Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
November 1
[edit]As per the image description page, this SVG image is the result of tracing the Caminhos de Ferro Portugueses logo from the free image de:Bild:Logo CP 2.jpg. However, iirc, the logo by itself would be considered fair use under copyright laws. Zzyzx11 04:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- in german wikipedia this would be "mangelnde schöpfungshöhe" and so public domain (and the image originally comes from de.wikipedia), so keep. HardDisk 17:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, maybe it's the wrong licence, but the image is not copyrighted because it's ineligible for copyright. I see no causes for a deletion (keep) --Jcornelius 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- It seems that there are some misinterpretions of the copyright laws concerning derivative works. The de:Bild:Logo CP 2.jpg could be released under a free licence because the image contains both the logo and the outside of the train, and therefore most likely falls within the protection of freedom of panorama. However, Image:Logo CP 2.svg is the logo by itself, and could be considered fair use under copyright laws just like en:Image:Cplogo.gif. Zzyzx11 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete on Commons but keep on de.wikipedia, because the ineligibility for copyright applies only in Germany. You couldn't use that on French, English, Spanish, Dutch ... Wikimedia projects, but it's okay for German Wikipedia (or Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikinews, Wiktionary ...). TZM de:T/T C 14:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Kept. If something is PD in local country, it is PD everywhere else. --Cat out 09:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Picture was taken around 1965 - the new church on the left side is already built. PD seems not reliable! --Herbert Ortner 10:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 18:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not the image being discussed here.. This is an image that falls outside the Commons:Project scope. I don't know why it wasn't deleted last time, since it is not suitable for Commons. It also upsets a lot of Italians. To prove a point, I'm planning on creating a batch of files inspired by this one; they should stay too, if this one stays. / Fred Chess 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think we have a «don't disrupt Commons to prove a point» policy, but en:Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point does have some good points, I think. Cnyborg 20:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)- Comment I do not believe there is a reason to delete it. It is just another barnstar for bold admins. --Cat out 01:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if the above image is only used on English Wikipedia, which I presume it is, just upload it at EN and delete the Commons copy. We should leave a note for George and the uploader and let them know what our decision was and ask them to not upload the image to the Commons again. I believe this could be a fair solution. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- If an image has a free license and has a use on another project, I think it should be on Commons; image hosting on local projects should be restricted to fair use only. We should never encourage people to upload free images to local projects.--Nilfanion 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to the checkuseage I have done, it is only used on English Wikipedia and I personally do not see how this could be used, in a positive way, in the other projects. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not clear on why you say that, can you elaborate? The notion of doing the right thing regardless of whether it's popular seems multiproject to me. I still want to replace this with a non red brigades associated image but moving it to en:wp seems to miss the point. ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to the checkuseage I have done, it is only used on English Wikipedia and I personally do not see how this could be used, in a positive way, in the other projects. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- If an image has a free license and has a use on another project, I think it should be on Commons; image hosting on local projects should be restricted to fair use only. We should never encourage people to upload free images to local projects.--Nilfanion 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep I am creating (and have proposed replacement of the current image with) an image (Image:Red1200px-Jolly-roger.png ... it will have a different name and be an SVG) that has no {{w:Red brigades|}} tie in. Howevre this example image is totally a POINT. I'm surprised really. There was no consensus to delete last time, why stir things up this way? ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)- To completely plaigiarise Bastique from the last 'go-round; "Taste" is not grounds for deletion at Commons. It's free, and the creator is an editor in good standing 71.232.223.29 14:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is that a keep or a comment? If you're a user here you may have forgotten to sign in? ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep FeloniousMonk 18:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The image Fred has made is clearly a en:WP:POINT and this whole request feels like that to me. The relevant part of the scope states "...files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project." This image is used on en.wikipedia so it falls into the scope of Commons at present (one WM project having a use for an image is enough it doesn't need to be multiple). Whether this image or not has value on en is open to debate, however it is up to that community to decide and the fact it IS used suggests en. wants it. If people on en believe this is inappropriately used, one of the following might make sense: a RFC on the use of the image or a MFD of WP:ROUGE.--Nilfanion 18:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am inclined to agree with that assessment. --Cat out 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Upload to enwiki and get rid of on Commons. If it's creating so many bad feelings. We don't want to offend any Italians.Definitely delete the WTC image. A bad point. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)- We have more controversial images here on commons such as Mohamed cartoons. I am concerned that a deletion with that rationale will lead to lots of political nonsense deletions. --Cat out 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Change to Keep ACK Cool Cat Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 18:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cool Cat, Do you really think that we should hold wikimedia humor to the same standard as internationally notable content? Does that fact that we'll block uses who are being rude mean we have to remove all mention of rudeness in the outside world? ... The image was obviously created to prove a point about the rosse image, .. and that point was not lost on me. --Gmaxwell 20:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Gmaxwell, the image up for deletion here is the rosse banner. The WTC image by Fred up above is being discussed seperately here.--Nilfanion 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Gmaxwell can you elaborate on whether you favour or oppose deletion? ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Gmaxwell, I am not sure what to make of your comment. Discussion is about Image:Rouge-Admin.png not Image:Administrator terrorist 2.png See the discussion about the svg below. --Cat out 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Change to
- We have more controversial images here on commons such as Mohamed cartoons. I am concerned that a deletion with that rationale will lead to lots of political nonsense deletions. --Cat out 18:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - As I said I would, I have created a .svg (my first real Inkscape image uploaded!) and will propose the image at right as a replacement for this image. If it's widely accepted by the rouge admins I'd support a third deletion request for the image being discussed. But not yet. Comments welcomed on my talk page or the image talk. ++Lar: t/c 21:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am inclined to treat the actual image (Image:Rouge-Admin.png) a copyvio since I just realized that it is in fact some sort of a logo (which raises questions about that image's pd status, but thats beyond the scope of commons). I am inclined to feel the replacement svg would solve this issue.
- --Cat out 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Query: Wouldnt it be better to make the bottom text "Rouge". Is rosse "rouge" in italian? --Cat out 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- The copyvio question came up in the first deletion discussion (or the one on en:wp that preceded it). An argument advanced then was that since the Red Brigades have no legal standing anywhere, they have no "presence" and therefore cannot hold a copyright to anything. No other organisation could (or to my knowledge, admittedly not extensive, has) assert such a copyright. So that's potentially a non issue. (and yes, rosse is rouge in italian. I'm not opposed to such a change. It's an SVG, anyone could change it...) ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well just recently images of the PKK flag and other illegal organizations were deleted. The flag is still copyrighted even though Italian courts would decline any kind of legal action over copyrights. --Cat out 10:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The copyvio question came up in the first deletion discussion (or the one on en:wp that preceded it). An argument advanced then was that since the Red Brigades have no legal standing anywhere, they have no "presence" and therefore cannot hold a copyright to anything. No other organisation could (or to my knowledge, admittedly not extensive, has) assert such a copyright. So that's potentially a non issue. (and yes, rosse is rouge in italian. I'm not opposed to such a change. It's an SVG, anyone could change it...) ++Lar: t/c 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the arguments presented are fallible.
First of all, as I have already said on my talk page, I realize that my uploading of "Administrator terrorist" was a case of bad taste, but I want to say that again...
Ok, so it has been said if a Wikipedia uses an image, and there is not copyright issue, then we should host it. IMO we have no reason to do that. Commons is a community with a scope. The scope does not include to host anything just because en-wiki wants to. I think we should be reasonable here. If en-wiki wants to use the image, then put it on English Wikipedia. This image only has a Wikipedia-meta purpose (I mean it can only be used internally) and we need to be careful about such content, just as recently userboxes were deleted from English Wikipedia, fair use was forbidden from userboxes, and so on.
If the Administrator terrorist image, the one I created, was used on some Wikipedia, would we then allow it?
Fred Chess 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No consensus. While there are some keep votes, a lot of comments brought up things that we will need to look into. However, please use the image Lar came up with if you want to. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Commons is not the place to advertise one's own music. Angr 07:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion due to inappropriate licencing. I'm listing it here for appeal. I attest that this picture was originally licenced on Flickr as CC-BY when I uploaded it. Flickr allows users to change the licence tag of the picture, and it's now labeled CC-BY-NC-SA. This however has no legal effect, since CC licences are irrevocable. Therefore, I submit deletion is not appropriate in this case - unless the community considers it very important that all licence tags be completely verifiable at all times. This would of course mean we'd have to delete most media on Commons. TheBernFiles 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Since you are the author you can do that I believe. So long as the original author agrees it is posible to do that. We have images released under multiple licenses... --Cat out 01:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify this: I'm not the author of this picture. Flickr user "dcols" is. He or she apparently changed the Flickr licence to a more restrictive one after I uploaded the Image to Commons. TheBernFiles 05:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I (or my spidering script really) saw this and the other image on Flickr with the CC-BY-2.0 license on 2006-10-02, 2006-10-09 and 2006-10-16. The licenses were changed somewhere between 2006-10-16 and 2006-10-30. --Para 12:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify this: I'm not the author of this picture. Flickr user "dcols" is. He or she apparently changed the Flickr licence to a more restrictive one after I uploaded the Image to Commons. TheBernFiles 05:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Can we just use the flickr license check templating to certify this image had that license as of that time and let it live? see for example... Image:BrassRing Flickr 206544455 48fdec2108 o.jpg I trust Para if Para said the spider saw it. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dcols in flickr changed the license to all his images (cc-by to cc-by-nc-sa). I tagged images that I had uploaded (Image:Teide nevado.jpg and Image:TranviaTenerife.jpg) and to these two because I did not know that the licenses CC are irrevocable. Sorry for my english. Edub 08:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The same case as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Turboprop P&W PT6A-67D.jpg above. TheBernFiles 19:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept, for the same reason as other deletion request. / Fred Chess 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
November 2
[edit]This image has been created solely to make a point. There is no conceivable use for it on Commons or anywhere in WM projects. We DO NOT actually have terrorist admins, nor do we want any, it was created to protest the existance of Image:Rouge-Admin.png ... On the other hand, we actually DO have Rouge admins, doing the Right Thing is something to be encouraged. ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. (which is me... I tend to agree with myself a fair bit!) ++Lar: t/c 13:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment you are the nom. :P --Cat out 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment ack the Chilly Kitty... corrected, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom — Timichal 18:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete ack lar. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'm not really sure there's anything else that needs to be said here. --Coredesat talk | en 22:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Yes, this is an early close but I feel a speedy is justified here, this has no purpose and is designed to be offensive. Also Fred has clearly created this image to make a point, he states as much here. Don't disrupt Commons to make a point, if you have an issue with the Rouge banner take it up on en.wikipedia.--Nilfanion 22:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
listed by TobyRush 15:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on the description page of the image:
- I am the uploader of this file. The file is flawed (it is missing city labels due to my misunderstanding of the SVG format) and has been superceded by a newer version. Since my Commons account was less than a day old when I uploaded it, I had to upload revisions as separate files. --TobyRush 15:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- These three images all seem speedyable to me. Just a straightforward supercede/rename, no need for consensus. UNLESS there is reason to retain one version that has no labels (which we often do for images that might be used on other language wikis than en: ...) ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Labels are easy enough to modify. If the non labeled version is needed by any, I'll gladly undelete them. --Cat out 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- These three images all seem speedyable to me. Just a straightforward supercede/rename, no need for consensus. UNLESS there is reason to retain one version that has no labels (which we often do for images that might be used on other language wikis than en: ...) ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am the uploader of this file. The file is flawed (it is missing city labels due to my misunderstanding of the SVG format) and has been superceded by a newer version. Since my Commons account was less than a day old when I uploaded it, I had to upload revisions as separate files. --TobyRush 15:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, superceeded by Image:Cities_destroyed_in_Jericho_TV_series.svg --Cat out 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
listed by TobyRush 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on the description page of the image:
- I am the uploader of this file. The file is out-of-date and has been superceded by a newer version. Since my Commons account was less than a day old when I uploaded it, I had to upload revisions as separate files. --TobyRush 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, superceeded by Image:Cities_destroyed_in_Jericho_TV_series.svg --Cat out 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
listed by TobyRush 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment on the description page of the image:
- I am the uploader of this file. The file is out-of-date and has been superceded by a newer version. Since my Commons account was less than a day old when I uploaded it, I had to upload revisions as separate files. --TobyRush 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted, superceeded by Image:Cities_destroyed_in_Jericho_TV_series.svg --Cat out 23:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Appears copyvio-ish. Certainly not amateur photographs. -- howcheng {chat} 23:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Found copies on the web here (among many others) and here. They would probably be OK as publicity-fair-use on en, but not on commons. Carl Lindberg 07:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --Bouncey2k 11:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
no commercial use. see [1]Shizhao 05:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Anna --ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
no PD, Stamp of China copyrightedShizhao 09:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
why is this map free use) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Michiel1972 (talk • contribs)
Map comes from the Port of Antwerp website, which produces copyrighted material. Author claims on talk page that the map is "free of use", I haven't found it. -- le Korrigan →bla 10:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 18:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
(wrongly identified species)Anne97432 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
An absolutely useless and bad photo of the mayor of a very little town in France (230 inhabitants). I really think it can be deleted. Mutatis mutandis 11:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- And do not forget Image:Francine-MIQUEL.JPG, the user really wants the photo to be here, I presume... Mutatis mutandis 11:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted the duplicate. Although this page is mainly about copyright, we also have to check the alignement with the scope of the project. The license is at least doubtful and the image probably out of scope. So: Delete --ALE! ¿…? 16:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted the duplicate. Although this page is mainly about copyright, we also have to check the alignement with the scope of the project. The license is at least doubtful and the image probably out of scope. So:
Deleted / Fred Chess 21:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
November 3
[edit]Reasons for deletion request: Image is a derivative work of a copyrighted figure and thus a copyright violation. A very very similar discussion was here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Piglit.jpg -- I suspect this image was created (with a simple "embossing" filter, it appears) in an attempt to avoid the problems that arose with the first image. However, the basic problem -- that this design for Piglet is copyrighted and thus any derivative image is unsuitable for Commons -- remains. Powers 02:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
GFDL doubtfulSiebrand 08:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a magazine cover, so the claimed PD seems very unlikely. Andre Engels 11:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is taken from a copyrighted web site where there is no indication of a free license for the image. The uploader has not made a clear statement of authorship, so it seems likely to be a copyright violation. BlckKnght 04:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This file does not display. Good kitty 16:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- hmm, maybe a problem with the file size? If you open the jpg it works perfectly but the thumbnail not --ALE! ¿…? 11:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept, this can be solved, deletion is not necessary. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 02:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio: PD-art can't apply because it a photography of a 3D object. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Samulili --ALE! ¿…? 11:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
the name of galileo galilei is pronounced in a wrong way. this does sound quite peculiar. i don't think we should use this spoken wikipedia article any further. Poupou l'quourouce 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. This image is used on de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Gesprochene_Wikipedia as "Excellent aufname". They will not be happy if we just delete it. Please discuss it with them first. / Fred Chess 13:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly the same as here: scans of photographies of 3D objects whose rights are owned by the museum. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --ALE! ¿…? 16:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is not 3D. -- AM 00:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- the sculpture is not under copyright but the picture of the sculpture is. A scan of that picture is a derivative work. Powers 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Photographic copyright applies. / Fred Chess 13:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
November 4
[edit]noncommercial and nonderivative according to Mozilla trademark policyTZM de:T/T C 08:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- On mozilla.org it says explicitly:
- Put one or more of these buttons on your website to help us spread the word about Firefox. We appreciate it!
- In the FAQ it says further:
- Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you?
- Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this:
- Firefox Banners and Buttons
- Thunderbird Banners and Buttons
- Thanks for your support :-) Of course you may. We have button programs for exactly this:
- Can I put Firefox or Thunderbird banners on my website? Can I link to you?
- You can find even more about that issue on their policy page:
- Linking
- So long as you don't do anything that might confuse visitors to your website, or that might violate the Overall Guidelines for Printed Materials, above, Mozilla invites you to link to Mozilla's website, including for the purpose of allowing your visitors to download the Mozilla Firefox Internet browser and Thunderbird e-mail client. Mozilla even provides the banners and buttons to facilitate the download of Mozilla software:
- Firefox Banners and Buttons
- Thunderbird Banners and Buttons
- The only exception to this policy is for site icons (favicons). If you plan to use a Mozilla trademark as a site icon, you need to request permission. Also, please remember that Mozilla disapproves of and does not provide "Best Viewed With" buttons, when used in connection with the Firefox Internet browser; Mozilla believe the web is best viewed with any standards-compliant browser.
- --Highpriority 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hello Highpriority!
- Wikipedia is not your webiste
- Wikipedia is not an advertizing platform to help spreading software products
- policy page says explicitely: "You can't put the Mozilla logo on anything that you produce commercially -- at least not without receiving Mozilla's permission."
- Wikipedia allows using of free licenses only like GFDL or CC-BY-SA but Mozilla allow using of an non-commercial license only. Non-commercial licenses are not allowed on Commons nor de:Wikipedia. Uploading a picture on Wikipedia must not restrict using of the pictures by Wikipedia users, it must be allowed to modify and to use the pictures commercially, e.g. in a printed edition of Wikipedia.
- -- Meph666 15:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did think of Wikipedia as a noncommercial/non-profit project, as written here. But if you're citing printed and sold instances of Wikipedia you're probably right. --Highpriority 17:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Images on commons can be used commercially. I should be able print any image on commons to a t-shirt and sell it.
- I did think of Wikipedia as a noncommercial/non-profit project, as written here. But if you're citing printed and sold instances of Wikipedia you're probably right. --Highpriority 17:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted for having a "non-commercial" license --Cat out 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
substituted though Explorer Satellites--Uwe W. 14:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
There are no deserts near Błędów, the contents of this category are now in Category:Błędów Desert, mind the singular form. Bansp 22:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by UserNilfanion --ALE! ¿…? 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
From http://www.omniglot.com/writing/tocharian.htm with noncommercial license. Commercial use require specific permission but no such evidence yet. Jusjih 18:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The creator clearly states that the image is for "non-commercial purposes only" on his web. If the uploader has a permission from the creator, show it to us.--Californiacondor 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Bouncey2k --ALE! ¿…? 14:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Reasons for deletion request Bongoman 16:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Is personal homepage. Same spam on sv Wiki.
- Deleted. Also deleted: Image:Love111.jpg, Image:Oskar111.jpg, Image:Julia111.jpg, Image:DSC00578.JPG, Image:DSC00550.JPG, Image:DSC00615.JPG. Wikimedia commons is not a webhost. --Cat out 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio: PD-art can't apply because it is a photography of a 3D object. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Cool Cat --ALE! ¿…? 15:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
doublette from Image:NSX_Cockpit1.jpg. NSX-Racer 07:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is copyrightes (see the link) and I see no proof that the copyright holder has given any rights on it. -- le Korrigan →bla 08:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
(source and author http://www.freeones.com/ does not own the copyright, which is not GFDL anyway) moyogo 09:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Site does not own files it claims are cc-by-sa 2.5. Copyfraud. -Nard 18:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Source given as the English Wikipedia. However the file at en is unsourced and there is no evidence to support the copyrighted free use claim -- JeremyA 19:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted. --Matt314 21:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio: PD-art can'y apply because it is a photography of a 3D object (cup). A better and free version is avalaible (Image:Douris cup Jason Vatican 16545.jpg). Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 22:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Superseeded by Image:AED Symbol.svg --Flominator 22:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The svg does not work properly --ALE! ¿…? 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Kept pfctdayelise (说什么?) 01:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio: Photography of a 3D object, PD can't apply. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Tagged no source since 29 August 2006 but indeed no license. The source website has a somewhat free license. I am unsure if it is acceptable here. Jusjih 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the uploader has had long enough to fix this. At first glance at http://www.python.org/about/legal/ the free Python license doesn't cover this logo. Reupload if proper source and free licence can be found. See also Image:Python-logo.png [2]. Alternatively upload this: http://web.archive.org/web/20050308071402/http://starship.python.net/~just/pythonpowered/ which is free content. --InfantGorilla 14:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, unknown license status. / Fred Chess 14:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the article in the German WP, where the image is used, the picture is drawn by Hans Jonas who died 1993 -- Matt314 18:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete artist died 1993 --ALE! ¿…? 10:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 13:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I question the validity of the copyright info used here. I have e-mailed willdee@gmail.com as requested on the image page, to no avail. The source of the image is stated as an image on the English-language Wikipedia that no longer exists.-- tariqabjotu 23:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've uploaded the image after I've seen it on the English Wikipedia, with the deails I've written, and so did Fanghong, as you can see in User talk:Fanghong#Image:Normal adr.jpg and Image:Hassan Nasrallah adr.jpg. I admit I haven't emailed the user to check out, as you have. As for myself, I wouldn't mind that the picture would be deleted, but there seems to be a little problem, since it's been used by many Wikipedias... Yuval Y 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is sufficient copyright info. By the way, the version on en.wikipedia was deleted because it did not have sufficient copyright status [3] and it looks like the local copy on de.wikipedia was also removed for the same reason.[4] Zzyzx11 06:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that the source is http://www.islamicdigest.net/v61gallery/displayimage.php?album=69&pos=100, where it's licencsed as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0 . We could contact the site owners, to find out who is the photographer and such. Unfortunatly, the "Contact us" is currently inactive. Yuval Y • Chat • 06:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Well, the source is no longer accessible, so there is no longer any way to verify the copyright status. / Fred Chess 16:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
November 5
[edit]request put forward by User:Palmtree3000 --ALE! ¿…? 22:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- It appears that Palmtree3000 already posted this image on Commons:Deletion requests/Superseded. [5] Zzyzx11 06:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
handled elsewhere --ALE! ¿…? 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
A very offensive and disturbing image of the chilean President, Michelle Bachelet, along with the word "conchetumare" that means "son of a bitch". Please, delete it and block the user that uploaded this image. Español: imagen ofensiva y perturbadora de la presidenta de Chile, Michelle Bachelet con un insulto muy fuerte. Por favor, bórrenla y bloqueen al usuario que subió la imagen.190.46.28.144 12:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Agree. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks more like vandalism. Zzyzx11 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. someone please warn the uploader in spanish. --Cat out 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is a redundant copy of Image:PAGEOS.jpg. It has a wrong filename as well - it doesn't show an w:Echo satellite, but w:PAGEOS instead. Abdull 15:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Image:PAGEOS.jpg is a smaller dimension image. Alphax (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
webpicture: www.spanelsko.infoRüdiger Wölk 21:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
most probably a copyvio. Image deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
November 6
[edit]clear copyvio as the image was taken 1962 and PD-USSR is obsolete.Taxman(de) 08:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Nilfanion --ALE! ¿…? 08:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Image is too tilted to be useful, and isn't used on any project. -- le Korrigan →bla 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete; derivative work of copyrighted 3D art. —Angr 11:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a "permanent installation" (it was removed in september 2006), therefore Panorama freedom does not apply. Delete. Teofilo 17:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- not permanent and therefore Delete --ALE! ¿…? 22:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
November 7
[edit]does not have sufficient information on its copyright status. the image should be deleted as 7 days after template added (21 October 2006) passed.--Gakmo 17:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Nilfanion --ALE! ¿…? 14:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Image is too tilted to be useful, and isn't used on any project. -- le Korrigan →bla 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Person pictured corresponds to a French activist, but the corresponding article has been deleted on fr.wikipedia. I think the picture is of no value for Commons. -- le Korrigan →bla 12:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
kept. The image is being used on the French Wikipedia --ALE! ¿…? 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Many images by this user appear to have copyright problems, often restricted licence. This and other maps claim to be self-made but are different in style and with unnecessary details, so may well be copied.JackyR 13:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Monica.navas 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC) It was the wrong picture
- Hm, it seems to be a duplicate of Image:Zarate.jpg. I tagged it {{Duplicate}} and removed the deletion tag accordingly. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
November 8
[edit](renamed as Image:Batalha.Araucaria heterophylla01.jpg) JoJan 06:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. Next time use {{Bad name|correct name}}. Yuval Y • Chat • 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The public domain is not clear : as far as I know, stamps are copyrighted in France. -- le Korrigan →bla 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the owner/maintainer of http://frosbo.org. I've now placed the entire site under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 License. The license is linked on the footer of every page, and in the T.O.S. regards.
This is a screenshot of the web site http://frosbo.org/ . The problem is that I have looked through this site back and forth, and have yet found any page that states whether its content has been released under either a copyleft or copyright licence. Zzyzx11 04:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
kept (there is a copyleft remark on the bottom of the front page) --ALE! ¿…? 10:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
No source specified, no date of production specified, no date of publication specified, no author specified. No reason to think that this is in the public domain.Ian Spackman 15:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
1947 edition, so unless the design was reused from an earlier edition, this is not PD. When asked to provide a source, uploader changed license and description, but he has clearly only taken a photo of the cover and is not the author. Could perhaps just be deleted as a copyvio, but as I said it might be an older cover that's been reused.Cnyborg 00:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the artist of the painting died 1929 (see: de:Rudolf Münger) --ALE! ¿…? 10:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please note: This deletion request is about the older version of the image. If it is decided to keep the older version, then the newer (the "pixellated" or "blurred" version) will either be deleted or uploaded under a different filename.
There has been discussion on en:Talk:Childhood_obesity#Picture_should_be_removed about this image. There is no evidence of consent from the girl on this picture. Since the purpose this image fills is derogatory to the girl, I can image possible problems with it some day.
