This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I can't provide evidence because i scanned this into the computer and then cut out the other people in it. I didn't take the photo but I was given a copy the photo and I have the permission to put it on here.--Thugchildz19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It may be "property of the US government" because it was "seized during World War II", but that would only make it PD in the US, not in the rest of the world and certainly not in Germany, where it was created. The author can't possibly be dead for more than 70 years yet, so it is not PD. --88.134.140.6401:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
License can not be verified : Copyright owner, Rob James. Permission granted under CC-by-SA 2.5. and author site is down. -- Tarawneh04:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do have a licensing confirmation email from Rob James, which is being sent to permissions. Can we give these things more than a few minutes before immediately tagging them for deletion? --Elonka05:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since deletion requests are usually only closed a week (if not more) after they're submitted anyway, it doesn't really matter. Yonatantalk08:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture was put up for deletion again, this time by creator of the image. I have requested user put a reason in for the deletion request, and he answered on my talkpage. This is the user's band's logo, not meant for import to Commons. It was only used on his userpage. He does not want someone to take the logo and bandname and run with it, and would like to see it removed. As this is request is based new information, I reopen the debate. Deadstar07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The description reads: "it is not allowed to misuse this image, save it or remove it. It is, however, allowed to view :)" This is not compatible with PD, as claimed license Tjipke de Vries14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, what to do with this? Both the permission and the license have been formulated by the creator. Should the broader or the narrower permission prevail? In case of the former: Keep, in case of the latter: Delete. How is this usually handled on Commons? Siebrand16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it does definately not solely consist of a simple font. This deletion debate is about which permission provided by an uploader should prevail in case license template and written permission differ: the broadest or narrowest. Siebrand13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a very simple font, far below anything that could be copyrighted. For something that could be copyrighted, see [1] or [2] .A font is non-simple only if it consists of more than mere design of existing letters. --Rtc13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then many of the large publishing clients I work for must be very stupid to be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the simple fonts they are using... I'll let them know they might as well not pay the licensing fees to Adobe e.a. Siebrand18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are paying for scalable vector fonts, which some consider to be copyrighted as computer programs, because of hinting and other elements. The typefaces as such are not copyrighted. They can be restricted by design patent law, but that only applies to the font as such, not to text written with it. So speaking correctly, a font can be copyrighted (under some circumstances; pixel fonts are not copyrighted for example), but not the typeface. This picture does not contain a font, though, only letters written in a typeface. --Rtc08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User edited the picture, took off the template and added: "Je suis le déteneur de l'originale de cette prise; et je donne mon accord." And thus gives the consent to use the picture. I have since added in another template as there is still no copyright template on the page. Deadstar14:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This clearly isn't as a drinking vessel nor a dish, from dictionary.com-
drinking vessel noun a vessel intended for drinking and this clearly isn't intended for drinking and per Commons:Derivative works-
Photographs of three-dimensional objects are always copyrighted. Even if the object itself is in the public domain. If you didn't take the photograph yourself, you need permission from the owner of the photographic copyright (unless of course the photograph itself is in the public domain). And the photograph can not be public domain because By taking a picture, you create a new, copyrighted work (i.e. the photograph). At the same time, the rights of the original still exists and don't go away. By publishing the picture, you do something only the original copyright holder is allowed to do. That's why you won't be able to use your own photography of a copyrighted work (except as fair use) unless the creator of the original gave you permission to do so. It must be deleted.--Thugchildz03:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the exact point your saying from the link? I'm pretty sure this is copyrighted and is neither a dish nor a drinking vessel.--THUGCHILDz02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or close Commons as there are thousands of pictures featuring 3D objects for which copyright still applies (cars, buildings, electronic devices, etc.) inisheer11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not copyright-able. Please read the links provided above. Also as before if there is pictures of 3rd stuff on commons that are copyrighted than those should be deleted too and you can nominate those yourself.--THUGCHILDz06:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : object of no obvious artistic value. Possession of an item grants to right on its representation. Rama12:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. I see no evidence that this object contains artistical features; i.e. you cannot copyright a cube, a rhomb or similar. / Fred Chess14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I doubt this picture was first published in the United States and it most likely isn't in the public domain in its country of origin (probably Spain or France) -- Yonatantalk08:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment I don't see why it should be impossible to combine the GFDL with a cc license. If it is impossible to combine images of different licenses, we might as well close down Commons. How can otherwise a GFDL licensed article use a CC licensed image? However, it should be noted next to each image on the image description page what license it is under and who the author is, for attribution. Furthermore, I have deleted the two images that came from flickr, so those images must be removed or replaced from the collage. If someone is willing to do these things, I will keep the image. Otherwise I will delete it. / Fred Chess14:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Used 2 images that were non free. GFDL and CC can live together, but we still don't take non-free content. MECU≈talk17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I have uploaded this picture over a year ago, and was not aware it wasn't allowed to place a picture of box of a videogame on commons. Go ahead and delete the picture, i will remove it from the article i have placed. thanks, SanderK20:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"We do not own the copyright to the images used on this website. We believe that most of the images are in the public domain and that provided you use them on a website you are unlikely to encounter any difficulty." - The author en:Paul Halmos died in 2006, so there's no proof that the image is indeed public domain. --88.134.140.6417:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The uploader quoted from the website. It's very rare that they would lie about the copyright status. Wooyi19:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The notice continues: if you wish to use them in any other way -- in "paper" publishing or on a CD for example -- we cannot guarantee that there may not be outstanding copyright problems. That does not good at all. / Fred Chess14:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. In general, the design of machines such as this is not covered by copyright. The drawings themselves are, of course. Otherwise, no photograph of any created object from the 20th or 21st centuries, pretty much, could be taken. The copyright issue here is not that of the plane, but because the drawing is unattributed and no justification for the copyright status is given. Morven08:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
derivative of a copyrighted trophy, please do not close early as this image is currently on the Hebrew Wikipedia main page -- Yonatantalk08:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
ARTICLE 9 : Les oeuvres de l'Etat rendues licitement accessibles au public peuvent être librement utilisées à des fins non lucratives sous réserve du respect de l'intégrité de l’œuvre et de l'indication de la source.: does it mean that if I change the licence for a "CC-BY-2.0", the picture will be usable in Commons? Damounsஇ23:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Critical copyright information is missing. No info on date of death of author "Immodinova C." has been made avalible -- Catchi?00:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Missing source info.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is a page about a children's book & I take it the image is copyrighted. Text looks like an ad? Someone with Swedish please check? Deadstar14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The front page of Memory Alpha, of which this is a screenshot, contains (in this particular image) nine individual copyrighted (unfree) images. Secondarily, Memory Alpha content is licensed under the "Creative Commmons 'Attribution-NonCommercial' license version 2.5", not the GFDL (as the uploader purports) , and is therefore doubly incompatible with Commons. — pd_THOR|=/\= | 14:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No longer used. I uploaded this to work around a rendering problem with the SVG version, which I have since fixed. Ptkfgs03:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
LOC does not indicate copyright status. Furthermore, it appears that this reproduction was cropped from this one. A French photo from about 1959 is clearly not PD yet. Delete. (Also has a bogus NYWT claim.) Lupo08:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the LOC archive does not display a high-resolution version of this image, it is not one that the LOC deems likely to be PD or donated to the public domain when given to the LOC. Thus without better information, we can't keep this. Morven07:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
LOC doesn't indicate copyrighht status, and shows a different picture anyway. This reproduction appears to be a crop from this one. No author given anywhere. The image is from the 1930s, it was distributed as a postcard in Germany on the occasion of the return of Legion Condor in 1939, see here. Note that the "New York World Telegram" claim is bogus, the LOC doesn't mention anything like that. Delete unless it can be shown that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Lupo08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete The argument is correct; pictures published anonymously before 1995 are restricted 70 years pma in Germany, regardless of whether it is actually possible to identify the author or not. --Rtc
70 pma, not 70 years after publication. Only works published anonymously after 1995 are PD 70 years after publication. This is because the new regulations from the EU directive did not shorten existing protection. We cannot know when it will be PD. 150 years after publication, it can be assumed safely that the work is in the public domain; 100 years after publication, it can be assumed reasonably until indications of the contrary. The new rule for anonymous works being PD 70 years after publication will be relevant in Germany for the first time not until 2065. --Rtc08:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Dear Yonatan, Ukraine has freedom of panorama. There is no direct implication of this concept in the legislative documents but it is widely recognized by the court practice. The most close legislative provision is provided by Article 21(4) of the Law on copyright and related rights.
This rule provides that "it shall be permitted without the consent of the author (or other copyright holder) and with mandatory indication of the author's name and of the source of borrowing: ... to reproduce, in order to highlight current events by means of photography or cinematography, to carry out public notification or other public communication of the works seen or heard in the course of such events to the extent justified by the informational purpose".
Comment I don't think I understand it right. Do you mean the picture itself is ugly or does your comment apply to the bust depicted? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Fancy that. I am not well-versed in industrial property rights, so I cannot check if the Consorzio's claims hold actually any substance but in doubt, we'll probably have to Delete the whole lot. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC) On account of new evidence. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep could someone translate the "palio di Siena" entry here? It seems to me that the court of Milan decided in 1992 that the city of Siena was not entitled to a copyright on images of the Palio. Whether their trademark claim holds up is anyone's guess. Lupo21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ruling is dated 1992 and basically says that "Comune di Siena" does not hold copyright on the Palio symbols and that the Palio is old enough that participants cannot add enough originality to be relevant for copyright law. However, symbols of the contrade are trademarked, the application was filed on 22 April 2003 - well after the court ruling, take into account that in Italy a court ruling does not make a law as in the US or UK (applications are RM2003C002269 to RM2003C002287 in [6]) Cruccone23:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So I did not misunderstand. When an Italian court decides that Siena has no copyright on the Palio, then Siena has no copyright on the Palio. (Unless the decision were overturned on appeal). Reminds me of that story about trying to copyright the whole Tuscany.[7][8] (No idea whether that is an urban myth or actually true.) As to the trademark issue:
RM2003C002269 is described as "un quadrato intorno al quale campeggia la seguente scritta in caratter e maiuscolo: sul lato sinistro "consorzio", sul lato alto "per la tute la del", sul lato destro "palio di siena". all'interno di detto quadra" (seems to be something missing. In any case, a square with the words "CONSORZIO" on the left, "PER LA TUTELA DEL" at the top, and "PALIO DI SIENA" at the right.)
RM2003C002287 is given as "un cerchio bordato, con elemento decorativo a forma di corda a segnarn e la circonferenza all'interno di detto cerchio e' rappresentato un tr iangolo equilatero i cui lati sono segnati da un bordo, le punte di de" (again, cut off). That's a triangle within a circle with a rope along the circumference.
I don't see those two trademarks anywhere on any of these images, on which neither the community of Siena nor the Consorzio per la Tutela del Palio di Siena have any copyrights. Lupo10:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care, but am very flattered to be one of the authors of the controversial Palio pictures (Image:Siena Palio-Fahnen 20030815-360.jpg). Of course, if the people who contest my right to take and publish pictures taken in Siena during the Palio season (when you can see the flags of the different contrados (?) everywhere) should win this battle, photographers can go elsewhere (at the worst outside the whole of Tuscany) to take pictures. The property of pictures taken in public places is private only to the photographer. And the Roman versus Anglo-Saxon law controversy is ridiculous if not utter nonsense. Court decisions are not irrelevant as long as they haven't been reversed on appeal. Don't forget that even in Italy Berlusconi doesn't control everything. The world including Siena does not belong to trademarkers. (I'll trademark this statement immediately all over the world.) --wpopp20:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is not my battle, I would be very happy if images can stay, I just want the situation to be clarified. And BTW, Berlusconi is no more Prime Minister, so you can take your anti-Italian statement elsewhere! Cruccone11:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not your battle, whose is it. And I don't see anything anti-Italian in my statement. It's rather pro-Italian, since I said B. doesn't control everything. Ok? --wpopp13:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is the WRONG Image to Potray the Dayak, and for WIKIMEDIA purposes this should be removed immediately in the interest of fairness and not Misuse --TuaiRumah19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the WRONG Image to Portray the Dayak.
Dayak is many tribes. And this image is 100 years old.
This is irrelevant. The image is completely useless. It is a picture of an Eskimo for all we know. Please remove this image. It is not a Dayak.
TuaiRumah12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these.
Again that comment is irrelevant. Is this image meant to be an example of someone's teeth? if so, then it is in the wrong category.
The copyright on this, and other Buschan photos on Commons, needs to be clarified - according to an obituary on JSTOR, Georg Buschan lived from 1863 to 1942. If he took the photos himself, they should still be copyrighted until 1 Jan 2013. --Davepape13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book is first published before 1923, as Commons has any copyright-problem. In other country, other copyrights. But it is rare by copyright on Photo from before WW2--haabet 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, "pre-1923 = PD" only applies to work first published in the U.S., which I doubt Buschan's Die Sitten der Völker was. However, you've now identified the photo as being by W. H. Furness (which Nature confirms); Furness appears to have worked and published in Philadelphia, so {{PD-US}} would apply. --Davepape01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The law of U.S.A. only be effective in U. S. A. and The server of commons is in U. S. A., but in other states other laws. As PD image from U.S.A. can have copyright in other states. But a image have need of both copyright in the homeland and copyright in USA, before it have valid copyright.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some U. S. works of the same type as "Die Sitten der Völker", can you see in your libraries for that image? The Images was few at that era. And some U. S. works was bigger as "Die Sitten der Völker" other is perhaps a translation or is "Die Sitten der Völker" a translation from English? U.K. had a empire in that time. "Die Sitten der Völker" is dominate of images from english colonys.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
COPYRIGHT ISSUE
The Image in question, and indeed all the other images in the category possess in their entirety,some Copyright Issue. It appears that these have been scanned in and uploaded to WIKIPEDIA COMMONS without any prior permission sought from the Publishers.
Buschans book on this and WH Furness Nature article, when marketed and published in the US and other Countries, were substantively Copyright protected. I am certain the publishers then and those who inherited the Copyright now retain the interest.
For the benefit of WIKIMEDIA, I suggest that this image is removed or recommended for speedy deletion, because it's use now in WIKI, appears to contravene certain Copyright obligations. The other images in the category will have to reconsidered in light of this now.
If anything, other original images can be made or are available from other sources. And for some incoherent reason, the image is that of a unindentified Male, allegedly of some vague link to the Dayak??? It currently serves no purpose whatsoever to WIKIMEDIA or even WIKIPEDIA. I fail to see why it has been uploaded. Please Delete Delete
Just to clarify, my opinion is Keep - from what I've found, William Furness III was a University of Pennsylvania anthropologist active circa 1900-1920 (Folk-Lore in Borneo (1899), The Home Life of Borneo Head-hunters (1902), etc); this photo is almost certainly PD-US. Given that his work is still cited after a century, it would appear to at least have value in the history of anthropology. The caption could perhaps be expanded to address TuaiRumah's concerns, situating it as an historical artifact (similar to how we wouldn't delete everything in Category:Blackface minstrelsy). --Davepape19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow what you're saying. William Furness III was an anthropologist from a distant period.I am most certainly interested in reading those books you have just mentioned, but, as you know, copying and pasting the text from those books, constitutes an Editing NO NO in WIKIPEDIA. And how does plagiarism differ from uploading Images of those books here??? Moreover, to what purpose does this photo serve???
It's use here is certainly a COPYRIGHT Infringement.
Also, must WIKIMEDIA COMMONS be a repository for each and every redundant still image??? And what specific value would this image have to do with the Dayak of today or for some obscure chapter in a history of South East Asian Anthropology???
There just seems to be more confusion from what you've just written. The Caption could easily be tagged as "Example of Bad Teeth". There is just no coherence there. It's an empty statement. Apart from the very obvious racist statement "show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these. ", the uploading of this image to that Dayak category is just plain condescending prejudice personified.
To be fair, it is highly likely that the Book and Image in question could be used in a University Course title "A History of Racism". If anything, should this image be kept, I suggest this be recategorised as "Examples of early 20th Century Racism".
I have read the WIKIguide and there is a very, very good reason to replace this image altogether. Uploading Images for some unspecified, vague historical artifact collecting reason is probably best served by keeping this in a Library somewhere.
The more I questioned the uploading of this image, the more I feel this should be removed. I say DELETE Deletethis IMAGE.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I uploaded my image named with my initials PJLW. When I previewed it on my english Wikipedia page it was another image and not mine. I received no warnings that said not to. I need it deleted so I may rename it and reupload it. Paloma Walker06:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This is a case of namespace conflict: the English-speaking Wikipedia already has a local file named Image:PJLW.jpg which gets the priority over the one on Commons. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User has been playing with the image, does not seem to depict anything. Don't think there's use for this one, so out of scope. Deadstar13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture has been altered, and it did not improve it. I don't think the picture can be used for anything in this state, and propose deletion. Deadstar14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture has been worked on with photoshop, and if there was a subject, it is no longer clear. As this cannot be used for anything, it is outside the scope of commons. Deadstar14:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't understand what is the argument for the deletion proposal. It's a photo taken by an anonimous FBI's photographer released by the FBI and ruled by the American law that says all federal documents/photos/movies are PD. Are you saying that the anonimous terrorist who wrote the note is the copyright holder? --Roblespepe16:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is an derivative work (photo by the FBI) of a copyrighted work (letter) by an anonymous author (terrorist). So the photo can not be in the public domain although it was taken by the FBI. The only thing we could discuss here is whether the copyrighted work (letter) is ineligible for copyright because it is to trivial to reproduce. --ALE! ¿…?07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; ALE, it cannot be considered a work of art; and anyway, let the guy (or gal) come forth and claim copyright! ^_^ And Yonatan - are you sure it isn't a work of the FBI? (don't bother answering, I don't care either way) – Tintazultalk14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument sustain by ALE is not serious (with all respect for him), and suggest also that the FBI is violating "the copyright of the terrorist letter". --Roblespepe22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the FBI could make a number of fair use and the like cases. However that does not apply to us. The image is not free.Geni12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. Given this account's only other upload, it is of course possible that the uploader actually does represent IC Denmark. Well, better delete it just to be on the safe side. Valentinian(talk)22:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep No, it was in an exibithion. It's really hard to tell now, because it was probably the documenta 8, I took this photo, but as far as I rembember it was inside the AOK-building, where an overview of the history of the art exhibitions of Kassel was shown. -- AM21:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
But this isn't a photo taken by the manga or by the anime... it hasn't even been traced, it's only an interpretation... then I think that this isn't a derivative work, only an interpretation... Xander
Keep As interpretations, are you going to delete everything that there is at the Naruto page, then? ¿Interpretation=Derivative work? I don't agree with that. Sometimes it may be true, but with something as this cloud... I don't even think he (Masashi Kishimoto, the author) can copyright that cloud, because it a very common thing on japanese traditional drawings. Ilfirin06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The design for this van is a derivative work of the design of the original Mystery Machine, which is copyrighted by Hanna-Barbera. ShadowHalo04:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As it's my upload, I thought it within the rules (but I'm biased). The supermarket name is certainly trademarked as a registered business name, but would that give rise to copyright in the sign? If it were considered that supermarket names were unacceptable, it would appear that Category:Supermarkets would be in trouble. Not to mention Category:Logos. Man vyi12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
planephotoman removed the cc-by licence from this image on flickr after I uploaded it here. We cannot prove it was ever cc-by. planephotoman does not answer my flickr mails. --JuergenL ✈ 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC) JuergenL✈06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have compared an archived version of planephotoman's Flickr pages at archive.org with [9] and [10]. It certainly shows that planephotoman has changed licensing from CC-BY-2.0 to "All rights reserved" on other photos. It is not unreasonable to assume that this particular photo was CC licensed earlier. Thuresson08:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He changed the license of all his photos in early October 2006, from cc-by to all rights reserved. I made a list of his images once and later User:Kelly Martin deleted most of them because of the license change. --Para13:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As I was and still am somewhat uncertain about this, I discussed this at the on the village pump. I also informed this user after the discussion, but haven't gotten a response.
These particular galleries and the images contained within do not appear to have an education use, but are being used as an art gallery. They do not fall within the scope of the Commons and are more suited to a site like deviantart or such.
Delete in contradiction to COM:PS. Note also that the user incorrectly claims copyright on non-creative images. These have been rendered by a computer from non-creative input, not created by a human. --Rtc08:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, at least the Gimpressionist gallery should be deleted. Those images are derivated work from photos we don't know anything about. — Xavier, 12:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely, they all do have encyclopedic purposes, mostly. Those that do not can also be utilized on Wikibooks, WikiVersity, and lots of these different projects of the Foundation, some of them do use art pictures. Wooyi19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
all kept (I have not browsed through all images. But most of which I saw was within the project scope considering it in a wider sense.) --ALE! ¿…?08:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by VIGNERON: copyvio, Commons:Deletion requests
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image was scanned from the 2005 book "Heraldry: past to present". The illustrator in that book is creditted as Algis Kliševičius, who is not the person who uploaded this image. This looks like a copyvio. --EncycloPetey00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the arms depicted may not be under copyright, the specific illustration does fall under copyright. Any individual artist's work that is copyrighted should be protected, even if the subject of his work is not copyrighted. --EncycloPetey22:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was not scanned, but redrawn after the image mentioned. A vector format version is available, but I will have to find it.--65.85.181.20115:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not the official flag. Wrong picture of the eagle. SVG with correct eagle available. Image has been unliked from all WP. Markus198308:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete; all that moiré hints of a book scan, and books are usually not clear about copyright issues in the images they use. – Tintazultalk14:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Artist died in 1973. Panoramafreiheit does not apply because the interior of the church is not considered a public street or place. Phrood14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
from Go to maps.google.com and put in Rose Bowl. Select satellite and zoom in to the second closest magnification. The picture here, Image:Rose Bowl.JPG was certainly a derivative work from the Google image. 198.203.175.17517:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, since I added the Copyright notice on the Wikipedia page in March 2007, the picture on Google taken near January 2005 has been replaced with one taken after the January 2006 Rose Bowl. The angle is still the same. 198.203.175.17517:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete'delete I concur that this copyright image fails fair use tests. It is NOT needed in the article for scholarly reasons, and is easily replaceable by a free image. OK, maybe a satellite view of the stadium isn't easily replacable, but anyone with a camera can go up to the stadium itself and take a picture that would serve the purpose this one is. --Jayron3218:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google uses some public-domain government sources. Thus, that a satellite or aerial image can be found on Google Maps is not proof it is copyrighted. Note that this is not proof it's PD either, but I don't think the issue is settled yet. Morven07:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's been the uploader himself who asked for deletion of these images (see here). The image (as well as the others) has been tagged {{Nld}}, the uploader cannot supply the missing information. --Wikipeder13:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Nominating images do not require admin access. This process is to establish copyrights and there is nothing "unacceptable" about it. -- Catchi?20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all--Info about Copyright is Fake and cannot be condone, required actions should be taken for Authors. Also User:Bohater's tone/speech and accusation for an admin is subject to another punishment.Makalp12:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not take pictures from professional photographers or artists; they're tained and from the very interests of the rights holder factually never under a free license. --Rtc08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is a unclarity on this page about whether this is public domain or not. IP-user has (on 27 March 2007) added in address for requesting permission, so I assume it is not PD. Deadstar15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete don't accept pictures of works of professional artists; don't accept photos of professional photographers. If you do, you are guilty at least morally just as much as someone is guilty if he is buying a stolen car for which he must see that he couldn't get it for that price legally. We should not accept any such works except if rights have been bought properly for the appropriate price (at least several dozens of grands per work, usually). --Rtc22:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep, unless it is the case that Chinese calligraphy can so distinct as to be considered a copyrightable form of art. Yet, this should be uploaded as a PNG, to avoid JPEG artifice. – Tintazultalk14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This picture is a handy "person sleeping" stock photo, used that way in many places. It's not used in a family album-like way at all. SeanMD8020:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for admin resolving this issue: please ignore "wide usage" arguments. I've seen plenty of sleeping children photos available on Flicr on verifyable free license: this photo can be easily replaced. A.J.08:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing bad to put the own daughter to make a picture. And if the pictures are useful, we should keep them. In other ways we could delete Photos from New York cause of 'commons is no catalog of sights'. Please don't scare people away who want to help the wikipedia. --Hartmetall 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep assuming the licensing can be worked out, what's wrong with it? any picture of someone sleeping could be accused of being "from a family album" --Babbage06:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that commons is no family album is non-sense, because this picture is not for a family album. Also it's properly licensed. I see no reason to delete it. --217.235.231.2620:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean by "doubt of pirating"? The Flickr user admitted he had taken the image, and in fact he displays two images. -- ReyBrujo17:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, i have to agree, this is obviously a taken picture: it's resolution is that of a normal picture, 1204 x 768, and it's obviously not of the highest quality. It's definetely not a pirated picture either; he has other pictures from the same place. -- Artistthatneverwas 7:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I have been picking tidbits here and there, and apparently in Japan it is not allowed to take pictures of singers while on stage. My speculation: this may be a restriction of Avex Trax or other companies because they hold "Personality rights" over the figure. I will see if I can contact someone with better knowledge, but as far as I know, until DRAGONBALLXYZ explains himself, there is no problem with the image. -- ReyBrujo11:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there. So far, I reached a fairly empty page where they basically explain that the copyright is held by the artist, photographer, etc, and that without their permission it is not possible to reproduce. The closest I was to finding a place where to post a note was here, but it won't reach the guys I want. -- ReyBrujo02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm not fluent at all in Japanese (I would classify myself as ja-0.8, hehe), I think that (first) page only contains information about the artist's booklets/discs/etc. I can not find another mail address or anything else on their site, though. -- KyonEN06:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, does this mean that if I snap a picture of, lets say, Koda Kumi, and upload it to the internet, she can sue me for piracy? *confused* --KyonEN16:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point us to the law or to someone who can explain it better? As I said, I understand your point, however I would like reading the wording directly, or talking with someone who is able to explain and quote the regulations. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo04:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for japanese right of likeness delivers Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Range-Murata-03.jpg. However, in that specific case, the subject of the image contacted the Japanese Wikipedia and requested to have the image removed. Therefore, if we apply the same rationale, Utada Hikaru should contact either Wikimedia Commons or the japanese version of Wikipedia and demand to have it down. -- ReyBrujo04:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further investigation reveals a little more information at this blog entry. However, the blogger could not find the law that was being broken, nor we have it here. From what I understand after reading it, it appears that there is no law that is really against publishing the image, but instead it is a cultural imposition pushed by record companies. I would like getting more information so that I stop searching around for jpop images, though. -- ReyBrujo05:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any problem. The ridiculous accusation is that DRAGONBALLXYZ saying "pirating"! Because she smiles for us ;) --WashiR18:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore your thing is pirated to say many times.Please examine a right of likeness by oneself.What may I do if not charged?There is not a right with a photograph of Utada if I do not understand a Japanese sense after all.--DRAGONBALLXYZ14:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At it was suggested a similar usage to Image:Nazi Swastika.svg. The symbol may be considered illegal in some countries, so the image has a disclaimer. As Cohesion said, the image is free, even though there is a moral issue. We could add a disclaimer to every picture about japanese persons stating there may be moral issues with the image, but it is still free. -- ReyBrujo18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note we already have a template for Template:Personality rights which I've added to the image. If it's necessary to make a specific one for Japan because of the apparent extremely strict personality rights in Japan I suggest it be based on this one. Also wider discussion should be undertaken first Nil Einne20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against wider discussion. Note that what I have stated are what I think is happening: we don't know if there is a privacy law or it is just custom, we don't know if this would restrict only the Japanese Wikipedia from using images or all of them, whether the Japanese law is applicable to the servers regardless of location, etc. We need legal counsel from Japan if possible. -- ReyBrujo02:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a restriction outside of copyright, just like trademark law and the like. In such cases, as noted above, we simply note on the image description page that such issues may exist in certain jurisdictions. Morven07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image is not a copyright violation. While there may be moral-rights issues in certain jurisdictions (may being the critical word; nobody has cited an actual law here, just assertions lacking detail) these have precedent not to be cause for deletion. Morven07:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say if Utada is is really concerned about the picture, she would have asked for it to be removed. All of her CD covers have her picture on them. So, she obviously doesn't mind especially if she saw them take her picture (which she did because she smiled.) Also, In America you can't take pictures in some concerts either but people do anyway. I don't see a problem with the picture. Keep it. (Anonymous) 14:59, 28 April 2007
Keep Strong doubt that DRAGONBALLXYZ's explaination is far from adequate. All aspects of the image indicates that this is totally legit. Obviously no Japanese moral or constitutional problem. Probably not worth the effort to go into deep depths over a deletion request that so far clearly fails to explain itself. —Tokek12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image can be verified not to be pirated by visiting its source site: http://flickr.com/photos/84063124@N00/7773326 It is listed under a creative commons license. Reason for doubting piracy is not mentioned, and nobody has been able to speculate what that reason could be. If there are other reasons for the deletion request and if the submitter is more fluent in another language, I would request the user post in that language so we could better understand what the reason for the deletion request is. —Tokek00:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please reconsider. It is NOT the matter of copyright. Provably she did not agree with the picture of herself to be taken at that situation. So it should be violating some privacy rights. The picture is so-called secret photography, isn't it? See Japanese Association of Music Enterprises (JAME) website [14] (sorry in Japanese), it says that "although there is no act which directly regulates the violation of privacy of celebrities such as singers and actors, precedents show that such the infringements (including the using/taking of pictures without permissions) should not be allowed". Also see ja:プライバシー. --Calvero20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is interesting that the above two accounts (KyonEN & Tokek) seems to be taken just only for this deletion request. I guess this picture really being needed. But I think it is illegal. Plese do not wait until the action from the Utada's office. --Calvero20:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I haven't uploaded any pictures of Tokyo yet; I'm just back since Sunday. Do you want me to upload pictures immediately? -- KyonEN13:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a pretty good photo. But, I just wanted to point out that the picture attracting attention (possibly because of the argument by the nominator seems oddly for some people), and not wanted to criticize newbies. I think getting an acconut for discussion is totally not bad. It seems that the standpoint for privacy is somewhat specific in Japan. --Calvero13:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I'll upload more, but I don't know which I should upload first, lol. Anyway, I just think that this picture is somewhat needed on Wikipedia projects, where no license like 'Fair use' is available. The reason for deleting this image should rather be something like "The Japanese <<right of likeness>> prohibits the legal use of this image", or not? Seriously, what's up with "Doubt of pirating"? Wiktionary gives this meaning to piracy: the unauthorized duplication of goods protected by intellectual property law (eg copying software unlawfully). What kind of intellectual property does Hikaru have over this image according to Japanese jurisdiction? -- KyonEN18:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't now how DRAGONBALLXYZ intended the word "pirating". But, in Japan, the office of any celebrities has the control of the pictures of them, regardless who took them. At least they claim so. They intend to save their profit by controlling the right for using pictures, e.g., no one can sell/publish any calender or postcard without the permission of the clebrities' office. Anyway, I don't know how to treat this problem. I am just afraid of leagal action from a office. --Calvero13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not a copyright issue, so I will ignore the piracy comment by DRAGONBALL XYZ (who has left Wikipedia) from now on. And I will also recommend deprecating the term "right of likeness" which he used. While article 21 of Japan's constitution guarantees freedom of the press, the FAQ linked by Calvero states that there is no law related to shōzōken in Japan. To explain shōzōken, I have translated entries from Daijirin Dictionary:
Shōzōken: The right to refuse displayal of pictures or photos of one's face or appearance. Considered part of jinkakuken.
Jinkakuken: A generic term refering to rights inseperably related to a person's existance or personality. A right related to one's life, body, freedom, honor, image, and privacy. (See also: w:Personality rights.)
The picture with no known copyright problems shows Utada Hikaru smiling in public. Calvero's linked FAQ does not give any specific example court cases relating to shōzōken, however I don't see how this photo could be considered harmful or problematic from an intuitive standpoint. What are referred to as shōzōken cases are really just slander and libel cases like those relating to "idol collages." Voyeurism is against Japanese privacy law, however this is taken in public so it doesn't apply. For JAME, as the organization that represents these artists in court cases, it is benefitial for them to be as vague as they can possibly get away with in their FAQ in order to sound like the artists have more rights than they actually have. —Tokek16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the term "right of likeness" is often used in English translations of Japanese to refer to shōzōken. I was reading both the shōzōken and Personality rights articles from Wikipedia. The Japanese article cites the "John Lenon Incident" - Tokyo Metro sold prepaid cards that had his image on it without permission from heir Yoko Ono. Celebrities are generally granted less privacy rights (in EU, US, JP at least), but instead they are often granted publicity rights:
"In a publicity rights case the issue to decide is whether a significant section of the public would be misled into believing (incorrectly) that a commercial arrangement had been concluded between a plaintiff and a defendant under which the plaintiff agreed to the advertising involving the image or reputation of a famous person." -- w:Personality rights
And:
"In common law jurisdictions, publicity rights fall into the realm of the tort of passing off." -- ibid.
