and paste image names in case I make a typo; doesn't everyone? — Erin (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I tagged this as copyvio first, but after a chat with Bastique, I decided to put it up here. It's a picture taken in a zoo in the US with a sign with readable text on it. In my opinion this is a copyvio, but maybe... Siebrand 14:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- The author has uploaded a version with a vague filter over the readable text. Please remove the oldest 2 versions of the image to resolve this deletion request. Siebrand 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is the image actually useful with the text blanked out?—in the current state I would suggest deletion for being outside the Commons:Project scope. —JeremyA 02:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
August 17
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why should the foot of Monty Python's Flying Circus be in the public domain? The uploader says that he is the author of the work, but I think, he misunderstood it. --84.60.214.249 22:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedied. No reason whatsoever to think that this random German guy was on the Monty Python team. — Erin (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I took the liberty of undeleting this image of a foot. This is from a painting by Agnolo di Cosimo called Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time, painted in the 16th century. Thuresson 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The original is in the public domain. So we can use a cropped part of it as well as Monty Python used it for its work. --ALE! ¿…? 15:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep public domain — Erin (talk) 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Redundant image of mine, please delete.(This was taken in public, but could there be a license issue?).--Lord of the Ping 05:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant with Image:LemonadeStand2LondonOntario2006.JPG? Delete both. No model release, and not very useful images. — Erin (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, might as well delete both Image:LemonadeStandLondonOntario2006.JPG and Image:LemonadeStand2LondonOntario2006.JPG. What do you mean by 'model release'; are you referring to people's permission? Thanks.--Lord of the Ping 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that's what I was talking about. — Erin (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, I thought if I took the photo at a public venue then it was in the public domain? Anyways, I only added it so it could be used for a "lemonade stand" article. However, it's not a very good photo and I shouldn't have loaded it. Bottom line: I want both lemonade stand photos deleted. Thanks for any help! --Lord of the Ping 00:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, that's what I was talking about. — Erin (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, might as well delete both Image:LemonadeStandLondonOntario2006.JPG and Image:LemonadeStand2LondonOntario2006.JPG. What do you mean by 'model release'; are you referring to people's permission? Thanks.--Lord of the Ping 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by me. Jkelly 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
According to the actual scitentific knowledge knifes from the Halstatt-period are not to be named as Seaxes. Knifes named Seax appearing from the 3. century BC on until the 11. resp. 12. century. The image does not represent the actual scientific knowledge. (Nach dem aktuellen Wissensstand werden Messer aus der Halstattzeit werden nicht als Sax bezeichnet. Saxe treten erst im 3. Jh. v. Chr. bis ins 11./12. Jh. auf. Das Bild zeigt einen alten Wissenstand.) --Bullenwächter ↑ 08:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, that the illustration represent an outdated view would not be in itself a reason to delete it. Rather it would illustrate past perceptions of the subject (compare for example this outdated illustration of the first ever bird or this map of canals on Mars from 1888). I see no reason not to keep it, one might modify the image description though in order to underline that it represents an obsolete view, or possibly re-upload under a different name. Scoo 09:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, Scoo has explained pretty well. But in addition to this, you will note that the knife on the right comes from the 9th century, and thus falls into the time period you have delimited. Also, if this image gets deleted, we have no more-accurate, free images to replace it with. (BTW, on a totally unrelated note, no one except Germans ever uses "resp." in English to mean beziehungsweise. Usually you can just say "or." See here for details.) --Iustinus 02:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- CommentWell you totally blew me out of the water as far as providing images to replace it with. Thank you! But what about the sword on the right? Do you feel that's not a scramsax for reasons other than period? In any case, I reiterate that the image should be kept in any case. --Iustinus 21:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The image shows something, it's up to users here or more appropriately at wikipedias or other projects to explain what they see. This is a completely useless deletion request as it's not a problem with the image but with its explanation. If you feel that strongly about the name, just upload it under a more politically/scientifically correct name. NielsF 03:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept as illustration of historical curiousity. (A copy of Bullenwächter's explanation of misunderstanding added to image page; improve caption further if appropriate.) -- Infrogmation 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have created the category yesterday. I realized afterward that Category:Steles was existing and fitting with my needs. I have erased the Category:Gravestones in Pyrénées-Atlantiques of all involved photos and replaced by Category:Steles.--Harrieta171 11:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Pfctdayelise. --Nilfanion 16:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Deutsches Reich (Karte) Anhalt.svg and all other maps based on dates from www.ieg-maps.uni-mainz.de/
[edit]Doesn' agree with the copyrights on http://www.ieg-maps.uni-mainz.de/info.htm Liesel 15:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the conditions for usage are the following:Mit dem Downloaden von Karten erkennt der Nutzer diese Urheberrechte ausdrücklich an. Gleichzeitig wird ihm eine persönliche Teilnutzung von Karten ermöglicht. Jede kommerzielle Nutzung der Karten oder der ihr zugrunde liegenden Datensätze ist untersagt. Institutionelle Nutzer (Archive, Bibliotheken, Verlage usw.) benötigen eine (kostenpflichtige) Lizenz.
Translation: The user agrees with the copyright when downloading the maps. He is allowed to partially use the maps for his own. Every commercial usage of the maps or the data is prohibited. Institutional users as archives, libraries, publishing companies etc. need a license (with costs).--Wiggum 16:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Also wenn hier URV vorliegt, dann gilt das natürlich auch für die ganze Batterie von Karten für die anderen Bundesstaaten auch ! (z.B. Sachsen-Meiningen, Braunschweig, usw. ) --störfix 22:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Übrigens
Notify the uploader on their talk page. Use the notify link given after adding the delete template.
Ich finde nix! done Liesel 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Wenn ich die Bildbeschreibungsseite des Bildes richtig deute, dann hat der Hochlader eine eigene Karte nach ähnlichen Karten von der Uni Mainz gezeichet. Es liegt daher m.E. keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vor, da die Daten über die Grenzverläufe Allgemeingut sind, oder? --ALE! ¿…? 07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- No. The production of the data appropriate mental expenditure (amount of, situation of etc.) are they require in copyright matters protected. Otherwise also each map would be common property. Liesel 10:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Liesel has no knowledge of German copyright law --Historiograf 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Map data is free. Only the specific design in a rendered map makes it possibly copyrightable. But there is no design with this maps. So they are free and to be kept. --::Slomox:: >< 21:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
A question: is this map based only on DATA, or on copying the graphical representation? Morven 09:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if indeed the map is only based on data from IEG-MAPS and not a direct copy of a map to be found there. Angr 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --jed 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep We should'nt accept de:Copyfraud. Map DATA are free. --Historiograf 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
bad file format? Cannot be viewed in firefox. Own upload. -- smial 16:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Views fine in FF for me.--Nilfanion 16:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe it is your adblock filter? --Kjetil_r 16:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, what really happened. After first upload I saw an empty image. Tried another version - empty. And again, see history. Browser Cache deleted: no effect. Then uploaded Image:Sarajevo parlament 2001 filtered 2(smial).jpg and it worked perfectly. And, in the meantime I can see all the old versions... I'm all mixed up. -- smial 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, maybe it's something similar to this: Commons:Village pump#Corrupted images?? Thumbnail problems are not uncommon. NielsF 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, what really happened. After first upload I saw an empty image. Tried another version - empty. And again, see history. Browser Cache deleted: no effect. Then uploaded Image:Sarajevo parlament 2001 filtered 2(smial).jpg and it worked perfectly. And, in the meantime I can see all the old versions... I'm all mixed up. -- smial 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept, no need to delete, works fine. NielsF 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Empty category (I removed three images) which duplicates Category:Cattle and Category:Bos taurus --Rmhermen 17:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- How about it be made into a category redirect? -- Infrogmation 18:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Kept as redirect. No need to list this sort of thing. — Erin (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The source of the image is the German publishing house "Duden". Still the uploader claims that the image is gpl. This is very unlikely. No response to my questions about the legal situation. --niwi
- Delete copyvio, book and album covers are usually regarded to be "fair use". NielsF 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
This image duplicates Image:Morvan_Grande_Randonnee.jpg, but contains less metadata; same author; sorry for the mess -- bert76 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} in the future. In het vervolg aub {{Badname}} gebruiken. NielsF 20:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe the uploader made this image. User:Alaksam doesn't have a very good track record William Avery 20:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by WarX. NielsF 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
A photograph taken in 1950 cannot be PD until 2020, unless there is an additional rationale to the one given in the {{PD-old}} licence tag. William Avery 21:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio, original [57] source mentions no commercial use ([58]). NielsF 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Dual licensed photograph. However it is of a sculpture, so delete as copyvio.--Nilfanion 23:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? You can't take pictures of sculptures?? Dori | Talk 20:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It depends on the country, but in many, you cannot. See Commons:Derivative works. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete—In the U.S. you can take pictures of copyrighted sculptures that are in public places; but you can't publish the resulting photograph without the sculpture's permission. —JeremyA 21:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds ridiculous to me. You're telling me I can wear a T-shirt I designed myself and walk in front of a movie camera and they can't show that movie without my permission? Or I can whistle my own tune at a concert being recorded and they can no longer sell the song without my permission? Is there any court precendent about this? Dori | Talk 03:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you are questioning here. If you are questioning the right of an artist to copyright protection of his/her work under U.S. law—their work is protected. If you are questioning whether photographs of copyrighted artwork are considered derivative works—they are. If you are questioning whether the copyright holder has the sole right to authorise derivative works—they do. Many countries have special copyright provisions for sculptures exhibited in public places, but unfortunately the U.S. does not—JeremyA 01:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for the links. In light of these I'll be deleting the pictures. It amazes me that copyright law places these kinds of restrictions. My questions remain though, are my pictures infringing because they display mostly the sculpture, or would they infringe even if they mostly displayed surrounding background which includes the full sculpture? If even the latter is infringing that does seem ridiculous because you can essentially wall off public spaces. Dori | Talk 04:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Dori --ALE! ¿…? 13:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Probably a copyvio. The source given gives no indication of release under the GFDL. --Angr 12:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uploader missed to add {{NetMarine}} tag, copyright holder is G. Rueda and he is listed with GFDL authorization --Denniss 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- This e-mail conversation is quite unclear. In the last mail they wrote "Nous autorisons la diffusion, mais nos photos ne sont pas du domaine public!" (which means they authorize the distribution of the pictures) but nothing about derivative works or commercial use although the uploader pointed this aspect of GFDL out.--Wiggum 20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- However, in the second mail to netmarine it was mentioned that the images might be used for commercial usages by our users. If you disagree with the template please nominate it for deletion. --ALE! ¿…? 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- This e-mail conversation is quite unclear. In the last mail they wrote "Nous autorisons la diffusion, mais nos photos ne sont pas du domaine public!" (which means they authorize the distribution of the pictures) but nothing about derivative works or commercial use although the uploader pointed this aspect of GFDL out.--Wiggum 20:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image taken from geocities site here. States there that the image originated from the Rhode Island National Guard. Does a National Guard image count as PD-USGov-Military or is it covered by the copyright policy of the state?--Nilfanion 16:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
kept. w:United States National Guard says that the National Guard is a component of the United States Army. / Fred Chess 06:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Various PNG arrows
[edit]Once upon a time, we had a load of GIFs:
Then we decided that PNGs were cooler:
- File:Split-arrows.png File:Merge-arrows.png File:Merge-arrow.png File:Mergedisputed.png File:Mergefrom.png
Then we realised that SVGs were way cooler than that:
Let's keep the SVGs because they are the way forward. Let's keep the GIFs for backward compatibility and because they are the originals (and people are attached to their original images). But I see no reason to keep the PNGs. They are a half-way thing, neither fully backward compatible nor cool 'n' scalable. — Erin (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Zap the PNGs. — Erin (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete after replacing all uses. I agree with Erin Silversmith. GIF is now a 100% free format, so I see no good reason to keep PNG-8 copies that sacrifice compatibility with older browsers for a negligible (and sometimes nonexistent) size benefit. —Lifeisunfair 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 08:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Bertrand GRONDIN 07:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the PNG files only if we delete the GIF as well. The SVGs will do just fine. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- The SVGs will not "do just fine." Some of them aren't accurate reproductions of the original images. All of them render improperly for most users and provide absolutely no advantages at the standard sizes. You're well aware of this, so your decision to replace a bunch of the GIFs with SVGs at the English Wikipedia was tantamount to vandalism. —David Levy 16:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pointless near-duplicates.
— Erin (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete — Erin (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mergeto.svg_%26Image:Merge-arrows2.svg&action=edit§ion=1006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 08:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to delete this but it is still heavily used. *grumbles at wikis* pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
orphaned and deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Site's usage notes do not allow derivative works. Kotepho 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Archives Canada has a lot of material, with all sorts of different licenses. Their photographic collections have licensing information on the main description page. The description page for this image specifies "Restrictions on use/reproduction: Nil". In contrast this one says "for research or study purposes only". We cannot use everything from Archives Canada, and we should go by the site license for any material that is not otherwise specified, but this particular image is fine. Jkelly 03:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looking over it again, they ask that these guidelines are followed at some points.. and require at others, and they even think they should apply over public domain works (does Canada have a database copyright or something weird?) so it might be fine. Kotepho 03:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think the image is ok. The site-wide useage restriction is less signficant than the directions for the particular image. However, I do think the tag {{PD-Canada}} makes no sense, since it was published less than the required 50 years. {{Copyrighted free use}} makes the most sense to me. It seems that "Ashley-Crippen Studio" is the legal copyright holder, but for whatever reason, allowed unrestricted useage. --Rob 03:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ummm... doesn't You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced sound like no deriviative works to anyone else? Delete as terms of use are too vague. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- My view is that sitewide restrictions override specific image restrictions unless otherwise stated. This image isn't free of downstream restrictions so I think it needs go... Delete with regret. Too bad, it would be useful to have. 23:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright status uncertain. / Fred Chess 16:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
August 18
[edit]Very bad quality --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Panther 10:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This is incredible. The image has been saved at 4% JPEG quality. That's amazingly lossy compression. Why would anyone do that? I can only suppose it was taken with a mobile phone. — Erin (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Borrar, por favor. La imagen fue subida por error, en lugar de una imagen más completa y adecuada que ya subiré cuando la descargue de la cámara. --Carlita 14:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted per nom plus request of uploader. -- Infrogmation 03:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I am unable to find anything which supports the claim that "The copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification." as claimed by the uploader, the source page makes no such mention, and I'm unable to find any such mention on other pages at that site. Perhaps permission has been given somewhere else, but I have no idea where. Tskoge 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedied, clear copyvio. Cnyborg 23:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Esclapius stick.svg. — Erin (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC) -- — Erin (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 10:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Rama --ALE! ¿…? 18:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see no useful way that this image would be used within Commons:Project scope. It also is probably a copyvio as it is a derivative work of other, likely copyrighted, images. --JeremyA 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by Eloquence. NielsF 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Replaced with SVG. Uneeded and unused. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 03:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 10:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON (I created this page from a mistake following a wrong wikilink; I apologize!) --Alex brollo 06:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
It's only used for vandalism, look at the text or [59] and 80.130.142.155--Herrick 10:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't look useful to me. — Erin (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete User's only upload; no legitimate use apparent. -- Infrogmation 03:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 03:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Empty category - in double with Category:Dominikanerkirche (Wien) 16:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redirect, erledigt (von Benutzer:JoJan) --GeorgHH 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Should we put a "Legal disclaimer" on pornographic images or on images contains nudity because it was outlawed in Iran? --Haham hanuka 13:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- why not? -- Duesentrieb(?!) 16:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the warning is accurate and to the point, and it doesn't cause any harm whatsoever. If anyone feels like making other relevant warnings I think that would be OK too. Pornographic images are actually illegal or restricted in a lot of countries; Iran is just an extreme example. A general warning about checking local laws on depictions of nudity might not be a bad idea on some of the images we have here. As long as we don't start tagging all images depicting living creatures with a warning against Taliban regulations, such tagging of relevant images doesn't disrupt anything on Commons. Cnyborg 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. And yes, we should have other such templates if we decide that they are helpful for legal reasons. — Erin (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This has nothing to do with copyright. Legal restrictions could be included in Commons:General disclaimer. It does cause harm because it is big and ugly. And it is disruptive because this invites to a slippery slope argument. There are all sorts of legal restrictions regarding the use of photos. Thuresson 08:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because Commons:General disclaimer. FML hi 03:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see why legal restrictions that don't apply to all pictures but to a small number shouldn't be included in the respective image descriptions. Makes it way more user friendly. That it's big and ugly is no reason, you can change it to something more pleasant. -- Gorgo 16:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, use templates only to copyright status. 555 22:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- because? -- Gorgo 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, image descriptions should be as comprehensive as possible. If we know of a restriction that is neither obvious (such as nudity in some countries) nor applies to all ressource of a certain type (e.g. all photos), we should say so. And no, the restrictions on the use of Nazi symbols are not obvious; for some more obscure Nazi symbols such as the celtic cross, most people even do not know that the image has ever been used by a Nazi organisation. Please not that we also have {{insignia}}, which is a non-copyright restriction, too. -- 3247 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON - I, the uploader of the image, am requesting it. There are better images of the same subject on Commons (Such as Image:Elvis' tomb.jpg). -User:Nv8200p 16:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
kept (you can not withdraw a free license, maybe someone wants to use it) --ALE! ¿…? 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
You must argue with the photographers death, not with the death of the person photographed. --Rtc 11:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Okay then, what is the arguement that the licence is other than what is listed? -- Infrogmation 04:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
kept --GeorgHH 20:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- But tagged as {{nsd}} because the name of the photographer is not stated. --Kjetil_r 22:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Board Games photo
[edit]REASON I cannot find any clear guidelines about the copyright status of board games. I understand that a 2D reproduction of box cover or a gaming card is a copyright violation (it's a derived artwork that can be used to reproduce the original). But I'm not sure about the status of 3D photos of the gaming board during play. I want to upload other image of boardgame during play, but before I start I want to be sure they can be uploaded.
I was advised in Commons talk:Licensing#Boardgames photo to nominate for deletion some cases, so that they can be discussed:
- Image:Idro wargame mapboard detail.JPG map of wargame during play, only part of the map is visible and the photo is taken at a angle, so it cannot be used to reproduce the map
- Image:VII Legio Boardgame.jpg This is I think the most borderline case, box cover and screen of a game. The box cover photo is taken at a angle and cannot be used to reproduce a copy, part of the screen it's oscured by the box cover.
- Image:Game of life board.jpg Game of life boardgame, a photo of the boardgame during play. it's a 3D composition and cannot be used to reproduce the game.
I uploaded the first two images, and I have notified the uploader of the third image. --Moroboshi 06:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I m the uploader of the third game of life foto, but I m not the fotographer. This picture came from english Wikipedia and I can say nothing to source or production, sorry. --Peng 16:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. They look like works derived from supposedly copyrighted board games.--Jusjih 03:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've deleted the second image, since it consists of two copyrighted items (design is copyrighted). To the two others, I added the {{trademarked}} template, since I'm unsure they actually contains any copyrightable objects. / Fred Chess 15:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Revision, I also delete the game of life board. / Fred Chess 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Reopen, I'm not sure about the Idro wargame mapboard, keeping it open for now. / Fred Chess 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
kept Idro wargame mapboard detail.JPG (since no-one argued otherwise) / Fred Chess 08:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
August 19
[edit]Image was deleted on de. Image is not in PD.
deleted by User:Odder --ALE! ¿…? 18:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Image was uploaded by accident. I thought I uploaded the correct picture. The picture was used without Author's permission. Sorry for any disputes caused.
- Deleted per uploader request. -- Infrogmation 14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently uploaded for purposes of vandalism on en.wikipedia (or at best free web hosting). I strongly believe that it is a copyvio. I don't even think it's a particularly good illustration for the topic it purported to illustrate on en.wikipedia (a slang term for people who are sexually attracted to the elderly). This image was earlier proposed for speedy deletion but the uploader removed the tag without explanation. --FreplySpang 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Note, before clicking on the image link, that it's an explicit portrayal of penetrative sexual intercourse - in case you happen to be in a place where you'd rather not have that on your screen. Sorry I didn't make this clear earlier. FreplySpang 08:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Uploader has already been indefinitely blocked (under two different user names) on English Wikipedia as a vandal-only account. Angr 12:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy deleted per nom; user's only Commons edits have been uploading this image and removing the "delete" header. Clear vandalism intention; no reason to keep this here. -- Infrogmation 14:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This image is Lipadom.jpg which was deleted as a result of copyright violations on Wikipedia [60] [61] and uploaded on commons for safekeeping on May 28, probably by Maayaa sock puppet, when it became obvious that it will be deleted. By name of Lipadom.jpg picture was also deleted from commons for the same reason [62]. Vision Thing 08:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Appears originally to have been uploaded to en:Wikipedia under "fair use"; version on commons has had shifting disagreeing licence and source info added in attempt to avoid deletion. -- Infrogmation 21:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: Image created by me in error; forgot to delete from my computer, and uploaded it by mistake. This route in Ohio does not exist; therefore no shield should exist either. --Homefryes 14:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Porn, and probably copyrighted. Dbmag9 20:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. User's only upload. Unused; speedy would be fine by me. -- Infrogmation 20:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:WarX --ALE! ¿…? 22:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Coptic-Cross.svg. — Erin (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- This deletion request seems to be motivated by purely abstract theoretical metaphysical reasons, rather than by actual practical concerns. I'm also not excessively impressed by the fact that Erin Silversmith started this by uploading an incorrect vector conversion. If I had gone away for a few days, and found my image replaced by an incorrect vector conversion, then I would not have been a happy camper. AnonMoos 00:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is not "your" image. — Erin (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's my image insofar as I created it, and I know what is a correct and an incorrect vector conversion of it (while you don't seem to). AnonMoos 02:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (the svg looks identical now)--ALE! ¿…? 07:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{delete} horrible quality, bad frame with date. 83.20.18.96 12:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- (Somewhat weak) Keep. Poor (not horrible), but about all we have at present to illustrate this type of tram in Krakow. Free licenced & better than nothing, therefore IMO harmless. -- Infrogmation 21:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep until we get a better picture. And dear anon, have you considered registering and/or taking a better picture for us?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source at all given, similar picture here. Until proof is given, I don't believe this picture is actually licensed as GFDL. --Rosenzweig 20:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It came with GFDL from de.wikipedia. BBC may have borrowed it. Who knows. --Adomnan 20:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO it came from en.wikipedia where it has been deleted as well [63]. Entirely unsourced and not acceptable for commons with that poor information. delete. --Wiggum 23:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Does not look like GFDL to me. And the uploader doesn't seem to have any info backing it up, either. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reason for request the same as other German WWII photos discussed recently. The PD-license on en: is given because it was published in the United States before 1964, which is irrelevant. The GFDL-en license given here is clearly not correct. Cnyborg 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
delete as everytime. Those WWII pictures turn out to be a kind of epidemic plague.--Wiggum 23:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Certainly there are some free licence WWII vintage photos... but the GFDL tag on this one is certainly bogus. Note that the en: version is tagged under fair use. -- Infrogmation 04:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The en: versions' license template changed two days ago: [64] --88.134.45.6
- Deleted (and orphaned on two projects, local fair use on two other projects). Cnyborg 17:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Colors and image whole aren't according Government standard --AlefZet 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Currently replaced by Image:Flag of Kazakhstan.svg - -AlefZet 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of copyrighted statue. I, the uploader, now realize that it violates several Fair use guidelines (high res, unused, redundant). Cacophony 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- For me the building is the main subject of the photo not the statue. --ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
While the trailer screenshot is in Public Domain, isn't the time magazine cover which is the main subject of the image, still copyrighted? Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 04:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - the Time magazine itself is still under copyright, most likely. A frame from the trailer itself might not be. Morven 08:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete The trailer may be pd from lack of renewal, but the Time magazine cover shown here is not. -- Infrogmation 14:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Derivative work, i.e. if you take a photo of a copyrighted item, *you* may release your photo into the PD, but it still isn't public domain. / Fred Chess 07:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I just don't see how this is GFDL. The ro-wikipedia page from which it was copied claims it to be PD. Janco lived 1895-1984. It's just possible (in that it might be old enough to have been published before 1923), but that's not what the licensing information on the page says. -- en:Jmabel | talk 06:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete The uploader has made numerous similar contributions which comprise his/her photographs of modern 2-dimensional works of art. Many have been deleted and others probably should be. Someone conversant in Română should inform the uploader that for copyright purposes, photographs of 2-d art are not considered to be the work of the photographer, but that of the original artist. If this work is old enough (and I don't think it is) it should probably be tagged PD-old or PD-art, not GDFL. Nonenmac 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 07:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"PD from german wikipedia" + GFDL-self does not make any sense to me. --Rtc 13:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- After looking in the old deleted versions on de: it's PD. I have changed the site here and removed the Deletion requests. --DaB. 14:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't close this debate yet. Now we have just an unjustified PD-Template. If there is no approriate reason why this picture should be PD delete. --Wiggum 14:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Another case of using a Wikipedia as a source for an image on Commons, and then deleting the image from the Wikipedia by "NowCommons". I'll contact the de-admin who deleted it there and see if the original uploader and source can be recovered and used here. Angr 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes this is an annoying issue. Since DaB. is an admin on de-wikipedia, he had restored all information. I sadly assume that your request on the deleter's talk page will not bring new information.--Wiggum 23:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, it didn't. The deleting admin confirmed there was no source information at de: either. Anyway, there are already lots of other pics at Goetheanum. Angr 05:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, probably copyvio / Fred Chess 07:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Autographs are copyright of the creator -- Fred Chess 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Good point, never thought about that...BrokenSegue 19:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Jusjih 13:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON - No summary supporting a Creative Commons license --User:Nv8200p 17:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- This applies to all his uloads. --Kjetil_r 20:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, Thuresson 07:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- This file yes, but what about the rest of Fairefils uploads? --ALE! ¿…? 12:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well I will just tag them as {{copyvio}}s --ALE! ¿…? 12:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems not free, because it is newer photo of an relief and author has given no approval - Sven-steffen arndt 11:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is the the third dimension (depth) of a relief significant enough that photographs have to be licensed separately? It seems to me this should be considered essentially equivalent to a 2D artwork, meaning that {{GFDL}} is the wrong tag, instead it should be {{PD-old}} or {{PD-art}}. Angr 12:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete, since it is a photo of a three dimensional work it is not just a reproduction but a separate work.--Wiggum 14:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to be a picture of a relief but of a mural; which I'd consider to be 2-D. So keep, I'd say
- Kept; no original authorship. / Fred Chess 13:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a painting by Pablo Picasso (painted in 1937). The painting is not PD, therefore publication of derivative works requires authorisation from the copyright holder (presumably the estate of Pablo Picasso). However I note from Commons:Derivative works that freedom of panorama extends to sculptures in Spain—does it also extend to murals like this one? Regardless, I think that under the Berne Convention this artwork is still protected by Picasso's copyright in the U.S. (where the Wikimedia servers are located). —JeremyA 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is an unacceptable way to try and circumvent the copyrights. / Fred Chess 10:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Is there something like de:Panoramafreiheit in Spain? --ALE! ¿…? 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment According to Commons:Licensing, en:Spanish_copyright_law, and WIPO [65], Article 35 of Spain's relevant law says "Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes." So... it seems as though this image would be covered by that, and be OK. I guess if Picasso separately registered for copyright in the US, that could complicate matters, and it's possible this mural in Guernica is a copyright violation itself in the first place. In reading about it, the iconic status of this painting probably muddies the issue further. I do see several web images of the painting marked as copyright the "Estate of Pablo Picasso". Carl Lindberg 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Have we abandoned Commons:Derivative works for externally located works in Spain? / Fred Chess 07:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- No, but Commons:Derivative works explicitly mentions freedom of panorama as an exception, and there is at least a chance that it applies here. I agree it is borderline though, as the painting is the central subject of the photo (with the possibly significant addition of the caption, which is part of a campaign to have the painting brought to its namesake city). On the other hand, the photo also cannot "unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer" according to Spanish law, and it very well might. On the other hand the photo is not terribly high resolution, and is slightly blurry, so it may not.
- According to en:Guernica (painting), some Basque factions use imagery from the painting often, so it would not surprise me if the mural itself was done without permission and is a copyright violation in the first place. I would think it would qualify for fair use in some Wikipedia articles, but it's borderline here on commons. I'm just not sure on what side :-) This link [66] (which has a full 3D QTVR panorama of the same site) says that "the painting by Picasso is everywhere to be seen here: it is apparent in particular’s households, official buildings, bars and restaurants, façades..." so it seems as though the painting has achieved some sort of special status there. I'm just not sure how or if that affects the freedom of panorama status for commons though. Borderline in more than one way. Carl Lindberg 03:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete if no one has strong valid reason to keep.--Jusjih 03:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- the exception in Commons:Derivative_works is not applicable (for all we know). / Fred Chess 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
legend is wrong, GABA and Glutamate pathways exchanged, corrected version uploaded here: Image:Basal-ganglia-2.jpg --Schneedrache 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- As the second image is just a correction to the first, I reuploaded it over the top of Image:Basal-ganglia-1.jpg. Image:Basal-ganglia-1.jpg is now correct and so Image:Basal-ganglia-2.jpg can be deleted. —JeremyA 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- As an addendum, although I don't speak much German, I think that the caption is wrong. This diagram only depicts the 'direct/indirect' pathway model of Albin, Young & Penney/DeLong and not all of the connections within the Basal Ganglia. In fact, it misses important connections such as cortex->STN and STN->GPe. —JeremyA 02:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
August 20
[edit]copyrighted, see [67] --GeorgHH 00:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Clearly yoinked from copyrighted page. (html fixed.) -- Infrogmation 03:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong name, I already uploaded a new file with a right name. Manchot 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Wrong name, I already uploaded a new file with a right name. Manchot 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Both speedied as duplicates. — Erin (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The file, i have uploaded, is corrupt.N3MO 11:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've speedied it as an empty file. — Erin (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This really hurts ... The above picture is a cut-out (in very bad quality, btw) from one of the two only known pictures of Charley Patton, the "Father of the Delta Blues". The current copyright-holder is John Tefteller, owner of BluesImages.com (see full-size original here, check the small copyright in the lower right corner of the photograph and compare Teftellers statement on the photo at [68]). The photo is from about 1929 and has been rediscovered in 2003, the photographer is unknown. I wrote him a mail, if he might like to donate a lesser-quality version of the photo, but currently this is definitely a copy-vio. Denisoliver 20:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, this photo and the copyright status is well known in classic blues history circles. As the uploader said, it is old... but sorry, not old enough to be out of copyright. Deleted. -- Infrogmation 21:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyvio (see description page and de:WP:UF) --Historiograf 15:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thats not true. This is my own work. Perhaps the file mentioned abovewas repainted from the same source available at the cityhall. --Huebi 15:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Huebi is lying. He has explicitely said at WP:UF that he made the map after a source he has not mentioned. --Historiograf 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hit the road histo. I repainted the whole map for my own. DONT SAY AGAIN THAT I'M LYING. Youre just angry that i call you a "pappnase" and this is your revenge, nothing else. --Huebi 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Huebi merely copied a template. It is not his own work, but the work of the author of the original map. He is lying because he knows this and if he is not lying deliberately, then he has not understood that copyright is not about the skill and labour put into the work (perhaps in the UK, but not in Germany or the US), but about creativity and originality that has gone into the work. If I copy picasso's work, it does not become my work. --Rtc 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody of you fucking guys has the right to tell that i'm lying. Saying fuck you is same thing as saying i'm lying and hopefully i hope will never see you or histo in real life. fare well assholes. i know what the consequence of these words is, but its worth to tell you what i'm thinking about you. --Huebi 11:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Huebi merely copied a template. It is not his own work, but the work of the author of the original map. He is lying because he knows this and if he is not lying deliberately, then he has not understood that copyright is not about the skill and labour put into the work (perhaps in the UK, but not in Germany or the US), but about creativity and originality that has gone into the work. If I copy picasso's work, it does not become my work. --Rtc 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hit the road histo. I repainted the whole map for my own. DONT SAY AGAIN THAT I'M LYING. Youre just angry that i call you a "pappnase" and this is your revenge, nothing else. --Huebi 14:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Huebi is lying. He has explicitely said at WP:UF that he made the map after a source he has not mentioned. --Historiograf 19:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Very close to the map shown at [69]. Derived work from a copyrighted 2D original. Lupo 15:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete derivative work. --Rtc 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this image will not be usefull anymore. there are no use, and there are better images about rivne country--KaiKotzian 17:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (superseded by Image:Riwne-Ukraine-Map.png) --ALE! ¿…? 08:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
awful low quality... actually, what is this? --Suisui 17:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Appears to be a doodle self portrait with same name as uploading user? Maybe for use on user page? I asked user what it is for on their talk page. Free licenced, so IMO no harm in waiting a little while to see if we get a response. -- Infrogmation 21:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, used on user pages. --Kjetil_r 17:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image does not have its origin clearly stated and appears likely to be a derivative work. __meco 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- From the uploader's talk page it appears that the image has previously been suggested for deletion, however, I am unable to find the previous deletion discussion. __meco 09:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted and found it used at w:fr:Modèle:Portail La Guerre des étoiles, suggesting it from the Star Wars movies. Thus it should be considered a copyvio.--Jusjih 03:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
August 21
[edit]If this image is protected by the British Crown the copyright hasn't expired yet, then according to http://www.london.gov.uk/terms.jsp it is a copyvio. Anna 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Dodo --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own authorship, all the other uploads of this user have been deleted as copyvios, and according to the cache of google image the same photo has been published on msn.com (in a different resolution). regards, High on a tree 01:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Infrogmation 04:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
derivative work --Schlendrian 10:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Panther 15:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted—unauthorised derivative work, JeremyA 03:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work so much it hurts. //Liftarn 13:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's under the 'Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0' licensed - which means: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The work is also attributed to the photographer because I've included the Source link to the page on Flickr.
- The creative commons site for this license says: "You are free: to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work." — Wackymacs 13:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted — 1) cc-by-nc-nd is not an acceptible licence for the Commons. 2)I don't believe that the person that uploaded this image to Flickr had permission from Apple to use this licence anyway. —JeremyA 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Flag of Biafra.svg --jed 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 19:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete jpeg version was horrible in the first place. NielsF 03:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Flag of Cabo Rojo.svg --jed 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 20:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete jpg version was horrible anyway. NielsF 03:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
both deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Board for a commercially marketed board game. See w:Can't Stop. Apparently the work of w:Sid_Sackson. William Avery 06:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Il s'agit d'une représentation de l'ancien tablier d'un jeu qui n'a aujourd'hui plus du tout cette apparence (voir [70] et [71]. En aucun cas il ne s'agit d'une violation de copyright. Je ne comprend pas pourquoi User:William Avery veut supprimer cette image. Peut-être veut-il faut aussi détruire les images suivantes : Image:Scrabble board.png, Image:Abalone.JPG, Image:DiplomacyBoardWithSC.png, Image:Djambi 01.png qui sont tous des représentations de jeux commercialisés. Dessiner une libre interprétation d'un plan de jeu n'est pas une violation du copyright. D'autant plus que cela ne permet absolument pas de jouer puisque le jeu original est en relief. Le but de ce dessin, qui ne lèse en rien les intérêts de la veuve de Monsieur Sackson, est de servir de support pour un futur article consacré à ce très bon jeu. François Haffner 09:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am indeed mystified by the idea that the image of the Scrabble board is PD. William Avery 11:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Look at this cease and desist letter sent out by Hasbro claiming both copyright and trademark protection of Scrabble. William Avery 11:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ça ne prouve rien ! Hasbro interdit un site qui prétend s'appeller e-scrabble. C'est normal. On a même vu des cas où Mattel, qui possède les droits du Scrabble pour le monde entier sauf les Étatts-Unis et le Canada, cherchait à interdire l'utilisation du mot Scrabble à des journalistes. On a beaucoup rit. Cependant, ce qui est déposé et protegeable, ce sont les élaments originaux : tablier original, pièces originales et règle.
- Pour ce qui nous occupe, l'image Image:Scrabble board.png ou l'image Image:Cant_stop.svg ne sont pas des copies d'un modèle déposé mais des interprétations qui peuvent elles être libres de droit. Une interprétation, comme une caricature n'est pas une reproduction. Et ce n'est pas une simple nuance. C'est fondamental. Nul ne peut m'empêcher d'interpréter un élément de jeu et de le placer dans le domaine public. Ce qui serait interdit serait d'ebn faire une exploitation concurrente à ce jeu. François Haffner 12:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- The word Scrabble is a trademark. This is about the copyright of a design. Are you maintaining that Image:Cant_stop.svg is not derived from the board design in the photo at w:Image:CantStop-sm.png? William Avery 12:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Bien sûr que mon image est une interprétation du plan de jeu de la version de 1981 de Can't Stop. Mais encore une fois, il s'agit d'une illustration du plan de jeu et non d'une copie de ce plan de jeu. Personne n'est lésée par cette illustration dont le but est d'expliquer un jeu. Il ne s'agit pas de dire que le jeu est du domaine public, mais d'affirmer qu'on peut mettre dans le domaine public un schéma explicatif, un dessin ou une photo d'un tablier de jeu sas porter atteinte à l'auteur du jeu ni à son éditeur. Toute interprétation d'un objet est obligatoirement dérivé de cet objet sans pour autant contituer une atteinte au copyright (copyright et non interpretationright !). Vas-tu aussi demander la destruction du plan de jeu de Scrabble ? Ce serait hallucinant ! François Haffner 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fair use rationale to me. With regard to the other images, I don't think we rule out deleting anything if it is found to be not free. William Avery 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- kept--Shizhao
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
and Image:Bienal de Praga 2, Mayo 2005.jpg, Image:Sy 09.jpg, Image:Sy 05.jpg.
Derivative work -- EugeneZelenko 15:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 07:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I draw this image once to mark articles that have no chemical structure. On de its now replaced by the template {{Strukturformel nicht vorhanden}}. On other wikis it is not used, so this image can be deleted. --Rhododendronbusch 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-ItalyGov}}
[edit]This template is nonsense. There is NO consensus although Mak has recently changed Commons:Licensing. He is damaging our project because he does'nt accept arguments against his position. German reading people are invited to see also the discussion of User:Wikipeder --Historiograf 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Lupo posted an analysis of the issue today. --Wikipeder 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
KeepCreativeCommons doesn't seem to think it is nonsense. They declare on their italian site that works of the state expire after 20 years. Italian wikipedia article doesn't seem to think it is nonsense- their article on copyright makes the same statement. I have based my statements on citations of law. The opposing parties have declined to give any support in law for their position for the last month on this issue. What they cite is the EU directive on harmonization, making claims that Italian law is wrong.
The nutshell argument supporting this template is this. The two passages of law I cite in the template give the basis in Italian law for why the works of the government are public domain and expire 20 years after publication. These were the laws on the books as of January 1, 1996. Under US law (under Title17, 104A h6b), if a work is public domain in the country of origin on that date, it is PD in the US. As with the PD-US template, we can say that means it is PD in the US, and possible elsewhere.