I have for the time being uploaded a version with the girl's face blurred, which is also what they did on English Wikipedia. I don't think there is any problems with such a version, but there is the question on whether we should keep or delete the original. Fred Chess 21:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Wikipedia is not censored. Commons is definitely NOT censored. I am deleting this image for that reason as a non censored version is easy enough to create. --Cat out 10:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, I was originally going to speedy delete but failed to do so as firefox crashed and later forgotten about it all together. --Cat out 12:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- But you haven't deleted anything yet? I'm reopening this request until this has been clarified. / Fred Chess 13:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I was about to delete but my browser crashed. Very well, I'll let the discussion continue. --Cat out 08:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted The swedish witch ;-) is right this time (ein blindes Huhn findet auch mal ein Korn). Keep the new version, Fred did with mosaic. --Steschke 17:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the censored version (per above). The uncensored image is not flattering, but true and accurate images can not be defamatory. Second, the image serves a very significant editorial and social commentary purpose. Indeed, actuaries are currently lowering average American life expectancies specifically due to current rates of childhood obesity, and numerous articles have recently been published discussing this very topic. Third, there is no evidence to suggest that consent was not given. Rklawton 05:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous... we cannot operate on an assumption of permission being given, without any evidence whatsoever. I agree with Fred's actions. I am not really sure what is being voted on here (an unpixellated version, or the current version?), but I think only a pixellated or otherwise anonymised image should stay. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not only can you operate on the assumption, but you must. It's policy: assume good faith. Rklawton 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not believe the issue is about that. --Cat out 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, well that's good. I thought it might be since he stated "we can not operate under the assumption of permission being given." What exactly is this about, then? If it's simply a matter of renaming the image, I don't see any problems with that. If it's about deleting the pixelated image, then I'm all in favor. However, parts of this discussion seem to be about deleting the original image. Perhaps someone would like to restate "the question" and perhaps re-list the issues below so we might start afresh? Rklawton 17:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not believe the issue is about that. --Cat out 15:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am not certain if the image really needs to be anonymised. Wouldnt that be censoring? --Cat out 08:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly, this image is about identifying a fat child. It is not about identifying who this girl in particular is. Whether we crop her face out of the picture, or pixellate it, you can still tell she is a fat girl. So what information are we losing? Her specific identity -- and who is that important to? Her and people who know her... precisely the people who understandably might want to protect her identity in this situation. Wikimedia, OTOH, loses nothing. So are we going to be high and mighty about "censorship" for no good reason? It strikes me as remarkably petty and mean, for no good purpose whatsoever, if we insist that this girl must be identifiable. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- We have pictures of lots of people (ex Category:Children), not a single one should be pixelated. Perhaps image can be renamed to something less inflammatory but not pixelated or in anyway distorted. --Cat out 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Clearly, this image is about identifying a fat child. It is not about identifying who this girl in particular is. Whether we crop her face out of the picture, or pixellate it, you can still tell she is a fat girl. So what information are we losing? Her specific identity -- and who is that important to? Her and people who know her... precisely the people who understandably might want to protect her identity in this situation. Wikimedia, OTOH, loses nothing. So are we going to be high and mighty about "censorship" for no good reason? It strikes me as remarkably petty and mean, for no good purpose whatsoever, if we insist that this girl must be identifiable. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not only can you operate on the assumption, but you must. It's policy: assume good faith. Rklawton 15:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous... we cannot operate on an assumption of permission being given, without any evidence whatsoever. I agree with Fred's actions. I am not really sure what is being voted on here (an unpixellated version, or the current version?), but I think only a pixellated or otherwise anonymised image should stay. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- If we could be sure the picture would only be used in encyclopedic articles like Childhood obesity, I'd say keep the identifiable version and delete the pixelated version. Being fat is nothing to be ashamed of; showing a picture of an obese person and identifying them as obese is not insulting or derogatory. However... we can't be sure the picture will only be used for encyclopedic purposes. It's freely licensed (duh) so people can use it for all sorts of things. I'm obese and I used to have a nude picture up at Obesity, which I later deleted not because I had a problem the encyclopedic use of the picture, but because I kept finding it being misused at BJAODN and "humorous" user subpages and the like. Therefore, because of the potential of the picture being misused by immature people who think fat people are somehow inherently funny, I say delete the identifiable version and keep the pixelated version. —Angr 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Our job in commons is to provide images. Their potential misuse is unfortunately not a criteria for deletion. --Cat out 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Absent positive proof of consent, delete both versions. WITH informed consent (a model release might be a good start), keep either or both, as the community perfers. Consent is not something to just assume is granted, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not understand why "consent" matters at all. --Cat out 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Non public people have the right (in the US, where these servers live) to not have distinguishable likenessees of them published. Only the already famous do not have this right. Unless this image is of a child movie star or other famous person, the consent of the depicted is required, as I understand it. The uploader alleges consent but offers no substantiation. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is flat out incorrect. There exists no such privacy protection for private individuals when taken in public, and who have no expectation of privacy, and when used for editorial (or even more signifiantly, social commentary) purposes. Please do not invent U.S. laws to "prove" your point. Rklawton 03:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that. My problems are:
- We do not work with local laws like that on commons to my knowledge. For instance, Nazi symbols are not deleted on commons as per local German laws. Nor do we delete pictures (drawings) of Mohammed as per various local laws. Nor is the picture of Mohammed is pixelted. Servers are not just in the US
- I disagree in the existence of such a law or perhaps the level of its implication portrayed here. An average CNN live/recorded coverage or CNN.com coverage portrays many non-famous people on a daily basis. People do not necessarily have to be related to the news.
- I also disagree about the potential misuse. She isn't that overweight. And to be blunt, potential misuse should never be a deletion criteria like this.
- --Cat out 03:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cool Cat, we are indeed bound by US law, the Foundation has a US legal existance. We are not bound by EVERY law in every country, but we are bound by US. I prefer to act in a way that is cautious and that protects the foundation. Has anyone asked Brad Patrick about this yet? That would be a quick way to settle this, since he is the foundation legal counsel. ++Lar: t/c 11:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Non public people have the right (in the US, where these servers live) to not have distinguishable likenessees of them published. Only the already famous do not have this right. Unless this image is of a child movie star or other famous person, the consent of the depicted is required, as I understand it. The uploader alleges consent but offers no substantiation. ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not understand why "consent" matters at all. --Cat out 19:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete (non-pixelized version) this one is quite obvious to me. This is a portrait of non-public person so if there is no consent then this must be deleted (or changed beyond recognition). This is all stayed in Commons:First steps/License selection and in Commons:Licensing. We can't forget that we are all in US (in a way), so US law is always the main issue here. --Nux (talk••dyskusja) 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, there exists no U.S. law (zero, zip, and nada) that prohibits the publication of a private citizen's image for editorial purposes - and most especially not one that prevents publication for purposes of social commentary (one step more significant than "editorial"). Before folks go making up U.S. laws, please make sure they exist. Next: there is ZERO evidence to suggest that consent was not given, and it is policy to assume good faith. Rklawton 03:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, pictures uploaded to Commons are not only for "social commentary" they are for any purpose including any commercial purposes. AFAIK this is a solid rule here. Secondly if we would work things out as you suggest I could upload thousands of images that are i.e. copvio of Microsoft and then say something like: "Oh, no you can't delete them, you have to prove that Microsoft haven't given me permission to do upload tehm here." We have policies here - we should work accordingly to them. By "good faith" we may assume here that the uploader didn't mean no harm and just didn't know. --Nux (talk••dyskusja) 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is it Commons or the contributor who certifies an image's permission for any purpose? If it's Commons, then Commons is assuming a lot of risk. It makes more sense for Commons to require a copyright notice (it does), remove known illegal uses (it does), and leave use negotiations between the prospective publisher and the model(s). Note that I didn't say photographer – I've already provided a limited copyright. Why with the model? It should be obvious that even an "any use" model release won't hold up in trial if a publisher chooses to use an image to illustrate an advertisement for condoms featuring a Commons image of a woman in the role of an "unrepentant crack whore" – especially when the image originally illustrated an article about body piercing or some other unrelated topic. Neither Commons, nor even the photographer, can imagine and accommodate every possible use for an image in advance. Therefore Commons needs to be very careful when it says "sure, use our images for anything you want." That's simply not always the case. A publisher may use my images as specified by the copyright I've posted, but they may still need to be certain that the model has approved that particular use. In cases of editorials (as in the present case), no additional releases are required so long as the image is true and accurate to the subject (again, no fair illustrating an article on crack whores with a photo of someone who isn't). On the other hand, if someone wants to use this particular image in a demeaning way, say to illustrate a "1,001 Fat Kid Jokes" book, they'll want to seek specific permission from the model no matter how many signed copies of an "any use" release I may have. In such a case, a court would likely hold an "any use" invalid under the "unconscionable" principle. This issue is important because it applies not only to the image in question, but to any image in Commons featuring a recognizable person – even if it's a self-portrait.
- First of all, pictures uploaded to Commons are not only for "social commentary" they are for any purpose including any commercial purposes. AFAIK this is a solid rule here. Secondly if we would work things out as you suggest I could upload thousands of images that are i.e. copvio of Microsoft and then say something like: "Oh, no you can't delete them, you have to prove that Microsoft haven't given me permission to do upload tehm here." We have policies here - we should work accordingly to them. By "good faith" we may assume here that the uploader didn't mean no harm and just didn't know. --Nux (talk••dyskusja) 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, there exists no U.S. law (zero, zip, and nada) that prohibits the publication of a private citizen's image for editorial purposes - and most especially not one that prevents publication for purposes of social commentary (one step more significant than "editorial"). Before folks go making up U.S. laws, please make sure they exist. Next: there is ZERO evidence to suggest that consent was not given, and it is policy to assume good faith. Rklawton 03:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, Wiki is not censored. Wikimedia is a US-based organisation, so US laws comes in first. --Terence Ong 03:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is NO such law! No law prevents the use of an private person's image for editorial purposes. Seriously folks, if you are going to use U.S. law as an excuse to delete an image, the least you can do is cite the law (you won't find it). Perhaps you could do a little bit of research before posting nonsense. Rklawton 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm sorry. Pardon me this time, thank you. --Terence Ong 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- What I find odd here is that you asserted you had consent initially, if I'm not mistaken. When you were asked to provide it you've changed tacks and asserted you don't need it. Why the change in story? Why the argumentativeness? Claiming that people are posting nonsense is not really a good way to convince them of anything. Please try to be more collegial if you could. As for cites, there is a very good article on this topic that was cited quite recently in a similar discussion. If no one else can remember it (it was written by a US based professional photographer and gives lots of legal cites) I'll try to dig it up. I'm also afraid that since pictures here have to be usable for any purpose, the social commentary argument won't work. That's a fair use sort of argument, not a free argument. ++Lar: t/c 11:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is NO such law! No law prevents the use of an private person's image for editorial purposes. Seriously folks, if you are going to use U.S. law as an excuse to delete an image, the least you can do is cite the law (you won't find it). Perhaps you could do a little bit of research before posting nonsense. Rklawton 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep the old version, the pixellation hides important details (mouth is open, she missed her mouth, and the intriguing expression on her face). Alphax (talk) 04:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Delete both. Alphax (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)- Delete both old version risks harming the subject, new version is ugly. Both versions fail to be NPOV, they are politically and emotionally loaded rather than clinical. The overwhelmingly embarrassing nature of the image is a distraction from the real subject, and the overtly paparazzi style imparts an air of non-professionalism and shock-journalism to what should be a dispassionate article on a health subject. --Gmaxwell 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are welcome to criticize my work. It sounds pretty POVish, but that's OK. However, your not liking my work has no bearing on whether or not it should be censored or deleted. Rklawton 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Years later I'm unsure why I took the 'both' approach here. The pixelated version satisfied our ethical requirements and was actively in use, by a consensus of editors, on enwp. Today I would have just recommended deleting the non-pixelated version. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete pixel version, I'd suggest (a sort of a third option) a black rectangle around the eyes (and deletion of original), as my layman opinion. Perhaps this discussion could be split in several sections for pixellated and unpixellated, rather a mess right now. Scoo 18:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the unpixelated version. (Ideally, I would like the entire picture replaced with that of someone who is identifiable but has given consent.) I find the cries of "censorship" here to be off the mark. It is unethical to use the image of a person who has not given consent on such a sensitive topic, and I do not wish to participate in an unethical project. Would you approach this girl's parents and ask them if they approve of this use? The girl herself? If you wouldn't, why do you think it is acceptable to post it here? If you would, why didn't you -- or if you did, why don't you mail the Foundation and provide proof and thus end the discussion? This is not a public figure who is fair game. This is not a person who won't be affected by the decision to leave this picture up. This is a minor whose image is being used in a way she and her parents would almost certainly not approve of. (I would not want to be this girl where her classmates at school find out that she is, literally, the picture of childhood obesity.) Removing her picture is not "censorship." If some of us wished to delete *any* picture of overweight children, consent or no consent, you might have a point there. Instead, it's avoiding the unethical (and legally shaky, but I'm no expert) behavior of exploiting the image of a minor, a private person, who has not agreed that her image may be used for this purpose. Mindspillage 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the unpixelated version and pixelate this version more. It is doing a bare minimum of obscuring the identity of this girl. This is a minor and no consent was given. Mindspillage has got it exactly right. Pschemp 02:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No clear evidence of consent. Zzyzx11 04:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove the unpixelized version, reasons were given by Mindspillage. Freedom ends when you harm other people in a serious way. "Look, it's the fat child we've seen at Wikipedia!" --32X 15:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the unpixelated version. I looked at the posts that Mindspillage did and weighing what she said, we should take the high ground and delete the version. There are plenty of things that the US law allows us to do, but Jimbo and others took a stand in order to become better than the others on the Net. We should stay that way. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Lar, please consider the following:
#Your "any purpose" argument isn't valid. If it were, you'd have to delete all the ShareAlike 2.5 images because they specifically prohibit commercial use.- It's not likely a judge would accept a blanket "any purpose" model release in all cases as some image uses could easily be considered "unconscionable". For example, what if a model signed an "any purpose" release and then someone else used that image to illustrate a work depicting the model as an "unrepentant crack whore"? A judge would likely throw out any "release" that did not expressly state this use.
- Lastly, a model release is not a contract. They are nice, but they are not binding. A model can withdraw his or her consent at any time after signing a release.
- Please consider criticizing editors who post unsupported "facts" about which they know nothing, to wit: U.S. law. It's dishonest, and it's disruptive to the discussion process. Rklawton 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Rklawton, you're in no position to criticize others. Your clear disregard for the welfare of the subject of the photograph is obvious and nothing to be proud of.
- Often model releases are a contract, at least when the model is compensated for their work.. Such agreements are obviously not our intention here, but the existence of a model release would likely prevent the subject from obtaining damages in all but the most over the top cases (your crack whore example, for example).--Gmaxwell 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in law, it is the over-the-top cases that set the rule. Rklawton 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
References
[edit]- Krages, Bert Esq., "Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images" 2nd Ed. Amerherst Media, Inc, Buffalo, NY (2006). See especially "Chapter 3: Privacy Issues" Rklawton 04:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Template_talk:Deletion_requests/Archive_2#Model_releases (remember that policy here may be more restrictive than the applicable law, but ultimately cannot be less restrictive) ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Note also that I've sent Brad Patrick a note about this. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Having an attorney look at the issue is a great idea. Keep in mind, though. Attorneys are like doctors. They specialize. You'll want to make sure to consult an attorney who specializes in copyrights. Rklawton 15:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- In *copyright*? No. You're off in space on that point, sir. In any case, there is nothing fundamental about this subject which demands legal complexity... that this image is creating reasonable concerns is a strong sign that its an inappropriate image.--Gmaxwell 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Intellectual Property is indeed a legal speciality. Also, the fact that this image has generated discussion simply indicates that it is a powerful image indeed. Your other POV comments are interesting, but POV nonetheless. Rklawton 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Brad Patrick is not just some attorney. He is the Wikimedia Foundation attorney. If he speaks up about this issue, then the discussion is over, we do whatever he says and that's that. No longer, at that point, even debatable. ++Lar: t/c 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Intellectual Property is indeed a legal speciality. Also, the fact that this image has generated discussion simply indicates that it is a powerful image indeed. Your other POV comments are interesting, but POV nonetheless. Rklawton 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- In *copyright*? No. You're off in space on that point, sir. In any case, there is nothing fundamental about this subject which demands legal complexity... that this image is creating reasonable concerns is a strong sign that its an inappropriate image.--Gmaxwell 15:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's another reference: Commons:Licensing#Checklist... under Definitely NOT OK: Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent to being photographed. Absent proof of consent, or a change in policy, this image is open and shut deletable (regardless of law, that's Commons policy, no consent == not ok). If you uploaded this to try to get policy changed, bad approach. I for one do not look kindly on breaching experiments or those that carry them out (and from your comments on Fred's page, it looks to me like that might be what you're doing. Don't do that.). ++Lar: t/c 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
On being better than we have to be
[edit]In my opinion, Wikimedia falls down without goodwill. Complying with the letter of the law is nice, and necessary, of course. But we don't stop there and do everything we can up to that point just because we don't have to do otherwise.
Sometimes we do things because it's the right thing to do. And because of that, people generally feel good about what we do, and it makes them want to 1) be part of the project or at least generally supportive of it, and 2) not relish the opportunity to "get" us when we do screw up, which, as will surprise none of you, sometimes happens.
As it happens, this is written into Commons policy: we require that people have consent. And no, we don't make a big issue of it most of the time, though ideally we'd have it for all of them. Most photographs of people are so normal and innocuous that it would take take significant effort to twist them into something that would cause harm to the subject. In general, no one cares if a photograph of herself standing in line at Disney or walking along the street is published all over. But people do care when very embarrassing pictures are publicized. Schoolchildren are really terrible to each other; I can just imagine the picture of the class fat kid with ice cream all over her face getting passed around the school and posted on her classmates' MySpace pages with, um, "critical commentary". (Why, yes, I am thinking of real-life examples.)
I don't see how someone can find it ethically acceptable to publish a work that is likely to cause great emotional harm to the subject unless it's either very clear that the person understands and accepts the use or that the specific image in question is so important that it cannot be replaced. I don't care what the letter of the law says. (Though for my own curiosity, I am looking up case law.) That's not what we do here, that's not what the project is about. It won't kill us to wait a few months if need be to find a picture that is fully acceptable. It will lastingly damage us to have a reputation for not caring about the effect our practices have on people. Mindspillage 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- The ethics do make an interesting side topic. To wit: a child's health and life are at risk and folks worry about her feelings... That's a rather odd set of ethical priorities. Rather than hunt down her family to see whether or not they gave permission to publish her photograph, why isn't there a hue and cry to hunt them down and prosecute them for child endangerment? Note also that this concern about ethics is a matter of personal opinion (read: POV) and violates the NPOV policy. Actually removing an image for POV reasons would constitute censorship - another policy violation. Rklawton 04:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a very simple question for you: will you look this girl's parents in the eye and say "I am proud that I have publicly ridiculed your daughter on a high-traffic website and I have no regrets for what I have done"? Alphax (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think that putting such words in other people's mouths might not be construed as civil. Rklawton 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps her health and life are at risk: are we helping her by publishing her identifiably in the picture? I don't think we are. The child's parents are not here for their actions to be scrutinized. You are. I cannot know what their situation is and cannot influence it; I can influence the publication of the picture. And I don't consider the ethical concerns my personal opinion. I consider it in line with the goals of the project not to cause harm to people where we can achieve our goals by choosing another course of action. If you say I am a "censor" for that, well, then, yes, I suppose I am. Mindspillage 04:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a very simple question for you: will you look this girl's parents in the eye and say "I am proud that I have publicly ridiculed your daughter on a high-traffic website and I have no regrets for what I have done"? Alphax (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am closing this debate and deleting the image as per clear consensus and as per commons policy requiring people's consent in the light of Mindspillage's arguments.
- I am deleting both versions since a pixelated version of the image is no longer within the project scope of commons since the point of the image is to identify an overweight child and when pixelated that cant happen.
- I feel the necessity to add like to add that I am completely disregarding comments related to "ethics". That should never be a deletion criteria.
- --Cat out 10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've restored the pixelated image. Deletion reason is invalid. A pixelated version was used on the English article, and you can see on that article's talk page that they wanted that version. Furthermore, the image is used on other Wikipedias. / Fred Chess 11:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- At any rate, if you disagree with me, do not close the request again. Discuss it with me on my talk page or at the COM:AN. / Fred Chess 11:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- See Commons:Licensing#Checklist. In the light of overwhelming consensus above and as per Commons:Licensing, I am inclined to redelete the image soon though I do not have any reason to rush it. I prefer the discussion to take place on COM:AN. --Cat out 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Pixellated version kept, original kept deleted. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
November 9
[edit]Not PD. The artist died in 1963 (and there is no evidence of pre-1923 publication in the US). -- JeremyA 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 12:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
PD unlikely. The artist died in 1963 (and there is no evidence of pre-1923 publication in the US). -- JeremyA 02:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 12:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio: this image comes from http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/b/bandinel/index.html, and PD-art can't apply because it is a 3D object (statue). -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 16:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I believe this is an obvious case of 3D/2D PD-Art confusion. {{Copyvio}} should be applied. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --ALE! ¿…? 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
from 1996 Encyclopedia Britannica, is PD or copyvio?Shizhao 03:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment It depends. If the background was actually scanned or traced directly, then it is a copyvio. If the uploader cropped an existing PD image of the region using a picture from the Encyclopedia Britannica as a model, then it probably is not. Zzyzx11 01:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, not worth the risk to keep it. / Fred Chess 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not so much a deletion request but a clarification request. This image is currently tagged as {{MosNews}}. MosNews credits the image to Lenta.ru, who credit the image to their photographer V. Vsevoloda. Lenta.ru has a licensing statement (in Russian) that allows the free republication of any of the works (text or images) on which they hold the copyright, subject to attribution to Lenta.ru. (Third-party works published by Lenta.ru do not fall under that permission as the copyright is retained by those third parties.) However, they make no mention of modifications. Contrary to {{MosNews}}, they do not state their works were PD. Is their statement good enough for us or not? If yes, keep; if no, delete. Lupo 09:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I think such clarifications are necessary in every case like this (for example, {{Kremlin.ru}} - however, my e-mail was ignored). --EugeneZelenko 15:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If kept, it should be tagged properly. It's not a MosNews image. Lupo 16:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I thought that Mosnews.com and Lenta.ru are very close entities run by the same people. But I re-read the copyright notice tag on Mosnews as well as the copyright policy of lenta.ru (and their Lentapedia for goodness sake [6]) and I think the image should be deleted as copyvio. It is a low quality image and does not worth seeking permissions. I am the original uploader, so I guess we can use speedy Alex Bakharev 00:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 17:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio, see Commons:Derivative_works:
- Photographs of buildings and artworks in public spaces: derivative works, but may be OK, if the artwork is permanently installed (which means, it's there to stay, not to be removed after a certain time). Check on Commons:Licensing if your country has a liberal policy on the exception from copyright called freedom of panorama.
- (...)
- Positive for buildings, but negative for sculptures: Finland, Norway, USA
Julo 22:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a work for hire paid for by the US Federal Government, which puts both the statue and any pictures thereof into the public domain. Raul654 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is nonesense. The copyright still lies with the author. --ALE! ¿…? 08:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wrong. w:en:Work for hire: A work made for hire (sometimes abbreviated to work for hire) is an exception to the general rule that the person who actually creates a work is the legally-recognized author of that work. According to copyright law in most countries, if a work is "made for hire", the employer—not the employee—is considered the legal author. Raul654 16:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
If it is true - it has to be clear descripted under the photo. It is your job, not of mine.
And, don't be so rude like here, few billion of people around the world do not know who has paid for this work... Julo 20:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's likely a work for hire, if not it would likely be a different sculptor, the US government clearly owns the rights of the memorial. PD keep, note some extra research should be done 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. From what I can find, the FDR Memorial is controlled by the National Park Service, and considered to be in the public domain. / Fred Chess 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
November 10
[edit]This is a flyer for a current (political) event. Clearly violates commons guidelines for contents to be "useful for any Wikimedia project can be uploaded" - this content is exactly what wikipedia is not. Odedee 07:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted for being a copyvio. Otherwise would have been kept. --Cat out 10:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The following images have been modified by me, but uploaded with different file names in order to protect the originals. However, the files' creator said I should have just overwritten the original files (see [7]).
-Superbfc 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, so your files should be uploaded over mine, not mine deleted...
- That's the correct process for enhancing pictures...
- So
- Image:Haxo1.jpg should be uploaded over Image:Haxo.jpg and deleted
- Image:Haxo3.1.jpg should be uploaded over Image:Haxo3.jpg and deleted
- Yes, I tried to do that, but my account is too new, so I can't overwrite files. This was the only way to upload the enhanced image. Grrr, this is so complicated (sa c'est une affaire meme!!) — Superbfc 00:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, commons allows 'come and see my blog picture' but is restritive for regular uploaders...
- Gonioul 00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - withdraw deletion request. would someone who has a less newer account please do the necessary file updating, as thus:
- Image:Haxo3.1.jpg needs to replace/overwrite Image:Haxo3.jpg and then be deleted; and
- Image:Haxo1.jpg needs to replace/overwrite image:haxo.jpg and then be deleted
- Thanks — Superbfc 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd prefer some admin to do this, I don't know if my account allows it...
- Gonioul 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Overwriting works for me and Superbfc has been credited for enhancements.
I'll move anylinks from enhanced images to standard images.
This deletion request is closed.
Please note that superbfc may work on other Paris metro ghost stations and should be granted overwrite rights on my pictures.
Gonioul 03:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Checkusage down to zero for Image:Haxo3.1.jpg and Image:Haxo1.jpg Gonioul 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Ignis deleted both images. --Cat out 19:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
PDF file, cannot open once downloaded, appears to be corrupt.Gurch 05:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Corrupted pdf. --Cat out 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
no source, no proofable permuission217.82.92.160 22:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Only copyright info seems to be "©2002 Dr. Oliver Wolleh, Berlin" on the cited source. --Cat out 09:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 19:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
There's more in category:Lothar Wolleh. --217.82.95.126 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
(no source, no proofable permission)217.82.92.160 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Only copyright info seems to be "©2002 Dr. Oliver Wolleh, Berlin" on the cited source. --Cat out 09:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Requires explicit permission:
For general inquires on exhibitions of Lothar Wolleh´s work or internet reproduction of photographic material please contact:
- Delete -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 19:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Image is copyrighted by sxc.hu and commercial use is forbidden. GeorgHH 20:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- According to Commons:Stock.xchng images, images from sxc.hu uploaded before 29 December 2005 are OK. This was uploaded in Feb 2005, so it would qualify for that. 68.98.152.184 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Request is to rename to Category:Shuttle Buran program, as this category shows several Buran test articles, as well as the space-flown vehicle. Schuminweb 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! ¿…? 14:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
chosen licence doesn't fit given permission: gfdl <=> "nur für redaktionelle Verwendung zum Thema Wilfried Erdmann" JD {æ} 21:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Andre_bispo (talk • contribs) has uploaded a number of images from Flickr with invalid tags. Suspect that all of this user's contributions will be unfree. Alphax (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- To elaborate: uploads by this user are (were claimed CC-BY-SA-2.0 unless noted otherwise)
- From flickr, free:
- Image:Frevo.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-2.0)
- Image:Sertao.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-2.0)
- Image:Chapada diamantina.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-2.0)
- Image:Carnauba ce.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-2.0)
- Image:Salvador city view.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-2.0)
- Image:Aeroporto do recife.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-2.0)
- Image:Maceio fest.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-2.0)
- From flickr, free:
- From flickr, presumed unfree:
- Image:Mata atlantica.jpg (Flickr, All Rights Reserved)
- Image:Museu Theo Brandao.jpg (Flickr, All Rights Reserved)
- Image:Favela Maceio.jpg (Flickr URL is wrong)
- Image:Ponta Verde2.jpg (Flickr, All rights reserved)
- Image:Onibus real.jpg (Flickr, All rights reserved, tagged with flickr-change-of-license by on 27 September 2006 by myself (Alphax))
- Image:Onibus maceio2.jpg (Flickr URL is wrong, tagged tagged with flickr-change-of-license by on 27 September 2006 by myself (Alphax))
- Image:Apartamentos em Maceio.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0)
- Image:Ponta Verde.jpg (Flickr, All rights reserved)
- Image:Delta do parnaiba.jpg (Flickr, All Rights Reserved)
- Image:Carro quebrado.jpg (Flickr, All Rights Reserved)
- Image:Caatinga.jpg (Flickr, All Rights Reserved)
- Image:Agreste.jpg (Flickr, All Rights Reserved)
- Image:Sao Francisco Xingo.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0)
- Image:Rio sergipe.jpg (Flickr, All rights reserved)
- Image:Ponte barra dos coqueiros.jpg (Flickr, All rights reserved)
- Image:13 de julho.jpg (Flickr, All rights reserved)
- Image:Catedral metropolitana.jpg (Flickr, Cc-by-nc-nd-2.0)
- Image:Aeroporto Maceio.jpg (Flickr, All rights reserved)
- From flickr, presumed unfree:
- Unknown:
- Image:Fotos 044.jpg (Claimed GFDL-self)
- Image:Rmm mapa simples.png (Claimed PD-self)
- Image:Maceio in Brazil2.png (Claimed self-made and GFDL, cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0)
- Unknown:
- Deleted:
- Image:Altv.gif (No license)
- Image:Zona da mataa.jpg (Flickr URL was wrong)
- Image:Recife01.jpg (Claimed self-made and GFDL, cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0, but All Rights Reserved on Flickr)
- Deleted:
- Please go through these and mark the status of them on this page. Alphax (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I've marked the status - can we get the unfree or dubious ones tagged {{delete}}, linked here, and looked into further? Alphax (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, most of the images are unfree, no Creative Commons license added. Violates Commons policy. --Terence Ong 03:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep the cc-by-2.0 images, but Delete the others which came from Flickr. Does your flickr-change-of-license script show what the previous license was? If those were previously legal, maybe keep those. Image:Favela Maceio.jpg's URL is [8]; it is marked as cc-by-nc-nd 2.0 there and so should be deleted too. As for the remaining ones (some have been deleted already) that are claimed self-made, two are annotated maps (somewhat plausible) and one was uploaded much later than all the Flickr ones (plausible), so I could see keeping those. Carl Lindberg 05:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Flickr doesn't keep the history of image licensing; even though CC licenses are non-revocable, Flickr lets people change the licenses on their photos at any time, and doesn't indicate what the previous license is, which is a real pain. Alphax (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you have a Flickr account, you can always contact the photographer (via email or comment) to see if they had changed the licensing. howcheng {chat} 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Flickr doesn't keep the history of image licensing; even though CC licenses are non-revocable, Flickr lets people change the licenses on their photos at any time, and doesn't indicate what the previous license is, which is a real pain. Alphax (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted (that took like an hour...) I also blocked the user in case they decide to return. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
November 11
[edit]Uploader claim of PD-self seems unlikely. (See also Image:Stanley2.jpg & Image:Stanley84.jpg) -- JeremyA 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
All three deleted. --Cat out 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
We've got the same portrait in apparently a better quality at Image:Voltaire.jpg Shry tales 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
All wikis updated and image deleted. --Cat out 02:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Please see Commons:Village pump#Administrators and other languages --Zirland 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:WarX --ALE! ¿…? 22:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyvios: these are book covers; they should be tagged fair use. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 13:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly {{PD-old}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Il will be PD-old in 2072... It is one of the last publication of La Pléiade. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Obvious copyvio. Shry tales 21:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fair use images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. --Terence Ong 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. {{Bookcover}} should take care of it. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 11:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyright vio. This image is one used on the official website. [9] --Morio 02:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 10:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Although AtheOS by itself is free software, Three of the web pages displayed in this screenshot (slashdot.org, benews.com, and sonique.lycos.com) are unfree and copyrighted. Zzyzx11 04:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per {{Screenshot}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 09:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The image is of unknown provenance. The source is listed as http://bestanimations.com/, but that website is not the creator of the work; it only states that the image was "found on the web" and "believed to be free to use". Several other images on that site are clearly copyright violations (e.g., [10]), so we cannot take much stock in their "belief" that this image is free to use. —Psychonaut 11:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I loaded it, hoping to locate the creator and determine copyright status. As I have been unable to do so, delete. I was unaware any of the other images on that site were copyvios, which certainly lends impetous to us to do the Right Thing and delete this. KillerChihuahua 00:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 09:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The author of the image didn't put in any license in the description page at de.wp. GFDL was added by another user. For admins see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Undelete/Bild:Copsa04.JPG --BLueFiSH 16:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- This one is part of a series of 9 photos of Copşa Mică. The other 8 were correctly licensed under the GFDL, so assuming that this one was "obviously just forgotten" by the inactive and unreachable (no e-mail set) contributor seemed to be legitimate. Please also note Geminira's edit where he put all the images together into one article. --Überraschungsbilder 00:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- okay, i didn't check the other images by the uploader. sometimes this really happens. i'm satisfied, the debate can be closed in my opinion. --BLueFiSH 04:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. --Klemen Kocjančič (Pogovor - Quick response) 09:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
We've got the same picture in a better quality at Image:Voltaire.jpg Shry tales 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've tagged it as "no source", so I guess the image would be deleted soon. Yuval Y • Chat • 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
original uploader (artist) was confused about licensing, and does not want to release this imageRagesoss 01:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
November 12
[edit]Geneva convention forbids prisoner pictures, us mil copyright is abusive.