Presumably it is not too different in Japan. Maybe a notice stating that there is no commercial arrangement held with Utada could reduce legal risks with regard to publicity rights (財産権 zaisanken). Also since Wikimedia Foundation is a not-for-profit organization, I wouldn't consider the photo as commercial speech. I don't see copyright, libel, slander, or privacy problems. The image could potentially be used to violate publicity rights, but I don't consider the current usage as such. —Tokek00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image:Cricket bat.jpg was deleted supposedly for copyvio. This is my bat and I took the picture but it is being said that since the design is said to be copyrighted it was deleted without even having a discussion 1st. And I don't think falls into Commons:Derivative works because its not a 3d object. It isn't a copyvio of a 2d copyright object either because the picture isn't reproduction of just the design, it was of a bat. Plus if it warrant discussions it shouldn't be deleted with under speedy deletions because it doesn't fall into that.--Thugchildz21:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I deleted it as an obvious copyvio of the prominent printed designs on the face and rear of the bat, and suggested that the user should blank those out and re-upload an image of just the bat itself. That would be fine.--MichaelMaggs21:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show "some wood as well" it shows the bat and the design on it as well. And the design isn't reproduced, its not a picture of the design! If your use you logic than why is there pictures like this- and and and and ? They all have copyrighted design/logos on it and believe me I could find a lot of things like these on here, should you delete those too?--Thugchildz21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The balls are like almost full of the logos and the bats have about five or six copyrighted logos on them which is a big part of the picture if you add them up. How are those not a significant part of it while the design of the bat is?--Thugchildz21:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shows, in my opinion clearly the logos of "CA", and not de minimis. I am not a lawyer however, and these are difficult cases to decide. I think that any problems can be solved by just removing the logos from the picture. Is that ok? -- Bryan (talk to me) 08:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would just ruin the look of the bat and it isn't fair because there are so many pictures of balls or other stuff that has its logos. Come on think about it every name brand sports equipment has its logo on it and so I think that's its really unfair to target a cricket bat and let other ones stay.--Thugchildz19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's possible to get a picture of each of those items without a logo on it. We don't need that specific cricket bat, we need a cricket bat. Since we can get an image without the logos on it, delete all these items. There isn't a need to infringe on someone's trademarks when we don't have to. There was an OTRS case where a rugby ball manufacturer complained our "free" image infringed on their copyrighted design. MECU≈talk13:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an infringement of someone's trademark as it's not a picture of a trademark otherwise you wouldn't have half the pictures on here because basically most things are trademarked and there's no policy to deny trademarks because of the simple common sense that most things we use nowadays are trademarked. If this picture was to go, most of the images on wikimedia commons has to, even a picture of a street contains trademarks, because building, cars, advertisements etc are all trademarked.--THUGCHILDz16:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be careful not to be too hasty in claiming that images on wikipedia violate copyrights, if this cannot be substantiated. If G.dallorto believes that a violation of copyright has taken place, I think it would be fair to ask him (you) to explain, 1) if we are talking about a violation of any rights of the original artist or rights of the Central Bank of Angola, 2) whether this applies to the pre-independence or the post-independence coins (as these two groups are clearly designded by different artists and de facto issued by different banks), and 3) if, and in what way, uploading of such images on wikipedia constitutes a violation. 05:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Reading before talking could be useful, sometimes. As I wrote, I think nothing. I just completed a deletion request which was incomplete. That's all. --User:G.dallorto17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I am the uploader and don't want an actual name associated with file under file history; will reupload after deleted. Thanks. Bluedog42319:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image is a potential copyvio. There is no evidence that Mehrdad R. Izady (creator) released the image with a free license. The uploader (in en.wiki) wasn't able to assert a copyright either [15] -- Catchi?20:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Copyright info for site states "use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only". NC licenses are not permitted. -- Editor at Large • talk15:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
the very same file as been uploaded at Allersberg-Express_NALB.jpg. Since this file here is not in use, it should be deleted. --Bigbug2105:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The uploader received this image from a webmaster of a page where this image was uploaded. There's no proof that the author ever gave his permission to use it commercially or create derivative works. 88.134.140.6400:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No permission of the author. That the uploader got no answer from the website where he found it doesn't mean the author releases it under a free license. --88.134.140.6400:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep You should have followed the link to its original source: http://www.archive.org/details/1942-01-07_Gen_Adolph_Takes_Over. If you look on that page, you will see that the movie has the CC - no rights reserved label. The movie was put into the public domain by Universal Studios. I'm shure that if they did, they knew very well that the material can be released on public domain. It's Universal Studios not just an appartament company, they have good jurists. --Alex:D14:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry? I mean, it's absurd to discuss such problems here since Universal Studios released that material... Do you know if they do/don't own the copyright? Did they brought it? Is there someone from us, wikipedians who are (their) jurists, to tell wether their decision is right or not? Nonsense. (Plus, there is a chance that a material from 1942 could in the public domain. For example, in Romania, if the owner died before 1946, that material is PD.)--Alex:D16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply factually not in the public domain. I do not see what we need to discuss further. I say that their decision is wrong. It must be wrong because the author is not yet dead for 70 years. We have a lot of movies and pictures from nazi germany, and it's the same discussion each time, and it's also the same answer each time: The picture is going to be deleted because it isn't PD. PS: The copyrights from romanian works of authors that died before 1946 were resurrected when they joined the EU, so what you say is incorrect now. --Rtc16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that someone of archive.org has put the public domain label on the page doesn't prove that Universial Studios released the film into the PD. Apparently parts of Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" are used, which is definitely not PD. --Noddy9316:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So be it, you have more experience here. However, what you are saying, Rtc, is very interesting. Could you give me something to read further about the resurrected rights? Because it would mean a lot of work for us, on romanian WP. I really hope you're not right:D...--Alex:D17:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See w:Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonizing the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (online version). The causes for resurrected rights are a little bit tricky. First of all, the implementation of this directive is mandatory for each EU member and states that works are protected 70 years post mortem auctoris. Now suppose there is some old work A from your country for which copyright in your country had already expired before it joined the EU. Now your country joins the EU, with all EU-anti-discriminatory laws in effect (that is, you as a citizen of your country must not be discriminated against citizens from other EU countries.) Assume there's some spanish work B that was protected in Spain all the time. By implementation of the EU directive, the spanish citizen enjoys copyright for his work B in your country 70 years pma, too. Now if the work A with previously expired copyright was protected in Spain still at the time your country joined the EU, its author must not be discriminated against the spanish citizen, that is, the EU anti-discriminatory laws prohibit the spanish guy to get better protection in your country for his work B than a citizen of your country for his work A despite the fact that both works A and B fulfil the same premises, namely protection of the work in Spain at the time your country joined EU. But since the directive forbids the spanish guy's copyright for work B to be denied or shortened, it follows that the copyright of work A is resurrected to enable justice, such that A and B get equal protection for their equal premises. Again: If a spanish citizen gets a copyright in your country for 70 pma because his work was protected in Spain that long, then you must not be discriminated to get less than 70 pma in your own country if your work is protected in Spain in exactly the same way. Sure, it's a little bit complicated; I hope you understood the line argumentation. (And why is Spain relevant? Because it had the longest protection periods of all EU countries.) See also w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images about the issue. (It's about a parallel case in German law; it should apply vis à vis to Romania.). --Rtc18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About Universal Studios: Universal City Studios gifted Universal Newsreel to the American people, put the newsreels into the public domain, and gave film materials to the National Archives in 1976. Surviving materials from the entire collection are available at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland.--Alex:D15:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's said that the company released it into public domain, so it definitely has been into PD, no further argument needed, this is an explicit release into PD, no doubt. Wooyi03:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. Just because someone claims it is so does not mean it is acutally so. It is actually not so! Gen. Adolph Takes Over consists entirely of movie material that has been taken from w:Leni Riefenstahl's w:Triumph of the Will. There are some mistaken views that claim that works from nazi germany are in the PD now. these views are incorrect. The fallacies involved are explained and refuted at w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images. This movie won't be PD until 2074! --Rtc21:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think the movie company's corporate lawyers would lie in that matter even at the expense of their career? Also I don't think their lawyer would be that ignorant either. Wooyi19:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Triumph of the Will (and other captured WWII material) is PD in the US and the UK due to specific laws (Alien Property Custodian and War Powers Act respectively). This explains why U.S. companies can use it, and declare it as PD, and why archive.org can host it. Their claims are not mistaken, but they apply inside the U.S. only. However, it is still copyrighted in Germany (and therefore the rest of Europe I would think) so it is probably not free enough for commons. It could likely be uploaded and used locally on en-wiki though. Carl Lindberg02:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting piece of information. But why isn't it free enough for Commons? Is there any place in Commons where this poijnt is explaioned? I mean, I would say that as long the copyright laws of both the uploader and the place where the servers are located are respected, it is OK, but I do not know if any clear rule exists in Commons on such cases. Bradipus09:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is for media which can be freely used by any Wikimedia project, not just the Wikipedias, and should be usable in all countries (or at least most of them). If media is only usable in one or two countries, then we are putting users in other countries at risk if they use the material there, since it would be a copyright infringement for them. If media is hosted on a non-U.S. server, then Wikimedia itself might be at risk. So, I think it's safer to not have them on commons. Carl Lindberg17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is gross nonsense, as has been discussed several times before. Alien Property Custodian and War Powers Act concern property rights, not copyrights, despite repeated claims of the contrary. At most, Triumph of the Will material has been used under fair use here, and fair use is not permitted on commons. If they can release anything under PD, then it is the additional copyright they gained on the result of their work. Many US and UK companies use this material illegally because of the common fallacies described at w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images. WWIII material is copyrighted by international copyright treaties and may not be used --Rtc13:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think talking about gross nonsense adds any meaningfull information to your message. The information on w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images is very useful. Because of the derivative and original nature of the use of the apparently copyrighted material, it would be thus at least a very strong fair use. It might even be considered under US law as a completely original work of art, but it is not clear enough to be allowed on Commons. BTW, let us stick to WWII material, we will see about the WWIII material in due course) ^_^ Bradipus14:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gross nonsense? It is written into U.S. copyright law (17 U.S.C. §104A(a)(2)) as an explicit exception to the URAA restorations on foreign copyrights. The intention was to be sure that Holocaust evidence and the like could not be suppressed through copyright games. As for the UK, I meant the Enemy Property Act, not War Powers Act. That apparently "extinguished" copyrights, so they were not restored by the EU copyright harmonization either (see [16] and [17]). Carl Lindberg17:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, gross nonsense. The clause you cite contains the restriction "in which the restored copyright would be owned by a government or instrumentality thereof". This applies to almost none of the WW2 works, and those for which it applies would be PD in almost any case, anyway. It is the similar for the clause "in which the copyright was ever owned or administered by the Alien Property Custodian", since, in the first place, copyright of WWII works was, in contrast to their property, never owned or administered by Alien Property Custodian. I doubt that this law has anything to do with the intention you suggest, and if it is, then it is a) inappropriate, b) in contradiction to treaties, c) not fulfilling its purpose. Copyrights cannot be extinguished in a way such as to make them excluded from restoratzion by the copyright harmonization. --Rtc17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any works owned by the Nazi party (NSDAP) would now be owned by the German government (or Transit Gmbh, its instrumentality); any Nazi Party works seized by the U.S. during WWII would fall under the exception, meaning the German government cannot claim copyright in the U.S. In fact, a German court ruled that Triumph of the Will was NSDAP property and not Leni Riefenstahl's, and so the German government controlled its copyright. The Alien Property thing has been part of U.S. court cases too; see w:Heinrich Hoffmann, whose seized photographs were ruled to be PD in the U.S. The exception was written into the international treaty (URAA) so it's not in violation of it. There is some background info here. As for the UK "extinguished" copyrights, see the two links I posted above. I'm not sure if that has even been part of a court case but those two articles seem to imply that. Carl Lindberg18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argumentation not valid, as long as you do not correctly distinguish between property and copyright, which are entirely separate and independent. I assume that there is no German court ruling, if you think so, please give reference so I can check what's actually in there. The case about Hoffmann pictures does not talk about copyright at all. As far as I understand it, it merely rejected the demanded appeal outright because of formal reasons (time limitations of two years for appeal exceeded). Did I get it right that the plaintiff demanded licensing fees from the NARA? If that is true and the judgement attempts to say that copyrights were sized and would fall within the scope of appeal within due time, it is simply wrong. Such a position would be valid concerning property rights, but not concerning copyrights, since none have been or could even in principle be seized. Even if the judge ruled so, incorrectly, then it would still imply only a gap in law has been found that permits NARA, and only NARA, to distribute these photos without realistically facing sanctions. Copyright can still be enforced against any other people who make use of such pictures. We cannot accept pictures that are merely based on "cannot be sued for copyright violation realistically" instead of "they are truly without copyright" even if these come out as the same in practice. Not to mention that copyright on these pictures is obviously still accepted in many other countries outside the US. After all, what you do is just the old argumentation on this issue; it has been discussed mayn times and each time we determined that such pictures must be rejected outright. w:WP:PD#German_World_War_II_images holds perfectly. It is not the purpose of commons to exploit some loopholes in existing practical circumstances of law. That said, US has no right whatsoever to seize German copyrights. Even if the US has illegally put laws into place to try to achieve that, it would still fall under the wikimedia foundation's amnesty for works that have been denied copyright without legitimation, as for Iran and similar countries. --Rtc19:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to keep the photos here; I don't think commons should hold anything US-only (or UK-only) for the reasons you state. en-wiki is probably a different story, but not commons. At any rate, you may be right about Hoffman -- I may not have looked closely enough. However, under previous U.S. law, almost all WWII material had lapsed into the public domain because either it was not registered with the U.S. copyright office originally or was not re-registered after 28 years. When the U.S. was a signing party to the URAA, almost all foreign copyrights were restored and given terms under the new law... with the exception of these Alien Property Custodian Property materials, which were simply not restored and thus remained public domain in the U.S. They are still subject to the U.S. copyright law in place during WWII, I assume, which was 56 years maximum and then only if registered. Carl Lindberg23:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for the German case; [18] states: "Transit included Triumph of the Will in its catalogue. Leni Riefenstahl was still not giving up her copyright claim over the film, and took Transit to Court in Germany, claiming that the rights were hers. The Court of first instance held that the rights were with Transit. Leni Riefenstahl appealed, and the German Federal Supreme Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 10 January 1969 that the copyright was not vested in Leni Riefenstahl but in the former Nazi party (NSDAP -- the National Socialist German Workers' Party), that under German law the German state was heir to the assets and obligations of the former NSDAP, and administration of the copyright had been delegated by the German State to the state owned company Transit-Film GmbH of Munich." Carl Lindberg15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I could not find anything at all concerning this court case. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, of course. After further checking and discussion with Lupo, what you say about copyrights being 'seized' seems to be correct at least a restricted form which roughly matches what you describe. But I assume that we agree that if we could speak of PD or Quasi-PD within the US or perhaps the UK, the works would still be protected about anywhere else, and hence not suitable for commons? --Rtc17:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree they are not suitable for commons for those reasons. I was mostly responding to your comments that the works were not in the public domain anywhere :-) It is very reasonable for a U.S. company or NARA to claim PD on such material; it's just that that claim is limited to the U.S., which commons is not. BTW, the "seized" status of the works is likely irrelevent; they were public domain in the U.S. by virtue of standard U.S. copyright law of the time, and the "Alien Property Custodian exception" just means that copyright was not restored for those works when most other foreign works were, meaning they remain public domain. I was originally referring to the exception to restoration in the URAA treaty, not any potential seizure of copyrights during WWII which were administered by the Alien Property Custodian (and mostly returned I think; I have little idea about the details of that). Carl Lindberg06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you say, I don't believe you are smarter than U.S. corporate lawyers. I don't think those big companies want to illegally use copyrighted material to get them sued by a foreign government. It states it is PD, so it is, we are not lawyers, but the PD statement is written by a lawyer. A lawyer's view on copyright trumps what you say. Wooyi21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's simply not the case. That's an dogmatic w:argument from authority, and it's invalid. Just because the lawyer says it does not mean it is so. I have claimed that it is wrong, if my understanding of it is correct (which remains to be doubted, as I do not have access to the ruling but only some rather unclear comments on it), and I have given arguments for that position. --Rtc21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAlex:D tells us that Universal City Studios put the newsreels into the public domain, what appears to be confirmed by This source page. Even if that film used parts of other films, we are authorised to assume that Universal lawyers made their job and to believe that it is PD unless somebody would come up and argue that he holds some rights in that film. Bradipus16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still protected. Universal Studios never owned the copyright of this film (as they did not film this) so they can not release it into the public domain. Period. --ALE! ¿…?07:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)KeepI don't want it to be deleted.[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is the WRONG Image to Potray the Dayak, and for WIKIMEDIA purposes this should be removed immediately in the interest of fairness and not Misuse --TuaiRumah19:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the WRONG Image to Portray the Dayak.
Dayak is many tribes. And this image is 100 years old.
This is irrelevant. The image is completely useless. It is a picture of an Eskimo for all we know. Please remove this image. It is not a Dayak.
TuaiRumah12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these.
Again that comment is irrelevant. Is this image meant to be an example of someone's teeth? if so, then it is in the wrong category.
The copyright on this, and other Buschan photos on Commons, needs to be clarified - according to an obituary on JSTOR, Georg Buschan lived from 1863 to 1942. If he took the photos himself, they should still be copyrighted until 1 Jan 2013. --Davepape13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book is first published before 1923, as Commons has any copyright-problem. In other country, other copyrights. But it is rare by copyright on Photo from before WW2--haabet 21:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI, "pre-1923 = PD" only applies to work first published in the U.S., which I doubt Buschan's Die Sitten der Völker was. However, you've now identified the photo as being by W. H. Furness (which Nature confirms); Furness appears to have worked and published in Philadelphia, so {{PD-US}} would apply. --Davepape01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The law of U.S.A. only be effective in U. S. A. and The server of commons is in U. S. A., but in other states other laws. As PD image from U.S.A. can have copyright in other states. But a image have need of both copyright in the homeland and copyright in USA, before it have valid copyright.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are some U. S. works of the same type as "Die Sitten der Völker", can you see in your libraries for that image? The Images was few at that era. And some U. S. works was bigger as "Die Sitten der Völker" other is perhaps a translation or is "Die Sitten der Völker" a translation from English? U.K. had a empire in that time. "Die Sitten der Völker" is dominate of images from english colonys.haabet 21:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
COPYRIGHT ISSUE
The Image in question, and indeed all the other images in the category possess in their entirety,some Copyright Issue. It appears that these have been scanned in and uploaded to WIKIPEDIA COMMONS without any prior permission sought from the Publishers.
Buschans book on this and WH Furness Nature article, when marketed and published in the US and other Countries, were substantively Copyright protected. I am certain the publishers then and those who inherited the Copyright now retain the interest.
For the benefit of WIKIMEDIA, I suggest that this image is removed or recommended for speedy deletion, because it's use now in WIKI, appears to contravene certain Copyright obligations. The other images in the category will have to reconsidered in light of this now.
If anything, other original images can be made or are available from other sources. And for some incoherent reason, the image is that of a unindentified Male, allegedly of some vague link to the Dayak??? It currently serves no purpose whatsoever to WIKIMEDIA or even WIKIPEDIA. I fail to see why it has been uploaded. Please Delete Delete
Just to clarify, my opinion is Keep - from what I've found, William Furness III was a University of Pennsylvania anthropologist active circa 1900-1920 (Folk-Lore in Borneo (1899), The Home Life of Borneo Head-hunters (1902), etc); this photo is almost certainly PD-US. Given that his work is still cited after a century, it would appear to at least have value in the history of anthropology. The caption could perhaps be expanded to address TuaiRumah's concerns, situating it as an historical artifact (similar to how we wouldn't delete everything in Category:Blackface minstrelsy). --Davepape19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow what you're saying. William Furness III was an anthropologist from a distant period.I am most certainly interested in reading those books you have just mentioned, but, as you know, copying and pasting the text from those books, constitutes an Editing NO NO in WIKIPEDIA. And how does plagiarism differ from uploading Images of those books here??? Moreover, to what purpose does this photo serve???
It's use here is certainly a COPYRIGHT Infringement.
Also, must WIKIMEDIA COMMONS be a repository for each and every redundant still image??? And what specific value would this image have to do with the Dayak of today or for some obscure chapter in a history of South East Asian Anthropology???
There just seems to be more confusion from what you've just written. The Caption could easily be tagged as "Example of Bad Teeth". There is just no coherence there. It's an empty statement. Apart from the very obvious racist statement "show a link to a image of a Eskimo by teeth like these. ", the uploading of this image to that Dayak category is just plain condescending prejudice personified.
To be fair, it is highly likely that the Book and Image in question could be used in a University Course title "A History of Racism". If anything, should this image be kept, I suggest this be recategorised as "Examples of early 20th Century Racism".
I have read the WIKIguide and there is a very, very good reason to replace this image altogether. Uploading Images for some unspecified, vague historical artifact collecting reason is probably best served by keeping this in a Library somewhere.
The more I questioned the uploading of this image, the more I feel this should be removed. I say DELETE Deletethis IMAGE.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete nominated image is 171 × 114 and even though these two images are not really similar, I think it should be deleted. Siebrand12:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No authorisation. Dédélembrouille12:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Yamaha Motor france web site says : "Toute représentation totale ou partielle de ce site par quelque procédé que se soit, sans l'autorisation expresse de l'exploitant du site web est interdite et constituerait une contrefaçon sanctionnée par les articles L.335-2 et suivants du Code de la propriété intellectuelle."[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All right, then. If the uploader agrees with deletion, I see no reason not to delete it. Additionally, this media is not used anywhere around Wikimedia projects. Deleted. /odder18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All right, then. If the uploader agrees with deletion, I see no reason not to delete it. Additionally, this media is not used anywhere around Wikimedia projects. Deleted. /odder18:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file should be replaced by Flohwalzer1.mid. Can Flohwalzer1.mid be renamed to Flohwalzer.mid? Flohwalzer1.mid is not referenced anywhere, but Flohwalzer.mid is (on the german page about the Flohwalzer). --SteyrerBrain16:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It’s not within the project’s scope to link fair use images (en) or copyvios. The works of Leni Riefenstahl are in the public domain in 2073. This empty page (all images: requests for deletion) encourages further copyvios.--Polarlys19:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I've already removed that PD claim and tagged the image for deletion if the original Dutch Wikipedia uploader (for whom I posted the standard Dutch-language warning message) doesn't provide valid source/licensing information within seven days. This was discussed directly above the warning that you added to the talk page of Siebrand (who merely moved this image from the Dutch Wikipedia). —David Levy20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The resolution has been deliberately kept down to a level where the images are barely legible. If this is a "derivative work", I submit that so is any photo in which (for example) someone is visibly drinking a Coca-Cola or wearing a logo T-shirt. This is, after all, not a picture zooming in on and detailing a particular action figure. This is no more a copyright infringement than it would be to take a photo of an aisle of a supermarket, or the stacks in a library.
Shawna Iverson at Archie McPhee (who I've known for years, and I assure you that she has a quite good understanding of both intellectual property rights and copyleft considerations) actively encouraged me to take this picture. In fact, see http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/archiemcphee/: they have a sign in the store actively encouraging people who take photos to upload a copy there. The store actively encourages photography and distribution: they simply view it as good publicity.
I don't routinely participate in this sort of issue on Commons, so if someone wants to engage me in discussion on this, please do "ping" my user talk page (either on Commons or the English Wikipedia) so that I know to check here again. - en:Jmabel | talk05:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Yes, a photo of a toy or a playmobil is a derivative work. These are sculptures of fine art as far as copyright is concerned. A car is not copyrighted because it is an utility article. A balloon is not copyrighted because there's no creativity involved. --Rtc20:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I contacted a month ago, and he hasn't answered yet. Since I don't need this image, I wouldn't mind it being deleted.--Schreiber10:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Derivative image — COM:FOP#USA does not allow free photography of public sculptures. Moreover, the display was temporary in nature, and would not have qualified for freedom of panorama under any country's laws. --Pharos22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although your reason is incorrect, it's under no derivative and no commercial use. Ought to be speedied. Differ05:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Seems like a copyvio form www.armeniaforeignministry.com
Although the version on wikipedia is larger, the one on the armeniaforeignministry.com site seems to be a thumbnail. The javascript link does not seem to be working.
Hm. The site's direct image URL is [20], and it is identical to the image here. The website in question was basically the same in 2004 according to the internet archive [21]. However, the image modification dates on the armeniaforeignministry.com server are April 21 2006, which is after the image was uploaded to commons (and apparently existed on en-wiki before that). It is *possible* that the armeniaforeignministry.com found the image on wikipedia and replaced an existing image of theirs. Not terribly likely, but possible. When was this originally uploaded to en-wiki, and did the copy there have a source listed? Carl Lindberg09:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The map is actually based on the one found in the book "A Concise History of the Armenian People: From Ancient Times to the Present" by George A. Bournoutian. It was modified and colorized by Eupator, the original uploader and began appearing on Wikipedia as early as 2005. I believe that the Armenian Foreign Ministry found this image on Wikipedia and put it on their site. In the process, they appear to have neglected to upload the original, only providing a thumbnail. To say that this image was copied-and-pasted from the foreign ministry is ridiculous. -- Aivazovsky23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the direct image URL on the site is [22]. I made a mistake in my old posting; this link is the full-scale image, i.e. an exact copy of the image we have on commons. It's not entirely unreasonable to ask if our image is a copy of theirs, especially since that website appears unchanged since 2004. If they did copy it from wikipedia, they replaced an earlier image of the same name, as their 2004 page does have an image with the same URL. The Internet Archive did not keep a copy of the original image thumbnail itself, which does leave open the possibility that the website replaced their existing image. If the en-wiki version existed prior to mid 2004, then it may have been a copy of the wiki version from the outset. As for copying from the book, I'm not sure a trace of a border would count as a derivative work -- wouldn't that be more factual data, and not artistic expression? Carl Lindberg00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. The version on en-wiki was uploaded in January 2006; the chance that Armenia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs copied this work after that in order to replace a different image with the identical name is just infinitesimal compared to the chance that Eupator copied it to Wikipedia, probably believing in good faith that the {{NoRightsReserved}} tag he put on it was true. Note especially that Eupator himself never claimed to be the author. An anon here changed {{NoRightsReserved}} to {{PD-author}} and claimed Eupator as author. —Angr18:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. All the images except the one mentioned above have already been deleted, so there's no point in keeping the category. —Angr19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
CommentAs the photographs were more than 30 years ago, and the fact that with the policy of glasnost all those photographs are now public domain, the only requirement to repost them for non-profit reasons is to list the source from which the inidividual pulled the pictures, not necessarily the source of the originals itself.
The photographs are not more than 30 years old; the Buran did not exist 30 years ago. And even if such a 'glasnost' policy as you describe exists (and as described it wouldn't apply to these photos from the 80s and 90s anyway), Commons has a policy of only hosting images that are permitted to be used in all circumstances, including the for-profit context.--Pharos18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That work is copyrighted by the Russian government. The US policy of releasing all government work into the public domain is practically unique in the world.--Pharos15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I don't know much about what the Buran is, but I looked at each photo, and don't see the "obviousness" that these were taken by the Russian Government. Could you please explain further? Zacharytalk17:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Soviet space program was highly secretive. They certainly did not permit American government officials to photograph launches and landings, and certainly did not let NASA planes to fly above Antonov AN-225s carrying Burans.--Pharos18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I trust NASA. NASA says all content on their page is public domain unless otherwise is noted. Therefore, this must be public domain. You know, it could have been taken after the fall of the Soviet Union. --Ysangkok18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you asked NASA? No. You are only trusting that some NASA junior webmaster didn't make a clerical mistake when this website was put up in 1997. And in this case they obviously did. The only Buran launch was in 1988, and several of the images are clearly showing the Buran on the launchpad about to go up.--Pharos18:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because, even if Russia won the lawsuit, the total cost would outweigh any benefit by orders of magnitude. Also, because, except for the lack of proper attribution, NASA’s use of the images is well covered by fair use, an option that we don’t have here. —xyzzyn22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They are nice images and useful to the project. Moreover they are quite common on many public internet sites. Lastly the copyright owner (if such exists) is the Russian government and I am not aware of a single case when they bothered about historical Soviet material being used. --Kuban kazak00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was upload the picture honestly, i thought that if the NASA has the picture, it's under PD copyright. Now, if this picture isn't under PD copyright, we must evidently delete the picture.--David5919:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -According to Russian Copy-right law, the non commercial use of these images on Wikipedia is permitted. The images are permanently localed on the NASA website which is a public place.
Article 21. Free Use of Works Permanently Located in a Public Place
The reproduction, broadcasting or communication to the public by cable of architectural works, photographic works and works of fine art permanently located in a public place shall be permissible without the author's consent and without payment of remuneration, except where the presentation of the work constitutes the main feature of the said reproduction, broadcast or communication to the public by cable, if it is used for commercial purposes.
Er, no, sorry. Non commercial use isn't compatible with Wikipedia either, or with ANY WMF project, for that matter. Depending on which project, some allow fair use, in very restricted cases, if you give a justification for each picture, for each usage, and only in article space. Se, for example the english Wikipedia's fair use policy ++Lar: t/c00:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article 21 "Free Use of Works........" seems to speak for the continued, non-infringing inclusion of the Buran photo. An interesting photo which should remain.--76.3.90.1800:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If all else fails, these images should be kept under the fair use guidelines - as the shuttles have mostly been destroyed or dismantled and are never likely to be used again, we can't obtain any free images from elsewhere, and they add significantly to their articles. Imagine, if you will, if the Space Shuttle images were not Public Domain and were all deleted - how would their articles look then? Colds7ream14:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Article 8, Russian law on Copyright and Neighbouring Rights - "communications concerning events and facts that have informational character" 137.44.1.20018:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (Wikipedia 'Dancraggs')[reply]
Comment Mrija and Buran were shown to all the world at the Salon International de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace in June 89. The both photos from there are obviously not property of the russian authorities. -- 87.161.39.19416:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NASA EXPLICITY says all content on their page is public domain unless otherwise is noted. Therefore, this must be public domain. Also, it could have been taken after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Comment Al;so, it occurs to me, the pictures won't actually have been taken by the Russian government - they would have been taken by the Soviets, a government which no longer exists. Colds7ream17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that we also have a bunch of free images of Mriya and Buran at Salon International de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace in June 89 taken by a DoD employee. These can substitute some of the discussed soviet images, although not the Energia/Buran shots. These are:
[Symbol_keep_vote.svg] The image in question was taken at the time of the aircraft's first and only flight in 1988 - before the USSR dissolved. Ergo, even if the image were property of a government (a fact not yet established), that governmental entity - the USSR - no longer exists. Nothing has suggested that the property interests of the USSR automatically vested in Russia to the exclusion of all other Soviet-bloc member nations. Accordingly, it is improper to delete this photo on the ground that it violates Russian copyright interests as those interests have yet to be proven. Of course, before this argument is even considered it must be shown that the photo is not already in the public domain and/or exempt from copyright considerations.
According to international law, Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union, and it has inherited all the rights and properties of that government that have not by agreement been released to other countries.--Pharos04:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NASA EXPLICITY says all content on their page is public domain unless otherwise is noted. Therefore, this must be public domain. Also, it could have been taken after the fall of the Soviet Union.