A full elaboration of the arguments are found here:
This discussion has been going on since the first of the month. When reading the threads, there is a huge amount of noise about extraneous issues, so it is helpful keep in mind the question: "What is the basis in law for this person's assertion?" Note that EU directives have no legal force until they are implemented in law by the individual EU nations. -Mak 05:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The argument against this tag and against applying this exception on the Commons is, in a nutshell, that we do not know enough on the legal situation yet to be sure. There are considerable clues that the situation is not as assumed by the tag. We are running a high risk of opening a gate for stealth non-free content.
Raising doubt is among other things that
- the very law can be read differently, namely that the state holds some of the rights for 20 years merely within the 70 years pma. period,
- Italian legal commentaries point out that there is a grey area in this respect,
- in the reading suggested by the tag, parts of §11 would contradict the 1993 EU Directive on Copyright Harmonisation, stripping some private photographers off their image rights, which nobody would have noticed for 13 years,
- there would be lots of 20+ year old PD photographic works around in Italy, but even the Italian WP fails to mention these (it only speaks of simple photographs as being PD after 20 years),
- the precedence LUCE image, made by a department of the Italian Propaganda Ministry in 1939, is not at all PD as claimed by Mak, but copyrighted to Corbis (No. U821165INP).
Beyond that, it is not and must not be the standard procedure to introduce an novelty unless it can be proved wrong. The opposite is appropriate when it comes to peoples’ rights: If we are not sure if we will be violating rights, we must not take a step. --Wikipeder 10:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- you have rellay no idea of what you are talking about. Italian laws are usually not easy to read; so I doubt you are able to unedrstand a bit of it; but if you could you would clearly see that the law state thing very clearly, that the copyright belongs to the government and that you are mostly wrong. Paulatz 08:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete In contradiction to EU directive. --Rtc 16:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
EU directives are not law. They have no legal force until they are implemented in laws of the governments of the individual countries. Folks unclear on this may consult European Union directive for further information. We base our templates on law. The Italian government says these are PD, US Government code says these are PD, and the specific sections of law showing this to be the case has been presented. Opponents have declined to do so other than vague assertions that there are contradictions and alternate readings which in the discussions on the talk pages they have declined to show.
BTW- the full discussion of this has been consolidated at Template talk:PD-ItalyGov. On the Commons Licensing page, it has been recorded that this matter is disputed regarding the theory that the 70 year pma rule overides the rights of the Italian government to declare their works public domain after 20 years. Proponents of this theory need to muster an arguement with specific reference to law or caselaw to prove their theory.-Mak 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep Giving up or limiting the term of one's own copyright is not against any European Directive. -- 3247 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- comment: In the tag's understanding, however, the state was not giving up just his own copyright (he's doing that in §5), but also the copyright of third parties, i. e. of private photographers whose works are paid for and published by the state or even by academies, cultural and non-profit organisations, which would in fact contradict the directive and national law in all EU states.
- The law plainly says that photographic works are copyright protected for 70 years pma. If the state, an academie, cultural or non-profit organisation commissions a shot, they have the copright for 20 years. This does not contradict the EU directive, but Mak's and the tag's interpretation that these works enter into the PD after these 20 years does. --Wikipeder 09:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Modify. Reading the translations of the law at UNESCO things seem to be fairly unambiguous. It states in article 11 that, "Copyright in works created and published under the name and at the expense of the State, the Provinces or the Communes shall belong to them." It then further states in article 29 that, "The duration of the exploitation rights belonging, under art. 11, to the State, the provinces, the communes, the academies or public cultural organizations, or to private legal entities of a non-profit making character, shall be twenty years from first publication, whatever the form in which publication was effected." That does not really leave room for much confusion. The Italian text is the definitive version, and something might have been lost in translation, but I don't think a radical reinterpretation of it would be necessary.
The upshot of this is that copyright in works published under the name and at the expense of Italian governmental organisations is held by those governmental organisations. The duration of that copyright, in Italy, is 20 years from date of first publication. Outside Italy we run into the same problems as we had with UK Crown copyright before I got that FOIA reply from OPSI in 2005. The position is ambiguous. Judging by the US WTO copyright restoring rules since government works have a copyright term of 20 years in Italy it would appear that government works not properly registered for copyright in the US and previous public domain in the US under this rule would remain public domain unless they were published after 1975, when they still would have been in copyright in Italy.
Outside of Italy and the US we cannot say that the works are public domain. This is one of the most tangled areas of international copyright law and, given the resources that governments can throw at lawsuits, one where we should tread most carefully. Consequently the template should be modified to make it clear that we are only claiming the works as PD in Italy and the United States. A provision should also be put in stating that only works published before 1976, and not registered for copyright under US formalities, are public domain in the United States.
The final thing that should be done is to try and get a definitive statement out of the Italian agency(ies) that administer government copyright about what they consider the situation to be in countries outside Italy. David Newton 09:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am ok with constraining this to the US and Italy for the first release of this template. First cut at this modification text has been made on Template:PD-ItalyGov. Comments are invited on the talk page. -Mak 09:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete this is superseded by EU directives. Although they are not law, their implementation into national law is mandatory. Seems to be a phantom debate.--Wiggum 22:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- you have no idea what you are talking about; Italy mostly accepted the EU directive but mantained a reduced copyright, of 20 years, for non-artistic works. Paulatz 08:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Specious. Show us where in Italian law it says what you claim EU directives dictate that countries must do. As David pointed out, the law is unambiguous. Italy also is listed as having implemented the EU harmonization directive. Ergo- either we must conclude that you and the EU wand wavers have a mistaken understanding of EU directives, or we must conclude that the Italian government is mistaken. Sorry, but the Italian government has more credibility.
- Err, no – we must conclude that either everything is fine with Italian law and the EU directive, namely that images are copyright protected 70 years p.m.a just as it says in the law, no matter who might hold the economic exploitation rights during that period, or that Mak is right, that the Italian government is mistaken, violates EU directives and strips privat persons of their rights, which strangely nobody has ever noticed or claimed, not the EU commission, not Italian lawyers, not LUCE, not the disowned copyright holders, not customers of agencies claiming copyright.
- Given that Mak has not produced the slightest evidence or even hint that there might be something to his interpretation, I certainly see more credibility with the standard interpretation. --Wikipeder 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding the nonsense about Corbis claiming copyright on one Italian government image, therefore the Italian law must be wrong. Consider the fact that Corbis claims copyright on hundreds of US government photos (a few listed here). Are we to conclude that we should delete all the PD-USGOV templates? Why are the opponents attempting to prop up their flimsy thinking with such absurd inferences? The opponents stubbornly cling to their illusions and refuse to cite law or caselaw to back up their unsupportable theories about EU directives. -Mak 09:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is not the Italian government that is wrong, it is your interpretation of the Italian law.
- And frankly, a world wide renown agency as Corbis claiming copyright certainly is more credible than some bloke tagging an image PD-USGov because it's got some government stuff on it, innit?. Indeed, there may be heaps of images wrongly tagged as PD-USGov. --Wikipeder 12:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what you conclude. Read the first few sentences of en:European Union directive and then read the text of the harmonization directive (93/98/EEC) especially article 1 which is pretty clear:
- 1. The rights of an author of a literary or artistic work within the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his death, irrespective of the date when the work is lawfully made available to the public.
- 2. In the case of a work of joint authorship the term referred to in paragraph 1 shall be calculated from the death of the last surviving author.
- 3. In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection shall run for seventy years after the work is lawfully made available to the public. However, when the pseudonym adopted by the author leaves no doubt as to his identity, or if the author discloses his identity during the period referred to in the first sentence, the term of protection applicable shall be that laid down in paragraph 1.
- 4. Where a Member State provides for particular provisions on copyright in respect of collective works or for a legal person to be designated as the rightholder, the term of protection shall be calculated according to the provisions of paragraph 3, except if the natural persons who have created the work as such are identified as such in the versions of the work which are made available to the public. This paragraph is without prejudice to the rights of identified authors whose identifiable contributions are included in such works, to which contributions paragraph 1 or 2 shall apply.
--Wiggum 13:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wiggum you are wrong. Plain and simple. This is a government work we are talking about. The government holds the copyright in that work. Ergo the government can decide how long it wants that copyright to run for. Until you and Wikipeder acknowledge that basic fact you have no credibility at all in this discussion.
- If we were talking about a private work then what you say would have weight. We are not talking about a private work. David Newton 23:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- We are talking about private works. Government works are dealt with e. g. in Article 5. Article 11 does not deal with works created by civil servants on duty. It deals with works paid for and published by private bodies such as academies, cultural institutions, private non-profit organisation, and the state. This includes far more than government works. If a ministry hires a private photographer or buys unpublished images from him—say for a leporello on health care—, publishing the images in the ministry's name, it will have the right to do so exclusively for 20 years without the need to fix that specifically in a contract.
- The same goes for any other private academy, cultural institution or private non-profit organisation listed by the very same Art. 11. In these cases the state is not even remotely involved at all.
- Releasing such private works into the public domain after 20 years would not at all be in line with EU directives. --Wikipeder 08:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Uh. Sorry? The template doesn't cover private works at all. Wikipeder, please show me anywhere the template says that people can use it for private works paid for private bodies such as "academies, cultural institutions,..."
- In article 11, the first single, separate paragraph says the Italian government owns copyright to the works that it pays for in its name. It does so in very clear and unequivocal language.
- "Copyright in works created and published under the name and at the expense of the State, the Provinces or the Communes shall belong to them." Full stop. The first sentence of Article 11, the only sentence in the first paragraph. (Source: Unesco translation of Italian copyright law- see article 11.)
- The second paragraph extends the similar rights to other entities in the Public sector, but these rights are not asserted in this template. Wikipeder is introducing irrelevant obfuscations. He has had this pointed out to him on his earlier presentation on this idea. He had no response then. Perhaps now he will explain why consideration of the rights of other public sector entities has anything any bearing on consideration of the rights of the state asserted in Italian copyright law. -Mak 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- For sure the Italian government could do with the pictures what they want if copyright is owned by the state. That the copyright could be owned by the government and that your interpretation of the italian law is correct should be proved. This could be achieved by a gouvernmental statement as David pointed out for Crown Copyright. However we should be clear about the fact that these works are protected throughout the European Union due to the berne convention and the UCC. Since the European court of justice decided (in 2002) that the rule of shorter term violates the ban on discrimination for nationality this argumentation is nearly invulnerable. As far as i know the US usually do not adopt the rule of shorter term so the pictures would be protected there as well. Since the PD-Soviet discussion is running at the moment i know that an US court decided to use Soviet law to determine the ownership of copyright instead of US law. (see en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. for further information). So there is at least a possibility that these works might be PD in the United States. Concluding i don't see good chances to accept this template's claims so i will keep up my delete vote.--Wiggum 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Folks, just have a look at the Italian text, please. "Alle amministrazioni dello stato ... spetta il diritto di autore"[72] does not mean a US-style copyright is owned by the state. "Spettare" specifies who is allowed to exert a right, not to whom it is irrevocably transferred as it could be done with US copyright. The sentence means the author's rights shall be held by the state.
Article 29 tells us "La durata dei diritti ... spettanti ... alle amministrazioni dello stato ... è di vent'anni"—The duration of the rights that shall be held by the state is 20 years. What happens then? The right of the state to the author's rights expires, not the very rights of the author. --Wikipeder 14:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- as you are an "it-1" user I don't think you can understand the exact meaning of the a word so seldom used as "spettare". It means "to belong as a consequence of some right". Paulatz 19:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and this right of the state to exert the author's rights expires after 20 years. This doesn't say anything about the works entering the public domain then. --Wikipeder 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is no "author" involved.. there is a worker who is paid to do a job. He has no copyright from the beginning, the copyright is owned by the state, and expires after 20 years. In any country (EU, US, China) can't exist any protection after that term, because the only copyright holder is the State, and the State gives up its rights after 20 years. The expression "public domain" it's alien for italian legislation, so the formulation of this article is the only possible, and could have only this meaning. --Twilight 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, and this right of the state to exert the author's rights expires after 20 years. This doesn't say anything about the works entering the public domain then. --Wikipeder 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep of course, as the deletion requester don't know the Italian law at all Paulatz 19:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Paulatz... --Giac! - (Tiago is here) 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep perfectly compliant with italian laws and Berne convention. Same as Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Italy. I can't understand if you have anything against Italy or are simply uninformed --Jollyroger 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just a funny thing. Someone voted for deletion saying The argument against this tag and against applying this exception on the Commons is, in a nutshell, that we do not know enough on the legal situation yet to be sure.. It sounds to me like I don't understand, so delete. Who cares if the template was written by an italian attorney and the whole italian community is saying it is perfectly compliant with current law. I can't understand it anyway!. I am astonished.--Jollyroger 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Jollyroger. --.anaconda 19:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Paulatz --Silas Flannery
- Keep Apparently the deletion request is based on a misinterpretation of the Italian law. Andrea.gf 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Urby2004 20:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Gvf 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Kal-El post here! 21:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --ßøuñçê
Y2K 21:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) - Keep --Zinn 21:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --SCDBob 22:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Folks, you are barking up the wrong tree if you are coming from it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/ATTENZIONE Template PD-italy in cancellazione su commons. This here is about a completely different exception and tag. You might want to go here --Wikipeder 10:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Have you considered the possibility that we know where we are and what we are voting about? --Berto 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Twilight 16:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but as with PD-Soviet and PD-Italy, legal advice from a professional copyright lawyer is needed for a definitive decision. The Commons project might be in trouble if this license does not comply with international copyright. --Denniss 18:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Jollyroger a few lines above --Berto 11:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Jollyroger a few lines above. shaka 10:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --CyberAngel 20:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- No question --Bramfab 12:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Jollyroger a few lines above. -- Sannita 18:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Crossed-out picture of Anton LaVey, from the back cover of the album Aske, by the Norwegian band Burzum. It's labelled as PD, but I seriously doubt it, since the cover and back cover are most likely copyrighted to the band, or to whomever designed them. --Fibonacci 08:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
La imagen es parte de la contraportada, no la contraportada completa. Yo corté la imagen de la contraportada y la modifiqué por ordenador para mejorar la calidad, considero que el resultado final puede considerarse de fabricación propia. En todo caso dudo mucho que los que diseñaron la contraportada pusieran copyrigth a esa imagen, ni que solicitasen y les fuese concedido permiso por parte de LaVey para poner una foto de su cara tachada en la contraportada de su disco. He visto imagenes de la portada de Aske en la página "Black Metal" y no parece haber problema de copyrigth con ello, así que no me parece lógico borrar un fragmento de la contraportada que, además, ha sido modificado. ususrio: sydalg --Sydalg 10:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Esto no es Black Metal, es Wikimedia Commons y tiene unas reglas muy específicas. --Fibonacci 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- For non Spanish-speakers, this is what User:Sydalg said:
- The image is just part of the backcover, not the whole backcover. I cut the image from the backcover and digitally edited it to improve quality, I think the final result can be considered self-made. Anyway I doubt that whoever designed the backcover did copyright that image, or that they asked/were given permission from LaVey to put a crossed-out picture of his face in the backcover of their disk. I've seen images of Aske's cover in the "Black Metal" webpage and there seems to be no copyright problem with that, so I don't think it's sound to delete a fragment of the backcover that, moreover, has been modified.
- It sounds pretty much like a copyvio to me. --Fibonacci 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, lacks verified permission. / Fred Chess 07:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The date of death of its author is unkown and more than 70 years hardly probable. --störfix 16:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless it is anonymous and the copyright has expired.--Jusjih 04:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 18:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old deletion request from uploader: "sorry -> Commons:Village_pump, license ok?. Besides, they switched from PD to "Copyright: USHMM" in the last 24h, funny business. --tickle me 00:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)" . --GeorgHH 09:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- ?? When I just visited http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/14601?hr=null they still said "public domain" and "courtesy of Stadtarchiv Pforzheim". Now whether that PD claim is correct is another question. In view of the dealings of the WMF with the USHMM, it might be a good idea to ask Brad Patrick what we should do with this (and other USHMM images). Lupo 10:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Cannot be PD, unless author died two years before he took the photo.
The upload is based on this faulty licence (free translation):
"[...] The municipial archive of Pforzheim releases the two images in question reduced in size and with a resolution of 72 ppi ([names of the images]) into the public domain. The source (municipial archive of Pforzheim) and photographer (exterior view: Herbert Feuerstein, interior view: unknown) must be named. Publication of the images reduced in size under the licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5 is approved as well. [...]"
The images are not in the public domain, because they are not old enough. They could only be released as copyrighted free use by the exclusive owner of the rights. The fact that the archive does not even know the name of the author does strongly suggest it does not exclusively holds his rights.
These images should be removed as well:
- Image:Zerrenerstrasse Synagoge 10 Nov 1938 Innenansicht.jpg
- Image:Zerrenerstrasse Synagoge 10 Nov 1938 Aussenansicht.jpg
--Wikipeder 11:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
You cannot give rights you don't have - it's simple. Thus delete the whole stuff - unfortunately we have no rules for "orphaned works" like these photos --Historiograf 18:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. The latter two images were not tagged until I just did it. If no one gives a strong reason to keep them, they will be deleted soon.--Jusjih 03:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wait. The uploader User:Tickle me is working on it, needs a little while I guess. Jesusfreund 21:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
How could the Pforzheim archives prove exclusive ownership of the rights? I assume they'd be willing to give needed info if I specified WP requirements. --tickle me 22:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyright status uncertain. / Fred Chess 16:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
August 22
[edit]bad name and superseded by Image:Flag of Portland, Oregon.svg --jed 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 05:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Flag of Aceh.svg --jed 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Albrandswaard flag.svg --jed 05:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 05:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
all deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Bahnmarke bleibt an Backbord liegen.svg --jed 05:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 05:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The Kool-Aid Man is a copyrighted figure -- Fred Chess 10:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Kool-aid man with a red, diagonal line running through it is not copyrighted. It is artistic licence and free speech.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; image is a derivative work of a copyrighted image. Angr 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by me. Jkelly 03:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Not free for commercial use / Fred Chess 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not free for commercial use / Fred Chess 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not free for commercial use / Fred Chess 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Not free for commercial use / Fred Chess 13:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{Noncommercial}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Flag of Lednice.svg --jed 17:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Flag of Hermanova Hut.svg --jed 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
superseded by Image:Flag of Mnichovo Hradiste.svg --jed 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
REASON: May be derivative work of a copyrigted work owned by the plachard painter. //Liftarn 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Jkelly --ALE! ¿…? 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The picture is turned sideways --Bernhard Jung 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No need for deletion. Tagged with {{Rotate}}. To the uploader User:Bernhard Jung: You can upload a rotated version over this version and contact me. I will delete the wrong version. --ALE! ¿…? 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- no reason for PD, he died 2004 so no PD-old possible ...Sicherlich Post 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- it was already tagged with {{no source since}} and will be deleted soon, so please use this page only for pictures where a discussion is needed, thanks :) -- Gorgo 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Samulili --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Doubts about validity of PD claim. Subject died in 1980 and many uploads of the uploader have already been removed because of irregularities. Siebrand 13:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:EugeneZelenko --ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reopen Template:Norden.org and all of the many, many images in Category:Images by the Nordic Council
[edit]This debate was archived without being closed. I don't know enough about the topic to close it and am apprehensive in performing the task myself. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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 [73]
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)
- Delete I believe the template needs to be included in Category:Against policy and the images thereafter removed. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I sent a mail to Norden.org. They sent me this today "Hi Fredrik. We haven't forgotten your mail, but it will take a couple of days before we can answer." / Fred Chess 18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, can't wait any longer for this. If you think the images should be deleted, delete them. Perhaps they can be restored some day. / Fred Chess 07:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Kept -- following the practice of flickr images where the license was changed after the image was uploaded here. / Fred Chess 16:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
to complete the deletion requeste by User:Pitert: SVG version available: Image:Amur Oblast Flag.svg; added by jed 06:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 06:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The waveform is different --ALE! ¿…? 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I used official sources [74] to draw the waves. Delete. Conscious 09:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Ultratomio 08:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference --Himasaram 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Deleted from en-wiki for not having a known source. See en:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 11. -- howcheng {chat} 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bewoelkung.png serries
[edit]The Bewoelkungs.png are superseded by their svg counterpart. In detail:
- Image:Bewoelkung0.png by Image:Cloud cover 0.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung1.png by Image:Cloud cover 1.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung2.png by Image:Cloud cover 2.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung3.png by Image:Cloud cover 3.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung4.png by Image:Cloud cover 4.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung5.png by Image:Cloud cover 5.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung6.png by Image:Cloud cover 6.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung7.png by Image:Cloud cover 7.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung8.png by Image:Cloud cover 8.svg
- Image:Bewoelkung9.png by Image:Cloud cover 9.svg
I nominate all the bewoelkungs.png for deletion. --jed 22:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all, good replacements.--Nilfanion 23:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Flaklypagrandprix.JPG, Image:Askeladden ivo caprino.jpg, Image:Reveenka ivo caprino.JPG, Image:Flode.JPG and Image:Chaplin colosseum.jpg
[edit]REASON: Copyvio of four norwegian artists, 1 still living, 3 dead within last 10 years. Some wallpaintings from Oslo town hall, uploaded by the same contributor, may as well be copyvio, but that calls for further research on year of death. --Orland 07:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted the five nominated images, but which wallpaintings from Oslo town hall uploaded by the same contributor are questionable?--Jusjih 04:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
August 23
[edit]Replaced by an upgraded version. Tilia 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 07:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I ask the images in this category to be deleted as unused duplicates (when and if they are) for the following reasons:
- They are/will be replaced by larger images in Category:Maps of districts of Turku.
- They have bad file type for a map.
- They contain factual errors with regard to the division to districts.
I have asked the creator about these images ([75], [76]) and he does not oppose to deleting them ([77]) (discussions in Finnish). -Samulili 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Will be deleted when appropriate. -Samulili 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Gallery African woman and images:
[edit]- image:african_woman_2.jpg
- image:african_woman_3.jpg
- image:african_woman.jpg
- image:african_woman_4.jpg
- image:african_woman_5.jpg
- image:african_woman_6.jpg
- image:african_woman_7.jpg
- image:african_woman_8.jpg
- image:african_woman_9.jpg
- image:african_woman_10.jpg
- image:african_woman_11.jpg
- image:african_woman_12.jpg
This is most likely copyvio. See the comment added in the gallery African woman August 3. It seems likely that this is african american porn star en:Jada Fire and highly unlikely that the photos are taken by the uploader in Kinshasa. --85.165.57.27 12:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
(The following entry concerns the same images, was posted under the wrong date Cnyborg 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
I believe we should delete all porn. I don't think a image of a vagina or penis is porn. But I'm sure this is porn. NorwegianMarcus 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
All deleted as copyright violation, and uploader has been warned. The same photos can be found in color by following the link from the en-Wikipedia article. Angr 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Image:Stamps of Germany (BRD), Olympiade 1972, Ausgabe 1972, Block 2, 25 Pf, Sonderstempel.jpg
[edit]It is the wrong name, see the new upload: Image:Stamps of Germany (BRD), Olympiade 1972, Ausgabe 1972, 20 Pf, Sonderstempel.jpg Sorry --Nightflyer 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Arrow-up.svg --jed 05:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Erin Silversmith --ALE! ¿…? 10:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Arrow-down.svg --jed 05:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Erin Silversmith --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced by an upgraded version. Tilia 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 07:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I ask the images in this category to be deleted as unused duplicates (when and if they are) for the following reasons:
- They are/will be replaced by larger images in Category:Maps of districts of Turku.
- They have bad file type for a map.
- They contain factual errors with regard to the division to districts.
I have asked the creator about these images ([78], [79]) and he does not oppose to deleting them ([80]) (discussions in Finnish). -Samulili 10:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Will be deleted when appropriate. -Samulili 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Gallery African woman and images:
[edit]- image:african_woman_2.jpg
- image:african_woman_3.jpg
- image:african_woman.jpg
- image:african_woman_4.jpg
- image:african_woman_5.jpg
- image:african_woman_6.jpg
- image:african_woman_7.jpg
- image:african_woman_8.jpg
- image:african_woman_9.jpg
- image:african_woman_10.jpg
- image:african_woman_11.jpg
- image:african_woman_12.jpg
This is most likely copyvio. See the comment added in the gallery African woman August 3. It seems likely that this is african american porn star en:Jada Fire and highly unlikely that the photos are taken by the uploader in Kinshasa. --85.165.57.27 12:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
(The following entry concerns the same images, was posted under the wrong date Cnyborg 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC))
I believe we should delete all porn. I don't think a image of a vagina or penis is porn. But I'm sure this is porn. NorwegianMarcus 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
All deleted as copyright violation, and uploader has been warned. The same photos can be found in color by following the link from the en-Wikipedia article. Angr 17:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Stamps of Germany (BRD), Olympiade 1972, Ausgabe 1972, Block 2, 25 Pf, Sonderstempel.jpg
[edit]It is the wrong name, see the new upload: Image:Stamps of Germany (BRD), Olympiade 1972, Ausgabe 1972, 20 Pf, Sonderstempel.jpg Sorry --Nightflyer 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Is an article, not a category. i can't find images on commons. --GeorgHH 13:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Kjetil_r 13:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, eligible for speedy deletion for future note. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
identical SVG version is available: Image:Flag of Tierra del Fuego province in Argentina.svg --ALE! ¿…? 16:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (self nomination!)
- Delete self nomination --jed 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 07:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 11:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It was a test of mine, made for Italian wikinews. Now, it is no more necessary. --Wappi76 19:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Hard to see, that even featured pictures aren't checked on their license. The original license on flickr isn't by-sa but unfree by-nc-nd see here. Threedots 21:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, at the time of uploading, it was under the share-alike license. Although I can not prove this, I have contacted the owner of the photo and have asked him to revert the copyright change. -- Sam916 01:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is not the first time that we have seen a Flickr license changed after it was originally uploaded. There was some discussion about this on the village pump recently. The only practical suggestion for a solution was that the flickrlickr robot might be able to record the license at the time of uploading in a way that could be audited. -- Solipsist 12:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- now the original license was changed to by-sa. --grizurgbg 13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep original now shows a cc-by-sa 2.0 license. Siebrand 20:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Converting speedy to regular deletion request, due to this picture's prominence (featured here and en.wp; POTY2006 finalist). The flickr source says "All rights reserved", and I see no sign of a flickrreview. Davepape 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Speedy closing - now that I've posted this, it shows me the previous nomination. Will try to add a note to the image to prevent this being brought up again and again. --Davepape 21:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Kossak - Battle of Warsaw 1920.JPG (appended!)
[edit]The artist Wojciech Kossak died in 1942, thus this painting is not yet in public domain. --Andibrunt 08:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete delete this and everything in Wojciech Kossak --ALE! ¿…? 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Ejdzej --ALE! ¿…? 14:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears to be a photo of a wax figure, which is most likely copyrighted. Cnyborg 21:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure that's a wax figure, has more to do with make-up and the colour film used (a not so educated guess would put the photo in the 1950s) (a poor example of Marilyn Monroe that has been distorted further via printing here. A reason for deletion would rather be the lack of source information (and information in general), this should have been checked on pt.wikipedia before uploading here. Plus, the filename isn't that descriptive. UPDATE, she would seem to be an Brazilian actress. Still, source and free licensing should be proved by the uploader(s). Scoo 07:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted for lack of source information.--Jusjih 04:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There's some kind of argument on the image description page that this is in the public domain, but the image was tagged GFDL. Published in Germany in 1935, apparantly, while the argument seems to have something to do with the image being archived in Poland. I think this is probably unfree, and needs deleting. Jkelly 22:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted--Jusjih 04:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
User:Kb propose some arrow-images for deletion, which i append here and at the same time i vote for deletion --jed 05:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
City flag and location maps for Brazilian municipalities User:Srfortes
[edit]Image:Lagoinha bandeira.png Same flag from Image:Bandeira Lagoinha SaoPaulo Brasil.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Lorena.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Lorena.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Guaratingueta.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Guaratingueta.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Aparecida.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Aparecida.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Potim.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Potim.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Roseira.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Roseira.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Lagoinha.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Lagoinha.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip SaoLuizdoParaitinga.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip SaoLuizdoParaitinga.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Pindamonhangaba.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Pindamonhangaba.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip CamposdoJordao.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip CamposdoJordao.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip SaoBentodoSapucai.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip SaoBentodoSapucai.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip SantoAntoniodoPinhal.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip SantoAntoniodoPinhal.svg
Image:SaoPaulo Municip Jacarei.png Same map from Image:SaoPaulo Municip Jacarei.svg
- Delete self nomination --jed 14:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I deleted the flag but I prefer the png of the location maps as they are a lot smaller in file size. --ALE! ¿…? 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. SVG are converted into PNG by Wikimedia software. / Fred Chess 17:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
August 24
[edit]Deleted from en-wiki for being a probable copyvio. See en:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 August 15. -- howcheng {chat} 00:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted by me. Jkelly 01:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded it, but it already exists as Image:Cypripedium reginae.jpg. sorry. Felagund 04:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as duplicate. Angr 05:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Image name typo, it's actually a CL-415 not a 215. I already uploaded the same image with the correct name. Image:Canadair CL-415 Filling.jpg. Thanks - Hu Totya 11:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted please use {{Badname}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 11:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No license --Valepert 11:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Tagged as {{Nsd}}. --Kjetil_r 03:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[81] says “© All rights reserved”, not cc-by --Ahellwig 12:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's {{Copyvio}} for such cases. TZM de:T/T C 12:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio deleted. --Dodo 16:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[82] says “© All rights reserved”, not cc-by-sa --Ahellwig 12:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio deleted. --Dodo 16:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[83] says “© All rights reserved”, not cc-by --Ahellwig 12:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio deleted. --Dodo 16:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Extremly bad quality (blurred), this picture seems to be a test of using author's Casio QV-R41, nothing else Julo 19:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep No, it is part of a how-to-make-a-cake tutorial on wikibooks [84]. --jed 21:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment As the author, I agree the quality is bad, but it does in fact have a purpose (which a quick CheckUsage would tell you). pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep In my opinion, a poor but used and freely licenced photo should be better seen as a challenge to provide a superior replacement than to become a deletion request. -- Infrogmation
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wind Speed Symbols
[edit]The PNG wind speed symboly are superseeded by the SVG symbols --jed 06:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Symbol wind speed 00.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 00.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 01.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 01.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 02.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 02.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 03.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 03.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 04.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 04.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 05.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 05.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 06.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 06.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 07.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 07.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 08.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 08.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 09.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 09.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 10.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 10.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 11.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 11.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 12.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 12.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 13.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 13.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 14.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 14.svg
- Image:Symbol wind speed 15.png by Image:Symbol wind speed 15.svg
- Delete. Superseded. --Panther 06:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. Good SVG replacements.--Nilfanion 23:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete LERK (Talk / Contributions) 07:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- all deleted--Shizhao 12:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this category from a mistake--Alex brollo 06:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old maps of Municipalities in Jönköping County, Sweden
[edit]I've uploaded these files, but now there are better maps available. No project uses them.
- Image:Aneby Municipality.png replaced by Image:Aneby Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Eksjö Municipality.png replaced by Image:Eksjö Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Gislaved Municipality.png replaced by Image:Gisslaved Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Gnosjö Municipality.png replaced by Image:Gnosjö Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Habo Municipality.png replaced by Image:Habo Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Jönköping Municipality.png replaced by Image:Jönköping Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Mullsjö Municipality.png replaced by Image:Mullsjö Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Nässjö Municipality.png replaced by Image:Nässjö Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Sävsjö Municipality.png replaced by Image:Sävsjö Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Tranås Municipality.png replaced by Image:Tranas Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Vaggeryd Municipality.png replaced by Image:Vaggeryd Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Vetlanda Municipality.png replaced by Image:Vetlanda Municipality in Jönköping County.png
- Image:Värnamo Municipality.png replaced by Image:Värnamo Municipality in Jönköping County.png
And the empty Category:Jönköpings kommun could also be deleted. Purka 13:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Lokal Profil 13:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self nomination --jed 14:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete LERK (Talk / Contributions) 07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images at A Song of Ice and Fire
[edit]These images are all included in Category:Against policy. The image description page for each has a note that the author agreed to license them under the GFDL. The article has a note that there is no proof of this. This doesn't seem to be an obvious speedy to me. Jkelly 03:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did get a permission from Roman to use small resolution versions of his images (although with some initial confusion over licensing). Here are the the e-mails I got from him:
- Hi,
- You can use whatever images you want except the ones I did for FFG and Dables. I don't have time to read the license of Wikipedia, I trust you, so let's think I've read it and agreed 8-) Your conditions seems fine to me, so go ahead 8-)
- Cheers,
- Amok
- When I uploaded some images, I realized I might not have explained fully what releasing them under a free license means, so I asked one more time, and he answered:
- Actually I do object to that, but you are right - they are too small for print. Although you can do like they did on TOTH site - use only black and white small image with a direct link to my site - that way people who want to see the bigger version will go to amoka.net and therefore will be under those conditions I mentioned on my site. You can use colored small versions though, I don't really mind.
- Think about it.
- Amok
- I was going to replace these images with black and white versions as he said, but I had lots of stuff to do at that time and kind of forgot about it (although he did say the small colored versions are okayish). I'll upload the B&W images in a few days when I find some more time. Ausir Ausir 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted all images. I kept the page so that you can upload new images ontop of the deleted ones. Right now, a lot of pages are probably broken. / Fred Chess 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All the images at Galería de fotografías de César Augusto Lequerica Delgado
[edit]REASON: User says that the (supposed) owner of the copyright, Rocío Alba Lequerica Pérez, has given permission only by word. That's unacceptable: we need written permission in the established manner. User has been informed at August 13th but he hasn't answered. --Dodo 07:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted all images and the gallery page. I kept the talk page. --Dodo 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:AlexanderTheGreat.jpg --Wikipeder 12:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 14:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted (please use {{duplicate}} next time) --ALE! ¿…? 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence this is actually licensed under GFDL. Source says "© 2006 Carl Watson - All rights reserved." --Angr 05:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am an admin on w:en: I emailed Carl for GFDL permission to use his photograph. He agreed. Unfortunately, the all rights reserved note is automatically produced by the fotopic database, and despite my sending them emails to ask them to adopt the CC licences, they haven't. I do however have GFDL permission. If you think I am lying you can contact Carl at http://carl-watson.fotopic.net/pop_contact.php Dunc|☺ 09:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please forward his e-mail granting permission to use this under the GFDL to permissions@wikimedia.org. That way the GFDL status can be verified. Angr 17:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- No... Please have Mr. Watson send an email directly to that email address. A forwarded email will not be accepted as proof. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 17:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- So now you are accusing me of lying. I strongly resent that suggestion which violates w:en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I never knowingly upload copyrighted images, and spend some time ensuring that proper permissions are obtained. If you have such a need to check up on me, then please email Carl and he will set you straight. Dunc|☺ 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- No one is accusing you of lying. It's standard Wikipedia practice to have permissions mailed to the Foundation so that their status is verifiable to everyone. As an admin on en-wiki, you should be especially aware of the importance of the verifiability of the freeness of images. Angr 06:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted -- please forward the permission email to said address, and then request the image to be restored. / Fred Chess 07:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From a New Zealand governmental site claiming "Crown copyright". Not Public Domain. Bogdan 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fair use. --Ultratomio 08:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- deleted Fred Chess 08:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
From a Canadian governmental site. Also "Crown copyright" and not usable on Commons. Bogdan 11:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fair use. --Ultratomio 08:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Galería imágenes Kriegsmarine and all the images linked
[edit]The user asked for permission, but the owner of the photographs didn't mention any valid license in his answer, yet the images has been tagged as GFDL. Apart from that, it's pretty obvious that the author of the book where the photo has been published is not the author of many of them, so we are also missing source information. See Talk:Galería imágenes Kriegsmarine for more details. --Dodo 10:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted all of them. --Dodo 21:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyrighted and trademarked by eMule project. This is separate from the software, which is under GPL. --Geopgeop 15:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As stated on the image description page, the logo is part of the eMule source distributed under GPL. Even if its trademarked (and it would be nice to see real proof for that, not the opinion of an uninformed participant of a forum discussion, who has been corrected several times later in the same discussion), it is still free content (though if that is the case, the appropriate warning template should be placed on the description page). --Tgr 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Kept with GPL, added {{trademarked}} tag to it. / Fred Chess 13:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is represented as that of the Morgenthau Plan of 1944, but istead it shows a version of allied occupation zones. The borders shown on the image do not match the orignal images. The borders between North Germany and South Germany and the International zone are incorrectly drawn. The proposed annexation of Upper Silesia to poland, as well as East Prussia to Poland and the Soviet Union is not shown, and neither is the proposed transfer of the Saar with surrounding areas to France shown.
For example of original images: The best map I know of is provided by Institut für Zeitgeschichte *[85]. A much smaller, but at least somewhat intelligible map can be found at the bottom of this (dodgy) page, *[86]. The map provided by the Roosevelt Presidential Library *[87] is unfortunately very badly scanned, but if one knows what to look for it is barely discernable. An even worse scan can be found in *[88] in the map-insert between pages 86 and 87. The description of the borders can be found there though, or in the Roosevelt library, [89]. --Stor stark7 01:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The clearest evidence against the map is the fact it doesn't separate the Saarland from the rest of Germany, which the Morgenthau Plan did. [90]
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
August 25
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
DVD-cover --GeorgHH 18:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as copyvio. Angr 11:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
{{PD-USGov}} does not apply to any individual state, only at the federal level. --Geopgeop 19:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but change licence to something else, looks like images from the Washington govenment is in Public Domain, per http://www.secstate.wa.gov/office/privacy.aspx Jaranda wat's sup 00:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I changed it to {{PD-because}} since the website does say that the image is in the public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as source is a public domain web site] Siebrand 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 06:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Soviet flag red star.svg --jed 05:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of Belgium (1830).svg --jed 06:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This was an attempt to represent a slice of YUV colour space using an SVG file containing an embedded PNG, with axes and legends as pure SVG. Unfortunately, MediaWiki and Firefox do not know how to handle such an image, so this particular file is useless. -- Denelson83 14:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- MediaWiki and Firefox do support embedded images inside SVGs, but this file only contains a reference to a local file. To actually embed the image inside the SVG, try Inkscape's effect Images / Embed All Images. Inkscape will need a Python interpreter installed for this effect to work. --Para 18:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Old Japan serries
[edit]- Image:Old Japan Iga.png,
- Image:Old Japan Izumi.png,
- Image:Old Japan Kawachi.png,
- Image:Old Japan Satsuma.png,
- Image:Old Japan Yamato.png,
- Image:Old Japan Mutsu.png,
- Image:Old Japan Osumi.png,
- Image:Old Japan Harima.png,
- Image:Old Japan Izumo.png,
- Image:Old Japan Echigo.png,
- Image:Old Japan Owari.png,
- Image:Old Japan Kai.png,
- Image:Old Japan Yamashiro.png,
- Image:Old Japan Iki.png,
- Image:Old Japan Settsu.png
I have uploaded SVG version of them for a long time. I think these PNG images are useless.--
百楽兎 15:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self nomination --jed 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 09:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that this is freely licensed. Jkelly 18:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 10:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded these two pictures today, but have changed my mind about using them, so they no longer serve a purpose. Feel free to delete them.