The fact that GWB choose to violate international laws doesn't allow commons to do it.
To make things clear, I'm not here to judge this guy, just to judge the picture on commons.
Gonioul 01:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. First of all, the U.S. military does not hold a copyright to this image; it is public domain. Second, considering the "public domain" status of Saddam Hussein as a world leader and public personality, is privacy rights are severely reduced. Finally, calling a mug shot of Saddam a violation of the Geneva Conventions is a bit of a stretch, especially considering how vague the Convention has become in the applications of a modern war (the conventions also state that only soldiers may be fired on, not civilians; kind of hard when insurgents don't wear uniforms). Thus, I feel this concern is too obscure for us to worry about here. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- This image was uploaded with PD-USGov-Military. Copyright is still wrong anyway.
- If I follow your thinking, then I could upload pictures of all hollywood actors because they're public personalities, even if taken from copyrighted movies...
- Gonioul 02:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright tag is correct, since it is a mug shot made by a U.S. soldier as a part of his official duties. According to U.S. law, works of any federal government employee (including soldiers) in accordance with their official duties is public domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose and at any time. As for your analogy to Hollywood, it is not applicable to this case since Hollywood movies are copyrighted and have usage restrictions. My comment on him being a public personality is used in conjunction with the fact that this is a PD image that we can use here; if it were a copyrighted image, I could not make that argument. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the Geneva convention invalidates this copyright because the USA has signed this convention.
- And even if the current president choosed to ignore this, this would make commons illegal in other countries, thus not linkable from other wikies, which is it's primary goal...
- Gonioul 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- But this image is not copyrighted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then it's illegal, same problem to me.
- You don't seem to understand that just because US mil made it doesn't make it legal. Otherwise a lot of abuse movies in Irak or other countries would be legal.
- Gonioul 02:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- But this isn't an abuse movie either; its a mug shot. I'm starting to repeat myself now, and I don't think I have anything else to add. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, we just need other advices, but mug shots are only public for american citizens... Still no international rights...
- Gonioul 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- But this isn't an abuse movie either; its a mug shot. I'm starting to repeat myself now, and I don't think I have anything else to add. --tomf688 (talk - email) 03:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- But this image is not copyrighted. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The copyright tag is correct, since it is a mug shot made by a U.S. soldier as a part of his official duties. According to U.S. law, works of any federal government employee (including soldiers) in accordance with their official duties is public domain. Anyone can use it for any purpose and at any time. As for your analogy to Hollywood, it is not applicable to this case since Hollywood movies are copyrighted and have usage restrictions. My comment on him being a public personality is used in conjunction with the fact that this is a PD image that we can use here; if it were a copyrighted image, I could not make that argument. --tomf688 (talk - email) 02:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. *sigh* Please have reasons inline with Commons:Deletion guidelines or else do not bother. --Cat out 19:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The summary and copyright information says that the picture is "Rocket launching facility (NASA)", but the picture is a naked man with a bottle(?) inserted into his anus. Joshua Chiew 07:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. MesserWoland Dyskusja 17:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(A gallery for a single image, do we intend to give every image its own gallery page? Doesn't fit in the way the whole cat is organised)AGoon 22:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, not necessary for just one image. --Terence Ong 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Gallery not necessary for one image... --Cat out 07:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This pic uploaded from Flickr.com have god a license not acceptable on Commons (cc-by--nd-2.0) (see here) Oxam Hartog 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{copyvio|your reason}} next time. --Panther 12:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This appears to me to violate copyrights being a derivative work, a photograph taken at close range of a corporate logo. meco 20:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Deleted. --Cat out 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Derivative work of this copyrighted photo. --Dodo 16:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Possibly copyvio: the legal notice of the source is very uncertain. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 23:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Person shown died in 1912, picture is too young for 2006-100 --Flominator 11:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Flominator 11:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The person died less than 100 years ago, that does not mean the picture is not more than 100 years old. —Quarl 2006-11-13 01:30Z
- Image was taken by the studio of "J. Russell & Sons"[11]. On that firm, see [12], they had many studios. The identity of the photographer who took this image is unknown. And AFAIK the "100 years" rule from de-Wikipedia is not applicable at the commons... Lupo 10:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've marked the image as "no source". Please write the details, and you may also write it in the en wikipedia.
Thanks, Yuval Y • Chat • 22:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC) - AFAIK we apply the 100 years rule here for anonymous works. At least we deleted already tons of images on these grounds. --ALE! ¿…? 08:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've marked the image as "no source". Please write the details, and you may also write it in the en wikipedia.
- This image is not an anonymous work. Work has been attributed to J. Russell & Sons and is therefore not an anonymous individual as J. Russell & Sons owned the copyright. Copyright has expired and it is in the public domain. Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- In short - {{Pd-old}} ? Yuval Y • Chat • 23:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meant {{PD-US}} --Flominator 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- {{PD-old}} does not apply, unless you can show who took that picture (not the firm, the real photographer!), and then show that this person died more than 70 years ago. As it is a British work, {{PD-US}} does not apply either. I don't understand why Bastique can assert that the copyright had expired. How do you know that? Lupo 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think he meant {{PD-US}} --Flominator 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- In short - {{Pd-old}} ? Yuval Y • Chat • 23:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Borheinsieg --ALE! ¿…? 11:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Derivative work of the famous portrait (see [13]) --Dodo 16:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC) PS. Don't know if this photo of 1915 can be used instead (I mean, not sure if it's under the public domain already).
- Comment please check first: who painted the original and when did he/she die? --ALE! ¿…? 11:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment that's the point: it seems the original is the photo linked above. If the photo is under the public domain (I don't actually know), then this drawing is legal but why should we use it instead of the original one? --Dodo 07:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, as being less encyclopedic than desired. / Fred Chess 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
November 13
[edit]This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
No source. Image [14] is identical. Luís Felipe Braga 03:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No licensing, therefore delete it. Even if this is licensed under Fair use, it does not belong to Commons, as Commons does not accept fair use images. --Terence Ong 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted —JeremyA 04:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Although the uploader claims that this image was modified from a photo from existing car, the logo by itself is copyrighted by Audi, and thus falls under the various copyright, unfree, and fair use laws. Zzyzx11 17:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- But if I take a picture of the car with the logo and upload that image, would that be free? If not, then there are hundreds of pictures ready for deletion... --Brinkie 18:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- No. See Commons:Derivative works. In this case, cutting out the logo and modifying it in this way has created a work which (copyrighted or not) is a trademark infringement. Delete. Alphax (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough, thanks for the explanation. On German Wikipedia, common logos are considered not copyrighted (they are trademarked, though), but I understand that such a rule doesn't apply to Commons. I
will deletehave deleted the link to the picture at nl:Audi 50,after that I will delete this imageI have marked the picture for speedy deletion. Sorry for taking your time. --Brinkie 20:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough, thanks for the explanation. On German Wikipedia, common logos are considered not copyrighted (they are trademarked, though), but I understand that such a rule doesn't apply to Commons. I
- No. See Commons:Derivative works. In this case, cutting out the logo and modifying it in this way has created a work which (copyrighted or not) is a trademark infringement.
Deleted by User:Walter – Alphax (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Created by error Fabienkhan 23:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
redirect to Category:Kamal-ud-din Bihzad --GeorgHH 11:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All uploads by Flubber
[edit]It appears Flubber (talk • contribs) uploaded lots of images potentially in violation of copyrights. --Cat out 05:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Hans-Juergen Kaiser 01.jpg
- Image:Hans-Juergen Kaiser-02.jpg
- Image:Hans-Juergen Kaiser-03.jpg
- Image:Hans-Juergen Kaiser-04.jpg
- Alle Inhalte der Internetpräsenz der Hochschule für Musik und der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Für die Vervielfältigung, Bearbeitung, Übersetzung, Einspeicherung, Verarbeitung und Wiedergabe von Inhalten in Datenbanken oder anderen elektronischen Medien und Systemen muss die Zustimmung des Urhebers eingeholt werden. -User:Rüdiger Wölk
- Die Hans-Juergen Kaiser Fotos könnt Ihr wieder löschen. Die habe ich von Hans-Juergen Kaiser per E-Mail bekommen, aber anscheinend sind es nicht seine Fotos. Ich hatte Ihn zwar darauf hingewiesen, aber warscheinlich hat er es nicht verstanden. Die anderen Fotos haben ein korrektes Copy. --Flubber 11:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lots of (tm) LOGOS as inlegible to copyrights,so I've allready deleted them!--WarX 13:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted flubber did not get correct copyright info --Paddy 13:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
TV-images Swedish TV
[edit]- Image:Sverige tar OS-guld i ishockey efter finalen år 2006 mot Finland i Turin, Italien, bild1.JPG
- Image:Sverige tar OS-guld i ishockey efter finalen år 2006 mot Finland i Turin, Italien, bild 2.JPG
Photo of wall-televion (what do you call those -- projectors?), copyright Swedish Television. / Fred Chess 16:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted for being copyvios and they are unless the broadcast itself (looked like a live (at the time) game to me) is pd. And they are indeed called projectors Fred. :P
copycio, for sure. Evidence for license missing.Kjunix 20:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy, copyright lies by Lidl -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Cnyborg --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
copyvio, for sure. Evidence for license missing.Kjunix 21:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Texas shields
[edit]TexasSH1.png TexasSH3.png TexasSH4.png TexasSH5.png TexasSH6.png TexasSH7.png TexasSH8.png TexasSH9.png TexasSH10.png TexasSH11.png TexasSH12.png TexasSH14.png TexasSH15.png TexasSH16.png TexasSH17.png TexasSH18.png TexasSH19.png TexasSH20.png TexasSH21.png TexasSH22.png TexasSH23.png TexasSH24.png TexasSH25.png TexasSH26.png TexasSH27.png TexasSH29.png TexasSH30.png TexasSH31.png TexasSH33.png TexasSH34.png TexasSH35.png TexasSH36.png TexasSH37.png TexasSH39.png TexasSH40.png TexasSH41.png TexasSH42.png TexasSH43.png TexasSH44.png TexasSH45.png TexasSH46.png TexasSH47.png TexasSH48.png TexasSH49.png TexasSH50.png TexasSH51.png TexasSH52.png TexasSH53.png TexasSH54.png TexasSH55.png TexasSH56.png TexasSH57.png TexasSH59.png TexasSH60.png TexasSH61.png TexasSH62.png TexasSH63.png TexasSH64.png TexasSH65.png TexasSH66.png TexasSH67.png TexasSH68.png TexasSH69.png TexasSH70.png TexasSH71.png TexasSH72.png TexasSH73.png TexasSH74.png TexasSH75.png TexasSH76.png TexasSH77.png TexasSH78.png TexasSH79.png TexasSH80.png TexasSH81.png TexasSH82.png TexasSH83.png TexasSH85.png TexasSH86.png TexasSH87.png TexasSH89.png TexasSH90.png TexasSH91.png TexasSH92.png TexasSH93.png TexasSH94.png TexasSH95.png TexasSH96.png TexasSH97.png TexasSH98.png TexasSH99.png TexasSH170.png TexasSH171.png TexasSH172.png TexasSH173.png TexasSH174.png TexasSH175.png TexasSH176.png TexasSH177.png TexasSH179.png TexasSH200.png TexasSH201.png TexasSH202.png TexasSH203.png TexasSH204.png TexasSH205.png TexasSH208.png TexasSH210.png TexasSH211.png TexasSH213.png TexasSH217.png TexasSH218.png TexasSH219.png TexasSH251.png TexasSH253.png TexasSH254.png TexasSH255.png TexasSH256.png TexasSH257.png TexasSH258.png TexasSH259.png TexasSH261.png TexasSH264.png TexasSH265.png TexasSH267.png TexasSH269.png TexasSH270.png TexasSH272.png TexasSH300.png TexasSH301.png TexasSH303.png TexasSH304.png TexasSH305.png TexasSH307.png TexasSH308.png TexasSH309.png TexasSH310.png TexasSH311.png TexasSH312.png TexasSH313.png TexasSH314.png TexasSH315.png TexasSH316.png TexasSH318.png TexasSH319.png TexasSH320.png TexasSH321.png TexasSH322.png TexasSH323.png TexasSH324.png TexasSH325.png TexasSH326.png TexasSH327.png TexasSH328.png TexasSH329.png TexasSH330.png TexasSH331.png TexasSH332.png TexasSH333.png TexasSH334.png TexasSH335.png TexasSH336.png TexasSH337.png TexasSH338.png TexasSH339.png TexasSH340.png TexasSH341.png TexasSH342.png TexasSH343.png TexasSH344.png TexasSH345.png TexasSH346.png TexasSH347.png TexasSH348.png TexasSH349.png TexasSH350.png TexasSH352.png TexasSH353.png TexasSH354.png TexasSH355.png TexasSH356.png TexasSH357.png TexasSH358.png TexasSH359.png TexasSH360.png TexasSH361.png TexasSH362.png TexasSH363.png TexasSH365.png TexasSH495.png TexasSH550.png TexasSH824.png TexasSHblank.png
This category can go as well, it's only contents are the above images.
All images uploaded by File Upload Bot (Bellhalla) (talk). Every image listed above has been superseded by SVGs (in the form "Texas x.svg"). --Holderca1 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Have they all been replaced on all used wikis? --Cat out 10:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, we have been exclusively using the svg files for awhile now, there may be a stray instance where an old one is used. --Holderca1 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- At least one of them is still in use. I bet there are others. --Cat out 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can't stop people from using them until they are deleted. --Holderca1 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not want to delete them until they are all unlinked. I do not want to unlink them one by one. --Cat out 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, then delete the ones that are unlinked. --Holderca1 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Done. I unlinked whats left --Cat out 16:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, then delete the ones that are unlinked. --Holderca1 00:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not want to delete them until they are all unlinked. I do not want to unlink them one by one. --Cat out 20:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can't stop people from using them until they are deleted. --Holderca1 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- At least one of them is still in use. I bet there are others. --Cat out 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, we have been exclusively using the svg files for awhile now, there may be a stray instance where an old one is used. --Holderca1 21:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
All deleted. This has been a work of art for me. :) --Cat out 16:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Image description uses false license Template:CopyrightedFreeUse. When we follow link to https://www.fotw.info/images/s/sv)sa.jpg, we can then find https://www.fotw.info/flags/disclaim.html#cop, which says you use the material for non-commercial and non-political purposes only. The Wikimedia projects can be used for commercial projects, then are we allowed to use an image which has this restriction? I'm not sure... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Should be tagged with Template:FOTWpic and therefore be speedy deleted since it was recently uploaded. Zzyzx11 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
was tagged with Template:FOTWpic --ALE! ¿…? 21:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Source claimed is not the copyright holder. It's just the place where the uploader found the image. User assumes image is free use. RichN (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete No copyright notice that I could see on that page... pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I want to bring this up for discussion because I don't know who the photographer was, and therefore whether it has copyright in the United States and other countries. The Article 8 disclaimer is not mentioned at Commons:Licensing#Former Soviet Union.InfantGorilla 10:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Church and state are separated in Russia, so {{PD-RU-exempt}} could not be applied. On the source site http://www.patriarchia.ru/: Все права защищены (All rights reserved). --EugeneZelenko 15:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unfortunately. It's been in use for a while and could possibly be justified as fair use, but that of course means it should not have been moved to the Commons in the first place. But it's plainly copyrighted. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if the image source is provided and it is indeed the www.patriarchia.ru. According to their copyright notice [15]:
- Мы благодарны всем, кто воспользовался нашей информацией, сославшись на нее в своем издании, не нарушив тем самым этический кодекс журналиста и Закон об авторских правах.
- They allow everybody to use their material provided that it is properly attributed. I have retagged the image accordingly. On the other hand there are thousands of images there and I was not able to find the particular one. I have labelled the image as NSD and if the source would not be provided in 7 days it would be deleted. The photograph is obviously not a state symbol of the Russian Federation so the original claim of article 8 is a red herring Alex Bakharev 00:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not clear from this permission do patriarchia.ru allow unrestricted modification of images or only quoting. We need to request clarification (and reflect it on http://www.patriarchia.ru/txt/legal.html will be good idea). --EugeneZelenko 16:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:EPO --ALE! ¿…? 14:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Naruto statues
[edit]- Image:Kakashi Hatake Japan Expo 20060707 01.jpg
- Image:Kakashi Hatake Japan Expo 20060707 02.jpg
- Image:Naruto Uzumaki Japan Expo 20060707 01.jpg
- Image:Sakura Haruno Japan Expo 20060707 01.jpg
Not a clearcut copyvio case to me since they are not a 2d object so I am listing it for deletion. --Cat out 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- In the past we have deleted such images (provided they're not actual people dressed up...) --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Son Goku Japan Expo 20060707 01.jpg
- Image:Son Goku Japan Expo 20060707 02.jpg
It doesn't matter if something is 2d or 3d. Copyright means copyright. All Naruto and Son Goku images have to be deleted. --Jarlhelm 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, they are clearly derivative works. Kjetil_r 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - LERK (Talk / Contributions) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe image is PD but feel a debate is necessary. It was tagged for deletion due to a lack of proper sources. The original uploaded (to my knowledge) is unavailable due to military assignment. --Cat out 07:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Photo is available from the National Archives and Records Administration, Archives II, at College Park, Maryland as part of the SS records collections. Very clear public domain as property of the U.S. government. -Wiki User Husnock 14Nov06
- Indeed {{PD-USGov}}: mug shot of Stroop in U.S. custody (1945-1947), before he was handed over to the Polish authorities. Lupo 10:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe image is PD but feel a debate is necessary. It was tagged for deletion due to a lack of proper sources. --Cat out 07:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I think it is fair use instead of PD. So if it's use on whatever wikis, the image can be uploaded on that respective wiki itself. As we are not sure of what's the proper licensing, it's better to "play safe". --Terence Ong 12:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hrm. The only argument would be that it is not copyrightable... and I sort of doubt that. The organization's terms for the image seem very protective of it (understandably). It may qualify as fair use on the wikis, but is almost certainly copyrighted and trademarked (and a similar image is marked as such on fr:Image:Flag_of_World_Heritage_2.svg). Carl Lindberg 09:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- So World Heritage is part of the UNESCO, and we just finished a debate about the copyright status of the SVG flag of UNESCO, resulting in keep. I have not heard anything new from them about the copyright status of their flag images, but this would be something worthy of emailing or calling them. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I've decided to close this as a keep. Slapped on the trademark-template and PD-ineligible. I don't think that the UNESCO would, or even could, claim copyright of this logo. / Fred Chess 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Changed my mind after closer inspection of [16]. / Fred Chess 17:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
November 14
[edit]Incorrect area 2 / 3, new version already available, own work Dryke 14:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Zirland --ALE! ¿…? 08:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Bad name (this is Ma 337, not Ma 237 which is a bust of Demosthenes, cf. [17]), poor quality (poor resolution, bad cropping, see left foot), better pictures exist of same object (here and there). All of them are mine, so no risk of bruised feelings :-) This picture was duly orphaned. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
unnecessarity Redirect--Uwe W. 19:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Panther 12:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No source and licence given at wiki.theppn.org. GeorgHH 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Dodo --ALE! ¿…? 11:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
(sexual offending picture, should not be on commons) SvonHalenbach 10:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no copyright issue, image is used --ALE! ¿…? 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- You probably mean, it is in use? Where? Did you thought about children who will see this picture? I am not prude, but that is a pic i don't want to show my children. --SvonHalenbach 10:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's no valid reason for a deletion, please read the Commons:Deletion_guidelines. You can check the usage with the link above each image, in this case it's en:Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) -- Gorgo 00:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Keep As per Commons:Project scope#Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects: "The Commons is not censored". Zzyzx11 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep in use on the English wikipedia for a start. 131.172.4.45 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep used image, copyright ok, no reason to delete. Shry tales 16:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep no explicit material, no need to delete.
- Keep Commons is not censored. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Likely copyvio. only contribution of the unloader. --Cat out 15:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- "No one wants to see sperm on a body", apparently some English readers do. :) It could be a copyvio, although most uploaders of sexual material are "fly-by" contributors. So... hmm. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Currently, it is hard for me to tell if it is a copyvio or not. Therefore, I would follow meta:Avoid Copyright Paranoia and not delete it on that basis yet. Zzyzx11 21:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
kept (no censoring!) --ALE! ¿…? 13:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Bad qualitySvonHalenbach 10:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- is there something better available? 143.169.24.152 10:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- sure. how is that? Image:Sterneamwalberla2.jpg --SvonHalenbach 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- i think the quality is nearly the same and Image:Circumpolar stars.jpg shows the "circumpolar" area with the polaris in the middle --Manfreeed 21:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then at least a rework of that pic is nessesary, to make it darker. --SvonHalenbach 10:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- So... improve it, don't delete it? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
unsharp picture, bad qualitySvonHalenbach 10:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete bad quality, this could be a crêpe as well. Shry tales 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like an obvious publicity photo. Might be fair use but does not belong to Commons. ToastieIL 16:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- In any case, without a source for the image, it should be deleted. Zzyzx11 07:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Boris Fernbacher3 (the latest incarnation of User:Boris Fernbacher2 and User:Boris Fernbacher) has uploaded excerpts from Katie Meluas latest album as well as examples of the sheet music.