(1) Sometimes NASA webmasters make mistakes, especially on web page that haven't been updated in 10 years. (2) There were no Buran launches etc after the fall of the Soviet Union.--Pharos04:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
How many years do you want to have this request open? If you have severe doubts, then please delete yourself. I won't do it. --ALE! ¿…?12:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As far as I see (using CheckUsage) it's not used anymore. For me, personally, it's not suitable for the Wikimedia Foundation projects, too. Deleted. /odder18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image is pretty high resolution and still has EXIF camera data with it; it would seem likely the source is the uploader himself and did not come from the website. However, as Thuresson notes, this is blatantly a picture of a copyrighted work, presumably without any permission received from the artist. Delete. Carl Lindberg16:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Now the real problem is that if MIA himself took the picture. If he did then no problem, because a living wild animal is not copyrighted. Wooyi21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the original Wikibooks image description page did not indicate who was the photographer (or what was the source) and, because some of his other images did indeed indicate that he was the photographer, I assume he intentionally left his name out and that he was not the photographer. --Iamunknown07:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
it belonged to the 5 times deleted article de:Nathanael Fuchsloch about a irrelevant 17 year old boy. It can be self-portrayal or a form of harassment. In any case the picture is not needed. The description "berühmten Nathanael Fuchsloch" (berühmt=famous) is a joke. Also there is no fact, that the depicted persons releases his right of his photo (de:Recht am eigenen Bild). --BLueFiSH20:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
EN user Jetwave Dave has uploaded dozens of other images under false license claims (see EN user talk page) and is most probably a copyvio. --Megapixie08:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Really, really poor quality. Wireless adapter is not in focus; flash obscures it even worse; and it just doesn't outright look very good. In comparsion, my photographs (image:Gbawa sp.jpg and Image:Gbawa gbp.jpg) were taken in natural lighting, sharp and detailed, and are shown attached with the appartus. I normally don't try to delete "rival pictures" - I am not the best photographer in the world - but I don't think this image doesn't illustrate anything that my two images already illustrate. Hbdragon8821:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I will try to take a higher quality picture soon. I noticed your pictures are attached to a Game Boy Player and a Game Boy Advance SP. A new version I will soon take will be attached to a Game Boy Advance (original style). Funpika21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Some of the images may be useful, but many wouldn't be used, for example some pictures are just the rear end of another car and a bit of road. I am not meaning all the images, just some of them are completely not useful. Reedy Boy21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Exactly how is this category "out of Commons scope"? Additionally, if you think some of the pictures are useless, then delete the pictures, not the cat, which does serve a purpose. --TMFLet's Go Mets - Stats22:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the category par se, its the images in it. When i showed this in IRC #wikimedia-commons, i was told to tag the category. Reedy Boy22:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm in total agreement that some of the images are useless and could just as easily be pictures of any other freeway. But many of the images (and the category as a whole) do serve an important purpose. -- Northenglish22:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the images in this category do not have clear usefulness. The uploader of many of them showed up on IRC and was able to make an acceptable, although in my view weak, argument that the images I though were least useful still had some use. In my view, when an image is less than obviously useful we should have increased requirements for tagging, descriptions, use of categories, geocoding, and quality. Many of these image are lacking on the quality front, but if they make up for it with good descriptions that suggest their usefulness and with geocoding which increases their usefulness then I think we should keep them. Otherwise we should delete them. I will check up later to see if this work has been done and vote accordingly. --Gmaxwell22:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several of the images in the category are useful, but many seem completely pointless to me. The quality is bad - which wouldn't be a reason for deletion, if the image would still be "useful", i.e. show something identifiable in an informative way. Most of them seem to be just "cars in front of me". If a point can be made for an image (by detailed description etc) that it does indeed show something interesting, if non-obvious - fine, keep it. But I don't see a point in people uploading pictures of random pieces of streets, sidewalks, etc - even if geotagged and with sugar on top. MY point is - many of the images are not informative in any way. THat being said: the "useless" images should be listed here, so we actually know which images we are talking about. I mean stuff like Image:NJTP_x_I-276.JPG -- Duesentrieb⇌23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH YEAH? What about the other Highway cats which just show a road, which was taken with a camera out the windshield? I mean every single highway picture. Does Image:Us route 50 nevada.jpg show anything useful? How about Image:West Shore Northbound.jpg? You might want to consider deleting those, just so it suits your criteria.
That image shows landscape, as well as a very long stretch of steight road which is at least a bit unusual (well, maybe not that unusual in the US). In other words: it actually shows (something interesting about) the road in question. -- Duesentrieb⇌01:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepuntil all because prejudice against Highway editors has diminished risen to the point where it is unbearable, since and this is a big example of this kind of prejudice. V60干什么？ · VContribs23:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Are you kidding? We've got Category:Interstate 5, for example as well. If you don't like the images, then delete those. But roads are a legitimate subject. There are over 6500 road articles at en Wikipedia, and there are several more at other lang Wikipedias. --Rschen775423:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, both roads are legitimate subjects. But that does not mean that all images about them are automatically useful. Most images in Category:Interstate 5 seem fine to me, some, like Image:Goldenstatefreeway.jpg, debatable. As I said, I'm just opposed to having dozens of images showing nothing identifiable except "cars in front of me". -- Duesentrieb⇌01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since when do all the images have to be used. They're there so people can see them from a link on the NJ Turnpike article. You guys think we're going to stack all of those images on to the article, it doesn't work that way. -- JA10T · C23:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one said all those images have to be used in the article. But they should be useful, i.e. conveying some sort of non-trivial information about their subject. -- Duesentrieb⇌01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the pictures are there so it shows the readers what the highways looks like, what do you mean they have no use! When someone is reading an article on wikipedia about highways they would want to know what that highway looks like. Please like V60 said, stop this prejudice against Highway editors, it's ridiculus. -- JA10T · C01:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NJTP north 1.JPG shows what the road looks like?... I'm not opposed to pictures of highways. I just believe pictures of any subject should provide some useful information object that subject. I don't care if it's highways or socks or pebbles. -- Duesentrieb⇌01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. No one wants to delete the category itself, nor all images in it - not even Reedy Boy, who file sthe request. It's unfortunate that this deletion request was filed in this awkward manner. -- Duesentrieb⇌21:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously, the category itself is fine as are most of its images. Many show a particular location (through signage) or at least give a sense of what the road is like, which to me is enough to be potentially useful. I could see trimming out a few though, which seem harder to determine a use for. After a quick scan here would be my candidates:
All the others I could at least make a case for keeping. The ones above don't show the other side of the road, or even much distance on the driver's own side to give a sense of the road. Even then you could argue for some in the above list as good general depictions from a driver's perspective of driving in traffic... they may not be useful in the context of showing the New Jersey Turnpike, but maybe they could be used for some other purpose. I would set the threshold very low and Keep most of them; I don't much like deleting perfectly free content that people have put effort into uploading. Since the category is not up for deletion though it would be better to discuss particular images individually. Carl Lindberg07:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept category and images The category is useful and any images that "aren't" useful should be discussed individually. MECU≈talk
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Copyrighted Logo, even if it's selfmade it's a derivative work. It's for sure not PD-ineligible. It should be tagged with {{Logo}} and speedy deleted. --Denniss19:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly PD, even in the US. "The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations." It's a trivial composition of some circles with minor linear and spatial variations. Use {{PD-textlogo}}. --Rtc18:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(orginal by hoerner:Thumbnail in falscher Größe hochgeladen. In richtiger Größe unter anderem Namen erstellt. --hoerner (eng. wrong size)) --Jodo14:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
First. Template must be deprecated or deleted, the problem is not in wording. Second. The main question is in that, should we delete images with this tag and without any other Commons-suitable license tag at one moment. I think, yes, Delete. Alex Spade14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTemplate, but Check all images against the NARA database before deleting them. Those images which the NARA database says are free of restrictions should be kept and re-tagged, not deleted indiscriminately. Andrew Levine04:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes-yes. My previous phrase isn't fully correct. The NARA-image must be re-tagged in first, and in second those of theme which can't be re-tagged with another Commons-suitable license tag must be deleted. Alex Spade04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that this template should be deprecated; it should be replaced with a combination of {{NARA-image}} and an accurate licensing tag on images that use it. I would expect that the large majority of the images are in fact PD though, so I don't think there should be a rush to delete images that use it. It will probably take a long time to go through all the images, but it would be good to deprecate so that more images do not use it from now on. Carl Lindberg06:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the same thing applies to the Presidential libraries as to NARA's website, that is, as Bradipus says, the photos are PD unless they are specifically tagged. If I check "Exclude copyright restricted photos from search" in the search page and search for Margaret Truman, this picture will appear. This must mean it's PD.Vints07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was their reply: "Photographs that are indicated to be of undetermined origin are ones for which we have no information regarding photographer or ownership. We will provide the photograph to you, but you would use it at your own risk. We can only tell you that we don't have any copyright information on the picture. If the image is called unrestricted, it is definitely in the public domain. I hope this answers your questions. The photograph about which you inquired is undetermined, so you would be using it at your own risk." Vints12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template. Rather than check immédiately all images (might be difficult), a practical solution is to replace with PD-US-Gov tag plus some kind of sign or warning that the next person who uses the picture should control that the tag is correct by checking on the NARA's website. Most of the material there is PD and if not, the material will be specifically tagged there. Bradipus11:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A claim by any source except the copyright holder is not an indication for the actual copyright status. --Rtc18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An accurate vote for deletion. We should avoid copyright paranoia: most of these images are PD indeed, so there's no need in hurry, let's check them with no time pressure. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko)11:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have seen that in trumanlibrary.org, many images have "Restrictions:Undetermined", which means the copyright status in unknow, which means these pictures shouldn't be uploaded to Commons. Vints07:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep instead of deleting the tag, it should be just reworded to say it shouldn't be used for new images, like some of the other deprecated tags, maybe it could give a list of alternative US PD tags to use. In spite of what the nominator said, National Archives is very different than the Library of Congress, LoC collects material like other public libraries and so nothing is guaranteed to be PD, whereas the National Archives is mostly US government material or donated material with the exception of some 'seized collections' from WW2, which the admins here are pretty quick to delete so that is a moot issue. Madmax3211:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should add a note saying that images uploaded after such-and-such a date using this tag will be speedy-deleted, sort of how en.wiki deals with no-source images. Without that, there's no particular closure on the use of it, and it'll keep getting used from now until doomsday. grendel|khan20:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the template, to indicate that this template should not be used anymore, and that it will be deleted once it has been orphaned. Images uploaded after 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC) can be considered to have no valid license. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Said photographs are not the subject of the photo. Swiss law, which should apply here, recognises rights similar to "panorama rights". Rama17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "Panorama rights"? The Université de Lausanne is not public ground, nor are those photos permanently displayed. --Phrood19:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Panorama right" is a German term which says (grosso modo) that if you are taking a photograph where a copyrighted work of art is featured without being the subject, no copyright applies.
Here, the subject is Carla Del Ponte, not the blackboard. The blackboard does give a context, but this is done quite regularly by professional photographers (for instance this [26]. I remember a similar photograph where the next president of France was featured under a giant portrait of himself). Rama20:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're mixing up Panoramafreiheit and Beiwerk. The latter says that if one can "think away" a copyrighted object on a photograph, then that copyright does not apply. I suppose that a comparable rule exists in Switzerland. Anyway, it cannot apply here because the photos are clearly essential to the photo - this is also apparent from the file name, which mentions Mladic.
You cannot "think away" the pyramid on a photograph of the Louvre, yet the rule applies.
I have provided examples of press photographs where the practice of using the presence of copyrighted works in the context to ilustrate the main subject is featured.
As for your suggestion that a photograph should be cropped to contain only its main subject, this is going so far against all commonly accepted rules of photographic composition that I cannot comment further. Rama08:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree. As long as the Commons image isn't duplicating the original I see no copyright problems. --|EPO|18:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFreedom of panorama in Switzerland applies only to outdoor public places. A Swiss press association argues that interior places that serve for (pedestrian) transit might also be considered "public places" (such as underpasses, or railway station halls). But an auditorium at a university is not a "public place" in the meaning of the law. Hence "freedom of panorama" does not apply to this image. And the whole composition of the image (del Ponte small at the lower edge, only torso and head visible, overhead projection with Mladic's image in the center of the photo) makes Beiwerk (roughly "incidental inclusion") also inapplicable. (If anything, del Ponte might be a Beiwerk here.) Lupo08:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepno copyright problems. The picture is showing the woman, not those irrelevant pictures above her. If you feel those pics are copyvio, crop the image, not delete it. Now it is cropped, so Delete is ok I think. Wooyi21:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: not Beiwerk. I would like to add that the image was used in Wikipedia articles to illustrate the man on the screen (Mladic). -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The tag on these images refers to a law that essentially restricts the use of the images to non-commercial use. They are therefore not free. —xyzzyn21:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good evening.
You criticize the fact that these images cannot be uploaded because they are not free, whereas a few weeks ago Polarlys and Rtc wanted them to be declared public domain because GFDL/CC licenses were not free enough. It seems to me complete nonsense. I am not a lawyer and I am fed-up with this war against Luxembourgish coats of arms (see archives here if you have a lot of time to spend).
No objection from my part for the deletion of my own images (Bascharage, Lac-de-la-Haute-Sûre, Munshausen). I drew them, they are still on my PC, I can look at them whenever I want. If Commons doesn't want them to illustrate Wikipedia pages about Luxembourgish cities, I don't mind. Bruno Vallette17:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice archive. Now my head hurts.
Anyway, the pertinent point there is that Image:Blason ville lux Bascharage.svg isn’t derived from the 1993 law, but is so old that except for your work, it is no longer copyrighted. If that’s the case for the other images, too, then I don’t have a problem with them. Do you have historical data about them?
Parenthetically, I don’t care for the German contention in the preceding debate on grounds not relevant here. I wasn’t aware of that debate and I have no problem with these COAs as long as they are demonstratably free. —xyzzyn20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again and thank you for your efforts. I hope your headache will be healed after a good night.
To answer your question:
The arms of Beaufort were granted on October 10, 1986 (see here or there)
The coat of arms of Lac-de-la-Haute-Sûre were granted on June 22, 1988 (see the same websites here and there).
The arms of Munshausen were adopted by the city on November 25, 1983 (see there).
The arms of Vianden are seven centuries old, among the oldest of Luxembourg (see here again or there).
Restored (sorry...) and tag corrected (with {{Coat of Arms}}) : the "luxemburg copyright tag was erroneous (this is a "national enseign" legal warning -see Paris convention-, which applies only to the CoA of Luxemburg, not dependent cities). Michelet-密是力17:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
REASON: It was my image; filename was incorrect, so I renamed and reloaded. This image can be deleted. Corrected version is Image:Walnut Orb-weaver spider Nuctenea umbratica.jpg --Gaudete19:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you for a permanent deletion of these files as I want to leave the Commons forever. I will appreciate if you respect my decision. You may want to read the thread at: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Advice required. The link leads to other threads as well. Together with these photos I ask you to remove my IP-user page and IP- and Riva72- user pages. Thx! --213.199.192.6001:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to leave at the Commons depository these photos which are already used by some foreign Wikipedia projects. The photos requested for the removal are not used by any Wikipedias.. --213.199.192.60 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC) - I have provided the detailed info on the photos' licences as I see it crucial. --213.199.192.6018:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not allow changing of licenses, I'd like to Support this deletion request (which means Delete), except Image:Odznaka.jpg. Or other photos (low resolution pictures of public places) can be easily recreated. A.J.08:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change vote to keep, as per comments by Wooyi. User has agreed to release these images and can leave Commons without them being removed. Adambro18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the author released them on public domain, you don't own these pictures anymore, so the author has no power to delete them, because they are no longer his. Wooyi16:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep licenses are of use only if they can be enforced against the author, and we should do that here. --Rtc09:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I inform you that I have changed my previous decision and I DECIDED NOT TO LEAVE THE COMMONS PROJECT. The second part of this deletion-request is, thus, not applicable. I still ask you for a permanent deletion of these files though. --213.199.192.6011:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons is not a game to play. You can not just change your mind and take your toys back from the sandbox. Julo17:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I do not believe that the uploader ist Jan de Weryha-Wysoczanski himself. And even if so the image does not look like that he took it by himself. So source and license questionable ...SicherlichPost17:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There's no evidence that this is a work created by the United Kingdom Government, so the copyright status is unclear. Has been deleted before, but was uploaded again only a week later. -- Kam Solusar (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly originally not a UK Government photo, as it is a photo taken by German war corrospondents or an official Luftwaffe photographer sometime between 1939 and 1942 (when the Ju 87B-model depicted was used in combat). Maybe this photo was taken to a British archive after the Second World War. However, I just sent an e-mail to the German Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive) inquiring the copyright status of Third Reich official photos. I hope to get an answer, soon. -- Cobatfor 20:05, 10 Aug 2008
Horrido! Well, I called the Bundesarchiv (Federal Archive) in Koblenz and was told the following: If the photo was taken by the official propaganda companies the rights are with the German State. But, you have to find out first, who has the rights on this particular photo. The Bundesarchiv has about 1.5 mio. photos of about 3 mio. taken. The rest went up in flames or is somewhere else. If the copyright lies with the Bundesarchiv, you can use 50 dpi-versions from the Bundesarchiv website, but ONLY, if the pictures are not downloadable for others [30]. Otherwise you have to pay a fee (see "Kostenverordnung" of the Bundesarchiv [31]). If the copyright lies somewhere else (like Ullstein publishers [32]), be warned, as fees for misuse are very high. So, if you search in the photo archive of the Bundesarchiv for this photo, at least I did not find it. I did not find it at the US archives, too. Therefore I would recommend to delete it, as it is not clear where the copyright lies.-- Cobatfor 16:48, 18 Aug 2008 (CEST)
Delete I am named as the original uploader, but that was not this copy of the image but a pure monochrome one. I never claimed it was a UK government image, in AFP it was credited "Courtesy of 'The Aeroplane'". I don't know where the tinted version came from--Keith Edkins (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked for further information. This old version is the version I uploaded. I presume Cobatfor found the tinted version, I have no knowledge of its source. AFP = Aircraft of the Fighting Powers, a series of seven books published 1941-47, "Compiled by H.J. Cooper & O.G. Thetford, Edited by D.A. Russell A.M.I.Mech.E". "The Aeroplane" was a monthly magazine[33].--Keith Edkins (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found the coloured version of the above picture here [34]. No source is given, but it is certainly the same as originally uploaded by Keith Edkins. As the picture appeared in a UK magazine in the 1940 it seems to me that it was "liberated" by the Allies and is probably in some British archive, state or private. However, this photo was certainly made by a Luftwaffe photographer and the coloured version hints that there are more copies around. Doesn't really help with the copyright question... --Cobatfor20:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really understand Portuguese, so please point out if I’ve misunderstood something. The exchange quoted on the description pages contains, in the request, the mention of reuse and commercial use; the reply is about ‘free use’ as long as the source is mentioned. It does not seem clear whether this ‘free use’ grants all freedoms required for a free licence and it does not seem to be compatible or implying the GFDL, which is claimed on the description pages.
Perhaps somebody can contact the copyright holder and figure out the precise terms, but in their current state, I do not think the images are free with any certainty. —xyzzyn02:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No Freedom of panorama in U.S. for sculptures. Image has an OTRS ticket, but doesn't say whether it's from Claes Oldenburg or simply from the photographer (I'm guessing the latter). --Davepape20:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just being doing some research on this following a debate on the English wikipedia. 2-d reproductions of sculptures in the US (but not the UK) are subject to copyright. See [35]. Do we need a wider debate on this considering the amount of US based sculpture and other 3-d artwork on the commons? Madmedea17:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
is the same as Category:Bridges in the United Kingdom, but IN is used in similar cat-pages "Category:Bridges in Belgium", "Category:Bridges in the Netherlands", ... --Arafi13:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can move and rename this category, but not delete
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
image is showing a large meadow, and a lot of high voltage lines, where is the bridge? the subject is too small and nearly invisible. the image is not used anywhere. --Arafi13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
duplicate image of Image:Siegbruecke der A59 III.jpg, Image:Siegbruecke der A59 V.jpg and Image:Siegbruecke der A59 VI.jpg, one image is enough, none of the images is used anywhere on Wikipedia projects, the bike of the photographers is in the image. --Arafi13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really "duplicates", but different photos of the same object. It is NOT a reason to delete.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
duplicate image of Image:Siegbruecke der A59 III.jpg, Image:Siegbruecke der A59 IV.jpg and Image:Siegbruecke der A59 VI.jpg, one image is enough, none of the images is used anywhere on Wikipedia projects, the bike of the photographers is in the image. --Arafi13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really "duplicates", but different photos of the same object. It is NOT a reason to delete.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
duplicate image of Image:Siegbruecke der A59 III.jpg, Image:Siegbruecke der A59 IV.jpg and Image:Siegbruecke der A59 V.jpg, one image is enough, none of the images is used anywhere on Wikipedia projects, the bike of the photographers is in the image. --Arafi13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really "duplicates", but different photos of the same object. It is NOT a reason to delete.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In Italy Civil unions are a national legislation matter. Regions have no power to create laws about them. Therefore this map is wrong for what concerns Italy, that ought to be completely yellow. For a correct map see here: Image:Samesex Map Europe.png --G.dallorto10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is completely correct, I am italian.
You might be Italian, but who are you, in the first place? And secondly, being Italian does not imply you know about Italian law. Could you please quote me the law entitling Italian Regions to decide re. marriage issues, please? The Corte Costituzionale ruled in the past saying that marriage is a State-only legislation field. Therefore how could marriage laws vary by Region in Italy is something that completely escapes me. This is Italy, not the Usa, ok? --G.dallorto11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a horse in this race, but if this is truly the case, why 1. change the image (re-upload it), 2. cite the reason for the change on its file or talk page, and 3. perhaps save the old version somewhere in case the situation changes (upload it as Map Europe Samesex old.png and link to it from the current image file/talk)? 24.128.205.73 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC) That was me Huw Powell01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I absolutely have nothing against correcting it, just I don't know how to do it. If you can, please do it asap. In the meantime, this map is wrong, and wrong images should not stay here. --User:G.dallorto17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection is not pointless, the point being however that municipality registers have no legal value, just a symbolical and political one (a very important one, btw, and I support them). Furthermore, if things were as you said, then it should be municipality borders to be spotted on this map, not regions, as it is now. The person who made this map was much more enthused than informed... If you were Italian, you would find ludicrous having the Venetia region marked as a pro-civil union region, whereas it is a mostly and deeply catholic one, the only one where municipalities voted official documents against any form of recognition for Civil Unions. Please let's stick to facts, then, will we? --User:G.dallorto12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Useless animated thing. It's used for pushing some unwanted mix of templates/categories/lists/don't-know-what on Dutch wikipedia --LimoWreck18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not "they", it is an individual going by the nickname Abnormaal who thinks it's useful and posted it on 18 pages to make his point. --Brinkie06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that you do not think the picture is useful is something that should be settled on the nl:wikipedia. If the decision there is to ñot keep the page/image, then the deletion could be considered here. You cannot use Commons (and the fact that nl users would not come here) to settle a Wikipedia:nl editorial issue. Bradipus17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request for deletion has been placed on nl:wikip[edia: [36]. Keep in mind, however, that when a majority of users on nl:wikipedia would accept this proposed way of categorization it will surely be picked up on other wikipedias, maybe even en:wikipedia. So it might be prudent to have a look at it to see if you would like that. VanBuren18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which is yet another example of your own handiwork... Your ideas of navigation templates have been rejected on nl.wikipedia, so please stop trying to make your point. --Brinkie06:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
?? Both assumtions are wrong!! Its not mine handiwork and navigation is over a year accepted in both en.wikipedia and nl.wikipedia. ?? Abnormaal18:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not yours? So you stole it, and uploaded it while claiming it being your work? ;-) Come off it, Abnormaal. You keep on pushing your widely rejected (at least at nl.wikipedia, so don't claim that it is accepted because it is not!) navigation templates. Don't you see that this way of navigating effectively locks out visually impaired web users and makes it very costly for cellphone PDA users who pay per kilobyte. Most PDA users disable the images (for cost and speed reasons), rendering your ideas of navigating useless.
Apart from all these points, the very image we're disputing here is an animation, made solely to make your point. It cannot be used for anything else, it is for demonstrating purposes only. You've made your point, so this image (and that is the subject of this deletion request, isn't it?) can be deleted. --Brinkie09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Is that supposed to be humour? are you concerned at the loss of quality content or do you just not want me to have my property removed? Captain Scarlet20:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These files are property of Wikimedia Foundation, because they are located on their servers. Wikimedia Foundation has right to use the work they carry on free licenses given by their author. And I don't want them to be deleted just beacuse author changed his mind. A.J.20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because files are stored on a server do not make them the property of the owner of a server. You've pushed me to go forward with this charade of a procedure that has no chnace in hell of having a success on my part only to vote against my wish. This is not the place for humour Ejdzej, this nomination for the deletion of all my property is a serious claim. Captain Scarlet21:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deadly serious. By uploading here you made a donation not loan. You've been discussing this matter before and you should already know that. If you wish not no continue this what you call charade, withdraw it and take other steps e.g. a lawsuit against Wikimedia Foundation, which as you claim holds your property illegally. A.J.08:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than being aggravated by a troll-like comment Ejdzej, I'd rather see you be courteous and approve my demand, since it is you who encouraged me to follow suit. I call this a charade (without apostrophies) since you've encouraged me to do this then stuck your finger at me by telling me oh no, you can't. You might as well never have particpated in the first case. I've already pointed out that all my uploads were done illegally, so it would be the job of the admiship to remove illegal media, not me to make the demand. My content uploads were never donaitons, I'm not kind enough to give away my work, since my contributions are no longer appreciated I don't see why my media (which I'm afraid courtesy does not belong to Jimbo Wales or anyone else than me. It's mine, take it off! Captain Scarlet09:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never promised that deletion request will lead to deletion. Captain Scarlet saying about pointing out illegallity of these photos probably refers to COM:AN/U#User:Captain Scarlet. Being called a troll I don't feel like to continue this discussion. EOT. A.J.09:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All of these images were released freely, the uploader agreed to the terms of the licences so for Captain Scarlet to say that "all my uploads were done illegally" is a nonsense. Many of the images by Captain Scarlet are used on Wikipedia where they add a great deal to articles. They should not be deleted as no valid reason has been presented. Adambro22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got some cheak speaking here since you are the cause for me hating wikipedia and its contributors, your sniveling and stalking makes me want to throw all these photos to your face and tell you you can't use them. Doesn't matter how many times I have to do this, all my work will be taken away from you Adam and all the rest of you. 2 years I've been doing this and you are the most ungrateful and deceatful person I've met, you distgust me. Now you're voting oh such a shame, it's good blah blah. You will have to find alternates and do original work yourself to replace what you will lose from this. Captain Scarlet12:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cause of you hating Wikipedia is not my fault, it is your inability to work constructively with other contributors and accept their views even where they differ from your own. This is what makes your time on Wikipedia one conflict after another. Unlike you it seems, my priority is not getting involved in petty arguments but to try to improve Wikipedia. As I've said, your photos add to the article so I don't want to see them deleted. I do not understand why you would expect me to want your photos deleted just because of our past disagreements. I would point out that it will not be me or other users who you have had disagreements with who will suffer if your images are deleted, it will be the readers of Wikipedia. I think you need to remember that. Adambro13:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to underestimate the power of your words against people. You have no idea how I feel insulted by you. It is indeed you and you alone who has initiated a rethink of what Wikipedia is, fuelled of course by another user who you know too well. You must invest a certain amount of your time in arguments since it seems I can edit nowhere without seeing an Adambro post generally dismissing what I say or patronising you (that's your content not you). Our disagreements have made me rethink my level of presence on Wikipedia and made me see what I now think of Wikipedia, it is therefore normal that I ask for my media's removal. The readers will have to make due without my work to better understand the world we live in, get to you camera Adambro or ask for help in this task. Captain Scarlet23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyright violation. You did not create the work, you merely own it. Copyright and property rights are entirely independent. --Rtc09:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I, Riva72 (the person who has recently been granted by my Friend Oksana, who is the original author, all the rights to held the copyrights to the photographs listed above) ask you, the Commons administrators, for allowing me the change of the previous licence type from ‘cc-by-sa-2.5’ to the licence presented below with this template and, thus, for your appreciation (taking cognizance of this decision of ours). I inform that Oksana’s decision to renounce her copyrights and bestow these rights upon me was the result of The war over the Podhorce castle as she puts it and of which you may read at: COM:AN/U#User:Riva72 and Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Advice required. The war originated at the Polish Wikipedia and leaked to the English Wikipedia and the Commons as well. I further inform that I decided not to leave the Commons project. --213.199.192.6011:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that {{{The Polish Wikipedia project is prohibited by the author of this photo and its copyright holder to use this file and its derivatives}}}.
Please check that the conditions given above are compliant to the Commons licensing policy. Most importantly, derivative work and commercial use must be allowed.
Sorry, but one of the parts of cc-by-2.5 (corrected by --213.199.192.60 12:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)) says that this license is irrevocable, so it cannot be changed, you can only add next license to coexist with this. It's not a matter of commons admins, but copyright itself (and construction of license).--WarX12:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand from your words that these photographs are still released under the cc-by-2.5 licence and I should only place this additional, coexisting template which prohibits the Polish Wikipedia project to use the photographs in question. I ask the Commons administrators for confirmation or their opinions. I am moving all these words to their proper place under this statement. --213.199.192.6012:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A license cannot prohibit anything. It can only lift restrictions imposed by copyright law. Use of these pictures has been permitted under the conditions of CC-BY-2.5, and adding the template above would grant only additional permission to use the picture under different conditions, but only if the user wishes and chooses to do so. Adding the template won't introduce new conditions for users who choose to use the pictures under CC-BY-2.5 and it won't and can't stop people from the polish wikipedia to use the pictures. --Rtc13:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Dado que Sui Generis se separó en 1975, ya hace más de 30 años, esta foto tiene más de 30 años, por lo tanto se puede utilizar de acuerdo a las leyes argentinas. Aparte, vamos, ¡Charly García tiene como 30 años menos! CUALQUIERA se da cuenta de que esta muy pero muy joven en esa foto. Sui Generis se separó en 1975, esa foto tiene más de 30 años (y solo son necesarios 20...). Dios, reaccionen.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
What more would you like? I've explained why it is public domain, and I don't only believe it, I know it is. The site claims it, and, as far as i can see, it is reliable and trustworthy. --Sevenfold04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need proof. The actual source/copyright holder and licensing must be known. Usually, when a web site claims, "We believe these to be in the public domain" it means they just got the images from somewhere and haven't bothered to check what the copyright status is. Where is the original source of the image? The web site doesn't say. Do they know? Probably not. Ergo, delete. howcheng {chat}19:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well,I accept your leadership as the admin here;you would know better than me. But doesn't the fact that it is a military-oriented picture mean something? It was also taken in some remote place in Africa, where I do not know if copyright would apply 9and I do not wish to sound racist there). --Sevenfold00:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless you were talking about the U.S. military, since all works by the U.S. government are in the public domain. According to the Berne Convention, to which South Africa is a signatory, copyright is automatically granted upon creation of the work (assuming it's a South African citizen who took it -- it might be the Associated Press or some other press agency for all we know). howcheng {chat}00:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, I do not know what to do. I just dont see how it can be copyrighted, its probably in the possession of the public domain because of its military status. I'll see what I can do. Please do not remove it until I concede and give up. Thankyou for your patience Howcheng. --Sevenfoldoops11:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, military status has nothing to do with it unless you're talking U.S. military. If you want to find out more information, contact the web site's proprietors and see if you can get any more information out of them. Ask them, who created the image? Where was it published? Where did they get this scan from? If they can't answer these questions, we have no choice but to delete. (I won't do the deletion, BTW -- another Commons admin will close this request.) howcheng {chat}23:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can choose to believe nothing. THe website is a collaboration of specialists, and they claim in their copyright and terms and conditions that its public domain. Its like saying 'I dont believe that Pluto exists' - astronomers claim it does, and everybody believes them(please lets not go there, it was an example) Do you see what I mean? It would be almost impossible to trace the information to the original source, and what is the difference between asking them and simply looking at their terms and conditions section. They both will say the same thing:'its public domain.' Thats why i think it shouldnt be deleted. --Sevenfoldoops09:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) When the Library of Congress says there are no restrictions on publication, I believe that. When a random web site says it, there's no reason to believe it. The difference is that this random web site doesn't say where they got it from, doesn't say who published it originally or when, and doesn't even say who the photographer is to the best of their knowledge. These pieces of information are crucial to identifying copyright. If they don't know these things, how do they know it's public domain? How do you know they have copyright experts on staff? They have no clue. Simply saying "Trust us" without any accompanying proof means absolutely nothing. howcheng {chat}16:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
only the English wikipedia uses these images. So please load them there and mark them as fair use. We will than delete them here. But please, do it quickly. --ALE! ¿…?09:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They probably will not be allowed under en-WP's non-free content policy as they are not particularly germane to the articles. howcheng {chat}17:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Yeh, I know, I was just completing an incomplete deletion request left lying about by the uploader ... :-) --Tony Wills
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
user req, created while renaming the images. But since these images are used on other (non-English) wikis, they should not be deleted. Gives a false impression. I don't think this category will be ever populated. --Denizz10:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete out of scope, bad quality, and subject may not be uploader; thus subject may not know their picture is online, and subject may not want their picture online. Text suggests it's trolling. -- Editor at Large • talk11:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I aggree that with the new information now added in Serpinski Lsystem.svg this image can now be deleted. the author: Tó campos113:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Redundant in that there are now no contents :-). Superfluous if you like, a very specific category to accomadate negligable numbers of images. --Tony Wills21:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In Italy Civil unions are a national legislation matter. Regions have no power to create laws about them. Therefore this map is wrong for what concerns Italy, that ought to be completely yellow. For a correct map see here: Image:Samesex Map Europe.png. --G.dallorto16:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Is this a derivative work of the Led Zeppelin IV album? Probably, but is the symbology copyrightable? I'm not sure. Would four ASCII characters be copyrightable? No. Four characters out of a larger character set? Doubtful. Does the sequencing of the characters meet the bounds for originality? I'm not sure. In any case, it's worth a discussion. Thanks go to en:User:Peregrine Fisher for bringing this to my attention, whenever he's not busy advocating the use of non-free images on enwiki we can now find him shooting down any believed free image which could be construed as non-free. Good work. :) --Gmaxwell 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC) --Gmaxwell14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll opine that there is some amount of creativity to the first Zoso, um, glyph. No opinion on the sequence question. Jkelly22:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to this (and w:Jimmy Page) that first rune/glyph dates from at least 1557. I don't think any of the symbols are copyrightable anymore (they all date from hundreds if not thousands of years ago). Copyrighting the sequence is also rather doubtful, but I'm not completely sure. This would be more of a trademark, if in fact any or all of the symbols were registered as a trademark anywhere -- I have no idea on that. I don't think there is a copyright issue though. Carl Lindberg02:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above discussion I see no reason why we should consider there to be an enforceable copyright on this image, especially given that that it's been rerendered from glyphs rather that directly copied from the album cover. No reason to delete. Kelly Martin01:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's made with a font, not a copy of the actual picture. And Led Zeppelin probably never copywrited it.