Thank you, --Son0rouS 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason for PD-old given, i.e. no proof that photograph is 70 years dead --Historiograf 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Kurt Tucholsky.jpg seems to be the same picture and should also be deleted if there's no proof for pd-old or any other valid license. --Karlchen 20:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- D'accord. --Svencb 07:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Löschen, siehe Historiografs Argument. --Mogelzahn 11:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Kjetil r --ALE! ¿…? 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The above picture is listed as being from http://www.folketinget.dk. This is not the case, unfortunately. The image is from http://socialdemokraterne.dk/ and subject to copyright. --Pred 19:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Pred is right. I accidentaly uploaded this image because I though it was copyfree. However, it is not and should be deleted. --Lhademmor 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 01:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Banderabarbosa.svg --jed 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The flags have different ratios. --ALE! ¿…? 16:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference --Himasaram 10:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted, the image uses the wrong colours. According to http://galeon.com/cafeinternetsd/productos674964.html the lower stripe should be orange. I will nominate the SVG too for deletion. --ALE! ¿…? 15:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Banderasegovia.svg --jed 06:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the flags have slightly differnt ratios --ALE! ¿…? 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment no information about the aspect ratio found --ALE! ¿…? 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference --Himasaram 10:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Banderasonsón.svg --jed 06:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the flags have slightly different ratios --ALE! ¿…? 16:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference --Himasaram 10:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment According to http://www.sonson.gov.co/m_emblemas.htm the yellow should be darker. --ALE! ¿…? 15:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted (wrong coulours) --ALE! ¿…? 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Banderaturbo.svg --jed 06:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the flags have different ratios --ALE! ¿…? 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment no information about the correct aspect ratio found at http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/co-anttu.html and http://www.turbo.gov.co/EMBLEMAS.htm --ALE! ¿…? 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference --Himasaram 10:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of Misiones.svg --jed 05:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference - colors are slightly different --Himasaram 10:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I changed "no source" to "delete" here. Archives Canada credits the National Film Board of Canada for this image, but doesn't give the actual film production team. That doesn't seem like a speedy delete lack of sourcing to me. In any case, it is reasonable to request more information on this image from Archives, which I will do. Jkelly 20:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient source. / Fred Chess 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
August 26
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Album cover --GeorgHH 17:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC) Speedied by me as obvious copyvio. Jkelly 18:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Complain by beneficiary, the brother of authors, via email, see OTRS ticketno. 2006082610004387 (in German). The source http://www.unodc.org is not authorized to licence this image. --Raymond Disc. 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Jon Harald Søby. --Panther 11:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation from [91] --Rosenzweig 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 10:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Copyright violation from [92] --Rosenzweig 17:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I just do not believe that the author of this photo is en:User:Ac-dcfreak785, as it is a well-known shot and is published all over the web. Jkelly 18:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Have you contacted the original uploader? If it's a copyvio it should be deleted from English Wikipedia as well. // Liftarn 18:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, clear copyvio. See User:ac-dcfreaks talk page. He admits that he has uploaded many copyvios: "look, i've been adding too many files that aren't mine, and i'm sorry. as of now, i will not be adding files to this site unless the pictures were scanned or taken by me". --Kjetil_r 20:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 09:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Described as a sketch, but this is clearly just a copy of the photograph at http://www.superiorpics.com/scarlett_johansson/pictures/Scarlett_Jo66729397_picture.html that has had Photoshop filters applied. Postdlf 18:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work of copyrighted image. Angr 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Yepp. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 07:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 09:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to en.wp, this is this the work of one Heinz Schulz-Neudamm, who died in 1969 [93]. So this cannot be PD. --Rosenzweig 19:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete Clearly copyrighted until 1.1.2040.--Wiggum 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete --ALE! ¿…? 13:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted / Fred Chess 09:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source cannot be verified. Delete. --Angr 11:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Images of Rommel
[edit]- Image:LangRugeSpeidelRommel May1944.jpg.jpeg
- Image:Rommel France 1940.jpeg
- Image:HitlerGreetsRommel.jpeg
- Image:Erwin Rommel.jpg
- Image:Hitler - Rommel.jpeg
- Image:Rommel.jpeg
- Image:Rommel in africa.jpeg
- Image:Erwin Rommel as a commander of Africa Corps.jpg
- Image:Erwin Rommel after the Fall of France.jpg
- Image:Erwin Rommel portrait.jpg
There is no reason to believe that these images are in the public domain. --Kjetil_r 20:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, none of the licenses used seem correct. Cnyborg 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I deleted all of them. --Dodo 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON: redundant with Category:Scarabaeidae and Category:Insecta. --Juiced lemon 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, NEVER delete stuff which other users will just recreate!!! Create a #REDIRECT or use {{category redirect}} ("soft redirect"). The fact that this was created at all tells you that a RDR of some sort is necessary. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted, as it is unclear to which category to redirect --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON: redundant with Category:Scarabaeidae. --Juiced lemon 12:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Conver to RDR as above. pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
converted into a redirect --ALE! ¿…? 10:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
According to http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/nebula_collection/pr1995045a/, this image is copyrighted. --Centaurus 20:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There's no copyright note at the given source page, and at http://hubblesite.org/copyright/ we can read that "Material credited to STScI on this site was created, authored, and/or prepared for NASA under Contract NAS5-26555. Unless otherwise specifically stated, no claim to copyright is being asserted by STScI and it may be freely used as in the public domain in accordance with NASA's contract." --Dodo 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Extract from a copyrighted song. Would likely be fair use in virtually any context, but is not Free. — Wereon 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't short quotes allowed, like from books? --81.189.86.101 07:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Under a fair-use claim, yes. But Commons doesn't allow images that can only be used under a fair-use claim. Delete. Angr 08:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. James F. (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- But on Wikiquote quotes are allowedm, and they are not fair-use. --Superchilum(scrivimi) 10:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, if I understand the situation correctly, it is allowed on every single wikipedia to use notes, which are actually nothing different then letters of a language, in terms of a citation. But it is not allowed to share them on commons? Does this really make any sense? Dr. Shaggeman 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- the song is copyrighted. but that doesn't mean that notes showing a part of the intro of that song are copyrighted, too. of course a bunch of notes of a coyrighted song are coyrighted themselves, but i very much doubt these few notes are. --C.Löser 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- The use of quotes is allowed under certain conditions withot permission of the artist (§ 51 UrhG in germany). The quote must be used for the cultural and/or scientific use in an adaequate context the demonstration of specific characteristics of the work. The artist should not be confrontated with a financial loss/deficit because of the quotes. It should be short quotes with a connection to the in the article discussed problem. Because of this point i see no problem with these short audio examples. --Boris Fernbacher 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Above comment was left by User:84.56.152.220. WikiCommons do not have any articles to provide an adequate context. Thuresson 07:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. As said by Thuresson, fair use and citations are only OK when in a context. / Fred Chess 16:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Public domain is claimed, but none of the stated reasons for this claim ("It is an official photograph produced by the Midland Railway that was published about 1925. Because it is an official photograph its author is unknown. It is also the only known photograph of this engine.") is actually a valid reason to assume it is in fact in the public domain. Delete. --Angr 08:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- If it was an official photograph, the copyright would rest witht the company; images created by a corporation and published in the UK in 1925 would be PD. But can we verify the claim? James F. (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep, it is clearly a trolling nomination and jobsworthing from Angr (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) . Given as w:en:Midland Railway Paget locomotive says was broken up in 1919, how can it be any later than that?!?!?. I have a 1925 book with this image in (though I didn't take it from there). Or are you going to accuse me of lying with no justification yet again? Do you realise the time it takes to source these images properly, and then having to remember to visit commons every now and again in case idiot trolls delete your work for valid no reason? Dunc|☺ 15:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yet again, no one is accusing you of lying. Yet again, you have to provide verifiable evidence for the tag you put on any image. If the photograph was first published in 1925, it isn't public domain; when the photograph was taken is irrelevant. And lay off the personal attacks already, they're getting really old. Angr 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please keep. This image is so very probably free—and useful, and there are so many images that are so clearly violations, we should be concentrating our efforts on those rather than nitpicking images that we're probably going to wind up keeping. Still, a regular admin at en: should be more mindful than to refer to admins at Commons as "trolls." w:WP:CIVIL, w:WP:AGF, etc., and all that. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We have no reason to believe that the recitations of the image's progeny are incorrect, and even if they are there's not much reason to believe that, even if the copyright is not actually expired, the image's owner would still have any real interest in it. Assuming good faith is not entirely out of style, and while we do tend to be more critical when it comes to claims of copyright, we don't have to be so mindnumbingly nasty about it. Kelly Martin 18:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I never denied the accuracy of the claims; I deny that they prove the image is in the public domain. I also deny that I have done so in a "mindnumbingly nasty" way. (1) "It is an official photograph produced by the Midland Railway" is a strong argument against it being in public domain; (2) "that was published about 1925" also means it can't be PD in the United States since it's after 1923; (3) "Because it is an official photograph its author is unknown" is a non-sequitur (official photographs can have known photographers, can't they?) and also not a reason to assume public domain; (4) "It is also the only known photograph of this engine" sounds like a possible fair-use claim, but is still no reason to assume the image is public domain. Angr 07:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you want this image kept, you have to give it an accurate PD template. Not PD-because. If you assume that the image is public domain because it was published in 1925, that doesn't matter. If the copyright was renewed it could have been published in 1998. If you can't find an appropriate public domain template, then upload it to English Wikipedia with a fair use template, and stop making assumptions that have no basis in actual law. / Fred Chess 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- So, what is the actual source? What is the name of the book this was published in? Where was it actually sourced from, if not that book? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask these things. As Fred said, we can't even give it a proper template at the moment. C'mon, help us out here. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Kept. PD-old seems more than appropriate unless someone can cite evidence to the contrary. --Cat out 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
August 27
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Anime screenshot, PD seems questionable --Herbert Ortner 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Fred Chess --ALE! ¿…? 10:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source, no license --Herbert Ortner 20:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Raymond de --ALE! ¿…? 10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded by self; File name inconsistent with established naming convention. New file with proper filename uploaded. —IW4UTenW 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self nomination --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{badname}} instead. --Panther 08:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
pictures of the veiled Reichstag are not allowed. Panorama freedom (Panoramafreiheit) is not applicable. --BLueFiSH ✉ 12:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No permanent installation, Christo did not issue licences, clear copyvio even in originating country (Germany).
- Löschen, da keine dauerhafte Installation greift hier die Panoramafreiheit nicht. --Mogelzahn 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted (Keine Panoramafreiheit) --ALE! ¿…? 13:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong blazon name. See the image page for details. Wagner51 13:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wagner51 13:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete wrong name --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
New vectorial version here : 100px (same uploader and author, me) Yorick 14:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wagner51 16:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- deleted--Shizhao 12:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Identical duplicate of Image:Tatul-sarcophagus.JPG. --Spiritia 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted, please use {{duplicate}} next time --ALE! ¿…? 08:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We dont need this Coa any more; it is redundant to Image:Wappen Wiendorf (Mecklenburg) ddl2.svg N3MO 19:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete self nomination --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Maybe I just don't see the use for Wikipedia...? --Herbert Ortner 20:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:1 2 77 3.svg --jed 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:1 2 77 4.svg --jed 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:1,2,3-tris-nitrooxy-propane.svg --jed 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Mux-aufbau.svg --jed 22:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image superseded by Image:Balkenkreuz.svg >>Larger image, smaller filesize, lossless.
There is no further use for the file. --David Liuzzo 22:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claimed "own work" is not verifiable. Image appears to be spliced together from photos available on the web see here for one. Almost an identical duplicate of Image:Topols.jpg as well. --Rkitko 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Nilfanion --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
These categories are now empty. They have been replaced with their duplicates category:Jönköping and category:Ljusdal. Other subcategories to category:Municipalities of Sweden do not contain "kommun" (municipality) in the category name. --LA2 19:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- But I think they should. 'Jönköping' is not identical to 'Jönköpings kommun'. Communes do span over many places other than the place they are named for, so the category name is misleading without 'kommun'. --::Slomox:: >< 22:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are indeed correct that Jönköping the town and Jönköping municipality are two different things. The Swedish Wikipedia has separate articles for the 290 municipalities and the 290 towns, and the English Wikipedia also does this to some extent. However, there are categories on the Swedish Wikipedia only for the 290 municipalities, except for a handful of towns that also need their own category. On Wikimedia Commons there are 290 categories, one for each municipality. For some reason unknown to me, their names do not contain the word kommun/municipality, but there is no doubt that the categories refer to the municipalities. The only exceptions are the two categories now requested for deletion. They were apparently created by mistake (in February and April 2006) by someone who didn't observe that categories named Jönköping and Ljusdal already existed (since 2005). If no duplicates had existed, I had simply renamed the existing ones, but now I can't. I have however emptied them, so all that remains is the removal. There are a handful of Swedish municipalities whose names differ from their respective central towns, e.g. Kisa in Kinda municipality, Österbymo in Ydre municipality, Kinna in Mark municipality, Åseda in Uppvidinge municipality, and Fjugesta in Lekeberg municipality. You will observe that on Wikimedia Commons, the corresponding categories are named Kinda, Ydre, Mark, Uppvidinge and Lekeberg after the municipalities, not using the names of the towns. And they are all children of the category:Municipalities of Sweden. --LA2 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Shizhao --ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Das Bild ist schlecht. Völlig verwackelt.Fingalo 09:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Low quality by itself is not a reason to delete an image. This photo is used in sv:Lunds domkyrka and sv:Mittskepp. Thuresson 10:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep since a project finds it acceptable. Perhaps a new tag would be in order, for images that can be replaced with relative ease (such as buildings, flowers, animals etc). {{cleanup}} doesn't really work here since it's just too fuzzy, but making it clear that we would like a better image to replace it might work. Cnyborg 14:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- image:Lund2.jpg is a better image. / Fred Chess 21:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Use in sv:Lunds domkyrka and sv:Mittskepp replaced by Image:Lund2.jpg which is in fact much better. /Lokal_Profil 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Lokal Profil. User Cnyborg certainly has a point about a template to bring attention and possible re-shooting of a picture that for some reason is faulty (mainly perhaps for blurred or terribly over- or underexposed shots). Scoo 09:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Questionable copyrightability (See comments on image page) -- Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- The comment EugeneZelenko made at Image talk:Minsk metro pass.jpg last February says it all: "Photo or scan of copyrighted images is still copyrighted. You could keep this image on Commons only if you could legally proof that original document is not copyrighted. Otherwise you should upload it on Russian Wikipedia under fair use." Unless it can be verified that the Minsk transport authority has released the design of its passes into the public domain, the image must be deleted. Angr 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it really that copyright exists to non-artwork material, too? In that case it is impossible to take any photo of man-made world. And in Russia copyright laws used not to exist. Vr
- This photo is clear derivative work of original document.
- Images are protected by copyrights in Belarus (see article 6 of Belarusian copyrights law and this particular image could be object of copyrights by article 7 (other)). Such images are not listed in {{PD-BY-exempt}} (article 8). This image contains at least 2 logos (Minsk metro and Minsktrans), which definitely could be copyrighted. Additionally copyrights could be additional protection against counterfeit.
- If somebody thinks that they could ignore copyrights law, it's their private opinion only (and potential subject for copyrights law enforcement). Commons is all about following copyrights law. See Commons:Licensing for details.
- So Delete --EugeneZelenko 14:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've requested info about copyright status of metro pass from Minsktrans. Lets wait a few days. -- Redline 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- And what was the result? --ALE! ¿…? 11:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted (no reaction, presumingly a copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The claimed "own work" is not verifiable. Image appears to be spliced together from photos available on the web see here for one. --Rkitko 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image identical to [94] from Austrian news agency APA with copyright note. Uploader User:Stiffer only uploaded this image. Author "Thomas Harold Stiffer, Salzburg & Kansas City" neither found on web nor in online phone books of Salzburg or Kansas City. --88.76.200.23 20:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
comment by User:Stiffer copied from User talk:Stiffer:
- Hi, I'm the original author of this painting. The APA (Austrian Press Agency) wrongly copyrighted as their work. But the APA is just an association not a designer's office. No, I neither didn't get paid for it nor I never transfered the copyright status. I'm actually prepairing filing a lawsuit for this violation against APA.
- So please help undelete the warning. I'm not familiar with Wikicommons. Thanks. --Stiffer 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
end of copy. I have removed the deletion tag. --80.129.77.188 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you tell us, how APA could get your image? They released it several hours before you uploaded it to the Commons ([95]). So they cannot have it from the Commons. --88.76.200.23 00:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete smells like somebody is fibbing. --Rtc 01:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Stiffer, I don't understand how this could happen. You live in Kansas City but have connections to Salzburg (that's how I understand your edits on the image page). You made the image for media press (as stated on the image page) but for whom? Did you make it for APA, but then they said they don't want it but nonetheless published it, adding their copyright and the source note "APA/BKA" (BKA = Austrian Federal Police)? APA is the biggest Austrian news agency. Something like that shouldn't happen there. --88.76.200.23 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, then we should Keep it until we know more, or redraw it in SVG and publish it – the facts themselves aren't copyrighted, only the design of this map. TZM de:T/T C 10:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Redrawing it would be the best solution -- 84.113.249.152 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Assume good faith" is the one thing, but "use common sense" is another. I still can't believe Stiffer's short explanation. He was unknown at Commons at Wikipedia before uploading the image and is unknown on the web and phone books. APA, the biggest Austrian news agency, published the image. Some hours later somebody requested to upload it at German Wikipedia [96] and some more hours later it was in fact uploaded by Stiffer. His version is of lower resolution than this of APA, so it could be a modified version of the image published by APA. Stiffer wrote in the first version of the image [97] "Author Thomas Harold Stiffer, Kansas City" and added "Salzburg" only later. It is rather unusal that an Austrian agency instructs a US graphicer to paint them an image. It is even more unusal that they use the image without having the right to do so. If something like this would happen, a short call from Stiffer would be sufficient and they would immediately remove the image, because they know the copyright and know that they can only lose at court. But it is still available at OÖNachrichten [98] and OÖNachrichten is one of the owners of APA [99]. So if Stiffer doesn't has a really good explanation, I really cannot assume good faith, but have to use common sense. --88.76.193.239 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is strange indeed. Probably the picture should be deleted. Though it is hard to understand why someone would commit fraud, possibly with serious consequences for himself, just to provide a picture for wikipedia everybody could look at for free anyway. Maybe some people find it difficult to cope with the news of this unusual abduction. --80.129.105.88 21:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete should be removed, the uploader has abandoned us. Maybe contact the Austrian press agency afterwards.--80.129.86.173 19:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Copyvio. -Samulili 18:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"The copyright holder of this photo are the parents of Natascha. In 1998 they granted permission to copy and reproduce this picture to intensify the search. They till today didn't cancel their permission. So it's allowed to present her picture also on Wikimedia, Wikipedia." So fine, they granted permission to copy and redistribute, but surely only under the condition that it is used to intensify the search, and surely with the option to cancel their permission at any time. This is not a free license, but in fact a very, very limited permission! Further, the permission to modify the picture is missing. Let's get serious, let's get rid of it. --Rtc 21:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- While I still think that it is a clear copyright violation, too, I extend the deletion request argumentation to Recht am eigenen Bild, see below. --Rtc 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- sad but true. Pic is informative, I wish it could be used. 62.178.193.144 21:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete copyvio TZM de:T/T C 10:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could somebody ask the parents about it? -- 84.113.249.152 11:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please, just think about it with common sense for a second. We won't the permission for a free license. --Rtc 17:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand, the partents of Natascha Kampusch granted the permission to distribute in 1998. I think you all ignore, that Ms. Kampusch got older in meantime, she is now 18 and absolutly self dependent. So not the parents are the contact persons but rather Ms. Kampusch herself for granting the permission to publish any picture of herself. --User: alwo 21:00, 28.9.2006
- She is probably not the photographer, therefore it isn't sufficient to ask her. I am not sure if it is necessary – compare e.g. with underage models for childrens wear. --80.129.105.88 21:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would assume that she is a "relative person of contemporary history" and must tolerate the publication of pictures in direct connection with her abduction (see w:de:Recht am eigenen Bild, in German). --80.129.105.88 23:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Here a citation in german language: "Schon jetzt Schadenersatz möglich Klar ist für die Medienanwältin Maria Windhager, dass Natascha Kampusch bereits jetzt Klagen gegen die Berichterstattung der österreichischen Medien einbringen könne, das betrifft insbesondere die Veröffentlichung von Bildern aus ihrer Kindheit. Ab dem Zeitpunkt, an dem klar war, dass sie wieder aufgetaucht ist - als die Bilder also nicht mehr quasi als Such- oder Fahndungsbilder dienen konnten - sei eine Veröffentlichung nicht mehr erlaubt gewesen - mögliche Strafen liegen pro Bild und Veröffentlichung über 10.000 Euro. " (see http://oe1.orf.at/inforadio/67553.html ) --User: alwo 13:49, 29.9.2006
- Thank you, this would be in line with the first reasoning above. The image should be removed anyway, regardless for which of the above reasons. --80.129.104.79 15:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Delete --80.129.86.173 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Steschke 19:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete the sooner, the better! --FloSch 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete why is it still here? --BLueFiSH 11:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The photographer has now started to demand royalties from newspapers publishing the photo. Deleted --Kjetil_r 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Three images by Nico Wobben
[edit]These three images list unspecified "permission by the author", which may indicate permission solely for Wikimedia projects. This uploader has used the same CC-by tag on images where this in known not to be the case, such as Image:Fumanchu.JPG. Meegs 12:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
August 28
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Authorship not credible. In any case, the character of Jon Arbuckle from the Garfield comics seems to have been used without license. --DrTorstenHenning 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Accidental upload by me. Need this image to be deleted. Thanks.
Deleted. Use {{speedy}} next time. --Kjetil_r 22:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced by Category:8½, more correct. 81.208.83.223 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! ¿…? 13:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicates Juglans regia page - MPF 01:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Sanbec --ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No education value... it's one black pixel! ~MDD4696 03:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. That is true... and someone could just as easily use Image:Demonstrate Pixel.gif, a better picture... so, I guess you can delete it. Not that you need my permission, of course. --Brandt Luke Zorntalk to me 04:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploader has contacted the manufacturer of the lamp, who confirms that the design is copyrighted, and that they do not allow derivative works such as this images (mail in Norwegian/Danish at no:Diskusjon:PH_Kongle). Rather than just delete it, I'm bringing this here since there is another dimension to it. The manufacturer states that the lamp in the photo is an illegal copy, and not the real thing. Thus, this is a derivative work of an illegal derivative work. I'm pretty sure this is unacceptable, but would like a second opinion. Projects that accept fair use might be able to defend it as an illustration of product piracy, but not as an illustration of the lamp PH Kogle (it shouldn't be used as such anyway, since the manufacturer immediately spotted that it's a fake). Cnyborg 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Nilfanion --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative, but I'm not sure. The other contributions is a copyvio. --Panther 16:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 19:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not a utility article. Thus, IMO a work of fine art, "sculpture". The bunny is a work of applied art, because it is physically and conceptually separable from the utilitarian aspect, holding the chocolate, which is fulfilled by the basket alone. Thus it's copyrighted and the photo is a derivative work. --Rtc 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's a decorative chocolate holder. Nothing more than a glorified bowl. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- The figure clearly "physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects [holding the chocolate] of that article." Also "the appearance of" the utility aspecs of the chocolate holder is not "determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations" (in contrast to jewelry, for example). See [100] You can remove the figure and keep the little basket, it does not influence the utilitarian aspect at all. It's copyrighted, sad as it may be. --Rtc 18:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 18:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If we delete this, we have to delete all lamps, brand name pics, video game systems, anything that is identifible, etc which is thousands of pics Jaranda wat's sup 19:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- In contrast to this case, "Lamps, brand name pics, video game systems, etc." all commonly do not have elements which "physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article" --Rtc 04:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - obvious copyright violation. Jaranda, please see Commons:Derivative works - I think that will address your question. BigDT 03:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know what Commons:Derivative works is, I doubt this applys though, this isn't a copyrighted figure of something notable or an sculpture. Jaranda wat's sup 18:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Copyright protection does not make difference for non-notable works. It's (one of the rare real cases of) a work of applied art. --Rtc 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I won't comment on the copyright status of this image, but I will point out that to whatever extent that this work is a violation that it is the most inconsequential form of violation we have on commons, and that we should not be wasting our time with this when there are so many other more significant problems. --Gmaxwell 18:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This bunny is clearly a copyrightable work of fine art in a way which most lamps (as Jaranda mentions) are not. The photograph is clearly a derived work from the copyrighted bunny. Haukurth 12:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it is not fine art. This is not a copyrighted image such as Pokemon or Mickey Mouse but a generic image. I have reviewed Commons:Derivative works and think application to this image is excessive. The original concept is in the public domain, thus the exception highlighted at Casebook/Comic figures and action figures No photographs, drawings, paintings or any other copies/derivative works of these allowed (as long as the original is not in the public domain) would seem to apply.--Arktos 23:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The original is not in the public domain. The concept of an 'Easter Bunny' may be in the public domain in some sense but that does not mean that a particular artwork (and this is definitely fine art rather than a plain utility article) representing the Easter Bunny is in the public domain. Compare with this image - the concept of 'Pscyhe' and even the 'birth of Pscyche' can be said to be in the public domain but a particular representation of that concept is not. If you draw an easter bunny your drawing is copyrightable. If you make a statue of an easter bunny your statue is copyrightable. Haukurth 09:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a copy of ja:画像:Mermaid.jpg, which is currently listed for deletion on ja:. The image there seems not to name the copyright holder, and according to a machine translation merely says "The salesman of the coffeehouse which does made [kosupure]." Meegs 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - On the deletion request in Japanese Wikipedia, they say that this image is copyrighted. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 02:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Personal photo, no educational value. ~MDD4696 03:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete useless --jed 05:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Why PD? -- Fred Chess 12:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Why PD? -- Fred Chess 12:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Why PD? -- Fred Chess 12:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. No source info/rationale provided for PD. -Samulili 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Flag serries
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of Azerbaijan.svg --jed 05:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the two flags are different --ALE! ¿…? 08:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference --Himasaram 10:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted (however, the colours at http://www.president.az/s30_government/government_03_e.html are slightly different) --ALE! ¿…? 16:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of the Habsburg Monarchy.svg --jed 05:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment different shades of yellow? --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference - dimensions are different --Himasaram 11:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment according to http://www.flaggenlexikon.de/foest3.htm the ratio should be 2:3 --ALE! ¿…? 16:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
kept (the SVG is simply wrong!) --ALE! ¿…? 07:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Åland flag 1922.svg --jed 06:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Åland flag proposal 1.svg --jed 06:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Possibly a derivative work. / Fred Chess 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is surely a derivative work unless the sculptor died 70 years ago.--Wiggum 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted while the uploader has never responded.--Jusjih 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is surely a derivative work unless the sculptor died 70 years ago.--Wiggum 09:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Home-made LOTR characters
[edit]- Claimed to be derivative. But whose copyrights are being violated? / Fred Chess 18:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Tolkien's copyright, because they refer to his characters, the movie's copyright, since they resemble their representation in the movie, and the producers copyright, who (with permission) turned the movie's characters into figures. It violates these three copyrights at the same time. They should be triple-deleted. --Rtc 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok. Delete at will. / Fred Chess 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok.
- Tolkien's copyright, because they refer to his characters, the movie's copyright, since they resemble their representation in the movie, and the producers copyright, who (with permission) turned the movie's characters into figures. It violates these three copyrights at the same time. They should be triple-deleted. --Rtc 20:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- This last one appears to be an action figure, so could be treated separately. / Fred Chess 18:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Aren't they all action figures? -Samulili 19:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete They are in fact all action figures. In addition to Rtc's comments, the photographs are necessarily derivative of the copyrighted action figure "sculptures" (as they would be categorized under U.S. law). They could only be used on en.wikipedia.org to illustrate text about the action figures themselves under a fair use rationale, so they should be deleted from Commons. Postdlf 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 11:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative works and that old "no freedom of panorama for statues" thing in the US. There are a number of other images of statues by Henry Moore. Most of these are in England and Germany, which has freedom of panorama, but I don't know about Australia, Canada, Israel, or Japan. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 11:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
August 29
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This image is duplicate with Image:Fort Boyard 2.JPG. Thanks. CaptainHaddock 09:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy, now tagged with {{badname}}.--Nilfanion 09:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Panther --ALE! ¿…? 10:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Not necessary any more, higher resolution version is Image:Albrecht Dürer 080.jpg. Links to English, French, Italian and Polish wikis corrected. Julo 11:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Deleted by Odder. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Also, Image:All Blacks team 2006.jpg and Image:George Gregan rugby.jpg Hello, I regret to say that Im requesting that these three files I uploaded be deleted. I guess I was not 100% honest by saying that I took the photos, I just wrote that because I thought it would not matter. They are actually owned by a family friend of mine, and he said I could put them in the commons, as I thought they could be used somewhere, so I uploaded them with an appropriate license, and said they were mine (because I had permission). It turns out the *owner* was not fully aware that he doesnt retain copyright, and that its a free-use database. So Im sorry for muddling this all up, but it would get me out of a spot of trouble if some admin could delete them. Thank you --Ramisatwa 14:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please add {{speedy delete}} to the pages under the username which you uploaded them. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Paddy --ALE! ¿…? 12:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged by the uplader because of wrong name. Image is not used. Correct image is Image:Stereoselektive Hydrierung.gif. HenkvD 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- now tagged with {{badname}} for speedy deletion --jed 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Panther --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Uploaded with wrong name and wrong scale. Have reuploaded file with correct name: Image:Tramway de Nice - plan.png and scale. Please delete Image:Tramway de Nice -plan.png. Cheers, Captain Scarlet 16:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- now tagged with {{badname}} for speedy deletion --jed 19:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"logo of America's Army" -- is this a company or a US military institution? -- Fred Chess 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a video game, see w:en:America's Army. Kotepho 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Fred Chess --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- "logo of the ACT Greens, in the Australian Capital Territory" -- why free to use? / Fred Chess 20:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep fair use, political party. --Zzymurgy 13:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fair use, political party. (The Commons doesn't accept fair use photos). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Fred Chess --ALE! ¿…? 10:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
please delete my photos
[edit]also: Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis.jpg und Thamnophis atratus atratus.jpg (uploaded in WM by Factumquintus)
- Because of commercial misuse (§13 UrHG), I take back the licence (cc-by-de 2.0 or cc-by-sa 2.5.) and wish that my photos on the Commons will be deleted, if possible instantly. Thanks! -- Martina Nolte 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
de: Wegen zu häufigen kommerziellen Mißbrauchs meiner Fotos (Urheberrechtsverletzung nach §13 UrhG) schränke ich die Lizenz (cc-by-de 2.0 oder cc-by-sa 2.5.) für die Zukunft ein und möchte, dass meine Fotos möglichst sofort gelöscht werden. Danke! -- Martina Nolte 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep de: Die Kommerzielle Nutzung der Fotos ist kein Mißbrauch, sondern genau das, was erlaubt werden soll. Die Lizenzen sind nicht kündbar. en:The commercial use of your photos is not abuse, but exactly what commons wants people to do. The licenses are perpetual and cannot be withdrawn.
- Delete Author has given an exclusive license to VG Bild-Kunst and thus does not have the rights to license the pictures. They are copyvio and need to be speedy deleted. --Rtc 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Was this done before or after they were uploaded to Commons? If after then such an exclusive license violates the cc license, if before then the images here are copyvios. /Lokal_Profil 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Before. I wasn't aware of this conflict until this evening. Martina Nolte 00:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, I agree completely with Rtc. Cnyborg 23:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete changed because of the exclusive license. Cnyborg 11:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per Rtc. If the images are not deleted then the licenses will need to be restored where they have now been changed eg. Image:Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis flame.jpg /Lokal_Profil 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- de:Sorry, mir geht es hier um Verstöße gegen §13 UrhG (und sei es "nur" durch Nichtnennung des Autors und/oder Nichtweitergabe der Lizenz).
- Gegen Urheberrechtsverletzungen und Verletzungen der Lizenzbedingungen kann ich meine Anwältin mit Abmahnungen und Unterlassungserklärungen beauftragen, aber das ist für die Beklagten sehr teuer und kostet mich viel Zeit und Nerven. Dies möchte ich vermeiden, indem ich die zukünftige Verbreitung meiner Fotos über die Commons stoppe.
- Was heißt in diesem Zusammenhang "nicht kündbar"? Ich kann für meine eigenen Werke auf den Commons die Lizenz nicht nachträglich ändern?! Zum Beispiel auf nicht-kommerziell oder GFDL oder - für die Zukunft - sogar komplett zurücknehmen. Einmal in die Commons gestellt bedeutet - in meinen Augen - nicht, dass ich sie dort für alle Zeiten zur freien Verfügung stelle.
- en:Sorry, I am talking here about offences against §13 UrhG (may it even "only" be by not naming me as the author and/or not passing on the licence).
- Against these copyright and licence offences I can put juristic steps by my lawyer (dont' know "Abmahnungen" and "Unterlassungserklärungen" in english). But this is very expensive for the accused ones and costs me much time and nerves. To avoid this, I want to stop the future spreading of my photos by the Commons. LG -- Martina Nolte 23:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- What does mean "cannot be withdrawn"? I cannot change the licence for my own work?! For example to GFDL oder non-commercial oder even takle it back completely? Once put in the Commons does - in my eyes - not mean, that I give my work to free disposal for all times. Martina Nolte 23:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Ich kann für meine eigenen Werke auf den Commons die Lizenz nicht nachträglich ändern" Nein. Einmal erteilt, immer erteilt. Lizenz ändern bedeutet, die andere Lizenz noch zusätzlich zu erteilen. Die Lizenzverstöße (namensangabe etc.) finden nicht auf commons statt, sondern von völlig unabhängigen dritten. Du musst Dich direkt an die Rechtverletzer wenden. "Einmal in die Commons gestellt bedeutet - in meinen Augen - nicht, dass ich sie dort für alle Zeiten zur freien Verfügung stelle." Doch. Das ist der Wesensgehalt freier Lizenzen. --Rtc 23:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Wenn ich deine Merkliste auf meiner Diskussionsseite richtig verstanden habe, hätte ich wegen der veröffentlichung meienr Thamnophis-Fotos in der DRACO (Heft 25/2006) und meines Verwertungsvertrages mit der VG Bild-Kunst sowieso die Bilder nicht in die Commons laden dürfen. Dann wäre die Löschung eines Großteils meiner Fotos von den Commons bzw. Wikipedia ohnehin zwingend nötig. LG -- Martina Nolte 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC) en: If I understood you right on my discussion page on German Wikipedia, I was not allowed to publish my Thamnophis photos on Commons because of the publication in DRACO (No. 25/2006) and my contract with VG Bild-Kunst. Then deletion would in any case be necessary. LG -- Martina Nolte 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- de: Richtig. Ich habe meine Stimme geändert. en: Correct. I changed my vote. --Rtc 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obviously the uploader was in error about who has the commercial rights on the picture. --Wiggum 10:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC) PS: Wobei es hier drauf ankäme, ob der konkrete Vertrag mit der VG Bild-Kunst einen Nutzungsvorbehalt für den Urheber vorsieht. Das spielt aber letztlich keine Rolle, da der Nachweis schwierig sein dürfte.--Wiggum 10:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright owner uploaded these photos to WikiCommons and licensed them under a free license. Is that correct? Why should WikiCommons be shortchanged and not VG Bild-Kunst? Thuresson 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because - according to Martina Nolte - the contract with VG Bild-Kunst had been signed in October 2005, so she actually wasn't free to upload them here later (as far as i've seen her first pic is dated december last year).--Wiggum 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. But from a copyright perspective, there is no problem? I'm asking because people here time and time again claim that what should concern us here is copyright, not local laws or restrictions. Eg., medieval coats of arms are not deleted only because people can not "really" use them as they like. We don't delete photos of Ronald Reagan only because you can't use his likeness in your next advertisement campaign and so on. Thuresson 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thuresson, an exclusive license clearly is copyright as far as it can get. In US you would call this a "copyright transfer". If you transfer copyright to someone, you cannot license the work yourself anymore. --Rtc 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I don't know which country Martina N. lives in but in my country copyright can not be transferred, sold, given away or taken from the photographer. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Martina, by uploading to WikiCommons, has broken her contract with VG Bildkunst. Thuresson 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thuresson, neither it can be in Germany. That's what exclusive licenses are there for—they basically allow for some kind of copyright transfer. Your local law will have exactly something like this. That she has broken her contract is not our problem. Our problem is that, because of this contract, the license is invalid. --Rtc 06:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Martina N is the copyright owner (and has always been), by uploading she terminated her contract with Bildkunst.
Hence the license is valid.Thuresson 07:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)- Since VG Bild-Kunst obtained the "ausschliessliches Nutzungsrecht" (i don't know what it is exactly in english, rough translation: all commercial rights) they got the right to sue copyright violations on their own. The contract between Martina Nolte and VG Bild-Kunst isn't invalidated because she has broken it herself. German law doesn't allow the unilateral cancellation of a contract (this principle is named with the latin phrase "pacta sunt servanda") in general. So the contract with VG Bild-Kunst remains valid but the license is invalid because she can't sell things she doesn't own.--Wiggum 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- "ausschliessliches Nutzungsrecht" = "Exclusive license" Thuresson should really learn about copyright and the nature of exclusive licenses. --Rtc 08:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since VG Bild-Kunst obtained the "ausschliessliches Nutzungsrecht" (i don't know what it is exactly in english, rough translation: all commercial rights) they got the right to sue copyright violations on their own. The contract between Martina Nolte and VG Bild-Kunst isn't invalidated because she has broken it herself. German law doesn't allow the unilateral cancellation of a contract (this principle is named with the latin phrase "pacta sunt servanda") in general. So the contract with VG Bild-Kunst remains valid but the license is invalid because she can't sell things she doesn't own.--Wiggum 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Martina N is the copyright owner (and has always been), by uploading she terminated her contract with Bildkunst.