Image:KatieMeluaMockingbirdIntro.mid Image:CloseToCrazy5.mid Image:KatieMelulaLearningTheBlues4.mid Image:CrawlingDrumsAndBass2.mid Image:KatieMelulaMyAphrodisiacBluesIntro2.mid Image:KatieMeluaGoingToRain2.mid Image:FarawayVoice3.mid Image:KatiesBelfast5.mid Image:CloseToCrazy.png Image:CrawlingDrumsAndBass2.png Image:KatiesBelfastNurEineZeile.png Image:KatieMeluaGoingToRainNurEineZeile.png Image:KatieMelulaBluesIntro1.png
It also appears that Boris has uploaded music by Rammstein and U2 (contributions). Thuresson 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, just delete the stuff or put {{Copyvio}} tag on the files and do not list them here in such clear cut cases. --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have put the {{Copyvio}} tag on all midi-files and images --ALE! ¿…? 23:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
done --ALE! ¿…? 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
may copyvioShizhao 02:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is this the photo of a goods? If so, we should Delete. - LERK (Talk / Contributions) 20:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. It is deleted as it is copyrightable in Red China.--Jusjih 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
(There's no evidence to support the claim that the copyright holder has released all copyrights. The image is more likely unfree. ) Abu badali 13:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete There seems be no reference for copyright in that site, so we should think they state copyright for thier documents and images. LERK (Talk / Contributions) 20:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
November 15
[edit]I do not see how this simple drawing of a stick figure can be useful in any Wikimedia project. Zzyzx11 04:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:MesserWoland --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Left side isn't perfect. I'll upload a new image when this gets deleted.seXie 14:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedily deleted, per user's request. (He wanted to upload a better version, however, he's too new to upload new images over current ones.) — Timichal 17:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. -- Fang Aili 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by user:Cnyborg --ALE! ¿…? 08:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Probable copyvio similar to other uploads by this user. -- Fang Aili 17:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Dodo --Cat out 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot. -- Fang Aili 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo --Cat out 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot - not allowed on Commons -- Fang Aili 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo --Cat out 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like some screenshots put together - not allowed on Commons. -- Fang Aili 17:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Dodo --Cat out 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot - not allowed on Commons. -- Fang Aili 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Dodo --Cat out 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot - not allowed on Commons. -- Fang Aili 17:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Dodo --Cat out 10:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 09:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by UserWarX --ALE! ¿…? 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I accidentally created page instead of category)AGoon 10:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Panther 12:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably a "fair use" image; too small to be of any use anyway. --Fang Aili 14:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} or {{Fair use}} next time. --Panther 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably a "fair use" image, too small to be of use anyway. -- Fang Aili 14:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} or {{Fair use}} next time. --Panther 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use CD image -- Fang Aili 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} or {{Fair use}} next time. --Panther 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use CD image -- Fang Aili 15:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} or {{Fair use}} next time. --Panther 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair use CD image. -- Fang Aili 15:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} or {{Fair use}} next time. --Panther 11:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I am the uploader of the image which has been created in wrong manner. Please delete the image as it is uploaded by me recently. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Speedy}} next time. --Panther 11:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
site http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ claim that : Copyright © 2006 CNN/Sports Illustrated. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.Oxam Hartog 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete : Oxam Hartog 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. --Panther 11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Does not have any information about the source and license -- Shyam (T/C) 09:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have any information related to source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 09:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have any information related to its license, source and description -- Shyam (T/C) 09:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have any information related to its license and souce -- Shyam (T/C) 09:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source and license -- Shyam (T/C) 09:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
obsolete and incorrect (superseded by image:Amphipode nl.svg) Lycaon 11:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 13:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
please use {{Nld}} or {{Nsd}}, which was designed exactly for these cases where no discussion is necessary -- Gorgo 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 20:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
no GFDL. from [18], "Copyright 2004 Asahi Mullion 21. All rights reserved. No reproduction or republication without written permission. "Shizhao 15:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Cnyborg --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
not free copyright? see bottom of image: "Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/ respectively for the full text of the licences."Shizhao 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's licensed under the GFDL, which is good enough for commons. We can't use it under the terms of the nc creative commons license, but we don't need to, and outside folks may be able to use those terms so there is no harm in the user adding that license as an alternate. Carl Lindberg 08:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, GFDL is good enough for us. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept, mulitlicensing under whatever you like is OK as long as at least one license meets our requirements. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Details of the license: These recent photos of Bratislava and Summit oriented activity are offered free of charge as a courtesy to visiting journalists. They may be reprinted for news use but they may not be resold. Thus this is a non-commercial license. Lokal_Profil 01:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Definitely, the terms are too restrictive for commons. Zzyzx11 08:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
tagged as {{Noncommercial}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Blurry image of a boy--not useful in any way. -- Fang Aili 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 09:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Blurry image of a girl; not useful in any way. -- Fang Aili 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 09:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
may copyvio, in potho: "source: Airport Authority Hong Kong", is derivative work.Shizhao 03:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
1. The author claims that he or she has got the permission of the person in the photograph. I doubt this. If yes, I doubt that this person got it straight what it means to have ones photo in the wikipedia - available for everyone and every purpose. Furthermore the author only says that he or she had the permissioon to take the photo but this does not include any publication. There should be a written permission from the person in the photo to keep their personality rights. 2. IMO this photo is a fake. That's not a prostitute, that's a guy dressed up as a women to fool us. Eva K. Message 17:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I can't say if that is a bloke or not (that this is the only contribution user Karlberger has made might support that), but regarding the potential breach of personal integrity/privacy; I'd say that the face is obscured a bit by the hair and the whole image has a fair a amount of ISO/JPEG noise, which would limit recognition (if we'd go judge by privacy concerns then this and this are far worse). Scoo 10:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- At several CSD parades in Germany I've seen enough drag queens and transvestites to recognise a bloke in drag. My argument concernig personality rights is related to German laws as this image is taken in Germany and so it shows most likely a German individal. --Eva K. Message 11:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Even female prostitutes tend to dress like men in drag, so it's hard so say for sure. It's also irrelevant. No valid reason for deletion has been given, so Keep. —Angr 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strange argument and a distortion of facts. Usually men in drag tend to dress sluttishly. --Eva K. Message 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- The person is really unrecognizable. Keep -- Simplicius 13:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
November 16
[edit]Just because it is "hosted on various sites", it does not necessarily mean we should assume it has been released under the GNU or any other free license -- Zzyzx11 05:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Could have been marked with {{subst:nsd}}. -Samulili 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- A source and license is already cited on the image page, which is why I decided to post here because they are questionable. On the source web site itself, [19] I cannot find specific licensing information. Zzyzx11 07:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by WarX as copyvio. --Panther 11:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt this is PD-self as it was supposedly taken in 1960. User has a long history of uploading pictures under incorrect licenses, and also tagged several 1940 images as PD-self. -- Fang Aili 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nevermind.. it's a copyvio from here. --Fang Aili 22:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. --Panther 15:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Uploader has given http://www.wwe.com/ as source, which claims in bottom of each page it politic in matter of copyright :
All World Wrestling Entertainment programming, talent names, images, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, and logos are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners.
© 2006 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Oxam Hartog 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Oxam Hartog 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as copyvio. Zzyzx11 07:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as copyvio. --Panther 15:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This image should be removed because it does feature Corsica in a completely wrong place; Corsica is fashioned as it really was a few miles off the Provence coast, whereas it actually lies more than 170 km away in the south-east direction. There is no indication, although implicit, of the real position of Corsica, so people will be completely misled by this map. The same problem affects or has affected a number of maps of France. Any island or geographical region, when moved away from its REAL position, MUST be placed within a VISIBLE box or line to make it clear that the displacement was due to graphical reasons. A similar, accurate image, found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:La2-demis-france.png makes it clear the falsification, which can be as well be verified by checking any satellite image of the area, besides any ACCURATE map. Furthermore, and more importantly in this particular case, the image features some languages that are not Langues de la France (Languages of France) at all, such as "Flamand".--Piero Montesacro 09:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, this is a linguistic map, not a political one. You are right about the wrong location of Corsica, but instead of deleting the only map of the languages of France that we have, you could fix the map. Furthermore, Flemish IS a language of France, West Flemish to be exact. This is a very good linguistic map, especially since the transition dialects are shaded in instead of putting a solid boundary. This deletion request has little basis at all. Find someone who knows how to add the box around Corsica before throwing around deletion requests. Greetings, --Chlämens 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you might know, linguistical issues are very frequently intertwined with political ones. Actually, much of the issues that rise from a socio-linguistic background, tend to assume a very intense political relevance. In other words, what you are pointing out in the first place, is yet another good reason to suggest handling the whole issue in the most cautious way, and to avoid using maps that are any less than most accurate and that might be used as pretext to push any kind of political agendas or cultural POV's. Besides, maps are political in essence and almost the same can be said about most issues linked to languages. Furthermore, West Flemish is not coincident with Flemish, otherwise there would be not a difference in the names. The deletion request is very well based, as a map is based on geography and the geography of this map is simply and blatantly falsified. Your defence of the current map has little basis at all. Find someone who knows how to add the box around Corsica before throwing around false maps. Meanwhile, this one shall be removed ASAP. Greetings, --Piero Montesacro 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Putting a box around Corsica is a minor edit which took me about 2 minutes. Happy with this version? At any rate, the essential thing in this map is the linguistic information, not how far from the mainland Corsica is. Don't make a the ridiculous claim that the author of this map is pushing a political agenda, the author was concerned about showing the languages spoken in France, and did a very good job about this. And what exactly is the difference between Flemish and West Flemish suppossed to be? West Flemish is simply one of the variants of Flemish. Every single book I have read concerning the languages of France calls this language Flemish or Flamand. See for instance Lepelley, René. La Normandie dialectale. Presses Universitaires de Caen. 1999. Caen. Ager, D.E. Sociolinguistics and contemporary French. Cambridge University Press. 1990. or also Grillo, R.D. Dominant languages: language and hirachy in Britain and France. 1989. Cambridge; New York. to cite just a few. --Chlämens 02:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- As you might know, linguistical issues are very frequently intertwined with political ones. Actually, much of the issues that rise from a socio-linguistic background, tend to assume a very intense political relevance. In other words, what you are pointing out in the first place, is yet another good reason to suggest handling the whole issue in the most cautious way, and to avoid using maps that are any less than most accurate and that might be used as pretext to push any kind of political agendas or cultural POV's. Besides, maps are political in essence and almost the same can be said about most issues linked to languages. Furthermore, West Flemish is not coincident with Flemish, otherwise there would be not a difference in the names. The deletion request is very well based, as a map is based on geography and the geography of this map is simply and blatantly falsified. Your defence of the current map has little basis at all. Find someone who knows how to add the box around Corsica before throwing around false maps. Meanwhile, this one shall be removed ASAP. Greetings, --Piero Montesacro 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, until a better replacement image is uploaded. So Corsica doesn't have a box around it, minor. --Pmsyyz 01:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, after the image was fixed and until a better replacement map is made available. Therefore, I have withdrawn the deletion request that I had added to the image and this discussion - as far as I a m concerned - can be closed. To Chlämens: you seem to have taken the whole issue as a personal attack, which it was not and which is not the case at all, as witnessed by the very kind and polite exchange of messages occurred between me and Urhixidur about a similar request concerning another map (Image:180px-France Riots spread.png), which can be found just below. You are stating that "Putting a box around Corsica is a minor edit which took me about 2 minutes", which is what you could have done in the first place instead of issuing your undefendable and abusive rants (and if there's something *ridiculous* here is your stance about the way maps should be arranged without taking any care about their geographic accuracy). Ah, BTW, renaming Flemish "West Flemish" wouldn't hurt. To Pmsyyz: geographic accuracy is never "minor" in a map: stating the opposite would set a very dangerous precedent. --Piero Montesacro 12:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I certainly didn't take anything personal and you'll have to explain where my "abusive rants" lie. In my first point I agreed with you about the wrong location of Corsica but I don't see this as a reason for deletion when geography is of secondary concern in the particular map. Since you seem to be very concerned about the wrong location of Corsica on maps, you can fix these problems easily by saving the map and drawing a line around Corsica using Paint. Renaming Flemish is beyond my editing capacities and if we change that, then we would also have to divide up Alsatian into Low and High Alemannic, draw a dialect border on Corsica, and show the Breton and Basque dialects; in that case, someone might just as well draw another map. --Chlämens 15:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- picture is kept. --Bouncey2k 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This image should be removed because it does feature Corsica in a completely wrong place; Corsica is fashioned as it really was a few miles off the Provence coast, whereas it actually lies more than 170 km away in the south-east direction. There is no indication, although implicit, of the real position of Corsica, so people will be completely misled by this map. The same problem affects or has affected a number of maps of France. Any island or geographical region, when moved away from its REAL position, MUST be placed within a VISIBLE box or line to make it clear that the displacement was due to graphical reasons. A similar, accurate image, found at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:La2-demis-france.png makes it clear the falsification, which can be as well be verified by checking any satellite image of the area, besides any ACCURATE map. Furthermore, and more importantly in this particular case, the Island of Corse has absolutely nothing to do with ancient Gaul and its ancient peoples, which are the subject of the map, which is evindently intended to misled its viewers into believing that Corsica had something to with what is currently France before 1769 AD, which is patently and totally inaccurate unde any possible point of view. --Piero Montesacro 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- copyvio --Bouncey2k 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 10:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 10:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Diffusion allowed for Wikipedia only, according to the image description. This is not enough to consider the image "free". -- 80.43.41.34 13:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, non-free, and no proof. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 22:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 19:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 10:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Useless, orphaned. -- Fang Aili 22:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it's a gif example... FML
hi 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) - Comment It's an animated GIF depicting... um... well, it's outside Commons:Project scope. It's been deleted already. Take it to Commons:Undeletion requests if you disagree. Alphax (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder – Alphax (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Some kosmonauts and astronauts
[edit]Image:HelenSharman.gif, Image:103.jpg, Image:IvanovG.jpg, Image:Jahn1.jpg, Image:Farkas.jpg, Image:Astjap.jpg, Image:Arnaldo tamayo mendez.jpg.
These images are claimed PD because: "This is a public domain photograph, because is a document for public use from the government of the Russian Federation." The Russian copyright law (PDF in English) knows no such reason for an image to be PD.
This is probably the same: Image:Miroslaw H.jpg -Samulili 07:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -Samulili 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- MOTIVO:
- ARGUMENTOS:
- Comment English, please ? -- odder 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The file seems to be unreadable. Yuval Y • Chat • 12:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted. --Matt314 11:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not useful; just a picture of two non-notable friends. No source or license. -- Fang Aili 17:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then mark as NSD, don't list for deletion... it's like six times more work :( --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
no source/license, deleted. --Matt314 11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Not useful; no source or license info. -- Fang Aili 18:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Nilfanion --Cat out 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Image does not have information related to its source, license and description -- Shyam (T/C) 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Images that have no source are generally not deleted through Deletion request. They are silently deleted after 7 days if there has been no clarifation regarding the copyright status. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted: 11:52, 27 November 2006 Loco085 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Ortakoy universitegalatasaray01-1-.JPG" (does not have sufficient information on its copyright status)
All images by sxc.hu user brokenarts
[edit]- Image:A hand holding rice.jpg
- Image:A modern scooter.jpg
- Image:Anubis sculpture.jpg
- Image:April 25 Bridge, Lisbon.jpg
- Image:Barbary Macaques 7892.jpg
- Image:Closeup of a loudspeaker.jpg
- Image:Convento do Carmo.jpg
- Image:Denim closeup.jpg
- Image:Elevador da Bica.jpg
- Image:Empty bottle.jpg
- Image:Empty bottle horizontal.jpg
- Image:Empty bottle horizontal transparent.png
- Image:Eraser closeup.jpg
- Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg
- Image:Housefly closeup.jpg
- Image:Jeans zipper closeup.jpg
- Image:YellowHardHat.jpg
All the above photos are from stock.xchng by Davide Guglielmo / brokenarts. Even though each individual photo says that "There are no usage restrictions for this photo", the photographer has written restrictions for all his images in his profile: "The sale or redistribution of the images (for example: the inclusion in a stock photos collection) is prohibited. It is prohibited the use of the images in works promoting intolerance, homophobia, hate, racism, etc...". At least one of his images was already deleted earlier. --Para 20:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
All deleted --Cat out 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Likely copyvio from anahuac.mx, like the other uploads from this user. -- Fang Aili 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Licensing issue : the uploader received an email from a person who has taken a photography of someone else. The email subject was only saying "Photos for Wikipedia" with no more license information (and no authorization from the guy on the picture), and the uploader translated this in "GFDL license". Manchot 08:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, insufficient license. / Fred Chess 12:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Licensing issue : the uploader received an email from a person who has taken a photography of someone else. The email subject was only saying "Photos for Wikipedia" with no more license information (and no authorization from the guy on the picture), and the uploader translated this in "GFDL license". Manchot 08:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Insufficient permission. / Fred Chess 12:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Licensing issue : the uploader received an email from a person who has taken a photography of someone else. The email subject was only saying "Photos for Wikipedia" with no more license information (and no authorization from the guy on the picture), and the uploader translated this in "GFDL license". Manchot 08:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Author accepted the license added by uploader. A copy of the correspondention must however go through the Commons:OTRS. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Yann 22:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Disputed permission. / Fred Chess 12:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The image is a logo which I suppose is not a free image. Image does not provide any information about the copyright and source. -- Shyam (T/C) 10:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. See [20] for copyright status. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I've sent an email to contact
chab.fr and I'm waiting for a reply. Yuval Y • Chat • 12:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. No point in complicating things, when logos are usually protected... and the image isn't used anywhere either, so it's no big loss. / Fred Chess 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
All these sculptures were not permanent and are therefore not covered by the freedom of panorama. Thus all image listed on this page have to be deleted. --ALE! ¿…? 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Some can be kept because they are not the main part of the image (they are beiwerk, see de:Beiwerk (Recht)). I suggest that Image:Soccer4 Walk of Ideas Berlin.JPG, Image:Soccer3 Walk of Ideas Berlin.JPG, Image:Medicine4 Walk of Ideas Berlin.JPG, Image:Relativity1 Walk of Ideas Berlin.JPG and Image:Der moderne Buchdruck.jpg are kept. --BLueFiSH 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but the first three are not Beiwerk, because they are the center of the image. The latter two probably can stay. --ALE! ¿…? 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Beiwerk has nothing to do with "center of the image" rather than the size of the depicted object in relation to the whole image (IANAL). Image #3 can be such an image where Beiwerk is not appliable. But the shoes in the first two images are small enough i think and so they are not main part of the image. --BLueFiSH 01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- delete them all - Beiwerk is not about size or position in the picture, but about the reason this picture was taken. And all of these pics were taken to show these objects, some as closeups - some in their surrounding. So all of them have to go. --h-stt !? 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- NOT all of these pics were taken to show these objects, but a lot of them to show the museum and the French Church. I think, that I can say more about the reason this picture was taken, because I took the pictures (most of them). --Lienhard Schulz 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile I asked for a permission by "Land der Ideen", to publish the pictures under the license public domain. We should wait for the answer. --Lienhard Schulz 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Have you received any answer? If not we would have to delete the images. --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not yet. I'll try it again by a letter. BTW, as we mentioned above, we don't think, that all pictures have to be deleted, if there comes no answer. --Lienhard Schulz 16:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Have you received any answer? If not we would have to delete the images. --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Today I got a first reaction from "Land der Ideen/Walk of Ideas" by mail; they excuse the late rebound and say, that they are checking the rights. They announce in advance, that there will be probably no problem. --Lienhard Schulz 17:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile I asked for a permission by "Land der Ideen", to publish the pictures under the license public domain. We should wait for the answer. --Lienhard Schulz 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- NOT all of these pics were taken to show these objects, but a lot of them to show the museum and the French Church. I think, that I can say more about the reason this picture was taken, because I took the pictures (most of them). --Lienhard Schulz 13:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- We got today by the holder of the rights (Scholz & Friends) the permission to use ALL pictures under public domain / GFDL. I will transfer the mail in the next days. --Lienhard Schulz 14:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete them all - Beiwerk is not about size or position in the picture, but about the reason this picture was taken. And all of these pics were taken to show these objects, some as closeups - some in their surrounding. So all of them have to go. --h-stt !? 14:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Beiwerk has nothing to do with "center of the image" rather than the size of the depicted object in relation to the whole image (IANAL). Image #3 can be such an image where Beiwerk is not appliable. But the shoes in the first two images are small enough i think and so they are not main part of the image. --BLueFiSH 01:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did send the mail with the permission in this minute to "permissions-commons (at) wikimedia.org". --Lienhard Schulz 17:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- please tag the image with the {{PermissionOTRS-ID|ticketid}} template --ALE! ¿…? 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but the first three are not Beiwerk, because they are the center of the image. The latter two probably can stay. --ALE! ¿…? 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like another image from the same series was previously deleted with the same argument. Does this mean that Image:Soccer2 Walk of Ideas Berlin.JPG will be restored as well? Valentinian (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Restored. Please add the OTRS ticket number. --ALE! ¿…? 08:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo Ale, ich habe keine Ahnung, wie das mit der Ticketnummer funktioniert - und wenn ich hier Raymond richtig verstehe, könnte ich das auch gar nicht !?. Gruß —the preceding unsigned comment is by Lienhard Schulz (talk • contribs) --10:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo Lienhard! Du hast doch nachdem Du die Erlaubnis an permissions-commons (at) wikimedia.org geschickt hast eine OTRS-Ticketnummer bekommen, oder? Wenn nicht, erfrage diese bitte und setzte dann in die Beschreibungsseite jeden Bildes die {{PermissionOTRS-ID|ticketid}} Vorlage. Das kannst auch Du machen. --ALE! ¿…? 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nein, eine solche Nummer habe ich nicht bekommen. Wo und wie soll ich die erfragen, bei der gleichen Stelle per mail?? --Lienhard Schulz 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) ... und dort steht, man soll jemand kontaktieren, der Zugang hat! Ich glaube, ich gebs auf ... --Lienhard Schulz 10:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, so genmau weiß ich das auch nicht. Wende Dich doch mal an Benutzer:Elian auf de]. Die kann Dir bestimmt weiter helfen. --ALE! ¿…? 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Ticketnummer in alle Bilder eingetragen. --Raymond Disc. 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm, so genmau weiß ich das auch nicht. Wende Dich doch mal an Benutzer:Elian auf de]. Die kann Dir bestimmt weiter helfen. --ALE! ¿…? 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nein, eine solche Nummer habe ich nicht bekommen. Wo und wie soll ich die erfragen, bei der gleichen Stelle per mail?? --Lienhard Schulz 10:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC) ... und dort steht, man soll jemand kontaktieren, der Zugang hat! Ich glaube, ich gebs auf ... --Lienhard Schulz 10:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo Lienhard! Du hast doch nachdem Du die Erlaubnis an permissions-commons (at) wikimedia.org geschickt hast eine OTRS-Ticketnummer bekommen, oder? Wenn nicht, erfrage diese bitte und setzte dann in die Beschreibungsseite jeden Bildes die {{PermissionOTRS-ID|ticketid}} Vorlage. Das kannst auch Du machen. --ALE! ¿…? 10:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo Ale, ich habe keine Ahnung, wie das mit der Ticketnummer funktioniert - und wenn ich hier Raymond richtig verstehe, könnte ich das auch gar nicht !?. Gruß —the preceding unsigned comment is by Lienhard Schulz (talk • contribs) --10:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Restored. Please add the OTRS ticket number. --ALE! ¿…? 08:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
kept. Permission received from agency. --Raymond Disc. 18:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not a pure reproduction; it includes shadows and a frame. Rtc 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Which is ironic isn't it? Given its title. --Cat out 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
delete --Zirland 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I might agree to delete based on the peculiar French copyright law, which already led to the closure of French Wikiquote. However, how can I agree based on it having a shadow and a frame? Recently there were a question about this image on Commons_talk:Licensing#Shetland_diploma_from_1509 and our eminent copyright expert Historiograf said it was OK to use. Some consistancy, please. / Fred Chess 17:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Slight random shadows are a corner case, but the diploma is definitely not okay anymore; it can be used as a nice picture for an antique paper scroll. The text by no way "is the main subject" anymore. In any case, this Mona Lisa needs to be deleted, since I bet the guys deliberately added the frame to trick people into a copyright violation. And you can easily remove the frame and unmask the shadows if you want to keep this version. That should not be a problem. --Rtc 00:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the image can not stay with the frame around it. However the shadows caused by the frame shouldn't be a problem because they are more a bug than a feature. --ALE! ¿…? 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wait a minute.... What if someone took a picture of a framed reproduction, hanged on a wall? Yuval Y • Chat • 11:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I found the source - http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_image.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673457456&CURRENT_LLV_ILLUSTRATION%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673457456&CURRENT_LLV_OEUVRE%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673223343&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=9852723696500857&bmUID=1164366793262&&newWidth==521&&newHeight==760 (took me a while to figure out how to clean the <> ) Yuval Y • Chat • 11:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept, but cut away the frame. / Fred Chess 12:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All of this user's contributions are audio files of podcasts. http://basilwhite.com/media/ states that the media from the website is cc-nc-nd. Also, even if the licensing is OK, this media would appear to be beyond Commons:Project scope. — JeremyA 03:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. Could have been {{speedy}}ed. -Samulili 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
my contributions are the tracks on my old CD of standup comedy that I have now released under a Creative Commons-Share Alike license because I'm not going to sell it anymore. I read Commons:Project scope and it seems like Wikimedia Commons would be an appropriate media repository for a standup comedy CD for which the artist has intellectual control and wants to release on a Creative Commons-Share Alike license. I also read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer to make sure the content was okay. I have a Podcast of the files on http://basilwhite.com/media/ because that's another means of distribution.
So wouldn't an old CD of standup comedy that the artist has released under a Creative Commons-Share Alike license belong in Wikimedia Commons? Tell me what to do. -Basilwhite 07:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your website links to the Creative Commons license CC-BY-NC-ND. We don't allow this license. Why doesn't your website say CC-BY-SA like these pages do? Explain why you want them hosted at Wikimedia Commons. We are not an archiving website or a webhost. You already have a webhost. How does Wikimedia Commons hosting your files further the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation? That's what we need to be convinced of. No Wikimedia project is using, or could conceivably use (as far as I can see) your files - not Wikipedia, not Wikinews, not Wikibooks, not Wikisource, not Wiktionary, not Wikispecies, not Wikiversity. So explain how these files are good for WMF rather than just self-promotion for you? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is Basil White, the owner, creator, source, author, and every other tag you can think of for this content. I've gone through all the wikimedia images for all the tracks (why are they called Images, anyway) and amended the copyright to CC-BY-SA for all of them. I also found the CC-BY-NC-ND link pfctdayelise mentioned on http://www.basilwhite.com/media and fixed the license on that page from CC-BY-NC-ND to CC-BY-SA to conform to Wikimedia policy. I hope this is sufficient to pass muster.
I have an old comedy album I have full rights to, and I'd like to grant it to Wikimedia for use. Standup is one of those forms you have to hear to take apart, and here's an album people can take apart.