I don't think 'zep would have legally protected the symbols themselves or the sequence, keep it :) --lukebishop 22:07, 5 May 2007 (British Summer Time)
I think that this is just the sad attempt at a zeppelin hater to make his opinion known. seriously man, its a symbol, just drop it... —the preceding unsigned comment is by208.53.238.64 (talk • contribs) at 04:52, 15 May 2007
Please keep this. You shouldn't make a very big problem of it. If album covers are allowed to show the object discussed, then why not this symbolic title? - Face12:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Album covers are not allowed on commons; they are allowed under the U.S. fair use exception to copyright in the english wikipedia and a few others, but not here on commons (which is a separate project). Nevertheless, I don't think there is a copyright issue here, as these symbols were not copyrightable by Led Zeppelin in the first place. Carl Lindberg03:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you could make a legal case over quoting the title of a work accurately. You could probably trademark it, but that's it. Adam Cuerden15:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the image, as well as free status. I think this argument is pretty much solved already. (English wikipedia kenny)
I think this deletion request should be removed. The name of the album is not actually led zeppelin IV, the image in question is simply a text representation or the true name of the album. I don't see how it could possibly be a copyright infringment. (Charlie Coons)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Yuengling (D.G. Yuengling & Son) this is not name of place, but German vorname - Jüngling -- This previous, unsigned comment is incorrect. The sound clip refers to the name of a brewing company in Pennsylvania (see corresponding article in enwiki). Mmounties07:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All these files are German names of different places in former Germany or Austria, now mostly in Poland, Russia, Hungary etc. All of them were spoken by English(or American)-born user with strong English accent and rather bad German. I am Polish, but I hear they are not proper German pronunciations. Julo22:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are problems with my pronunciation, I of course would appreciate constructive criticism. I also have no objections if others more qualified were to replace my samples with recordings of superior quality, as User:Sicherlich has done previously with Image:De-Sensburg.ogg, or were to start including IPA notation. However, I find this deletion request of my audio contributions, en masse and regardless of quality, to be rather disappointing, especially the pronunciation of Yuengling, an American brewery. Olessi01:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By all means upload better versions and replace the usage of these on the wikipedias, but they shouldn't be removed until that happens. Even then, they could be useful to demonstrate an English accent in German ;-) so I don't think they should be deleted at all. Replacement on the wiki pages is far different than forcibly deleting perfectly free and potentially useful content from commons. Carl Lindberg02:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I randomly selected five or six, and the pronunciation was correct (I am a native speaker of German). If there are problems with individual files: User:Manecke, another native speaker of German is currently busy recording names of German cities and people, and will probably be able to help by uploading a newer version if asked. Kusma06:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind and ask him for help here? By the way, one of Olessi's OGGs has been replaced with another file in Commons (it is Breslau.ogg-->DE-Breslau.ogg, new one recorded by native-German) but you see there are still few other uses of this bad version. In contrary to bad quality photos, which could be accepted in Commons if no other picture of the object is available - audio files spoken with bad accent have to be removed. If you SEE bad picture, there is no risk with bad understanding what you see, but if yo HEAR bad pronouciation, you are misguideed Julo07:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have invited Manecke to this discussion. In my opinion, Olessi's pronunciation is not outside the normal range that you will find between German speakers who have grown up in different dialects. Maybe he has the stress wrong in Osterode in Ostpreußen, but you would have to ask an East Prussian for the "correct" pronunciation anyway. Kusma10:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the best, the native German speakers know better, what has to be corrected. My opinion is my own, but supported by opinion of user:Sicherlich. When I have heard something like "bɹ:eslo:w", but not "bʀeslau" (in German name Breslau), I asked Sicherlich for help and proper recording... Julo13:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the question is what commons is for: for letting someone trying to speak foreign languages or to teach other people about foreign languages. - Unfortunately Olessi does first the recording and afterwardw if someone by accident finds the file and know how to spell it correctly he tries to change it. So mistakes might stay for very long as native speakers are mostly not interested in listen to a audio-file with a word in theire own language. - As there have been alreday several audio-files by olessi with accent i vote for Delete. I do not have the time to check all of them. I think the damage is stronger if there is a wrong information then a missing one. ...SicherlichPost19:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a native German speaker and I found Olessi's pronunciation correct and acceptable for the 8 or so sound clips I checked. There are many regions in Germany with as many different dialects and a native German speaker's "hochdeutsch" will sound slightly different depending on which region he or she grew up/lives/learned his German in. This may explain why Julo might think Olessi's pronunciation to be incorrect when the clips sound to me like someone from Schleswig-Holstein pronouncing these names in "hochdeutsch" and perfectly acceptable. The clips are definitely helpful to people who don't know how to pronounce German and should not be deleted. Mmounties07:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, if you feel the pronunciation is "bad", create a better one and either overwrite the existing one or upload seperately. That is not a valid reason to delete these in advance thought. -- Catchi?21:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be valid reason, but some German-speaking people wrote here that Olessi's pronouciation can be accepted. Julo07:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Oh? But the uploader said they are "self-made" which means he made these clay figures himself. We have to determine if he lied. Wooyi03:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image is not used in any projects and was the uploader's first upload. Not only is it very poorly drawn, but it's not useful in any way, and may be vandalism (the user's second upload was a penis image). --Coredesat00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep based on the fact that the picture was uploaded a couple of days ago, and that it is a bit early to say that it is "useless". Bradipus17:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not argue on the artistic quality of the drawing. It is disgusting anf ugly, but it is not sufficient to delete. Isn't there a way to tagg an image with something like "Yikes! if that thing is not used in a project in a 1 month delay from nom let's shoot it"? Bradipus22:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well, thinking again about it, the quality is indeed pretty low. The chance it would be used in a project is probably nil. Bradipus19:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete: This image should be deleted because there can be no use for such a picture. Even if an image was used to represent a topic like this, would you want an image of this quality to be used? I certainly hope not. Wikimedia's standards are not so lax. (I also feel this way about the dog picture)--68.240.129.8917:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
wrong filename, not self-portrait, new upload John_Trumbull_painter_John_Trumbull_poet_1793.jpg This is by John Trumbull, the painter (1756-1843), and shows his cousin of the same name, the poet (1750-1831).
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Author died 1946. Could probably have been deleted straight away, but since they were found on Project Runeberg, a second opinion would be a good thing. --Cnyborg12:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, according to Template_talk:PD-US, Commons has the rule that a work must be PD in its source country and in the U.S. to be eligible for upload to the commons under any PD tag. The drawings are not PD in Sweden. Kjetil r22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make any sense at all. Why should we care about the "source country" when it doesn't affect the copyright status at all? And what does source country mean, precisely? The country where the image was produced? Where it was first published? And there are lots of images like this, take Image:Adolf von Baeyer (Nobel 1905).png for example. Do you have any citation to a policy that says this? (I mean, not just a talk page comment.) Haukurth10:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Haukurth: see COM:L. If an image is to be hosted here under a PD claim, it must be PD in its source country and in the U.S. We also only apply {{PD-US}} to U.S. works, i.e., to works that have the U.S. as their source country. On the meaning of "source country", see article 5(4) of the Berne Convention. In general, it's the country where a work was first published. Lupo14:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Can we please delete this photographic, someone had uploaded a much better version on Wikipedia so this isn't necessary anymore --Nima Baghaei16:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Wikipedia version suitable for commons? If so, can someone upload it to commons? If not, not much of an argument for deleting this one. Regards, Ben Aveling22:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yup it is suitable, i could replace this one with that verison, its the same one just better scan quality, let me see if i can replace this one with the better verison Nima Baghaei22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The following images were copied from the website of the NATO. NATO allows usage of the images, but their terms of use unfortunately restrict the use of these photos:
Conditions governing the use of Video & Photographic Material from the NATO Media Archive
No material is to be used for advertising purposes whatsoever.
No material is to be used in parodies, theatrical productions or any programmes and products that defame NATO or its member countries
Material is provided, free of charge, for use only in objective and balanced documentaries/articles, even though at times the end products may be critical of NATO. In cases where a member country is criticized, NATO wishes it to be made known that it does not associate itself with the contents of the documentary/publication.
Keep I am not good at English. Therefore, I indicate it. We can use these photographs if it changes to appropriate tag. Why do you say such a cruel thing this time?--MZM-MSYK00:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reason: actually, the licence restrictions appear to be in compliance with the GFDL. What I mean is that it does not forbid anything that is fundamental in the GFDL, not even commercial use. What it does forbid is something we do not do: we do not use the material for advertising purposes, nor do we use it in parodies or in any way to defame NATO or its member countries. If somebody ever re-use our pictures, he will be authorised to do everything that is in the GFDL, even commercial use, and if he does something that is not allowed (advertising), well it will be his problem, not ours, as long as these GFDL-compliant restrictions are put on the page. Bradipus18:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not see anything that precludes from making/using derivative work based on the material, as long as you stick to the restrictions (no advertising and no parody or defametion). I really think we should be able to live with such restrictions. Bradipus19:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to use the cursing words here again, but they would be appropriate here, too. Of course these restrictions are not compliant to the COM:L. COM:L lists exactly three restrictions that are permitted:
Acknowledgement of all authors/contributors of a work may be required.
Publication of derivative work under the same license may be required.
Use of open file formats free of digital restrictions management may be required.
A license must explicitly permit anything that is required by COM:L and may place only these restrictions as conditions. These pictures are neither GFDL nor COM:L nor Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy compliant in any way. Note that a license cannot forbid anything and it is thus irrelevant whether a license forbids something or not. A license is a permission to do something that would be forbidden by copyright law otherwise. Hence, only explicit permissions given by a license and explicit conditions placed on these permissions are relevant. The existence or non-existence of prohibition clauses that forbid something explicitly is without relevance for the effect of the license. --Rtc16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be rather short-tempered >:-) Please stick to the facts. OK, you did not convince me at all with the above. This section of Commons:Licensing makes clear what is requested and what is not allowed. As long as the licencee does not add any unacceptable restriction, I do not see the problem. If you consider that these restrictions are not part of the licence, so be it, it does not change a thing about the fact that these restrictions are compatible with the GFDL. So I will stick to my opinion. Bradipus16:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am taking the restrictions that are mentionned there at face value: these are the sole restrictions, so derivative work is allowed. You may have a point there, and it all lie down in the following question: does derivative work have to be specifically authorised or can the authorisation be inferred from the broad terms and the fact that it is not forbidden... Bradipus17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to stick to the truth, and I claim that everything I say is a fact. If you don't think so, give real arguments. These restrictions are factually not compatible with the GFDL (the GFDL doesn't permit adding additional restrictions not yet already expressly mentioned). But compatibility with the GFDL is not the criterion here, anyway. CC-BY-SA is not GFDL compatible, for example. Read again what I wrote, understand it, and check it if you wish. The restriction about adverisement use not being permitted is not compatible to commons licensing policy, since it is not covered by any of the three admissible condition listed above and heavily contradicting Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy --Rtc17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so you are here for the truth. It is always interesting to have a discussion with somebody who has the Truth :-o I do not need to give any argument, I just do not agree with your restrictive interpetation of the GFDL. Or point me to the part of the GFDL where it says that the GFDL doesn't permit adding additional restrictions not yet already expressly mentioned.Bradipus17:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no otherconditions whatsoever to those of this License.
...
4. MODIFICATIONS
You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under
the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you releasethe Modified Version under precisely this License
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is a copyright violation, since: 1. it shows the Atomium; 2. the Atomium is copyrighted; and 3. there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium, the country in which the Atomium stands. Therefore it has to be deleted. --88.76.228.11817:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think freedom of panorama does exist in Belgium (only if the copyrighted object is really a secundary object in the panorama, like a picture of Brussels that would show the atomium), but the only othe object that can be seen here is mini Europe that is also most probably protected. Bradipus18:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment the uploader stated the website did release it. no need to immediately assume he lied, but let's email and ask the website first. Wooyi03:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is difficulty in the language barrier as the uploader seems to be a native Japanese speaker to help complicate things. MECU≈talk12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the confusion. It's true that I'm native japanese. However, I have no intention the placing difficulty language barrier. I have responsibility that provide the solution regarding this problem. Webmaster declaration that "The photographs in this website are free from copyrights.", It has write on the japanese version of website only, this declaration has not been clear notification in the english version of website. Therefore I am contacting to the web master now. This activity is to get directly permission that using these photographs in wikipedia. Please wait for a while.--NOBRAND18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear administrators & sirs, I could got directly permission with the 2 conditions that using these photograph in wikipedia from webmaster at Apr. 14, 2007. Webmaster has state conditions as follows.
1. Not re-distribution
2. Clear notification that the origin distributor
Webmaster says "if accordance with above conditions then it's OK to free using in wikipedia.".
I think this permission is fit the requirements that "Copyrighted free use provided with conditions" option.
To administrators, What do you think about this permission? Please let us know the administrator's comments. Best regards,--NOBRAND16:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advise. I reference to your recommended lincense CC-BY-SA(It was updated to be 3.0). However, this license has been declare that provide the permission for redistribution, I think this license is mismatch to the requirement of webmaster. Therefore, I think that the fair solution is that give the attribution "Copyrighted free use provided with conditions" option with clear notification "Not re-distribution" & origin distributer. Is it insufficiency? Best regards, --NOBRAND20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Odder: CtC: no copyright tag added after warnings
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Odder: CtC: no copyright tag added after warnings
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Odder: CtC: no copyright tag added after warnings
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Odder: CtC: no copyright tag added after warnings
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Odder: CtC: no copyright tag added after warnings
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User:Marmoulak has uploaded a large number of Flickr photos of Iran. Some of them have no proper source, some have no license tag. The following Flickr photos, uploaded in January and February of this year, are tagged as noncommercial or "All rights reserved" at Flickr. Thuresson00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I agree, after reading of French translation of Derivative works (Œuvre dérivée). GFDL for the original image on WP-ZH was a bad idea. This kind of work has to be used only as fair use, in/from the different projects, with important limits, as we all have to know. Hégésippe | ±Θ±15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio. I don't see that it would be very useful considering how informal the photo is anyway; they could have at least taken against a white background. Quadzilla9911:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. The NHL has replied back to me. They don't object to the images being used on Wikipedia, but they are unwilling to allow the images to be licensed as GFDL or similar license. I explained reasons behind why we use free licenses, and suggested reducing the size of the images to no avail. Since we can't use image that are "permission only" for Wikipedia, I would simply like the image deleted now. No need to wait the normal 7 day period that requests normally run. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looking at Commons:Derivative works and the decision tree there, it looks to me like this would be allowed. The trophy is kept in Toronto full-time and Canada has full freedom of panorama for structures and sculptures. I'm pretty sure that this allows the licensing of photos of the trophy under a free license, no matter what the NHL says. Z4ns4tsu21:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping all as they appear to be permanently on display and Canadian FOP applies (they have permanent cases, labels etc) --MichaelMaggs20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. The NHL has replied back to me. They don't object to the images being used on Wikipedia, but they are unwilling to allow the images to be licensed as GFDL or similar license. I explained reasons behind why we use free licenses, and suggested reducing the size of the images to no avail. Since we can't use image that are "permission only" for Wikipedia, I would simply like the image deleted now. No need to wait the normal 7 day period that requests normally run. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping all as they appear to be permanently on display and Canadian FOP applies (they have permanent cases, labels etc) --MichaelMaggs20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. The NHL has replied back to me. They don't object to the images being used on Wikipedia, but they are unwilling to allow the images to be licensed as GFDL or similar license. I explained reasons behind why we use free licenses, and suggested reducing the size of the images to no avail. Since we can't use image that are "permission only" for Wikipedia, I would simply like the image deleted now. No need to wait the normal 7 day period that requests normally run. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping all as they appear to be permanently on display and Canadian FOP applies (they have permanent cases, labels etc) --MichaelMaggs20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. The NHL has replied back to me. They don't object to the images being used on Wikipedia, but they are unwilling to allow the images to be licensed as GFDL or similar license. I explained reasons behind why we use free licenses, and suggested reducing the size of the images to no avail. Since we can't use image that are "permission only" for Wikipedia, I would simply like the image deleted now. No need to wait the normal 7 day period that requests normally run. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping all as they appear to be permanently on display and Canadian FOP applies (they have permanent cases, labels etc) --MichaelMaggs20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. The NHL has replied back to me. They don't object to the images being used on Wikipedia, but they are unwilling to allow the images to be licensed as GFDL or similar license. I explained reasons behind why we use free licenses, and suggested reducing the size of the images to no avail. Since we can't use image that are "permission only" for Wikipedia, I would simply like the image deleted now. No need to wait the normal 7 day period that requests normally run. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping all as they appear to be permanently on display and Canadian FOP applies (they have permanent cases, labels etc) --MichaelMaggs20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. The NHL has replied back to me. They don't object to the images being used on Wikipedia, but they are unwilling to allow the images to be licensed as GFDL or similar license. I explained reasons behind why we use free licenses, and suggested reducing the size of the images to no avail. Since we can't use image that are "permission only" for Wikipedia, I would simply like the image deleted now. No need to wait the normal 7 day period that requests normally run. -Aude (talk | contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a salad bowl, that's a utility article, and is hence not copyrighted. The trademark rights of the NHL on the bowl remain unaffected. --Rtc21:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first Stanley Cup apparently was a salad bowl, but is there a source that indicates that this trophy was also, as opposed to being custom created for the NHL? The NHL was a big business by the time the Selke Trophy was introduced. --Davepape22:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping all as they appear to be permanently on display and Canadian FOP applies (they have permanent cases, labels etc) --MichaelMaggs20:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment - Balloon is a non-permanent element of the landscape, so "freedom of panorama" would not apply to this, if I'm not mistaken. Too bad that this image was selected to appear on the main page today. 85.147.58.21206:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The alleged copyright holder says that permission is given to Wikipedia, and all circumstances point towards a license for Wikipedia only. Then in a very unclear statement he says that the picture shall be placed "under the Creative Commons license, as suggested". However, there is no "Creative Commons license", which is a clear sign that they don't know what they are talking about. And what about the photographer in the first place? Did he really transfer the full rights to the katholische akademie or did he grant use only for press purposes and such? Is he perhaps even a member of VG Bild-Kunst, as many professional photographers? I doubt that this picture can be used for commercial purposes without paying a fre to the photographer. --Rtc21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as far as I can see, that deletion request voiced the exact same concerns. It was closed without any of the issues being resolved. --Rtc23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had (and still have) the same concerns, the permission does not seem clear. I remember asking User:Arnomane about it on IRC some time last year, but he told me that the permission probably was ok. I don't agree with him. Somebody (who wants to keep it) should write to the alleged copyright holder and ask for a clarification. Kjetil r23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I've asked Kph, as he seems to have made the initial contact with the original copyright holder, to ask them for a Commons-compatible license. But, given the currently available "license" for that image, it doesn't look as an urgent problem to me, and in regard to the imminent 80th birthday of Benedict XVI. a deletion would rather bad. -- Túrelio09:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I don't see any hint that this image was ever uploaded to :de (and by whom), I will ask the Copyright-holder by myself. -- Túrelio21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think the SVG file is an adequate replacement, but that's because I created it myself... However, the deletion process on SupersededSVG raster images is supposed to be suspended at the moment, I think... AnonMoos17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Das Bild ist von der Zeitung gemacht worden. Die Zeitung besitzt die Rechte und die Zeitung hat die Genehmigung zur Weiterverwendung erteilt!!!! Also bitte schnellstmögliche Freigabe und Rückzug dieses sinnlosen Antrags. 91.9.211.21807:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even this wouldn't be a permission to use the pictures there, we would need permissions from all photographers and authors and that seems to be impossible. --Leipnizkeks16:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: The permission for the Image-Cover was given by the publisher of the newspaper, the "Trierer Campus Medien e.V." I am the author of the image-cover and of course i have given my permission to use the image. The authors of the texts shown on the image-cover are editors of the newspapers and they all have given their permission. Two photos on the cover were made by myself. The copyright holders of all other photos shown on the cover have all given the permission to the publisher of the newspaper to use the photos. The same image-cover is used by SPIEGEL-Online Spiegel Online über die Sieger des MLP-Campus-Presse-Award (26. Mai 2006). So, there is no violating of any copyright law. For example: If you take a photo from the cover of a magazine and on that cover there is another photo, you are of course the holder of all rights of the photo you have taken. So, you don´t need the permission of the other photographer to use your own photo. (Do you think that Spiegel-Online would violate any copyright law by publishing the image-cover on their own site?) There is no reason to delete the image. Gizmo80 [43]
Yes, if you take the photo from a cover of a magazine and on that ciover there is another photo, you are of course not the holder of all rights on the photo you have taken. In fact, you have no rights gained at all, since making a photo of a cover is considered the same as photocopying; it is not considered as making a photo, but as copying the magazine cover. In any case, I do not see a de:Benutzer:Rtc/Einverständniserklärung template sent by the copyright holder of the magazine cover. --Rtc21:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder of the magazine (the publisher) has given the permission to use the cover in wikipedia, of course. All the authors of the texts also have given their permissions. Some of the photos published on the cover are press-materials. Of course, the newspaper has the license to use these photos for print and web. I don´t know whether it´s necessary to have any permission from the copyright-holders of these press-photos for using the newspaper-cover in wikipedia. If this really would be demanded, the newspaper would substitute the image-cover by another one. If an "Einverständniserklärung" is needed you will get it from the publisher and from all authors as soon as possible. Gizmo80 [44]
By publishing this image you gave everyone the right to use it regarding the licence you choose. You might have the right to publish the press material in your newspaper but i am sure you are not allowed to use them in the way you licenced it here. Otherwise we would be able to use press material and that's not the case. 84.59.4.3316:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
no obvious reason for speedy deletion
Hervegirod April 13 2007, 01.55
Is the deletion request person's insistence as follows?
"The license of this image is not Creative Commons License. The license of this image is GPL2.0. Therefore, delete this image."
I think that we only have to change the mark of the license of this image to GPL2.0 if deletion request person's deletion reason is due to Creative Commons License.
Therefore, I do not think that we have the necessity for deleting this image. --Hsz13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All picture are scanned from croatian book Emilio Laszowski: "Grbovi Jugoslavije" (Coat of arms of Yugoslavia) published by Kave Hag, Zagreb, 1934. --MECU≈talk12:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pictures are marked as {{PD-self}}. But all picture are scanned from copyright book. The usage of coats of arms or flag is governed by legal restrictions according to Croatian law. Andrej Šalov19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Let's get rid of gif. And when an existing version without borders exists I see no reason to keep this. --|EPO|16:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image is not used in any projects and was the uploader's third upload. Not only is it very poorly drawn, but it's not useful in any way, and may be vandalism (the user's second upload was a penis image).
Keep based on the fact that the picture was uploaded a couple of days ago, and that it is a bit early to say that it is "useless". Bradipus18:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the image will be actually for continuous vandalism. And like it or not, but the image has encyclopedic value. An image may be disgusting, it may be against your belief, but we should not remove a file for that. Only if the image is clearly used for vandalism, or violating Florida law, it should be deleted. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete: This image should be deleted because there can be no use for such a picture. Even if an image was used to represent a topic like this, would you want an image of this quality to be used? I certainly hope not. Wikimedia's standards are not so lax. (I also feel this way about the horse picture)--68.240.129.8917:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User:Marmoulak has uploaded a large number of photos from Flickr and tagged them as CC-BY-2.5 (a license not available at Flickr). In reality these photos are tagged under noncommercial licenses or "All rights reserved". Some of the photos have English Wikipedia as their source, although they have in fact never been uploaded there. It appears that Marmoulak do not quite comprehend image licensing. Thuresson23:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know the difference between different Creative Commons licenses and that CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0, is not allowed on Commons (Is it allowed on en.wikipedia?), for all the other Images that have en.wikipedia as their source I have written permission from their authors, I have already sent several written permissions to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, please Check those emails (my emails are s2shafie@ryerson.ca and sia_va_akbar@yahoo.com), thank you - Marmoulak03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Behnam House.jpg, Image:Tehran View.jpg, and Image:Miniature.jpg now say they are "CC-BY-3.0 on WikiPedia and WikiMedia", and Hamed Saber's flickr page similarly states "I granted a special license for WikiPedia: All my CC-BY-NC-SA photos can be used under CC-BY-3.0 just on WikiPedia (*.wikipedia.com) and WikiMedia (*.wikimedia.com)." Such a license is not really possible, and also contrary to Wikimedia policy (images licensed for Wikipedia alone are not allowed). Image:Tehran Iran.jpg is also by Hamed Saber and should be added to this deletion request.
Deleted: No permission received in the last two month. Kept four images with commons compatible licence changed by flickr users. --GeorgHH20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It is contested whether this is an official coat of arms. See [46] and [47] here and the history of the related article on the German Wikipedia; in particular, the request in the edit summary in [48] to provide the official source for this item seems reasonable. —xyzzyn00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No assertion that source website licensed the image under the current license or uploader has permission. Image is used at least once. -- MECU≈talk13:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Hi, I took it from the english wikipedia. The author says, it is PD made by himself. Perhaps he didn t know, that it needs something special, even I dont know, what the problem is. Is it possible to black the eye-region of the persons ? I would do so, if this a possibility to keep it. Please tell me, and better in german. Thanks, greets. --Peng12:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Insufficient evidence of own work claim while the source site http://www.popjura.ch/ does not have licensing permission. --Jusjih08:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion:
C'est le logo officiel du POP jurassien. En tant que membre et Webmaster du site du POP jurassien, je sais quand -même d'où provient ce logo.—the preceding unsigned comment is byZohreh (talk • contribs)
Please send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org to confirm your authorship. We cannot accept your own-work claim if you cannot prove it to our satisfaction. As I cannot speak French well, I'd like to request any French-speaking admin before deleting.--Jusjih16:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Both source images on flickr have been deleted before flickr reviewed. Selected license here is BY-2.5, which isn't a valid flickr license. Image is used at least once. -- MECU≈talk13:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I received permission from the photographer to use it on Wikinews under CC-BY guidelines, I have a inbox message from him which will be posted below:
From:
jaqian
Subject:
Re: Usage on Wikinews
I've no problem with that, work away. I've more uploaded now if you want to check them out.
You need to forward that email to Wikipedia (permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org) so it can be logged into the OTRS system and a message then will be put on the image with a ticket number which in essence verifies this claim. MECU≈talk11:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is inferior to image:Thales' Theorem.svg, which has larger text with better positioning. Also the ordering of the points in this image is ACB (clockwise), whereas in the proof in English Wikipedia article, it must be ABC (as in the image given before). Thus, I am recommending deletion before this image is used on other projects causing conflicts. The other places this image is used do not require the points to be in this order (ACB), and so this image can safely be removed. --Inductiveload00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The linked Chinese page is actually just an essay about another complicated unrelated copyright case. But the underlying thing is that the works during Cultural Revolution are still copyrighted. Wooyi00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Sure, whoever took this photo should speak up
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All screenshots I've created here are from a proprietary software (Adobe Photoshop) and are hereby copyvios. The category also has a bad name. I will create a knew one and upload new free screenshots. --Sting15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note : This should be speedy deletion request, but I didn't want to loose time to put the template on all the screenshots. I hope you will understand. Thanks.Sting15:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and crop the images inside photoshop seem to be taken by the uploader, but the software interface is copyrighted by the software company. Wooyi21:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No : please delete all the screenshots. As I've made them to illustrate tutorials I wrote for other Wikigraphists, being able to see the software information is also important for the understanding. I'll make the same screenshots again but using The GIMP, which is free. Sting22:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Reasons for deletion request Sam67fr 16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
This image is unused since its upload & its license isn't compatible with Commons (no commercial use). I have maybe been to quick when reading the license on Flickr. --Sam67fr16:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I uploaded these images to the Swedish Wikipedia in 2004. Back then, we had very few images and were willing to accept shaky camera phone quality images with poor licenses. Now everone has a megapixel camera and these images have been replaced by better quality equivalents (Image:Jätten Finn i Lunds domkyrka.jpg and Image:Lund3.jpg), so its getting a bit embarrasing that these images are still here. Väsk13:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Since the GFDL is a copyleft license, derivatives of works released under it can only be released under the GFDL and cannot be dual-licensed under the GPL as well (unless there is some exception for other GNU licenses which I am not aware of). -- Yonatantalk13:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This listing is absurd. The gnome-speaker is GPL. Therefore, a derivative work consisting of both a GPL'd work and a GFDL'd work must be licensed under both. Raul65416:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the GFDL is incompatible with the GPL. Dual-licensing basically means releasing something under either license, not a single combination of the two. Image:Multimedia.png could only be dual-licensed if both source images were also dual GPL/GFDL. --Davepape18:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the old image with a new one that relies only on a GPL and an LPGL source, and is actually (IMO) superior to the old image. Raul65416:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
i cant see any permission by the copyright holder, neither a permission for pd. "no problem with that one" can mean anything -- Leipnizkeks05:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In due to the uniform it might be an US-Army photograph, but when I searched for images of Gavin I only found this one on the named website. Does someone maybe know, whom to ask, wheather it's an US-Army-Image or not? -- John N.(@ me)08:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sure looks like an official US Army portrait. The "permission" from the website owner doesn't amount to much (he would not be the copyright holder anyways), but I would think it is PD-USGov-Military-Army so it's a moot point. I did find a crop of the image used on a US military website ([49]) and also found a slightly larger version here (direct URL [50]). Carl Lindberg20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image:Transiting planet HD 209458b.png and Image:Osirisplanet.jpg. Both are tagged with NASA/ESA template which is meant for Hubble-images. These are not Hubble-images. The first one is also tagged with a NASA-template ("because it was created by NASA") although image credit is given to European Space Agency, Alfred Vidal-Madjar (Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, France) and NASA. [51] Besides, Alfred Vidal-Madjar is not the artist but an astronomer. Samulili12:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lars Lindberg Christensen (MSc) • PIO/Head of Communication ESA/Hubble said:
It can be credited to ESA's Hubble group (credit: ESA/Hubble) ... Yes it is released in the public domain.
I am not sure how you define "public domain" (is there an "official" definition somewhere?), but here are our requirements: http://www.spacetelescope.org/copyright.html So, yes we require users to credit the image. But only that. Which is not much to ask ...
Hubble images are ok, see the license plate here and "The Hubble material you see on these pages is copyright-free and may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions..." However, these images are not Hubble images. Besides, that page is written by someone who doesn't understand copyright - you can't set conditions on something that is copyright-free... I don't know, it's a mess. Samulili13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They simply want to release all the images on their site under the same conditions as the Hubble licence. He might no be aware of the copyright requirements for inclusion on Commons: but it is clear to me that this image can be allowed on Commons. We could use {{copyrighted free use provided that}}. If you intend to contact one of ESA's lawyers feel free to send more emails, but I'd like to close it here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's again here. The short answer for these images seems to be They're in the public domain, usually, but sometimes they require attribution. If Commons can't accept an attribution license, can the image be moved back down to en.Wikipedia (and whereever else it's used?). Thanks 128.100.88.2213:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The limitations of the license given are inacceptable; it's not licensed under GNU FDL or CC.
The restrictions, given in German language only, reads something like: "Commercial use of the image is explicitly forbidden. I do allow the private use of this pictire, it must not be used on private homepages, outside of Wikimedia, or in any other digital media".