- Thuresson, neither it can be in Germany. That's what exclusive licenses are there for—they basically allow for some kind of copyright transfer. Your local law will have exactly something like this. That she has broken her contract is not our problem. Our problem is that, because of this contract, the license is invalid. --Rtc 06:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. I don't know which country Martina N. lives in but in my country copyright can not be transferred, sold, given away or taken from the photographer. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that Martina, by uploading to WikiCommons, has broken her contract with VG Bildkunst. Thuresson 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thuresson, an exclusive license clearly is copyright as far as it can get. In US you would call this a "copyright transfer". If you transfer copyright to someone, you cannot license the work yourself anymore. --Rtc 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer. But from a copyright perspective, there is no problem? I'm asking because people here time and time again claim that what should concern us here is copyright, not local laws or restrictions. Eg., medieval coats of arms are not deleted only because people can not "really" use them as they like. We don't delete photos of Ronald Reagan only because you can't use his likeness in your next advertisement campaign and so on. Thuresson 18:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because - according to Martina Nolte - the contract with VG Bild-Kunst had been signed in October 2005, so she actually wasn't free to upload them here later (as far as i've seen her first pic is dated december last year).--Wiggum 16:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hallo Thuresson, I am not lawyer, but if I understand the discussions right, the problem is, that VG Bild-Kunst has the right to charge at least third users. I am allowed to give user rights to first users (for example prints in journals), but I guess that next users can be charged. This stands of course against the sense of Wikipedia's philosophy.
- de: Ich bin keine Rechtsanwältin, aber wenn ich die Diskussionen richtig verstehe, hat die VG Bild-Kunst das Recht, für die Zweitverwertung zumindest bei Drittnutzern einfordern. Ich kann Erstnutzungsrechte erteilen (z.B. Abdrucke in Zeitungen), aber bei Zweitnutzern werden Tantiemen erhoben. Dies widerspricht natürlich dem Sinn der Wikipedia-Philosphie. LG -- Martina Nolte 08:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for clearing this out. This is complicated and I leave it to others to decide what to do. Thuresson 08:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Benutzer Steschke hätte ohne weiteres darauf hinweisen können/müssen, dass er einer seinerzeit begründeten, aber nicht mehr aktiven Arbeitsgruppe (bestehend aus ihm und mir) in der deutschen Wikipedia, aus der ich mich ja zurückgezogen habe (hats jemand noch nicht gemerkt, ich poste es in diesem Fall gern, wie von Southpark, den ich für ein A*** halte, auf Wikipedia-l vorgeschlagen, auf Foundation-List) angehört, die sich mit der Frage VG-Bild-Kunst befasst. Ich finde die Disku via Google gerade nicht auf den Seiten der WP, aber das heisst nicht, dass sie dort prinzipiell unauffindbar wäre. Man kann sich über die Frage der GEMA-vertretenen Künstler auf der dt. Mailingliste von CC unterrichten. Wenn der Autor, der einen Wahrnehmungsvertrag mit der VG Bild-Kunst geschlossen hat, seine Bilder unter CC stellt, verfügt er über Nutzungsrechte, die er selbst nicht hat, es liegt also keine gültige Lizenz vor. Dann ist aber die Frage, ob ihm der Haftungsausschluss der CC-Lizenzen überhaupt zugutekommt, wenn sich ein Nachnutzer, der im Vertrauen auf die CC-Lizenz die Bilder genutzt hat, bei der Künstlerin schadlos halten möchte, weil ihn die Verwertungsgesellschaft in Anspruch nimmt. Ich würde in diesem Fall sehr wohl einen Rechtsanspruch auf Schadensersatz gegenüber der Küsntlerin bejahen. Sie hat zwar etwas hergeschenkt (das ist die raison d'etre für den Haftungsausschluss der CC-Lizenzen), aber etwas, was ihr nicht gehörte. Es ist bildenden Künstlern und Profifotografen sehr wohl zuzumuten, ihre Rechte VOR dem Hochladen abzuklären, während Nachnutzer grundsätzlich auf die Gültigkeit der CC-Lizenz ohne Rückfrage vertrauen können sollten. Daher:
- die Bilder leider löschen (delete)
- die Benutzerin Martina Nolte sperren, da sie durch ihr leichtsinniges Verhalten diesem Projekt schweren Schaden zugefügt und ohne triftigen Grund Nachnutzer ihrer Bilder in Gefahr gebracht hat. Diese sehr harte Sanktion ist zwingend erforderlich, da sonst häufiger Personen, die sich grob fahrlässig nicht hinreichend informieren, Bilder unter (ungültigen) freien Lizenzen hochladen. Würde eine gültige Lizenz bestehen, wäre diese - entgegen der Ansicht von Frau Nolte - unwiderruflich. Ein milderes Mittel als die dauerhafte Sperrung würde alle anderen Fotografen einladen, Commons als PR-Plattform zu mißbrauchen, auf der man Bilder gefahrlos unter CC einstellen kann, ohne die Pflichten von CC tragen zu müssen. Denn letzten Endes kommen die Tantiemen, die die VG Bild-Kunst bei Nachnutzern kassieren darf (bzw. sogar bei der WM Foundation als dem Diensteanbieter) über Ausschüttungen wieder Frau Nolte zugute. --Historiograf 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Da ich hier nicht in englisch diskutiere, habe ich das unterschlagen: de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Bildrechte/Archiv7#VG_Bild-Kunst_und_freie_Lizenzen. Gruß --Steschke 20:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- de: Hallo Historiograf, mir Fahrlässigkeit vorzuwerfen, halte ich für nicht angemessen. Fazit sogar in der von Steschke verlinkten Diskussion ist: "Im übrigen würde ich vorschlagen, dass wir für das Problem Verwertungsgesellschaft eine kleine task force gründen, für die wir versuchen sollten, einen Juristen des Portal Rechts als weiteres Mitglied zu gewinnen. Er müsste bereit sein, sich in das Recht der Verwertungsgesellschaften einzuarbeiten."
- Ich glaube nicht, dass hier an dieser Stelle so nebenbei meine Sperrung entschieden werden kann und sollte. Aber da ich unter den gegebeben Bedingungen (VG Bild-Kunst) ohnehin keine Fotos mehr einstellen kann, wäre ich mit einer Sperrung hier auf den Commons einverstanden.
- en: Hallo Historiograf, to accuse me having been negligent is, in my opinion, not appropriate. Even in the discussion linked by Steschke, the result is: "I would suggest that we create a task force for the problem of exploitation rights (de: "Verwertunsgrechte"), for which we should try to win a lawyer out of the WP-portal rights as member. He would have to find out more about the rights of these corporations."
- I don't believe, that this place is the right one to decide just by the way about banning me. But under the given conditions (VG Bild-Kunst) I cannot upload photos here any more, so that here on Commons I would agree being banned. Martina Nolte 08:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Die Sperrforderung kommt von Historiograf und nicht von Steschke. Den Vorwurf der Fahrlässigkeit halte ich für vertretbar, wer Verträge schliesst sollte sich auch im Klaren über deren Inhalt sein. Der Ärger, der jetzt daraus entstanden ist, war vermeidbar. Ob das jetzt eine Sperrung begründet sei mal dahingestellt.--Wiggum 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hallo Wiggum, ja, habe es korrigiert.
- Unabhängig von der Dimension der Schuldfrage: Mir sind der Ärger hier und die Arbeit für andere, die mein Fehler nach sich zieht, sehr sehr unangenehm. LG -- Martina Nolte 08:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ich denke, hier ist eindeutig Einsicht erkennbar. Die Rechteverletzung geschah offensichtlich ohne Vorsatz in bestem Wollen. Eine Benutzersperrung scheint mir nicht angemessen. --Steschke 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Die Sperrforderung kommt von Historiograf und nicht von Steschke. Den Vorwurf der Fahrlässigkeit halte ich für vertretbar, wer Verträge schliesst sollte sich auch im Klaren über deren Inhalt sein. Der Ärger, der jetzt daraus entstanden ist, war vermeidbar. Ob das jetzt eine Sperrung begründet sei mal dahingestellt.--Wiggum 08:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ich halte die Forderung von Historiograf auch für übertrieben. Zudem findet weniger Aufklärung über solche Sachen statt, als notwendig wäre. Auch wenn das am Anfang nicht sonderlich schön war mit dem Lizenzrückzugsversuch, hat sich Martina kooperativ gezeigt – und ich möchte auch betonen, dass sie bereits bevor sie sich der VG-Sache bewusst war, einen Ansatz von Einsicht bezüglich des Zurückziehens gezeigt hat. Assume good faith. --Rtc 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete You can't give what you don't have. If the uploader had previously granted an exclusive license to another party, he lacked the legal right to subsequently release them under another license to other parties. The Commons licenses were therefore ineffective and void ab initio. Postdlf 14:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
One week ago. Is deletion now decided? Who does it? What can I do to help? For example: delete them, where they are used in the different Wikipedias (de, en,nl,fr)??
- de: Eine Woche ist um. Ist jetzt die Löschung entschieden? Wer macht das? Wie kann ich helfen? Zum Beispiel: die verwendeten Bilder in den verschiedensprachigen Wikipedias löschen? LG -- Martina Nolte 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Erledigt. --Paddy 13:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Categories on a species level are unnecessary --BerndH 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! ¿…? 08:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Superseded by SVG version Image:Giant_planes_comparison.svg --Ctillier 06:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- keep both, the png is better readable when reduced in size --ALE! ¿…? 16:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of Zanzibar.svg --jed 19:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-commercial use only license --Himasaram 11:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:White flag of surrender.svg --jed 19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of Yemen.svg --jed 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 07:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference --Himasaram 11:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Super 8 cartridge cover -- must be copyrighted? -- Fred Chess 19:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fair use. --Ultratomio 07:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Claims "From Indian Idol 2; released to the public and allowed for usage.". Where is proof of this? / Fred Chess 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Jaranda wat's sup 01:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 20:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Source: http://www.agnes-bihl.com/site/pages/gallery/paris/gallery.php -- why free to use? / Fred Chess 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 19:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Source: http://www.agnes-bihl.com/site/pages/gallery/paris/gallery.php -- why free to use? / Fred Chess 20:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 19:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
http://www.norden.org/nordbild/imagedetails.asp?imageid=874 says "Bilderna kan fritt användas till redaktionellt icke kommersiellt bruk om du nämner bildkällan" - The images are free to use for non commercial purposes. // Olsin.se 16:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete non-commercial only license --Himasaram 11:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{noncommercial}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded (August 2006)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The image is used for example at [101] and it is really from Austrian police, but I can't find any information that they gave it free for any purpose. Usually images from police are not free in the European Union and I don't think they gave explicit permission for this image. --88.76.214.166 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --19:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete even if the policeman who took it released it into the public domain (which probably didn't happen), photos of her bedroom are an invasion of her privacy. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 07:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. But I strongly disagree with Erin's comment. There is a legitimate public interest in photos of this place; publishing pictures and details about it does also not violate any of her own interests, because she does not live there anymore and these things won't have an effect on her further life (in contrast to, for example, photos of herself, which could make her identifiable). Crime is a matter of public interest, it is not by accident that criminal proceedings are open and transparent to the public in a democratic state. --Rtc 02:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are you sure that criminal proceedings are relevant? The criminal is dead. Publishing a photo cannot affect his prosecution in any way. Are you sure that she won't be living there any more? The last I heard, she was refusing to go home to her parents, and she was suing to gain possession of the house. This is a picture of the bedroom of a living teenage girl who didn't give permission to the photographer. It should probably be treated as we might treat a picture of a famous person's bedroom photographed by an intrusive paparazzo. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh* Erin, this is not some bedroom of a famous person living in there deliberately; it has been a site of crime and thus has inherently become a place of public interest. Whether the criminal is dead or not does not change anything about that. Please no speculations about future events, which if true would not influence that (and do you really think she will return to that room?!—please. Be a bit rational.) Both unsustainable press hunting on the one hand and obvious crazily distorted views of the girl need to be masked out if you want to get a realistic picture of the situation. I am really frightened by the
collective romanticismSorry, I just noticed it is a term used for the situation in nazi germany. Didn't intend to invoke Godwin. that can be observed about these matters. Is an unbelievable crime an alibi for giving up a down-to-earth attitude? I can only say no, quite the contrary! --Rtc 05:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sigh* Erin, this is not some bedroom of a famous person living in there deliberately; it has been a site of crime and thus has inherently become a place of public interest. Whether the criminal is dead or not does not change anything about that. Please no speculations about future events, which if true would not influence that (and do you really think she will return to that room?!—please. Be a bit rational.) Both unsustainable press hunting on the one hand and obvious crazily distorted views of the girl need to be masked out if you want to get a realistic picture of the situation. I am really frightened by the
- Are you sure that criminal proceedings are relevant? The criminal is dead. Publishing a photo cannot affect his prosecution in any way. Are you sure that she won't be living there any more? The last I heard, she was refusing to go home to her parents, and she was suing to gain possession of the house. This is a picture of the bedroom of a living teenage girl who didn't give permission to the photographer. It should probably be treated as we might treat a picture of a famous person's bedroom photographed by an intrusive paparazzo. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted (probably a copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 07:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of Republika Srpska.svg --jed 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 07:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference - different colors --Himasaram 11:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the flags use different colours --ALE! ¿…? 14:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted (the svg has a correct license) --ALE! ¿…? 09:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is not a coat of arms, it is a logotype -- Fred Chess 19:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of et-Viljandi.svg --jed 19:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Ultratomio 07:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for reference - different colors --Himasaram 11:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment the flags use different colours --ALE! ¿…? 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the png also has no proper license --ALE! ¿…? 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 11:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- "Source: http://www.schweitzer.org / Date: Unknown (Send by Christoph Wyss to Wikipedia in 10-13-2005) / Permission: Copyrighted but use of the file for any purpose is allowed. " Why is this assumed?
- A member of "Association Internationale Albert Schweitzer" send me this image and he sured me that I could use it. --Digigalos 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please forward that email with complete headers to permissions at wikimedia dot org so that this can be confirmed. Alphax (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete while the source website says "© Association Internationale pour l'Oeuvre du Docteur Albert Schweitzer de Lambaréné (AISL)" unless copyright permission is proved.--Jusjih 09:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please forward that email with complete headers to permissions at wikimedia dot org so that this can be confirmed. Alphax (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- A member of "Association Internationale Albert Schweitzer" send me this image and he sured me that I could use it. --Digigalos 13:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Could be a Wikipedia-only license, for all we know. / Fred Chess 17:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
August 30
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Wrong file uploaded, the image with correct filename has been uploaded as Image:Westfield Whitford City Piazza.jpg.Please speedy delete the old one, thanks. --Shinjiman 03:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Kjetil_r 04:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
all files by User:Ptato
[edit]- Image:Psicotropia-Psicotropia.JPG - CD/DVD cover
- Image:Psicotropia-Grog.jpg - CD/DVD cover
- Image:Psicotropia1.jpg - found at [102]
- Image:Psicotropia.jpg - no licence given, duplicate of Image:Psicotropia1.jpg
- Image:Psicotropia2.jpg - the uploader says it is a promotion image, is this pd?
--GeorgHH 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Please use {{copyvio}}. --Panther 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON no evidence for this licence (the image is obviously copied from the Vatican website --Gugganij 11:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The picture obviously comes from this page on the Vatican website. There is no evidence it was released under a free license, much less the GFDL. Jastrow 10:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete, erroneous filename specified. BJ Axel 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{badname}} instead. --Panther 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Duplicates
[edit]The follow images are duplicates. I have tagged they in june and july but till today nobody have deleted they. Again today i have checked the images with CheckUsage, all are unused, please delete.
- Image:Lemgo Rathaus 1611Apotheke Utlucht.jpg
- Image:SchlossBergedorf 1.jpg
- Image:IMG 0042.JPG
- Image:Hamburg.Speicherstadt.panorama.jpg
- Image:Low creek.jpg
- Image:IskaratGerman.jpg
- Image:Tadorna radornides AB.jpg
- Image:Ørsted2.jpg
- Image:Hamburg.Schauspielhaus.jpg
- Image:Image003.jpg
- Image:IMG 5182.jpg
- Image:Jonas Tomazini 2.jpg
- Image:Image-Prius2004.JPG
- Image:N2 Roof of Casa Mila, Barcelona.jpg
- Image:Catalunya-Barcelona-DonaIOcell-Miro.jpg
- Image:Ge-ab-kaart.png
- Image:UlrichOchenbein.jpg
- Image:Katja Riemann Berlinale.jpg
- Image:Zebrafish.jpeg
- Image:Lagekzengerhafe1.jpg
- Image:Honoritos.jpg
- Image:Eventos.JPG
--GeorgHH 20:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted all those that were simple. But one of them had a talk page, and a few did not have all the same info about authors and source. / Fred Chess 10:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have now added the missing infos about authors and sources and copyed the discussion page. --GeorgHH 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- All done. Thanks for your efforts. / Fred Chess 21:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Category error, it should be category:rivers, both pictures have better categories. Traumrune 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Category emptied and made into a category redirect. -- Infrogmation 12:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Icons
[edit]- Image:Crystal Clear app Ym.png
- Image:Crystal Clear app acroread.png
- Image:Crystal Clear app aim.png
- Image:Crystal Clear app aim2.png
- Image:Crystal Clear app aim3.png
- Image:Crystal Clear app mac.png
Can these images really be considered free? For instance, would Adobe sue if I used Image:Crystal Clear app acroread.png as the icon for a program that I started selling? I realise that these are not exactly the same as trademarked logos that they are based on, but surely they are basically derivative works.The category Category:Crystal Clear icons contains a few other ones that might be dodgy—I am also not sure that the authorisation given for these icons at Template talk:Crystal clear is the same as allowing publication under the GFDL. —JeremyA 00:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep In US copyright law an icon is considered as an utility article "determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations"[103] (just as logos, fonts, jewelry, etc). These are all exempt from copyright as far as no "elements [...] which can be identified separately from the useful article as such" are present. But icons and logos inherently do not contain such elements. Only such elements would be works of applied art. Thus they are entirely considered as industrial design. You can merely register them as design patents (see for example sheild icon under en:Design patent). Many similar provisions exist in other countries (Germany for example demands for utility artciles a threshold of originality high above average design for them to be considered as works of applied art, so almost none are copyrighted). Only UK is different. Trademark is irrelevant for us, either. These laws are indepenedent from copyright. --Rtc 03:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Regardless of the copyright status, the logos depicted in these images cannot be "be used by anyone, for any purpose" (quote from Commons:Licensing). For example, the adobe website states "Adobe does not generally allow the use of product icons by third parties in their materials." Footnote 1 of Commons:Licensing states that 'freedom' of images can be restricted by things other than copyright, including trademarks. —JeremyA 03:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you use a Coat of Arms for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a picture of a patented object for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a panorama freedom picture for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo where the logo is not the main subject of the image for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo of a person for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo for a nazi emblem for any purpose? I don't think so. Get real. "used by anyone, for any purpose" refers solely to copyright. --Rtc 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that you are incorrect on two levels. Firstly, the U.S. Copyright Office state on their website that "copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship" [104]. Without reference to case law to define what is considered 'sufficient authorship' we should be very careful in trying to judge this ourselves. Secondly, Commons:Licensing is quite clear that the definiton of free content extends to more than just copyright: "Free content… is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content". Trademark law provides legal restriction on the use of logos for which trademarks are claimed—for example, I could not use any of the above images in product advertising for software. Similarly, we also consider images where a person is the main subject to be unfree unless we have a model release. —JeremyA 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Firstly, the U.S. Copyright Office state on their website that 'copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship'" May be may be not. If you ask me, most certainly not. Did you read the text I cited? Have you ever seen anybody being sued successfully for copyright violation of a logo in the US? No? As far as I see that is exactly the result of a simple fact of life: Logos are not copyrighted, because they are utility articles. You are selectively quoting from the free content wikipedia (!) article. "Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above." this pretty much makes it crystal clear that it is talking about copyright. something can be in the public domain and yet be trademarked. Something can be licensed as GFDL and yet have no model release. These rights are entirely independent. BTW, the free content wikipedia article looks pretty original research to me. --Rtc 05:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest that you look through the extensive court documents surrounding Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.. I have read through a number of these documents at Lexis, and I can find no point where the court questions Apple's right to have previously registered copyright on its icons. Your assertion that [105] excludes icons from U.S. copyright is just conjecture, as the document does not mention icons. In fact the document states that graphic art is copyrightable, and I would assert that the icons listed above are all examples of graphic art. That the images are also trademarked further excludes free use, as they cannot be used in commercial settings, and Jimbo Wales (the founder of Wikipedia and all its daughter projects) has stated that we are not to accept images that are not available for commercial use [106].
- "Firstly, the U.S. Copyright Office state on their website that 'copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship'" May be may be not. If you ask me, most certainly not. Did you read the text I cited? Have you ever seen anybody being sued successfully for copyright violation of a logo in the US? No? As far as I see that is exactly the result of a simple fact of life: Logos are not copyrighted, because they are utility articles. You are selectively quoting from the free content wikipedia (!) article. "Free content encompasses all works in the public domain and also those copyrighted works whose licenses honor and uphold the freedoms mentioned above." this pretty much makes it crystal clear that it is talking about copyright. something can be in the public domain and yet be trademarked. Something can be licensed as GFDL and yet have no model release. These rights are entirely independent. BTW, the free content wikipedia article looks pretty original research to me. --Rtc 05:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think that you are incorrect on two levels. Firstly, the U.S. Copyright Office state on their website that "copyright protection may be available for logo artwork that contains sufficient authorship" [104]. Without reference to case law to define what is considered 'sufficient authorship' we should be very careful in trying to judge this ourselves. Secondly, Commons:Licensing is quite clear that the definiton of free content extends to more than just copyright: "Free content… is any kind of functional work, artwork, or other creative content having no legal restriction relative to people's freedom to use, redistribute, improve, and share the content". Trademark law provides legal restriction on the use of logos for which trademarks are claimed—for example, I could not use any of the above images in product advertising for software. Similarly, we also consider images where a person is the main subject to be unfree unless we have a model release. —JeremyA 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you use a Coat of Arms for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a picture of a patented object for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a panorama freedom picture for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo where the logo is not the main subject of the image for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo of a person for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo for a nazi emblem for any purpose? I don't think so. Get real. "used by anyone, for any purpose" refers solely to copyright. --Rtc 04:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
黨衛軍紅衛兵 and its image Image:Redarmy.gif
[edit]This is a image created by a user, and used just to describe this user. It's not a wikipedia content.--Mongol 17:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- pictures which are only used on a userpage are ok. Anyways I don't know about the license and permission (can't read it) but it certainly lacks a license-tag. -- Gorgo 21:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Move黨衛軍紅衛兵 to User:黨衛軍紅衛兵. It is not a page about media, but about user.--Littleb 09:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- dleted Image:Redarmy.gif, Move黨衛軍紅衛兵 to User:黨衛軍紅衛兵--Shizhao 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Delete: Category is a misspelled version of Category:Application icons. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Says that copyright didn't exist in this image, but I doubt it, very likely still copyrighted Delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I had a good laugh. Claims of commons users get more and more obscure, absurd and ridiculous. --Rtc 03:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Acually make it all images from the uploader http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Oliviu1
- deleted--Shizhao 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON : Suspicion of copyright violation of this site
Same picture with copyright mention and upload date as 1998 when contributor says 2005 for date of pic. Oxam Hartog 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete bitwise identical. Changed to {{Copyvio}}, also the other three pictures he uploaded. --Rtc 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Derivated work from a copyrighted poster. --Alhen .::··¨ 03:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
| Please stop voting - organize professional legal advice. Thank you. | |
 |
Nobody is happy deleting files just because he/she feels so. Anyhow that particular topic has been discussed quite some time before and the points that were brought up clearly indicate that PD-sovjet as we have it now is highly questionable and thatfor not acceptable at Commons. Obviously there is need for a definite legal expertise by the Foundation in order to enlighten that matter. Several people have asked for legal help but up to now the Foundation didn't do much into that direction. Eugene Zelenko once more asked for legal help at the foundation-l, see [107] and thread below [108] so we now have the following procedure:
|
In order to get this page working again, I added some subheadings - please use the last one for your comments. --Bahnmoeller 16:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
30th August
[edit]Ridiculous. All sowjet stuff enjoys 70 pma. The pictures retroactively gained this protection when russian law came into effect. Simply delete it and any pictures associated. May this template be roasted in hell. --Rtc 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Raymond Disc. 07:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide an explanation for you vote? Cmapm 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete – PD-sovjet has been discussed lots of times before, and I am surprised that this template is still around. Kjetil_r 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact of discussion is enough to conclude, that usage of the template is wrong, isn't it? Interesting logic... Cmapm 20:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody is saying that discussion alone is enough to conclude. If you read the discussion on en.wp, you will see all the strong arguments for 70 pma. You can start by reading this email. --Kjetil_r 03:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No speedy actions, please. Is there final decision in lengthy discussion? At least this decision should be synchronized with EN:WP. Please don't delete images blindly. May be some of them are already {{PD-old}}. Did somebody tried to investigate copyrights status of Soviet Union/Russia post stamps? I think will be good idea to move images on EN:WP as fair use. At least images could be returned here when their copyrights will expire. --EugeneZelenko 14:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm agree with Rtc and others, but I think we shouldn't delete these images right now. IMO it's expected to declare the PD-Soviet tag as deprecated and prevent new uploads using it. But while our servers are placed in the USA, we have no urgent necessity to take so drastic measures as total deletion. --Panther 16:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- The tag has been deprecated for a long time as "This template is disputed". Time has come now to delete the tag and the pictures. Also do not upload as fair use. Fair use is entriely over-used. We are trying to produce free content, not to twist the law. --Rtc 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete [109] --Steschke 19:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide reasons of your vote, please? Cmapm 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete --Historiograf 20:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide reasons of your vote, please? Cmapm 20:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete es wird höchste Zeit --Marcela 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
31st August
[edit]- I agree with Panther, Delete the template, and prevent new uploads, but keep the images for now as this would be an total disaster, maybe get an expert copyright lawyer for the images. Jaranda wat's sup 03:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is none needed. They are clearly a copyright violations. It's a copyright violation by common sense and Lupo has given a clear refutation of the ridiculous claims. They have been maked long ago as disputed. Delete the images NOW. It is not an excuse that there would be "an total disaster" (which I do not think). My deletion request is for template AND pictures. --Rtc 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The fact of discussion is enough to decide, that the template is wrong, isn't it? Then I can initiate a discussion on any Wiki article, e.g. the Main Page, hold it enough time, and then, under similar argument, nominate it for deletion. Isn't it absurd? Cmapm 20:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm agree, they are copyright violations. But they are tagged, and we can delete them at any moment. I don't understand why we should realize it right now, at the time when we have no real legal problems with them. Let organize a project for reviewing these images and moving confirmed violations to local projects as fair use. We shouldn't delete still used images now, otherwise too many articles will be corrupt. --Panther 06:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- There is none needed. They are clearly a copyright violations. It's a copyright violation by common sense and Lupo has given a clear refutation of the ridiculous claims. They have been maked long ago as disputed. Delete the images NOW. It is not an excuse that there would be "an total disaster" (which I do not think). My deletion request is for template AND pictures. --Rtc 03:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jaranda and Panther (or provide firm rationale for the template) but do not remove the images en bloc lightly. Comment Take a look at en:Template talk:PD-USSR as well, and at least synchronize both motions. Wojsyl 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just for the record: I have nothing to do with this deletion request, and wasn't aware of it being made. I just learned about it from a notice at en:Template talk:PD-USSR. My arguments are on Template talk:PD-Soviet (and over at en:). Note, however, that I do oppose wholesale image deletion. The tag should be marked as wrong, future uploads using it should become speedy deletion candidates, and existing images need to be re-assessed. (Samulili has proposed exactly that, too.) It's a lot of work, though. Then the template can either be deleted, or maybe even left hanging around (clearly saying that the claim is wrong) to prevent re-creation. I had explained all that long ago at en:Template talk:PD-USSR#How to correct the tag. Ideally, this action would be coordinated with en:, otherwise we just run the risk that images are migrated back and forth. The claim is just as wrong on en: as it is here, so migrating images to en: using PD-USSR there would be a capital mistake. Some such images may be useable as "fair use" on en:, though. Lupo 07:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- As an aside, see [110] and [111]... I'll now try to lean back and just watch the show. Hopefully people opining here do continue to actually consider the arguments. Lupo 07:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This is one of the most bogus templates we have. As i understand the discussion on the Pavel Korin pictures earlier, nobody disagrees that this template violates not just Commons policies but also law. The only arguments for keeping and using it are like "Nobody will sue us" etc. That this has been tolerated until now is a huge exception and imho a massive erroneous trend causing only precedence for implementing fair-use-like licenses to commons which cannot be accepted. I agree with the proposals formerly made - delete the template or deprecate it and speedy delete new pictures at the one hand and reasses the old pictures on the other hand. There actually might be some stuff which is free for other reasons. Finally i think the sooner we get rid of this template the less work will we have in the aftermath.--Wiggum 08:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd recommend per case deletion with care, replacing the tag with newer one. Many of those pictures are copyvio, but many are really in public domain. Nominator's "70 pma" assumption is plain wrong. Every such an image should be checked and processed manually. There's no real need to hurry. I would paricipate in separation the husk from the grain. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 11:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC). 02:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep My arguments are in en:Template talk:PD-USSR. Russia has a unique status regarding to the Bern convention. Unlike all the other Berne countries, Russia did not provide the retroactive protection of the copyrighted works. I have a put a few citations on the en:Template talk:PD-USSR. Here is another one: Official commentary to the Law of the Authors Rights in Russian Federation Comment 6 to the Article 5: В соответствии с критерием гражданства Закон различает следующие три категории авторов произведений:
- российские граждане;
- граждане стран, имеющих с Россией международные договоры об авторском праве;
- граждане иных стран. На основе критерия гражданства граждане России охраняются всегда, а граждане стран, не имеющих с Россией международных договоров об авторских правах, не охраняются никогда. Что касается граждан стран, имеющих с Россией международные договоры по авторским правам, то их произведения:
- охраняются всегда - если авторы являются гражданами Австрии, Армении, Болгарии, Венгрии, Кубы, Малагасийской Республики, Польши, Словакии, Чехии или Швеции;
- охраняются, если они впервые были обнародованы после 26 мая 1973 года, а их автор - гражданин страны, входящей во Всемирную конвенцию об авторском праве, либо после 12 марта 1995 года, а их автор - гражданин страны, входящей в Бернскую конвенцию. Однако если страна, гражданином которой является автор произведения, вступила во Всемирную конвенцию после 27 мая 1973 года или в Бернскую конвенцию после 13 марта 1995 года, то в России охраняются только произведения граждан этих стран, которые впервые обнародованы после присоединения этой страны к соответствующей конвенции.
- According to the Article 5 there are three categories of the authors: Russian citizens, Citizens of the countries having with Russia International Treaties on the Author's rights, citizens of all the other countries. First are protected always, The third are never protected. Always protected also are citizens of Australia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Cuba, Malagasy Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Czech and Sweden. The rights of all the others are protected only if the works were published after the 26 May 1973 (for the members of the Universal Authors Convention) and from 27 May 1995 for the members of the Bern convention. All such conventions are reciprocal if Russia protects only 26 May 1973 then the others (except Poland, Cuba, etc.) protect Russian rights only after this date. In fact, according to Podshibikin/Leontiev it may mean that in the USA the Russian works are protected only since 12 March 1995. This interpretation seems to be supported by a preliminary decision of NYC court on Kurier vs. Itar-TASS [112] Preliminarily, the Court ruled that the request for a preliminary injunction concerned articles published after March 13, 1995 , the date that Russia acceded to the Bern Convention. See id. at 1125. The Court then ruled that the copied works were "Bern Convention work[s]," 17 U.S.C. § 101, and that the plaintiffs' rights were to be determined according to Russian copyright law. See Itar-Tass I , 886 F. Supp. at 1125-26. I agree that this interpretation might be not the only one possible, but I understand that there was no legal testing of the matter. Alex Bakharev 13:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Alex. I think there's still a misunderstanding. This again is about the copyright of foreign works within Russia, not about the copyright of Soviet works outside of Russia or the CIS states. But it's interesting all the same. According to your own translation, "there are three categories of the authors: Russian citizens, Citizens of the countries having with Russia International Treaties on the Author's rights, citizens of all the other countries. First are protected always, The third are never protected." I.e. Russian's works always are protected in Russia. Can you source your statement on "reciprocable"? The Berne Convention doesn't say anything like that (and the rule of the shorter term is optional and not implemented in U.S. law). On Podshibikin/Leontiev, see en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#Podshibikhin.2FLeontiev source does not back the template. On the mentioned Itar-Tass case, see also en:Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc. and at Wikisource. Lupo 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- What articles are referenced in the preliminary injunction mentioned in the case law example? The ones of the Kurier or the ones of the agencies? --Wiggum 20:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Kurier case is only tangentially relevant... The injunction was against Kurier and prohibited it copying the articles from the Russian plaintiffs. (Kurier basically had no own articles—they just cut'n'pasted articles from Russian newspapers, put the snippets together again, got it printed, and sold that as their own newspaper.) The injunction, the district court decision, and the decision of the circuit court (court of appeals) are available at Wikisource (in addition to the article at en:). Note that the case was pre-URAA, and dealt with recent articles (from the 1990s on), not pre-1973 ones. See also en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#Podshibikhin.2FLeontiev source does not back the template for what "pre-URAA" means and for an example of what U.S. courts do since the URAA was passed. Lupo 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes i already read it. When this preliminary injunction refers to the Kurier articles this would be fine with berne convention. After Russia signed, their works were treated under the convention. Basically this is only one point among others where i cannot find any hint that there should be a exception regarding the former SU. As far as i understood we base our evalution of PD status on the law of the country of origin (i.e. copyright ownership / PD status of german works is evaluated with german law and so on). So we would only regard Soviet works as PD when they were PD in the UdSSR or are PD in one of it's successor countries (Which country's law should apply is another question, i don't know if russia generally is the legal successor of the soviet union). However, what the license states is imho complete crap - the pictures are not in the Public Domain due to missing international conventions. Russia and the other GUS countries signed the berne convention, that matters. Therefore their works are protected in other countries like the respective national works. As i said, i don't see any hint for an exception.--Wiggum 22:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Russian's work are protected in Russia": this is false translation: the correct is "Russian citizen's work is protected in Russia" In Soviet Union for the Soviet law there were "Soviet citizens", not "Russian citizens". Mikkalai 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The Kurier case is only tangentially relevant... The injunction was against Kurier and prohibited it copying the articles from the Russian plaintiffs. (Kurier basically had no own articles—they just cut'n'pasted articles from Russian newspapers, put the snippets together again, got it printed, and sold that as their own newspaper.) The injunction, the district court decision, and the decision of the circuit court (court of appeals) are available at Wikisource (in addition to the article at en:). Note that the case was pre-URAA, and dealt with recent articles (from the 1990s on), not pre-1973 ones. See also en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#Podshibikhin.2FLeontiev source does not back the template for what "pre-URAA" means and for an example of what U.S. courts do since the URAA was passed. Lupo 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. With such a level of "explanations" and naughty words in the nomination, this is bad faith. Not to mention no one proved that this template is wrong. -- Grafikm fr 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is the users who want to keep it who have to prove that the template is right, not vice versa. --Kjetil_r 20:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The template was tagged "discussed". Was that discussion just a waste of time? Is anybody aware of that discussion's results? Or that "discussed" tag was like an ultimatum - "if no results in N days, then we have enough reasons for the template to be deleted" ?Cmapm 20:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I did not upload too many images under this tag, and didn't look up for results of the discussion at the template's Talk Page so far. But at a first glance all, what is going on, is very strange and even looks like a cabal. Therefore, I can't keep myself quiet. Did somebody experienced serious copyright complaints from any Russian organizations? Was it 100% proved by somebody, that pre-1973 Soviet publications are not PD in respective countries (those, where they should be PD to be eligible for tagging as such in Wiki)? Please, answer if not to me, then at least to yourself such simple questions, if you want your conscience to be clear. Not just argument "there are too many such images, hence they all should be deleted". If one should want to limit uploading of PD-Soviet images until the discussion of the template is over, he/she had a very simple solution: to use a note like "If uploaded after DD-MM-YYYY, then will be speedy deleted", as it's done, e.g. for in this template. Instead, people are trying to stop uploads by deleting a huge amount of images (i.e. other people's work) "at once and forever". I can't refrain from asking: are you newbies, guys? Or you just hate the USSR and people, who work on related topics, to such an extent? Best regards. Cmapm 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes we ALL hate the USSR so much that we will only allow 70 years pma pictures like this is the rule for most countries. Besides, would you steal somthing or kill someone if nobody complains? I can't believe that you're taking yourself serious.--Wiggum 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, have you ore somebody else proved 100%, that in this case we have stealing, but we are to have multiple murder acts of others work in a while. By the way, I see no results of the discussion in this nomination, was a person nominating even aware of it? Was there any voting in that discussion, where people decided, that the template is wrong? Cmapm 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is the claimers duty to prove 100% by a positive court case that their claims heavily contradicting any common sense are correct. It is not on commons to disprove their claims. --Rtc 20:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Once again, have you ore somebody else proved 100%, that in this case we have stealing, but we are to have multiple murder acts of others work in a while. By the way, I see no results of the discussion in this nomination, was a person nominating even aware of it? Was there any voting in that discussion, where people decided, that the template is wrong? Cmapm 20:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes we ALL hate the USSR so much that we will only allow 70 years pma pictures like this is the rule for most countries. Besides, would you steal somthing or kill someone if nobody complains? I can't believe that you're taking yourself serious.--Wiggum 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ich halte es für eine Zumutung, dass hier derart unsachlich diskutiert wird. Die bösartige Unterstellung Cmapms, die Befürworter der Löschung hassten die UdSSR ist eine Unverschämtheit. Die Argumente für ein bestehende Urheberrecht wurden klar und nachvollziehbar von Lupo vorgetragen. Es ist vielmehr eine Missachtung der Rechte der Bürger der ehemaligen UdSSR, diesen keine Urheberrechte zusprechen zu wollen oder gar die Beweislast umzukehren. Meine humanistische Gesinnung verbietet es mir, diese zu Menschen zweiter Klasse zu degradieren. Wir haben auf commons nicht nur die Pflicht dieses Projekt zu schützen, sondern auch und vor allem die rechtlichen Belange der Urheber. --Steschke 21:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: Cmapm's suggestion that the pro-deletion voters hate the USSR is insulting. The arguments in favor of an existing copyright were made clear and comprehensibe by Lupo. It is disrespectful to the citizens of the USSR to refuse them authors' rights or to turn around the burden of proof. I cannot bring myself to consider these people second-class citizens. We at Commons not have the obligation to protect the project, but also and above to protect authors' rights.]
- Keep. This Soviet noncopyrightability situation exists for 30 years now. If there were contested cases, where is the precedent? Soviet Union exempted itself from the rules of the rest of the world. What's so unclear? Mikkalai 21:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wir sprechen hier über höchstpersönliche Rechte der Urheber und sollten daher auf Rufe nach Sippenhaft verzichten. Willst du die Rechteinhaber tatsächlich für Fehler ihres politischen Systems verantwortlich machen? --Steschke 21:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: We're talking about the personal rights of the authors and should avoid calling for guilt by asssociation. Do you really want to hold authors responsible for the mistakes of their political system?]