I've run out of ways to use CC lingo to explain that I'm giving this stuff away for free but retaining the right to attribution. Please help. -- Basilwhite 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- The question is not about the license (now); it's about the purpose of the files. How can they further Wikimedia's aims? (There may be a way -- I'm open to being convinced -- but I don't currently see one.) They shouldn't be hosted here if it's just self-promotion for you. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't listened to any of the tracks on the album but I could see a use... if somone did an analysis of comedy and deconstructed the sketches, perhaps. But it seems far fetched. Better that the use exist first? ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept -- potentially useful. And license is OK. / Fred Chess 17:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
This image should be removed because it does feature Corsica in a completely wrong place; Corsica is fashioned as it really was a few miles off the Provence coast, whereas it actually lies more than 170 km away in the south-east direction. There is no indication, although implicit, of the real position of Corsica, so people will be completely misled by this map. The same problem affects or has affected a number of maps of France. Any island or geographical region, when moved away from its REAL position, MUST be placed within a VISIBLE box or line to make it clear that the displacement was due to graphical reasons. See an example of an accurate way of representing Corsica out of his geographical place in a very similar map. An accurate image, found at image:La2-demis-france.png makes it clear the falsification, which can be as well be verified by checking any satellite image of the area, besides any ACCURATE map. --Piero Montesacro 10:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- It would make more sense to simply redraw the map with Corsica correctly positioned. No need to delete. Urhixidur 14:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- There, it is done. I used Image:France blank.svg as a guide to position Corsica correctly. Urhixidur 18:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Urhixidur, first of all, many thanks for taking care of my request. Might I suggest (as actually I had done already in my original request, above) that you use this map as a base to redraw the map we are speaking about? I believe the result might be neat. Thanks in advance and best of all, --Piero Montesacro 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- The image has still no license. So if that is not fixed, we will have to delete it. --ALE! ¿…? 15:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. unused and obsoleted by the SVG. -- Drini 17:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
November 17
[edit]Bad name & double Blacknight 00:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} next time. --Panther 15:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Double & wrong title Blacknight 00:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} next time. --Panther 15:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete please. I created this category in error, the correct category, which I also created on the same day, is Huddersfield, as per wiki:en. This category has no entries.Richard Harvey 08:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{your reason}} next time. --Panther 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Source site shows mug shots. Mug shots are copyrighted according to the United States copyright law FedericoMP 09:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Depends on the local state though, Florida and several others are PD, California if the person was convicted as well. Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Samulili --ALE! ¿…? 08:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Golden-collared_Macaw_041.jpg. Had to be renamed because there is already a file with this name at en:wikipedia. Ginkgo100 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged speedy using {{Duplicate}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Non-useful gif cartoon. -- Fang Aili 17:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Another useless gif cartoon. -- Fang Aili 17:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 14:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Useless gif cartoon. -- Fang Aili 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 14:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Unidentified, probable copyvio. User has uploaded multiple copyvios in the past. -- Fang Aili 21:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Banner for a personal website containing a fan artwork of (presumably, because the others files uploaded by the same user) Neon Genesis Evangelion. Lugusto • ҉ 21:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Derative work of non free original. Delete -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 22:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Superseded by Image:Abruzzo bandiera.svg Il palazzo 18:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Kjetil_r 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Way too blurry to be of any use. Orphaned. -- Fang Aili 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Is it not an orphan. --Kjetil_r 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Wax figure, derivative work. Should be deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2006/07#Madame Tussauds.23Wax. -- Matt314 22:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted as a derivative. --Kjetil_r 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
This map comes from the IAAT, whiwh claims that its material falls under the French laws ; those don't mention anything near GFDL, I don't see any authorisation. -- le Korrigan →bla 08:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- The original uploader, fr:Utilisateur:Archeos, has been notified of this issue. I hope he will be able to quickly resolve it one way or another. Bansp 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, license status has still not been cleared. / Fred Chess 17:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Potential copyvio, requires ORTS communication --Cat out 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Complete bullshit created by childish user from croatian wikipedia. Compare with image:Deutschland 1939.png --Ante Perkovic 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to fix some of it, by giving Istria to Italy and and Schlesien, Hinterpommern, Memel, and East Prussia to Germany. There are still some errors, for example the border between the Soviet Union and Finland. --Kjetil_r 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Personal attacks are not welcome. --Cat out 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The map Image:LocationNaziGermany.png is also wrong. --Kjetil_r 20:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Two things: First, ideally someone should upload corrected images instead of merely deleting it. Secondly, the image description page should clearly identify what specific year the image is suppose to represent, because Nazi Germany's borders changed significantly year to year from gaining the Sudetenland as part of the 1938 Munich Agreement onward to the end of World War II. Zzyzx11 04:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The image was updated with a better version on November 19. Thuresson 21:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Claim of PD-NASA image is not verifyable. No trace of this image can be found on the NASA frontpage that is specified as the source for this image. Actually, the source seems the be http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/optics/staff/mvandam/gabrielle.html (full image at http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/optics/staff/mvandam/images/xena.jpg), withe the image converted from a negative (brights sky, dark object) to a positive (darks sky, bright obejct). Images from the Keck Observatory website, however, are not released under a free license, see [1]. --Vesta 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- Originally (and incorrectly) nominated by User:Vesta --Cat out 12:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Copyvio deleted. -- Drini 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I (as uploader) want to discuss the problem within a broader audience. It's a complicate case as the satellite is a colaboration of US, UK and Japan. When uploading that file I wasn't aware of the other pages mentioned by Rivi and did investigate thoroughly the NASA pages that indicated PD-US-Gov (no exception disclaimer visible on that pages linked above in the source field). So the problem discussion will evolve in some general thoughts on guidelines how to interpret NASA copyright notices and source info with regard to scientific collaborations of NASA. See the image page for very detailed information on sources etc. Arnomane 19:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- My comment from de:WP: Nun, Wikipedia ist letztlich ein Bildungsprojekt. In diesem Sinne gibt diese Sorte von Lizenz das Bild sowohl fuer WP, als auch fuer Derivate, durchaus auch kommerziell, frei. Die Lizenz gibt das Bild aber nicht standalone fuer Projekte ohne Bezug zu Wissenschaft/Bildung frei. Insofern muss es wohl geloescht werden. Ich unterstuetze diese Politik zwar nicht, aber weil keine Chance absehbar ist, sie zu aendern, misch' ich mich da auch nicht ein. --Rivi 19:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Could you traslate it to English? I'm not sure I've completly understood the google translation. Yuval Y • Chat • 14:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have checked the web links you provided but I can't see any reason why not to think that this image can be kept. Thuresson 21:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Copyright status incorrect. This is an concert band transcription of a work that was originally for orchestra. Just because the original work is PD doesn't mean the arrangement is, and we can't know for sure unless we know the arranger. My best guess (because it's on the USAF band tuba audition list) is that it's Robert W. Smith, who was born in 1958, and if he didn't release it into the PD, it's copyrighted.– flamurai 09:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Flamurai's points seem correct. --Iamunknown 06:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted - copyright violation. A.J. 12:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
November 18
[edit]Derivative work. --Dodo 10:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted --Cat out 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
NPOV as the status of the books is debated; and subcategories specific to the books are more useful Goldfritha 18:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suggest to follow the wikipedian nomenclatura. (Sorry for my bad english). --Wst <sup>[[Benutzer_Diskussion:Wst|question</sup>]] 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Klemen Kocjancic --ALE! ¿…? 14:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
All images by User:HokieRNB
[edit]- Image:Ichthus icon.png
- Image:Bible1 icon.png
- Image:Bible2 icon.png
- Image:Bible3 icon.png
- Image:Church1 icon.png
- Image:Church2 icon.png
- Image:Church3 icon.png
- Image:Church4 icon.png
- Image:Noah's Ark icon.png
User:HokieRNB has uploaded a bunch of icons from http://www.appleblossomart.com/, a library of free screensavers, and desktop themes, icons, and other graphics. However, the entire site has "Copyright © 2006 Appleblossom Art" so I do not think that these images can be considered as free content (i.e. they can be modified, reproduced, sold commerically, or used for any other purpose) under our policies. Zzyzx11 06:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- All (without: Image:Noah's Ark icon.png) deleted. -- odder 14:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/International origination's logos, selas and flags (2006-11-18)
Image is a logo which is used as a fair use image on en wikipedia. There is no source on the image file on commons. -- Shyam (T/C) 17:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Logo of a program under the terms of the GPL [21]. I have removed the deletion tag. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Not old enough for PD --Flominator 15:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Not old enough for PD --Flominator 15:37, 18 November 2006(UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This image is a mockery (more especially the motto) Juiced lemon 20:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Explanation
[edit]This site shows an official version of the coat of arms of the Burundi.
The constitution of Burundi states (see also: w:Coat of arms of Burundi):
La devise du Burundi est : " Unité, Travail, Progrès ". L'emblème de la République est un écu frappé de la tête du lion ainsi que de trois lances, le tout entouré de la devise nationale.
I request the deletion of this image because:
- the colors differ from the official version
- the lion is cross-eyed
- the motto is translated, that is tabbo; more: 3 translated words=2 serious mistranslations (Unité=Unity <>Unit, Travail=Work <>Travel) + 1 bad spelling (Progrès=Progress <>Progres).
My conclusion: this image is a mockery. We cannot keep it with the title: Image:Burundi coa.png. --Juiced lemon 20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- I looked at the Internet and this and one more image is the only ones exisiting of the arms. The latter, more correct version, is tagged as non-commercial. I admit that this image is very bad. The only websites of the government I found, other than the above, is the Burundi Embassy in the US. Who wants to play email tag to get a better scan of the arms? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 04:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a possible replacement Image:Blason du Burundi.svg --moyogo 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I´ve made a new version before discover Moyogo's version, sigh... Image:COA of Burundi.svg --Tonyjeff 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever SVG file you use, it doesn't bother me. But as long as we delete the PNG file, I am happy. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I´ve made a new version before discover Moyogo's version, sigh... Image:COA of Burundi.svg --Tonyjeff 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Here's a possible replacement Image:Blason du Burundi.svg --moyogo 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and use the new svg --ALE! ¿…? 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the SVG files were made for a reason. --moyogo 09:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the above, and use a .svg Valentinian (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and use one of the .SVG --Tonyjeff 17:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
deleted and all usages replaced with COA of Burundi.svg --ALE! ¿…? 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Originaly tagged with no source. Now it seems to be sourced, but a spanish speaking person should verify the copyright issues. I doubt creative commons and GNU licenses should apply.Cat out 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a copyvio to me. (Have a look at the source.) --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. I can find any mention at cartagena.es that the website is double licensed as GFDL and CC. Thuresson 21:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt its pd status. I request a greater investigation on the matter.Cat out 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you doubt it, you could've deleted it because it has been without source for the PD-claim for 69 days. -Samulili 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with British laws and image is under heavy use. --Cat out 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- A copy of this jpg can be found on www.geraldheard.com[22] where it states that the original photo is: BBC Broadcasting House 1940 - Copyright Mary Evans Picture Library - reproduced by permission of Mary Evans Picture Library - and if you search that library you will find it as:
- Picture No 10094656 - Date 1940 - Description BBC BROADCASTING HOUSE - Details BBC Broadcasting House at Portland Place, London - Source Photograph by Fred Musto for the Mustograph Agency - Credit Mary Evans Picture Library
- Zir81.1.98.229 00:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but "Reproduced by permission of Mary Evans Picture Library" only implies that only geraldheard.com got permission to use the image. There is no evidence that it can be reproduced by someone else. Besides, it seems that maryevans.com is in the business of selling licences to images.[23] Zzyzx11 06:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I feel that both your statements are correct - I just reported what I found...... Zir 20:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but "Reproduced by permission of Mary Evans Picture Library" only implies that only geraldheard.com got permission to use the image. There is no evidence that it can be reproduced by someone else. Besides, it seems that maryevans.com is in the business of selling licences to images.[23] Zzyzx11 06:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with British laws and image is under heavy use. --Cat out 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted badly source, probably not PD. -- Drini 17:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
November 19
[edit]AFP PHOTO / MICHAEL URBAN is the copyright holder, not "Giftraum" at Flickr. The flickr user puts CC-BY on everything he uploads. Kjetil_r 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
16:28, 19 November 2006 Flominator (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Wm2006-ballack.jpg" (copyvio)
Screenshot from Google Earth or Google Maps (see bottom right corner). unfreeBLueFiSH 01:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted for obvious reasons. --Cat out 15:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Bulgarian banknotes
[edit]I believe that images of bulgarian banknotes (Image:BulgariaP110-1000Leva-1997 b.jpg, Image:BulgariaP110-1000Leva-1997 f.jpg, Image:BulgariaP113-10000Leva-1997 b.jpg, Image:BulgariaP113-10000Leva-1997 f.jpg, Image:BulgariaPNew-1Leva-1999 b.jpg, Image:BulgariaPNew-1Leva-1999 f.jpg, Image:BulgariaPNew-2Leva-1999 b.jpg, Image:BulgariaPNew-2Leva-1999 f.jpg) have to be deleted from Commons and Wikipedia. They are not in the public domain despite what uploader have claimed or what information is stated on a third party site, as they copyright holder (Bulgarian National Bank) claims something different. I have translated a snippet from BNB's website at User:Bggoldie/Copyrights/Bulgarian banknotes for those interested to verify my statement themselves. -- Zlatko + (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Same ought to apply to coins which are not older than 70 years (Image:BGR002.JPG, Image:BGR003.JPG, Image:BGR005.JPG, Image:BGR006.JPG, Image:BGR011.JPG, Image:BGR012.JPG, Image:Bulgaria 2006 circulating coins.jpg). In the category there few images of coins from the beginning of 20th century which I expect to have their copyright expired. -- Zlatko + (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
All deleted. Too restrictive copyright. Does not seemingly allow neither commercial use, nor redistribution, nor derivative works. Said written permission isn't present anyways. --Cat out 15:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I created this page, but now it is useless because the picture was deleted (it was in Italian PD) Roberto86 10:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 16:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Unused. The image appears to be depicting the stars of a popular US TV show for the purpose of being surprising. Because the show has nothing to do with sex, the image is just confusing and in poor taste as a result.Gmaxwell 14:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, there is no need to use a depiction of real people in such a drawing. Cnyborg 14:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Looks like a very bad joke. This has nothing to do with satire. Valentinian (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - the image was linked into 'Anal sex' on wikipedia. It's an obvious attack. - Richardcavell 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 23:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is of a saint beatified on 5 March 1950 (and canonized shortly afterwards).
It was taken from en:Image:DominicSavio.gif where the licence claimed was PD-old.
However, as the picture includes a halo it is a reasonable guess that it was no earlier than 1950: so nothing like PD-old would be likely to apply. And the page on the English language wikipedia gives no indication of authorship, source, date of publication, or anything else releveant.
The licence claimed here is GDFL, but in the absence of any indication of authorship (either here or in the source) one might reasonably assume that it is spurious. —Ian Spackman 16:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Ian Spackman 17:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Yann 23:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Source mentions "collection JPVL" but does not display any authorisation ; the public domain is not justified as the "date" field is the scan date, not the photograph's date. Also see this web page. -- le Korrigan →bla 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete : this pic is on the page above mentioned (on commons in a cropped version) very probably originelly published in Evolution du matériel moteur des chemins de fer de l'Etat, par L.M.Vilain image is under copyright because not to old. Oxam Hartog 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete : This is just one of many copyvio images uploaded by this user. 82.30.76.239 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 22:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Original license is no commercial Luigi Chiesa 23:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, uploaded with a false license and real one isn't compatible with Commons. --Rory096 04:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 22:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Outside Commons:Project Scope -- Alphax (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Fake license. --Edub 18:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Doesn't seem taken from the uploader but from a website (a newspaper?). Uploader has deleted images with unknown source. No answer to keep it. Platonides 11:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Only permission for use on commons-- Bryan (talk to me) 14:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Loco085 deleted it. --Cat out 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Files by User:Thebeanthebean1234567890
[edit]Thebeanthebean1234567890 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) It looks like a private image gallery, only a few images are useful on a wiki. Images partial have a bad quality and some a licensing without permission. What to do? GeorgHH 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not useful for any wiki. should be deleted -- Rüdiger Wölk 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep- They were uploaded by that user and was his work, trust me, I know, because I am him. Please keep, will fix. Besides, they're only for user pages. Can't you guys just relax once in a while? 68.110.148.20 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I took a picture of my brother then edited it... he's such a jerk
- That image alone violates a dozen policies... --Cat out 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete, and please very fast.--Ar-ras 16:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Some deleted. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Contributor is recommended in uploading more useful pictures. userpage pictures are allowed provided they are not the only contribution of the user. --Cat out 10:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- I have deleted blurry images that are of no use to any one.
- I have also deleted images with improper names. They need to be reuploaded with a less ambiguous and more NPOV title.
- Lack of consent, inflammatory, edited in a manner not useful.
- Copyvios
- Useless category
- Image I havent deleted, well within project scope and will need to be made an SVG anyways before deletion.
please delete, original permission does not allow this cropped version. Sorry for the mistake. M0 22:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes it does, but you've put the wrong license on it. The original is CC-BY-SA 2.5, 2.0, 1.0; chose one or more of those (preferably 2.5 and 2.0) and change the license tag. Alphax (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Kept. --Matt314 23:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
probably copyrighted, I don't beleive the claim of Ischa, especially seeing his history on nl.wb84.81.200.33 11:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Withdrawn, looked wrong :$ Effeietsanders 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I cannot verify that this logo is a GFDL image since the cited source http://www.savethehighseas.org seems to not have any license or copyright information page -- Zzyzx11 18:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- And if there is no information, whe must assume it is copyrighted. Delete -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I've been to fast with uploading it. It IS copyrighted. Was my mistake, next time, I'll be more carefull. kw Please Delete
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No clear source given --Flominator 21:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Derived from Image:Blankmap-north pole.png, both claimed PD-self by the uploader. Do you have any reason to doubt this claim? Lupo 08:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
probably copyrighted, I don't beleive the claim of Ischa, especially seeing his history on nl.wb84.81.200.33 11:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Withdrawn, looked wrong :$ Effeietsanders 22:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong upload, pd-old could not be proven. See Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/08#Image:Kurt_Tucholsky_1931.jpeg for other version of this picture. --Svencb 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Gmaxwell --ALE! ¿…? 14:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Images from imageafter.com
[edit]Taking a close look at the terms of use, these images are free, unless they are used in a competing product (which I think Commons is).
http://www.imageafter.com/terms.php states:
1. LICENSE / TERMS OF USE
WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH IMAGE*AFTER IMAGES AND TEXTURES?
* you CAN modify our images and textures in any way you see fit
* you CAN use our images and textures in your own work, wether it be for personal or commercial use
* you CAN redistribtue or sell our images and textures ALTERED OR UNALTERED as part of printed work (e.g. posters, cd-covers, postcards etc)
WHAT CAN'T YOU DO WITH IMAGE*AFTER IMAGES AND TEXTURES?
* you CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE our images and textures as part of an online resource site like our own, i.e. use them to directly compete with us.
copyvioSiebrand 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Restrictions on redistribution, Delete -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Even if commons were not (it is) a 'competing product', the license is unfree. Delete --Gmaxwell 14:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Terms are too restrictive, and I somewhat do consider Commons as a "competing product". Zzyzx11 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
How is this in competition with the original site? It is not for sale.
delete -- Drini 17:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if Commons weren't a "competing product", the license would prevent people from using the images in other "competing products", making it non-free.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Author mentions "Gregory Deryckère" who is also the uploader, but he seems to be aged only 25 (see this), and the photo was taken in the 1960s. I suspect a copyvio here, and on other files Captain Scarlet uploaded. -- le Korrigan →bla 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I took this photo on 28 October 2006 in company of fr:Utilisateur:Angel1479 who may certify my sayings. Maybe you could define copyvio since I haven't copied or scanned this file. Captain Scarlet 09:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have taken this photo 1 month ago ? I didn't know you could still find this kind of tramways, cars, keep-left signs and coats in Sheffield these days. AFAIK, Sheffield's tram looks more like this one. Please don't lie and provide the real source of these images. le Korrigan →bla 10:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- A month ago indeed. thanks for qyuoting the en:Sheffield Supertram article, I've contributed so much to it I must knowthe colour of the stop buttons heheh. I took the photo a month ago, it must have been about 9 o'clock at night. I can't provide a source as this is the source (hence own work). Captain Scarlet 12:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- You have taken this photo 1 month ago ? I didn't know you could still find this kind of tramways, cars, keep-left signs and coats in Sheffield these days. AFAIK, Sheffield's tram looks more like this one. Please don't lie and provide the real source of these images. le Korrigan →bla 10:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Excuse me, I still don't understand : the description says "Sheffield Tramway on Wicker in the 1960s." Can you please explain how you managed to take a photo in the 1960s one month ago ? le Korrigan →bla 12:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm lost for words, I didn't take the photo in the 1960s, I took it on the 28th last month; with a camera, took the photo. I'm sorry if I have no photo of me taking the photograph, all I can do is refer you to the other Wikipedian that was with me when I took it. Captain Scarlet 16:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- You took a photo of what ? Of the Wicker Arch in Sheffield ? Well, it doesn't look like this now, as the description says it used to look like this in the 1960s (or more probably a bit before, looks 1930sish to me). Or did you take a photo of another photo, displayed somewhere ? Please don't just play and explain why you wrote the description "... in the 1960s" and claim having taken it a month ago. le Korrigan →bla 16:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, this is obviously a reproduction of an old photo (but not old enough to be PD). Cnyborg 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your lack of faith is disconcerning. I took this photo. Captain Scarlet 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just explain how a picture taken a month ago can depict a scene of the 1960s. So far you haven't explained this. le Korrigan →bla 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I dont know what there is to explain. I got me camera, took the picture! Isn't that what you do when yo use a camera? The image isn't even used it wouldn't be missed. I'm putting my foot down because you"ve asked me if it was my document and I've assertained it is, i can't say more than: I took this photowithout swearing and I don't want to do that on the Commons.
- Here is how (at least in the UK) we take photograph, I did it the same as this unknown person: [24] amazing is it not? Captain Scarlet 20:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- And if you can tell where in the UK people still dress like in the sixties, and the traffic is still as in the sixties? -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I think you convinced everyone of your bad faith : you haven't answered my question just above (regarding the fact that this a scene from the 1960s). Why don't you admit this picture is a copyvio so that we can do something else ? le Korrigan →bla 22:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I don't understand the position of the uploader. this pic is an old pic, action is impossible to reproduce today on a also large aera. With this sort of arguments, I think strongly to a copyvio. 80.170.23.129 22:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the discussion above is just amazing. And this is an obvious copyvio. Shry tales 22:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Obviously a scanned image of another persons work, in excess of 20 years, prior to the uploaders birth.
The following images by the same uploader also appear to be copies of other peoples images, possibly museum exhibits for which the copyright is not PD or fair use, which may need to be deleted?
- Image:140 C 204 Etat.jpg
- Image:140 C 232 Etat.jpg
- Image:141 C 234 Etat.jpg
- Image:141 TC Etat.jpg
- Image:231 B Ouest - Bernay 1910.jpg
- Image:231 G 728 Etat.jpg
- Image:Compagnie des tramways électriques de Caen - Boulevard Leclerc.jpg
- Image:Compagnie des tramways électriques de Caen - Rue Saint Pierre.jpg
- Image:Gare de Bayeux.jpg
- Image:Gare de Bernay.jpg
- Image:Gare de Bordeaux-Etat.jpg
- Image:Gare de Bordeaux-Saint-Jean.jpg
- Image:Gare de Brest.jpg
- Image:Gare de Breuilpont.jpg
- Image:Gare de Cannes-Ville.jpg
- Image:Gare de Cergy - Saint-Christophe.jpg
- Image:Gare de Courseulles.jpg
- Image:Gare de Dieppe.jpg
- Image:Gare de Dives-Cabourg 20-12-02.jpg
- Image:Gare de Evreux Embranchement - Marquise 1.jpg
- Image:Gare de Evreux Embranchement.jpg
- Image:Gare de Falaise.jpg
- Image:Gare de Grand Couronne.jpg
- Image:Gare de Honfleur.jpg
- Image:Gare de La Rochelle.jpg
- Image:Gare de Luc-sur-Mer.jpg
- Image:Gare de Nice-Ville.jpg
- Image:Gare de Rouen Martinville.jpg
- Image:Gare de Rouen Orléans.jpg
- Image:Gare de Rouen Saint-Server.jpg
- Image:Gare de Saint Martin (Caen).jpg
- Image:Gare de Saint-Roch (Amiens).jpg
- Image:Gare de St Germain en Laye.jpg
- Image:Gare de Toulouse-Matabiau.jpg
- Image:Gare du Champ de Mars (1878).jpg
- Image:Gare du Champ de Mars (1900).jpg
- Image:Gare du Nord (Amiens).jpg
- Image:Gare Du Sud.jpg
- Image:Gare Maritime de Cherbourg - Intérieur (1944).jpg
- Image:Gare Maritime de Cherbourg (1933).jpg
- Image:Gare Maritime de Cherbourg (1944).jpg
- Image:Gare Maritime de Dieppe.jpg
- Image:Matlock Tramway - Crown Square.jpg
- Image:Nouvelle gare de Brest.jpg
- Image:Sheffield tramcar 121 - Meadowhead.jpg
- Image:Sheffield tramcar 123 - Abbey Lane.jpg
- Image:Sheffield tramcar 501 - Attercliffe Road.jpg
- Image:Sheffield tramcar 502 - Beauchief.jpg
- Image:Sheffield tramcar 97 - Sheffield Road.jpg
- Image:Sheffield Tramway - tramcar 510 29-04-06.jpg
- Image:Société Métallurgique de Normandie - Usine 01.jpg
- Image:Société Métallurgique de Normandie - Usine 02.jpg
- Image:Société Métallurgique de Normandie - Usine 03.jpg
- Image:Société Métallurgique de Normandie - Usine 04.jpg
- Image:Société Métallurgique de Normandie - Usine 06.jpg
- Image:SS Worthing - Gare Maritime de Dieppe.jpg
- Image:Tramway de Nice et du Littoral - Nice.jpg
In view of the uploaders comments and replies to questions above I do not feel he can be trusted to be truthful or replying in good faith. I suggest all this users images should be checked by an administrator for authenticity? 82.30.76.239 00:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- This conversation is simply amazing! I haven't scanned this and I didn't take this photo in the sixties nor have I ever ever said I took this picture in the sixties, now I'm being called a liar? What is this? this inquisition? what's so difficult in taking a photo today of something in the sixties? Shall I go now and take a photo of soething from the year 1000? I don't scan documents as you lose quality. Not once have I been treated fairly and not once has any of you treated me with good faith. And what is this now, I'm being challenged by an unidentitfied user who's only contributions is this conversation? Shry tales is correct, this is amazing, I'm being asked to justify myself, which I've done, and now accused of lying? Don't ask if you don't want to believe: bad faith.
- and these then: Image:Gare de ronchamp.png, Image:76-Gournay-en-Bray-Arrivée du train-1906.JPG, not in a rush to nominate these? Captain Scarlet 09:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what a copyvio is.
- I've been asked how I took a photo in the sixties when it was taken last month: I didn't take it in the sixties, I took last month.
- to humour Bryan, I went to the en:National Tramway Museum they dress like Georgians on some good days. It's called a recreation.
- The photo is a photo of a photo, but after two days of me saying that you still don't get it! lol. Maybe you'd like the frame with it. So ever since the begining, I've been telling you the truth. Captain Scarlet 09:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Copyvio means "copyright violation", means you are importing a copyrighted work in Commons.
- ???
- ha ha ha
- Ah, finally you admit it. Fine. Well, even if you do this, the copyright still applies to the original photo, and it can not be accepted on Commons. End of the story. Please don't take photos of copyrighted photos and then claim it is your work, this is wrong. le Korrigan →bla 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Please could you tell me when you took this Image:Société Métallurgique de Normandie - Usine 02.jpg for me 3rd September 2006 is not the good day. Oxam Hartog 09:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- But i didn't publish a copyrighted work... I uploaded my photograph, my conscience is clear.
- SMN = Summer 1991 when I moved there. Mondeville 1 was still open back then and the plant was too a school friend's dad worked there blah blah poor quality photo as I didn't have digital back then. Captain Scarlet 10:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- What do you mean by Mondeville 1 and in which aera of the plant did you take your pic? Oxam Hartog 11:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK. If you want this photo kept, please answer all of these questions :
- With your camera, did you take (a) a photo of an actual place, or (b) a photo of another photograph which was displayed somewhere ?
- If (a) : Which place was it ? How comes it depicts a place which looks like 40 to 50 years ago and not one month ago ?
- If (b) : Where is this photo (in a book, on display somewhere...) ? When was it taken ? Who is the author ?
- Thanks for answering this. Please don't lie. le Korrigan →bla 10:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Mondeville 1 is a shopping centre near the SMN, now superceeded by Mondevile 2. Our trips from wherever I lived (see shameless plug of my lifetime above) took us past the plant where a friend's father worked.
- to Korrigan:
- b
- en:Wicker, a photo displayed at the en:National Tramway Museum; I didn't lie. Guess when it was taken, I've told you already. Here is the same with a flash (stupid attempt) en:Image:S6005508.JPG (hurry it is to be deleted). Captain Scarlet 12:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- As for the date of the photo, it can easily be discovered by looking at it: catenary on the railway line (post 1955), new tramway livery (post full blue livery), pre October 1960 (date of closure of tramway system, see en:sheffield Tramway). Captain Scarlet 12:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good. Now here is the thing you didn't know, but that you will know learn by heart : taking a photo of a copyrighted work (eg a photo, a painting, whatever) does not remove the original copyright on the photo. So this photo itself is copyrighted, despite the fact that you took it, simply because it depicts a copyrighted work. It has to be speedy deleted. Now, could you please help us and tell *please* which files you have imported which depict other documents, and thus which are 99% surely copyrighted ? Thank you, le Korrigan →bla 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The images listed above are all uploads by Captain Scarlet and depict other documents that cannot be his due to age and could be copies of possible museum exhibits for which the copyright is not PD or fair use. Many more of the images in his gallery show the source as other websites. 82.30.76.239 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Korrigan, you'll have to give me some time to compile a list. The list isn't, as our unregistered user suggest, long. Captain Scarlet 21:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The images listed above are all uploads by Captain Scarlet and depict other documents that cannot be his due to age and could be copies of possible museum exhibits for which the copyright is not PD or fair use. Many more of the images in his gallery show the source as other websites. 82.30.76.239 18:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good. Now here is the thing you didn't know, but that you will know learn by heart : taking a photo of a copyrighted work (eg a photo, a painting, whatever) does not remove the original copyright on the photo. So this photo itself is copyrighted, despite the fact that you took it, simply because it depicts a copyrighted work. It has to be speedy deleted. Now, could you please help us and tell *please* which files you have imported which depict other documents, and thus which are 99% surely copyrighted ? Thank you, le Korrigan →bla 15:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- You don't have to be registered to give your opinion here, his opinion is as valuable as anybody else's, please stop making this kind of comment as you are the person in trouble currently : you have uploaded copyrighted content on Commons, and you force admins here to do the dirty work of checking and deleting and deleting links to those pictures.
- Now, please go through all you uploads and tag all copyrighted ones with {{Copyvio}}, to make it easier for everybody. Make sure that :
- When you say "own work", only you own work is depicted and not another photograph or something like this. If in doubt, ask.
- When you say "uploaded with kind permission of...", please give a link to such a permission, or better : e-mail a copy of that permission to "permissions (at) wikimedia (dot) org", where the OTRS team can handle it. Without proof of a satisfactory permission, such images are likely to be deleted as well.