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete - probably both derived from the same source. In most cases I'm all for keeping similar pictures of the same thing but in this particular one I don't see the advantage. Yonatantalk22:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a waste to remove imagery just because a similar one exists, I suggest asking the TomKidd to upload the entire image (not just the cropped versions). Lcarsdata22:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image seems to violates Commons' project scope, which does not allow non-derivative works: "Consequently, media files which are available only under non-derivative, non-commercial licenses [...] are generally not accepted on the Wikimedia Commons". —Pathoschild 02:50:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The user assumes "fair use" simply because (1) he could not determine the copyright holder of this oblique aerial view and (2) he has seen this picture or similar ones on tourist and information leaflets. (Image description is in French.) --Neumeier20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete as importer - I'm sorry for reimporting this category, perhaps we can salt it and remove its talk page this time? The original deletion debate (closed 08:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)) follows. — Jeff G.(talk|contribs)15:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, I agree that since may of the wikis use a version of it, it promotes uniformity across the board, the fact the people keep creating it says something. While articles show in the category, the use of the template is simple, and uniform. I think its placement at the top of and article is simple, informative and unobtrusive. As an example Category:Charles Klauder is a category where I think it works well. --Evrik20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At Category:Charles Klauder it is redundant to the link just a few lines down. The template is currently only in English. In the previous deletion we say what happens when the text has 20 languages in it. Just a waste of space. --Pmsyyz20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to mention you just edited it. I disagree that it is a wate of space. I found the translations useful. --Evrik00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{catmore}} adds only totally redundant text to category pages. A link to the gallery for the images in a category should either be a link in the description or will always be the first link in the automatically generated content of the category if sorted correctly. --Pmsyyz19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The descriptions should be a the top, the template as it is is too invasive and takes over the page doing everything but making you go to the gallery page. Yonatantalk19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template exists in all Wikipedias, en:Template:Catmore, es:Template:Catmás, fr:Modèle:ArticlePrincipal, and here also since 2005. If the problem is its size, we can reduce the size of text, or remove all languages except english. In other hand this template isn't in each category of Commons. I was trying to do Commons really multilingual:
Comment This template when used in English simply says, "The main article for this category is .." I say revert it back to the version that existed 10 December 2005. We should reaaly try to be consistent with the other wikis. --Evrik21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least stop the addition by bot and have it for manual addition only. The bot that is currently going around adding this to categories does so no matter how much content is already there; I first noticed this on Category:Alcamenes where the top of the page now contains many unnecessary lines of text. If necessary the text should be worked in with the existing translations, not added at the top. However, the main page for a category is usually *in* the category, and usually at the top (if properly added with [[Category:Foo| *]]. There is no reason to add a row of 8 or more lines merely saying "see the page for info" when you can merely add "See Foo" or even add something noticeable like Foo at the top of the page. -- Editor at Large • talk01:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I applaud the commitment to multilingualism, but this really isn't necessary and will push actual content way off the screen. Man vyi07:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's not PD, as the photographer can't possibly be dead for more than 70 years (it was taken in 1940). It was copied from the website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which now says "Credit: USHMM, courtesy of Unknown Provenance / Copyright: USHMM" --88.134.140.6402:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
A French bill issued by the Banque de France in 1942. As far as I know bills are protected by French copyright law just like any other work of art. Thuresson09:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't think this graph is usefull because you cannot display the whole history of the roman empire in one simple graph --DieBuche 12:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC) --DieBuche12:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Apologies, I was confused with another gun image. Image:M3a1.jpg is from the same source and has the permission. Permission given 5/24/2004 was the only notice with this image. Garion9620:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, for now putting "no permission" on image which will then get image deleted in 7 days if permission isn't clarified by uploader. MECU≈talk14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
United States Military Awards\Decorations are 3D works of art and therefore Bridgeman vs. Corel doesn't apply to them. Any derivatives of such works can be released under a free license by the photographer since the original awards are released into the public domain as works of the US government but if the photographer doesn't release them, they aren't necessarily in the PD. Yonatantalk18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , sorry, I think you have confused matters. The template does not cite the B.vs.C; it cites the PD-USGov. Most images using the template are not photographs, here is one example . If images using this template are indeed photographs, and the photographer has not agreed to license under a free license, then I think that image should be listed separately. / Fred Chess19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep- Anonymous proposition for changing specific legally binding regulations of internal Polish copyright law without basis. Andros6408:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The implementation of the EU directive is mandatory and legally binding for Poland. If Poland dislikes that, it is free to leave the EU. --rtc14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the years 1944-1994 Poland as communist state (till 1989) didn`t ratify a world convention of defence of author copyrights and copying this images is without any restrictions. Mathiasrex09:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. Poland joined the w:Berne copyright convention as early as January 28, 1920, the w:universal copyright convention on March 9, 1977. This caused Polish works to be copyrighted in about all participatingcountries, and it also caused works to be copyrighted that had no copyright notice, because other countries require no such copyright notices. It especially copyrighted them in Europe. The adoption of the w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection then restored these copyrights in Poland, regardless of what laws prior to that said. --rtc14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the Polish Highest Court (06.06.2002, I CKN 654/00, publ. w OSNC 2003/7-8/110) confirmed this understanding of the law (see template talk); besides, Poland is not the only EU state with such laws. // tsca[re]10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The judgement judged that an omitted copyright notice on newer reprints of pictures created under Poland's old copyright law (that required copyright notices) does not cause the picture to loose copyright protection. It did not judge that the old law has still any relevance, and it did not judge that pictures published under the old copyright law did not, contrary to what the EU directive requires, have their copyright restored . --rtc14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt your judgment is more binding than that of the court. // tsca[re]14:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [please do not remove other users' edits][reply]
First of all, the judgement of a polish court is binding only for one special case and only in poland. Second, the court didn't judge about this issue. It judged about copyright notices being omitted on later reprints. Third, I don't see that the court even discussed the effect of the EU directive, or any indication that it was even aware of it. Finally, yes, if my judgement is correct, then it is more relevant that of the Polish highest court. --rtc15:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your information is incorrect - it's not about expiring or losing (c) at all; it's about the works that had never been copyrighted; even if you dislike it, it's a binding judgment and you have no authority to overrule it. // tsca[re]15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong. It judged that copyright still applies to old prints which have been reprinted with the (c) symbol omitted. I don't have a copy of the ruling, so I cannot read it, certainly. But I don't see any indication of it explicitly discussing and overruling the EU directive (and Poland would face EU punishment for such gross disobeyance). Further, the Polish court's ruling has no effect on other states, and it also has no effect on what Commons accepts or not. And we decide not to accept tags with such insane and nonsensical claims. --rtc15:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you to decide what is "insane and nonsensical"? Note that Poland is not the only EU country with such law; compare Danish Ophavsretsloven's §91 limiting the (c) of photos taken before 1970. Surely similar laws exist in other countries as well. Get over it. // tsca[re]15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it that all such stuff will be deleted, since, as mentioned, claims that they are without copyright are insane and nonsensical. All these provisions are invalid now that the EU directive has restored copyright on these pictures, and I have not heard a single argument that shows that Poland or Denmark are exempt from this directive's effect. I mean, who are you to decide that they are? If the Polish court had decided that the directive was without effect, which it didn't, who would it have been to judge so? --rtc15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that 95% of those images haven't source so even if this tag will stay on Commons then i'll start tagging images as no source. Herr Kriss10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether the tag may be correct within Poland, I do not know. Maybe the EU directive overrules the court judgment, as Rtc says; or maybe it doesn't. Personally, I find Rtc's argument convincing. But let's ignore that EU directive for a moment: I think the template is wrong outside of Poland in all countries of the Berne Convention and also in those UCC countries that did not have a requirement for an explicit copyright notice or registration formalities. Why?
Poland was a member of the Berne Convention (BC) from January 28, 1920 on.[53] It ratified the Rome Act of the BC on November 21, 1935.[54] It did not accede to the Brussels Act of 1948, nor to the Stockholm Act of 1967. From August 4, 1990 on, Poland adhered to the administrative procedures of the Paris Act of the BC (1971), which it ratified on October 22, 1994. I do not know about the status of Poland's adherence to the BC during WWII and the Cold War (1939 - early 1990s). But even if Poland should have formally quit the BC, Polish works from before that date would have remained copyrighted in other BC countries per article 35 of the BC.
Because of all this, I think this template is not useful at the commons. The images that fall under this tag might be ok in at most two countries (Poland and maybe the U.S.), but are unusable in most other countries. Such images are better hosted locally on the pl-WP and maybe on the en-WP. If the EU directive indeed did resurrect copyrights on such images even within the EU member country Poland, we'd even be down to one country (the U.S.).
the usage of the template is IMO often wrong. e.g. in Image:Wladyslaw Gomulka.jpg - there is no information when the image was taken, there is no information if the image was taken in Poland by a polish photographer. At most of the images these informations are missing. So in case this template will not be deleted there is a strict and clear guidline needed to avoid copy vios ...SicherlichPost18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I do not understand the whole discussion is all about. The tag is correct without any doubt:
Poland was a member of all required conventions in the 1920.
I got this picture from the archives of the Polish Ministry of Defense, Information Department, and released for press use in May 1941.
As you probably know, in a period 1939-1945 Polish Government In Exile was operating from France, next from Britain, and was recognized as an Ally by all, but USSR, countries of anti-German front. I understand that this photo - as many others - was passed to Polish Ministry from the Australian Navy propaganda public relation sources. The whole discussion have no sense, because this photo have nothing in common with Polish communist government 1945-1989. Peterd05:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the regulation called by Rtc: Strictly, they applied to works which were protected in at least one Member State on 1995-07-01. The graphics to which the tempate applies where not protected in Poland under polish law. So you neither can apply the Butterfly case nor Puccini case where the discusion relates to the lenght of protection and not to the copyright protection at all. In both cases mentioned the works were protected in Italy at the moment of creation. The graphics in discussion where Copyright-free by law at the moment they were produced. Masti13:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect; both cases apply. They were protected in Italy at the moment of creation, since Italy requires neither that the work is protected in its home country, nor that there is some copyright notice. So the pictures were copyrighted in Italy all the time. Further, if Poland protects works of foreign countries, then a citizen of Poland would be discriminated against foreigners, since these foreign works need no such copyright notice to be protected. So, say, an Italian has copyright for his 1960 works in Poland even if they have no copyright notice, and a Pole has not, so the foreigner has more rights than a citizen in Poland? No, anti-discrimination forbids that. --rtc14:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it time somebody reviewed user behaviour in context of disruptive against-the-facts "we the majority can vote down copyright and the COM:L policy" keep votes in discussions of nominations for deletion? --rtc17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i fully agree to Lupo's analysis. Nevertheless, i don't believe that it will be actually deleted/deprecated but i won't abandon hope--Wiggum18:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again this Rtc custom requesting deletion of a tag... it is indeed time that Rtc' s aggressive and arrogant behavior in context of disruptive nominations for deletion is reviewed. Rtc, believe it or not, the tag is NOT invalid at all! The implementation of the EU directive is NOT mandatory and NOT legally binding for Poland. Forget this w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection and especially regarding copyright restoration – it is only paper as long as not accepted by a country in question. And Poland would never have to leave EU for things like that. Therefore Polish copyrights are definitely NOT resurrected again, no matter what w:Berne copyright convention and the problematic w:universal copyright convention says because here an explicite national law clearly exists. Poland has the right to decide autonomously about its copyright laws. And Poland is in fact not the only EU country with such a law, see also Italy, Sweden and Denmark beside others. You cannot indoctrinate the Commons with the German point of view where this directive has been accepted. This is disrespect and ignorance of laws of other countries even if in the EU. You also would never be able to force Great Britain to convert to right hand traffic with an EU directive, and GB would never have to leave EU for keeping left hand traffic. And no country can be forced to take over the EURO as currency by any directive whatsoever. Every state is sovereign and has all the rights to implement EU directives or not. We do NOT have a “United States of Europe” and will never have if you like it or not! Is this clear enough for you? At your place I would not be that sure that this tag will be deleted. What makes you that sure it will happen? Get over it – and if you cannot I do not care – it is not my problem and I will not be sad at all. And what are these statements: “And If Poland dislikes that, it is free to leave the EU” -or- “insane and nonsensical”? Rtc, who the heck are you? Are you crazy or out of mind or what? You cannot decide whether Poland has to leave EU or not and even less assume that they would have to. An incredible provocation in my eyes. You do NOT have any authority to overrule national laws or judgements even if you dislike it. What is insane and nonsensical for you in Polish law? Have you read it completely? Do you fully understand everything? Polish law is definitely not what you poor custom spite out like poison. I would rather suggest that YOU Rtc should leave Wikipedia and the Commons instead of Poland leaving EU..... Your rants are nothing but offenses, shame on you for that, we do not want and we do not need customs like you unwilling to cooperate in peace trying to improve things instead of destroying honorable work! And I would like to remind all other useres that Rtc has been blocked several times on German Wikipedia and here for aggressive vandalism. I never saw any new articles or improvements from him. Just rants and offenses. It is the time to speak the truth about this sockpuppet of someone maybe even paid for raising hell here. Rtc, if you are so keen on trying to rule over licenses as you think and to destroy widely accepted work of many genuine and polite users then get outta here and get lost or at least found your very own online encyclopedia where you can do whatever you want! This deletion request is completely erroneous and I ask the fellow users to ignore it and keep the license tag. All other arguments per User:tsca and User:Masti, User:Andros64 and User Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, I fully agree with them. Reptil(♣) 5 May 2007, 15:56 (UTC)
No personal attacks, please. Rtc was blocked on de.wikipedia.org once for participating in an edit war, every other block was a misunderstanding or at the request of Rtc. No “aggresive vandalism” as you presumed. Your sockpuppet accusation has also no basis. Furthermore, Rtc is author of featured articles like de:Kritischer Rationalismus or de:Pro-Ana (“I never saw any new articles or improvements from him”). Just because of the fact, that users confuse this deletion request with any “hot or not” voting, it’s not “completely erroneous”, see Lupo’s argumentation and please respond in a similar objective way. Thank you. --Polarlys16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the emotional fact twisting strategy of Reptil is well-known and we don't need to comment on that. Let's just ignore him. --rtc16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polarlys – OK no personal attacks. Anyway we have to point out that the agressive behavior of Rtc is a sorry way to work on an international project like Wikipedia and the Commons or any other public affair. Please do not even try to tell me or others that Rtc behaved correctly. It is not acceptable that someone appears here as a the missionary of the holy law trying to destroy what he does not like to his mind and offend and provocate anyone who disagrees or replies in a way he is not willing to considerate (see my reply to him below for examples of his rants and offenses). I am for a serious and appropriate way of discussing things and not for trying to impose the own point of wiew upon others with rants and offenses. He has no right to do that like anyone else. These two articles he may have worked on – no new articles though but mostly disruptive deletion requests – do not implement the right to behave as the boss of wikipedia and the Commons. This is not a war zone but an international open encyclopedia. I hope things will finally change to the better. Otherwise please use your possibilities as admin to stop deplorable posses like these damaging the whole project and causing the withdrawal of many motivated good willing authors in the past. Reptil(♣) 5 May 2007, 19:04 (UTC)
Rtc, what emotional fact twisting strategy are you talking about? This is ridiculous by all means. Of course I did not expect anything better as answer. You just do not know what you are talking about. Well known is instead my serious work here and on German Wikipedia and definitely not what you state. Everyone who has seen my work agrees. Also my philosophy to make better instead of deleting without clear background going just the way of the less resistance. This is obvious at a look. So please get a hold on you what you write and stop deceiving the others here from the truth. Be aware that the other fellow users are not stupid as you may think and will NOT ignore me at all. Or should I post some more examples of your behavior here? You remember rants like may your argumentation burn in hell with a picture of a nuclear explosion and in all six skulls and bones? And that you want to eradicate all non free license tags? No? Then I hope to have refreshed your mind. Is this a polite way of discussing? This is by no means a good way of discussing how to make things better. Have you ever read discussions where I took part? You are really the only one unfriendly and aggressive custom I met on this project and I will not tolerate your behavior as long as you do not stop to raise hell and try to destroy work in an aggressive and unfriendly way blinded by your own fanatism. And if you think that something is not fully correct, then please deliver your arguments at first or at least try to and explain clearly what you want to allow proper discussion instead of things like This tag is clearly invalid, because of..... – this is not enough – and please allow serious discussions without rants and offenses! Your agressive behavior outraged all honorable contributers even if it was not obvious for you as many of them did not have the determination or the will to raise their voice against your behavior here. Reptil(♣) 5 May 2007, 19:04 (UTC)
Rtc, stop version deleting! Who gives you the right to do that? You deleted the statement of Polarlys and User:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. This is vandalism! I have restored version history. And stop accusing other users as trolls! This shows clearly your intentions here that are everything but polite and serious! Any other proof needed that I speak the truth? Reptil(♣) 5 May 2007, 19:23 (UTC)
I agreed, since this is the only way to stop this discussion which is characterized by accusations and aggression (I mean you). Do you have anything reliable to say concerning copyright restoration and Lupo’s evaluation? --Polarlys19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am quite sure, still working on it to avoid any mistakes. Will post then. Have you read my reply to you of 19:04 (UTC)? Reptil(♣) 5 May 2007, 19:42 (UTC)
I think Reptil should be blocked if he continues his disruptive behaviour. Commons is not a place for anti-globalization activists that spread emotional counter-factual rants. --rtc19:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rtc! You called me an anti-globalization activist with disruptive behavior that spread emotional counter-factual rants? Don't you think that this is a very far going accusation you will never be able to proof in any way? Well I will take it with humour and philosophy. Who is the one who post disruptive deletion requests with corresponding language? Certainly not me because I respect the work of others and never did things like that. Do you really believe you will ever be able to find a majority that would be willing to support your desire to block me? And for what? I am a constructive and polite user who simply does not accept bad language, offenses and rants. All other fellow users know this. Now please let us turn back to the discussion. As said to Polarlys I will post my statement only related to the issue as soon as ready. Reptil(♣) 5 May 2007, 20:28 (UTC)
Comment I'd like to remind, that this is not only the case of 1952 law of communist era, but esentially the same was Article 3 of 1926 copyright law, valid until 1952 (Art. 3. Prawo autorskie do utworów fotograficznych lub otrzymanych w podobny do fotografji sposób istnieje pod warunkiem, że zastrzeżenie wyraźne uwidoczniono na odbitkach.). One more intersting thing: a subject of copyright protection is a work - each manifestation of creative activity, possesing an individual character (każdy przejaw działalności twórczej o indywidualnym charakterze). Most of simple photographs are not works, unless they express a creative activity and individual character, therefore, they should not be subject to copyright. Pibwl22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the threshold of originality in Poland should have been very high, that wouldn't make this template any more useful, I'm afraid. Even "simple" Polish photographs would have been considered works in other countries where the threshold of originality is low, such as the U.S. That's the way national treatment works. The Berne Convention even explicitly says that copyright in other countries shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work. (§5(2) of the Berne Convention.) So even works that are not copyrightable in one country may be copyrightable in other countries. Lupo21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation. :-) In theory, you are right. On U.S. governmental works, see the first paragraph of en:WP:PD#U.S. government works and the external links given there, or also Patry, W.: Choice of Law and International Copyright, footnote 71 on pp. 37-38, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 383, American Journal of Comparative Law, 2000. However, it has been our practice not to apply this to official works of governments if such official works were exempt from copyright in their source country. German stamps and COAs furthermore are PD by virtue of having been published in official legislative documents (which is mandated by the administrative laws of Germany), and many countries including the U.S. exclude such legislative documents from copyright. This {{PD-Polish}} tag, however, is not about official works of the government. Lupo10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When everything else is up for deletion, why should current Commons practice be of any concern? There is no provision for German stamps in Nordic copyright law. Photos, drawings or images published by Swedish authorities are not public domain in Sweden. There is no provision for German coats of arms. German stamps will be considered works in other countries. German copyright law obviously disregards stamp designers’ moral rights such as the right to be credited or the right not to have a work unreasonably modified. Thuresson11:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off-topic rapidly, but take a look at e.g. the Swedish copyright law: article 9 excludes "laws and other regulations" from copyright. In Germany, it's the same for stamps and COAs (§5(1) UrhG). The only question is whether §9(1) of the Swedish law also applies to laws and regulations from other countries than Sweden, but since they didn't mention "Swedish laws", I would think so. Especially since they did spell out "Swedish public authorities" in §9(3). The same difference exists in the original Swedish text, too. I know that the U.S. generally excludes also foreign laws and regulations from copyright. See en:WP:PD#_note-1. Lupo12:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
§9(2) excludes "alster av bildkonst", products of imaginary art, from being public domain even if they are produced by official authorities / state employees. It is my belief that what should matter to us is the copyright status is the country of origin and the United States. This is off-topic so I will not prolong this. Thuresson13:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you must make a difference between local laws that put works into the public domain for which copyright would be owned by the government, and between local laws that put works into the public domain for which copyright would not be owned by the government. If the government puts a law into place that sends its regulations, laws etc. into the PD, then that can be seen as a declaration of intent, as a license, even in foreign countries. If the local law is about works of citizens, not of the government, then that is something completely differnent, and we must not assume that the government has the right to release works of his citizens into the PD even in foreign countries. But it can well do so for works on which it actually owns the copyright. --rtc17:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Polish stamps and money most probably are not protected as well (this is not clear, but they might be treated as "official materials". Stamps are published by Poczta Polska (Polish Post) only. Pibwl22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this is discussed on the foundation mailing list, and there's no agreement within the board on how to proceed. The chair of Wikimedia Foundation (Anthere) says "wait and see till a US lawyer has given his analysis on this". I suppose this closes this topic for now. Please join the foundation-l mailing list if you want to read the discussion and voice your opinion. // tsca[re]14:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find that on the foundation mailing list. Are you sure they are discussing about this issue? There is a different issue for works not yet 95 years old which is currently discussed. Don't confuse these two issues. --rtc20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To template critics - please, don't be more catholic, than the Pope. If old photos of Polish authors aren't protected in Poland, because they did not care about marking their copyright, knowing the law (at least, they should know the law to protect their business) - don't try to build some "what if" scenarios, that a bunch of Polish photographers will rush into foreign courts, hoping to get protection of their single photo from, say, 1950s, and sueing Wikipedia. Personally, I don't believe it. The persons, who were really interested in granting their copyright, were mostly art photographers. The rest were apparently not. Most of, say, photos of Polish aircraft or ships of 1930-1950 period are multiplied in books and magazines quite freely, long after their original publishing. Pibwl22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“The Wikimedia Commons Deletion Requests page is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion.” Kjetil r19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“The Wikimedia Commons Deletion Requests page is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion.” Kjetil r19:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, regarding counting or not: it is always better to know people, who are active here... What do you think about this ("Wiederholter Löschvandalismus", "ignoriert diskussionenen", "Editwar"...)? Have you seen deletion requests according Scandinavian PD templates (PD-Finland50, PD-Sweden-photo and PD-Denmark50), and this comment? Julo11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said: “Rtc was blocked on de.wikipedia.org once for participating in an edit war, every other block was a misunderstanding or at the request of Rtc.” Rtc deals a lot with true POV warriors on de.wikipedia.org. 27 minutes after being blocked because of „Wiederholter Löschvandalismus“ he was unblocked by the same administrator („Durch mich falsch beurteilte Sachlage“). --Polarlys21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way we can change the wording of this template to reflect the correct copyright status in Poland? If so, we should change the wording and go through the images in this category to see which ones will fall under the new guidelines or not. If we cannot change the wording, then we will have to delete it sadly. User:Zscout370(Return fire)18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speculating about what could happen if the law changes is not a reason to delete the tag. What count is the current state of Polish law, and that states it's a PD. Wojsyl03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not a legal expert but commons sense says the pictures should be kept. Is anyone expecting royalties from the publication of these pics? Not as far as I can tell. So what is the problem? They have historic value. Pkmink11:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept:
Overwhelming positions to keep.
Furthermore, the legal analysis justifying the "delete" has been messy, sorry:
The 1952-1994 Polish law simply ment that the photograph's "point n' click" is not protected by author's right unless explicitly claimed as such (by a copyright notice). Within Berne Convention, not all photographs are necessarily considered as "artistic works" entitled to protection. This is valid, and internationnaly recognized : Poland was part of the Berne Union, remember?
When considering copyright matters in international aspects, en:Conflict of laws may interfere, and not all matters are governed by the country where protection is claimed: the country of origin must also be considered for some aspects. Legal doctrine and recent jurisprudence shows that copyright existence and attribution is generally governed by the country of origin. In that case, the work being explicitely excluded from the "Literary and artistic works" category, it has no protection (from the very start) whatever the country.
The copyright restorations (EC, but also US) is pointless in this case. It only applies when the work was protected somewhere. When the work is not protected from the very start, or when the protection has disappeared worldwide, there is no resurrection of rights.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Bad title and bad cutout : this is better Image:LuftbildPetersberg.jpg - found on page, requester malformed deletion request. --Lcarsdata08:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with having more images, this one shows stuff that cannot be seen on the other. Lcarsdata
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Well, I am pretty sure that this qualifies as freedom of panorama; those posters were put up in public places all over the country by the ten-thousands. Also, members of the staff of Mjaft! were standing right there when I took it. --Chlämens01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is the poster, not a panorama. As far as we know, the picture could have been taken inside a private room. Furthermore, a written permission from copyright holders is necessary, to whos they agreed about licensing it in Commons. --G.dallorto14:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image seems to qualify as "fan art that closely resembles copyrighted material", listed under "Definitely not OK" in the checklist at the Commons licensing page. While the uploader claims to have made the image "entirely from scratch", and not "'converted' [it] from any other picture", it appears that careful attention is paid to deliberately match the appearance of the promotional image seen here, as I commented on in the image talk page. In addition, the image incorporates multiple copyrighted logos, which cannot be seen as incidental, given that the image was created from scratch. Dancter17:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended to resemble any copyrightet picture. I forgot that those logos ([57], [58] and [59] - wasnt created by me. But all of them are heavily modified and changed - totally useless for other purposes than displaying the PS3. There are thousands of console photos with copyrighted logos on Commons - is the fact that this one is a vector the problem? Would it better if I "tilt" the console on the image a couple of degrees so it doesn't look like that promo-image? (Remember that every single 60gb ps3 looks EXACTLY the same. There aren't many ways of showing a standing ps3. Note that my SVG doesn't have the "fancy-iPod-glass-shadow" on the floor and that the background is transparent, not white - among other things) Would it better if I upload it as an english wikipedia SVG with fair use-rationale/tag? Can I ceep it on commons if I turn the logos into non-scalable ones? What should I do?--Ssolbergj09:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. You are right that the logos are modified so that they aren't optimal for alternative uses, but I wouldn't say that they're totally useless for other purposes. You are also right that there aren't many ways to display a PS3. I just found the degree of similarity to be suspicious, to the level of "tracing". As for other console photos, I'm compiling some lists of images that may have issues: some of which are in wide use, and some of which I uploaded myself. One list is for console images containing logos. One solution that see is sometimes employed for that problem is that the logos are removed, covered, or blurred out, such as with Image:Digio.jpg. This is one of my first attempts to dip into what I feel are more controversial deletion requests, and will affect how I approach images on Commons in the future. Dancter17:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel utterly discussed by the idea of having to create an entirely new image - just from another angle. I'm removing the request until something happens--Ssolbergj19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Please let the discussion run its course. Nothing's been decided yet. It may very well be that this image is kept at the end of this, but that is best decided after attention is brought to the issue, so that people with familiarity with various copyright issues can provide input and make recommendations. I'm reverting it back. Dancter19:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be made completely with scalar graphics. When you zoom in it doesn't actually look that similar, but at this resolution, it isn't discernible. Perhaps you could resave the image at higher resolution, so it is clear that it is not the copyrighted original. Additionally, I think the policy should be taken with a grain of salt--they are saying cars are fine, so why not a console? --71.198.173.25507:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I don't see why there’s a problem. The PlayStation 3 article needs an image of the console, and this is by far the best one there has ever been. And as Ssolbergj mentioned, how many different ways can you display a vertical PS3? I agree with the poster immediately above — saying that this image resembles copyrighted material is going a bit too far in my opinion. The policies are there for a reason, surely, but it’s also important not to follow them too religiously. The poster above me also mentioned the Derivative works page, and I’m going to quote from it here:
The design of your alarm clock or your dinner plate is probably not copyrighted in the same way Mickey Mouse is. Please keep apart works of art (the Pokemon) and objects of daily use (gaming consoles, dinner plates), the latter of which generally are not works in the sense of copyright, or, depending on jurisdiction, do not show enough originality for the vastly increased prerequisites for copyright protection of such objects. They are generally protected by design patents, which may or may not (depending on jurisdiction again) hinder commercial use of pictures for anything but quotation-like contexts, but that's not our problem, since it's entirely independent of copyright and thus not something that we should care about.
You could say that this vector image looks a lot like the picture on that SCEE page, Dancter, but it might just as easily be a recreation of a PS3 standing in that exact position. Obviously, it’s a gray area, and in this specific case, I don’t think that any copyrights are being egregiously violated. —BrOnXbOmBr2112:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Derivative works, and cited it in my original request. I don't see the post you're referring to, so perhaps I'm missing some important points. I admit, it's been a while since I've actually read it closely, and I'd forgotten some of the finer points mentioned there. Still, I think the issue of logos needs to be resolved. It's the issue that I'm most concerned with. As I mentioned above, this case is somewhat unique in that the logos were added manually, and thus not an incidental occurrence. While Ssolbergj had proposed replacing the logos with non-scalable versions, I'm not sure that's enough. I know that in movie and television shows, they sometimes go to extreme lengths to avoid copyright problems, such as using modified likenesses of logos (a Golden Arches-style Logo with two separate arches rather than the continuous "M", Nintendo 64-style logo based on the letter "M" rather than "N", a "SUNY" logo, etc.). As seen in Image:64DD with Nintendo64.jpg, Image:SCPH-75000CB hid-logotypes.jpg, and Image:Super Nintendo Entertainment System-USA.jpg, there is precedent for the removal of logos from console images to address possible copyright issues. Dancter17:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dancter, you are a crazy uptight bastard. This is one of the finest works on Wikipedia commons, and it should not be removed by a disgusting copyright obsessed whore like you.ZZT3211:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's removed, it won't be I who does it. And I think it's better that way, at least for now, while I'm still getting to know Commons. I care about respecting the rules of Commons, whatever they may be. I hope you do, too; I don't want to believe that your Lego Rock Raiders screenshot uploads were made in blatant disregard for policy. We make mistakes, and we learn from them. Dancter16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful input. I didn't catch that, nor did I realize that it mattered. Does this mean that the Blu-Ray Disc Logo can be re-added to Image:BD blue.svg? I filed a request for that, too. Regardless, I think I'm satisfied now with this image. Dancter16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't see how any wikimedia project can use this image. The only pages it's used on are user pages where these sort of pictures (ie. political messages) aren't allowed\discouraged. -- Yonatantalk01:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose the image could be used in some article about the anti-bush movement, but as far as I can see it is only used for political messages. --Ogre23:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Hmmm, that's a dubious case, though. It's evident the posters were one of the subject of the images (as the title shows). On the other hand, the author seems to have shot the picture as an artistic composition, regardless of what the posters were saying, as if they were a mere paper collage. This is a known case in art, and a permitted use. The point would be whether this particular shot could qualify as "art"... but let's not complicate things further. Ok for keeping. this is a boderline case. --G.dallorto14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep none of the posters are in high detail, rather its the panorama of campaigning that is highlighted. --Soman15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't think there is enough creative content in the poster to be copyrightable in the first place, so the photo would not be a derivative. Carl Lindberg07:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Nearly all the images uploaded by this user are personal photos. Out of scope.
Comment I began this deletion process because when I asked him about these photos, he replied that they are allowed at COM:SCOPE ("uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed"), that many other users have photos of themselves in their user pages and that these images have "an explicit Chilean cultural value". As I might be wrong, I prefer this way. --Dodo09:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete EL propósito de esta consulta es determinar si las fotos son válidas o no. No es una decisión que ya estétomada. Sin embargo, el usuario ha tomado de forma equivocada el proceso y ha procedido a agredir de forma personal al nominador by far, you're the most disgusting user across all wikis. Eso no es aceptable. Dicho eso, apoyo la eliminación de las imágenes personales en donde el foco de la composición sea el usuarioa, aunque algunas pueden ser de utilidad en algún proyecto. De manera más explícita:
Comment That's ok. But we have lots of photos of the Atacama desert (Category:Atacama) and I personally prefer non retouched photos whenever it's possible (in the end, we're using them in encyclopaedic projects...). Unfortunately we lack photos of Pintados drawings and Chiu Chiu chuch. :-( I'll look at Flickr... --Dodo07:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)PS. Pintados desert, Chiu Chiu church (inside).[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There's no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the U.S., and some of these clearly count as derivative works. Others, however, I'm not sure of, and leave it to other reviewing admins to decide. The ones I consider strongest contenders for deletion are:
The other Calder and Cloud Cover photos show more surrounding area and smaller amounts of the artwork, so maybe they're okay, but I'm not entirely convinced at the moment. --Davepape05:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of the park's prominent pieces, Typewriter Eraser, Scale X by Claes Oldenburg and Coosje van Bruggen, is on three-year loan from its owner, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. Unlike the other sculptures in the park, there was initially a posted sign indicating that the public does not have permission to photograph this sculpture, in spite of its current position alongside Elliot Avenue a major street running through the park. After some criticism, the prohibition was lifted, with a Seattle Art Museum spokesperson claiming it was "a misinterpretation of the loan agreement". The text prohibiting photography was subsequently covered up with masking tape.
(Appropriate citations are in the article, but I haven't bothered reproducing them in the quotation.)
As I understand it, no one has shown any interest in enforcing copyright issues with reference to photos of the sculptures in the park. In fact, they have absolutely been encouraging coverage. Do a Google search for images of the park and note some of the domains that have similar images. They include the New York Times, every Seattle newspaper of any note, etc.
But I know: Commons does not accept a "fair use" justification, and it may be tricky exactly who owns what rights (Serra, the Calder estate, etc.). Wouldn't it make more sense for us to ask the various entities whether we can have the relevant permissions than to delete these without asking? - en:Jmabel | talk06:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the photographer of several of the photos in question, I did a bit of digging. Here's my response:
"Hmmm... I took the photo myself and read the museums rules for the sculpture park:
"Commercial photography and videography are prohibited in the park. Personal photography is permitted but may not be used commercially."
I'm not using the image commercially nor for any personal gain since I have released it to the public domain. It is my understanding that I am in the clear here.