1st September
[edit]- Keep I read the discussion of the template on the talk page (legal arguments for/against). I vote keep because 1) the copyright situation for Soviet pre-1973 images is still too vague, Russian/Georgian/Ukrainian laws notwithstanding, and 2. there are numerous images and I oppose blind deletion of them--Riurik 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Unbeeindruckt von jeder Vernunft entscheidet es sich eben leichter. Lieber verletzen wir das Urheberrecht und schaden diesem Projekt, als auch nur ein mal nachzudenken. Danke für diese Stellungnahme, sie zeigt, wess Geistes Kind du bist. --Steschke 05:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: It's easier to decide when you don't use reason. Better to violate copyright and damage the project than to think.]
- [...] the copyright situation for Soviet pre-1973 images is still too vague [...] might be correct but to reason a keep vote out of this fact leads into absurditiy. May i stress the fact again, that we regularly delete unclear cases?--Wiggum 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Copyright is, of course, not made for voting. Even worse is this "deleting"-approach of a group of law-dabblers. Just have a look of many publications by Osprey Publishing Ltd, Jane's (or even the US-Government) were those images where unquestioned used commercially. International copyright allways base on comparison of the retention period, which is a fundamental principle. I wonder why all the "experts" did NOT mention this. -- Yelzin 06:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- LOL - Die US-Regierung ist nun wirklich kein Maßstaab für Recht und Gesetz. Ganz im Gegenteil. --Steschke 06:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Translation: LOL - The U.S. government is not a measure of what's right and legal. On the contrary.
- I wonder if you really know under what circumstances those books use the pictures. Contrary to the commons project a book does not maintain an approach of perfectly free pictures. Since newspapers or books as well use a gray area of citation this is not a really comparable case. Besides it's a usual practice in publishing to use pictures and relicense them after a copyright holder complains. This would not be an acceptable policy for commons.--Wiggum 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above as well as many previous votes. If someone is so eager to delete this, have some common courtesy to resurrect the issue once a quarter rather than every week. It does not affect the results but saves much of the other's people time for more productive activity. --Irpen 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Oh, and may I strike out the non-English entries of a grossly inconsiderate user? --Irpen 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, you may not. Commons is a multilingual project and writing in German and Russian is no more inconsiderate than writing in English. Angr 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Oh, and may I strike out the non-English entries of a grossly inconsiderate user? --Irpen 06:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. --Zserghei 07:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. No hard argument for removing template. Template absolutely legal, see [113]:
. --Yakudza 07:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)Статьи первых 10 томов (с «А» по «Италики»), издававшихся до 1973, — общественное достояние на территории США, но защищены Законом об авторском праве в России.
- Keep. As per sane arguments above. --TimBits 12:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sane? Erhm... Lupo has at least shown clear and fundamental weaknesses in these false claims, which in doubt gives them the burden of proof of a positive court case. And these pictures are clearly protected 70 pma in russia. Commons would have to make an ip block towards whole russia if it wants to stay legal (under the assumption that the claims are correct, which they are not). --Rtc 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Alex and others have already proven the case. Nothing else to add. If someone has a chronic problem of bringing this up once in a while, please as said above, have some courtesy, at least do it less frequently (quartely would be goood) and save others time. --TimBits 13:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sane? Erhm... Lupo has at least shown clear and fundamental weaknesses in these false claims, which in doubt gives them the burden of proof of a positive court case. And these pictures are clearly protected 70 pma in russia. Commons would have to make an ip block towards whole russia if it wants to stay legal (under the assumption that the claims are correct, which they are not). --Rtc 12:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Laws never become valid retroactively. Until someone can prove with a court decision that pictures with this tag are copyrighted, the tag is valid and the pictures are free to use. Errabee 13:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what "retroactive" means. It means that you cannot be sued for something after a law which didn't exist at the time you did your something. Nobody will sue you for usage of works which are protected today when this usage occured before respective laws (i.e. due to accedence to berne convention) came into effect. Only the use today isn't allowed.--Wiggum 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you misunderstand. It could also mean that all works created now are protected for 70 years, but all works created earlier were not. Either way, I still have to see a court decision that says images from the SU before 1973 are copyrighted. Errabee 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, what you mean with "Laws never become valid retroactively" is that there is no ex post facto law, which is correct. The retroactive mechanism of copyright law isn't ex post facto since the law doesn't come into effect into the past. It just covers issues of the past which is a separated issue. The berne convention grants protection of at least 50 years pma and it grants also that the signatory countries treat foreign works as their own. So there is just not even the smallest hint that this is not the same for soviet works. No one of the keep voters has provided similar elementary arguments. It is not my duty to find court decisions that strenghen my point of view. I don't upload images of today and then say "show me a court decision that prohibits pictures of today", this is ridiculous. Instead, when you want to maintain a case which is allegedly completely different from international agreements it's your turn to underline those opinions with facts.--Wiggum 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Or perhaps you misunderstand. It could also mean that all works created now are protected for 70 years, but all works created earlier were not. Either way, I still have to see a court decision that says images from the SU before 1973 are copyrighted. Errabee 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You misunderstand what "retroactive" means. It means that you cannot be sued for something after a law which didn't exist at the time you did your something. Nobody will sue you for usage of works which are protected today when this usage occured before respective laws (i.e. due to accedence to berne convention) came into effect. Only the use today isn't allowed.--Wiggum 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I totally agree with Mikkalai comments.Ldingley 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep see above --LimoWreck 15:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if there is something wrong with the template's wording, then fix the thing. If there are photos that are under this license's old wording that do not fit the new wording, then we shall deal with those accordingly. I will not be the first to admit that this is a pretty hard issue, since not only we are trying to deal with a copyright situation from a country that legally does not exist anymore, but has been fragmented into other nation-states. I would just ask that for now, just no more uploads under this category until we will find exactly what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, the UNESCO stated that the Soviet copyright laws can be found in the text “Fundamentals of the Civil Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics.” I would like to see the text from 1991, which was the last such text that was pased before the USSR broke appart. By this time, some of the treaties the USSR signed would have come into play so I just want to see what this says. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This template is a ticking time bomb. --Voyager 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - see user Voyager above. -- Tsor 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. See Alex' comments. I fully agree with him. Miastko 19:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Those pictures are not allowed on dewp. And commons should have the least common denominator of all projects. --DaB. 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete sowjet stuff enjoys 70 pma. This template is a ticking time bomb. --Sonaz 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete [114], Template talk:PD-Soviet#This template is very wrong -Samulili 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete for obvious and sufficiently stated reasons. The topic is not really debatable here, as Wikimedia is not entitled to change the law. Schizoschaf 19:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2nd September
[edit]- Delete All said above, no serious counterpoints. Denisoliver 19:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete of course, all the reasons were already mentioned on Template talk:PD-Soviet long ago --Ahellwig 22:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex & mikka. Khoikhoi 22:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep per Zscout370 vote comment. Gnomz007 01:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Hardly a "ticking time bomb". And the State that would have had the true final say has exploded already. Not an issue. Dr. Dan 02:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's Nonsense. The final say have judges in each country of the world. Those who see their rights violated by this can sue in any country (because commons is browseable from and directed at any country explictly). They can also sue in several countries at once, or one after another, until success. It is frightening to see users vote for the death of the project. Don't you see that if you keep voting for deliberate violation of the basic policies here (that copyright must be respected, not only on a "let's wait until they sue" basis), wikimedia foundation will sooner or later shut down commons? Wikiquote had a hard time to get its act together; if commons does not succeed in freeing itself from its morbid ulcers like this, they will be its death in end. --Rtc 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, but I see a case of copyright paranoia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's Nonsense. The final say have judges in each country of the world. Those who see their rights violated by this can sue in any country (because commons is browseable from and directed at any country explictly). They can also sue in several countries at once, or one after another, until success. It is frightening to see users vote for the death of the project. Don't you see that if you keep voting for deliberate violation of the basic policies here (that copyright must be respected, not only on a "let's wait until they sue" basis), wikimedia foundation will sooner or later shut down commons? Wikiquote had a hard time to get its act together; if commons does not succeed in freeing itself from its morbid ulcers like this, they will be its death in end. --Rtc 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I think earlier discussions (like Template_talk:PD-Soviet or en:Template talk:PD-USSR) and this site for example show clearly, that the assumption of all soviet pictures published before 1973 being PD is at least very doubtful. The arguments brought forward by the opposing side didn't convince me. Sure, it would be a big loss for the various Wikipedia projects and their articles on historic topics to delete all these pictures, and I can see that many of the above voters feel the same way and want to keep them. But on the other hand you have to keep in mind that Wikimedia Commons wants to be a media database of completely free files, that users can use safely without having to fear law suits when using this pictures in commercial publications (books, magazines, Wikipedia-DVDs etc..). So the question is: is it okay to keep copyvios on commons, to just close our eyes and assume/hope/pretend that nobody will sue us, the uploaders or - more likely - the people who use our pictures in good faith? I think that in this case we have to swallow the bitter pill. Re-assess the exisiting pictures - as many of them (as far as I can see) could be tagged PD-old - and change the template text. --88.134.45.6 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the reasons are known, too risky -- Funji 05:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree to the opinions of Rtc, Lupo, and Steschke. Although we should keep the ones that are already PD-old. --Flominator 06:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep see Mikkalai -- Sozi 08:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All said above.--Syrcro 08:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete - the template and every single image that uses it: We are in dire need of establishing a fact based golden rule. I suggest that every image to be used on commons must be legal in the US and the country of origin. We should not care for saudi-arabian or japanese law, if the image is not connected with those countries. In the case of soviet images we all know by now, that the copyright of russian citizens (and that of GIS member states) is always protected in russia for 70 y pma. So this is our baseline: russian/GIS/soviet images are protected 70y pma. case closed, this templete is due to deletion along with all the images. --h-stt !? 09:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete incl all pictures (besides the pd-old ones) -- FelixReimann 09:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev. MaxSem 12:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete All said above. --Leipnizkeks 13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete fully agreeing with Lupo and h-stt. Just an example: Famous Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich died in 1975. Regarding his works being published before 1973 i have had contact with director of legal & buiseness affairs of "Sikorski Musikverlage", the official publisher of Shostakovich works. They clearly state that all of his works remain copyrighted 70 years pma. Furthermore, if you search the database of GEMA, you will find all of his works listed under his name, which would not be the case if they were not copyrighted. --Taxman(de) 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Alex Bakharev and Mikka .dima 15:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC) ('don't worry it's me...)
- Keep per Irpen and don't waste other people's time with useless deletion votes. Sashazlv, 2 September 2006.
- Delete or have fun with a legal action Liesel 16:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete full ack to editors statements aboce --Emha 17:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as soon as possible --Aragorn05 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Irpen and others. Soviet (Russian...) law is DIFFERENT from US law, but apparently some people think that if something is illegal in US it is illegal worldwide. Nope. In this case the Russian law applies, not US, therefore if it legal in Russia (where pictures were published, etc.), it is legal in US. Perhaps we should add a 'globalize' template to this VfD. PS. lex retro non agit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Gosh, how often must this be repeated - this is no case of "lex retro non agit", the laws don't criminalize usage of pictures in the past. But they prevent usage of them today. According to the link Samulili mentioned above, the SU had a 15 years pma rule since 1928 which was later extended to 25 years and in the 90ies to 50 and 70 years. Disregarding this fact, we store the Reichstag-picture of Yevgeni Khaldei - who died in 1997 - and claim it PD. I didn't saw an appropriate reason for this in any of those debates.--Wiggum 19:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ...Sicherlich Post 18:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I strongly believe what Lupo says about it --Schlendrian 18:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ìt has been thoroughly shown that russian works fall under the 70 pma rule. --Phrood 20:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's getting ridiculous. Elk Salmon 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see user Voyager above. Julius1990 21:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Berlin-Jurist 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Just imagine, a russian law would turn child pornography legal and PD (in reality, the russians would not do this). Would this child pornography be legal here, because "it's legal in russia and russian law applies"? Of course not.
- Delete Per Lupo. Haukurth 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete everything is said... --gunny Talk! 23:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per Wiggum - Sven-steffen arndt 23:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see Wiggum, Lupo, Rtc, Historiograf and all the others. --BLueFiSH ✉ 01:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The template is keeping up a wrong claim: This claim would mean, that all works of - for example - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, written before 1973 are PD - that means can be reproduced by anybody at any time. That´s nonsense... --Ewald Trojansky 05:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if the template is deleted, I still would like to caution everyone that we should try and go through each media file separately, unless there is a clear reason to delete. There are some items that are in here that are public domain for other reasons, such as being a state symbolic or because of other reasons. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 06:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. We should not keep exceptions whith which we cannont be sure we are not violating third rights. --Wikipeder 06:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Let's see a professional assessment of the situation first. Meanwhile, there is altogether too much of a "seems" and "believes" here and in Talk page mentioned. 82.209.218.9 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous vote. Invalid.this is not about counting votes, but about arguments Schizoschaf 09:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC) That was my write-in (seems I didn't notice my session expired). Yury Tarasievich 07:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)- You ar looking on the problem from the wrong perspective. We have to be absolutely sure, content is free an then transfer it to commons. So there is indeed way to much seems and believes here. Just your conclusion is wrong. Schizoschaf 09:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- And there is altogether too much of "your opinion is wrong" in this discussion, by the way. So it all gets pretty much philosophical, but, luckily, the notion of seeking the professional advice first is getting some attention, at last. Yury Tarasievich 07:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete see Wiggum, Lupo, Rtc, Historiograf and all the others. --Dodo 08:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete every picture and text which are not absolutely clear available under free license must be deleted, because they are general risks for the complete project --Mijobe 09:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as soon as possible --84.189.180.240 09:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - around ten Wikipedians who have my full trust are for deletion. That's enough for me. Kenwilliams 10:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete after someone deleted my "vote" - delete, everything is said, and you could be lucky if there are no legal consequences for wikimedia foundation --gunny Talk! 10:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree to Lupo's arguments and research. However, before deleting or moving the pictures I would definitely suggest/prefer the legal opinion of a foundation' legal advisor in order to fix the point. International copyright law is not a case for discussing and opinions of laypersons. --Elya 10:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This template is a ticking time bomb.--Bobo11 11:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Löschen; schließe mich den Argumenten von Lupo und Wiggum an. --Mogelzahn 11:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Rough translation: Delete per Lupo and Wiggum
- Pass auf, hier werden deutschsprachige Kommentare vom Vandalen Irpen gelöscht : [115]. --Steschke 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: Watch out, German-language comments are being deleted by the vandal Irpen.]
- If you want your comments stay here, rewrite them in English and they will be all safe and happy. --Irpen 02:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC) [Grobe Übersetzung: Wenn Du willst, dass Deine Kommentare hier bleiben, schreib sie neu auf Englisch und sie werden alle sicher und glücklich sein.]
- Pass auf, hier werden deutschsprachige Kommentare vom Vandalen Irpen gelöscht : [115]. --Steschke 11:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [Rough translation: Watch out, German-language comments are being deleted by the vandal Irpen.]
- Delete after reading Lupo's analysis, keeping is negligent. Threedots 11:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I must remind everyone of the comment of Eugene Zelenko, on August 30th. There will be no speedy deletion of these images based on this debate. We will wait until the Foundations requests us to delete them, or until juridical precedents requires us to. don't worry. / Fred Chess 11:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree to Steschke. Fred's statement is irrational. This is a dedicated project. Dedicated to collect and distribute free content. If content ain't free its not supposed to be on commons. Who doesn't care wether or not content is free can use google.com/images. --Schizoschaf 12:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I'm very sure everything has been said, and to keep the iamges would be illegal. --Ixitixel 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - full ack Lupo --Reinhard 16:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete Lupos arguments are sufficient. Some people say this would be too fast, or claim "No speedy actions, please." - however the german Wikipedia was cleaned of these images some months ago and no one can say that this discussion would be new here on Commons. --Crux 19:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Redline is courtage 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- strong Keep. Проголосовал, к сожалению, это всего лишь очередная попытка уничтожить все упоминания о Союзе... Мне искренне жаль этих людей... With respect, Nejron 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep but we need advice from a professional copyright lawyer (also in the case PD-Italy and PD-ItalyGov). It does not really help to follow hobby-lawyer opinions, either Pro or Contra. --Denniss 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
4th September
[edit]- Delete - The key goal of Wikipedia Commons is to produce a database of truly free images which anyone can use for any reason, without fear of being sued. Including photographs with such ambiguous copyright status as those covered by this template goes against this goal. Balcer 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- By Balcer's logic {{PD-Poland}} should go even sooner. Total nonsense to claim images all the way till '94 to be non-copyrightable in USA only because they are PD in Poland. USSR is non-existing state and the cutoff date is, at least not as non-sensial as PD-Poland's 1994. --Irpen 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even you admit that the situation with PD-Poland is different (you claim it is worse). Since it is different, let's not discuss it here. If you believe PD-Poland needs to be deleted, consider starting its own separate deletion vote. Balcer 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Balcer, I won't play this trick. IMO, the unjustified m:copyright paranoia is disruptive and harmful. I won't attack Polish images like you attack the Russian and Ukrainian ones, because I want a better Wikipedia. I understand the safety concerns exist but if there are any threats, this is the least likely place to expect them. This has nothing to do with really problem images that should be handled instead of this ridiculous "debate" of people with little idea who all think of themselves as copyright lawyers while no one of the deletionists care to ask a single expert despite requested many times to do so. --Irpen 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Irpen, about 40 people voted against this template. Singling me out for personal criticism could be considered a personal attack. Balcer 04:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I "singled you out" because I was surprized by your vote. Of the other people who voted, I either don't know them, or I expected them to vote that way. And please no unsubstantiated PA accusations. Nothing above is a PA. This is really annoying to see people calling the words they simply don't like a PA just to get some leverage. --Irpen 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Balcer, Irpen please assume WP:AGF, no reasons to suspect bad faith and no reasons to suspect PA if there are none. The question is dear to many of us, but please do not take the discussion personally. Alex Bakharev 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- My point exactly. This is about consistensy and better Wikipedia which largely relies on images and those are safe unlike others. --Irpen 05:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Balcer, Irpen please assume WP:AGF, no reasons to suspect bad faith and no reasons to suspect PA if there are none. The question is dear to many of us, but please do not take the discussion personally. Alex Bakharev 05:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I "singled you out" because I was surprized by your vote. Of the other people who voted, I either don't know them, or I expected them to vote that way. And please no unsubstantiated PA accusations. Nothing above is a PA. This is really annoying to see people calling the words they simply don't like a PA just to get some leverage. --Irpen 04:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Irpen, about 40 people voted against this template. Singling me out for personal criticism could be considered a personal attack. Balcer 04:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Balcer, I won't play this trick. IMO, the unjustified m:copyright paranoia is disruptive and harmful. I won't attack Polish images like you attack the Russian and Ukrainian ones, because I want a better Wikipedia. I understand the safety concerns exist but if there are any threats, this is the least likely place to expect them. This has nothing to do with really problem images that should be handled instead of this ridiculous "debate" of people with little idea who all think of themselves as copyright lawyers while no one of the deletionists care to ask a single expert despite requested many times to do so. --Irpen 03:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Even you admit that the situation with PD-Poland is different (you claim it is worse). Since it is different, let's not discuss it here. If you believe PD-Poland needs to be deleted, consider starting its own separate deletion vote. Balcer 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- By Balcer's logic {{PD-Poland}} should go even sooner. Total nonsense to claim images all the way till '94 to be non-copyrightable in USA only because they are PD in Poland. USSR is non-existing state and the cutoff date is, at least not as non-sensial as PD-Poland's 1994. --Irpen 02:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Commons should include only images whose free status is beyond question. Angr 05:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Valodzka 06:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Why don't you delete Template:PD-Poland first? --Ghirlandajo 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- No one's nominated it yet. One thing at a time. Angr 07:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Catrin 12:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Study law. Lupo's analysis is completely wrong! VanHelsing.16 13:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Could you please help us stupid non lawyers by telling us why? --Flominator 16:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- Prilutsky 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- strong Keep. There is no reason for deletion; discussion on this question is incomplete; proposers simply don't know law. Edward Chernenko 14:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- strong Delete - There is no legal reason to keep. In this case all is said I think -- Necrophorus 15:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Isn't it amazing that many pro voters hardly havy any edits on commons? See Special:Contributions/Prilutsky, Special:Contributions/Valodzka, Special:Contributions/Nejron, Special:Contributions/Elk Salmon, and Special:Contributions/Riurik for example. --Nichtbesserwisser 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- And what? Do you mean people not contributing to commons can't decide any licensing problems? That is a strange point of view. VanHelsing.16 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I trust Lupo's analysis and Steschke's, Wiggum's, Rtc's, Historiograf's etc. judgement. --Rosenzweig 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete - Citizens of the former Soviet Union do enjoy the 70 years protection like any other people. I do understand that there are a lot of immigrants in the US or other countries, who would benefit as well. --Bahnmoeller 16:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Decission: Let me proceed something: Nobody is happy deleting files just because he/she feels so. Anyhow that particular topic has been discussed quite some time before and the points that were brought up clearly indicate that PD-sovjet as we have it now is highly questionable and thatfor not acceptable at Commons. Obviously there is need for a definite legal expertise by the Foundation in order to enlighten that matter. Several people have asked for legal help but up to now the Foundation didn't do much into that direction. Eugene Zelenko once more asked for legal help at the foundation-l, see [116] and thread below [117] so we now have the following procedure:
- We leave that thread open until 20. September (exactly three weeks after the thread started). This should be enough time for everybody to write down his points and also giving local communities chances to be prepared on the matter.
- If there is no fundamental change in the meantime (saying the Foundation happily published an expertise that strongly backs PD-sovjet) we abandon PD-sovjet entirely and remove all PD-sovjet images in Commons. I don't say "delete" (although we all call it that way) as it is no longer a real deletion. Files can be restored like articles. So none of the valuable images will be irrevocable deleted.
- If at some point in future it may happens that PD-sovjet is indeed public domain (for example public declaration of russian officials on pre-1973 russian copyright, official legal expertise by the Foundation...) we can restore that files.
This procedure should be fair towards anyone and meeting our strict license requirements at the same time. Arnomane 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- This debate is stucked. I understand that there is much sceptizism because no one of us (?) is an educated lawyer. I highly appreciate Eugenes request for foundation support. It would be very helpful if we could establish some testable guidelines for all media types. You may notice in the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charlie Patton & Bertha Lee - Mind Reader Blues.ogg case that there is also considerable confusion about music copyright. I don't expect anything other than a 70-years-pma-recommondation for pictures in general but maybe there are other possibilities we didn't consider yet. Before 20 September we should review the tagged articles, maybe there are some PD-old or others we can keep.--Wiggum 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please let us keep things separate (this thread is long enough ;). The general media license policy gets debated at Commons talk:Licensing and some other more general places. So yes this is not image specific. Images are just our main media files and we often implicitly include all other media files as well if we say "image". On wrongly tagged files: We naturally take care of it. Arnomane 23:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- This debate is stucked. I understand that there is much sceptizism because no one of us (?) is an educated lawyer. I highly appreciate Eugenes request for foundation support. It would be very helpful if we could establish some testable guidelines for all media types. You may notice in the Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Charlie Patton & Bertha Lee - Mind Reader Blues.ogg case that there is also considerable confusion about music copyright. I don't expect anything other than a 70-years-pma-recommondation for pictures in general but maybe there are other possibilities we didn't consider yet. Before 20 September we should review the tagged articles, maybe there are some PD-old or others we can keep.--Wiggum 21:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
5th September
[edit]- Keep PD-Soviet images have been used by Wikipedia since the begginnig, for five years by now. So far, there was no one leagal threat. Also, these images are used by many other sites too. If there were copyright owners, they would already have taken actions. Kneiphof 05:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof and my comments above. --Panther 08:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I am agree with comments for Keep --Butko 08:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Please, do not harm Russian Wikipedia. Saproj 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Until a waterproof solution has been found, these pictures must be deleted in the usual time that {{subst:nsd}} gives them. The template itself is obviously useless. If a waterproof solution has been found, some pictures could be restored later, but that's a case-by-case scenario anyhow. For the general set of pictures under this "licence" we can only decide on being safe and deleting first and thus not being sorry later. --Melanom 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete --Philipendula 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof --jno 09:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, intersing: absolute majoraty of delete-voters are from German Wikipeida. Just a coincidence?!! Kneiphof 09:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- no, we only take it seriously - Sven-steffen arndt 09:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment only: of course it's no coincidence that many people expressing their opinions here are active primarily on either Russian subjects at the en: Wikipedia, at the Russian Wikipedia, or at the German Wikipedia. The case is discussed in all these places, including ru:Обсуждение шаблона:SovietPU, de:WP:UF#PD-Soviet_auf_Commons_wird_zum_Risiko_für_das_Projekt, and maybe elsewhere. Logically that attracts people. Unfortunately the discussions are not always calm. BTW, the Russian Wikipedia uses lots of images under that template (called SovietPU there), despite the template explicitly stating that such works might be copyrighted in Russia. Lupo 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since WP servers are in the US, Russian law might not matter at all, so it is quite logical. -- Grafikm fr 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Does that mean German law doesn't matter at all either? Then we should delete all images with {{Logo-Germany}} on them, since they're public domain in Germany but not in the U.S. Angr 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It might be so, yes. But you will notice that, contrary to some people, I merely emit a hypothesis and that I don't start posting announces calling for deletion of these media. This matter, as the pre-1973 thing, need special investigation by competent people. -- Grafikm fr 12:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Does that mean German law doesn't matter at all either? Then we should delete all images with {{Logo-Germany}} on them, since they're public domain in Germany but not in the U.S. Angr 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Since WP servers are in the US, Russian law might not matter at all, so it is quite logical. -- Grafikm fr 12:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's just that some people want some images from WWII disappear, it's as simple as that. -- Grafikm fr 12:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to be wrong, but there was a wave of revisionizm a month ago. Just about "germans didn't start WWII", etc. Maybe, it's just a sequence of events. Maybe. Can anybody announce this discussion in de.wiki? I believe, most germans are not brain-frozen and this affect their history as well. --jno 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This wave of anti-Soviet revisionism is nothing new, and is strong in a lot of countries. -- Grafikm fr 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- To one of the questions above, yes, it does mean that neither German nor Russial law matters. The copyright law (unlike the laws of war) is not international. Wikimedia projects, being based on US servers are only affected by the US copyright laws. Copyright laws are affected by conventions, that is a country joining the convention must ammend its laws to comply with it. But this is all about the US law and US international obligations. Neither German not Russian laws affect anything. --Irpen 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Per http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html, however, Jimbo disagrees. Our image use policies need to comply not only with U.S. law but also with other countries' laws, so that our content is reusable in those countries too. German law and Russian law and Iranian law are all relevant here. Angr 15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- To one of the questions above, yes, it does mean that neither German nor Russial law matters. The copyright law (unlike the laws of war) is not international. Wikimedia projects, being based on US servers are only affected by the US copyright laws. Copyright laws are affected by conventions, that is a country joining the convention must ammend its laws to comply with it. But this is all about the US law and US international obligations. Neither German not Russian laws affect anything. --Irpen 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- This wave of anti-Soviet revisionism is nothing new, and is strong in a lot of countries. -- Grafikm fr 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to be wrong, but there was a wave of revisionizm a month ago. Just about "germans didn't start WWII", etc. Maybe, it's just a sequence of events. Maybe. Can anybody announce this discussion in de.wiki? I believe, most germans are not brain-frozen and this affect their history as well. --jno 12:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment only: of course it's no coincidence that many people expressing their opinions here are active primarily on either Russian subjects at the en: Wikipedia, at the Russian Wikipedia, or at the German Wikipedia. The case is discussed in all these places, including ru:Обсуждение шаблона:SovietPU, de:WP:UF#PD-Soviet_auf_Commons_wird_zum_Risiko_für_das_Projekt, and maybe elsewhere. Logically that attracts people. Unfortunately the discussions are not always calm. BTW, the Russian Wikipedia uses lots of images under that template (called SovietPU there), despite the template explicitly stating that such works might be copyrighted in Russia. Lupo 10:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- So, if not only US law, but also Iranian, or Zimbabvian or Bolivian law matters, we should deleate all creative commons images. Really. Do you actualy realise, that CC are only in recognized in 32 countries? In all other countries they have no legal power at all, thay are just illegal! Do you understands that CC licences are just time bomb under Wikipedia?!! Delete tham all, imediately!
- P.S. I'm wondering if GFDL is recognized by Iranian copyrigt law... Kneiphof 22:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter at all. The template alleges something (certain images being in the public domain), which, as others have pointed out, is wrong. The GFDL doesn't do this. --Ahellwig 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof --Kaganer 10:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof --Mor 11:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof -- Serebr 11:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for a number of reasons, the most important being: (1) there were no legal threats so far and no proof that they will arise any time soon; (2) the discussion has been so huge that no sane newcomer can read it, but it is stuck nevertheless: people are shouting the same arguments over and over; (3) I am in no way proficient with legal stuff, and so are most of the wikipedians - let's keep doing things we are familiar with; (4) there are lots of legacy images marked with that template, and even if it is decided to remove the template, some considerable time period should be left for relabeling. --spider 12:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Jaro.p 12:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Kneiphof. --Obersachse 13:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Ctac 14:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof -- Shkoorah 14:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof Vlad2000Plus 18:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I compleatly agre with Kneiphof. Stassats 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - everyything did say. Manecke 19:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is getting ridiculous. Halibutt 20:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're damn right, some people above confuse this copyright problem even with a "wave of anti-Soviet revisionism", ridiculous... --Ahellwig 14:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof and others. --Jaroslavleff 20:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per every single opinion. Hands off our images!--Kuban kazak 15:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Kneiphof Kaliy 18:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
attempt to stop voting, please do not vote below this heading
[edit]May I ask based on what and on whose authority the message below as well as the message on the very top was added? TIA --Irpen 15:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop voting. We never count votes in Commons deletion requests and we all have expressed our opinions. So everything that counts in that matter is reliable, professional, legal advice. So please help us to organize that. Please see our roadmap above, which clearly indicates what is necessary in order to keep these images. There is still quite some time left that could be spend better than in just voting. Arnomane 14:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- In the absence of a legal expertise, one cannot delete this template and these images. Meanwhile, what you're trying to do is to disrupt Wikipedia in absence of any legal evidence nor legal threats.
- So, please don't try to impress everyone with a "roadmap" that has no basis whatsoever, except original research of a few people, with none of them being a copyright expert. -- Grafikm fr 14:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is the duty of the uploader to proof legality of his own uploads not the duty of an admin. Though we have done a fair amount of own research. This roadmap is an agreement of many Commons admins (so nobody wants to impress anyone with that) in order to bring the debate back on the right track in our wiki that we daily take care of in contrast to many others that just vote here but don't help us organizing a legal expertise by the Foundation. Arnomane 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, in the absence of legal expertise we cannot keep this template and the images associated with it. There is very good reason to doubt the accuracy of the template, and unless its validity can be proved, it and all images its used on must be deleted. Regardless of how many people vote "keep" here. Angr 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- And there are very good reasons to not doubt the accuracy of the template, so it cannot be deleted because some admin wants to delete it. -- Grafikm fr 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- As you can tell from the above discussion, it's not just "some admin" who wants to delete it. And even one good reason to doubt the template's accuracy trumps all reasons to believe its accuracy. Wikimedia's integrity cannot and must not be jeopardized if there is any doubt at all. Angr 15:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- And there are very good reasons to not doubt the accuracy of the template, so it cannot be deleted because some admin wants to delete it. -- Grafikm fr 15:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, in the absence of legal expertise we cannot keep this template and the images associated with it. There is very good reason to doubt the accuracy of the template, and unless its validity can be proved, it and all images its used on must be deleted. Regardless of how many people vote "keep" here. Angr 14:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is the duty of the uploader to proof legality of his own uploads not the duty of an admin. Though we have done a fair amount of own research. This roadmap is an agreement of many Commons admins (so nobody wants to impress anyone with that) in order to bring the debate back on the right track in our wiki that we daily take care of in contrast to many others that just vote here but don't help us organizing a legal expertise by the Foundation. Arnomane 14:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
May I ask who and based on what auhtority whoever added this framed message above did so? Can anyone post any messages here telling others to start and/or stop voting at any time or at any specific time? --Irpen 15:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Commons admins decided after a lenghty consideration on IRC. So that weren't random people. Arnomane 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I want to reiterate the following: The issue is not whether or not we may be sued over these images, but whether or not these images violate Commons policy. Inasmuch as the freeness of these image is questionable, they do violate our policy. This template should no longer be used, any new image uploaded under it should be speedy deleted, and any image previously uploaded under it should be investigated and deleted or relicenced, whatever is necessary. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete ! The images shoud be checked one by one, if there is annother, correct licence, like Template:PD-Russia or Template:PD-RU-exempt possible ! Augiasstallputzer 13:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I moved your comment to the relevent discussion. This is very similar to what I proposed. Cary "Bastique" Bass parler voir 14:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- In fact some trusted people are doing this right now (RalfR and Dab for example). So don't panic. We Commons admins know what we do. ;-) Arnomane 18:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Lupo has now made some interesting comments at en:Template_talk:PD-USSR#A_concrete_court_case_in_the_U.S.. --Kjetil_r 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Annotation
[edit]Dealing with copyrights is always a matter of certain risk. But 5 years without a lawsuit, providing several thousand former Soviet pictures, using them commercially and even selling them on DVD, is a strong argument being not too wrong. The Foundation, however, should decide if it is willing to take the risk furthermore. It is not just this PD-Soviet. Also questionable are PD-US and probably many many more. There is always a risk even because pictures were tagged in a misleading way. If the the Foundation is willing to take the risk we should mark the template (and probably many many more) in this special way.
The Commons are now on a point where further decisions should be done. It probably became just adult with some crisis. Probably this is because some users became adult, too. Or begin to fade away.
The commons are a big success. Today we collected more than 800000 images. But we should be so faithful to admit that the commons today is miles away from being a place of freely usable images. Many pictures have usage restrictions, depending on the country of origin or their content. This, of course, is against the holy commons policy. Would it be the best idea to set up another "commons" full of "usable" but somehow restricted images?
Sorry for my weak english, best regards -- Stahlkocher 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Decision
[edit]PD-Soviet will be deleted as PD-Soviet is imcompatible with the copyright policy of Wikimedia Commons that requires freely licensed images only. The template text will be replaced by call of the Template:No license template with the date of today. Thus Commons admins will start deleting the obvious cases and give local communities yet another one week chance determining the right license of a file at the unknown cases. However Commons admins urge everybody to act wisely and not to be folish and applying nonsense replacement license tags to these images. We have a static list of all affected files of PD-Soviet, so any folish action will directly lead into deletion. Arnomane 20:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
| Please stop voting, calm down and contribute reasons based on the legal basis. Thank you. | |
|
Nobody is happy deleting files just because he/she feels so. As it was properly described by user:Lupo there are several good reasons why PD-Italy is not acceptable in Commons, namely:
Therefore Commons admins and Italian wikipedians agreed on the following:
|
Ridiculous. With the EU directive, the weaker protections have factually gone. "Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;"[118] (emphasized by me) Thus "ist davon auszugehen, dass die früheren Maßstäbe, die eine besondere künstlerische Leistung oder Originalität voraussetzten, nicht mehr gültig sind und auch normale Fotografien als Lichtbildwerke zu betrachten sind." (de:Lichtbildwerk; It must be assumed that past norms, according to which artistic or original elements are necessary, are not valid anymore and normal photos have to be seen as privileged photographic works) And that applies to works that were created under past laws or were already in the public domain. Simply get it. Burn it ... you know, as above. --Rtc 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum 3: Please understand, Italian friends, the aggression of the deletion request is not directed towards you; it is directed at the general attitude of "creative" law interpretation and was a consequence of heated debate on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-Military-Navy-NHC. This deletion request is a companion to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Soviet, which "you know, as above" refers to (it does NOT refer to ItalyGov).