- Thanks, le Korrigan →bla 21:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Discussion closed. Also deleted was "Image:Gare Maritime de Cherbourg (1944).jpg" and "Image:Gare Maritime de Cherbourg - Intérieur (1944).jpg". Thuresson 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
November 20
[edit]Reasons for deletion request:
Request for deletion by author and uploader. The image is no longer being used, and has no foreseeable use. Antireconciler 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --Panther 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is for self promototion only. According to the rules: The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. Moreover, it is only being used for the uploader's purpose. At pt.Wikipedia we are discussing this kind of images, this being used as a pilot to enforce better use of Commons. FYI, discussion is here. -- Nuno Tavares ☜ PT 08:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's a free image assembly of good quality, it isn't only for my personal promotion, it's a parody of Matrix with image representing the "blue side" of Wikipedia (articles) and the "red side" (community) (see too Image:Red pill wikipedia.png) that can be used in the future in some project or to complement some didactic material about Wikipedia.
This specific situation is adjusted to illustrate the reason why the side of community is red: a personal disagreement on internal quarrels on PT.WP (Portuguese Wikipedia) transformed into this type of revolt. FML 
hi 13:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see the potential that this image can be used on articles about the matrix. Furthermore a few personal photos are allowed, see: en:Wikipedia:Facebook --Cat out 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Replaced with source image, Image:Goblin shark.jpg. This image was poinltessly converted to PNG, ballooning the filesize. Drat 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Both deleted, copyvios. --Cat out 16:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is an exact duplicate or scaled-down version of another image. KP Botany 19:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tag it with {{Duplicate}}. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
comes from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/africa_faces/, so it can't be public domainSven-steffen arndt - 00:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as a copyvio. iirc, nationalgeographic.com is copyrighted. Zzyzx11 05:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. NationalGeographic.com even says "© 1996-2006 National Geographic Society. All rights reserved." at the bottom of the page. --Rory096 06:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- The uploaded image and given link here don't display the same image. A more direct link please. --Cat out 15:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Would National Geographic even own the copyrights to this image, or would those would remain with the photographer? I did discover a link to the photo on another National Geographic site, so that was probably the source, and that is marked as copyright NGS. It is credited to Carol Beckwith and Angela Fisher, who seem to claim the copyright to photos in their project (published by National Geographic), though I could not find this one there. The original upload is listed as copyrighted-free-use, but unless permission from the photographers can be shown, I would say to Delete. Ah, here is the link of the original source. I would guess the copyright is owned by the photographers and not NGS, and we would need permission from them. I don't see any other licensing on that page that would apply.
- Delete FML hi 14:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 22:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
French Presidents of the Vth Republic
[edit]Four consecutive presidents of France :
- Image:Charles de Gaulle.jpg
- Image:GeorgesPompidou.jpg
- Image:VGiscardE.jpg
- Image:FrançoisMitterrand.jpg
These pictures are not free. Their property rights belong to a French «direction d'administration centrale» (that is roughly an office of the French government) called «La Documentation Française»
As can be checked on the website of La Documentation Française «La reproduction et l'utilisation des images en dehors d'une consultation individuelle et privée sont interdites.» (Reproduction and use of these pictures outside private consultation is forbidden) ; as can be checked further down in the website, rights of use of these pictures are for sale by «La Documentation Française».
I noticed a few remarks about similar pictures have been made on Yann's talk page. A similar picture of Jacques Chirac was previously deleted, and maybe also a previous version of VGE's picture, which might have been reloaded by another user. Touriste 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Worse. It is possible that the copyright belongs to a private photographer who authorized the French government to use his or her works, but it is possible that it does not authorize the government to re-license the contents. For instance, the official photo of Jacques Chirac is by Bettina Rheims, a well-known photographer.
Wikimédia France is to contact La Documentation Française in the forthcoming weeks, we'll ask about that. David.Monniaux 02:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just had a look at a book using Image:VGiscardE.jpg on its cover (pocket edition of Le pouvoir et la vie). According to the legal mention on the back cover, this picture is copyrighted "Jacques-Henri Lartigue/La Documentation française". So it is all but obvious to guess who exactly owns the rights, they are probably shared between the photographers and the French state. Anyway it is certainly not free content. Touriste 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. --|EPO| 18:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wikimeet.Gent.19nov0611.jpg
if this map is from 1935, it won't be PD or PD-old. --Magadan 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if Verlag von Karl Rud. Bremer & Co. Köln-Rh. is copyright owner, this picture will be PD after fourty days from today Julo 20:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- copyrightowner in germany is always the person who created the image, it is not transferable. Unless you know that the author died immediately after creating this image, it's not pd for some more years. -- Gorgo 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment if you delete this one then also delete:
- Image:AssmannshausenLorch.jpg
- Image:KoblenzMosel.jpg
- Image:GisenheimWinkel.jpg
- Image:GoarGoarshausen.jpg
- Image:AndernachNeuwied.jpg
- Image:KoelnDeutz.jpg
- Image:RuedesheimGeisenheim.jpg
- Image:BreisigSinzig.jpg
- Image:StolzenfelsLahnstein.jpg
- Image:BoppardOsterspai.jpg
- Image:BacharachKaub.jpg
- Image:BonnBeuel.jpg
- Image:EltvilleHeidesheim.jpg
- Image:WesselingRheidt.jpg
Not done - it's been more than 40 days so apparently all the images are in the public domain. Yonatanh 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- What kind of argument is that to close a discussion? --ALE! ¿…? 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Reopened, since the argument is incorrect. Many anonymous works published in Germany before 1995 are in the PD 70 years only pma, not 70 years after publication, even if it is actually not possible to identify the author or its date of death. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BacharachKaub.jpg. --Rtc 10:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
November 21
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I believe that the copyright notice on the image's source is not specific enough to be acceptable on Commons. It says:
:It is assumed that all text material submitted by external content providers is available for general publication and is free of copyright. In the case of of pictures, please check with the owner as indicated as most images are copyrighted, and may have been supplied for single use only here.[25]
-- Zzyzx11 07:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. The author is Gibnews, the owner of that website, and this is his own image. Zzyzx11 07:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Obvious derivative work --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC) As explained in Gibnews talk page (the image is a logo cropped from Image:Sr bt.jpg):
- Of course it's a photograph and of course it's yours, but here we're talking about a derivative work: the photograph depicts a creative work, namely the San Roque's 3rd Centenary logo, which is copyrighted. The institution that established the logo retains copyright to the work, so we cannot publish a photograph of a copyrighted element under a free licence. This kind of images is known as reproductions (the 2D equivalent of derivative works; you can find further information about the concept in Commons:Derivative works, where the reasoning is equivalent to that of reproductions). Anyway, the reasoning here is fairly simple: you cannot take a photo of, let's say, a Vodafone shop and crop the image to leave only the Vodafone logo claiming a free license. Vodafone is the owner of its logo and any reproduction of it, even though a photograph, is obviously a derivative work. Hope it's clear now.
Comment The apparent answer by Gibnews is this one:
- What evidence have you that it is copyright ? Company Logos are registered trademarks, this is not. The design incorporates elements that are clearly out of copyright, being 300 years old and public domain. I really do not believe that this is protected in any way. Because you think something does not make it true. Next you will tell me the Gibraltar flag is copyright and can't be seen.
- Comment No, it's the other way around. It's your responsibility to demonstrate that the logo of the San Roque's Third Centenary is not copyrighted, even if it contains elements that are in the public domain. "I really do not believe that this is protected in any way" is not an argument to justify that a logotype does have a license compatible to that of Commons (copyright under the Berne Convention is automatic). Remember, it's the responsibility of the uploader to provide information about the copyright status of an image and you haven't provided it. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- KeepI disagree. What about the other flags on Wikipedia, this is just one of many. --Gibnews
- Comment Your analogy is absolutely wrong. Here we're not talking about an official flag or coat of arm (which is usually in the public domain; sometimes due to age but most of the times because there is specific legislation that states it). We're talking about a logo (the logo of an event sponsorized by a municipality) that happens to be printed on a flag. There are plenty of flags with the "cavallino rampante" waving in the Monza racing circuit and that doesn't make the Ferrari logo be in the public domain. However, it could happen that this specific logo would be in the public domain (not because of including public-domain elements but because a specific resolution by the municipality stating that; otherwise the Berne Convention would apply)... well, again, it's your responsibility to prove it, not the other way around. --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 09:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Ecemaml argumentation is right, and the burden of proof is upon gibnews. -- Drini 02:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Deriv work. Megapixie 12:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. by Siebrand (unused, removed at request) Rocket000 18:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Request of the author. Krzysztof Raś Wyglif 15:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - This image is identical to Image:Bolivar State flag.png in every way save the title and is not used in any articles Jecowa 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted, but please note: in such case it is not necessary to list such images here. Just put a {{Badname}} or {{Duplicate}} tag on the description page. If you are the uploader you even might use {{speedy|unwanted duplicate}} or something similar. --ALE! ¿…? 08:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Logo of the Francisco José de Caldas District University. There is no evidence that it has been released under a free content license [26] -- Zzyzx11 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Dodo --ALE! ¿…? 08:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Picture was very likely not taken by the US government Flominator 11:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- But the image came from the Hoffman collection of U.S. National Archives. [27]. It's a duplicate of Image:Deutschland 1.jpg. --Il palazzo 14:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Meanwhile I have changed all links from Image:Panzerschiff deutschland.jpg to Image:Deutschland 1.jpg --Flominator 15:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The NHC labels this as coming from U.S. National Archives, part of the Heinrich Hoffman collection (and taken by him in 1935), which were Nazi records seized during WWII. Hoffman died in 1957, but was Hitler's official photographer, so copyrights would probably have been held by the Nazi Party (NSDAP). It's PD in the US and UK due to specific laws I think, but not necessarily in Germany (and therefore most of the rest of the world, who would respect German copyright). If it is still under copyright, it would likely be owned by the German government. Does Germany have a different term of protection for "simple" photographs, which this may fall under? Carl Lindberg 15:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- löschen in Deutschland gibts kein copyright und das Urheberrecht erlischt 70 Jahre nach dem Tod. Die NSDAP kann nicht Urheber sein (auch nicht vor 1945), weil das Recht nicht übertragbar ist. Wann zum Teufel begreifen die das endlich mal? --Marcela 16:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you're saying the NSDAP can't have copyright, why does this article talk about how a German court ruled that the NSDAP (and now the German government) owned the rights to Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will? Was this just the law prior to 1995, or does it apply just to films? Or is it just that the government has full rights as well? Carl Lindberg 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- at my user-page here you can see, that i'm don't speak englisch. En alemana solamente pueden personas naturales tienen derechos de autor (Urheberrecht). Estos derechos no pueses transferir. Si los amerikanos toman fotos con derechos al fin del Guerra, es un romper del ley. Saludos Marcela 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you're saying the NSDAP can't have copyright, why does this article talk about how a German court ruled that the NSDAP (and now the German government) owned the rights to Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will? Was this just the law prior to 1995, or does it apply just to films? Or is it just that the government has full rights as well? Carl Lindberg 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete surely not en:Work of the United States Government: "A work of the United States Government is, as defined by United States copyright law, "a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties."". --BLueFiSH 19:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete This seems to be one of the images by Heinrich Hoffmann, which were seized by the US after World War II. They may be PD in the US, but they are still copyrighted in Germany. Hoffmann died in 1957, so they will be PD in 2028. --88.134.44.254 22:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:DaB. --ALE! ¿…? 22:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- don't forget Image:Deutschland 1.jpg --BLueFiSH 02:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- also deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Wrong Name, the new file uploaded named as Image:Qin empire 210 BCE TC.jpg.--孔明居士 16:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Reason for deletion request: The picture is from http://www.naic.edu/public/about/photos/hires/aoviews.html Uwe W. 20:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Link direct to the picture: http://www.naic.edu/public/about/photos/hires/ao001.jpg --Uwe W. 16:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: it's a non-commercial-only license; see en:Image:Arecibo.arp.750pix.jpg. Lupo 15:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do not know much about it's license. If you feel the importance of deletion do it. -- Hermitage17 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted: non-commercial --GeorgHH 12:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The uploader has announced a complete address with phone number an email. We dont know that it is his address. The same for Image:DIE REISE.JPG GeorgHH 23:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep This is no reason to delte the image. Seems a too literall author listing. Check the user is the author and then delete the page revision with the personal data, not the image! Platonides 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:UED77 --ALE! ¿…? 11:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wax figures in are copyrighted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Madame Tussauds. Rory096 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted as derivative work. --Matt314 23:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
from [28], why source is United States Military Academy?Shizhao 03:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- The source is correct, as usma.edu is the US Military Academy. While that site does say "Copyright ©United States Military Academy, West Point, New York USA 10996" at the bottom of each page, it appears to not actually be a claim of actual copyright, but of trademarks held on the logo, as you can see if you click on the link, which makes sense, since as far as I know, the US Military Academy is run by the DoD, who can't claim copyright on material that they create because they're part of the US government. I would say Keep. --Rory096 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I did not modify the picture. My purpose of uploading this to commons is simply because the original version (uploaded to English wikipedia only) cannot be used in other Wikipedias. If this has problems with copyrights, then deleting it is fine.--Xieza 05:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Image kept. Thuresson 22:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
November 22
[edit]
Site states : © 2006 International Hockey Federation. All Rights Reserved. -- Tarawneh 05:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Pictures are copyright Wolfgang Sternberger from the looks of it, not the IHF (whose copyright statement is just a general website thing). At any rate the effect is the same; the image is copyrighted (neither public domain nor cc-by-2.5, both of which are claimed in the image description) and we can't use it. Delete. Carl Lindberg 06:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Dodo --ALE! ¿…? 13:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Free for media use is not enough for Wikipedia! Chaddy 13:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Free for media use is not enough for Wikipedia! Chaddy 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 22:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
"Press image" doesn't mean the image is free to use by anyone for any purpose. The source website explicitly states that all images are copyrighted. ("Für unsere Texte, Bilder und Grafiken, insbesondere für unsere Datenbanken, beanspruchen wir das Urheberrecht.") --88.134.44.254 15:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted. --Matt314 09:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Images of WikiMax
[edit]- Image:Hoogenband.freestyle.jpg
- Image:Thorpe.backstroke.jpg
- Image:Ian.crocker.butterfly.jpg
- Image:Kitajima.breaststroke.jpg
- Image:Stephane.Gillet.jpg
- Image:Michael.Phelps.Start.01.jpg
Appear to be professional photos of swimmers. It's always good to be cautious with these type of images, because copyright violation of such images will certainly result in problems. The images have already been here since January....
It would be helpful if someone found any one of these images on a commercial image provider, such as AP or Getty images.
Fred Chess 17:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Well The Gillet image is obvious copyvio, the croker image is from the AP, and the Phelps image is from here, all copyvios, Speedy Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy delete all, copyvios. 62.145.19.66 09:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Speedy delete per nomination. Kimchi.sg 03:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
All deleted / Fred Chess 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Advertising GeorgHH 11:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep IYOU MOTHER FUCKERS BUNCH OF IDIOTS. FML hi 14:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
keep it, there is no advertising. just an e mail address. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.125.89.76 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 22. Nov. 2006 <-- this user vandalised my user pages. --GeorgHH 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. this definitivly is advertising. Berrucomons 08:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see where is the problem. FML hi 14:47, 07 January 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Random personal photograph. No information on who these people are. The advertisement that goes with this image has been removed by admins more than once. Image is out of scope. Deadstar (msg) 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- DeleteI say it again: This is advertisment. --GeorgHH 20:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not used anywhere and I do not see it being useful anywhere. Thuresson 17:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Outside Commons:Project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The poster is definifly not a work of the US Government, but from an unknown romanian artist, this is not PD Ixitixel 12:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is part of the Romanian Country Study posted at the LoC. As for copyrights, they say: With the exception of some photographs, which are clearly marked in the photograph's caption, text and graphics contained in the online Country Studies are not copyrighted. They are considered to be in the public domain and thus available for free and unrestricted use. As a courtesy, however, we ask that appropriate credit be given to the series. The link on the country study called "Political Developments During the Ceausescu Era" (current, maybe temporary link is here) says this photo is "Courtesy Scott Edelman". It's possible that it is this guy, who was working for the State Department in Romania at the time. I'm not entirely sure if the LoC is just crediting the photographer (who took the picture as part of his duties) or indicating that he does in fact own the copyright. Carl Lindberg 19:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Uncertain copyright. / Fred Chess 20:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
from the Hubble Space Telescope, not explicitly come from the STScI. See [29] and {{PD-USGov-NASA}}.--Shizhao 17:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
and same Image:Nebular knots in the Ring Nebula.jpg--Shizhao 17:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
First the follow shall be settled:
If the credit line for an image lists STScI as the source, the image may be freely used as in the public domain as noted above. However, for credit lines listing individuals from other institutions, you will need to contact that institution listed in the credit line to advise you on the copyright policy for that image. [30]
The lets check the credits.
Image #1:
Credits: Bruce Balick (University of Washington), Jason Alexander (University of Washington), Arsen Hajian (U.S. Naval Observatory), Yervant Terzian (Cornell University), Mario Perinotto (University of Florence, Italy), Patrizio Patriarchi (Arcetri Observatory, Italy), NASA.
Image #2:
Credit: C. Robert O'Dell and Kerry P. Handron (Rice University), NASA
Conclusion:
Delete
While I think flag should be public domain, I want to check with you if this is the case here, as on the source page there is no source or author given... -- Bdamokos 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. If a proper source and license is provided, it can be reuploaded. / Fred Chess 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
November 23
[edit]
Personnal photo of a nude man in his bedroom with the bed and some clothes behind. Non-encyclopedic, non-medical, non-artistic. I don't think we can use it in the encyclopedia. Username9 14:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- odder 12:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
copyrighted front cover of a contemporary book ALE! ¿…? 10:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- What about PD-illegible? --Flominator 18:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, a typical PD-ineligible. Kjetil_r 05:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
kept (deletion request withdrawn) --ALE! ¿…? 21:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not a photorealistic painting but a art-filter work of photoshop or some other image processing software. I think it's a derivative work of a photograph, because a couple of photographs exist of the shown speech (similar microphones, position of the photographer), see [31]Lyzzy 11:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete manipulated photo --Astrokey44 14:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete seems clear to me --ALE! ¿…? 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of good and free images about Little Nemo (category:Little Nemo). This one is not beautifull and not used. Username9 13:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
kept, there is no better version of this particular image available --ALE! ¿…? 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"Own Scan", but the original work is still copyrighted. -- Matt314 22:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- The original work was produced by Ms. Rosl Müller for the election campaign of the political party ALÖ in the 1983 general elections in the province of Salzburg, Austria. Copyright was transferred to ALÖ. As the latter was dissolved a few years afterit seem doubtful if any kind of copyright still exists, I asked the manager of the ALÖ 1983 election campaign for Salzburg for permission to publish it, which was freely given. --Gakuro 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, you have a permission to publish, but this isn't a GNU_Free_Documentation_License. --Bwag 09:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Photo taken in 1972: the photograph can't be dead for more than 70 years. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio Jaranda wat's sup 19:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - LERK (Talk / Contributions) 21:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio : The image is tagged as PD-self, but the photos of the Riace Bonzes on each side weren't taken by the user. -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 21:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.cerizay.fr/ claims copyright here.
The pic is anymore accessible on the mentioned site but the politic in matter of copyright is clear:
L'ensemble de ce site relève de la législation française et internationale sur le droit d'auteur et la propriété intellectuelle. Tous les droits de reproduction sont réservés, y compris pour les documents téléchargeables et les représentations iconographiques et photographiques. La reproduction de tout ou partie de ce site sur quelque support que ce soit est formellement interdite sauf notre autorisation expresse.Oxam Hartog 23:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. Oxam Hartog 23:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Suspicion of copyvio, site in sources (http://www.deltacc.com/photos/communes/cerizay/cerizay01.jpg) claims © Delta Sèvre Argent 2006.
By other way:
*Photo is not found on site today
*French official sites are very very often under copyright.Oxam Hartog 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete : without more informations by uploader, copyvio strongly suspected. Oxam Hartog 23:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Jusjih 07:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Artist not specified. Copyright belongs to the artist, not the photographer. Almost certainly a copyrighted image Borisblue 21:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. It's an official portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, painted in December 1954 by William Dargie (1912 – 2003).[32] If Dargie held the copyright the painting would certainly still be copyrighted. But since it's an official portrait and was commissioned by the Queen,[33] I think it is (or rather, was) under Crown Copyright. (See e.g. §180(2) of the Australian Copyright Act 1968 with amendments up to Act No. 148 of 2003; the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48), §163ff is similar.) If the painting is indeed covered by Crown Copyright, it would be in the public domain since January 1, 2005: UK crown copyright on works created before August 1, 1989 that are neither engravings nor photographs expires 50 years after the creation of the work,[34] and that applies world-wide (see en:WP:PD#Crown copyrights); Australian Crown Copyright also expires 50 years after the creation of the work (see the aforementioned §180(2)). Lupo 08:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, in that case, we should add this information on the page then. Borisblue 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- The Artist's Footsteps link does not say that the painting was commissioned by the Queen. It quite specifically says that it was commissioned by James P. Beveridge, and then presented to the Australian government and eventually became and official portrait. I doubt that it was under Crown Copyright. JPD 12:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oops. You're right; I should have paid more attention. I must have skipped over the NY Herald Tribune press coverage, thinking all relevant info had been given before. :-( In that case, ask the Parliament House Art Collection. They should know whether or not it's Crown Copyright. Lupo 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Artist's Footsteps link does not say that the painting was commissioned by the Queen. It quite specifically says that it was commissioned by James P. Beveridge, and then presented to the Australian government and eventually became and official portrait. I doubt that it was under Crown Copyright. JPD 12:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I found this image on Flickr:http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgifford/178885029/ licensed under CC-BY 2.0 which I have uploaded on the Commons: Image:Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.jpg. I will orphan the present image being discussed since the copyright status is unclear.--Oden 08:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Note: I will only orphan it on the English-language Wikipedia. --Oden 08:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- This page offers further insights: http://wopared.parl.net/legal/copyright.htm
- "You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation. All other rights are reserved. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Services, Canberra ACT, 2600 or [e-mail address]."
- It only concerns material on the website, but it seems more and more like this work is copyrighted. --Oden 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete work is only pd for australian painters who died before 1955 --Astrokey44 14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 22:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Although KDE is free software, this screenshot includes what appears to be a Microsoft Windows emulator. Of course, Windows is a copyrighted, unfree program and screenshots of it is not permitted here on Commons. -- Zzyzx11 08:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I re-uploaded the file with the win part scrambled and unidentifiable. --Nevit 09:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Seems good. Retag it with {{GPL}} and keep. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged as "free screenshot". Thuresson 22:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfree image (Press Galleries usually ential no commercial use and no derivatives). At any rate, it is not specifically stated as free. NauticaShades 19:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and because there is no explicit mention of the license, we must assume that the image is unfree. --Iamunknown 06:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfree image (Press Galleries usually ential no commercial use and no derivatives). At any rate, it is not specifically stated as free. NauticaShades 19:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - delete per nom and, because there is no explicit mention of the license, we must assume it is not licensed under a free license. --Iamunknown 06:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No Licenz!!!!
It was wrongly licenced. Takhara 19:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- Web site claims "Copyright (c) 2005 - 2007. The American Hungarian Federationtm. All rights reserved.". Thuresson 22:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Standard length of copyrights in the EU countries are 70 years + life and there is no information at Commons:Licensing that suggests otherwise as far as Hungary is concerned. My impression is that AHF is using the photos under "fair use". Their claim "AHF believes that all pictures shown below are in the public domain..." suggests that they do not own the copyright. Thuresson 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
But as far as the AHF knows, they ARE in public domain. If they take the photos down from their website, then we should immediately follow suit. But as long as they still offer the pictures as public domain resources, we have no good reason to assume they cannot be used. It's just common sense. Thanks for undeleting the stalin-boots pic btw. :) If you feel the need, you might contact the AHF people to ask again about permission--I seem to remember we ended up in contact with a gentleman named Atilla Kocsis. If you're still concerned maybe you should drop him a line. K. Lastochka 04:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Mr. Kocsis is at atilla.kocsis[at]americanhungarianfederation.org. K. Lastochka 04:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The source lists the image as Public Domain. See [35]
- "* Note: AHF believes that all pictures shown below are in the public domain, if there are any issues please contact us to discuss." (left column, third para)
- In this context, the following quote:"Copyright (c) 2005 - 2007. The American Hungarian Federationtm. All rights reserved." clearly refers to the web page itself and not the images, which are presented as a media resource; thus that copyright disclaimer cannot be used to delete the image. Istvan 04:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- The source lists the image as Public Domain. See [35]
- When User:K. Lastochka uploaded this photo on October 9 he/she claimed that it is protected by copyright and that the copyright owner allows anybody to use this photo for any purpose. There is still no evidence that the copyright owner allows that. On December 1, User:Istvan wrote that it is protected by copyright and that the AHF allows free use by anybody. Who is the copyright owner? The AHF explicitly do not claim to own the copyright.
- If the photo is public domain (which is a legal concept), then there needs to be a law that makes this photo public domain. What does the Hungarian copyright law say about photos from 1956? Could somebody from the Hungarian Wikipedia project write about Hungarian copyright law at Commons:Licensing? Thuresson 13:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am (in addition to being a "she" :) ) unfamiliar with Hungarian copyright law--I will ask someone who knows. Secondly, I restate my position--if you are concerned, contact the AHF. K. Lastochka 16:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- It is the uploader's responsibility to show that the copyright tag is correct. I have not seen anything that suggests that the copyright owner allows anybody to use this photo for any purpose. Thuresson 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we already did just that, back in October. However since you insist I will contact Mr. Kocsis tomorrow (I have no more spare time today). K. Lastochka 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Correction to the above, user:Istvan does *not* claim that the pictures are copyrighted, but notes the AHF statement that they are public domain. 216.158.235.235 15:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- On December 1, Istvan claimed that the photos are "copyright 2005" and that "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." Thuresson 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been outstanding for 4 months, K. Lastochka promised to contact the web site from which this came a month ago, and there has been no progress since. I am deleting since the website's PD claim seems unsustainable given that Hungary follows the normal 70y pma rule of other EU states [36]. There may be some old transitional Hungarian rules that apply, but I can't find anything, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that the normal rule shouldn't apply this does seem to be a copyvio.
I apologize for not contacting Mr. Kocsis when I said I would. My real life has been rather hectic lately and I simply forgot. I have just sent him an e-mail a few minutes ago, and will let you know what he replies. K. Lastochka 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
November 24
[edit]This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All images uploaded by User:Guy1002
[edit]Reasons for deletion request Dodo 12:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
This user has uploaded lots of pictures by Ben Heine, from various sources.
- He describes them as "own work", but I doubt that he is Ben Heine. He has not proved it.
- Many of those sources are copyrighted. If Ben Heine sold theirs works to them, then the copyright owners will have something to say about this.
I have left a message to him, but has not answered yet. I suspect he has nothing to do with Ben Heine and he has chosen random licenses when uploading this stuff. Regards. --Dodo 12:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Images of Ben Heine User:Guy1002
[edit]I got all your messages. I'm Ben Heine. My full name is Benjamin "Guy" Hubert Heine, thus the user Wikipedia account under the name "Guy". If you don't believe me, I can say what will be the next article posted on my Blog in the coming hours (www.benjaminheine.blogspot.com).
To answer to your first message, I didn't sell my works to any Website, My works are mostly no copyright...
Answer to User:Dodo
[edit]It's the first time I'm creating pages on Wikipedia. All the images are my creations, except my portrait by Marcin Bondarowicz, but he gave me his permission to use the portrait with the chosen copyright.(He can be reached at bondarowicz@wp.pl). Is it possible to change the description of the image without having to reload them? Dodo wanted to verify my identity. Please, can an administrator contact me at heinebenjamin@hotmail.com so I could prove that I'm Ben Heine.
Thanks in advance.