I live in Seattle and can contact the museum to see if these public domain images are in the clear, if that's really necessary." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.150.8.204 (talk • contribs) at 2007-04-16T18:43:53 (UTC)
You can’t release images into the public domain if they contain material copyrighted by others and we don’t accept files which cannot be used commercially. —xyzzyn19:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the U.S. Newspapers can show images of these sculptures under fair use, but that's not applicable here. Lupo20:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note though that many pictures don't show just - or specifically - sculptures, but also the crowds of people, the events taking place, the city's skyline, the Puget Sound, etc... Vmenkov19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Showing art/sculptures in public space/inner cities to a broader audience is in the interest of the (world wide) public, the artists and art in general. Restrictions by copyright or prohibition is contra-productive, except for those who use art and its exposition for purely commercial reasons. But ... the rules--Gerardus06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, please check the category for other potential candidates for deletion (regarding no FOP in the US) --Polarlys16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Permission regards the photographer, but not the owner of the logo of the party. Itf the logo should be free of right, it should be stated. --G.dallorto15:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean? The logo plays a very insignificant role in the photograph, and this should thus not be regarded as a derivate work of a copyrighted work, if that is what you mean. Either way, the Pirate Party states "No copyright" in the footer of their official site. – Elisson • T • C • 21:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok then, although from that page the status of the logo is not much clear, ther is no reason to be too prissy. I vote for keeping. I added myself this information to the image page. --G.dallorto16:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user prodeleter doesn´t included what appears clearly in the banner: Visit the deletion requests subpage, and place the following code: {{subst:delete2|image=Image:Piratpartiet demonstration.jpg|reason=Permission regards the photographer, but not the owner of the logo of the party --~~~~}} . And no date has been provided (2007-04-16). So, a bad work. Delete the deletion message now --Mac11:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Looking at this user's uploads, I think the user is the author (Alexandre Mirgorodski) himself, and just wants attribution for the website he photographed them for. Unless of course he sold the copyrights to the website, in which case we would need some kind of statement from them. Hopefully the user will respond here though to clarify. Carl Lindberg07:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Odder: CtC: no copyright tag added after warnings
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete213.192.75.2 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) An unfair treatmernt of the unit, gives misleading information.Sorry, that was me, but even after logging in I will not change my opinion :) Wpedzich19:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image incorporates Blu-ray Disc logo, for which use is restricted according to the license agreement. There would seem to be no point in keeping the image in the case of the logo's removal. Dancter19:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment The poster is an official publication by the Argentine authorities. What does argentine law say about such "Wanted" posters? Lupo08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These are derivatives of copyrighted non-free works. It has been asserted that Article 65 of Italian copyright law (Italian, English) would allow such derivatives, but that article contains limitations on the use of these derivative works and the amount of unlicensed material which make it roughly equivalent to fair use—which, as recently made clear in foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, isn’t accepted on Commons. Effectively, these images are unsuitable here and should be deleted or moved to projects in which they can be used under those projects’ EDPs. —xyzzyn14:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the right to reproduce "current event" means it's not illegal right now (or during the elections), but it won't be the case in the long term, where it will only be a "fair use" case. Michelet-密是力06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Giovanni, FoP can also apply to two-dimensional works. In this case I don't see how it can be invoked: even though the poster will probably live its whole life glued to that bin, it can hardly be described as permanently located there. Neither does the poster strike me as incidental in the picture, so I'd say Delete. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's permanently there because there is no intention of ever taking it down... you would have to destroy it to remove it, like you say. Freedom of panorama (in the Swedish law as I read it) has no limitation of being "incidental" either; if a work is permanently in a public place then pictures of it are not derivative works. Carl Lindberg15:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning incidentalness, I thought you were refering to the notion in your last phrase. My mistake. Now, I still think the "permanence" required by Swedish FoP cannot be claimed for something which is in essence intended to last a very short time--which is one of the meanings of "temporary". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of panorama should apply to a panorama but as the title shows, the subject is not the panorama, it's the poster. This is a derivate work. --G.dallorto19:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I did read it. It says:
<quote>
Permanent vs temporal.
The exhibited objects must be exhibited in a permanent way. If a work is presented on a public place temporarily, one may be obliged to get the explicit permission to take its picture."<unquote>
How can a paper poster be "permanent"? Furthermore, I am not talking about "panoramas" meaning "landascapes": "freedom of panorama" applies to copyrighted items being caught incidentally in the shot while shooting a picture to another object or place which is not copyrighted (e.g. a work of art in the middle of a square, if it is the square the subject of the picture). This is not the our case, however, the subject being the poster, not the road. So this rule may not be invoked here. --G.dallorto19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning your first remark: yes, that's my point exactly. Re your second remark, FOP is not about objects incidentally caught in the landscape. Full FOP allows to take pictures of artworks, eg buildings, statues etc. as central motives. This is very clear in COM:FOP. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just have to say again, in my opinion it is permanent. It is not temporal, because it has been irreversibly glued to that trash can. You have to destroy it to take it down, and it can't be put up again somewhere else. If it is based on intent, then I disagree again -- the person who put it up intended it to be there permanently, or at least as long as possible. Someone else may take it down as part of a cleanup, but certainly not the person who put it up. If no one bothers, it could be there for years (utterly no idea on Swedish practice, if those tend to get removed quickly or not). (As for the phrase in my original post, I mainly meant that if the photo is a closeup to the point that it contains none of the public context at all, then it is tantamount to a straight copy of the original work and thus FoP may not cover it. That is not the case here.) Carl Lindberg00:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted (derivative work of copyrighted material, poster is not permanently installed, trash can not subject of the image) --ALE! ¿…?08:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I am the author of the photo, I does not understand why it should be removed. It's a building / seat of a French trade union : la CGT. Jamin09:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is ok (you are the author, you authorised it), is the CGT POSTER which is not. This is why I mentioned "derivative". We need a permission by CGT to keep it here. Or a picture of the building without the poster. --G.dallorto13:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the picture is CGT building, and the CGT poster is not "incidental" but a part of the image. The photographer intended to photograph CGT, not a street whatever. --G.dallorto15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Disagree on this one; the picture is of the hall as a whole and not a particular banner. In addition, whatever logos are there are very small and from a distorted perspective. KeepCarl Lindberg07:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not the hall, if you take the posters away, nothing is left (btw, what the heck is a nude man doing up there?). The hall is not portrayed, it is the posters in the hall that are portayed. --G.dallorto20:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you take the banners away, you have the ceiling area of an interesting interior space, and a statue (as you note). The individual logos (which would most often fall under trademark law, not copyright law) are so small here, with most detail not visible, that the photo does not qualify as a derivative work. Carl Lindberg00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, did you have a photo of a poster deleted? It certainly seems as though you are nominating every photo which even seems similar as a matter of retaliation. Some of them are problems to be sure, but the entire effort seems excessive. Carl Lindberg00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not talk about retaliation: I have better ways to waste my time than playing flames on Commons. This is a test. Since I have been told that "There is more than one rule for everything and there is no need to try to figure out everything under one rationale" I need to know which those "more-than-one rules" are (since they are written nowhere) and if the gay vs nongay contents is - perhaps - one of them. One of the pictures deleted was very similar to the Attac kiosk picture: an Arcigay kiosk in Bologna with a poster of theirs (with two boys kissing) in front of it. It was used in the Italian Wikipedia page "Arcigay". It was speedely deleted without me being warned, as derivative. When I asked why, in the undeletion page, I got no reply at all. I asked again in the Village pump and I was told: quote -- "If you think some other images are unauthorized derivative works you are free to tag them with {{derivative}} but please don't come here to accuse us of being homophobe. Regards" -- unquote. So testing the case was the only issue I was being left with. And here I am.
Now I am in the process of asking Arcigay for a written permission to upload my pictures again (which I admit could be the only road that can be followed in the future if we want to play by the rules... but what an unconvinient road!). But it will take time. However I feel that if the rule is that a written permission should be asked for any scene in which a political poster is featured to be uploaded, even when it is not the only subject of the image, as in my case, then all political posters should have such a permission -- not just the gay ones.
I am ready to adapt to the rules, scores of pictures of mine have been deleted without me objecting, since at the begininng of my cooperation with Commons some rules applying only on Commons but not in the real world were not evident to me: I had to learn. But here I think we are facing either a case of copyright paranoia, or a case of homophobic discrimination. In either cases, the situation needs fixing, and a CLEAR rule should be voted by all of us concerning ALL political posters of ANY kind, whether about allowing or deleting them. And perhaps a special policy being adopted for "Right-to-chronicle" in Commons. If you are interested in the matter, the discussion is here. Thanks. --G.dallorto16:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer then, yes you did ;-) The intersection of copyright, trademarks, personal rights, infinite national variations thereof, and commons rules makes for a confusing situation with a lot of gray area; it is inevitable that some mistakes are made. It does sound like your original photo may have been a mistake; at the very least it probably should not have been speedied. However, keep in mind that every deletion request causes several editors to spend time looking at each one, and editors on many wikis to possibly remove it from articles, so be careful about each one you nominate. I'll go peek at the more in-depth discussion... Carl Lindberg03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Hello, I don't really understand what's wrong with the picture. Is the problem about the licensing? CC-BY-SA seems allowed on Commons though? Azuosaka17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is that there is no proof that this is this licence that has to be used, the author of the picture wrote, on the link provided in the Source field : "pas de soucis pour utiliser les photos à condition que mon nom soit mentionné." which means "there's no problem to use the pictures if you mention my name". I assume that I asked him for using them on the Wikipedia first, but these projects are linked and this makes no difference for most of the internet users. Furthermore, maybe if I would ask for using on Commons he would not know what it is. I've seen too on the same board that all users, including the concerned photographer, are used to allow reusing of their pictures, anywhere it would be. Azuosaka10:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see any evidence of your right to publish these pictures on which copyright is owned by somebody else, under a CC license. Can you not see the words "I, the author of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:". They are plainly not true. William Avery09:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, I understood the problem. Should I include the author's name ( "{{self|cc-by-sa-2.5|author=Jean LECLERC}}" ) or {{Attribution}} tags instead? Azuosaka14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as I got no answer I decided to replace the CC-BY-SA by Attribution, and I did the same for all other pictures from this author I uploaded into the category « Transports urbains de Reims ». Considering this is the deletion request still justified? Azuosaka13:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you put a CC license tag on an image, the author should also explicitly have given permission to use, redistribute and modify under that specific license. Sure, you can use it on Wikipedia is not the same as I agree to license this image under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
You are surely right if what is produced by governmental agencies (such as the Police) in Canada is not copyrightable per se (I don't know Canadian law, I am Italian), but if this were the case, then you should kindly state the appropriate case in the licensing paragraph. --G.dallorto14:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, there has to be enough creativity involved for *anything* to be copyrighted. A simple few words with a solid-color background don't qualify, in my opinion. I think the logos at the bottom are incidental, but maybe they could be blotted out if that is a problem. Carl Lindberg15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, are you saying this is not copyrightable because it is governmental, it does not pass the "threshold of creativity", or both? Whatever the case, you should be so kind to explain this in the image's "Licensing" paragraph. However, this poster uses logos. and to logos do not apply the "creativity" criterion. --G.dallorto19:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Governmental work in Canada would be crown copyright, which has different rules than regular copyright but would still be restricted. I'm saying here that it does not pass the threshold of creativity. The logos at the bottom would be covered by trademark, but that is separate from copyright law. We would either put {{Trademarked}} on the image, or (in this case since they are pretty irrelevant to the photo) we could blot them out. Carl Lindberg00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you about Canadian law. But I don't want to get into the "threshold of creativity" matter, that when invoked can start trials that go on for decades. It is a rather thrny issue. I adapt to your proposal. I am not casting a vote pro or against since I did not make my mind in this case. --G.dallorto16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are atleast three things here that may pass the threshold of originality: 1) logo for police of Vancouver. 2) Some logos at the bottom. 3) The text. I would like to especially emphasize the text, for it may be that in Canada, like in some other countries, the threshold of originality is especially low for literary works. Samulili21:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I asked in the IRC channel to merge the categories Food_by_country and Cuisine_by_country since there existed several identical categories (i.e. Cuisine_of_foo and Food_from_foo). I moved all the images/articles/subcategories to Food_from_foo. --Ogre23:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't see where is the creativity in this banner, and I doubt there would be a copyright on it anyway. Yann14:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can recognise the event from it, it is creative. If you confuse it with scores of logos, it is not. Do you think it may not be distinguished from others? --G.dallorto19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this peace symbol is used by a lot of people for a lot of events. If you remove the text, it is not specific to this event. Regards, Yann19:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
the logo is surely not in the public domain. Apart from that, it is doubtful whether you can photograph such a logo in closed (public) space under the terms of freedom of panorama --ALE! ¿…?20:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion request withdrawn. (Image kept.) I missunderstood the description; I thought the logo was photographhed inside the SAP Arena. --ALE! ¿…?07:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The license clearly states that while it is from the Dutch Information Service, it may be downloaded and used without permission, so long as they are credited for it. So I don't know why on earth this would be thought a candidate for deletion. 87.210.41.12421:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC) (jeffpw on en.wikipedia)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete The painting, not the man, of course. Copyright goes with any work of art, it is not the result of a registration in an office, such as trademark is. Any drawing, unlees released under a free license, is copyrighted. --G.dallorto15:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there needs to be some backdrop to the actual situation here. The object depicted in the image is a political banner, used for a specific political activity. It is not an object for sale nor is the intention to keep the object for public display over time. It is a banner presented for that specific campaign event, and would be discarded afterwards. --Soman07:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the intention in use has no influence on copyright status. Furthermore, freedom of panorama applies to permanent installations only, and you say by yourself that this is a temporary one. Howeever, let's hear about the opinion of other wikipedians about this case before making our mind. Regards --G.dallorto11:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any type of art are copyrighted by the original artist. This is therefore non-free. BTW: Commons is not Wikipedia, so it is incorrect to say Wikipedians here. V60干什么？ · VContribs04:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Derivative of copyrighted non-free work. As the copryght explanation shows it can be only used by those affiliated with the organisation --G.dallorto12:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's a photo of a utility article (a flag). Now, if one took the logo and used that to produce a variant of it, that would surely be a derivative work. Furthermore, the logo itself is so simple that one may wonder whether it is even copyrightable at all. Maybe add {{Trademarked}} to indicate that the photo should not be used in ways that might be a trademark violation. Lupo15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, a logo can be very simple, and having cost a lot of money to be produced that simple, and still be trademarked. Some Italian political parties have logos that even simpler than this one. The it:Partito Pensionati has just the word "PENSIONATI" on a WHITE background. Yet, Wikipedia-Italy could not get the permission to use it. Therefore I would not be that confident in the "threshold of creativity" issue. This is not a painting, this is the logo of an organisation. You don't need to be artistically "creative" to trademark a logo. However, as I already wrote, I have a mixed mind about this very image (this is not the only subject, as in other cases I nominated, other insigna can be seen, including a flag of Euzkadi, and other people are visibile) so I shall not argument any further: let's keep it unless other Commoners vote differenty. --G.dallorto16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Lupo is voting against all proposals, just for the sake of it, but here the billboard is the subject of the image. We should understand the rules we should apply here, not make a blanket statement as Lupo is. This is silly. I think a picture as Image:StBernardCircleFood8May06.jpg might in fact fall under "freedom of panorama" provision as he says, but this is not the case here. The subject the photographer chose was CNT Barcelona, and this is the only subject of the picture. --G.dallorto15:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The photographed object is an office of CNT in Barcelona. The symbol of CNT is not cropped in any way, so that it could be used to identify logo in a non-free manner. --Soman14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not everything shown on a photo needs be a derivative work, I think. Here, these billboards serve more as generic examples of neon-lit advertisements. It's a pretty generic night scene, showing how Dundas Square looks at night. Furthermore, note that Dundas Square is in Toronto, Canada. Canada does have freedom of panorama. Lupo15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title was chosen to represent the fact that the square can be overwhelming in its commercialization of public space. -- Zanimum20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incidental, there is no other way to have an image of Yonge-Dundas Square, without showing incidental copywritten images. -- Zanimum20:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
If there's a problem with this image, it is not the logo, but the "image rights" of individuals.
I don't know of any jurisdiction that holds that an image of a whole scene that happens to contain some logos is a derivative work of the logo. For instance, the French Supreme Court ruled against the pretenses of some artists that wanted to charge money on postcards of a plaza in which they had placed some works of arts, on grounds that the postcards depict the plaza as a whole and not the work by itself. David.Monniaux
The image, beginning with the very title, depicts Attac. Not a street where Attac activists happened to stroll. The case you refer to has to do with the Freedom of panorama, which is another matter. You were not portraying a panorama in this picture, but a political group, and their logo, presumably copyrighted unless the opposite is proven. Sorry. You might be interested in the debate about somwhat similar matters here --G.dallorto14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The flags are not the main topic. The 2005 court decision is not based on freedom of panorama (which is not specified in any French law) but on a distinction between a whole scene and an element thereof. There is a big difference between a photo of people marching carrying a flag and a photo of just a single poster by itself. David.Monniaux22:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
If you want to know my political affiliation, I am a Communist and proud of being it. I am just nominating copyrighted logos and posters, including right-wing ones and commercial posters (as you saw by yourself). It is not my fault it the right can use TV and governmental offices and all the newspapers and the church (and copyright laws) to make their point of view known. I am just trying to find out which political posters, if any, are allowed on Commons. If you want to join the discussion, you find it here: Commons:Village_pump#Posters_of_political_activities. --G.dallorto15:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a strong position on this. Freedom of panorama clause might apply, since it could be stated that the subject is the political action, whoever was present to it. But I am not certain. This is why I nominated it. --G.dallorto15:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry, I hadn't meant that comment to imply anything about your motives. I realize now that I had phrased it badly. I apologize. What I really meant was "most of these posters are from left organizations; aren't there any of "right" organizations?" Lupo15:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the images listed for deletion here are from right-wing a far-right Italian parties. One of the two gay-themed posters of mine that were deleted was from a neofascist group saying that all gay people are paedophiles. It was used in the "homophobia" entry on the Italian wikipedia. But I am not objecting on this case (rather, on the other one) since this one meets the conception of "derivative" work according with wikipedia rules: it was a close-up of the poster, so... However, there must be a way to document with an image a political event! Why is Commons not capable (or willing) to find it? --G.dallorto17:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I uploaded this image from Flick, where it was taggedd CC-by-2.0. The image includes a non-free work. Is that enough to make it a derivative? The copyrighted work is not seen head-on, and is not the only component to the image, though the image would be useless without the non-free work being included. I will go along with what others decide on this matter. Johntex23:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes it is. "Derivative" is when you derive an image from another one. In this case, being an advertisement, a copyrighted one. Copyright does not cover the logo alone, but the whole of the image going with it. --User:G.dallorto10:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware copyright covers the entire advertisement. What is a judgement call is whether the advertisement composes enough of the image or not. Johntex23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
A source proving the non-copyrighted status of this image is necessary. The person uploading it under a free license is not the author. --G.dallorto12:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ouch. Derivative work of the Coca-Cola logo, itself maybe fine as a "parody", but I'm not sure. Lupo08:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the paradoy per se (in my opinion this is allowed, as any other legitimate parody is), but the author of the parody per se. In the text there is no mention of him/her, nor of her/his permission to upload the image. --User:G.dallorto11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I had a look but did not find much to help. There is a similar image (same concept, cleaner execution) which is copyrighted sold by bureaucrash.com. Note the differences in the C and S especially. But the version here - I am completely unable find an author. This version is the type most seen replicated on MySpace pages, blogs, etc. Outside of personal webpages, I haven't seen it. ~Switcht15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(I uploaded this image to commons because I thought the plantilla {{PD-stamp}} in the English Wikipedia was also accepted here. It isn't, so now I request its deletion, thanks. ) --Javier Carro14:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't know of any jurisdiction that holds that an image of a whole scene that happens to contain some logos is a derivative work of the logo. For instance, the French Supreme Court ruled against the pretenses of some artists that wanted to charge money on postcards of a plaza in which they had placed some works of arts, on grounds that the postcards depict the plaza as a whole and not the work by itself. David.Monniaux
The image, beginning with the very title, depicts Attac. Not a street where Attac activists happened to stroll. The case you refer to has to do with the Freedom of panorama, which is another matter. You were not portraying a panorama in this picture, but a political group, and their logo, presumably copyrighted unless the opposite is proven. Sorry. You might be interested in the debate about somwhat similar matters here --G.dallorto14:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a journalist, I am editor in chief of a magazine, and I have to deal with copyright issues every day. Is this enough for you? As for you, have you any? I would say not, so please stop personal attacks. This is not the right place, ok? --G.dallorto15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The logo is featured eminently in the shot, and is therefore one of the subjects of the photo. Would the photo mean the same if we deleted the logo? If not, then the logo is a subject of the image. --G.dallorto19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I have not a strong point of view about outside activities, in this case the logo is featured as an essential part of the picture. It is not, therefore, "incidental". --G.dallorto15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is incidental insofar as the image was taken at a demonstration on public ground. At demos, people have all sorts of flags and posters, and if some of them get onto a photograph, that's incidental. In my view, this picture shows the %attac stall as a whole. And the poster isn't even fully visible, the right side is obscured by the woman in the foreground ;-) (I know, just barely.) Maybe tag with {{Trademarked}}, though. Lupo16:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me understand, then. Therefore is a tradermaked image is intentionally shown at a public demonstration we have the right to photograph it and to upload it in WikiCommons? Copyright should be valid regardless of the public or private display of the logo. --G.dallorto16:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example of a photograph which would be reduced to a black square
A mere reproduction of a logo, trademark or piece of art is forbidden. If it is a part of a phtograph, it is not. Else, on street photos, we should remove all faces, car plates, car trademarks, publicities, street plates, neons, newspapers, everything. And it is not the case. Rama18:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rama, I agree with your general rule, but we are not talking about a street demonstration. This is a detail focusing on the group of people and their logo. The image you propose, depicts a demonstration, and the demonstration is the subject of the picture, the logo behind might be deleted without changing the meaning of the picture of an inch. However, in this case, if we deleted the poster by Attac or their logo alone the image would become meaningless. It would be another thing, it would be "picnic in a park". The logo is an essential part in the meaning of the image. This is therefore a different case. Don't you agree? --G.dallorto14:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"faucheurs volontaires"
No, I do not. These demonstrators could be brandishing anything significant, you'd have basically the same photograph: demonstrators doing something characteristic of what demonstrators of this movement do. I hope you'll forgive me for exhibitting another image as example, but the photograph of the so-called "faucheurs volontaires" is a good example of a similar case : the subject is protesting, in a way which is significant of his particular political lunacy, and only the entirety of the setting is significant. And since the plant that the vandal is brandishing is GMO, it is probably copyrighted as well :) Rama16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok showing examples, this helps in making one's point. However, excuse me, GM plants may be patented, not copyrighted. It is a different concept, and a different set of laws, therefore your exemple does not apply.
As per our case, if what you say were true, to make a copyrightd object freely available it would be sufficient to brandish it during an activist demonstration, and since "demonstrators could be brandishing anything significant", I could brandish anything and goodbye copyright laws... I wish it were true (sigh). Unfortunately, you know it is not... --G.dallorto11:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you cropped David's image to only Attac's logo, the resulting image would not be free. Not because of David's licence, but because of Attac's copyright on the logo.
It is a mistake to think that because a Free licence allows you to modify an image, any resulting image will also automatically be Free. Similarly Free images are available to any purpose, but you cannot be used for libel, not because of the licence of the image, but because of other laws. Rama07:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Lupo is voting against all proposals, just for the sake of it, but here the billboard is the subject of the image. We should understand the rules we should apply here, not make a blanket statement as Lupo is. This is silly. I think a picture as Image:StBernardCircleFood8May06.jpg might in fact fall under "freedom of panorama" provision as he says, but this is not the case here. The subject the photographer took was CGT, and this is the only subject of the picture. --G.dallorto15:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lupo. The sign is not the main subject of the image. It can probably not be cropped and relicensed under the same license and/or be used for all purposes, but that's not an issue with this image, is it? Siebrand15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well I happen to be the author of this work of art. I have released all copyrights. I honestly do not get the point of this discussion.
Keep Since there seem to be a consensus on the fact that this image is a legitimate display under the Freedom of Panorama conception, I would place a {{FOP}} template, cancel my previous deletion request, and close this discussion, by keeping the image. --User:G.dallorto21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is my photograph of a well known local supermarket in New Orleans that was flooded in the aftermath of Katrina. I was not aware of the billboard (which I assume is what is being objected to?) while photographing, and it is not the main subject of the photo. Perhaps I should crop the upper part of the photo to get rid of most of the billboard and reupload that? Thoughts? -- Infrogmation15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps in this case the "freedom of panorama" clause could be invoked. But if you have an edited version without the poster, since the subject you were portraying was the supermarket, I think there should be no problem, then. --G.dallorto19:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The billboard is attached to the roof of the building. I don't have an edited version of my photo, but I could download it, crop off the top section (including most of the billboard) and reupload it. I will do so if that's what I need to do, or what would be wise or prudent to do, to avoid copyright problem with my photo. Feedback and suggestions from others welcome. -- Infrogmation21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone other than G.dallorto thinks I should crop the image, I will. Otherwise, I will go by Lupo's opinion below and leave it be. -- Infrogmation02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a lot of discussione about freedom of panorama in the "village pump" page. After it I think it might qualify for it, since the Usa legislation does admit it. --User:G.dallorto - 10:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Yes I am the uploader. But as I repeated again and again, if the rule is that no posters may be uploaded on Commons, then I was wrong in uploading it. So I agree that it must be deleted. What's strange in this? --G.dallorto14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why is the poster not copyrightable? Even if it itself isn't a work of art, the text can be copyrighted as a literary work which makes the photo a derivative of a copyrighted work. Yonatantalk01:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, text can be copyrighted -- but slogans and short bits of text wouldn't usually qualify either. I'm not Italian so I can't read the poster, but I would be surprised if that amount qualified as a literary work. Carl Lindberg03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text is a satyrical one, and it is in his own weird way "creative". "The pope is all the time on TV. Immediate effects: we got to balls that big" (which is parlance way to say "we are fed up with it"). "Scaring: it happens to children too!" Does it qualify as "creative"? --G.dallorto14:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Mmhhh... the inclusion is not incidental at all, as the title shows it was the billboard that the photographer wanted to reproduce. But on the other hand I doubt this "poster" might meet the "threshold of originality" criterion, so perhaps this picture might stay after all... --G.dallorto15:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless there is any evidence that this is a copyright infringement. Billboard visible is not of commercial business, corporate product, nor a creative original design.-- Infrogmation22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'd like a more detailed legal opinion on this, if possible, before deleting. For example, does this qualify as a derivative of a copyrighted nonfree work because it has the Coca-Cola logo on it? What constitutes a derivative work of a billboard? When the billboard constitutes 50% or greater of the image? 75%? Dysprosia11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All images of this category must be deleted, since the author died only in 1950 and Italy has no "freedom of panorama" clause in its copyright laws. --G.dallorto21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I beg to differ. If I had wanted to take a picture of that poster, I'd have done a close-up. (But I'm not the photographer, so I don't know what he thought :-) In this image, you could "think away" the poster and still have a useful picture of the French countryside. Thus my evaluation given above. Lupo16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I did myself the photo. So the photo is not a derivative from any other work. This is a photo of an office, connected to a political party in Italy, that was burnt during a riot in Milan. This image is used in an article, on the Italian Wikinews, that speaks about the riot. The logo of the party appears into the photo because someone of that party has chosen to put, after the riot, on a public accessible side of the building a banner with that logo (so that it would be even impossible to me to make a photo without it), and if the photo is cut in such a way that the logo, the photo would became meaningless. Italy has right of information so that an image or a citation can be made when it is need to make information. I reverse the conclusion of G.dallorto, and I conclude that the logo should be kept into the picture just because it is not incidental (if it were incidental it could be taken away or cut). -- AnyFile09:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I do thing that such a logo can be considerate artistic. The electoral law in Italy protect it in such a way that nobody else can use it to represent any other party in the same election (and in some case in other election), but in that law no provision as given about intellectual right. If it were forbidden to reproduce the logo, it could not even be reproduce on the electoral poster and voting card. -- AnyFile09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "derivative" did not refer to the photo, which is yours, but to the copyrighted logo appearing in it. So it is a different thing.
I am just discussing the "freedom of information thing on Commons", but I was told it does not apply here. You may want to join the debate here.. I'll appreciate your contribution.
As for the use of copyrighted logo in political campaigns, it is obvious that the owner of the logo may! But nobody else may. Rifondazione comunista had to create a new logo after the PCI threw it away because they refused to waive it to them. The logo of the Partito Radicale is personally owned by Marco Pannella, who is no longer allowing socialists to use it after they split. And so on. You must have read about such facts in the news.
As for the use of such logos in Wikipedia, I am afraid the Italian wikipedia had to ask party by party the permission to use their logos in the articles devoted to them. Those who did not give the permission yet, are used under the "fair use" clause, which is not admitted on Commons. A special template is used to mark the logo that are used under authorisation: {{Logo partito}}. Authorized logos are listed [Categoria:Immagini_logo_partiti_autorizzati here]. Alleanza Nazionale is not among them. Sorry, it's not my fault. --G.dallorto14:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have upload the image to the local Italian Wikinews for use in the article (where I hope it can be consider under "freedom of information"). It is rather difficult for me to understand regulation and law about copyright of image (for instance I can not understand why if someone make a photo of a toy the copyright if of the producer of the toy, but if a photographer make a photo of an human person wearing some clothes, the copyright is of the photographer and the human model has no right at all). Since it is better to be safe than sorry, the image here can be delete, but I can not understand what can be for sure published here. For instance wouldn't be the same problem (or even worse problem) present in photograph of a person? -- AnyFile12:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(rientro) Absolutely yes. You may not publish the image of a persone without his/her consent, unless s/he is a "public figure" (actor, singer, politician...) or unless the person enters by mere chance the image (e.g., passers-by while shooting the picture of a monument). In any other case, a model release is requested. Without it, the photographer has no right of publication on the image. (the reverse being true: model owns no copyright on the images even if s/he is he subject portrayed in them).
--G.dallorto17:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSo if I put some my copyrighted non-free work near places/things that I dont' want that anoyone can take photos of them, no one can take photos? Very interesting ... someone may would like to put some his onwn copyrighterd non-free work naer his car's license plate , just to avoid the use of autovelox's photos (in Italy: photographs taken by -myabe hidden- camera to fine exceding the speed limit) ;-)
Also I wonder what would happend if someone had passed in front of the camera taking this photo, wearing a cloth with a logo viewable on it. --82.52.71.20923:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept: Incidental inclusion. The logo is not the main subject of the picture. However if people think that this half cut-off logo is a copyright violation, the image can still be cropped. I don't think that is necessary. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Yes, I confirm. Just before the first partly free elections in Eastern Europe (June 4th, 1989), many people (actors, musicans, designers etc.) in Poland gave their works just for free use. This poster is one of these works. Julo14:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Piotrus, though I'm sure Julo is right on this one[62]. Also note that Sarnecki's work was in fact a re-make of a much earlier poster, made by Marian Stachurski in 1959[63]. Halibutt06:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julo. This request is a particularly annoying case of copyright paranioa. This well-known poster is by now a historical source. It was created under revolutionary circumstances for an idealistic purpose (Solidarity's election campaign) and was certainly never intended as a copyrighted work of art, let alone for commercial use (quite apart from the fact that the notion of "copyright" was rather alien to pre-1989 Polish realities). --Thorsten118:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but with some probability, you are a bit too young to lecture anyone on life pre-1989... ;) A significant part of the pre-1989 Polish counter-culture was the so-called drugi obieg - a vast market of cheap prints or photocopied editions of works that didn't pass official censorship. These included works by Polish scholars as well as unauthorized translations and editions of foreign authors like Orwell, Norman Davies, even East German dissidents etc. No one really cared about copyright in this underground culture. Apart from that, artists like the creator of this poster tried hard to promote a political cause, and not to earn roalties. If it had already existed back then (and if they had cared), they would probably have released their works under some GPL... ;) Copyright should protect the interests of the authors, and not be an end in itself. --Thorsten109:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Derivative of copyrighted non-free work. --G.dallorto13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid copyright laws are retroactive, and can put automatically under copyright something that originally was not. For instance, the Russian laws on copyright put under copyright DECADES of URSS production which had been produced under no-copyright laws. And Poland is now a part of the EU, where European rules apply. Retroactively.[reply]
For instance, Italy had a law saying that copyright on non-artistic images elapsed after 20 years. A template, PD-Italy, was created for such images. But this template was discarded by Commons users, as EU laws were considered as superseding Italian ones. Now if you put this template under a picture, a copyviol page appears.
I think here the same case applies, even if this is a historical image. Unless the authors waive it, it cannot stay here under the very strict terms (much stricter than those allowed by copyright laws in the real world) freely chosen by Commons. Either we change these terms (which I favour), or the image must go.