- Addendum 2: Please also read the arguments at Template talk:PD-Italy, the most important ones being copied below by User:Wikipeder
- Addendum 1: Here are some court decisions from de:Lichtbildwerk explicitely discussing just the changes caused by the EU directive (Emphasized of parts which are following were added be me):
- Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten). ([119] Austria, OGH, Eurobike, Beschluss vom 12. September 2001, 4 Ob 179/01d)
- Entscheidend ist, dass eine individuelle Zuordnung zwischen Lichtbild und Fotograf insofern möglich ist, als dessen Persönlichkeit auf Grund der von ihm gewählten Gestaltungsmittel (Motiv, Blickwinkel, Beleuchtung uvm) zum Ausdruck kommt. Eine solche Gestaltungsfreiheit besteht jedenfalls nicht nur für professionelle Fotografen bei Arbeiten mit dem Anspruch auf hohes künstlerisches Niveau, sondern auch für die Masse der Amateurfotografen, die alltägliche Szenen in Form von Landschafts-, Personen- oder Urlaubsfotos festhalten; auch solche Lichtbilder sind als Lichtbildwerke zu beurteilen, sofern nur die eingesetzten Gestaltungsmittel eine Unterscheidbarkeit bewirken. Dieses Kriterium der Unterscheidbarkeit ist immer schon dann erfüllt, wenn man sagen kann, ein anderer Fotograf hätte das Lichtbild möglicherweise anders gestaltet (MR 2001, 389 [M.Walter] = ÖBl 2003, 39 [Gamerith] - Eurobike). Der zweidimensionalen Wiedergabe eines in der Natur vorgefundenen Objekts ist dann urheberrechtlicher Werkcharakter zuzubilligen, wenn die selbst gestellte Aufgabe, eine möglichst naturgetreue Abbildung zu erreichen, dennoch ausreichend Spielraum für eine individuelle Gestaltung zulässt (MR 2003, 162 [M.Walter] - Felsritzbild) (Austria, OGH, Weinatlas vom 16. Dezember 2003, Az.: 4 Ob 221/03h[120])
- Bei dieser Beurteilung ist das Berufungsgericht von Anforderungen an die Schutzfähigkeit von Fotografien ausgegangen, die jedenfalls seit dem 1. Juli 1995 nicht mehr gelten, d.h. dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Richtlinie 93/98/EWG des Rates zur Harmonisierung der Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte vom 29. Oktober 1993 (ABl. Nr. L 290/9) nach ihrem Art. 13 Abs. 1 umzusetzen war und auch durch das Dritte Gesetz zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes vom 23. Juni 1995 (BGBl. I S. 842) umgesetzt worden ist (Art. 3 Abs. 2 des 3. UrhG-ÄndG). Nach Art. 6 der Richtlinie sollen Fotografien geschützt werden, wenn sie individuelle Werke in dem Sinne darstellen, daß sie das Ergebnis der eigenen geistigen Schöpfung ihres Urhebers sind (vgl. dazu auch Erwägungsgrund 17 der Richtlinie). Eines besonderen Maßes an schöpferischer Gestaltung bedarf es danach für den Schutz als Lichtbildwerk nicht (vgl. Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 2. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 33, 179; Schricker/Vogel aaO § 72 Rdn. 21; Nordemann/Vinck in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 9. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 74; Hertin ebd. § 72 Rdn. 2; Heitland, Der Schutz der Fotografie im Urheberrecht Deutschlands, Frankreichs und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, 1995, S. 60 ff.; Platena, Das Lichtbild im Urheberrecht, 1998, S. 233 ff.; A. Nordemann/Mielke, ZUM 1996, 214, 216) ([121] German BGH explicitely refusing the claim which the "keep" voters make here; Az.: I ZR 55/97)
- First of all, not everyone here understands german, so please provide a translation. Secondarly, were those cases concerning german, austrian or italian photos? As I have said, Italy has a different criterium of selectin photographic "works" and "simple" photographs, and this criterium is applyable in Germany and Austria too, because of Berne Convention, unless in those countries exists a law that expressly extends 70 years pma protection to foreign photos too. --Twilight 15:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Laws exist in Germany and in other EU countries. Commons:Village pump archive-28#.7B.7BPD-UK.7D.7D: "Discrimination of foreign EU creators is forbidden in all EU countries -> no rule of the shorter term (Schutzfristenvergleich) in the EU and a few other countries (e.g. Switzerland)." It's all contained in the 1993 EU directive which had to be implemented until 1995 and which also erases the former Italian demarcation criteria. ("Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995.") [122] EU directives are mandatory. And please see that 'Italy has a different criterium of selectin photographic "works" and "simple" photographs' is simply not safe. A German court has reinterpreted existing criteria explicitely according to the EU directive, refering directly to the directive and not to law. --Rtc 16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Raymond Disc. 07:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. This template is certainly abused, just look at Image:Italia campione europa.jpg. What do you think of Template:PD-Sweden? Sweden doesn't have 20 years like Italy, but 50 years, for some kind of simple, nonartistic photos. Thuresson 17:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's the same for Germany (had 50 years, too) and many other EU countries. This is the past. They now enjoy 70 pma. And even if they were at some point in time expired, they regained protection. if there is some of these regulations left in law, they apply only to very, very narrow range of pictures, which conservatively can be defined as 'button on the camera was pressed accidentally while not targeted deliberately at anything' So de facto and inherently nothing that would even be of interest to commons. --Rtc 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 19:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I have ended my work in the German Wikipedia and would like to say thankyou to all Mistreiter ehm Mitstreiter there but will remain active here at Commons --Historiograf 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete auf jeden Fall! --Marcela 20:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded by EU directive. Since directves are not law (as argued somewhere above) they actually have to be implemented in national law mandatory.--Wiggum 08:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes! Right! So why did you voted for deletion? --Snowdog 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Not even looking into what the situation in Italy may be, these images will be copyright protected virtually anywhere else, so we can't have them here. Also, we should not keep exceptions based on such utterly vague and subjective criteria like "creativity" or "expressing the author's personality". --Wikipeder 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then give a look before voting. If italian photos are PD for italian law, they are PD for the whole world according to Berne Agreement. The "vague" definition is set by the same italian law, and quite clearly too. No "UE directives" superseded that up to now, and even if it did, they are still PD because copyright has expired (and they can not regain protection). --Jollyroger 18:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep same here. Virtually all voters did not even understand german copyright law, they did not understand the EU copyright "law", and they did not understand the italian copyright law. They are light blinded. These oddities should be stop. You are NOT RIGHT. Even if you vote "pro" that 2+2 equals 5, this is still wrong. -- Yelzin 06:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- And the argument is.... Let me guess... because 2+2=5? --Rtc 06:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I fully agree with Yelzin. Miastko 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all said above Denisoliver 19:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, see Template talk:PD-Italy --Ahellwig 14:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ridiculous --Aragorn05 17:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It would be irresponsible to keep such a tag --Phrood 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I totally agree to Phrood --Ixitixel 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The template and everything in Sandro Pertini for now. The images wait as I'm fixing some of the licences of the images to PD-old, and PD-US, may take me an day. Jaranda wat's sup 20:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Out of interest how can you cahnge the licens from PD-Italy (photograph created in italy) to PD-US (photograph created in US)?/Lokal_Profil 20:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Italian goverment decided in 2003 (Decreto legislativo 9 aprile 2003, n. 68) to enact the EU directive keeping this exception for non-artistic photos still valid. So articles 87 and 92 of Law 22 April 1941 n. 633 are still working, and therefore this template should be kept. What German government did doesnt matter. If the Italian goverment did wrong, it's a matter debatable at the European Court of Justice, not here. An EU directive can't supersede national laws without being locally enacted. --Twilight 17:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- And, for the copyright protection granted to these photos outside Italy, see Berne convention : unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work, i.e. an author is normally not entitled longer protection abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give longer protection. --Twilight 18:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- See, we cannot accept such idiotic argumentation à la "If the Italian goverment did wrong, it's a matter debatable at the European Court of Justice, not here" anymore on commons. We must assume that the Italian government did right and/or that courts will interpret the italian law according to the EU directive. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do we can accept idiotic argumentation a la "german law says that so it's the same in the whole world?"? Italian government did right and it just decided to keep the 20 years rule. It can do that, EU directive is not mandatory. Please if you don't know the situation don't mess up. Twilight brought enough facts to show your position is pointless. --Jollyroger 08:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Germany kept its 50 years rule, too, but it does not apply in the same way it did before. It applies only to a very limited set of photos, and in fact none of them would be of interest to commons. artistic content is not necessary anymore. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Italian law is different from the German one our definition of un-artistic photos is clear and is stated by the law itself: The images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film, shall be considered photographs for the purposes of this Chapter... there is no room for interpretation. The EU directive was implemented by Italy, italian copyright law was accordingly exstensively changed, but these two articles were left alone. So, its is clear that italian goverment thought they are compatible with the directive. Only the European Court of Justice could state otherwise, and force Italy to implement the directive in a different way. Until that day, in Italy copyright expiration term for such photos is still after 20 years. --Twilight 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, simply nonsense. A photo "is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" (emphasized by me) --Rtc 10:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The Italian law is different from the German one our definition of un-artistic photos is clear and is stated by the law itself: The images of persons, or of aspects, elements or events of natural or social life, obtained by photographic or analogous processes, including reproductions of works of figurative art and stills of cinematographic film, shall be considered photographs for the purposes of this Chapter... there is no room for interpretation. The EU directive was implemented by Italy, italian copyright law was accordingly exstensively changed, but these two articles were left alone. So, its is clear that italian goverment thought they are compatible with the directive. Only the European Court of Justice could state otherwise, and force Italy to implement the directive in a different way. Until that day, in Italy copyright expiration term for such photos is still after 20 years. --Twilight 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Germany kept its 50 years rule, too, but it does not apply in the same way it did before. It applies only to a very limited set of photos, and in fact none of them would be of interest to commons. artistic content is not necessary anymore. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Do we can accept idiotic argumentation a la "german law says that so it's the same in the whole world?"? Italian government did right and it just decided to keep the 20 years rule. It can do that, EU directive is not mandatory. Please if you don't know the situation don't mess up. Twilight brought enough facts to show your position is pointless. --Jollyroger 08:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- See, we cannot accept such idiotic argumentation à la "If the Italian goverment did wrong, it's a matter debatable at the European Court of Justice, not here" anymore on commons. We must assume that the Italian government did right and/or that courts will interpret the italian law according to the EU directive. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Urby2004 18:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Twilight --Silas Flannery.
- Keep The same of Twilight. -- Sannita 18:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Italian law says 20 years. German law is different. Bern convention does not override the laws of single countries. So these imagese are Public Domain at all effects, and no one is risking anything (oh my god, that's irresponsible!!). What's the problem, then? --Jollyroger every second more and more unhappy of Commons "management"
- Nobody is talking about the bern convention, but about the EU directive, which gives a binding guideline for the law to be established in EU countries. This guideline says that artistic merit etc. are not necessary and must not be necessary for the longer protection anymore, it is sufficient that the personality of the photographer is expressed in the picture. That is given as soon as the photographer can choose camera position freely (in contrast to passport photographing machine) and presses the button deliberately (in contrast to accidentially while transporting the camera for example). --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as Twilight Paulatz 18:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- furthermore I'd like to see an english translation of the reason. Paulatz
- Keep I don't understand german, so I don't know what Rtc said (could you translate it in english?), but I understand italian and italian law says not artistic photos are PD after 20 years. This template is valid... - Laurentius 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Taz92 19:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --「Twice28.0 · contributi · talk」 19:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Giac! - (Tiago is here) 19:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Fabexplosive 19:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --.anaconda 19:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Translating the german text so graciously cited (a translation, at least of the concept would have been nice) the text refers to pictures with an artistical or professional relevance [cut] where the personality of the photographer shows [cut] the protection of other sorts of pictures can be ruled by national laws. Ok, that refers to the sort of pictures which in Italy are protected for 70 years. Artistical pictures. the protection of other sorts of pictures can be ruled by national laws, and that's 20 years in Italy. I think it's quite funny that a german user defines "ridicolous", citing some german text, a template referring to an other nation's law. Ah, incidentally the italian template was written by an italian lawyer ;-) --Civvi 19:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your translation is incomplete and tendentious; it hides the important core. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your is TOTALLY MISSING, Rtc. --Jollyroger 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's incorrect. The directive's rationale and the short summary from de:Lichtbildwerk of the court decisions have been replaced/amended by english versions. --Rtc 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your is TOTALLY MISSING, Rtc. --Jollyroger 09:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your translation is incomplete and tendentious; it hides the important core. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep when/if Italy will (ever) receive the EU directive, we'll open this discussion. --Paginazero 19:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- no, we won't. PD images whose right expired cannot regain copyright even if law changes. So the new law will not apply to generic images created more than 20 years before reception of the directive (that was partially received in 1996, so the event is quite unlikely). --Jollyroger 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Factually incorrect, Jollyroger. You cannot be sued for a violation you did before the law changed, but of course PD pictures can regain protection by a change of law. In Germany exactly that happened, and according to the directive it has to happen all around europe. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- THE _ DIRECTIVE _ WAS _ NOT _ RECEIVED _ BY _ ITALIAN _ GOVERNMENT
can you understand that? --Jollyroger 08:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)- What do you want to say? That EU directives are not binding for Italy? Ridiculous. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- THE _ DIRECTIVE _ WAS _ NOT _ RECEIVED _ BY _ ITALIAN _ GOVERNMENT
- Keep And please don't teach us how our laws work. --Snowdog 19:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The tag is perfectly legal. No need to discuss. --Cruccone 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Ilario 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep -- --Klaudio 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Walter Tizzano 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep E scrivo in italiano facendo i complimenti all'autore della proposta per l'arguzia dimostrata avendo usato il tedesco. Senza l'aiuto di Civvi, non avrei capito cosa significava quella serie di parole, a parte il ridiculous. Per quel che riguarda la norma, già altri prima di me hanno detto cose sensate e non posso che unirmi a loro. IPork 20:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Andrea.gf 20:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Gvf 20:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Jacopo86 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep----Kal-El post here! 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --ßøuñçêY2K 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Dario vet 21:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Leoman3000 21:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Zinn 21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Superchilum(scrivimi) 21:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The notion that the national laws have become obsolete, that "this only applies to very few pictures" or "doesn't apply anymore" is disputed by the Danish Ministry of Culture. Denmark has implemented the EU directive, and later changed the national law on copyrights twice. In both 2003 and 2005, the 50-year clause stayed (§ 70, 2). The Danish jurists distinguish between a "work of art" vs. an "ordinary photo" without artistic merit. I see no reason to dispute PD-Italy, PD-Denmark og PD-Sweden given this basis. Valentinian (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because some jurists argue for breaking the law is not a reason for us to do it. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- my gosh, you have no idea what you are talking about; Italy mostly accepted the EU directive but mantained a reduced copyright, of 20 years, for non-artistic work. Your ignorace is funny, but your arrogance is scary. Paulatz 08:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your arrogance towards photographers rights is scary. Italy for sure respected the EU directive which EXPLICITELY REJECTS artistic content as a necessary precondition for the longer protection. It is sufficient that the personality of the photographer is expressed in the picture, which is the case as soon as he chooses camera position freely. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- FOR SURE... and you keep guessing. IT DIDN'T. comma. And it's a matter for italian lawmakers, not for us, to change the law. And choosing the position, according to italian law, is not enough. quoting Paulatz in toto --Jollyroger 09:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- By making this deletion request, I am taking care for the rights of photographers of Italy granted by the EU directive, which by some obscure fact may not have been saved in italy (but about anywhere else in Europe). You should see that the deletion is entirely in the interest of the citizen of your country. --Rtc 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- FOR SURE... and you keep guessing. IT DIDN'T. comma. And it's a matter for italian lawmakers, not for us, to change the law. And choosing the position, according to italian law, is not enough. quoting Paulatz in toto --Jollyroger 09:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Your arrogance towards photographers rights is scary. Italy for sure respected the EU directive which EXPLICITELY REJECTS artistic content as a necessary precondition for the longer protection. It is sufficient that the personality of the photographer is expressed in the picture, which is the case as soon as he chooses camera position freely. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- my gosh, you have no idea what you are talking about; Italy mostly accepted the EU directive but mantained a reduced copyright, of 20 years, for non-artistic work. Your ignorace is funny, but your arrogance is scary. Paulatz 08:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because some jurists argue for breaking the law is not a reason for us to do it. --Rtc 07:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --SCDBob 22:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep quoting JollyRoger and Twilight --Tooby 23:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- luckily, law is no case for voting and unless (instead of twisting the law) real arguments should appear (which is very unlikely), the keep votes are irrelevant.. --Rtc 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- so, just ignorance matters? Luckily law is on our side. --Jollyroger 08:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- By reading some comments seems that the only thing that matters is; someone awakes one day and decide that these images should go. Regardless of the fact that these images "are" PD. Like it or not. And since we are talking about what is PD and what is not, Laws matters a lot!. Unluckily, what is really ridicolous is Commons itself. On it.wiki, we push users to upload files on Commons. We even talked about closing file upload on it.wiki and use only Commons. We should change our mind on this and keep images "local". --Snowdog 08:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- These are not PD and should not be kept on it.wiki either. We are looking for clean pictures not for unlawful, unethical law-twisting templates full of lies such as this one. This has to stop, if not, it will be the end of commons sooner or later. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please read my comment here. I couldn't find any part saying that photographs should be protected for 70 years p.m.a. --Cruccone 09:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because you are mixing up the law. Clearly Italy has photographies which are protected by 70 pma. But since the EU directive has been implemented, artistic content is not necessary anymore, the criteria have been lowered, a lot. This does not even need a change in law as long as the wording is sufficiently ambiguous (such as 'simple photographs'). It is sufficient that the EU directive gives guidelines for demarcation. In this regard, it actually has a central effect on law even if it is not law strictly. The EU directive is there to harmonize law; it should be the same in all EU countries. It is simply argumentation against reality to claim the former weaker protections still apply in the same way. --Rtc 09:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sarebbe molto utile per la discussione se l'utente Rtc spiegasse a che titolo esprime questi giudizi. Ha competenze giuridiche derivanti dalla sua professione, oppure parla per parlare? Dai miei ricordi di studio, le direttive della comunità europea debbono essere ratificate da ogni paese. Io considero la possibilità di essere in errore e pare che altri utenti competenti dicano lo stesso. Da dove derivano le certezze assolute di Rtc? Tra parentesi, cosa diavolo stiamo a parlare se poi, come ci è stato ricordato, i voti non servono a un fico secco? Alla faccia della cooperazione tra progetti Wikimedia. IPork 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- And you have arguments instead of ad hominem attacks? --Rtc 10:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc, you're saying that since Italian law protects artistic photographs for 70 years p.m.a. (the law was updated after the EUCD, BTW) the EUCD implies that all photographs should have the same protection? Where does this interpretation come from?--Cruccone 10:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- No! I am saying that a photo is protected 70 pma "if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" (especially artistic merit or purpose) That means if the photographer can choose position freely and presses the button deliberately. There is a very narrow class of photos left which are not protected, but they are not of interest here. Where does this interpretation come from? From a high austrian court (decision "Eurobike", 12. Sep 2001, 4 Ob 179/01d), from germany's highest appeals court (BGH, I ZR 55/9) explicitely refering to the EU directive. See de:Lichtbildwerk, it extensively describes all this, including extensive cites from various court decisions. --Rtc 10:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, Wikipeder explained me that the shorter term rule does not apply within EU and that EU definition of simpler photograph is stricter than the Italian one. If this is really the case than the tag has to be deleted (Sorry I didn't look at 1993 EU directive - I thought 2001 was the relevant one)--Cruccone 12:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- No! I am saying that a photo is protected 70 pma "if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" (especially artistic merit or purpose) That means if the photographer can choose position freely and presses the button deliberately. There is a very narrow class of photos left which are not protected, but they are not of interest here. Where does this interpretation come from? From a high austrian court (decision "Eurobike", 12. Sep 2001, 4 Ob 179/01d), from germany's highest appeals court (BGH, I ZR 55/9) explicitely refering to the EU directive. See de:Lichtbildwerk, it extensively describes all this, including extensive cites from various court decisions. --Rtc 10:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sarebbe molto utile per la discussione se l'utente Rtc spiegasse a che titolo esprime questi giudizi. Ha competenze giuridiche derivanti dalla sua professione, oppure parla per parlare? Dai miei ricordi di studio, le direttive della comunità europea debbono essere ratificate da ogni paese. Io considero la possibilità di essere in errore e pare che altri utenti competenti dicano lo stesso. Da dove derivano le certezze assolute di Rtc? Tra parentesi, cosa diavolo stiamo a parlare se poi, come ci è stato ricordato, i voti non servono a un fico secco? Alla faccia della cooperazione tra progetti Wikimedia. IPork 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because you are mixing up the law. Clearly Italy has photographies which are protected by 70 pma. But since the EU directive has been implemented, artistic content is not necessary anymore, the criteria have been lowered, a lot. This does not even need a change in law as long as the wording is sufficiently ambiguous (such as 'simple photographs'). It is sufficient that the EU directive gives guidelines for demarcation. In this regard, it actually has a central effect on law even if it is not law strictly. The EU directive is there to harmonize law; it should be the same in all EU countries. It is simply argumentation against reality to claim the former weaker protections still apply in the same way. --Rtc 09:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please read my comment here. I couldn't find any part saying that photographs should be protected for 70 years p.m.a. --Cruccone 09:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- These are not PD and should not be kept on it.wiki either. We are looking for clean pictures not for unlawful, unethical law-twisting templates full of lies such as this one. This has to stop, if not, it will be the end of commons sooner or later. --Rtc 09:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- luckily, law is no case for voting and unless (instead of twisting the law) real arguments should appear (which is very unlikely), the keep votes are irrelevant.. --Rtc 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep quoting JollyRoger and Twilight. PLEASE: english and italian translation of the reason! Many users don't speak german and I could understand only from the comments. --Accurimbono 09:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Italian law are clear. The tag is perfectly legal.--β16 - (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --Cryptex 10:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I trust the advice of an Italian lawyer on Italian laws more than the comments of some Commons user without a user page. Ary29 10:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- So stupid nonsense by a lawyer counts more than a user without a user page but real arguments, court cases? This is an invalid argument from authority. --Rtc 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- And again, you think that a decision made by a german tribunal using german world is valid for the whole world... dude, read and think about that: you didn't win world war two. Germany does not rule the world. I think that's your basic error. --Jollyroger 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, finally Godwin has been invoked and the discussion is thus over. --Rtc 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- And again, you think that a decision made by a german tribunal using german world is valid for the whole world... dude, read and think about that: you didn't win world war two. Germany does not rule the world. I think that's your basic error. --Jollyroger 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- So stupid nonsense by a lawyer counts more than a user without a user page but real arguments, court cases? This is an invalid argument from authority. --Rtc 10:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep There's no reason to delete this template or question the validity of Italian copyright laws or how it implements an EU directive. EU law only supercedes national law to the extent of which the country agrees to that. If Italy has written an exemption into its implementation of the directive and duly passed as mandated by its constitution, it's the law. Sebmol 12:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I haven't seen anything even worth reading by Rtc aynwhere in Mediawiki-Land. Let's trust Italian users and laws, or let's have a Wikimedia lawyer explore the situation "officially". Rtc's rants are abusing and need not be considered. --AndreasPraefcke 12:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep If that's what Italien law says than that's it. If Italy is in violation of the directive, Rtc is invited to start a violation procedure at the European Commission – every citizen is allowed to do that. Until then, we apply the law that is in force. --ThePeter 12:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Il palazzo 13:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Courts do intepret local law in light of the EU directive, as has been done by German and Austrian courts. Why should it be different for Italy? Please read the court decisions given above. --Rtc 13:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Because f*****g italian authorities f*****g ratified only a f*****g part of the f*****g directive, and they could f*****g do that.--Jollyroger 09:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Courts do intepret local law in light of the EU directive, as has been done by German and Austrian courts. Why should it be different for Italy? Please read the court decisions given above. --Rtc 13:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete Kenwilliams 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep shaka 10:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Italian law are clear: it's legal Luigi Chiesa 13:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Please read the Italian law and understand that: it's perfectly legal --Bramfab 12:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Overview
[edit]Here is an 'overview of the central arguments for deletion in English, copied over from Template talk:PD-Italy:
"My take on all this:
- Do not confuse the EU Copyright Directive (EUCD) of 2001 with the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection of 1993. The EUCD was more concerned with computer programs and the so-called "neighbouring rights" (sometimes also called "related rights"), i.e. the copyright-like protections for performers, broadcasters, and in particular producers of phonograms. The copyright restoration that appears to be so controversial was the effect of the 1993 directive on harmonizing copyright terms throughout the EU. That restoration became effective on July 1, 1995 in all EU members, as they all had incorporated this binding EU directive into their local laws.
- The U.S. URAA became effective on January 1, 1996, i.e. half a year later. That's rather unfortunate for us, because it means that any copyrights restored in the EU under that 1993 directive also became restored in the U.S. under the URAA. Tough luck, but we cannot change that.
- The copyright restorations of the 1993 EU directive apply to "photographic works" only. Some EU member countries know a second class of photographs for which shorter copyright terms apply. The rules which kinds of photographs are considered "works" and which are "simple" vary from one country to another, see the survey at User:Lupo/Simple Photographs. In most countries, the distinction is made by applying the threshold of originality, a rather subjective criterion, IMO, as the rules for determining that threshold again vary from country to country. In general, I don't like PD claims based on the argument something wasn't original enough (lacking Schöpfungshöhe, to use the German term), because it opens far and wide the door to abuse and endless discussions. (Yes, I don't like the "lack of Schöpfungshöhe" argument for logos; but logos are a different case anyway. Let's stick to photographs here, OK?) In countries where the threshold of originality is used for distinguishing between works and simple photographs, only works are copyrighted; simple photographs are by default not copyrightable unless the law explicitly specifies a term. I.e. a country that uses the threshold of originality and says "simple photographs are protected for X years since creation" has stronger rules than a country that does not mention simple photographs at all in its law, which is equivalent to using the threshold of originality and not setting an explicit copyright term for photographs failing it.
- So, we already have arrived at the undisputed claim: Italian photographic works are copyrighted to 70 years p.m.a. throughout the EU, including Italy itself. If copyrighted on 1996-01-01 in Italy or anywhere in the EU, Italian photographic works are copyrighted also in the U.S. (Photos from 1996 or later are copyrighted anyway.)
- Now, we have two disputed categories of Italian photographs: Italian simple photographs {{PD-Italy}}, and Italian government-owned photographs {{PD-ItalyGov}}. Let's consider them separately.
- For simple photographs, Italian law is quite generous: any image of persons, elements, facts, or aspects, of daily life is a "simple photograph". Excluded are images of maps, documents, technical designs, etc. (§87) I presume these latter images would thus be "works"? For the others, the photographer (or his employer in the case of works for hire, §88) gets a copyright of 20 years since creation of the photograph (§92), if the photograph bears a copyright notice (§90). That's the rules that apply within Italy.
- What's the situation in other countries of such photos that are considered "simple" in Italy? Copyright law works by national treatment, i.e., whether something is copyrighted in a particular country, one has to look at the laws of that country. Let's look at two cases: Germany and the U.S.
- Germany applies the threshold of originality, photos failing it are Lichtbilder (simple photographs, as opposed to Lichtbildwerke). A simple photograph is protected for 50 years since publication or creation. The crux is that the threshold of originality is so low in Germany that basically all photographs are works and thus copyrighted until 70 years p.m.a. The categories enumerated in Italian law do not apply in Germany. As a result, an Italian simple photograph created more than 20 years ago is out of copyright in Italy (as a non-work, it isn't subject to the restoration due to the 1993 EU directive), but is still copyrighted in Germany until 70 years after the death of the photographer!
- The U.S. does not know the concept of "simple photographs". Either something passes the threshold of originality and is a work and is fully copyrighted, or it doesn't and thus is not copyrightable at all. However, the threshold of originality again is rather low, such that in general, all photographs are copyrightable works. However, foreign works from before the URAA were copyrighted in the U.S. only if registered, and if not, became copyrighted only if still copyrighted in their country of origin. Assuming that Italian simple photographs were not registered in the U.S. (seems likely), my conclusion is that Italian simple photographs created before 1976-01-01 did not fall under the URAA (even if the U.S. might consider them "works") because their "simple photograph" copyright had expired in Italy before the URAA effective date of 1996-01-01 and such Italian simple photographs were not subject to the restoration by virtue of the 1993 EU directive. (As that directive applied only to "works", I don't think it made expired simple photographs copyrighted again in Italy, although it may have made them copyrighted again in other EU countries where they would be "works".)[...]
In conclusion, I think the commons should not apply the "simple photograph" exception from Italian law. It may apply in Italy and (if my analysis is correct) for pre-1976 Italian simple photographs also in the U.S., but in many other countries, such photos would be "works" and thus copyrighted. [...] As always, IANAL etc. pp. Thoughts? Lupo 10:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)"
End of inserted quote --Wikipeder 12:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I dont agree: terms given by Italian work are applyable worlwide according to Berne convention: unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work, i.e. an author is normally not entitled longer protection abroad than at home, even if the laws abroad give longer protection. I coundn't find in any EU directive a provision abolishing the application of this convention within the EU. So unless Germany has a law that expressly extends 70 years pma protection to foreign photos, Italian terms and criteria must be applyed for "simple" photos originating from Italy.--Twilight 15:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, Germany has such a law.[123] and I guess the other EU counties have such a law, too. --Rtc 15:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The whole thing is not one wikipedia vs. the other (although sadly one get the impression after reading the comments that started the theads) and de.wikipedians were quite unhappy as everybody else with the style of the first comments at this deletion request. I can say this for sure as I am de.wikipedia and Commons admin. So if you have any remarks concerning nationality issues please drop them at my talk page not here. Arnomane 17:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc, do you know what's your problem? You guess. You do not know. German law is valid in germany, isn't it? Italian law is valid in italy, isnt'it?
- So, the Berne Convention, as Twilight quoted, says that a material that is PD in his country of origin is to be considered PD abroad too.
- Italian law makers decided to keep copyright 20 years long only for non-artistic images. Just generous? Maybe. An error? Maybe. But law says 20 years.
- Germany extended protection. Italy didn't. Why are we trying to apply a german law to an italian matter?
- Is it too hard to admit you just misunderstood or forgot a detail?
- I do not agree with the disclaimer saying that it will be deleted if no consensus is reached. To delete there should be a point, a good reason, and here we have only one user who misunderstood a kaw in a language he can't speak. --Jollyroger 17:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Germany did not extend protection. It has a 50 years provision exactly parallel to Italian 20 years, and applied before 1995 exactly parallel to Italy. These provisions were not changed in any way. Germany's highest appeals court however has reinterpreted the law according to the demarcation criteria set forth by the EU directive, refering explicitly and directly to this directive and not to law (the law itself does not contain demarcation criteria except the blanket "threshold of originality", but before 1995 they were interpreted parallel to italian law). Similar is known about Austria and it is not a secret that it will be the same in all other countries. The berne convention "rule of shorter term" does not apply in EU countries, since EU countries must grant the same rights to each EU citizen; they may not discriminate based on their local laws. EU directive explicitely states that "Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995." [124]. Even if by some error it was not fully done in Italy (which I heavily doubt), this will be fixed anyways at some point in the future, and it does not affect the protection within other EU countries because of the general anti-discriminatory-laws. --Rtc 17:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Describing a legislation as "erroneous" is a very strange argument. Erroneous for whom except RTC? Furthermore, a "copyright restorations of the 1993 EU directive" has never been taken place. Such restaurations were regulated by transitional laws (In germany §137 UrhG, for example).
- Right, work that is not copyrighted in italy may still be copyrighted elsewhere in EU
- Right, work that is not copyrighted in US may be copyrighted elsewhere
- Right, work that may be freely usable in italy or germany may have usage restrictions elsewhere.
- Right, wikipedia commons failed to be a place of copyright free images.
But we are discussing fundamental wikipedia:commons problems!
Just to give an expression of what could be copyrighted:
- Image:LLW entrance.jpg
- Image:Church, Porto Da Cruz, Madeira.JPG
- Image:MSI Tankard.jpg
- Image:Servomotor 01.jpg
- Image:Chevrolet Niva.jpg
- Image:Graffiti on Kalandia checkpoint.jpg
- Image:Prinsens gate 61 Trondheim.jpg
- Image:Comendador Santos da Cunha-Braga.jpg
just to pick up a few just uploaded images.
The question is: What should we do now? Delete any suspicios file, could affect 200000 or even 500000 images. Since there is a bilateral treaty between USA an germany all pictures claimed PD-US (and its sub categories) were copyrighted in germany like german pictures, since "public domain" is unknown in germany. Since there is the anti-discrimination they are probably copyrighted elsewhere in the EU.
If the foundation comes to the conclusion that only 100% copyright free images may be used in any Wikipedia we should start to work it out. But the Foundation has to decide, not Lupo, not rtc or Arnomane. We could operate the case like in PD-US, with a simple additional information. -- Stahlkocher 18:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The examples are misleading and are of entirely different nature than the problem discussed here. Please stick to the problem discussed here. The Italy pictures are not even close to 100%, actually, they are hardly close to anything. First, it is very unclear if these are not protected in Italy, since there are several strong indiciations for the contrary: The EU directive and the existing jurisdiction in Germany and Austria for similar situations. Further, unquestionably, these pictures are copyrighted about everywhere in the EU because of anti-discrimination. Finally, and most importantly, protection for these pictures is actually intended by the EU directive and claims that they are not protected entirely rely on law twisting that the intention of the EU directive has not been realized entirely in Italy. This is walking barefoot on lava. It is irresponsible and unjustifiable to keep these pictures when considering these circumstances. --Rtc 19:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you must write a page on this argument, without forcing newcomers to read the entire discussion. May be the problem extends to:
- Template:PD-Denmark50: This image is in the public domain because the Danish Consolidated Act on Copyright of 2003 specifies (§70, 2) that all photographic images not considered to be "works of art" become public domain 50 years after they were created.
- Template:PD-Polish: This image is in the public domain because according to the non-retrospective copyright law of July 10, 1952, of the People's Republic of Poland, all photographs by Polish photographers published before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 without a clear copyright notice are assumed public domain. This applies worldwide.
--Riccardov 09:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- These need to be deleted for the same reason. --Rtc 09:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep, but weed out - the template as such is valid, as even under the EU-copyright-directive and WIPO-treaties every member state is free to set a shorter period of protection for photographic images, that are not considered creative works and Italy made use of that, just as many other countries (for example Germany). On the other hand, we have to make sure, that everyone who uses that template understands about its limitations. Only photographs, that are snapshots without
artistic meritindividual originality must be tagged PD-Italy. We would need a taskforce of well informed wikipedians to weed through the mass of images tagged so far and the italian wikipedians have to make sure, their users understand very well about this template and use it responsible in the future. Copyrights are crucial to our whole project. --h-stt !? 11:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC) edited --h-stt !? 20:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)You ignored "a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" so there is especially no artistic merit necessary. Is it so hard to understand? --Rtc 11:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)- Okay, but you still did not take into account what EU directive individual originality actually means and how far-going it is. Please read the German and the Austrian court decisions cited at the very top of the page. The class of pictures that would be left is inherently hardly of interest to commons and the template is too seductive for people to misunderstand what it actually means and that it applies only to a few rather academic cases. While the template may be correct in a strict sense, it is deceptive to hell, because it does not mention that "creative input of the author" is already given by positioning the camera and pressing the button deliberately, and that use under the 20 pp rule is only permitted for photos that are "simple, documentary" and without "creative input of the author"; NOT, as it is suggested, "simple, documentary" or without "creative input of the author". Just look at what the template is actually used for. You will see that not a single photograph will even come close to fall under the actual meaning of the template. --Rtc 06:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Italy is free to define the en:threshold of originality for photographs at a different level from Germany or Austria. From my understanding of the italian law, their level is much higher than the definition of german courts, where pretty much every photograph, that could have been taken differently too, is considered a photographic work. If Italy retains that status for truly original photographs only, then in this country there is a significant amount of images, that don't reach this level and therefore fall into the Public Domain 20 years after they were taken. We have to identify them and delete all the others. It would be useful to have italian court decisions of that issue. Are there any? --h-stt !? 13:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Italy is not free to define the en:threshold of originality for photographs at a different level from Germany or Austria; it must (and actually does) define them on the level of the EU directive, and, by reference of the well-established definition of international copyright law. Please read the court cases! Their level is not different from German, Austrian or any other EU coutry law. Of value would only be court decisions from the time after the implementation of the 1993 EU directive (ie., July 1995 onwards) --Rtc 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Of course they are. The borders between photographic works and simple photographs are not defined in the copyright-directive, but are taken from a small clause in the official rational. This gives every member state some latitude of judgment, on how to implement this border. Until the European Court of Justice decides in an action for failure to fulfil obligations / (de:Vertragsverletzungsverfahren) or theoretically in some other form of verdict, the italian definition is as valid as the one by german or austrian courts. --h-stt !? 12:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC) PS: Just to understand the base of your claims: Are you familiar with the fine print in the secondary law of the european community?