Ben Heine (www.benheine.com , www.benjaminheine.blogspot.com)
Answer to Guy1002
[edit]Hi. Let's see:
- Yes, we could try to contact with the person behind that e-mail addres, but it's really easy to create a fake account on hotmail, so it's way far better that you leave a message at your official blog.
- It's even better that you put a note on your official page stating that you release your works under the CC-BY-SA and the GFDL licenses, so anyone will be able to check the copyright status of your work, even if they are uploaded by other people.
- We still have the problem of the magazines and other media that have previously published your works. Have they any kind of copyright over them?
- I'm afraid that we cannot trust the word of the uploader about the permission given by another author if we don't see a copy of it. Please take a look at Commons:Email templates.
Thanks. --Dodo 15:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase:
I have send him an E-mail, to the E-mail address found in the website. I have recived two E-mails from him.
The first one was short:
- Yuval, I got your message!
- Thank you so much!
- Give 2 minutes to write a structured answer!
- Ben Heine
The second one was longer, with pictures, biography and such.
- Yuval, thanks for sending me this mail. I thought I would never do it! I have been fighting with Wikipedia and Wikimedia for hours now.
- So as I said, I'm the user http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Guy1002 but I'm also the real Ben Heine. :)
- I have to choose the licence "Own Work, copyleft : Multi-licence with GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-25...
- I don't see what's wrong... All the cartoons are my creation. Nobody bought them. My works have been shown in many countries, I'm like Latuff, I don't ask anything.
- Is it possible to change the licence without having to upload again all the images?
- Thank you so much for everything.
- I attach with this e-mail a short biography (See below) so you know more about me...
- Ben
For the full E-mail, you can contact me at yuval.y.ilgmail.com, and I've also forwarded a copy to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org .
I think now I can finally close the debate.
Best regards, Yuval Y • Chat • 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Although the BlogBridge RSS reader has been released under the GPL, content from Slashdot.org, shown in this screenshot, it copyrighted (not to mention the Bose headphones banner ad) -- Zzyzx11 17:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete I wasn't aware that Slashdot was copyrighted. I'm all for the deletion of the image in this case. I'll create another image, but use a Wikipedia RSS feed. Shadow1 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deleted / Fred Chess 21:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Commons:Licensing#Checklist : Definitely not OK Photographs of normal people who have not given their consent to being photographed IIRC 14:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Same as above, CheckUsage IIRC 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note 1: This image was previously nominated for deletion on the date above but apparently not properly listed. Note 2: One of the persons pictured in this article has e-mailed OTRS asking for this image to be deleted. Centrx 22:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Orphan and Speedy delete Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 14:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Zirland --ALE! ¿…? 14:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Accidental copyright violation, uploader has been contacted. [37] 217.186.76.237 00:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
"using images from Free satelite imagery programs." What programs? As we know, Google Earth is forbidden. -- Fred Chess 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete likely was made from copyrighted satellite image. world wind doesnt get that close --Astrokey44 04:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, no reaction for a month and a half. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Jusjih 15:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The image was obtained from Kelly Ryan, the Director of Press and Public Relations at ABT. The uploader since stated it was not under a free license, but there is confusion over it. / Fred Chess 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC) -- Fred Chess 17:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. en:Image:Sylmurbel.jpg currently has a fair use tag. Zzyzx11 05:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete and tagged with {{Fair use}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 23:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Does Commons accept 50 pma ("After Death of Author") or not? The Berne covention only requires 50 as far as I know, making this image acceptable. Or could Template:PD-Canada be applied?Fred Chess 21:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would imagine we accept them if the copyright law in the originating country has them as PD (true for several countries; for some examples Canada, Japan, and Indonesia have 50 pma terms). While it looks like someone created a PD-old-50 tag, I haven't seen it used much, as I think we have country-specific templates for them rather than risk someone thinking that 50 pma may apply to US or European images.
- In this case, it certainly seems if PD-Canada would apply (either by 50 pma or Crown Copyright, as from his bio he was Canada's "official" war artist). Keep. Carl Lindberg 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: As the USA has not accepted the rule of the shorter term of the Berne covention, 50 pma is sometimes but not always acceptable here. Please go to m:American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term while I am getting frustrated of this major obstacle in our way. If you do not wish to talk there, please leave your comments to my talk page and I will attribute to your usernames.--Jusjih 15:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- True, that can be an issue with PD-old-50. For this picture though, I think it falls under PD-Canada, so it is public domain in Canada (as the source page says). As for the US, the source page states that it was registered with the US Copyright Office in 1918, meaning it would be treated as "published" there prior to 1923, meaning it is PD in the U.S. as well. I would tag it with PD-Canada (and maybe PD-US too), and Keep. Carl Lindberg 04:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- True, that can be an issue with PD-old-50. For this picture though, I think it falls under PD-Canada, so it is public domain in Canada (as the source page says). As for the US, the source page states that it was registered with the US Copyright Office in 1918, meaning it would be treated as "published" there prior to 1923, meaning it is PD in the U.S. as well. I would tag it with PD-Canada (and maybe PD-US too), and
- Kept. Since USA copyright registration was made, I have dual-tagged it PD-Canada and PD-US. It may still be legally copyrighted in countries and areas having 60 pma or longer if not accepting the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Screenshots of a copyrighted game. See http://beyondgoodevil.com/us/main.php --Dodo 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Each image description page of these screenshots has a link to User:Avatar/Ubisoft which references OTRS ticket#: 20051200210003144. Since I do not currently have access to OTRS, I cannot comment any further to verify it. Zzyzx11 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- But until otherwise, Keep. Zzyzx11 17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- But until otherwise,
- Keep. I believe User:Avatar's contact with Ubisoft. Ubisoft agreed to free license screenshots. Hołek ҉ 10:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep! I don't see any problem with Ubisoft's agreement. MesserWoland Dyskusja 10:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Krzysiu Jarzyna ☎ 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC) -- Ubisoft agreed to free license screenshots.
- Keep Ubisoft agreed so...? Herr Kriss 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment User:Avatar/Ubisoft should be moved to the relevant OTRS thread. It should be kept on commons as a "referance only" and should be in commons namespace not usernamespace. Furthermore each image description pages should have the OTRS #. --Cat out 21:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3ANormal+adr.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Bild%3ANormal+acr.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.atleticopr.com.br/imagens/diretorios/diretorio43/arquivo950.gif){kind=link}
![[10]](http://bestanimations.com/Cartoons/Simpsons/Ralph-01-june.gif){kind=link}
![[14]](http://kubrickfilms.warnerbros.com/images/Photo_Gallery_011.jpg){kind=link}
sa.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_JELLO.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[24]](http://www.libraries.wvu.edu/construction/inside/images/camera.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[31]](http://files.myopera.com/E.%20Driver/albums/35120/thumbs/Beuys.png_thumb.jpg){kind=link}
kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Spoonrecords.com only displays a copyright statement; there is no indication (that I could find) that any of their content may be redistributed. I believe the "attribution" tag is erroneous in this case. Also, no mention of the photographer, date photo was made etc. -- Gyrofrog 06:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. Notified uploader. Gyrofrog
- Upon reading the text in {{Copyvio}} it seems clear to me that this image instead qualifies for speedy deletion. I have re-tagged it as such. -- Gyrofrog 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 11:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks like recorded from a stage screen --Flominator 08:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- It IS the stage screen. Yuval Y • Chat • 15:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is it one of those concerts that have a "no cameras" policy? That could also be a problem. Zzyzx11 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the no-camera-problem, but I'm sure that the guy who filmed it for the screen has a copyright on it. --Flominator 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- "no camera" policy is not a problem for commons, it's a contract between the concert management and the visitor. -- Gorgo 18:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Logo - should not be free! -- Tarawneh 07:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to have come from http://www.berlinale.de; that website has a copyright notice at the bottom. Zzyzx11 09:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Files by User:Merlin-Verlag
[edit]Merlin-Verlag (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
I dont believe that a publishing house provide images of authors, books and logos on commons without limitation of use.GeorgHH 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ich antworte mal auf deutsch...Ich habe dann wohl beim upload die falsche Kathegorie gewählt. Kannst du mir vielleicht schreiben, was ich angeben muss, um eine Nutzung nur mit Bewilligung des Verlags auszuwählen? Danke.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Merlin-Verlag (talk • contribs)
Closed, kept. After reading User talk:Merlin-Verlag it appears that the Merlin-Verlag owns the copyright of their images and are entitled to upload them. I don't know if OTRS permission has been sent by Merlin-Verlag but they claim they would do so. If something is wrong with the permission then the images should of course be deleted, either speedy deleted or through a new deletion request. / Fred Chess 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Files by User:Merlin-Verlag
[edit]Previous closure has been more than 2 years ago, so far no OTRS permission has been received on any of the images. The copyright on these images is obviously owned by Merlin Verlag, a German publishing house. We need OTRS permission to verify that these are really available under a free license. See also above comment by Merlin-Verlag, asking how they can mark images so you need to ask for their permission before using them. I doubt that they ever really consciously handed out a free license. -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Delete as missing permission. –Tryphon☂ 16:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, lacks suitable permission. Kameraad Pjotr 20:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This is not the flag of Svalbard. It is not used there and should not be spread by commons as a legitimate flag. As of now a couple of wikis have picked it up as a legitimate flag. Inge 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- The design for this flag was taken from Flags of the World https://www.fotw.info/flags/sj-arms.html
- Jan Oskar Engene at flags of the world states: Svalbard does not have arms, and the only proper flag for the islands is the Norwegian flag. In 1930, a private association proposed arms and flags for all Norwegian counties – and also for Svalbard. This was a Norwegian lion on a field of vair blue and white. Note that this was never officially adopted and is not the flag of Svalbard.
- As this is only a proposed design for a flag which was never adopted one has to assume the original designer owns the copyright as with any other work. That makes this a possible copyright violation as well.
Keep Even if this flag WAS NOT accepted in 1930's, this is a historical proposal and can be kept to illustrate history of Svalbard. Private initiatives of associations are part of local history. Don't reject it with the only reason "never officially adopted". Just add a comment to the image description. Julo 13:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete The fact that this was only a suggestion means that the copyright of this work of art is owned in entirety by the person who designed it. It can not be treated as a flag or coat of arms, but as a painting or similar. This particular image was made by someone else, but the design is still owned by the designer. Inge 14:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. I researched on the internet, and my conclusion is that the flag was proposed but never adopted in any way, and the reason that fotw used it is because of a misunderstanding, explained here. As Inge said, normal copyrights are likely to apply. / Fred Chess 09:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The image has not been deleted...?Inge 12:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not the flag of Bouvet Island. It is purely a fantasy flag and exists only on the internet. It has no official or unofficial status or function. It has never been and is never used. Inge 16:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- The design of this flag was taken from http://www.vexilla-mundi.com/bouvet_island.htm where it has the caption The unofficial and very doubtfull flag of Bouvet island. It is also marked as copyrighted by Mello Luchtenberg. This is not an official flag so one has to assume the original designer owns the copyright as with any other work. As this is an identical representation of the same design it might be a copyright enfringement as well. Inge 16:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 13:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not the flag of Bouvet Island. It is purely a fantasy flag and exists only on the internet. It has no official or unofficial status or function. It has never been and is never used. Inge 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Delete. At least two Wikipedias mistook it for the real thing. Valentinian (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 00:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 13:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
no evidence for pdLeipnizkeks 22:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Its filename is duplicated, due to an error of the imagetransfer.py (a tool mentioned on the Commons:Tools page). Please delete it, I'll try to upload it again once this issue has been solved -- Bdamokos 19:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 09:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Low quality: handwritten; uploader won't be around to answer questions; uploader's request GangstaEB (W) 03:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No evidence for PD-old. Who is the author? When did he die? The given link doesn't proof anything because it has become a deadlink meanwhile. Leipnizkeks 21:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
He died 56 years ago. It coudl go under the PD-old-50 tag ? —the preceding unsigned comment is by Edgar Allan Poe (talk • contribs)
- No. It's not the death image subject but death the author of the photograph that matters. At {{PD-old-50}} it also says "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before 1923", so only images published before 1923 can be tagged with this template. Therefore Delete --Matt314 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmm. I did find this online again, at Project Gutenberg. It looks like it was published in a New York Times book in 1914 or 1915 (much larger version of the image there too, though with scanlines in it). Several of the other photos there are credited to photographers and copyright noted, but not this Shaw one, leading me to think it was copyrighted by the New York Times, which would have expired as it was published prior to 1923. Keep. Carl Lindberg 04:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Tagged as PD-US, per Carl Lindberg. / Fred Chess 09:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Has been on speedy delete long enough.
Author: Frank-Henri Jullien (1882 - 1938)
"The UN informed me via telephone about their decision to release this picture into the public domain. An official statement was announced for next week. Henning Blatt 20:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC) " -- Fred Chess 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
License not verifable / A.J. 08:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Insufficient permission.
The permission present is the one below. There is no license in there, just a vague permission, totaling up to something like {{Attribution}} with a lot of question marks. This user had uploaded some 150 images as PD-self and PD which were removed on nl.wikipedia. Siebrand 20:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC).
You have our permission to copy, reproduce, and release West Virginia Geologic and Economic Survey (WVGES ) drawings if acknowledgment is given to the WVGES. You are welcome to use a credit line of your own wording or if you prefer for us to provide the wording, we suggest something like one of the following two phrases: "Drawing from the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, 1 Mont Chateau Road, Morgantown, WV 26508-8079" or "Drawing from the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, http://www.wvgs.wvnet.edu". Similarly, you may use any other WVGES material if acknowledgment is given to WVGES. In addition, regarding the product that you are preparing, you may want to include within the caption (or other appropriate place) that "permission to reproduce is granted if acknowledgment is given to the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey" so that users of your product also may copy, reproduce, and release the drawing if they would like. You also asked about potentially downloading images from the "Plant Fossils of West Virginia." Currently, the WVGES does not have the drawings from the book in electronic format and available for download. We can scan the images for you for a small fee or you are welcome to scan the images yourself. Best of luck with your project! Sincerely, Susan Pool (suepool AT geosrv PUNTO wvnet PUNTO edu) West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey Mont Chateau Research Center Morgantown, WV (304) 594-2331
- Maybe somebody should contact this person and ask her if the permission also includes commercial use and derivative works. Or even better if she can release the works under a free license accepted here. --ALE! ¿…? 08:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. A.J. 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
November 25
[edit]
Already exist under Image:Grand officier nichan.jpg 84.227.51.78 09:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted / 
Bo-rhein-sieg 14:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Photo of a film character, so it's a derivative work. -- Matt314 15:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know about this when I uploaded the picture and thought it was a clever way to illustrate the article about the movie. After reading [[Commons:Derivative works|derivative work] I now know better and agree that this image has to be deleted. --SteBo 11:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted / --Bo-rhein-sieg 14:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
wrong name - this is Tower of London, Image:Tower of London.jpg, wrong license - the image is not old at allAndyVolykhov 08:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by Maximaximax / --Bo-rhein-sieg 14:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded under a wrong name. Same image as Image:Flag of the Ewe people.svg. Mysid 15:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Tagged with {{Duplicate}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Zirland deleted it. --Cat out 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
PD-Germany does not apply, there is no link to the exact location at the NARA webpage. Their FAQ state: "The vast majority of the digital images in the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) are in the public domain." So some images might actually not be PD. The image has been deleted before because of a missing source. -- Matt314 12:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
But, it may alctaully BE PD. You do not know that, and neither do I. Somebody could ask the pepople at NARA fo that pic. The autor of this picture is probably a Nazi official, not know to the world, and probably dead in 1945. So 60 years. The pic coudl go under the {{g}} tag with the Germany and NARA tag. So I am fo the staying of the pic. And to say it is not an official Nazi picture taken by Hoffmann, so it is not directly protected. --Edgar Allan Poe 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Same case as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:348px-HimmlerOberfhr.jpg. The same (!) image has already been deleted: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:443px-Himmler45.jpg. I am surprised that there is a template {{PD-old-50}}. What countries do only have 50 years p.m.a.? Neither the US nor any European country because of harmonizing the term of protection of copyright. --Matt314 15:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Bit if the 5o years ag is not used (in my country it is), why does it exist ? --Edgar Allan Poe 14:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- After having had a closer look on this template: You can use it only for works that are PD in the US (published before 1923). The difference between this template and {{PD-US}} is that the 50 year pma template makes the file also (additionally) PD in some contries like Canada that followed the Berne Convention with a duration of 50 years pma (see de:Regelschutzfrist). So if it is unknown when the author of the image died, {PD-US} should be used (of course only if the image is into the public domain in the US). --Matt314 16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cutt i short. Is it staying and why, or is it going to be deleted and why ?
If it is going to be deleted is there any way I can stop that,. by editing the licence etc. --Edgar Allan Poe 12:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete If we don't know if it is PD it should be deleted. This picture was probably taken for/by some german newspaper or nazi official photographer, this would mean it's protected 70 years after death of author. So even if the author died instantly after taking the picture, it's probably protected until 2015. It might be reuploaded to en.wikipedia as fairuse -- Gorgo 18:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete This photo has been deleted twice before from WikiCommons since it does not have a source. Not all material from NARA is public domain ([38]), "However, not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain. Some materials have been donated or obtained from individuals or organizations and may be subject to restrictions on use." Thuresson 02:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Dodo --ALE! ¿…? 10:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
this image already exixts as Image:Papio_cynocephalus02.jpg --Esculapio 18:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Lyrics and music are still copyrighted, composer (de:Heino Gaze) died 1967. -- Matt314 22:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 00:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Probably no free license. Shikeishu 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete until there is a source cited that proves that this is really a copyrighted-free-use image. Zzyzx11 17:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. --Kareha 20:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derative work -- -- Bryan (talk to me) 15:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Keep ineligible for copyright and hardly a derivative work --ALE! ¿…? 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- sorry but I can see no purpose at all for this image. Unused. / Fred Chess 12:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Included in this nomination:
Violates meta:IRC channels#Logging prohibition. —Psychonaut 22:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete at least the Chatzilla and Xchat screenshots, they show the IPs of people joining the channel. Some people in the channel seem to think the logging prohibition a joke but this is the reason it exists as a blanket prohibition. --bainer (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is just silly. Honestly, there's no information there that couldn't be gained by somebody who joined and idled in the channel. If you don't want your hostname displayed, get a cloak or use a gateway. I strongly suggest finding something more useful to do than whinging about public logging — this silly IRC idea that public logging can be fought hand-to-hand has come out of control. Werdna 12:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep at least the irssi screenshot, it only shows the nicks in the channel and not their IP/Host or any lines of text, unsure about the rest. I suppose it may be better to take a screenshot from a channel which doesn't have such restrictions though. MichaelBillington 11:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. Stijn 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- meta policy is not commons policy. Twinxor 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Insufficient reason for deletion. / Fred Chess 12:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No source given on enwiki version, says it's ineligible for copyright, and while it's true that the information is, it seems to me that the way the graph is drawn could be eligible, so I'm putting it hereRory096 02:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is a source for the image. It cannot be PD-ineligible because someone had to compile the data and draw the graph. And because there is no source, this question popped into my mind: what if this image was traced from another copyrighted source? Zzyzx11 17:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is Pierre and Marie Curie results. This is part of the Curie's Law article on enwiki. They were dead more than 70 years ago, so public licence could be applied. Another point is that I need to rename this image. Could you tell me if I must wait that you validate the licence ? Thanks --Zedh 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. I think the original uploader was the creator. And if he wasn't, it shouldn't be a big deal in the case of such a simple diagram. / Fred Chess 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Images of Bubo277
[edit]
These {{Attribution}}-tagged images currently have no proof, web link, or citation to prove that the copyright holder of these files allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Zzyzx11 06:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - delete, no evidence provided in more than three months. --Iamunknown 06:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence. / Fred Chess 02:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If the copyright owner was Maria Lacerda de Moura and she died in 1945, are you sure the photo has already fallen under public domain? (quote from Dodo) --Flominator 14:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, according to Brazilian law it is PD. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as I made clear in the picture's page, the Brazilian law counts time from publication, and not from the death of the copyright owner. And besides, the owner of the work was Rizzo, the pseudonymous photographer, who is not known. Hence, even if we were following the Bern Convention and not the Brazilian law, it would still be PD, as anonymous work becomes PD after 70 years of publication. Mr.Rocks 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The license template that is currently used requires the image to be published in the US before 1923 but it was not created until 1934. -- Matt314 16:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The license template that is currently used requires the image to be published in the US before 1923 but it was not created until the 1930s. -- Matt314 16:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 02:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
November 26
[edit]
Tokyo Metro MetroCard (my guess: this is copyvio). It can't be uploaded under GFDL. Only the creator can do that. -- Tarawneh 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete The network map on this card is copyrighted by Tokyo Metro Co. Ltd (東京地下鉄株式会社).--Kareha 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- 了解です、画像の削除をお願いします。Sorry,Please Delete this image.--Newsliner 07:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Deleted. (The image is copyrighted by Tokyo Metro) - LERK (Talk / Contributions) 15:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Exact copy of Image:Facetieux.jpeg -- Tarawneh 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Pixel by pixel copy. --Cat out 12:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously fakel license Edub 16:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. I doubt the uploaded was in orbit. --Cat out 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously fake license Edub 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. I doubt the uploaded was in orbit. --Cat out 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously fake license (google earth?)Edub 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. I doubt the uploaded was in orbit. --Cat out 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously fake license (google earth?) Edub 16:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. I doubt the uploaded was in orbit. --Cat out 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- I reorganised these categories and moved everything to Category:ISO 639 icons. ３２４７ (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
'Deleted by me, and User:Odder --Cat out 13:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Human_sexuality78 tracings
[edit]- Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Dog.png
- Image:Zoophilia Woman Sex with Dog.png
- Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Goat.png
- Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Pony Mare.png
- Image:Zoophilia Stallion Oral Sex from Woman.png
- Image:Zoophilia Man Oral Sex from Cow.png
I've just confirmed that at least two of these images are tracings of commercial publicity stills. As they aren't freely redistributable, I haven't uploaded them to Commons; however, confirmations are available at my personal site:
- Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Dog.png is a tracing of http://petlust.com/images/previews/M25-11.jpg
- Image:Zoophilia Man Sex with Goat.png is a tracing of http://petlust.com/images/previews/M21-08.jpg
I haven't tried to find sources for the other four, but it's pretty much a given that they're traces as well: all six images are done in the same unusual style. Zetawoof 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Flicker has it under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 -- Tarawneh 05:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Not only that, based on the image's background, it appears that this wax figure is in some sort of exhibit or museum -- which means the figure itself may be copyrighted. Zzyzx11 17:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The correct ISO 639 code for modern Greek is el, not gre. (N.B.: An old version of this file read "gre".) ３２４７ (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The correct ISO 639 code for Czech is cs, not cz. (N.B.: An old version of this file read "cz".) --３２４７ (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should this be PD? --Flominator 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it appears to be {{PD-US}}, as it was published in The New York Times: Current History - A monthly magazine, p.193 (Text on p. 198). That's from 1914/15. I do not know whether the image might also be PD elsewhere. Lupo 08:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why should this be PD? --Flominator 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to keep this but the original author de:User:Dobschuetz is not available so copyright status can't be verified. Deleted / Fred Chess 12:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
there is no evidence for that this image is in public domain. Leipnizkeks 21:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete judging from the Kellogg's age at which the photo was taken. The photo most probably is not yet more than 70 years old. So it can possibly be in the PD. --ALE! ¿…? 15:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
There is a shorter ISO 639 code for Greek, el, and the SVG file is incorrectly named as 3-letter codes are ISO 639-2. --３２４７ (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Both deleted. The first image was deleted by Ram-Man (talk · contribs), March 7. / Fred Chess 00:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should this be PD? It could be from a year after 1906! --Flominator 20:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is almost certainly post-1906. Bernert was a German WWI flying ace, and judging by the number of decorations he wears, I would guess it's a 1916-1918 image. Immediate image source appears to be [39]. The image was published as a Sanke postcard (#442; see [40]). If we could find out who the photographer was, we could decide whether it was or was not PD. Note that Willi Sanke was not the photographer; he was only the publisher of these postcards. "Postkartenvertrieb Willi Sanke" went out of business around 1918/1920. Some of these postcards were shot by famous photographers, e.g. Nicola Perscheid... Unfortunately, I have been unable to find out who the photographer of this image was. Lupo 08:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Why should this be PD? It could be from a year after 1906! --Flominator 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Probably from 1915-1920. Ask at the Kröller-Müller Museum about the copyright status of this image. Lupo 08:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. / Fred Chess 00:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Images uploaded by User:Gian77
[edit]Gian77 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a large number of copyright violations, including images marked "All rights reserved" on Flickr, images from a number of websites etc. Those that could be found with relative ease and proved to be copyvios have been deleted. The rest are nominated here:
- PD-self, no metadata, looks like something from a website probably copyvio. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- PD-self, no metadata. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- PD-self, no metadata. Aerial shot, probably copyvio. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Looks like something from a website, probably copyvio. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- PD-self, no metadata. The only English filename, indicates that it was lifted from somewhere. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Bandiera udine.JPG
- PD-self, no metadata. Could easily be selfmade, uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Image:Piazza liberta notte2.jpg
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Stated on itwiki to be made from two NASA images. If that can be confirmed they can be kept. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Could be a selfmade map, but uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Similar in style and composition to several Flickr photos (all rights reserved) that he uploaded, but not identified. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- PD-self, no metadata. Could be selfmade, but uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- PD-self, has metadata. This might very well have been taken by him. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- PD-self, no metadata. Might have been taken by him, but the lack of metadata makes me suspicious; the filename indicates that a digital camera was used. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. If he had made it himself, I would have expected GFDL-self, since he has used that elsewhere.