To Thorsten1 I reply this IS copyright paranoia, but it not caused by copyright laws, but by licensing terms freely and deliberately chosen by Commons. Rights must infact be granted about modifying in ANY way the images, and the original author might disagree about a modification putting, say, Walesa as a sheriff istead. And in this case he would be entitled to sue, if he so pleases. Therefore we need his waiver. Or we need to change licensing terms in Commons, introducing a new category for "historically significant" documents NOT allowing "derivate" retouching: a historical document is meaningful when it is ORIGINAL, in fact. So why we need "derivative" works to be allowed to fabricate a new one? --G.dallorto13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In copyright laws, retro agitur, sorry. Some works that were in the PD under the old "death date plus 50 years" rule, have been copyrighted again for "death date plus 70 years" with the new European laws. And Poland joined the EU, if you did not notice this fact. Secondly, if this work of art was really released into the PD by author it would suffice to quote the place where such releas was done to solve the problem. Please do it and let's close the discussion. (BTW, who is the author? How can you quote his decision without even naming him?) --G.dallorto22:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, according User:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus opinion: first I put there {PD-Polish} template, but User:A.J. (the same guy, who votes for deletion here) changed it in this edition. In my opinion, the proper template is {PD-Polish}, because this poster was printed in plenty places and plenty newspapers in 1989 and 1990 Julo11:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
out of project scope, no real explanation as to why the image is under the GFDL (the username can't be owned by both Caitlin and Megan) -- Yonatantalk02:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
creator has the same name as the watermark but it's very possible he doesn't own the copyright to the picture (and even if he does, the original photo of the model which this image is a derivative of, probably isn't free) -- Yonatantalk02:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep That's the case for any FOP. But we are concerned only about the photographer's copyright, which has been released under GFDL. Virtual NC caused by the copyright of the sculpture itself is as irrelevant here as virtual NC caused by personality rights. --Rtc13:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This photographs are not reproductions of paintings, but a testimony of an event (an exhibition) in a public place in France. The death of the author of the paintings wouldn't change much as, in the french law anyways, the works goes to public domain 75 years after the death of the person. But how clear is that case ? And is the outside view of the art center clearly more "free" than the inside ? I'm not sure of that at all : the author of the building has not been dead for 75 years either ! So the question is : how much of a public art exhibition can we show ? If the answer is : not an inch, well, there will be a lot to delete on commons ! Jean-no22:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speeedy! Highly dangerous to have any photo at commons that shows a work of living professional artists. --13:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It's really hard for me to raise this issue, because I believe in Jesus as Son of God, who full of mercy... But legally, both pictures by Kazimirowski (d. 1939) and Hyła (created: 1944) are not in public domain.
One can think, that their authors would like them to be copied and distributed, but what about derivative works?
There is not a copyviol because the image is not covered by any copyright.
The images have been painted in Poland by Polish authors and they fall under the Polish law, that allows 50 years of copyright by the date they have produced just if the author has requested so!!
I know Polish law quite well and it grants 70 year protection. I haven't already seen any reason againts that. A.J.08:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to the "Santuario della Divina Misericordia" (Divine Mercy Church} in Rome, responsible for info and diffusion of the devotion to the Divine Mercy, that includes the Divine Mercy images (you can check their website: http://www.divinamisericordia.it/ it's only in italian, sorry), and they replied that the image is not covered by any copyright. I can copy and paste the email I received but it is in italian, too.
Agree per User:Gipsy. The image should be considered in public domain. Gipsy should inform/post the email conversation first. Deletion can be waited until then.--Anupamsr11:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please copy/paste it here: someone could provide English translation. "Can be reproduced freerly" is not the same thing as "not covered by any copyright". Is Santuario della Divina Misericordia copyright holder? We may put {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} if they confirm that. A.J.08:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hereby paste the email received:
"Spett.le Sig.ra ,
l'Immagine non è tutelata da Copyright.
Grazie per aver chiesto,
_________________________________
Santuario della Divina Misericordia
Chiesa Santo Spirito in Sassia
Via dei Penitenzieri 12
00193 - Roma
tel: 06/6879310
fax: 06/6833445
www.divinamisericordia.it
-----Messaggio originale-----
Inviato: martedì 17 aprile 2007 21.40
A: santuario@divinamisericordia.it
Oggetto: copyright immagine
Gentili Signori,
vorrei sapere, se possibile, se la riproduzione del dipinto
dell'immagine della Divina Misericordia e' coperta da copyright. Poiche'
e' un dipinto effettuato in Polonia e non conoscendo le leggi polacche
in merito, mi rivolgo a voi per saperlo.
Spero che possiate aiutarmi.
Cordiali saluti"
--[[User:Gipsy|Gipsy]] 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm still waiting for legal arguments. It's hard to belive in {{PD-because|Santuario della Divina Misericordia says so}} because Polish copyright law says otherwise... A.J.13:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead the images should be delete because A.J. says so, if you know so well the Polish law you could also mention of which law (article number, year and translated quote) you are speaking about, perhaps. But it was already clear to me that you do not want to change your mind. Good luck to the people that try to contribute fairly and honestly, without prejudice and arrogance. Bye --Gipsy19:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I'm sure their author would have nothing against keeping them here, but law is law... I started this discussion not to delete this images, but instead: try to find a strong, legal base for keeping them.
Art. 36.
Z zastrzeżeniem wyjątków przewidzianych w ustawie, autorskie prawa majątkowe gasną z upływem lat siedemdziesięciu[66]:
1) od śmierci twórcy, a do utworów współautorskich - od śmierci współtwórcy, który przeżył pozostałych,
So, according to Polish copyright, these images are not in PD. The only way I can see for them is proving, that they are out of Polish jurisdiction. First painting by Kazimirowski was created and published in Vilnus (Lithuania) in 1934. What jurisdiction were there then? De facto Polish, but legal base for that is controversial en:Republic of Central Lithuania. A.J.20:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to contact Sanctuary of Divine Mercy in Kraków-Łagiewniki: they are owners of Hyła's image, they should know legal status of their property, and maybe also original painting by Kazimirowski. A.J.18:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it for the time being, there's no need to rush. Obviously, santuario@divinamisericordia.it may be able to say who is legally responsible of the copyright, and the question can then be asked if the licence is OK. Chances are they will be PD before the case is settled, though ... Michelet-密是力06:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted sister Elisabeth (Name: Maria Elżbieta Siepak) from Zgromadzenie Sióstr Matki Bożej Miłosierdzia (Sisters of God's Mother of Mercy Convent, http://www.sanktuarium.krakow.pl/polski/r02.html) and got the following information:
Hyła's painting is not in public domain, Hyła himself (d. 1968) passed copyright to the convent by agreement confirmed in notary public office.
Their mission is protecting cult of Divine Mercy: therefore they grant licenses only on verbatim copies and would never allow derivative works.
With great sorrow I'm deleting Hyłas image and it's copies immediately.
I'll try to contact also Sisters of Merciful Jesus (keepers of Kazimirowski image), but I don't expect different ending.
pl:Archdiocese of Vilnius doe's not replay emails, Warsaw is not willing to help... One may try phone calls, but from my exprerience Catholic Church uses copyright law to protect holy pictures. So I'm going to delete this picture. Don't worry: I'm going to reupload it on January 1st, 2010 :) A.J.14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Should we try to contact the District Councils to confirm copyright status of these logos? Some people always forget about the importance of copyright status when creating these things. --Raphaelmak03:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we find Vector graphics editors to recreate those images in SVG form? Since those images used frequently in Chinese Wikipedia. I did not know the using condition in other version of Wikipedia. But I think those images will be used in the articles about district councils frequently.--J.Wong12:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I understand that the picture is a part of a promotional picture from 1932, and according to Swedish transitional law (regarding images created before 1969), it is in the Public domain. Camptown22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I do not fully understand the difference between fotografiska verk and fotografiska bilder; perhaps you could explain it better. Anyway, do we have documentation that this is indeed part of a press release not a screenshot from the film?--Pharos03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I'm not sure about this, so I've nominated it anyway to get some input. This image is a raytraced rendering of a 3D scene (not a photo) which incorporates a copyrighted/trademarked logo. As the logo isn't an essential part of the subject (i.e. it's not illustrating a real object, like a photo would) and it's not an incidental inclusion that happens to be part of a scene, I'm tending to think that including it might make the image a derivative work. Can someone knowledgeable about trademark/copyright policy comment on this? Is there any precedent on what should be done in such cases? Yummifruitbat00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell Mehran. But are you sure this has a problem with copy right? But do as you think is best as you have more experience with these things. --Arad01:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A definite violation of Stella Artois's copyright in their logo. It's not just incidental, either: the creater has spent some considerable effort making an exact copy of their copyright work. A substantial part of the copyright work (ie the logo) has been taken; it doesn't matter that it's quite small in the resulting image. --MichaelMaggs15:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then this is also a violation of copyright.
No, it isn't. That's a photograph of an actual bottle of Stella Artois. What Mehran has done is incorporated a copyrighted logo in a piece of original artwork, which isn't an illustration of an actual item of Stella Artois merchandise but rather an illustration of some glasses which he has chosen to decorate with the logo. That's not the same as just taking a photo of something, and it makes it a derivative work and thus impermissible on Commons. Seriously, just ask him to re-render it with a different logo or marking which doesn't violate anyone's copyright. This isn't among the best of his images anyway, so we won't be losing all that much even if it's deleted and not replaced. --Yummifruitbat15:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to find out how old this Stella Artois logo is. And I could not find information on that. Could it be that it is PD-old? --ALE! ¿…?11:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a border case. The logo is not shown entirely, but even if it was {{Trademarked}} would solve most of the problem. In addition I can not see a real difference in taking a photo of an object with copyrighted material on it or redoing it with a rendering programme. If we delete this image we might have to delete also most bottle images in Category:Beers by country. So I close this discussion now and keep the image. If someone has a different opnion, then please open a new request including all images of bottles, cars, etc.. --ALE! ¿…?11:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image was uploaded in 2004 for which the license terms of the website at time may have been the license we stated. I would equate this to a flickr review that failed, but since the image is over 2 years old, we can't know if the license was recently changed or not. MECU≈talk17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It says Landsat right on the image itself. Some Landsat imagery is PD, but much is not - without source details, this should be assumed to be non-free. --Davepape00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image is taken from this site (image) and while the source information is unclear, there is no indication that the image is free. --Ytoyoda04:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep, surprisingly. This is an (almost) exact copy of a living individual, and as such has no originality which could support a claim to copyright. No matter how much effort was put into making the model, it's only if there is originality that copyright can subsist. Besides, it would seem this is on permanent display in the UK in a place to which the public has acess (albeit for a fee), and hence COM:FOP applies. --MichaelMaggs16:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course it has the sufficient originality for a work of art. In fact it has as much originality as it can get. In contrast to Image:Malewitsch.jpg, which had only a weak copyright (but is now in the public domain completely due to expired copyright), it enjoys full protection. FOP doesn't apply, since it is not public access that matters, but whether it's placed permanently on public streets and places. --Rtc13:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. It is an exact copy of something (a person) which does not in itself attract copyright, and hence the copy is not legally original. Also, the UK has full FOP for sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship (if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public): see Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988. --MichaelMaggs17:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously. But that's cleary a fallacy, since all the expression, pose etc. is pure creativity. Creating a sculpture of a human cannot be compared to copying an existing sculpture. --rtc12:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rtc is, IMHO, quite right as regards the originality of the work; I am inclined to think that, for the reasons he sets out, it is legally artistic and original. Nevertheless, FOP would seem to entail here, principally because, pace Rtc, premises open to the public need not, I think, to be a public place or street (i.e., property owned by the state) or even a broad place of public accommodation, but, rather, may be any place that is publicly accessible; whilst a fee is charged for entry into Madame Toussaud's, a private entity, such fee does not render the museum as inaccessible (under such interpretation, FOP would not be seen as attaching to any sculpture in any non-government owned facility, which is plainly not the understanding of FOP that would seem to prevail in the UK, where works at privately-owned galleries that are open to the public are, I believe, understood as eligible for FOP use). My only concern is that the Roberts model may not be permanently situated at the wax museum, but someone better acquainted with the issue than I might be able to shed some light on that. In any event, unless I'm missing something, the ultimate disposition of this image ought also to control those of the other files comprised by Category:Wax museum of Tussauds. Jahiegel04:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted derivative work. Sculptures are surely even more "creative and original" than photos and freedom of panorama does not work inside museum. A.J.15:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tokyo Hibiya Park Godzilla of a photograph. I can use the thing that I took a Godzilla photograph installed in a park in Japanese Copyright Act freely. Please read a Japanese reference link（Japanese-Copyright Act Japan Copyright Office）[69],[70]--Kici 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)--Kici15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the copyvio claim made by Yonatan is false. Article 46 of the Copyright Law of Japan states: "It shall be permissible to exploit artistic works permanently located in such open places as mentioned in paragraph (2) of the preceding Article..." and where Article 45 (the preceding Article) paragraph (2) defines open places as: "open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings."[71]
Thank you for providing me the link, but in my opinion, the よくある質問 page you provided me is somewhat incorrect and contradicts with the page it is linking to. Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan says " commercial or non-commercial nature of the use is usually not the decisive factor in determining its legality." Uploading to the Commons does not meet the criteria in which reproduction is prohibited, as the FOP page says. Yes, if somebody creates a reproduction from the Commons image to sell the image, then that's copyright infringement. But if the reproduction is not for the exclusive purpose of selling it, there is no problem to it; including the image in an encyclopedia and selling the encyclopedia (not the image only!) is still legal. We may need a new template to describe that though.
日本語: 情報提供ありがとうございます。ですが示していただいたページはそこからリンクされているページ Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan の記述と矛盾するようでして、その「よくある質問」を記述した人が誤解して記述された可能性はありませんか？法律上も商用・非商用という区別で禁止されているわけではなく、質問ページの記述には疑問を覚えます。まずコモンズにアップロードするところまでは第46条の例外規定に合致しません。そこから例えばゴジラ像の画像のみを複製して販売すれば問題ですが、例えば百科事典に挿入してそれを販売するという行為は「専ら美術の著作物の複製物の販売を目的として複製し」ているとは考えにくいのですが、いかがでしょう？
Not untrue, but Wikimedia Commons is not a encyclopedia and doesn't allow fair use. If I sell gallery pages that contain those statues, the court won't favore me. It seems someone revised Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Japan without arguments and sources. I'll check it latter.
It seems to me that the Japanese Cp. Law does not allow the copyright holder to exercise the work's copyright in the first place if it is permanently in an open space; fair use does not have anything to do with this. I've commented because I have seen a deletion request turned down under Article 46 at jawp, and since whether the Japanese law allow FOP is debated here, I thought it might be relevavnt.
Your view about Japanese copyright law is rather dubious. See this case. In 2001, Tokyo Distinct Court stated 46(4) was "established as an exception of main article of the 46th, which grants freedom of panorama to avoid restricting behavior of people extremely and to respect social practices and will of authors; The 46th may hurt copyright-holders' commercial profits strikingly if it grants freedom of reproducing artistic works exclusively for the purpose of selling."
その解釈はちょっと疑わしいです。東京地方裁判所は2001年の裁判で、「法46条柱書が，前記のとおり，一般人の行動に対する過度の制約の回避，社会的慣行の尊重及び著作者の合理的意思等を考慮して，一般人の著作物の利用を自由としたことに対して，仮に，専ら複製物の販売を目的として複製する行為についてまで，著作物の利用を自由にした場合には，著作権者に対する著しい経済的不利益を与えることになりかねないため，法46条柱書の原則に対する例外を設けたものである」と判示しています。--Kareha18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English: I think this work has no problem except of licensing "Public domain". The Chapter 46 of Japanese Copyright law is providing what is able to take a photo and use it with a statue showing on open space. And in this case Copyright law of Japan are applied for it naturally because it taken in Japan by Japanese user and the statue made in Japan.
English: As mentioned above, in this case anyone is able to reuse this work irrespective of commercial/non-commercial use under the Japanese Copyright law, except for reproducing same statue. {{cc-by-sa-2.1-jp}}/{{GFDL}} is able to accept this regulation, but {{PD-self}} is not.
English: If your claim is accepted, I find same case, e.g. buildings, signs, railway and automotive vehicles, industrial productions and others under the Japanese Copyright law. Is your standard applicable to above ones?
結論から申しますと、Kareha さんの見解はいわゆる dual standard になってしまいかねないように思われました。
まずは、再三にわたり回答済みですが、私は、この写真は著作権法46条の規定により彫刻を複製する場合の外は二次利用可能だと考えています。ただし Kareha さんが度々心配されているような写真単体をただ販売する行為については、たしかに不正競争防止法の観点などから問題視されることになるかもしれませんが、本写真は cc 日本国法準拠により提供されていることを鑑みればそうした利用を包括的に認める規定ではないことが明らかであることから、問題はないと考えられます。
逆に、Kareha さんの仰るように写真の単体販売が際限なく可能か否かでのみで判断するのなら、建築物や工業デザイン、仮想キャラクター以外の彫刻などを撮影した写真も、やはり問題になる場合がありそうに思えます。
English: Please see my comments as mentioned above, this photo can use for commercial and non-commercial use under the Japanese Copyright law and {{cc-by-sa-2.1-jp}}.
And, if your standard "Then can I sell them? " is approved, I think similarly to buildings and other commercial materials.
English: I can't understand of your standard. I think about your standard is not clear. I think that is too difficult, and it may be not able to apply universally.
Please note: I would like to delete this image soon, because there FOP in Japan is only for non-commercial use. Is there any opposition? If so, please write it in some language I understand (preferably English). --ALE! ¿…?12:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Both images show different stuff, since the one marked for deletion is much older it should be kept for historical reasons to show how the area was cleaned up. Lcarsdata20:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the "low quality" one is better since the lighting shows more information. But, I don't think either should be deleted. Further, TomKidd is the author of the "better" one. MECU≈talk20:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This photo is not suitable for educational purposes and for an encyclopedia. It's too pornographic, not "medical", like as it should be. --Mascobado15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, no educational purpose (human anatomy, proctology) indicated, more suitable pictures for this purposes exist. --Polarlys13:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I am the painter of these 3 pictures. This had been logos of my old homepage. The problem was: a member of the wikibooks.DE had uploaded these picture form my old homepage, in order to help me a little by the first steps as an author. So far no problems. But these 3 pictures are logos. These are special designed for the guitar-school and shall not be use for any outer things but the wikibooks guitar. With the rights and with the memory place on the commons it cannot be managed. In order to say it completely clearly: for the three pictures exist no rights and no permission (for the commons), because I as the author of the pictures did not entitle the upload of these pictures. I never gave the rights for the Commons. I hope this was clear enough! --Mjchael12:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3000x1982 is higher resolution than even HDTV. Based on some of the noise and the 3x2 aspect ratio, it looks more like a scanned photograph or slide. Tagging it {{Nsd}} should be sufficient, though. --Davepape02:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the photo has some dust and other imperfections strongly implying that this is a scanned film frame. And the uploader Siri Iversen sounds Norwegian. So keep this for now and ask the uploader to properly tag the image. 85.131.21.1508:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the photo as "No license" and notified the uploader. Without uploader action, this photo may be deleted 7 days from now. Thuresson00:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Source page does not give author or date of creation/publication. Uploader states it's "obviously over 70 years old" but there is no such evidence. -- howcheng {chat}23:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im going to liscence it under a different tag. It should be under copyright of US government because it was found on a Us government site. Am I correct Howcheng? --Sevenfoldoops01:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything on a U.S. Federal goverment website is necessarily created by Federal government employees. More to the point, though, the source given is a newspaper article on a site only partially operated by the New Jersey state government - nothing to do with PD-USGov. --Davepape02:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
They are identical. All the words and little details are in the exact same position. The only two difference are the removed caption and the image quality (the picture was washed). Dantadd✉17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Rank does not exits, was mistakenly designed. Reference USCG Uniform Manual/ Coast Guardman's Manual --AlphaZulu453 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC) --AlphaZulu45320:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Rank does not exits, was mistakenly designed. Reference USCG Uniform Manual/ Coast Guardman's Manual --AlphaZulu453 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC) --AlphaZulu45320:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Contact Sandia, explain the scope of Commons-compliable licenses, and ask if any of them applies for their image galleries in toto or this image in particular. Proceed from there. ~ trialsanderrors07:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't contact Sandia -- I worked at Sandia. Nobody there is a federal employee, and Sandia is a company (part of Lockheed Martin), not a government department. They do contract work for the government, but that doesn't mean that their work is thus PD. The copyright notice on their site makes it clear that they are not only able to assert a copyright, but that they are asserting it. --Brian091812:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
LA ARGENTINA ES UN PAIS LIBRE Y POR LO TANTO HAY LIBERTAR DE EXPRESION. ESTA IMAGEN NO DEBERIA SER BORRADA POR QUE NO ATENTA A NADA NI A NADIE. —the preceding unsigned comment is by201.231.117.15 (talk • contribs)
por favor NO CRITES!
por favor comenta en la pagina del projecto no en la pagina de discusion
y por favor entende que la licencia PD-AR-Photo no se puede usar para otra cosa que fotos
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment can you provide a link showing the copyvio? Besides of that, this a mere table with some numbers in it. Not much to copyright. --ALE! ¿…?09:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionUser:Ynhockey has nominated it for deletion as a copyright violation. But I see Bryan's argument that data cannot be copyrighted. This comes as a surprise for me. The statistical bureau in Denmark claims copyright to it's data, but allows its use under attribution. Law in Israel may make the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics able to claim it's copyright? --|EPO|da:20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ALE!: I provided the link in the original reasoning, here it is again. EPO: The bureau clearly states that its data is copyright of the State of Israel, as can be seen in the copyright notice. I have no other sources to confirm this, but they are not required if the body itself claims copyright. From personal knowledge, this is inline with Israeli law, which does allow government works to be copyrighted. -- Ynhockey (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info I am discussing the subject on irc: The argument is that statistical data cannot be copyrighted as they are merely numbers and does not constitute a work. The use of frames could be considered creative and making the setup copyrighted. Personally I find this very argument very plausible and would support it. But the thing is that for 1½ year I worked daily with figures from Statistics Denmark who claims copyright to their data, but allows use of it as quotes with attribution - Danish.
If it cannot be proven that the Israeli figures are free of copyright we must assume they are. And if not proven free of copyright I am deleting this myself tomorrow. --|EPO|da:21:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As the deletion tag was never added to the images and the uploader never notified, I think we should have to give this more time. Some of the logos might be PD-Old or PD-US. / FredJ16:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not actually taken by a government employee. I first suspected this might be the case, when I checked the source and the caption said "What it looked like before we arrived on scene" (emphasis added). My suspicions were confirmed by e-mail from the government webmaster, who said it was probably scanned from a newspaper.--Pharos00:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete - probably both derived from the same source. In most cases I'm all for keeping similar pictures of the same thing but in this particular one I don't see the advantage. Yonatantalk22:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a waste to remove imagery just because a similar one exists, I suggest asking the TomKidd to upload the entire image (not just the cropped versions). Lcarsdata22:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep almost all Soviet photographs had copyright that belonged to a Government or a governmental entity: either to a governmental-owned newspaper or a governmental-owned photographic lab. Most newspaper photographs were printed with references to the owner. The copyright law of Soviet Union states that all the work with the copyright belonged to a "legal entity" published before 1954 are public domain. It also states the same rule for the anonymous work (with unknown author). For the photograph "publishing" making copies starts with the first photograph made. It is exactly the case described here. The photograph was made in 1943 well before 1954. Alex Bakharev09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you look a little bit closer at Soviet law, you'll discover that newspapers only hold (and held) a copyright on the compilation. The original copyright holder of a photograph was the photographer, even if Soviet legislation and the administrative procedures made it difficult (or even impossible) for him to actually exploit that copyright. A photographer may have been forced (by contract) to transfer his economical rights to the publisher, but that does not make them works created by a legal entity. The 1993 law then resurrected any such copyrights. So, unless there is evidence that the photographer died before 1954 (actually, 1942, because the image must also be PD under U.S. law if you want to host here, see COM:L), or unless the image is indeed an "anonymous work" (which implies more than just "was originally published without photographer's name": it means that the photographer's name never became known in the 50-odd years since then), this image would be copyrighted. (The legal entity bit can reasonably be applied only to film studios, news agencies (but not newspapers), compilers of encyclopedias and dictionaries, and official government bodies. And not any odd enterprise is or was a "governmental body", even if it was de-facto controlled by the Party (and through it, by the state).) See Levitsky, S. L.: Introduction to Soviet Copyright Law; vol. 8 of Law in Eastern Europe, A.W. Sythoff, Leiden 1964. No ISBN. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 58-33118 , and Newcity, M. A.: Copyright Law in the Soviet Union, Praeger Publishers, New York 1978, ISBN0-275-56450-9, and Elst, M.: Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation, Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, 2005; ISBN9-004-14087-5. Lupo14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where was this photographed anyway? Did Einstein ever visit the Soviet Union? Where did he meet en:Solomon Mikhoels? (It rather seems to me that Mikhoels was the one who travelled. See also en:Itzik Feffer and en:Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. Yup, I think this may well be not a Soviet but a U.S. picture.) So the tagging as PD-Russia appears to be bogus or at least very questionable. Lupo14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless source (not the immediate source, aka web site!) and author can be found and we can then determine that it were fine. Lupo06:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Claims to be PD. However, it can't be PD-old (before 1923) because Bonnie and Clyde were born in 1909-10 and this image depicts them as adults (in the late 1920s, I'd assume). No source on who photographed the image (the important bit on when that person died) or if would have fallen into the PD anyway because of a lack of a copyright notice. hbdragon8823:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep If we delete images because of (very simple) logos, we had to delete hundreds or thousands of pictures. This logo is just simple text, I see no reason for deletion. --Grandy0209:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering about that. I remember reading the w:xD-Picture Card article a few months ago. There was a penny and xD card comparsion picture. Description page said "scan in public domain, but logo is copyrighted." Now, however, that image has been deleted, and all images now come from the Commons. Is that okay? A similar situation woudl be Image:NDS.jpg, which was also tagged for copyvio due to shots of the copyrighted firmware screen. Ed blacked the screen out and presumably deleted the old version. hbdragon8823:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
the previous version of this file now has a copyright on deviantART, i'll upload the current version again (i'm the uploader of both versions)--Absinthe02:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Apparently, it is a misunderstanding. I wrote as a source "Freely according to images at [1]", which means, that my pictures were inspired by this site and I took the basic data from it as well - I drew them freely according to the source. It does not mean, that the images on the mentioned site are freely distributable. The source was added in order to show, that the data (position and size of the child) are reliable. I know about the copyright of the National Physicians Center for Family Resource. It was actually the reason why I created my own pictures. My pictures are not copies nor derivatived works from the images at 4parents.go, therefore they cannot violate the copyright. They are only basic sketches of pregnant women and I hope, one can clearly distinguish them from the images at 4parents.gov. I am pretty sure, nobody has a copyright for images of pregnant women. Miraceti18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are derivative works. One way to make these images more clearly different from the cited source would be to modify the images. They currently show much more than the position and size of the child: they also show detail of the child. If the child were replaced by an ellipse or rectangle, then that would clearly distinguish the works from the cited source. Replacing the child with an ellipse or rectangle would also ensure that readers are not misled into believing that the child really looks like what is shown in Miraceti's images. Using an ellipse or rectangle would still show position and size. I am especially concerned because the images show a 7-month fetus as follows, which is not like the correct shape. The fetus at this stage is much more developed. Ferrylodge18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now, I do not understand you. You claim, I copied the children. And then you claim they are wrong. Does this mean that the originals were wrong or I copied them badly? Fortunately, it is easy to see how I created those children. All the children (except the first one, which is just a not very well definable splodge) from the images were created from two different children only by changing their sizes and rotation. This is quite a good argument that the images are not derivative works. Nobody has a copyright on the general image of the fetus.
Please, note that I did not try to make any artwork in oppose the nice images at 4parents.gov. I just created new images according to the data shown in the images at this site. If there was only a text description of the size and position of the fetus, the result would be very similar.
This discussion is not a place for talks about actual inaccuracies of the images. They are just sketches and they are not precise. People who would think the children looks like on the sketch would also think that the woman looks like on the sketch, which is not true either. I am afraid, they would even believe that a child can look like an ellipse. Or the woman should be also represented by an ellipse? Miraceti19:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Miraceti, you make some good and humorous points. Would it be possible for you to put some kind of note in these figures that the fetal shape is inaccurate? Thanks.Ferrylodge19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This can be done by anybody. The images are in an svg format. Anybody can easily edit them and correct the shapes. Miraceti19:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are only so many ways of drawing an anatomically correct picture of a human. The factual parts of these images are not copyrightable and the artistic parts of them are very different, so the SVGs are not derivative, hence Keep. Samulili19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Miraceti has given a good explanation, and that Samulili is correct. However, I still think that the images are unintentionally misleading as regards the shape of the fetus. Unfortunately, I don't know how to use svg to correct this.Ferrylodge21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a series of images that I am proposing we use in the existing pregnancy serices to replace the objectable blobs. Please view Image:Fetus proposal.svg. Month 1 and 2 are unchanged. All the rest are hand drawn by me using multiple frames of references. The 7-9 month figures sort of ended up looking like blobs just because so much stuff is crammed in the womb at that point. I also just realized that I didn't include the umbilical cord, which was included in the current versions. Anyway, if users feel that my fetuses are better, I'll go ahead and switch them out and re-upload the series. Just running this by other editors first.-Andrew c15:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Could you, please, insert these images into my sketches of pregnant women instead my ugly children? You are a really good drawer! I feel, readers of wikipedia will be impressed. Thank you! Miraceti17:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Reasons for deletion request: It is against Commons' policy to have the same picture in different languages. The same picture in English is here. It would be better to make the English version more "language-free", but it doesn't make sense to have a French version as well. Alessio Damato23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've translate this picture to french because i haven't found how to make the original « language free ». If you know how to make it language free, you're welcome.Yves-Laurent08:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
'Deleted by Matt314: empty category, name both in English and Chinese, content was: 'The Tung Wah Group of Hospitals (Traditional Chinese: 東華三院), with a long ...