- The directive defines "original" to mean "in the sense that they are the author's own intellectual creation [...] No other criteria shall be applied to determine their eligibility for protection." The rationale explains what that is supposed to mean. So either we have uniform law in the EU, or we have some countries eligible for "action for failure to fulfil obligations". We cannot decide this but must assume the countries did implement in the intended way. Even if they did not, the anti-discrimination invalidates any rule of the shorter term, so the pictures will still be protected in many EU countries. I think I do not need to know fine prints to see that PD-italy and similar templates are not the way to go to. These narrow gaps in local law are without merit for commons because it is an international project. In the same way that we reject restrictions only prevalent in one or very few countries, we must reject PD claims only prevalent in one or very few countries. --Rtc 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- No Italy is not free to define the en:threshold of originality for photographs at a different level from Germany or Austria; it must (and actually does) define them on the level of the EU directive, and, by reference of the well-established definition of international copyright law. Please read the court cases! Their level is not different from German, Austrian or any other EU coutry law. Of value would only be court decisions from the time after the implementation of the 1993 EU directive (ie., July 1995 onwards) --Rtc 13:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Italy is free to define the en:threshold of originality for photographs at a different level from Germany or Austria. From my understanding of the italian law, their level is much higher than the definition of german courts, where pretty much every photograph, that could have been taken differently too, is considered a photographic work. If Italy retains that status for truly original photographs only, then in this country there is a significant amount of images, that don't reach this level and therefore fall into the Public Domain 20 years after they were taken. We have to identify them and delete all the others. It would be useful to have italian court decisions of that issue. Are there any? --h-stt !? 13:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, we don't have a uniform law in the EU. By means of a directive, the law in the member states is harmonized, but not uniform. Only EU regulations are laws on their own and uniform all over the EU. Directives always have latitude, giving the individual member states some discretion in the implementation of the directive. That's part of the legal definition of a directive. If you really didn't know this, we would have the explanation for your bold attitude. It is my understanding of italian law, that Italy put the threshold of originality, necessary for fotografic works, somewhat higher than other states, eg Germany. In Germany there are no meaningful examples of non-works anymore, in Italy there are and they are protected for 20y only, becoming public domain afterwards. Just as the template says. So the template is valid, we just have to weed through the labeled images, if it has been applied correctly in the past. --h-stt !? 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, we do not have a uniform law in the EU, I was really refering to uniform implementation of EU directives. I do not think such great variations, especially if the directive is very specific and clear, are permitted. Germany did not put threshold of originality lower or something like that, courts did this, interpreting law in the light of the EU directive's rationale directly after it had been implemented. Please read the court cases given above and their line of argumentation. German law does not say more than "photographic works must be original", the rest was not taken from law, but from the rationale. And in any case it does not influence the argument that there is no rule of the shorter term within the EU. The pictures are not suitable for commons. Weeding is not sufficient, deletion is necessary. --Rtc 19:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, we don't have a uniform law in the EU. By means of a directive, the law in the member states is harmonized, but not uniform. Only EU regulations are laws on their own and uniform all over the EU. Directives always have latitude, giving the individual member states some discretion in the implementation of the directive. That's part of the legal definition of a directive. If you really didn't know this, we would have the explanation for your bold attitude. It is my understanding of italian law, that Italy put the threshold of originality, necessary for fotografic works, somewhat higher than other states, eg Germany. In Germany there are no meaningful examples of non-works anymore, in Italy there are and they are protected for 20y only, becoming public domain afterwards. Just as the template says. So the template is valid, we just have to weed through the labeled images, if it has been applied correctly in the past. --h-stt !? 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote a short analysis of the issue here. --Jollyroger 11:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Two aspects that seem to need clarification:
- The Italian interpretation of what is a photographic work (protected 70 years pma.) has been re-defined with the implementation of the EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection (1993/98/CE). See here, Article 17: English version Italian version. {{PD-Italy}} is only dealing with the "rest", the non-works, images that are not "the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality", and this rest indeed is a lot smaller and fuzzier now than Article 87 (Italian) of Italy's Copyright law (unofficial English translation) suggests at first sight. In case you should need proof that Italy in fact inplemented (1993/98/CE), see these commentaries (Italian): [125], [126]
- The Berne Convention's Rule of the Shorter Term does not apply within the EU, only in relations of the EU towards non-member states. For details see the third paragraph of this explanation. For the Italian version of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) mentioned there, look here: [127]. For the text of the Italian law implementing the EUCD in Italy, look here: [128]
--Wikipeder 12:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly. Please also support Commons:Deletion requests/Templates contradicting EU directive --Rtc 12:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you see my text, you can see quoted part of the law in effect right now. If germany do not accept shorter term, is a matter for german folks. In the rest of the world, these photo are PD. --Jollyroger 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- "photographic work" in the Italian law refers to the EU directive. Your fallacy is that you think
that a photo can only be either a "photographic work" or a "simple photograph" andthat everything that does not fall under the simple photograph definition cannot be a photographic work. That's incorrect.A photo can be both a simple photograph and a photographic work at the same time, and by conclusion, photographic work as the more specific law applies as a lex specialis.Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-Italy/analisys#Faulty assumptions has found out that italian law explicitly states that a simple photo is in any case not creative and thusthe simple photo definition is restricted to exclude anything that is a photographic work under implemented EU directive definition Thus the "photographic work" (as this term is used in Italian law, refering to the EU directive definition) is not in any way restricted by the definition of "simple photograph"—it is the other way around, a simple photograph that also fulfils the criteria for a photographic work has the 70 pma protection. - Also, any EU country has anti-discriminatory rights which invalidate the rule of the shorter term within the EU—in a given EU country, any EU citizen enjoys the full local rights, which also includes copyfight. It is not a matter of Germany. Please read this explanation --Rtc 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- "photographic work" in the Italian law refers to the EU directive. Your fallacy is that you think
- If you see my text, you can see quoted part of the law in effect right now. If germany do not accept shorter term, is a matter for german folks. In the rest of the world, these photo are PD. --Jollyroger 14:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously rtc has no problems with "copyrighted anywhere else" with his own {{Template:Logo-Germany}}. Strange, strange. But as i already mentioned we have quite a lot of images which are copyrighted somewhere (or has other restrictions) in the world. To be an the secure site for the foundation they must be usable within the "fair use" claim. So, questionary images which are not used should be sorted out or reduced to thumbnail size. -- Stahlkocher 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please argue reasonably and not in a distorting manner by personal attacks. I added the Logo-Germany template because there were lots of Logo-Germany pictures here, but hidden, because they carried false templates (PD-ineligible and so on). The Logo-Germany has been created by me after the fact to mark these pictures, not the other way around. --Rtc 15:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I really tried to read carefully everything but I may have missed something somewhere. I'm no lawyer but I really cannot understand what's all this fuss about. On the italian wikipedia there are a few law student and a few professional lawyer; we asked them to study italian copyright laws and they ended saying that this template is legitimate. Of course they are humans and they may be wrong but I cannot find a single reason not to trust them. If the problem is real (and I don't think it is) why we don't simply ask the wikipedia lawyer to study the case and to tell us what's the official interpretation? We can go on forever chatting and fighting about who's right and who's wrong but I don't feel it particularly constructive (maybe it's just me...) --Berto 12:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- The template, in essence is valid but its interpretation and actual use is not (the false belief, which stems from connotations of pre-1993-directive-law, that "photographic works" need artistic merit or purpose, and anything which does not have such merit or purpose would be a simple photograph). Please also see that the foundation does not have to and cannot make any official interpretations, because it is only providing the platform and in no way involved in the content. Responsible for content are solely the contributors. If you want a binding advice you have to ask your own lawyer, why should the foundation pay one for you?! The foundation has its lawyer to advise the foundation about general platform issues, not for contributors. So for example, if some project does not stay resonable, and the lawyer sees that it's too much of a danger for the foundation to provide a platform for lots of obvious copyvios, such projects will be deleted by the foundation, as has been done for wikiquote:fr:Accueil and as is threatening for commons. A photographic work (in the sense of the well-established berne convention definition as refered to by the EU directive as implemented in Italian and other EU countries laws) is any photo that a different photographer could in principle have done differently (that is meant by 'creative' or 'original'), which excludes only a very narrow class of photos. Examples for non-works under the EU directive implementation courts have given: mug shots, regular photos from passport photographing machines, reproduction photography (probably not even copyrighted under "simple photographies"), cartographic air photos from prespecified camera position and angle. This is so because for these cases the result is independent from the photographer. We should not keep the template, since it's used incorrectly according to obsolete pre-1993-directive law anyway, since all photographs currently used under this template are photographic works and are thus ineligible for the template --Rtc 13:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
A honest version of the template
[edit]Here is a version of the template representing the actual situation honestly and correctly:
|
This image was created and is now in the public domain in Italy, because its term of copyright has expired. Photographic works according to the uniform EU standard enter the public domain 70 years after their author's death. The definition of photographic works was implemenented according to the 1993 EU directive on copyright and refers to the very broad and well-established Berne Convention definition, which deems a photo as creative if only a different photographer with the same skill could in principle have shot the photo in a different way; no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account (which is given as soon as the photographer can vary the camera position freely and presses the button deliberately). A photo which is not creative under this definition (mug shots, regular photos from passport photographing machines, cartographic air photos from prespecified camera position and angle, ie., if they would come out exactly the same, regardless of the photographer who does them) may still be protected as 'simple' photographs according to the Law of 22 April 1941 n. 633, revised by the law of 22 May 2004, n. 128 article 87 and article 92 if it, additionally, displays people or aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, is a reproduction of figurative art or is a screenshot of movie picture (NOTE: these conditions are necessary and not sufficient for photos to be simple photos and expecially are not a demarcation criterion to determine if something is a photographic work or not) and enters the public domain after 20 years counted from January 1st of the calender year following their first publication. This is a very narrow class and hardly includes any picture of interest to commons.
|
 |
--Rtc 14:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's try with
|
|
This image is was created and is now in the public domain in Italy, because its term of copyright has expired. It represents images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and screenshots of movie pictures (art. 87, law 633/41). The "simple photography" must not have artistic merit or reflections of photographer creativity or personality, so according to art. 87 and 92 of italian law n.633, 22 April 1941 and later revisions it is to be considered public domain 20 years after the shot. Being PD in the country of origin, they are PD in the USA under Title17 104A h6b, and in most of Europe according to Berne Convention. Although that, some countries as Germany and Austria could provide extra protection for these photo, so their use may be subject to specific limitations. |
|
And to be honest, we must also say that if image does not show name of the photographer and date of the shot, that could be usable even before the 20 years, without rights due to anyone, according to art. 90 of law 633/41.
In Italy protection for photographers sucks? Yes, but who cares. We are just following the law. --Jollyroger 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- No your template is extremely misleading. It would be correct if you write "The 'simple photography' must not already be a 'photographic work', ie., a different photographer with the same skill must not even in principle have been able to shot the photo in a different way. It is nonsense to claim that Germany and Austria are special. the whole EU and any other countries with contracts overriding the Berne Convention rule of the shorter term has these provisions. This for example means that these 'simple photographs' are protected in Germany 50 years pp. Here is the correct logic to use:
- Is it a photographic work? ("would a different photographer with the same skill in principle be able to shot the photo in a different way?")
- Yes (99.9999%): 70 pma
- No (0.0001%):
- Is it an "image of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and screenshots of movie pictures" AND NOT ALREADY A PHOTOGRAPHIC WORK? (some of these aspects may be mutually exclusive to the nature of simple photographs and may inherently not apply to any picture of the content described here)?
- Yes (0.000099999%):
- art. 90 of law 633/41 conditions?
- Yes (0.0000999989999%): 20 pp
- No (0.0000000000001%): Public Domain
- No (0.000000001%): Public Domain
- In any case, all pictures currently tagged as PD-Italy which are not 70 pma already have to be deleted. (I think that should be clear, because they are actually not simple photographies.) And why should we have a misleading template if we have a non-misleading one. In Italy protection for photographers sucks? Not at all, because 99.9999% of all photos are protected 70 pma and another 0.0000999989999% 20pp, and only 0.0000000010001% are in the PD from the very beginning (reproduction photography of paintings, documents, etc.). --Rtc 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- But we could have 100% of perfectly PD photos (anyway, your stats are random and obviously instrumental), and with your misisnterpretations of our law we have to delete them. Well done, Mr Smart, that's a point! --Jollyroger 17:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is not my interpretation, but factual. I am not misinterpreting anything. Of course if you do interest-biased ('don't care, just somehow construct PD, even if obscurely') law-twisting as has been a common sport on the commons, you will always get to your conclusion. Please see that this era is over now. It is not on my part to prove by court case that your claim is incorrect, it is on your part to prove by court case that your claim is correct, if you want to keep such pictures. --Rtc 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- But we could have 100% of perfectly PD photos (anyway, your stats are random and obviously instrumental), and with your misisnterpretations of our law we have to delete them. Well done, Mr Smart, that's a point! --Jollyroger 17:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but all this looks to me like a conspirary of a copyright interested lobby. Bring 5 man in and start a total misleading action. This may became "law" in wikipedia and so it must be the truth in the real world too? All the claimes of RTC, Wikipeder, Arnomane etc. were forced by a small group, partially interested in installing a new "truth". All this may be an experiment of social/psychology-scientists and we are the guinea pigs. Is this the real "animal farm", where a new thruth is installeted by a group of leaders, POV to its limits, but the faithfull "thruth"? -- 80.145.57.122 09:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
To explain this a little bit more. The eu directive is not, as mentioned here severall times a "law". Copyright law is, EU wide still national law, although it should be very equal througout the states. This is mentioned at
- Article 13
- General provisions
- 1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 1 to 11 of this Directive before 1 July 1995.
I think it is impossible to change this to "There is an EU-Copyright-Law"
But if you start with a false claim, where will end: With a false claim. -- 80.145.57.122 09:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep --[[:it:Utente:.mau.|.mau. <font size=" +1">[[:it:Discussioni utente:.mau.| ✉]]</font>]] 10:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC) (until EU will successfully start and end a violation procedure, Italian law allows such photos)
- Nobody claimed, as is falsely claimed here, that EU directives are law. They are quasi-law, by mandatory local implementation. If the pictures should be legal according to Italian law because of an error, that a) Does not make them legal in any other EU country. Also, because of anti-discrimination, no rule of the shorter term is applicable within the EU, since each EU citizen enjoys in foreign EU countries the same rights as the people there. This makes forum shopping possible, so an italian photographer can sue Commons in Germany, Austria and many other EU countries implementing the directive as intended. it can be expected, if something was not done in italian law, that it will be fixed by violation procedure at the first opportunity. Commons is not an italian project and not bound only to italian law, but must respect at least the majority of EU countries. Italy does not rule the world, if I may use the polemic argument as has been used by some here. BTW, IP is incorrect that if you start with a false claim, you end with a false claim. In fact, by the logic law of contradiction in classic logic, from a false presupposition, you can deduce anything, everything that's true and everything that's false. So the conclusion that the pictures have to be deleted is not wrong automatically because some presuppositions of some arguments for deletion might be wrong. --Rtc 11:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The political debate
[edit]What about concentrating on a political debate instead of a legalistic one? The template clearly is not illegal, but that is not the point.
Wikimedia projects should not keep exceptions that are based on subjective interpretations such as if an image is any creative or not. We need clear cut and unambiguous criteria so that anybody can check if they are fulfilled. It's a Wiki, after all.
We may well lose the odd image that we could legally host, but we will protect the projects and their users from stealth non-free content. This is far more important. --Wikipeder 15:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it'a a good idea: can't you just aknowledge that you were wrong? I fear that if we prove that you are wrong even from a political point of wiev that you'll propose to move on to the phylosophycal debate, and later to the teological one (is Italian copyright law a sin? Even on Saturday?). Bye, paulatz 16:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- ?!? What are you talking about? That was my argumentation right from the beginning. Anyway, this is not about winning a war against "sti crucchi di merda" at the detriment of the Commons, WP and Italian photographers. It's about improving the projects. --Wikipeder 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The EU-wide uniform distinction between photographic works and non-works is not subjective, it is quite objective. For photos not be "photographic works" they must come out exactly the same, regardless of the photographer who does them'. That's given as soon as the purpose of the photography determines the camera angle and content of the photo (mugshots, etc.). That's the objective EU-wide criterion--Rtc 16:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why "subjective interpretations such as if an image is any creative or not"?
- images of people or of aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life, obtained with photographic process or with an analogue one, including reproductions of figurative art and screenshots of movie pictures
- Means:
- all screenshots from italian movies before 1985
- all photos of people in daily business
- almost all photos from newspapers
- all reproductions of figurative art when subject's copyright is not overlapping (i.e there is the 70YC for the painting itself)
- almost all the "standard" tourist photos (Mr Rossi in Venice with gondolas is a "fact of social life")
- That is how italian law received the directive. No one had problems with that in the EU government. Rtc can always ask an european court for a decision, we will be waiting; meanwhile german and austrian friends could always not use the photos, of course removing that from their commercial/DVD versions of wikipedia. --Jollyroger 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- only non-creative images in the first place as set forth by italian law art. 44, art. 88, refering to the international photo definition of "creative". The "photographic work" is uniform in all the EU countries, "italian law received the directive" is a statement which is not meaningful. There is no variation possible in implementing the directives (and italy did not apply any variation). They are mandatory, so Italian law received the directive exactly the same as any other countries. The things you are listing are simple photographies only under the presupposition that they are not creative in the first place, and creative is anything where the photographer positions the camera freely and presses the button, as uniformly implemented in all EU countries. You can repeat your false claim, it won't become more correct the more often you repeat it. The way italian law defines "simple photos" there basically are none of them (would a mug shot, which is not protected as a photographic work because the camera position and content cannot be chosen freely, fulfil the barriers set forth above for a simple foto? I doubt it). Simple photographs clause in italian law is an artifact of the past, not of any significance, because the conditions it poses almost inherently already are "creative" images in the sense of a photographic work in the international definition implemented in italian law. Besides that, deletion of the images, as you can see on the very top, will happen if no real new arguments appear, and your false claims won't have any effect on it anymore, because they only repeat the same old, point of view which was true only before the implementation of the 1993 directive and which is a thing of the past. Contrary to the false claim you are repeating, it does not have anything to do with Germany or Austria. These happen to be two EU countries where court cases are present with respect to the new EU-wide "photographic work". In any other country, the outcome will be the same since the rulings were explicitly (citing directly) based on the demarcation criteria as defined by the general EU-wide uniform directive (with only the general "photographic works are protected 70 pma" being taken from the actual german law), not taking into account the German "simple photograph" rule in any way for determining this demarcation, as you want to do for Italy, but which no judge who knows European Union jurisdiction would do in ANY EU country. --Rtc 18:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc, subjective the criteria are in the sense that you need a court to clarify things (and not even that helps, as we see) and that one has to look up lots of stuff to (possibly) accept the validity of the criteria.
- Jollyroger, in your interpretation—which I deem incorrect—, subjective and vage are e. g. the distinction of what makes images of people works, what exactly "aspects, elements and facts of natural or social life" are, what "people in daily business" are, to which of "almost all photos of newspapers" the exemption applies and what a "standard" tourist photo would be.
- Exceptions based on hard data such as a date are much safer and preferable. --Wikipeder 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please read Lupo's comment at [129]. It shows that stricly speaking, the way I see it is the supposed effect of the EU directive implementation on the Italian law. However, it says that the italian goverment did implement the EU directive in such a misleading and distorted manner and perhaps failed to understand what the EU directive was actually all about, that there is the danger of the law may not be legally interpretable in the intended meaning of the EU directive. This is a "gray area" of italian law. I think Commons should not rely on gray areas and on the possibility of local laws questionably contradicting EU directive (which could be sued for easily on european court).It was refering to PD-italy-gov --Rtc 21:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Non work
[edit]
The general treshold for work oand originality is not as low as allways claimed in this dispute. Have a look.
These pictures were not even made on the same day.
Just consider images made for documentation as "non-works". -- Stahlkocher 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Would a different photographer in principle have been able to shot the photos in a different way? Surely, since he could chose the camera position freely. They are clearly works in the sense of the EU directive definition. --Rtc 15:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- the concept of non-artistic may seem strange from the point of view of the german law; but it's pretty clear from the point of view of the italian law. In order to claim that your photograph is artistic you have to enforce your claim: you have to make money (or try to make money) out of it for it's artistic value, not for it's descriptives value. All the difference is between the descriptive (or simple') and the artistic (or creative) value of the photograph. Usually a photograph published by a newspaper is used for it's descriptive value; if it has some artistic value it's even better but the main goal of the photograph is to show some simple aspect of social life, some people (e.g. the prime minister of Sweden) or some other fact. There are some exceptions of course; like art magazines which may publish a photohgraph for it's artistic value. Paulatz 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Protection is supposed to be uniform in the EU after the directive implementation, as the directive rationale explicitly says. The directive explicitly rejects the neccessity of "artistic value", it must only be "original" in a fashion described above. Either Italy did not implement the directive correctly, or, if not, demarcation criteria are the same in Italy. There is only one choice. In any case the picture will be protected in any EU country that did implement the EU directive correctly, which will be the overwhelming majority, so this picture is not suitable for commons. --Rtc 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose Italy did not implemented the directive correctly, or maybe germany implemented it too strictly; I don't think here's the right place to discuss this topic. 212.63.102.232 19:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Protection is supposed to be uniform in the EU after the directive implementation, as the directive rationale explicitly says. The directive explicitly rejects the neccessity of "artistic value", it must only be "original" in a fashion described above. Either Italy did not implement the directive correctly, or, if not, demarcation criteria are the same in Italy. There is only one choice. In any case the picture will be protected in any EU country that did implement the EU directive correctly, which will be the overwhelming majority, so this picture is not suitable for commons. --Rtc 17:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- the concept of non-artistic may seem strange from the point of view of the german law; but it's pretty clear from the point of view of the italian law. In order to claim that your photograph is artistic you have to enforce your claim: you have to make money (or try to make money) out of it for it's artistic value, not for it's descriptives value. All the difference is between the descriptive (or simple') and the artistic (or creative) value of the photograph. Usually a photograph published by a newspaper is used for it's descriptive value; if it has some artistic value it's even better but the main goal of the photograph is to show some simple aspect of social life, some people (e.g. the prime minister of Sweden) or some other fact. There are some exceptions of course; like art magazines which may publish a photohgraph for it's artistic value. Paulatz 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I get it, protection is uniform in the EU all right as far as the terms of the protection of works are concerned. In the spirit of the directives, it should be uniform in the definition of what a work actually is, too, but it isn't (yet). The member states still have leeway to determine the border themselves.
- In fact, that's part of the problem with this exception and tag. An image considered not a work in Italy will still be treated as such in numerous countries. Other EU countries may regard the images as simple photographs but will protect them much longer than Italy. Further countries don't even know simple photographs. Fuzz, I say.
- We could limit the exception to Italy and the US and to images taken before 1976. But that still leaves the dangerous vagueness of the Italian definition of what a simple photograph actually is. Effectively, we've got a double-fuzzy tag for internationally non-free content (except I and US) that is easily misused. --Wikipeder 12:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Forum shopping
[edit]I would like to point your attention to a third level of fuzziness:
Any photographer of an image that is PD according to Italian law but that is still protected in another EU country can go to court in this EU county and sue people for using the image in Italy.
It's a mess. Effectively, these images are free to be used by Italian law, but unfortunately not by the law of two dozen other EU countries that apply to images used in Italy, too, because of the EU's principle of non-discrimination. They are not really free content, not even in Italy. --Wikipeder 11:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not exactly. He can sue for the use in the country where he sues. But since commons is reachable from all EU countries, that's still a problem, since commons is not an italian local project. --Rtc 12:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Man, I have some court decisions to read, but my work is leaving me no time right now. We all agree that these images are PD in Italy. Just move all that images to it.wiki and stop whining. Please, DO NOT DELETE the images before moving them. --Jollyroger 11:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Jollyroger: if you think that all the world should knee to the German's law I still think you are wrong, but you will win in the long term because we cannot spend 30% of our life on commons. As a last resort I wish to point out that there are other images that are on commons and cannot be used on german wiki (e.g. Image:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg). Bye, user:paulatz 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- And we (I mean all wikipedias) can just stop using this useless thing (I mean commons). Enough is enough... DracoRoboter 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why not moving all the images on de.wiki? German is an official language in part of Italy, after all... Cruccone 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- And we (I mean all wikipedias) can just stop using this useless thing (I mean commons). Enough is enough... DracoRoboter 14:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Jollyroger: if you think that all the world should knee to the German's law I still think you are wrong, but you will win in the long term because we cannot spend 30% of our life on commons. As a last resort I wish to point out that there are other images that are on commons and cannot be used on german wiki (e.g. Image:Flag_of_Germany_1933.svg). Bye, user:paulatz 13:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- de.wiki we'll be ok, en.wiki also, it.wiki (XXKZ.wiki also, and who cares about language) The point is: which damn law we have to use? If we chose e.g Germarn one I'll be happy but in that case if anybody say "in xxx-stan-land that photo is illegal" I can say "in Germany is ok so I don't give a damn". (my english is REALLY poor, sorry) DracoRoboter 09:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Summaries
[edit]- Note: I have tried to follow the above debate, but its just too confusing for me to close this in good faith. Can the closing admin please provide a concise legal rationale for the decision. If its not possible to write a concise rationale then I urge that this is closed as keep, a delete in those circumstances would be inappropriate m:copyright paranoia.--Nilfanion 07:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I try to write a summary:
- The whole thing is about the difference between simple photographs and photograpic works
- The retention period for simple photographs is 20 years after publication, for photograpic works 70 years pma in Italy. As far is i can see this is not disputed. Other countries apply such a distinction as well, i.e. germany has 50 years after publication for simple photographs. This complies with international treaties.
- Argumentation of one side (i.e. Rtc, Wikipeder) refers to a very strict interpretation of simple photographs taking into account that berne convention and EU directives are aimed to a high level of protection.
- Argumentation of the other side (i.e. Makthorpe, Jollyroger) refers to the Italian law which defines a broader range of what is a simple photograph. See for example the evaluation of Lupo: For simple photographs, Italian law is quite generous: any image of persons, elements, facts, or aspects, of daily life is a "simple photograph". or the Analysis of Jollyrogers.
I hope i got it right in that short way.
Personally, i agree with the strict interpretation after which nearly all photographs are works. However, even when we accept the broader definition of Italian law, there are some negative implications. First of all we have to decide in every single case where the line is drawn between simple photographs and photograpic works. Italian law says that images of persons are simple photographs - ok, but is this true for all kinds of portraits? The portraits for passports are simple photographs as well as an artistic shot, i.e. a nude photograph? I don't believe that. There is for sure a distinction which does not depend on the motive but on the level of individuality. What i try to point out is that the template is the theory but in practice it is nearly useless unless we have a case law example. Second point is an aspect of international law. Since the rule of shorter term is forbidden inside the EU those photographs are evaluated under respective national laws. This results in protection of the pictures in EU countries which
- have longer retention periods for simple photographs,
- no distinction between simple photographs and works and/or
- very strict limitations for simple photographs.
Germany for example has 50 years after publication for simple photographs but we also know due to case law that nearly all photographs are regarded as works.--Wiggum 08:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll try a short summary, too: Basically, there were two levels of argument.
- The debate on the legal situation in Italy: One side argued the exception should be kept since simple photos were indeed PD in Italian law after 20 years, while the other side—advocating removal—agreed but claimed this had lost almost any substance due to EU harmonisation and the possibility of forum shopping.
- The debate on the usefulness of the exception on the Commons: The party advocating removal of the exception argued the line between simple photos and works was too vague and subjective to provide for a reliable criterion. They also argued that images considered simple by Italian law could only be used in Italy (and the US, if published before 1976), which did not justify keeping them on the internationally oriented Commons while risking misuse. The party arguing for keeping the exception did not uphold arguments on this political level.
Frankly, I think the argument is very much in favour of not keeping the exception. I think, however, since this is a political decision, we will need a clearer mandate. The fact that heaps of users appear to have blindly followed a call to defend Italy against "the bloody Krauts" may be peculiar but should not lead us to disregard their opposition. --Wikipeder 10:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (mistakable word removed --Wikipeder 13:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
- "Fascist-style": very nice, spectacular, have you ever thought to work as a diplomat? I simply can't stand this: I don't care at all if PD-Italy images will be deleted from Commons (since I do believe that Commons is an excellent idea but an horribly organized project), but to be referred as a fascist community is so offensive. It reminds me a period in which the freedom of sharing images wasn't even thinkable. Your post could be so convincing, it's a shame that now seems to me just stupid. Very stupid. Faithfully, Felyx 13:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Felyx, this is a misunderstanding. The call on the Italian WP was fashioned as a Mussolini speach as a joke, as you can see from the linked page: "NOI SIAMO ITALIANI. LA LEGGE E' LA NOSTRA. QUEL MATERIALE E' REGOLATO DALLA NOSTRA LEGGE. Non ci serve un tedesco per sapere cosa dice il nostro codice. Resistiamo! Agiamo! Combattiamo fino alla vittoria! Vincere, e vinceremo!"
- You may find this disgraceful, but it's obviously been meant as a joke. Emotions ran high. Actually, I thought it was funny.
- That's the trouble with page-long debates: Nobody actually reads them. I edited my above post so we can come back at discussing the real issue. --Wikipeder 13:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- fascist-style? What the fuck.. please? --Bouncey2k 14:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- call a surgical team and please let's them install in you a little of sense of humor. I think i will write a short faq on "why we won't use commons"DracoRoboter 14:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Just wondering: would you find it funny, if I call you "nazist"?
- Please, don't make fun with a tremendous period of our history and use more appropriate words. -- Sannita 17:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, come on, Jollyroger did not really call anybody a fascist. He pretended to be some sort of Mussolini on 10/06/1940 addressing the fascist masses. Okay, right, he thus pretended the Italian users were the fascist masses, but that was a joke, after all. --Wikipeder 20:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- No insults, I'm not that kind of people. Maybe I didn't made clear my thought.
- You used the term "fascist-style" which, in Italy, is perceived as a grevious offence. We are actually not so proud of that 20-years-period.
- Fact is, Jollyroger was kidding, when he wrote what he wrote on the it.wiki Village Pump. He quite always use to exaggerate things for make fun, and so he did that time too. That's maybe the misunderstanding that made us exploit an useless flame on Commons.
- Let's make it out with my statement now. It was an unsuccesful try to make you understand that is better not to use such words, nor with us nor with anyone. We're a bit tired of being called "pizza", "mandolino", "spaghetti", "mafia" and so on. "Fascist" was the classical drop that classically broke the classical pot.
- So, the real meaning of my statement is: If I call you "nazist", you'll surely be pissed off. So, why can't we be pissed off if an Italian is called "fascist"?
- Hope I made it clear this time. >:-) -- Sannita 09:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Much ado about nothing...
- Did anyone read Combattiamo fino alla vittoria! Vincere, e vinceremo! Dovessimo farlo anche solo alla fine del secondo tempo supplementare.?
- Translation: Fight to victory! We have to win, and we will win! Even if only at the end of the second extra time . Irony seems quite explicit in my joke. Should I add 2-0 Grosso, Del Piero? I can say everyone on it.wiki knows my "style", if someone misunderstood... well, his problem.
- I had to leave the discussion due to a RL work trip: you ignored our points and went on deleting. Ok, your choice. Move the damn images on it.wiki and C YA.
- --Jollyroger 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Decision
[edit]PD-Italy will be deleted as PD-Italy is imcompatible with the copyright policy of Wikimedia Commons that requires freely licensed images only. A summary of the reasons:
- EU copyright: The EU Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection of 1993 sadly made the quite liberal italian copyright much stricter. That restoration became effective on July 1, 1995 in all EU members, as they all had incorporated this binding EU directive into their local laws.
- US copyright: The U.S. URAA became effective on January 1, 1996, i.e. half a year later. That's rather unfortunate for us, because it means that any copyrights restored in the EU under that 1993 directive also became restored in the U.S. under the URAA. Tough luck, but we cannot change that.
- Artistic vs. simple images: The copyright restorations of the 1993 EU directive apply to "photographic works" only. Some EU member countries know a second class of photographs for which shorter copyright terms apply. This distinction is subject to different standards and adjudgements by different courts (even within the same nation) and that for in general not a useful criteria in Commons. Furthermore most of the images tagged with PD-Italy are even artistic according to the old italian laws (like covers of magazines and books, which thus never were public domain in Italy). So all images tagged with it need to be reviewed and only a very narrow fraction can be considered not artistic according to current italian laws.
The template text will be replaced by call of the Template:No license template with the date of today. Thus Commons admins will start deleting the obvious cases and give local communities yet another one week chance determining the right license of a file at the unknown cases. However Commons admins urge everybody to act wisely and not to be folish and applying nonsense replacement license tags to these images. We have a static list of all affected files of PD-Italy, so any folish action will directly lead into deletion. Arnomane 17:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
it.wiki decision discussions
[edit]Other discussions for reference:
- w:Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 3#Template:PD-Italy
- Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#Template:PD-Italy
I'm nominating this template and all of the images (~360) in its category, because I think we need to have clarity regarding the status of PD-Italy. In essence, in 2006 it was decided that such images are no longer free in Italy, and thus not on Commons: see above. However, in 2010, there was discussion on the village pump, and the editors decided to undelete it: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/10#PD-Italy restoration request. Really, this should have gone through undeletion requests, not through the village pump where there aren't very many eyes and so consensus is hard to gauge.
As such, we ought to decide here what to do with these images once and for all (or, if we change our mind in the future, at least go through the proper process at Commons:Undeletion requests or Commons:Deletion requests). Our discussion should center around the following:
- What is the current legal copyright status of 20 year old images in Italy according to the Italian government and courts and/or US government and courts? (Wikimedia's servers being housed in the US)
It should not center around any of the following:
- What someone's interpretation of Italy's law is.
- What someone's interpretation of the EU law is.
- What other countries in the EU think of Italy's laws.
- Statements about how the images are valuable (w:WP:ILIKEIT) versus their copyright status.
- Votes (w:WP:JUSTAVOTE, w:WP:PERNOM)
- Statements for "what about other countries that we have?" (w:WP:WAX) unless it explains the wider picture of why the images are legally free.
Keep in mind we are trying to figure out if these images really are free, not if we think they're free or even if they ought to be free.
I am currently
- Please see the more recent discussions where this was restored, after some consideration, in discussions both on en-wiki and here. The 2006 discussions were badly incorrect in my opinion; the 20-year term for such photos is still quite plainly in Italian law -- that is impossible to dispute -- and therefore still relevant there. It's in Article 92; that explains the legal status in black and white -- not sure why it's remotely controversial. The language concerning which images qualify also did not change. The 2006 Commons decision basically decided to ignore all that from what I could see. We also have always accepted templates from other EU countries which also have a shorter term for simpler images -- and Italy defines them better than anyone, really. I really can't understand why this would be brought up again, to be honest... it went through a fair amount of discussion on the undeletion, both here and en-wiki, and really the reasons for deletion in the first place were pretty misplaced as they used arguments from a German court decision (which has zero binding legal effect in Italy). I disagree that the Village Pump doesn't have "eyes", either; that was a perfectly legitimate undeletion. Keep Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If there was an undeletion request, it really should have gone at Commons:Undeletion requests. I am bringing it up here because of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#Template:PD-Italy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Really" - that is really rigid. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- If there was an undeletion request, it really should have gone at Commons:Undeletion requests. I am bringing it up here because of Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 31#Template:PD-Italy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It could have, but didn't. There are times when things get discussed on the Village Pump to have a wider audience than just the undeletion page. I don't see how that makes it illegitimate (even when they are, often times people get confused when they see DRs ending in deletion where the file exists, because there is often no link to the undeletion discussion -- no different here, but that was fixed recently by a section on the template's talk page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is not rigid at all, because it leaves the status of the images as still uncertain (the community discussion was much smaller) and thus I am unsure if I can delete the images on English Wikipedia as a result. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Village Pump discussions tend to be the most visible, not least. En-wiki also went through their own process (you linked to it), and restored their version of the template before we did, so of course they consider it valid, regardless of what Commons does. I'd keep with the strict 1976 line (URAA date minus the 20 years) for images hosted there, though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It is not rigid at all, because it leaves the status of the images as still uncertain (the community discussion was much smaller) and thus I am unsure if I can delete the images on English Wikipedia as a result. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- It could have, but didn't. There are times when things get discussed on the Village Pump to have a wider audience than just the undeletion page. I don't see how that makes it illegitimate (even when they are, often times people get confused when they see DRs ending in deletion where the file exists, because there is often no link to the undeletion discussion -- no different here, but that was fixed recently by a section on the template's talk page). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per Carl Lindberg; the EU directive explicitly leaves it to the member states to have separate legislation for simple photography. "Member States may provide for the protection of other photographs." /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Bringing up older links, this court case got into the area, and does illustrate some of the limits of the "simple photo" thing (artistic landscape photos were considered photographic works and thus have a full 70 pma term). The fact that the author was a known, artistic photographer also seems to have been material to the ruling. The ruling also mentions a 10.5.91 court of cassation case, No. 5237, which apparently also involved that section of the law -- it may be interesting to find the text of that case. There may also have been some relevant content posted at Commons:When to use the PD-Italy tag, which was deleted as "nonsense" but may have just been by a non-native English speaker (I never saw the content, so I'm not sure). Anyways, if the tag is going to be brought up again with a new DR, there really should be a reason as to why we should ignore sections of Italian law that plainly exist (and are treated as valid by their judges). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep the matter was clear even in 2006, and the template was deleted after a discussion based on unconsistent ground. The discussion at the Village Pump in 2008 simply fixed the 2006's error. The Italian law is clear: a non-artistic image is automatically in public domain since the 1st January of the 20th year following the year of first publishing in Italy, provided that it was produced in Italy and published in Italy first. This applies worldwide. Thus are currently in PD all the non-artistic photos first published in Italy from 31 December 1991 backward. The case of 70 pma applies for "artistic photos" (i.e. artistic landscapes, a model posing for the photographer, artistic effects and so on); photographing a footballer kicking on goal is not considered "artistic photo" by Italian law, but just a "simple aspect of everyday's life". -- Blackcat (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per everything I've heard here, the copyright is still valid in Italy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep but strogly use only for image of people and/or acidents. licence tag only for acidents and people it SOOO userfuls for wikipedia, becausue people and accidents are "unrepetable". (that mean, it no problem take photo of italian car today, but it sooooo problem take photo of Mussolini in today.) --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, as well as Blackcat.--Threecharlie (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep - per Blackcat. Angelus (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Comment when (and if) this is marked as keep, someone ought to change w:Template:PD-Italy to remove the now unnecessary disclaimer. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Right, but I think that for this we should also wait the URAA files decision. If we delete them here on Commons, the disclaimer on en.wiki (and it.wiki too) should be updated with an invite to do not move photos published after 1976.--Trixt (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- En-wiki shouldn't be hosting such files either, since they follow U.S. rules even more then we do (and do not necessarily take into account the law in the country of origin). As long as the Italian photos were created before 1976 and published without a copyright notice before March 1, 1989, then we can host them. If they were created 1976 or later, the U.S. copyright would have been restored, and if they were published with a copyright notice (or were first published 1989 or later) the U.S. copyright was never lost in the first place and didn't need restoration, and they would also still be copyrighted in the U.S. So, the disclaimer probably should be removed (though they may not want to entrust Commons with such photos, given the history of this template and the re-discussions which seem to take place ;-) ). Maybe having this DR will end the discussions, but en-wiki may want to wait a while to be sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
- Right, but I think that for this we should also wait the URAA files decision. If we delete them here on Commons, the disclaimer on en.wiki (and it.wiki too) should be updated with an invite to do not move photos published after 1976.--Trixt (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
why somebody put at template deletion request? i see some admin: "Yeah, look deletion request! I do not read discusion, a just delete template for safety!" Take DL off and stop nominating PD Italy images to deletion. Why you do this today? --Teplice, Ústecko (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you're not going to bother reading the reasons for the deletion request, then I don't see any reason to bother responding to your request. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -idem per Blackcat. raul (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per Blackcat. Deansfa (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 | Proposed close: Kept This DR has been open long enough, and the conclusion seems clear. What would be very helpful is if we could have a page on the distinction between artistic and "simple" photographs - perhaps Commons:Simple photographs - to clarify when to use this tag, perhaps with selected examples. This distinction exists in a number of countries, so each country that has it can have a subsection on that page, and the relevant PD templates can point there. ~~~~  Done Closed per proposal. |
---
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON (This photo is part of the Hollywood Free Paper archive, and Duane Pederson, editor of the HFP, gave his permission to use it on Wikipedia. After I uploaded the photo I was informed that the original photographer, Jack Cheetham, had placed restrictions on the use of his work that would not be compatible with Wikipedia, thus I have removed it from the article on Wikipedia and request that it be removed from the Commons.) --Elmarco 02:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Freedom of panorama does not extend to sculptures in the U.S. --JeremyA 04:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- That is unneeded anymore - Chicago's Bean sculpture is now free to photograph. - Jeekc 06:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Being permitted to photograph something is not the same as being allowed to publish photos of it. The copyright holder of this sculpture is Anish Kapoor [130] not the City of Chicago. JeremyA 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I have managed to find 12 images of Rembrandt's Nightwatch, see Category:Nachtwacht Some of those are identical; e.g. Image:Rembrandt nachtwacht.jpg is identical to Image:RembrandtNightwatch.jpg; same source same everything, so one of these can be speedily deleted. Question: What about the others? Some of them are perhaps not identical, but very very similar; can we get rid of at least some of them? Let's say: delete half of them, but keep the others? Which ones? JdH 09:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- They need to be thoroughly checked and compared at 100% size before any action is made. For example Image:Rembrandt nachtwacht.jpg has more JPEG compression artifacts (though the same imagesize and filesize) compared to Image:RembrandtNightwatch.jpg. I agree that several could be removed as superfluous or of poor quality. Scoo 11:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Specific suggestions:
Image:De_Nachtwacht01.jpg: delete (poor quality)
Image:Nachtwacht-kopie-van-voor-1712.jpg: keep (shows parts of the original painting that were removed in 1712)
Image:Nattvakten.jpg: delete (superseded by Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 044.jpg)
Image:Night Watch, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.jpg: delete (superseded by Image:X_PICT0073.jpg)
Image:Rembrandt - Le Compagnie de Frans Banning Cocq et Willem van Ruytenburch (La Marche Nocturne).jpg: delete (superseded by Image:RembrandtNightwatch.jpg)
Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 044.jpg: keep
Image:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 045.jpg: keep
Image:Rembrandt nachtwacht revealing details.jpg: keep
Image:Rembrandt nachtwacht.jpg: delete (superseded by Image:RembrandtNightwatch.jpg)
Image:RembrandtNightwatch.jpg: keep
Image:Rijksmuseum.jpg: keep
Image:X_PICT0073.jpg: delete (superseded by Image:Rijksmuseum.jpg) JdH 08:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Specific suggestions:
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Indiana Jones
[edit]Both derivative works. --Wiggum 20:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Was lacking--Rtc 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 20:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I think, a man (figure) with a leather jacket and a whip can't be protected. He neither have got a particular set of clothes nor a unique look like Darth Vader, R2D2 etc. (which would be protected) --Snorky 13:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The description makes it clear that the statue is intended to represent Indiana Jones, though I grant you the face is not very like looking. Jastrow 16:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it doesn't depend on the purpose of the picture. When I upload the same picture for different purpose, that would be allowed? It would be forbidden, when I upload a picture with four squares and say this is the windows logo?--Snorky 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The title of the images makes it clear that it is an illegal "Bearbeitung" (derivative work). Other wild guesses about purpose are irrelevant. Assume you would not explicitly say who is depicted by the status, anyway it would be a "Freie Benutzung" after german law in the very best case. Since the border between "Freie Benutzung" and "Bearbeitung" is unclear and everybody who saw the Indiana Jones films will clearly identify this statue, the picture had to be deleted as well. US law is more strict on derivative works: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.--Wiggum 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- addendum, before we discuss to much irrlevant things: the photo is the derivative work of the status, no matter what the statue depicts.--Wiggum 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it doesn't depend on the purpose of the picture. When I upload the same picture for different purpose, that would be allowed? It would be forbidden, when I upload a picture with four squares and say this is the windows logo?--Snorky 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 18:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Either it is a derivative from Indiana Jones (in which case it is a copyvio) or it is not a derivative of Indiana Jones (in which case what notability does it have?). Either way, I see no reason to keep. — Erin (talk) (FAQ) 23:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The 3rd one was POTD at May 12, 2005... --Dodo 22:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 20:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image is claimed to be "a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties". I find that hard to believe. While checking I found that apparently the reference resource no longer exists (moved to [131], but nothing there from 2001). --139.18.1.5 08:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Bullshit, unless you believe US soldiers would have come that close to the enemy - still alive - and took photos. delete--Wiggum 09:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Da amerikanische Soldaten (auch keine Photographen) meines Wissens nicht vor Stalingrad standen, können sie diese Bilder nicht gemacht haben. Der Lizenzhinweis ist also falsch, löschen --Mogelzahn 18:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Steschke 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Rtc 19:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Jastrow 10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Sure, the license template is absolutely wrong, but I suppose this to be in PD. VanHelsing.16 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why? The Battle of Stalingrad was in 1942, the photographer can't possibly be dead for more than 70 years. --88.134.45.6 17:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I always presumed it was from german archives captured by the americans and a subsequent edit of them. Need to find the real source though, so till then i'm on the fence Pluke 09:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete while the source cannot be confirmed.--Jusjih 10:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON Claims GFDL, but shows a copyrighted magazine cover. --nyenyec ☎ 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. IMO, the copyrighted cover is of minor importance. The image mainly depicts the JW door-to-door procedure. / Fred Chess 10:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I disagree. It's used to illustrate w:The_Watchtower - the magazine. -- nyenyec ☎ 19:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The picture shows the distribution procedure of the Watchtower and is therefore an Illustration of w:The_Watchtower. The cover itself is interchangeable and de:Beiwerk. Therefore: Keep --Schizoschaf 20:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The magazine looks rather like the centerpiece of this picture to me. --88.134.45.6 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- You can get away with this in the States by stating that this is fair use, but I would consider it a copyright violation in Germany. Please keep in mind that an image on commons can be used for lots of purposes in different wikipedias and beyond, as you state that the image is GFLD. I could e.g. crop the watchtower part of the image (still large enough) and use it for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial, pro-JW or as an illustration in a book against them. I think that you should really get an official permission from Brooklyn (JW headquarters) for releasing this image under the GFDL. HeikoEvermann 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- The magazine looks rather like the centerpiece of this picture to me. --88.134.45.6 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 21:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
August 31
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Man in the photo is identifable. He did not give permission for me to take his likeness or to license it freely. Bad lapse of judgment in uploading the image. Request speedy deletion. Will take a replacement photo later. --Hbdragon88 04:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{speedy}} instead. --Panther 11:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Rob and Bea 028.jpg
[edit]Image:Rob and Bea 028.jpg, I forgot to change the name when I uploaded, please delete this ASAP. --Dante Alighieri | [[User talk:Dante Alighieri|Talk]] 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{badname}} next time. --Panther 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
REASON This file I uploaded twice, because first time I misspelled the filename. An identical version is Image:XN_Sympetrum_sanguineum_w_prey_anim.gif --XN 19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Use {{bad name}} next time. --Kjetil_r 20:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded this, but I think I got the license wrong, it is an album cover, I think I need to read the rules a bit more. Sorry for the trouble.