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Filename does not fit into pattern, could be because it was lifted from website. Uncertain because so many PD-self, GFDL-self and GFDL images of his were copyvios. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- GFDL, no metadata, no source. Might be from a free satelite (in which case it needs to be tagged correctly), but could also be from a copyrighted program. Cnyborg 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of them might be OK, some might be deleted due to missing source information, but some will also need input from other users. Cnyborg 19:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please process it for me. Which ones do you think need to be deleted and which ones can stay? --Cat out 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, after identifying a lot of copyvios (he had uploaded about twice as many images as those listed here), I wasn't in the mood for more analysis; I was thinking more along the lines of buying a flame-thrower. I've given some comments for each now. Cnyborg 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: 47 (all tagged GFDL or PD) of his uploads were deleted, as I found them to be obvious copyvios from Flickr (all rights reserved; the majority of the images), non-commercial licenses from Flickr (a few of those) or copyvios from other sites found through a search on Google images (about ten of those). The remainder are the ones I can't find on the net, but that might just be because I have no idea what to search for except "Udine". Cnyborg 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, there is no reason to assume any good faith here that the user created the images himself. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: 47 (all tagged GFDL or PD) of his uploads were deleted, as I found them to be obvious copyvios from Flickr (all rights reserved; the majority of the images), non-commercial licenses from Flickr (a few of those) or copyvios from other sites found through a search on Google images (about ten of those). The remainder are the ones I can't find on the net, but that might just be because I have no idea what to search for except "Udine". Cnyborg 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- The source of Image:Piazza liberta1.jpg, Image:Piazza liberta2.jpg, and Image:Piazza liberta3.jpg is this page. It appears those three were taken by a Mikko Nikkanen, with no indication of any licensing or permission. I'd have to agree with Bryan; there seems to be very little reason to assume good faith here, and it would be quite reasonable to Delete them all. Carl Lindberg 05:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- The source of Image:Piazza liberta1.jpg, Image:Piazza liberta2.jpg, and Image:Piazza liberta3.jpg is this page. It appears those three were taken by a Mikko Nikkanen, with no indication of any licensing or permission. I'd have to agree with Bryan; there seems to be very little reason to assume good faith here, and it would be quite reasonable to
All deleted / A.J. 08:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
November 27
[edit]
not needed anymore. --SvonHalenbach 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Yann --ALE! ¿…? 11:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
1914 is not PD-old! Flominator 11:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- If a suitable license can't be found, then this one needs to migrate to en.wiki under fair use as a historical newspaper headline (Imperial German mobilization at the start of WWI). Shame the resolution isn't higher. Scoo 13:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- On the other hand, does copyright law apply here? It isn't art. I don't know German law, but I'd keep it. Pibwl 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- keep Pure nonsense by Flominator. The whole text of the page is an official work (amtliches Werk § 5 UrhG, Erlasse des Kaisers u.a.), the headline isn't protected as work nor the Vossische coat of arms. --Historiograf 20:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Kept. my mistake, histo is right --Flominator 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
1932 is not PD-old --Flominator 11:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is in Australia 220.233.191.2 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Official work, rest is trivial --Flominator 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
1933 is not PD-old! --Flominator 11:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is in Australia 220.233.191.2 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was definately first published in Germany, don't you think? --Flominator 08:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. Official work, rest is trivial --Flominator 19:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
And this should be free because? --Flominator 11:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is this version better? Image:Taxfree1.jpg If yes, than delete the old version please. If not, delete both versions. Ty. --Magellan 12:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. seems to be ineligible for copyright --Flominator 18:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
flickr user elliot back is probably not the author of this file, his photostream include numerous other images of Craig, obviously not taken by elliot back (notably this promophoto). As such, the cc-by-2.0 license is quite possibly faulty in this instance. Scoo 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted by Dodo as copyvio (log). Scoo 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The policy is against double names: the debate already occcured here. Since this category was not created for convenience, but for political and controversial reasons, I ask it for deletion. --Juiced lemon 15:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, useless, and redundent category. --Cat out 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It is said : « With permission granted by the authors […] provided that no fees are charged for their distribution. ». This non commercial license isn't compatible with Commons. Sting 16:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Unfree license --Cat out 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Restored ongoing OTRS process. --Cat out 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Kept. The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system (2006112210022386). Please contact a person with an account on the system to confirm the permission. --Cat out 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
For all of these pictures it is said : « With permission granted by the authors […] provided that no fees are charged for their distribution. ». This non commercial license isn't compatible with Commons. Sting 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- An OTRS procedure was completed a few days ago concerning all the pictures of this category, created by Cool Cat in order to wait the OTRS being completed. All the pictures's info page were updated with the template: {{PermissionOTRS-ID|2006112210022386}}. Thx for removing the deletion request.Pentocelo 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
kept for obvious reasons. --Cat out 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Duplicate of Image:Guantanamo Bay David Hicks Cell, Reading Room Inset.jpg John Dalton 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This image is a duplicate of the one to the right. I have merged the metadata for the two images and proposed that this image be deleted on the basis that the other image has a more descriptive filename. I have also redirected all links from articles away from this image. I hope Geo Swan, the uploader of this image, doesn't mind John Dalton 23:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I uploaded this image. John Dalton left me a courteous note, telling me he was going to propose its deletion, because he had uploaded the same image, at around the same time, but had used a more descriptive name. I agree completely with him that we should keep the image with the best name. Geo Swan 23:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. Useless duplicate. Such deletions are speedy-able. --Cat out 00:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
why copyright free? see [41].--Shizhao 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Beades 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) - The status of this photo is cited as "public domain" by the national Archives of Canada. The fact that the Kansas State Historical Society has reproduced it does not thus grant the Society copyright. There is no reason to delete this photo.
License not verifiable --81.36.148.249 18:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Aliman5040 --ALE! ¿…? 10:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Low image quality --Oden 04:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, there are many better dog images --Astrokey44 13:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Low image quality --Oden 04:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - what's it for? Pibwl 00:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted (out of scope) --ALE! ¿…? 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Quite sure this is a copyvio. Also there's no publication permission from all people on the photo. License tag? Alexander 09:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - what's it for? Pibwl 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
License not verifiable 81.36.148.249 18:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--SMP (talk page) 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Zirland --ALE! ¿…? 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
© 2006 Universitat de Lleida - Pl. Víctor Siurana 1, 25003 - Tots els drets reservats (All rights reserved) - Tel (+34) 973 702 000 --81.36.148.249 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Copyrighted--SMP (talk page) 19:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Zirland --ALE! ¿…? 21:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Tagged as {{PD-Art}}, but this is not a two-dimensional work of art. Same reasoning applies to:
- Image:Andr62.jpg
- Image:Andr63.jpg
- Image:Andr64.jpg
- Image:Andr65.jpg
- Image:Andr66.jpg
- Image:Andr68.jpg
- Image:Andr72-a.jpg
- Image:Andr72-b.jpg
- Image:Andr73.jpg
- Image:Andr75.jpg
- Image:Andr76.jpg
- Image:Andr78.jpg
- Image:Andr79.jpg
- Image:Andr80.jpg
- Image:Andr82.jpg
- Image:Andr81.jpg
Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- These images are TWO-dimensional depictions on vases, so what's the problem? Do you have something against the subject? 89.54.179.105 20:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I forgot to log in.... Fulcher 20:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- In the case of ceramics, the decoration cannot be abstracted from its support: the former is determined by the latter. Books about Greek ceramics encompass both vase-painters and potters. A canvas is not a work of art, a vase is. And no, I have nothing against the subject, having myself provided some pictures for category:Greek pederasty. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
all 3D objects deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Permission of the flyer-creator necessary! --Flominator 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know 1937 publications are not in PD --Siebrand 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: en:Cunard line could be contacted to obtain permission, further, there are probably multiple authors for these menus. Scoo 12:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but then Siebrand's supposed concern that something published seventy years ago isn't in the Public Domain would be revealed as a petty exercise in censorship, so we can be sure Siebrand won't do anything but gripe. Keep the photo, and remove the deletion request. 69.155.107.195 16:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The painter, schulptur of the image died in 1980. This is a Derivative work. --ALE! ¿…? 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Nothing on the given link says Not Copyrighted -- Tarawneh 19:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No reason given for PD. These files are obviously not 100-year old and PD-Art cannot apply since this is a 3D work of art. --Jastrow (Λέγετε) 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The source from this recently uploaded Flickr image is currently showing a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence[42] -- Zzyzx11 23:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 16:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The source page seems to credit this image to a private individual. As such, this is not {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}; it was not taken by an NOAA employee in the course of his duties. See similar deletion request here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/10#Image:Richeliu_apt.jpg Delete NSLE-Chacor 15:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know 1937 publications are not in PD Siebrand 17:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: en:Cunard line could be contacted to obtain permission, further, there are probably multiple authors for these menus. Scoo 12:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- what about {{PD-ineligible}} ? --ALE! ¿…? 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Yes, a simple and informative menu without creative intentions is not something I would regard as copyrightable... But maybe the photo has a copyright, so keeping the current template. / Fred Chess 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Autor Max Linde died 1940, so the picture can't be PD-Old (because PD-Old means the autor is at least 70 years dead) - Sven-steffen arndt 22:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- The image itself is 100+, so I don't see any problem. --Eva K. Message 21:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete We do not apply the "older than 100 years" rule-of-thumb from the German Wikipedia (which should be applied, IIRC, to anonymous works only). The author is known, and he died less than 70 years ago. The photo is copyrighted in all 70y p.m.a. countries, and since it was still copyrighted in Germany in 1996, it's also copyrighted in the U.S. Lupo 08:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Lupo's opinion is not relevant. It is clear that the n-100 rule should be applied also for orphaned works. If one is unable to detect the life data of the photograph it is reasonable to use the picture --Historiograf 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Nice to see that you consider my opinion "irrelevant". There was a recent discussion here about orphan works; the conclusion was that they should not be uploaded here. And this image here is not an orphan work. It appears to have been taken by Max Linde. Lupo 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not nice to read your Coypright Paranoia. I regret that I suggested you as admin --Historiograf 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- if someone has no other arguments, it gets personal ... Sven-steffen arndt 23:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's not nice to read your Coypright Paranoia. I regret that I suggested you as admin --Historiograf 18:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- That finally results in deleting at least 90% of all historic photographs in Commons. Strange kind of vandalism and a good reason for me not to contribute any image to commons furthermore. --Eva K. Message 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Commons has never accepted images from countries with pma 70 where the author has not been dead for 70 years, since several German users have argued that such copyright is irrevocable. How can this be an orphan work? / Fred Chess 16:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- The uploader claims that Max Linde himself was the photographer. If that is true, I fail to see why this would be an orphan work: Max Linde had several brothers, Hermann (the younger) and Walther were artists, Adolf a lawyer; in the next generation, there was a Johann Peter (apparently the son of Adolf [43]), and Max Linde himself had at least four sons (see Munch's painting The sons of Dr. Linde; 1903), and in the next generation, there's Metta Linde.[44] Max Linde died 1940, and there are known descendants. On Diskussion:Max Linde, someone who appears to be knowledgeable about the Lindes also mentions two other possibilities. First, he hints that the photo might have been taken by someone else, but he assumes that Max Linde held the rights to the image as it was produced for Max Linde's booklet Edvard Munch und die Kunst der Zukunft (Berlin, Friedrich Gottheiner, 1902, republished 1905, 14 or 15 pages). Second, he mentions the possibility that Max's father, Hermann the elder (died 1918), who was a professional photographer himself, took the photo. If that were true, it'd be PD-old. Metta Linde runs an art gallery in Lübeck, Germany. Linde's booklet is available at an antiquarian bookshop (for a hefty €990!)[45], an image of the cover page is also available. One could ask e.g. this antiquarian book seller whether the image of Munch is attributed to someone in that 1902/1905 publication, or one could try asking Metta Linde whether she knew something about this photo. Finally, there's a much larger reproduction of that photo here. The image demonstrates quite nicely the problems that arise if the commons allowed orphan works: what level of research is required before coming to the conclusion that the copyright holder cannot be located? He or she may not be known to us, but might well exist. Lupo 10:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Some more meta-discussion concerning this image on the German WP is at de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Bildrechte/Archiv7#Foto von 1902. BTW, Historiograf had pointed out in that discussion in March 2006 that the 100-years rule was not applicable at the commons... Lupo 10:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 12:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- and undeleted by --JuTa 16:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC) because its PD-old inbetween.
It is said : « With permission granted by the authors […] provided that no fees are charged for their distribution. ». This non commercial license isn't compatible with Commons. --Sting 17:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- May be keepable per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Persepolis terrace 4.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Images of Persepolis from Livius.org. Don't know. 68.39.174.238 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
November 28
[edit]
Copy of the wallpaper image from the official web site of Fanny Lú, the Colombian singer.[46] I do not see licencing information, but like any other singer, it most likely may be copyrighted, unfree. -- Zzyzx11 04:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Lmbuga --ALE! ¿…? 11:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Outside project scope: Looks like someone is trying to post a love letter, or professing his love, to his girlfriend. Zzyzx11 05:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --GeorgHH 17:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Image is a duplicate --Chumwa 19:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Jcornelius --ALE! ¿…? 11:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Not within project scope. ~MDD4696 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Userfy. The creator's user name is the same. Zzyzx11 06:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:MesserWoland --ALE! ¿…? 11:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
all iamges is commons:derivative works--Shizhao 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete the photographer does not have the right to release the images into the PD as the images themselves are copyrighted. --Matt314 23:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I am sorry. I read the law wrongly. ROC Copyright Act, Article 58:
- Artistic works or architectural works displayed on a long-term basis on streets, in parks, on outside walls of buildings, or other outdoor locales open to the public, may be exploited by any means[....]
I ignored the outdoor requirement. Atinncnu 07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted. --Matt314 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted images
- File:Original of Brother A-san and Great Auntie in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Original of Ga Ga in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Original of Miss Sex in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Original of Young Guns in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Work of Ao Yo-Siang in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Work of Chen Neng-ming in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Work of Chou Peng-ching in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Work of Jhang Fang Jhi in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Work of Yi Huan in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
- File:Work of Zeng Jheng Jhong in YJH Hsinchu city.JPG
_ list added by JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Vector version available: Image:Wappen_der_Samtgemeinde_Hesel.svg --Enricopedia 20:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Vector version available: Image:Wappen_der_Gemeinde_Hesel.svg --Enricopedia 20:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Vector version available: Image:Wappen_der_Samtgemeinde_Hesel.svg --Enricopedia 20:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
usable only on wikipedia? GeorgHH 16:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The copyright cannot possibly have expired on this book cover. __meco 20:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- ok, is derivative works, Delete. and also Image:Little Red Book 1.JPG, Little Red Book 2.JPG--Shizhao 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Jusjih --ALE! ¿…? 13:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
{{Copyrighted free use}}-tagged image with sources cited that do not prove that the copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose -- Zzyzx11 04:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. You may also use the {{Npd}} (no permission, date) tag for this. / Fred Chess 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The style used in drawing the figure in this image looks almost like a typical animated character from the animated show South Park. If that is the case, it would be a derivative work of copyrighted, unfree material. -- Zzyzx11 05:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. / Fred Chess 16:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
It is unkown, whether the publication of this picture does comply to german law according to which each and every identifiable person on the picture must grant permission prior to publication. Furthermore, the picture was taken in a non-public assembly. Momo 10:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- please read the whole law:
* (1) Ohne die nach § 22 erforderliche Einwilligung dürfen verbreitet und zur Schau gestellt werden:
2. Bilder, auf denen die Personen nur als Beiwerk neben einer Landschaft oder sonstigen Örtlichkeit erscheinen;
3. Bilder von Versammlungen, Aufzügen und ähnlichen Vorgängen, an denen die dargestellten Personen teilgenommen haben;
- translates to "no permission needed from persons who are not the main subject or who are taking part in a convention". But anyways, what does this picture show? It should be properly categorized at least. -- Gorgo 22:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- ad 2.: As the picture is used in an article concerning the assembly, it is clear, that the people are the main subject.
ad 3: Even though the assembly was sitting non-public? --Momo 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- ad 2.: As the picture is used in an article concerning the assembly, it is clear, that the people are the main subject.
I agree that people are the subject of the picture, but there is no person that is the subject of this picture. I would not be able to recognize anyone in this picture, if I had met him/her on the street (because of low quality photo and most people are only seen from behind or from a distance). Well I'm no expert on German copyright law, but based on what is said here I think this picture is OK. / Fred Chess 16:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I may be repeating myself; the picture in question was taken during a non-public assembly, and thus is IMO not eligible for publication. --Momo 23:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
derivative work --Shizhao 05:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Though it might be considered a derivative work, the signpost is in public exhibition. Moreover, it's arguable that the photo is a 2-D representation of a 3-D object since the signpost is a carved 3-D object. Thus a credit of doubt should be given that the photographer has created a new copyright by taking this photo. --Deryck Chan 09:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete there is no Panoramafreiheit in closed locations. --ALE! ¿…? 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
November 29
[edit]
copyright --159.84.14.101 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:555 --ALE! ¿…? 11:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
No evidence that the image itself is released under the GFDL or any other free content licence. The only GFDL notice I see is for the Mambo content management software that powers that web site. -- Zzyzx11 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:WarX --ALE! ¿…? 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Is funny, no used --Shizhao 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - orphaned Cary "Bastiq▼e" Bass demandez 03:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Tarawneh --ALE! ¿…? 11:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is too frustrating for the non-initiated, not user friendly at all, should come with warning:Newbies run for cover instead of registering. --KP Botany 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- We can delete your userpage but we cant delete your account per technical reasons. I am sorry you ran in to difficulties but that is not the proper way to resolve them... --Cat out 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then you ought to put a rather strong warning that Wikipedia Commons is not user friendly and has never been tested for user interfacing with anyone who isn't completely proficient in it already. If you misrepresent your end of the contract, I think that should give me additional outs. KP Botany 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do you want your user page deleted? That is the most we are able to do. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well what is the "proper way to resolve" issues? How exactly do I resolve this, then? If you create a system that creates nothing but problems, then can't offer any solutions as to how to fix it, and no one appears to have any intention of fixing it, why do you ask me to work within the confines of the broken system that you can't and won't make work? KP Botany 20:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- No one is asking you to do any work. We are all volunteers just as you are. If you don't want to work here, then just stop logging into your account here and pretend it doesn't exist. What else do you want? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I want my account and images deleted, as I said. It's not about "asking [me] to do any work" it's about asking me to work within the confines of a system that misreprented itself and continues to misrepresent itself. KP Botany 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- As we have told you, it is not technically possible to delete your account. As your images have been released under free content terms, unless someone shows they are actually copyright violations, they are not likely to be deleted. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- But you're also not going to do anything to prevent this from happening to other folks and nobody really cares how lousy and unusable Wikimedia Commons is, do they? So it really hardly matters what I say, as it never mattered to begin with, so why did you even pretend to ask me what I want? It's really no wonder why people don't use Wikimedia Commons. Whatever. Do whatever you want, because contributors are superfluous to Wikimedia Commons, as superfluous and pointless as the contributions they make. KP Botany 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- There are 93,000 registered users. They've all gone through the same learning curve you have (or worse, in cases where they don't speak English). And even if they have troubles, they manage to come out of it without the incredible constant theatrics that you have. What do you want me to say? "Due to your heartfelt complaints, everyone's stopping work on their existing projects and we're implementing a complete overhaul of the entire project starting now"? People work on what they want to work on. You also don't seem to accept that we have no choice but to work within the technical constraints of MediaWiki software. We have a list of bugs awaiting fixes as long as your arm.
- If you have some specific complaints, I can try to address them. I know you have had a tough time and I am genuinely sorry for that. If you just want to keep making these hand-wavy statements about how terrible we are, can I suggest you do it on your user/talk page. It seems to me this deletion request can be closed. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- And BTW: I care a great bloody deal how unusable WM Commons is. But do you think it is a five minute fix?? "Damn, we have Usability set to False in the options, how silly of us!" Do you think something that is usable for you will be usable for everyone? No. We are trying to please thousands of different customers with thousands of different needs. At the moment we have no chance of succeeding to please everyone. However you're the only one who takes such a persona affront to a lack of usability. I take a personal affront to you acting as if none of us give a crap. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- But you didn't bother to suggest any solutions, did you? Or to fix anything? Or ask why it's so unusable? Or do anything that indicates you give a crap. If you do, don't act like you don't. If you give every indication of not giving a crap, then don't get so steamed up when someone sees precisely that. No problem I have had on Wikimedia Commons as been addressed as if anyone cared that it was a problem and wanted to find a way to fix it. When that's the case, you don't give a damn. Only one who takes a personal affront to such an admited lack of usability? What that says is no else was stupid enough to think you cared, because they read your attitude right up front: it sucks, it's not usable, we know it, we don't care, and we're not doing anything about it. Point, set and match.
- Why don't you ask people first what problems they are having, then suggest how to discuss it to get something done, and then leave it at that, instead of making sure you get that last point in well and good. And I have raised issues, specific issues, but they've been thoroughly ignored. For example, a tab that is labeled "categorize" but actually just offers "categories" is counter-intuitive. Call it "available categories" or something. But, there really is no point in my saying this now that you've made it absolutley clear that Wikimedia Commons knows it is not usable and doesn't give a crap. I'll just upload low pixel images to Wikipedia directly and CalFlora, skipping the world of people who can't use Wikimedia Commons anyway.
- Maybe if it hadn't been everything I tried to do here, then I wouldn't have been so personally afronted that usability sucks. KP Botany 04:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you'd been honest up front and told users when they created accounts to expect the worse, that usability had no priority, and that nothing would work right, ever, and that putting pictures here in the first place would be an incredible waste of time and effort, especially obvious when other Wikipedias are asking for pictures I've uploaded and categorized. No one uses it, because it can't, user are offended, because they can't use it. No one else stuck through it long enough to get this affronted. KP Botany 04:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The more specific you are about the problems you have, the more likely people can either fix the problems or explain the rationale behind the current system. There is not a lot we can do about wide-ranging complaints like "the whole system is broken and everyone here is a jerk. please fix".
- For example, a tab that is labeled "categorize" but actually just offers "categories" is counter-intuitive. Call it "available categories" or something. This is true. It's not a problem I've ever seen anyone else have, since I guess most people are familiar with adding categories from Wikipedia and the process is the same here as there, but still you are right. I changed it to "find categories".
- Anyway I will close this request now, because the deletion part of it has been resolved. Please post further problems on the Commons:Help desk. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is too user hostile to use and should have come with a warner that users are not welcome --KP Botany 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
image is kept --Tarawneh 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is too user hostile to use and should have come with a warner that users are not welcome --KP Botany 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
image is kept --Tarawneh 05:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
KP Botany 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(deleted image deletion proposal notice, this image is proposed for deletion by the uploader, and the notice is typically intended for user talk pages)
- I do not see a reason for this delete. The uploader released it into the PD and it's a good image. Unless there is a reason to believe it's not really the uploader's image to provide, I say it's a keep, you don't get to ungive images once released. I am very sorry that KP Botany is having usability issues and I'd like to think we can all help resolve the issues, as these are very nice images... ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
image kept --Tarawneh 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
category redundant to Category:Public houses --Richard Harvey 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
now a category redirect --ALE! ¿…? 17:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Reason: supersededSVG, new file: Image:Digital77.svg --Enricopedia 12:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 17:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is too user hostile to use --KP Botany 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
kept, license is unrevocable --ALE! ¿…? 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is too user hostile to use --KP Botany 16:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
kept, license is unrevocable --ALE! ¿…? 17:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
GFDL is somewhat unlikely --AlexF 07:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- I was about to speedy this, but am not prepared to do that much delinking at the moment. Jkelly 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment -- Please describe more precisely. 02:06, 14 January 2007 (CET)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Mao Zedong Portrait is copyrighted. This image is derivative works--Shizhao 16:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Does China have Commons:Freedom of panorama? --Matt314 12:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Deleted in lack of evidence that it is free. / Fred Chess 16:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
November 30
[edit]
Faked image. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Delete per nom. It does seem faked, and even if it wasn't, there is no licensing information given by the user. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 06:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Obvious fake 74.140.171.183 07:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - I have traced this image to this Russian website here. The caption for the photo reads: "А эта картинка Мне очень нравится... :) Можно сказать что это собирательный образ Моей мечты, хоть Я и никогда не смотрел кино с Эммой Уотсон.. Но думаю что в будущем как-нить еще доберусь до фильмов с ГП! =)" I ran this through a Russian-to-English translator here, and the translation is: And this picture very much is pleasant to Me...:) It is possible to tell that it is a collective image of My dream though I and never looked cinema with Emma Watson.. But I think that in the future as-string still I shall reach films with ГП! =). Therefore, this image is obviously some Russian dude's dreams about Emma Watson, and "collective image" probably means "modified", or "collage" image. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nice work kungming·! Delete! Looks like japanese-schoolgirl porn with a new face. Added speedy deletion. --Enricopedia 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted by User:Infrogmation --ALE! ¿…? 11:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm skeptical of the licensing of this image, it comes from a blog [47] released under the CC. But the same blog features a photo at the top which comes from the BBC. The BBC page is here [48]. Although this photo doesn't come from there, given that this blog appears to use commerical photos without direct attribution, I don't think we can assume they have the rights to the photo Nil Einne 07:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if I didn't investigate the source website enough, I simply searched for images at search.creativecommons.org and google found that page, your point might be valid. Notwist 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
see Commons:Village_Pump#IRIN --FrancisTyers 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
wrong shade of white & red; proper flag is Image:Flaga Polski - wymiary - kolory wg ustawy.svg --Julo 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep Unsourced request. --Juiced lemon 21:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- opsss, forgot! Source: long discussion (sorry, in Polish) in w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga Polski, section w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga_Polski#Jakie naprawdę są wg. ustawy prawidłowe kolory flagi Polski.
Julo 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- opsss, forgot! Source: long discussion (sorry, in Polish) in w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga Polski, section w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga_Polski#Jakie naprawdę są wg. ustawy prawidłowe kolory flagi Polski.
Delete I don't understand why the request is considered to be an "unsourced request". The specifics of the proper colors of the Polish flag are documented on w:en:Flag of Poland and even more amply on w:pl:Flaga Polski. Keeping the version with inaccurate colors is just confusing. --Mareklug talk 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
as stated by the uploader: the picture has been taken around 1960, the author is unknown, "no copyright" -> copyvio; therefore GFDL as license is really doubtful -- BLueFiSH 15:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (see also: Image:Henrich Focke about 1930.jpg)
deleted. --Matt314 15:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Surely not made by the uploader. it looks to me like an edited version of a real picture. what is the original source of the picture? -> unknown source, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Henrich Focke about 1960.jpg -- BLueFiSH 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (an admin should compare the current picture with the deleted one [49])
![[49]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Image:Willard_Ray_Custer.jpg){kind=link}
user:Erri4a User talk:Erri4a es:discusión usuario:erri4a 23:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) .
- Please specify a reason for deletion, I see no need for it. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Same image was already uploaded with a different filename [[:Image:Ibarretxe.jpg]. I've already catergorised both and linked them from each other, but I understand one of them should be deleted. --user:Erri4a User talk:Erri4a es:discusión usuario:erri4a 17:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
wrong shade of white & red; proper flag is Image:Flaga Polski - wymiary - kolory wg ustawy.svg --Julo 14:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Unsourced request. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- opsss, forgot! Source: long discussion (sorry, in Polish) in w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga Polski, section w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga_Polski#Jakie naprawdę są wg. ustawy prawidłowe kolory flagi Polski.
Julo 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- opsss, forgot! Source: long discussion (sorry, in Polish) in w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga Polski, section w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga_Polski#Jakie naprawdę są wg. ustawy prawidłowe kolory flagi Polski.
- Keep--KridPL 12:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC) This Flag is correct.
- really? I am sure is not; and by the way... Julo 21:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Mareklug talk 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC) This diagram of flag dimensions uses approximate colors, not the official ones. Having this one in addition to the one in official colors only promotes confusion. See en:Flag of Poland and pl:Flaga Polski for source of official colors.
- Delete Julo 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or overwrite with the other one (couse this one has better name :) --WarX 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
wrong shade of white & red; proper flag is Image:Flaga Polski - wymiary - kolory wg ustawy.svg --Julo 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Source: long discussion (sorry, in Polish) in w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga Polski, section w:pl:Dyskusja:Flaga_Polski#Jakie naprawdę są wg. ustawy prawidłowe kolory flagi Polski.
Julo 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete--Mareklug talk 20:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) This diagram of flag dimensions uses approximate colors, not the official ones. Having this one in addition to the one in official colors only promotes confusion. See en:Flag of Poland and pl:Flaga Polski for source of official colors.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
(solved, removed DR)
This use of the german language is not very good (sorry Lar) and the template has been superseded by Template:Be_civil/de --Enricopedia 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC) --Enricopedia 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- The design as I understood it was that Final is supposed to be a different template than the non final one, but if other langs have been merged together that's fine by me. I won't defend the quality of the translation, it was babelfish-ed. But a poor translation is something to fix, not delete. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know that it was supposed to have two templates of this kind. I will take care of the translation... --Enricopedia 14:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- The correct translation is done now. Since this template has not been superseded - as I thought when creating the deletion request - the request is now obsolete. Removed request. --Enricopedia 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't know that it was supposed to have two templates of this kind. I will take care of the translation... --Enricopedia 14:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This image has a low image quality/resolution. Image:Cypress structure.jpeg is a better image. -- Zzyzx11 05:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It shows (poorly) different details, and so might be useful. But it also has the air of a copyvio about it - like a slightly different crop of this. --Davepape 14:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted (image was not used) --ALE! ¿…? 10:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Images from tribalshapes.com
[edit]
http://www.tribalshapes.com is a library of free tribal designs and japanese kanji symbols, but I do not see any licence information on whether or no it is free content; anyone can use the images for any purpose including unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification. Zzyzx11 05:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)