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete The source provided, as Yonatanh well observes, in no way speaks to the image's being released into the public domain by NASA; indeed, it appears quite likely that this is not a work commissioned for or made by the United States government, such that the copyright does not rest with NASA, which appears simply to host, and perhaps disseminate with permission, the image. An assertion that an image is provided or hosted by or is courtesy of an entity, though, cannot, of course, be construed to mean that that entity possesses the rights to the image (or has relinquished them; even were the rights to the image owned by NASA, it is not clear that photo by Boeing Co. should not be understood as copyright on a NASA-produced item). Jahiegel07:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is a building of public interest and historic importance. I don't see any copyright violation, since it doesn't give only the building but also the sourraunding--MartinS10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Historical interest has nothing to do with copyright status. If you have any data about copyright status (e.g. the heirs of Piacentini allowed you to publish the images in Commons, or thei renounced their rights) allowing us to keep this image in Commons, then it may stay, otherwise it is a copyright violation. Sorry. --User:G.dallorto13:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --G.dallorto18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course and unluckily. --Lucas 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
no proof of the picture being over 100 years (he died in 1953 meaning this could've been taken in 1920) old and even if it was it doesn't automatically make it pd-old -- Yonatantalk15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Yes, the author dead 70 years ago because all militars who take pictures of the crime, was killed under commands of the president Hernández Martínez to erase all evidences... the autor dead on 1932, he has 75 years of dead. Excuse me, but I don't speak english very well. --Netito777 16:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Cito textual: Las acciones rebeldes en occidente fueron acompañadas de notorios asesinatos, sobre todo de funcionarios locales que fotografiaron o publicaron los hechos. Esto está en Historia de El Salvador, Tomo II, página 133; publicado por el Minsiterio de Educación de la República de El Salvador 1994. De hecho, como puede verse aquí, se trató de ocultar todo tipo de difusión incluso después de los acontecimientos. Por lo tanto, aquellos funcionarios o militares que hicieron peligrar el hermetismo de información, fueron eliminados. --Netito777 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment If they wanted to erase all evidences, even including killing people, why they didn't destroy photo? Btw. user often uploads copyvios, he's blocked by Szczepan1990. Herr Kriss19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Infrogmation: Obvious copyright violation; deletion request
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is no reason given why the image should be public domain. For being PD-old the author must died more than 70 Years ago. That the picture is older than 70 Years isn't a reason --84.57.25.6916:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The problem applies to the whole category Category:Bunte Götter exhibition. The question had been discussed already and it was decided to keep these images (strictly speaking, being re-constructions based on moulds, they are not "creative" items). We need a definitive solution for the matter. --User:G.dallorto16:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploader was baned for copyright violation. I've seen dosen times his uploads of files from Polish Wikipedia as "self" images without attribution to creator. Unfortunately, Name "Zdjecie.jpg" on pl:Wiki (en: Foto.jpg, what a meaningfull name, BTW) containted personal foto of other user. A.J.05:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment The writing on the left margin reads "Machard & Cie.", the printer's company name. The artist's name is written within the image, in the upper left corner, below "VIIIe Olympiade", his first name appears to have been "Jean", last name begins with "D". See our non-competition for a slightly larger reproduction. Note that the IOC claims copyright. See also at the IOC themselves. Lupo07:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
www.sky.s64.pl and others uploaded by Shalom Alehem
Delete Images uploaded without verified permission, no respond by Shalom Alehem to questions on his talk page. --GeorgHH19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Additional information: The source of this image is here: [84]. According to the source, it is a NASA picture, hence NASA license was given. However, I doubt that it comes from NASA. Clicking the "See Mount Tambora" link at the source page goes to a dead page. I've tried to find it at NASA, but no luck (perhaps someone can find it). However, I found the same image at another page here: [85] that the foto was taken by Rizal Dasoeki from VSI (Volcanology Survey Indonesia) in 1986. If this is the case, then the NASA license cannot be applied here and the image is not free. Indon07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
COM:PS: Wikimedia Commons is targeted at media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such.. Deleted. Siebrand11:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Someone overwrote my image on en:wikipedia but kept my licensing info and name. Someone then copied that image to commons still with my name on. This image is unlicensed as the licensing info refers to the earlier image. My original has now been uploaded as Image:LondonSchoolofEconomics cford.jpg --Secretlondon19:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
all are breaching the architect's copyright on the interior design of a building. Only images made from a free position in public space can have a free license if an intellectual work is content of the image (according to german copyright act). Geo-Loge14:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The text below (on the picture's page) seems to state that it is NOT a photograph that can be licensed as it is below, but which is copyrighted and is therefor not suitable for use on Commons. I am however, not an expert in this field. Can someone check and make sure this is ok? Thanks. Deadstar 11:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar11:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, as You can see. I did the copy from the Commons as You can see from the history, I apointed the "license from wikipedia". So the rule must be the same for each one, what do think about? 201.80.179.200 02
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There seems to be some confusing over this image. I created the Sfnew.jpg image and it was loaded into en.Wikipedia by me, another editor then uploaded the image without my knowledge into wikimedia commons, I have no problem with the image being included on wikimedia commons. The other issue is the fact that this image is a Derivative work of the image used by the Sinn Féin party, to this I would say that the current image used by the party is also a Dirivative work of a design I created around 1980/81 as part of a idea for a recruiting poster for Dublin Sinn Féin, the idea was later used by the party as a badge/logo.--Padraig3uk10:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged as PD-USGov-NASA, but attributed to someone who is not a NASA employee, even though image is found on a NASA site. -- howcheng {chat}06:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This appears to be taken from the band's website, where there is no mention of the license. The photographer's webpage explicitly says no use without permission.--Padraic14:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Note that this photo was taken not to depict Britney, but instead the unique advertising display structure that is located at the Sears in Downtown Toronto. -- Zanimum19:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
KeepI think the pic focused on the square also, so it does not show the statue only. I can otherwise take a larger pic of the square. --Sailko20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sailko, if you can reshoot a picture without the statue, or with the statue being a trifling detail, then there would be no problem. I have asked for loopholes both in the it:Wiki discussion page and here, and there seems to be no exceptions, due to the lack of "freedom of panorama" in Italian legislation. Sorry, nothing personal. --User:G.dallorto17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggested today on it:wiki that a solution could be moving the image on it.Wiki under the new EDP Italian policy and adding the {{EDP}} template. Of course the image can be only used for educational purposes on it:Wiki and nowhere else, but it' better than deleting altogether. --User:G.dallorto15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I was suggested today on it:wiki that a solution could be moving the image on it.Wiki under the new EDP Italian policy and adding the {{EDP}} template. Of course the image can be only used for educational purposes on it:Wiki and nowhere else, but it's better than deleting it altogether. --User:G.dallorto15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I hope you're an IP lawyer. especially an American one. You might as well start deleting half of the photographs on wikipedia. Chensiyuan14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The user uploaded 26 images, 14 of them have already been deleted. On pt.wiki the user has a long history of copyright violations, including pictures AND texts. He was warned (and blocked) several times but makes clear that he doesn't care. If you check the 12 pictures that are still available, 10 of them are very probable copyvios. Im my opinion, just Image:Bandeira-sto.jpg and Image:Brazao-Sto-Amaro-da-Imp.jpg should remain. All the other are thumbnails and very likely to be works of others. Dantadd✉19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the two images you mentioned do not have a source... In any case, do you think all other pictures are copyvios? PatríciaRmsg11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. He is a stubborn copyright violator and he is blocked on pt.wiki exactly for that. He knows he is doing something wrong but he doesn't care. Dantadd✉12:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Looks like a professional photograph to me found on some website, I doubt that the uploader took it herself, only one contribution with this photo. Look at the uploader's userpage too. -- Mido01:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted (even though the uploader is an obsessive Depp fan) simply because it is a good photo and I think it can count for fair use. Darth Skynyrd22:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I agree that it is a good photo, the requirement for fair use have been restricted recently on English Wikipedia, and on Commons fair use photos has never been allowed (if you want the details, I will give them to you, but you can find it on your own I guess, starting at Commons:Project scope. / Fred Chess23:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Godt observert. Det er forresten ikke nødvendig å føre slike opp her, når det er et såpass klart tilfelle kan man like gjerne føre på {{Derivative}}. Jeg ser at bildet blir brukt et par steder, så jeg skal la den stå her noen dager før jeg sletter den, i tilfelle noen vil flytte den over lokalt under fair use. Kjetil r16:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No depiction of a COA but totally new invented ensign not similar to the original, see thickness of arms, the red hat, look of the sun and so on. --213.155.224.23211:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The Argentinian COA is not fully standardized. One may find different "official" versions here or here, for instance. There is no reason to think that this version is the official one. The only official colors of Argentina may be find here. Any relevant adjustments that should be done in the SVG version may be corrected directly, updating the file, instead of simply deleting it. Do not be radical -- let´s try to make things better instead of deleting and ignoring the effort of other users. --Tonyjeff23:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tonyjeff, if there are minor things to be changed, a new image can be uploaded on top of this one. But discuss this previously, please. PatríciaRmsg11:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
A imagem não tem informação suficiente sobre o seu estatuto de direitos de autor. (No source information provided, Image is likely copyrighted and not suitable for Commons; perhaps can be speedy deleted.)-Aude (talk | contribs) 14:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Surely not "a work of the United States Federal Government". LoC says it's from 1939 and "Rights status not evaluated" - so there's no reason to asume that the image is in the public domain. 88.134.140.6418:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is a derivative work of an copyrighted one. The permission ticket isn't a authorization of the original copyright holder, but a mass authorization of a lot of good images and this one. Lugusto • ※18:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
GFDL claimed, but source given as commercial press agency AFP. There's no evidence (and it seems highly unlikely) that AFP have released this this image under the GFDL. Uploader is long absent. Finlay McWalter20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image is not GFDL at all. At best its usage is under Fair Use, and still qualifies for deletion.--Anupamsr23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In Italy Civil unions are a national legislation matter. Regions have no power to create laws about them. Therefore this map is wrong for what concerns Italy, that ought to be completely yellow. For a correct map see here: Image:Samesex Map Europe.png --G.dallorto10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is completely correct, I am italian.
You might be Italian, but who are you, in the first place? And secondly, being Italian does not imply you know about Italian law. Could you please quote me the law entitling Italian Regions to decide re. marriage issues, please? The Corte Costituzionale ruled in the past saying that marriage is a State-only legislation field. Therefore how could marriage laws vary by Region in Italy is something that completely escapes me. This is Italy, not the Usa, ok? --G.dallorto11:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a horse in this race, but if this is truly the case, why 1. change the image (re-upload it), 2. cite the reason for the change on its file or talk page, and 3. perhaps save the old version somewhere in case the situation changes (upload it as Map Europe Samesex old.png and link to it from the current image file/talk)? 24.128.205.73 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC) That was me Huw Powell01:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I absolutely have nothing against correcting it, just I don't know how to do it. If you can, please do it asap. In the meantime, this map is wrong, and wrong images should not stay here. --User:G.dallorto17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection is not pointless, the point being however that municipality registers have no legal value, just a symbolical and political one (a very important one, btw, and I support them). Furthermore, if things were as you said, then it should be municipality borders to be spotted on this map, not regions, as it is now. The person who made this map was much more enthused than informed... If you were Italian, you would find ludicrous having the Venetia region marked as a pro-civil union region, whereas it is a mostly and deeply catholic one, the only one where municipalities voted official documents against any form of recognition for Civil Unions. Please let's stick to facts, then, will we? --User:G.dallorto12:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it needs even that. I don't see any restrictions on FOP in the Israeli law there; the photo is explicitly not a derivative work and so the copyright is fully owned by the photographer. I don't see the need for the extra tag (which at first glance seems specific to German FOP law). Carl Lindberg02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the disclaimer is general. There is no reference to German laws. However, it is not true that "the copyright is fully owned by the photographer". The copyright on the picture is, but the moral rights on the piece of art are owned by the artist, and by his heirs for 70 years after his death. I am glad some pictures uploaded under the FOP clause will allow Commons to have at least a few images of contemporaries artists. --User:G.dallorto11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moral rights are separate from copyright (and in some countries they never expire). The tag seems to imply restrictions on derivative works of this photo, which I feel is incorrect. The wording on the tag seems to refer to the German FOP law, but I have rarely seen those same restrictions in the FOP clauses in the laws from other countries. Some countries have non-commercial restrictions (and we generally don't allow those on commons), but Israel is not one of them. The sculptor in this case has no copyright claims on the photo whatsoever, including derivative works of the photo, but that tag implies they do. Carl Lindberg15:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with what you say, but since this picture can stay under FOP provision, there is no point in debating further. The picture may legitimally stay. --User:G.dallorto11:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Doubtful copyright status for the statue. Can anyone provide authorship? It looks like a 30ies statue, which means it could be still copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Doubtful copyright status for the statue. Can anyone provide authorship? It looks like a 20/30ies statue, which means it could be still copyrighted. --User:G.dallorto18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it was on flickr under cc license. for i while i've uploaded many photos fromflickr with creativecommons license. --mac15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is about the author of the statue, not about the author of the picture. Has the author of the statue been dead for at least 70 years? If anyone can provide the name of the author, the question can be settled easily. --User:G.dallorto17:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep category; list individual problem images or subcategories seperately. Certainly there are some sculptures in the United States which are not copyright problems due to age or other reasons. -- Infrogmation00:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course keep the category (unless it will become empty) and list the images in question. There are surely also PD sculptures in this category. --ALE! ¿…?13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It is a "Portrait by Godfrey Argent for The National Portrait Gallery, LONDON" (quote from the "source" of the page), this image should be copyrighted. Chanueting 01:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Delete Author is mentioned explicitly + GFDL license is incorrect + such professional portraits are generally copyrighted.--Anupamsr23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is a PNG version of an (earlier) SVG image: Image:Flemish Education System-nl.svg and technically inferior, thereby ignoring my efforts on this work (no mention of my name) --IIVQ08:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I was uploaded a didactic picture used by me for my lessons of History, but don't remember the source. So the Source and Permission are unclear--Locutus Borg10:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the original upload log from ca.wiki. It is a miniature from an incunable of 1495. It is clearly in the public domain.--Vriullop21:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
1) THIS THING IS HIDEOUS. 2) I MADE IT. 3) No one will ever use it. 4) Deleting images on commons is like pulling teeth while wearing oven mits 5) Please, this year, or before I have grandchildren (I currently have no children) please delete this thing! --Ling.Nut21:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploaded by flickrlickr in 2005, but the source given is just for a user account and this image can not be found under that account. The image isn't used anywhere and the flickr user images are all "All rights reserved". But it was uploaded by flickrlickr which means it was once free on flickr. No attempt to contact the "author" on flickr. -- MECU≈talk21:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Reason given for the deletion request is: Uploaded by flickrlickr in 2005, but the source given is just for a user account and this image can not be found under that account. The image isn't used anywhere and the flickr user images are all "All rights reserved". But it was uploaded by flickrlickr which means it was once free on flickr. No attempt to contact the "author" on flickr. There is a free almost identical shot available under a free license at flickr (not by this author) at http://flickr.com/photos/kid_pro_quo/185016715/ -- MECU≈talk21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The site also says GFDL. However, the GFDL required the name of the author, which is missing. Perhaps it is listed in Iranian, unfortunately I do not read that language. Simply "an employee" does not satisfy the GFDL criteria. Teun Spaans17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher owns the copyrighted work and credits to it are enough[88]. In fact, it is a violation of copyright for an employee to grant permission for usage of a photo while on duty for an employer without obtaining consent from the latter.--Constantly17:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image (loaded by myself) is needed by some templates in it.wiki using "ifexist" function which cannot detect it in Commons, so I need to upload it in it.wiki but cannot do it so long as an identical file exists in Commons. Please delete ASAP --Vermondo 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC) --Vermondo12:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
wrong Flickr licence, this photo is probably fairuse. Flickr licence matches the one at commons, but Flickr user probably doesn't know much about copyright. This is a drawing painting of Benny Hill, so it is definitely not old enough --Vaya17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry with my english, I am spanish and I don't use this language often. I take Benny Hill's photos from Flickr with the tag "Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos" marked. If I can do something to change the situation and turn the photos "legal" for commons, please tell me how (in spanish if is possible, if not in english). Thanks Jecanre18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jecanre, lo que está diciendo Vaya es que quien la subió a flickr probablemente no tenga permiso para darle esa licencia. Platonides11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As quoted from the deletion policy page: "The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (e.g. art by unknown artist)" --69.207.236.9505:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm deleting this and everything else in the category as copyright violations. He's a living artist; even if he gets hit by a truck tomorrow we can't host his works for another 70 years. —Angr18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image claims life+70 - well there is no author or source other than a webpage given. Impossible to assess if the author has been dead for more than 70 years, or alternatively if the image was first published in the US before 1923. The text at the bottom of the image also suggests that this may be an unattributed scan from a book. --Megapixie06:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I made a mistake. The correct image is Image:Methotrexate vs 5,6,7,8-tetrahydrofolic acid.png --Giac! - (Tiago is here) 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) --Giac! - (Tiago is here)16:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep If the owner can't release a photo of its painting, who can? (note that there're not two identical paintings). IANAL but when you buy the work that right would be given too: it's sold, not licensed. And the original comcept of hte wheel life is public domain. Platonides12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the author did one copy and sold to Henryart. So he's allowing him to publish it in his office or his dining room. Publishing in wikipedia is not such different here. Platonides11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed very much different, as the material on Commons is explicitly supposed to be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. I doubt this is what the original author intended and I doubt he suceeded these rights to the person he sold his work to. --Melanom00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, copyvio. Unless the original painting turns out to be public domain, but that would require adequate source information (who is the painter?) to determine. —Angr18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept and even the details of this painting were designed by Buddhist community and therefore are pub domain. -- Al Q17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the owner of the original painting. It may be that there are some juridical rights of the painter. But all people who know the history of the "wheel of life" know, that this painting was given from buddha himself (what would buddha say if we would ask him to let it stay in WIKIPEDIA?) to the mankind to recognize the meaning of life an the consequences of decisions, feelings and works. From this point of view this picture should be a gift to all people. In the last years I had a lot of requests from authors and movie-makers to us this pictures for their publications and I never wanted to get money for this. I only requested one example of the product, in which it was used. In this way many people had the chance to think about the meaning of their life from another point of view. I accept the higher rights of the painter of this picture, who lives somewhere in Bhutan. But the painting is without signature and I dont know who made it, I just bought it in the year 2000 in the BHUTAN-PAVILLON at the WORLD EXPO in Hannover/ Germany. If there is somebody who can prove, that he has painted this picture and dont want to stay it further in WIKIPEDIA I immediatley agree to delete it. Please excuse my bad English. henryart16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reading what the owner of the painting wrote I can't see any reason, why it should be deleted. --Raven206:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a painting, not a print or similar. So it would be possible for the author to sell the physical copy and keep the copyright, but it would be unusual. I am satisfied that the owner of the physical copy also owns the copyright, so no issue. Ben Aveling09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is really a blatantly obvious case if you know the first thing about copyright. The transfer of the material rights to the physical representation of the work has absolutely no impact on the immaterial rights to the work, such as the author's copyright. Copyright is the right to control the creation and distribution of copies (hence "copyright") of a work of art. Copyright explicitly distinguishes between displaying a work and distributing it.[89] Hence, owning a copy (regardless of how many issues of the work are in circulation) is not the same as holding the copyright. This is a very fundamental concept to the whole idea of copyright. And yes, copyright infringement is a valid reason for deletion. I don't know what would possess anyone to claim otherwise, unless, of course, they're just copying and pasting a standard "vote" to every deletion discussion, or what's meant to be a discussion. —LX (talk, contribs)18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a print. The uploader does not own a copy of the original, which as you rightly point out would not give them the right to further distribute copies and would justify deletion. In this case, the uploader owns the original painting, which by default gives them ownership of the copyright. It's possible to separate the two, but very uncommon and there is no reason to believe that it has happened in this case. The only residual right that the artist has is the moral right to assert that they are the artist. When I create something for my employer, they own the copyright, not me. This is no different. Regards, Ben Aveling19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where this fixation with it not being a print comes in. Again, copyright is not concerned with material objects but with immaterial works. Works created for an employer are works for hire, which involves a contract for work. The default assumption if no such contract is present is that there is no transfer of copyrights. —LX (talk, contribs)21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to LX - An artist painter works always for hire – that’s just the definition of a professional artist, everything else is simply a hobby... --FSHL08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're confusing "for profit" with "work for hire". Work for hire is a well-defined legal concept that applies to works created by an employee for an employer (artists who sell their works to the general public are not employed by their customers; they're usually self-employed) or created under a written contract which specifically mentions the words "work for hire".[90]—LX (talk, contribs)19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LX is spot on. It's not a work made for hire (at least not made for hire for the current owner of the physical object). Unless the purchase contract also contained a clause on a transfer of copyrights to the owner of the physical object, the copyrights remain with the artist. And I'd like to see a source for it to be "very uncommon" to have copyrights separated from physical ownership, as Ben Aveling claimed above. AFAIK, it's exactly the other way 'round. Lupo06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Lupo - Definitively not! But you’ve got the right to make photography’s of your Picasso and if you want, to share them as cc-by-sa-2.0... --FSHL13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the "first sale doctrine". This Verbreitungsrecht is about the rights on a particular Werkstück, i.e., copy of the work. Once a copy has been sold, the new owner is free to re-sell or exhibit or hide away that copy. But he's not free to produce new copies, that'd be the Vervielfältigungsrecht, which in Austrian law is covered by §15. The right to produce copies is what is important here. Lupo08:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the copyright is not transfered when one buys a work. The photo is thus a derivative work and has to be deleted. --Kjetil r01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The status of Hubble images has gotten a bit unclear - in the past, the presence of the non-NASA credit to "A. Zijlstra (UMIST)" would imply it's not PD. However, like some others, this image appears on the ESA's Hubble site (http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0407.html), which says it's "Copyright-free material". --Davepape01:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Well, GFDL is certainly strange, but why would the source site have a copyright on a scan of an old postcard? See also de:SS George Washington (from 1914 on, in U.S. service; after WWI for USL; scrapped in 1951) and [91]. Can we find out when and where this image was taken? Lupo14:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided has lots of good quality us government public domain images. Perhaps we should delete the original image and replace it with one of them.Oneworld2516:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As I uploaded the image here (+ Image:RAF310Sq.gif, Image:RAF312Sq.gif, Image:RAF313Sq.gif), I took a licence which I saw here somewhere in a similar image. I suppose that PD - old - 50 or something like that would be more sufficient - as these squadrons do not exists any more, indeeed (all are Czechoslovak squadrons of the RAF during the WW2 and dissolved). -jkb-17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Licence changed (all four images, see above) according to the discussion to {{PD-UKGov}}; it could also be free by PD-CzechGov according to the licence of Image:PSP_Dywizjon_306.jpg (a Polish squadron in RAF during WW2); I suggest somebody could close the discussion (on all four pages), thx, -jkb-11:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep, I will err on the side of caution. The image with the same name on en doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic... until you see its context. I also don't think things need to be encyclopedic for the commons since other projects, wikibooks, etc. can use them. I think it's better to keep in such cases unless someone is using the commons as their family photo album. gren05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Kept. Apparently, this is Spanish for "it is bad." Not a reason to delete; bad faith nomination.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Administrator User:Makemi speedy deleted this image from Vector-Images.com. There is a license tag that allows images from Vector-Images on WikiCommons, hence it is my opinion that the deletion should be discussed more broadly first. I see no reason to delete this useful och validly licensed image. --Thuresson02:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed. If Vector-images grants permission for the use of the image and it is tagged properly there should be no problem. Icactus21:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vector-images does not grant permissions that are compatible with Commons policies. In fact, the entire set of images tagged as being from vector-images.com is likely to be deleted in the near future. See Template_talk:Vector-Images.com#An_update.3F and Commons_talk:Licensing#Vector-images.com. There is no evidence that North Korea (which contrary to some people does have copyright law) has released their rights to the image under a free license. --Durin15:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Move to Wikipedia, where we can use it as fair use, since there really probably isn't a truly free image of this and the copyright status of North Korean works is difficult to determine at best.-168.7.246.5816:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Please check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk20prev.jpg
According to that, "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
Subject to disclaimers." --Ale18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete GFDL feature abuse. GFDL is totally unsuited for art. Use it under fair use in your local wikipedia. And don't take pictures from professional artists or photographers. They're tainted by conflicts of interest and thus inherently non-free! --rtc05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh there is some art that is legit GFDL Wikipe-tan stuff and the like. Inovokeing the invariant section clause of GFDL makes it non free though. So delete.Geni16:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the image or the issue. The image was discussed for deletetion way back. The issue was dissucussed more recently with regards to watermarks on photos and we went for delete.Geni22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GFDL is a fine license, but we should not accept invariant sections. We don't generally accept them for other things. I will gladly vote delete if RTC removes his GFDL fudding. ;) --Gmaxwell22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content of this invariant section is the author name, so it will appear on the "History" section which must e preserved (section 4.I). The author should have been told this when originally uploaded. Platonides13:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no. The invarant section is the part of the work with the name in. While technicaly you could cut it off you can't clone it out.Geni23:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. The Invariant Section is the text "Rowena Morrill". The painting itself doesn't say "Rowena Morrill" anywhere on it; it only says "Rowena". All that's being stated is that the artist's name must accompany the painting and any derivative works, which the GFDL already provides. grendel|khan02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we contact the author about this? It seems like the same thing would be accomplished simply by requiring attribution--it only requires "the words 'Rowena Morrill'"; that's not "the part of the work with the name in it". As the GFDL provides for attribution, I'm hopeful that asking the artist would resolve this without having to delete what's really a very nice image. grendel|khan19:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe with that attitude. I sent the artist an email linking to this discussion and asking to have this question cleared up by releasing the image under a CC-BY-SA 2.5 license, which will preserve attribution (which seems to have been the original motivating concern). I'd ask that this discussion at least wait a few days before deleting the image, until we give the artist a chance to respond. grendel|khan02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that the invariant section does not contain any additional restriction to those that the GFDL already requires and protects (the author name), it is valid under GFDL. This statement just makes it clear, without limiting the GFDL itself, and it still allows the work to be modified (but still the original author MUST be granted under GFDL). So no reason to delete (The effect of this invariant section is just descriptive, and the author name may also be kept as part of the description of the image without even violating the statement). Verdy p19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just nonsensical. Of course it does not introduce more restrictions than the GFDL as invariant sections are a part of the GFDL! While I believe that the purpose of it is not unreasonable (which I think is intended that you must include 'Rowena Morrill' on any image caption basically), but that invariant sections (sections that you cannot modify) are not reasonable and and especially in this case only serve to muddle what you can really do with the image (for example, see the above conflicted opinions of what the section is and what it requires--not to mention that it is not reasonably defined as a section which is seriously confusing with the requirements of combining documents and the restrictions in general of having sections with the prohibited titles). Kotepho06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion zealots should have contacted the author first rather than knee-jerk delete-templating.. but oh.. that would have been so much less... satisfying... 76.214.147.6417:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a case for looking at the spirit of the rules, rather than wikilawyering over detailed fine print. The requirement does not add significantly to what the GFDL already requires, when no invariant section is specified. However, by all means clafify with the author whether this requirement could be worded in a different way. (Jheald). 91.104.208.15712:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artist hasn't returned my email (I was sort of expecting this, as she previously expressed that she didn't want to deal with licensing mumbo-jumbo), but I'd like to, as I did above, point out that the GFDL provides for exactly what the artist asked for already; the license is in absolutely no way incompatible with anything else on Commons or any more difficult to use or re-use. While the person who solicited the art should have known that the license already provides attribution, this is certainly not cause for deleting the file. grendel|khan14:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing the above discussion: permission was requested for the painting; it was released under the GFDL, but since the artist had concerns about attribution, an "Invariant Section" consisting of the author's name is included with the image. Generally we don't accept Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, but since the GFDL requires attribution (that is, requires the attachment of the author's name), this particular Invariant Section isn't the problem that any other Invariant Section would be. The reasoning for disallowing Invariant Sections in general doesn't apply to this instance. grendel|khan15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept; this is an exception to the no invariant section rule on Commons—original author had concerns with attribution. (→O -RLY?)21:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I uploaded this image, but I am concerned that it is a copyright violation. As far as I know it was photographed in Hong Kong. Freedom of panorama does not apply because the objects are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. I would either like a confirmation that the photograph can in fact be freely licensed or I would like it deleted. -- Iamunknown01:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is in contradiction to the policy COM:DW. We can't give you the confirmation you ask for; that would be legal advice. Ask your lawyer. --rtc05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Thanks for working towards establishing integrity and purity of commons. This is clearly a statement that fair use is permitted. Death to all non-free license templates. --rtc22:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template sems to have it's roots in the en.wiki interpretation that all public documents in Sweden are PD. This template is currently only used in one image and in this case the tagging seems to be wrong anyway. /Lokal_Profil13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Eben Moglen is the displayed person, not the photographer. The permission must be given by the latter. --rtc05:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is not from Germany, the unknown/uncredited camera operator does not automatically gain copyright of an image just because they took the photograph, as long as Eben Moglen is the copyright holder (it was taken from his personal website) he has the right to release it into GNU --Madmax3213:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general counsel for the Free Software Foundation, an expert in copyright law, claims that this work is GFDL, so I'm inclined to take his word for it. --Delirium18:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need permission from the photographer, not permission from the displayed person, regardless of whether it is the president of the US or the pope. --rtc19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
What kind of category is "Miscellany: Madrid"? If there's no other place to put a file, it can perfectly stay on the mother category: Category:Madrid. Why do we create these odd categories? Let's keep it simple. Dantadd✉16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly classified?? "Miscellany" does not classify anything, it just gives a look of cleaningness to the mother category and put the unclassified stuff away. If you take a look in any archival science book one of the first things you'll learn is: "do not use miscellany to unify unclassified things". Dantadd✉16:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Note: Possibly simply mistagged; apparently a reproduction of an old post card; if before 1923 it would qualify as PD-US. I have asked the uploader if they know the date of the postcard. -- Infrogmation00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
James Randi is not the photographer, and we need permission from the latter. Plus, "Anyone can use it" seems to be far too unclear to me. --rtc18:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Text suggests that it is property of the James Randi foundation (presumably the photographer did work for hire), and at least a good faith effort to release the photo under a free licence. If status is unclear, I suggest emailing the relevent address, and keeping the image at least until a response is recieved or a reasonable amount of time for response after enquiring has passed. -- Infrogmation00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNo evidence (uncredited/unknown) photographer retains any rights over this photograph, it seems unlikely --Madmax3213:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The new statement of "released into the public domain by the archives of Timothy Christian Schools. A request to the administrative powers that be has given permission to use on Wikipedia" is sort of self-contradictory. If the image is truly PD, there's no permission to give; if they need to give permission, it must be a proper free license, not "permission to use on Wikipedia". Note that if this image was actually published in 1911, then it's {{PD-US}} (but if it was left unpublished until 1986, that's not the case). --Davepape01:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks pretty clearly PD to me--any works first published in the U.S. before 1923 are P.D., regardless of whether the author is known or when he/she died. --Delirium18:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The bar of copyrightably is rather high in Japan. Typographical works must have "enough essense of art to be enjoyed only with themselves"[97] to be granted as copyrighted work. There are cases the courts ruled such text-based logo incopyrightable [98][99] and nothing else. I agree that this 'A' is some more creative than ones in cases I mentioned, but there wouldn't be any "thoughts or sentiments" [100] to having eyes with them. No 'A' appears in 'eye' or 'me 目' and I can't find any background information on this logo at their official cite.
日本における著作物性のハードルはむしろ高い位置にあります。デザイン文字が著作物として認められるには「それ自体が美術鑑賞の対象となり得る美的特性」を備えていなければなりません[101]。テキストベースのロゴの著作物性については[102][103]という否定的な判例はありますが、逆に著作物性を認めた例がありません。たしかにこの A は私が上に挙げた例よりも創作的要素が高いのですが、A に目をつけることに創作者の「思想あるいは感情」[104]が読み取れません。Eye や Me (目) に A という文字は出てきませんし、公式ホームページを見てもこれといったバックグラウンドを見つけることができませんでした。
Delete Much of this photo includes registered trademark or logo of JR West Japan [105]. It does not seem textlogo at all.--Ananda12:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Copyvio, delete. Yann 21:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Hmm, what to do with this? Both the permission and the license have been formulated by the creator. Should the broader or the narrower permission prevail? In case of the former: 
Delete per nom.--Thugchildz 08:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Done out of project scope. Yonatan talk 15:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment who is this "artist" and where is those pictures come from? What kind of art is it? Wooyi 02:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
and 
and 
and 
? They all have copyrighted design/logos on it and believe me I could find a lot of things like these on here, should you delete those too?--Thugchildz 21:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Alex:D tells us that Universal City Studios put the newsreels into the public domain, what appears to be confirmed by This source page. Even if that film used parts of other films, we are authorised to assume that Universal lawyers made their job and to believe that it is PD unless somebody would come up and argue that he holds some rights in that film. Bradipus 16:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Image:Auschwitz-Birkenau1.jpg
Oppose I trust NASA. NASA says all content on their page is public domain unless otherwise is noted. Therefore, this must be public domain. You know, it could have been taken after the fall of the Soviet Union. --Ysangkok 18:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Support this deletion request (which means 
Neutral not very important photos, could be redone, don't seems to be really used (Image:Odznaka.jpg is use one time ! most other aren't use). However, sad to delete media. VIGNERON * discut. 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
GFDL for the original image on WP-ZH was a bad idea. This kind of work has to be used only as fair use, in/from the different projects, with important limits, as we all have to know. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
However, the deletion process on SupersededSVG raster images is supposed to be suspended at the moment, I think... AnonMoos 17:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Info I just completed the request which was originally done by Suradnik13 (talk · contribs) on February 20, 2007. MECU≈talk 12:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WTF? Sure, whoever took this photo should speak up
. If images using this template are indeed photographs, and the photographer has not agreed to license under a free license, then I think that image should be listed separately. / Fred Chess 19:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment By the way, regarding counting or not: it is always better to know people, who are active here... What do you think about this ("Wiederholter Löschvandalismus", "ignoriert diskussionenen", "Editwar"...)? Have you seen deletion requests according Scandinavian PD templates (PD-Finland50, PD-Sweden-photo and PD-Denmark50), and this comment? Julo 11:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Husky (talk to me) 19:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
There is not a copyviol because the image is not covered by any copyright.
The images have been painted in Poland by Polish authors and they fall under the Polish law, that allows 50 years of copyright by the date they have produced just if the author has requested so!!
Question User:Ynhockey has nominated it for deletion as a copyright violation. But I see Bryan's argument that data cannot be copyrighted. This comes as a surprise for me. The statistical bureau in Denmark claims copyright to it's data, but allows its use under attribution. Law in Israel may make the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics able to claim it's copyright? --|EPO| da: 20:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
_.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.png){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://northerniraq.info/maps/albums/userpics/10001/democracy_turkey_kurdistan.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/arm/history/armenian-empire-large.gif){kind=link}
_1.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
.JPEG){kind=link}
![[26]](http://www.matin.qc.ca/images/14010704.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Junkers_Ju87.jpg&diff=next&oldid=5145061){kind=link}
![[34]](http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n233/Parup_2006/LC_04-005-Junkers-JU-87-Stuka-dive2.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}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[42]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2004_katholische-akademie-habermas-ratzinger_1-799x533.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Elendwappen.PNG&diff=4046202&oldid=4017984){kind=link}
![[50]](http://www.go2war2.nl/artikel-afb/9193061105154644g.jpg){kind=link}
_crop.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_crop.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
_crop.jpg){kind=link}
![[57]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sony_Logo.svg){kind=link}
![[58]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Playstation_logo_colour.svg){kind=link}
![[59]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PS3Logo.svg){kind=link}
_.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){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){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
![[68]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=317465188#File:Julia_Roberts_wax_model.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[77]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Zmachine.jpg){kind=link}
![[78]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Image:Z_machine.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[79]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=863179455#Image%3ACastro_Pretorio_-_teatro_d_Opera_facciata_piacentini_1010030.JPG){kind=link}
![[80]](http://www.autohistory.org/feature_6_kelly_2.jpg){kind=link}
![[81]](http://usuarios.lycos.es/cporschecat/images/personatges/faporsche_l.jpg){kind=link}
![[82]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Image%3ABison-13000.jpg){kind=link}
_still03.jpg){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.gif){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.png){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.png){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.gif){kind=link}
_Verwaltungsgliederung.gif){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[94]](http://posters.nb.admin.ch/cgi-bin/hi-res/hi-res.cgi?image=SNL_SPOR_355.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