Deleted by User:Fred Chess. --Panther 14:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
'fair use' images not allowed on Commons. No evidence for 'Attribution' licence tag. William Avery 07:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Copyright viol; deleted. -- Infrogmation 23:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The category is empty; I created it to house the Peace Arch Park category before I figured out it is a state park, not an international park. Buchanan-Hermit 04:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! ¿…? 08:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:1 1 54.svg --jed 05:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no license + it was only uploaded for vanity/spam entries de:King Tiger and en:King Tiger the Band --84.170.211.20 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Tagged as {{PD}}, but there's no evidence that this picture really is in the public domain. The source website ([132]) obtained it from somewhere else and doesn't give any detail on the photographer or a reason for PD ("These images have all been found in the public domain. They are presented here for educational purposes. Should there be any infringement of copyright please e-mail me and I will amend the page accordingly."). --88.134.45.6 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete And the story goes on... --Rtc 00:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete again and again. --Wiggum 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ...and on and on... --Steschke 18:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Flag of Vichada (Colombia).svg --jed 06:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete superseded --Ultratomio 08:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It has become pretty clear in the meantime that CDU will not go beyond the usual press license. Communication with them is slooooow, their replies in the discussion take more than one month (most recent one de:WP:UF#CDU Bilder). Even if it is not intended that way, it comes down to time delay tactics, to keep their picture on commons, but not to give a free license. We need to counter that and give a clear signal that we stricly accept only free licenses (with Commons:Email templates). Let's delete them now (and please delete #Template:SPDFraktion above with it, too). --Rtc 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, as all the photos using the template are gone. --Kjetil_r 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No licence since 29 March; no activity from uploader since. -- Infrogmation 02:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 11:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All files by User:Mattk4e
[edit]Images are not free: http://www.sho.com is not available, Images from http://www.showcase.ca are copyrighted, see [133] --GeorgHH 10:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
user contributions shows no images left --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No reason given why anyone would believe this be in the public domain. The aeroplane is a model developed in the 1930s. William Avery@
- Comment only: image source: (2000 × 1517px), linked at Purdue News. I suggest someone asks purduenews AT purdue DOT edu or one of the other people listed at the bottom of that article about that photo. Is it PD in the U.S.? (Note that it might easily be PD there if its copyright was not renewed.) But you're right, we don't know. Lupo 06:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The source image at English Wikipedia said "This image was taken from ftp.purdue.edu and is believed to be in the public domain." // Liftarn
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No evidence that {{Copyrighted free use}} applies. -- howcheng {chat} 18:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, but the original image, en:Image:MusicBrainz logo.png, is under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0, incompatible here, already shown on English Wikipedia as fair use. Since the Picard logo is used for the page on Wikipedia, I suggest reuploading it there as fair use. --Geopgeop 15:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: Check the Picard software package, it is GPL software. See it's page on musicbrainz.org. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
tagged with {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}} (-> speedy delete) --ALE! ¿…? 07:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I uploaded a better version here. --Ephraim33 07:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment both are quite bad --ALE! ¿…? 16:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
superseded by Image:Toulouse Lautrec Femme nue etendue sur un divan.jpg--Shizhao 05:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep are you joking? The other way around. --Rtc 06:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Image:Reclnude.jpg because it wasn't used. The images had the same dimensions and virtually the same appearance. / Fred Chess 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I think it is not free, see the logo in it. --GeorgHH 13:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ages since I've seen a GIF movie ;) I think that one might be US military PD, despite the watermark that is from a middle player, not so sure they might claim copyright (if it isn't a promotion video by the US military then it might of course be from a defense contractor). Scoo 16:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 21:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
German photo, no source, only claim is "This image is believed to be in the public domain because it is a photograph originally published or taken over fifty years ago" -- Fred Chess 16:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- This doesn't belong here, I replaced the deleterequest-tag with {{subst:nsd}} -- Gorgo 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete This image is copyrighted till 70 years pma. --Steschke 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Same with Image:Do 17z.jpg --19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted both / Fred Chess 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- Is also available at http://silverstone.fortunecity.com/studebaker/677/photopeu.html . Copyvio? / Fred Chess 07:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
STBR requested speedy deletion: The picture of this piece of art is a copy violation, since the author only allows use of pictures by a fee of 24 Euros per month for a private website. The free use is improbably. See http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77382 (german text)
Quite an interesting case about the limits of "freedom of panorama" (it's a sculpure in a government building, paid for with tax money). I think we should keep an eye on this. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 23:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The artist did not allow the use of a picture even not for that 24 euro. Delete (with pain and not without ridiculing copyright law in general) --Schizoschaf 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- delete. This is not an interesting question of panorama freedom, it's quite clear that the inside of a building is not covered by panorama freedom. Nonetheless it is truely a despicable issue regarding morality since it was financed by tax money and is dedicated to the public. Concerning copyright, there isn't anything which could be discussed.--Wiggum 16:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The sculpture is not inside an building. It is in a "Lichthof" (areaway) of the building, not under a roof. --ALE! ¿…? 08:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- However, please read: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml?url=%2Fnewsticker%2Fmeldung%2F77382 . Anyway, for me the Reichstag is a place which could not be more public ;-) . Well I think we should wait a little and see. --ALE! ¿…? 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image:Achilles and Ajax.jpg, Image:Achilles and Ajax playing a board game.jpg, Image:Achilles and Ajax playing 2.jpg, Image:Ajax carrying body of Achilles 2.jpg and Image:TBanksThetis.jpg
[edit]All these images are tagged PD-art but are photographies of 3D objects. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The question should be, how old are these pictures. I think its clear that the copyright period has expired long ago. --Bdamokos 12:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Though the PD-art template doesn`t cover it completely, I give you that.--Bdamokos 12:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the pictures themselves or about the vases depicted here? The vases are unquestionably in the public domain but it doesn't seem clear at all the pictures are as well. Jastrow 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see, you mean the photographer's rights... Did anyone tried talking to the uploader, or contacting the source? --Bdamokos 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I left deletion warnings to the uploader, but get no answer. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 00:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see, you mean the photographer's rights... Did anyone tried talking to the uploader, or contacting the source? --Bdamokos 18:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the uploader took the pictures from the Web, assuming in good faith they were covered by the {{PD-Art}} license. Most of them seem to be museum pictures (no reflections, which are a plague in vase photography). Jastrow 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The images have sources. I took them from online encyclopedias. I did not know, that images on a vase is three-dimensional and are not OK for the PD-art. --ajvol 07:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete all. 3D objects can not be tagged with {{PD-Art}}. Probably all copyvios. --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Source says nothing about GFDL --Ixitixel 09:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- delete. Copyvio, The bulk of these photos have been scanned, in good faith, from publications with elapsed copyrights, which, for the purpose of this archive, will mean that a period of at least 70 years has passed from the original copyright date.--Wiggum 09:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Uh oh: {{PD-GWPDA}} and Category:PD-GWPDA... all from the same website ("scanned in good faith", "While every effort has been made to ensure that the photos presented here are in the public domain, it is strongly suggested that you attempt to obtain permission from the original copyright holder before using any of these images for commercial purposes."). --88.134.45.6 12:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not so fast. Check e.g. the first image from that category, Image:2nd Battle Squadron.jpg. It is image #1810 on that site. Souce is listed in the site's index as "NAW", which is given in the site's list of sources as Abbot, Willis John: The Nations at War: A Current History, Leslie-Judge Co., NY, 1917. Therefore Image:2nd Battle Squadron.jpg is at least {{PD-US}} as having been published before 1923. Lupo 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Correct me if i'm wrong, but the point is first publication, isn't it? I feel a little bit unsafe about this issue when it comes to pictures showing something outside the USA. Sure, it's possible, but a matter of proof.--Wiggum 08:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not quite. The U.S. cut-off date applies within the U.S. pretty much regardless of the location of first publication, although there is the question of which cut-off year would apply. I don't know what the policy here is, but at en:, it's longstanding practice to apply the 1923 year worldwide. But note that there's been a decision of the 9th circuit that seems to say that for non-U.S. works, it should be 1909. (See footnote 1 at en:WP:PD, and also the talk page there (bottom).) However, without visible foundation support, I'm not going to insist on 1909 for non-U.S. works to be considered PD-US; I guess we'd have to drop quite a lot of 1909-1922 images... And in any case, commons operates more under a "country of origin first" policy (which still may fail), so maybe we should just have a rule saying that PD-US (with its 1923 date) must be applied exclusively to U.S. works. (Note that the site in question does have a lot of U.S. works, too, so that still wouldn't be a reason to crack down on the whole category.) Lupo 09:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean that all those images should be deleted. But obivously not all images on that site are PD and those that are indeed PD should rather be tagged with the according license template (PD-old, PD-USGov etc.). The template itself should be deleted IMHO. --88.134.45.6 17:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Correct me if i'm wrong, but the point is first publication, isn't it? I feel a little bit unsafe about this issue when it comes to pictures showing something outside the USA. Sure, it's possible, but a matter of proof.--Wiggum 08:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Not so fast. Check e.g. the first image from that category, Image:2nd Battle Squadron.jpg. It is image #1810 on that site. Souce is listed in the site's index as "NAW", which is given in the site's list of sources as Abbot, Willis John: The Nations at War: A Current History, Leslie-Judge Co., NY, 1917. Therefore Image:2nd Battle Squadron.jpg is at least {{PD-US}} as having been published before 1923. Lupo 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Uh oh: {{PD-GWPDA}} and Category:PD-GWPDA... all from the same website ("scanned in good faith", "While every effort has been made to ensure that the photos presented here are in the public domain, it is strongly suggested that you attempt to obtain permission from the original copyright holder before using any of these images for commercial purposes."). --88.134.45.6 12:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Image:Italian troops at Isonzo river.jpg, the source site does not give a verifieable source for that image (#0332). Lupo 06:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted Image:Italian troops at Isonzo river.jpg / Fred Chess 11:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
See Image talk:Benczur-narcissus.jpg. We need a Hungarian law expert here: is it possible to extend copyright for more than 70 years limit? This applies to all images by Benczúr Gyula. A.J. 14:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nonsense. All we need is Lupo as Commons admin. According to the 1993 EU directive no other country has the obligation to protect works longer than 70 years pma. Maybe it is in doubt if the directive prohibits longer terms (e.g. France re WW II) in singe countries. --Historiograf 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing like that. Only way for an image to be copyrighted after death of the author + 70 years is if it has been first published only after the protection time is over, which is clearly not the case here. (You can check here at the bottom of the page, if you talk Hungarian.)
And anyway, the whole deletion request was totally senseless. You should not enlist an image for deletion based on a copyright notice which refers to the website in general, and not the image specifically. --Tgr 20:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I know that: I initiated this process because anonumous user reverted my PD-Art template. Speedy keep please. A.J. 10:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep--Shizhao 03:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not a copyright law expert, but I would have two questions in this topic: 1) why are we talking about Benczúr Gyula as the photographer of the image? He was the painter. The image is the property of the Hungarian National Gallery now, and the photo was taken some years ago when the hungarian web site was created. 2) why do you think that the "general" copyright notice can be ignored, if this notice states explicitly that all of the images presented on the home page are protected by the copyright law. What should be done to protect these images? Should they contain dedicated copyright messages in their corners? GaborLajos 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment - in other words what is said above by GaborLajos : go to the museum and take a photo yourself or ask for the permission of the photographer (of the gallery). Message me here
- Delete -- Please clarify the copyright issues first - or at least remove the PD template. GaborLajos 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Kept. As I said on the image talk page, it is possible that {{PD-Art}} -- which says that a reproduction of a public domain painting is also public domain -- does not apply in all countries, and it may not apply in Hungary. But it applies in most countries and there is yet no substantial proof that it doesn't in Hungary. / Fred Chess 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Ubuntu Logo is subject to trademark restrictions which render it non suitable for Commons. --Chewie 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Keep trademark restrictions are irrelevant because we only show the image and don't use it. --Steschke 18:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- We are supposed to grant some rights with the content we offer here, not just "use" it. --Chewie 08:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- KeepCould you use a Coat of Arms for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a picture of a patented object for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a panorama freedom picture for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo where the logo is not the main subject of the image for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo of a person for any purpose? I don't think so. Could you use a photo for a nazi emblem for any purpose? I don't think so. --Rtc 06:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The trademark policy associated with the logo is too restrictive and doesn't allow enjoying the rights of free content. Namely, you can not modify it in any way, use it for commercial purposes nor use it outside the scope of fair use. This is clearly not for Commons. --Chewie 07:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It enjoys all rights of free content, because it is licensed under GPL (if you ask me, it is not even copyrighted). Free content is about copyright, not about independent rights such as trademark law. And, did I already mention it? Similar restrictions apply to Coat of Arms, patented objects, panorama freedom pictures, photo where the logo is not the main subject, photo of a person, nazi emblem. --Rtc 08:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc you obviously want Commons (and Wikimedia) to allow logos, so you try and change policy by "stealth". Why don't you seriously try to change the policy at the top, either it is successful or it isn't, everyone can accept it, and then we can stop having the same argument every. single. time. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know it would be unsuccessful. --Rtc 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly! So stop trying to do it by stealth and making us argue about logos every single time. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc is right keep. I cannot see a convincing code of policies at commons but only stressed and incompetent and impolite administrators like pfctdayelise (may I add with a absolutely unnecessary complicated user-name you have always to copy and paste) --Historiograf 17:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly! So stop trying to do it by stealth and making us argue about logos every single time. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- You know it would be unsuccessful. --Rtc 12:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Rtc you obviously want Commons (and Wikimedia) to allow logos, so you try and change policy by "stealth". Why don't you seriously try to change the policy at the top, either it is successful or it isn't, everyone can accept it, and then we can stop having the same argument every. single. time. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It enjoys all rights of free content, because it is licensed under GPL (if you ask me, it is not even copyrighted). Free content is about copyright, not about independent rights such as trademark law. And, did I already mention it? Similar restrictions apply to Coat of Arms, patented objects, panorama freedom pictures, photo where the logo is not the main subject, photo of a person, nazi emblem. --Rtc 08:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The trademark policy associated with the logo is too restrictive and doesn't allow enjoying the rights of free content. Namely, you can not modify it in any way, use it for commercial purposes nor use it outside the scope of fair use. This is clearly not for Commons. --Chewie 07:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Paddy 10:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Trademark restrictions are not considered here. --Wiggum 11:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete we traditionally have a strong bias against trademarked logos in general - see this mail by jimbo (Note that the {{Trademarked}} tag is intended for photographs that contain some logo somehwere, not for plain logos; it's misleading and should be changed). While we allow some restrictions if they are not based in copyright (such as personality rights, or rules for official insignia), the usual restrictions for trademarked logos are very strict. Effectively, the Ubuntu logo can only be used to refer to the ubuntu project (equivalent to fair use), and must not be modified (not even the colors). This is not a free image. (Btw: has the artist who created the original design agreed to a free license? Often, people who create an icon file put that under a free license without considering that their file is derivative work). -- Duesentrieb(?!) 12:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, in this case, the original content is in fact free. --Chewie 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It is free because it is ineligible for copyright. The word "Sony" is free from copyright but it's use is restricted due to trademark issues. You cannot print it on your self-invented mp3 player. Are you forced to stop usage of this word in general? I don't think so. Independent from policy - please understand this simple difference between copyright and trademark at all.--Wiggum 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete OMFG, how many times must this be deleted?????? The first point is - can anyone show it is released under a free license? No, they can't, because it's not! Show me one thing anywhere that says the logo specifically is licensed under the GPL or any other free license. pfctdayelise (translate?) 12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's licensed under a Creative Commons license, see the COPYRIGHT file from the ubuntu-artwork package or this mail from Mark Shuttleworth. But that's not the point. The point is that it is free content under restrictive trademark clauses. However, it is, de facto, not free. --Chewie 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- "a Creative Commons license" is meaningless. Which CC license, specifically? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- What about you doing your homework? I told you where to find its license. BTW, it's dual licensed, algo GPL'd. --Chewie 11:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's the role of those who believe an image should be kept to demonstrate its free status. The copyright file in the artwork package (which includes a variant of the logo) is CC-BY-SA-2.5. However, this is covered by trademark regulations so Delete.--Nilfanion 12:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The photo of a car or whatever is subject to trademark issues too. Even when you deny that the Logo is applicable for PD-inlegibile, everything is fine due to the cc-by-sa-license. I can't see on which basics the line is drawn here in trademark issues.--Wiggum 13:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's the role of those who believe an image should be kept to demonstrate its free status. The copyright file in the artwork package (which includes a variant of the logo) is CC-BY-SA-2.5. However, this is covered by trademark regulations so
- It's licensed under a Creative Commons license, see the COPYRIGHT file from the ubuntu-artwork package or this mail from Mark Shuttleworth. But that's not the point. The point is that it is free content under restrictive trademark clauses. However, it is, de facto, not free. --Chewie 13:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- PD-ineligible since it's only using standard format elements which existed long before.--Wiggum 12:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No trademarked images on Commons, please. --EugeneZelenko 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Quite apart from copyright and trademark issues, logos fall outside the project scope. "Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." Angr 12:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep As Wiggum pointed out, it is ridiculous to delete such a logo but to keep pictures of cars etc. They are both covered by the same trademark law. And yes, this image is useful because it can be used to illustrate a Wikipedia (which is a Wikimedia project) article about Ubuntu, for instance. --Phrood 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- To illustrate what exactly? A company's logo is irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about the company. Angr 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Trademarks make images non-free because they restrict commercial use—Wikipedia projects may not use images with restricted commercial use unless 'fair use' is being claimed. —JeremyA 01:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Is it similar situation like there Image:Vista-folder_ubuntu.png? The genuine trademark has any shadow below "Ubuntu circle" * --MaciejKa 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, the image is trademarked, but this is not a copyright violation. Admittedly, I would vote to delete a picture that was purely nothing but the Microsoft logo, especially if it was taken directly from the Microsoft website, but that is because it would likely be a copyright violation in addition to the question of trademark usage. If Microsoft released a version of their logo with a copyleft license, I'd vote to allow its usage. I don't see how including the image here violates the trademark. However, since it is possible for somebody to violate trademark law with this image, I see no problem tagging it with {{Trademarked}}. —TheMuuj Talk 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Since the restrictions put in the Ubuntu logo by Canonical explicitly disallow modifications ("Other than the variations listed here, the logo may not be modified in any way." [134]), the GPL claim by the author of that image is void, and therefore, the image is not suitable for Commons. --Fibonacci 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To clearify: I understand the difference between copyright and trademark. But I also believe that logos are generally not free to use - also compare this post by jimbo. I would agree to keep a trademarked logo only if it has a clear and very liberal usage policy (and is of course not encubered by copyright). The usage policy of the Ubuntu logo is very restrictive (just like the usage policy of Wikimedia logos, btw). It's effectively non-free beyond fair use. -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The image not copyrightable anyway as it lacks originality (de:Schöpfungshöhe, similar conditions apply to the US). So does the Microsoft logo. As far as copyright is concerned they may be used in any way you want. --Phrood 21:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Similar conditions do NOT apply in the US. US copyright law has a minimal creativity threshold, but it is very low; pretty much any creative design counts. Mechanical copyright, "sweat of the brow" as in UK law does not apply (does not meet that threshold) but pretty much any logo design qualifies for copyright protection. Morven 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, I thought I read somewhere that there are similar conditions in the US, though I can't remember where. Still, I find it hard to believe that such a simple logo could be protected. --Phrood 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fellow hobby-lawyers, i agree with the assumption that this work of applied art lacks originality. But if even we deny this assumption - there is a cc-by-sa license on it. The copyright is pretty clear, it's free. But would any of you please answer my above question about the line between allowed trademarked pictures and not allowed trademarked pictures?--Wiggum 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- You are of course right about ignoring trademark restrictions, otherwise it would be impossible to write a Wikipedia article about the FIFA World Cup™. I was just wondering whether the cc-by-sa license would still be effective in spite of the "no modifications" policy. --Phrood 06:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fellow hobby-lawyers, i agree with the assumption that this work of applied art lacks originality. But if even we deny this assumption - there is a cc-by-sa license on it. The copyright is pretty clear, it's free. But would any of you please answer my above question about the line between allowed trademarked pictures and not allowed trademarked pictures?--Wiggum 21:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hm, I thought I read somewhere that there are similar conditions in the US, though I can't remember where. Still, I find it hard to believe that such a simple logo could be protected. --Phrood 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Similar conditions do NOT apply in the US. US copyright law has a minimal creativity threshold, but it is very low; pretty much any creative design counts. Mechanical copyright, "sweat of the brow" as in UK law does not apply (does not meet that threshold) but pretty much any logo design qualifies for copyright protection. Morven 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- The image not copyrightable anyway as it lacks originality (de:Schöpfungshöhe, similar conditions apply to the US). So does the Microsoft logo. As far as copyright is concerned they may be used in any way you want. --Phrood 21:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Shizhao 11:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Alhen .::··¨ 12:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep People, keep this image! There are many more examples of such copyright violation, and those images are not considered for deletion. Deleting this image would be really bad choice, and it is used on many projects. --Emx 20:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please delete per above. In addition, this is a direct violation of Ubuntu's trademark policy [135] (no modifications allowed) -- Duesentrieb(?!) 20:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Since its use is restricted to articles about Ubuntu only, in effect fair use. / Fred Chess 11:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All flagrantly violate [136], and are thus copyvio. --Phil Sandifer (On en)
- Please see the discussion of this matter on Wikipedia John254 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Images have had the permission of the board and were created before the identity guidelines. had been put forward. Please take it to the board and if they find it to be a copyvio. They can delete it themselves. I'd like to point out they were asked about the issue twice so far and they had no objections before. --Cool out 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is untrue - they don't have permission of the board. They have a "Well we have no policy, so it's not not OK..." from the board, which, lacking an explicit exception to the rules (Which you do lack) is superceded by the creation of a policy. Phil Sandifer 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not talk behalf of the board and instead go talk to the board. I showed the images to the board twice they werent bothered by them. --Cool out 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're getting this so very wrong, but Angela's comment - the one linked from the image description - was not permission. It was, very explicitly, "We have no policy against this, and nobody has said 'don't do it'". Since then, an official policy has been put into force that CLEARLY states all usage must get permission, and that sets image ugidelines that this ignored. Absent a specific exemption from the board, which nobody has presented, the images are clear copyvio. Phil Sandifer 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Please do not talk behalf of the board and instead go talk to the board. I showed the images to the board twice they werent bothered by them. --Cool out 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is untrue - they don't have permission of the board. They have a "Well we have no policy, so it's not not OK..." from the board, which, lacking an explicit exception to the rules (Which you do lack) is superceded by the creation of a policy. Phil Sandifer 20:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- comment In the meantime the images have been deleted by AlisonW. NielsF 23:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Umm I'd request an imidate undelete since image description pages are gone which held the difs for the permissions (a key element of this deletion request). --Cool out 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:AlisonW is the head of Wikimedia UK. But she's not part of the Board, from what I can tell. How she became a sysop here is indeed a mystery as there is no record of it in the logs. Um... obviously there's more behind this debate than mere policy and copyvio concerns. Given that they have existed for some time, I'm not sure what the urgent concern to have them deleted yesterday actually is. Why doesn't someone just create nice logos that don't use the WM/WP logo in any form? pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I already started exploring that option. Images may be kept regardless though (assuming trademark comitee agrees). --Cool out 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- For information, subsequent to the above. The derivative images concerned were not explicitly authorised and were deleted as copyright violations. The fact they have been in existence for some time is a pity, but they - and all other unauthorised logos derived from foundation-copyright logos - are now being deleted as we find them in order to protect the Foundation logos. Editors are welcome to create logos which are not derivative, of course, and I would hope that they do. --AlisonW 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I think this was brought up again after the CVU pages themselves were deleted on English Wikipedia. I do not know if the CVU exists even outside ofg English Wikipedia, so probably until we get the mess sorted out there, let's keep the image out of the Commons for now. Once it is settled, then we will procede further. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I reviewed the entier issue and came up with this set of conclusions. Disagree if you will but at least hear me out.
- The CVU images were created before the visual identitiy guidelines.
- This only means that the creator (me) had no way of knowing these guidelines.
- This in no way should mean the images are expempt from the visual image guidelines. However in the light of this fact, no action should be taken until the board and/or the Trademarks committee hears and decides on the matter. I feel this is the least chaotic and most civil way to resolve the issue.
- The board did not object to the images nor give permission for them even though they had been prompted at least three times by my count
- I have mistaken that as a clear cut permission and for that I can be shot
- This should simply mean the board neither approves or disaproves the images at this point.
- The board members I talked to (Angela and Anthere) want the issue to be resolved through the Trademarks committee (from my understanding, correct me if I am wrong). The only problem is that none of the members of the Trademarks committee are avalible at least for a week.
- The CVU images were created before the visual identitiy guidelines.
- --Cool out 19:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
merged my comment here.
Image:Counter_Vandalism_Unit.png, Image:CVU2.5.PNG, Image:CVU2.PNG, Image:CVU2.svg.
- Although there is no official decission yet wether these images will be authorized by the foundation (Cool Cat request a foundation statement, see [137] and thread below [138]) some Wikimedians felt unhappy with them and they thus were speedy deleted by User:AlisonW with the reason that they are unauthorized.
- As this affects many "unauthorized" images sitting below Category:CopyrightByWikimedia
- and as the situation is unclear
- I thatfor restored them, did overwrite them with a cross and made them write protected (so that it can't be used in a way the Foundation potentially does not like, as it is still linked a lot on many pages) and transformed them into a normal deletion request. That way we can come to a more general solution on that matter in Commons for the future (I don't want to have that debate again and again) and everyone interested can have a look in order to be able making an own decission. As well that speedy deleted images are still used a lot and people would have probably uploaded them (or very similar images) locally without knowing that there is a debate going on and so matter would have come up again locally. With the help of the CommonsTicker local people will hopefully be alerted on the matter as well that there are certain things that need to be respected and can give feedback (Note: I never did participate in the w:en:Wikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit and never did care about it). Arnomane 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: If theses images has deleted because the "visual guidelines", lots of anothers in Category:CopyrightByWikimedia may need to be deleted too. 555 20:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. A copyright violation is a copyright violation, no matter how much it might get discussed, and WMF logogs are no different from any other copyvio in that respect. And yes, there are - sadly - lots of other unauthorised derivative logos in use on the different projects and they too will need to be deleted. The CVU just happens to have been first in that respect. I take no opinion on the CVU itself; this is about the mis-use of the copyrighted logos. --AlisonW 23:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- I seriously recomend waiting to hear from the board/trademark comitee rather than going delete-happy. --Cool out 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So what is the outcome of this discussion? Can we keep these images or do we have to delete them. Please someone decide quickly. --ALE! ¿…? 12:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Unauthorized unfree material... The Wikimedia logo is here at the discretion of the Wikimedia Foundation; all the while it is not free content, and shouldn't be regarded as such. / Fred Chess 12:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fetch from speedy delete. Claimed to be copyrighted, but does copyright apply to such simple creations? / Fred Chess 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep utility articles without elements that, "physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article." are exempt from copyright even if their appearance is "determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations"[139] --Rtc 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The design of the flag is copyrighted in Australia according to the Australian court case described here: [140].--Nilfanion 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- They have UK derived copyright law, don't they? Then it's not really unexpected. Yet this flag is not copyrighted in most parts of the world. --Rtc 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- But since it was created in Australia, it should be under Australian law. Unless there is a special provision in the Aussie law that makes this PD, then we should move it back on English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, the place where it was created is entirely irrelevant. According to the Berne Convention, works always enjoy the protection of the country in which they are actually used. For the purposes of commons, this place are the countries of those people requesting the files from the commons webserver. If you make a similar flag and it is not protected in your country, it will nevertheless be protected in Australia. Respecting "Sweat of the brow" countries such as the UK? Hardly possible in reality, if you ask me. --Rtc 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- "The countries of those people requesting the files from the commons webserver" will include Australia, what exactly can we license the image with? PD is inappropriate and "This image is free to use except in the following countries" seems daft to me.--Nilfanion 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- To be relatively clean, we'd have to make IP blocks for these pictures for the relevant countries (or block from display on commons and make only displayable through a set of specified wikipedias which by language are directed at a limited audience), which is not even technically implemented. Tagging perhaps by something like Template:PD-US (but merely tagging is futile, wikipedia users tend to simply ignore these warnings and use it anyway.) --Rtc 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- We can never be totally clean through that method (or any other) so I think delete. I did some hunting around and found further discussion on the en.wp fair use version of the image w:Image talk:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg.--Nilfanion 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- To be relatively clean, we'd have to make IP blocks for these pictures for the relevant countries (or block from display on commons and make only displayable through a set of specified wikipedias which by language are directed at a limited audience), which is not even technically implemented. Tagging perhaps by something like Template:PD-US (but merely tagging is futile, wikipedia users tend to simply ignore these warnings and use it anyway.) --Rtc 23:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- "The countries of those people requesting the files from the commons webserver" will include Australia, what exactly can we license the image with? PD is inappropriate and "This image is free to use except in the following countries" seems daft to me.--Nilfanion 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, the place where it was created is entirely irrelevant. According to the Berne Convention, works always enjoy the protection of the country in which they are actually used. For the purposes of commons, this place are the countries of those people requesting the files from the commons webserver. If you make a similar flag and it is not protected in your country, it will nevertheless be protected in Australia. Respecting "Sweat of the brow" countries such as the UK? Hardly possible in reality, if you ask me. --Rtc 23:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- But since it was created in Australia, it should be under Australian law. Unless there is a special provision in the Aussie law that makes this PD, then we should move it back on English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- They have UK derived copyright law, don't they? Then it's not really unexpected. Yet this flag is not copyrighted in most parts of the world. --Rtc 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep I saved a local copy on deWP. I don't think that's sense of commons. --Steschke 23:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is indisputably copyrighted (see Nilfanion's link) and was deleted from Commons before, when this was realised. Yes, it's a national flag. Our govt was a bit stupid and didn't check it was PD before making it a national flag, same with w:Torres Strait Islander Flag. Very straightforward delete case. pfctdayelise (translate?) 02:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete U.S. law (following the Berne convention) upholds the copyright of the country of origin. The wikimedia servers are in Florida and so images hosted here are subject to U.S. law. —JeremyA 01:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- No, it gives the work the protection it would be granted in the country of use (Schutzlandprinzip), there is no country of origin concept in Berne convention. --Rtc 01:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --Dodo 22:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The Australian Aboriginal flag is not copyright even if is on a server of Florida, because is not an american flag but an Aboriginal Flag, and is under the Australian Law that not provide the copyright--Zmlsf2b 07:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as trivial. Contains no original authorship. -- Denelson83 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Copyrighted, as evident by [141]. / Fred Chess 12:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Derivative work? If so, most of the images in Category:LEGO are as well. --Kjetil_r 05:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Then we would have to whack everything except perhaps T-fords and the like in Category:Automobiles and its subcategories..
As a layman I'd keep it.Scoo 17:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)- This is a good point. Why can we keep photos of cars and why not of toys like Lego? Photo copyright and design copyrights are different things. Aren't they? --ALE! ¿…? 10:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Having checked our policy on the matter I'm a bit more undecided. Think a bit more policy making & discussion might be needed and some more fleshed out thoughts on what man-made objects are OK and which ones are not (example below of commodities). Quite a difficult matter to decide where to draw the line. Scoo 17:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Most of the lego toys are too simple of an design to be copyrighted, as they are just bricks, Delete the lego human toys as derivitive work and Keep the rest Jaranda wat's sup 02:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It is still not decided if Commons accepts images protected by design copyrights (or patents)... Lego at least does not claim copyright or trademarks of its parts [142]... / Fred Chess 20:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't delete this just yet. I have some knowledge in the LEGO area, as well as connections within the firm, and will report back. But in general LEGO has a policy about images of their products, and of works made with their products which is quite fan friendly... see LEGO fair play policy which Fred refers to above.... NOTE that this policy is not quite compatible with GFDL as it does place usage restrictions. But it's primarily targeted at scans of their instructions and reproductions of THEIR promotional pics, not at things made with their product. (In general if this were to hold in the extreme, we could not have pictures of houses that used branded windows or building supplies... since Anderson windows (a US brand) are a trademarked product with patents in force and copyrights on the ad copy on the stickers. ) ++Lar: t/c 14:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I dont know. I do not believe LEGO owns copyrights to anything I design by using legos. Right? They should be only able to claim copyright to their own promotional material. --Cat out 09:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, how about closing it as a keep then... / Fred Chess 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Support that idea. ++Lar: t/c 13:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, how about closing it as a keep then... / Fred Chess 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I dont know. I do not believe LEGO owns copyrights to anything I design by using legos. Right? They should be only able to claim copyright to their own promotional material. --Cat out 09:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Olympiade_1972,_Ausgabe_1972,_Block_2,_25_Pf,_Sonderstempel.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_ddl.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ölgemälde_nach_Original_von_1700.jpg){kind=link}
_drydocked.jpg){kind=link}
_(photo_by_Carl_van_Vechten).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~san/schwarznozze.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](http://www.game-attitude.com/media/images/maj0200/Wii_remote5view_0501.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=725734669#File:Statue_in_front_of_the_European-Parliament.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Dienstflagge_Schleswig-Holstein.svg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FImage%3AYellow_star_Juif.gif&diff=2988253&oldid=2987605){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=728557282#File:Rockefeller_Center_Atlas1.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](http://www.halgal.com/graphics/PUR/Eurethnic.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](http://www.cjcr.cam.ac.uk/gateway/maps/Ethnic16.gif){kind=link}
![[36]](http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect11_files/11pic2.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FrenchCoins.jpg){kind=link}
_(1998).png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rowecki_Stefan.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Anhalt.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
![[61]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Lipadom.jpg){kind=link}
![[62]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archives10#Image:Lipadom.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3AAnais.jpg){kind=link}
![[64]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AHermann_Wilhelm_Goering_Offiziell.jpg&diff=70575412&oldid=70502374){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[70]](http://jeuxsoc.free.fr/c/cants_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[71]](http://jeuxsoc.free.fr/c/cants_06.jpg){kind=link}
,_Olympiade_1972,_Ausgabe_1972,_Block_2,_25_Pf,_Sonderstempel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Olympiade_1972,_Ausgabe_1972,_20_Pf,_Sonderstempel.jpg){kind=link}
,_Olympiade_1972,_Ausgabe_1972,_Block_2,_25_Pf,_Sonderstempel.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[93]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Metropolis_poster.jpeg){kind=link}
_ddl.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_ddl.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_ddl2.svg){kind=link}
_ddl.svg){kind=link}
_ddl.svg){kind=link}
![[94]](http://images.nachrichten.at/media/image_1156443334.jpg){kind=link}
![[97]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Kampusch_Dungeon.jpg&oldid=2788332){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%C3%96lgem%C3%A4lde_nach_Original_von_1700.jpg){kind=link}
_%C3%96lgem%C3%A4lde_nach_Original_von_1700.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_oil_painting.jpg){kind=link}
