Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
May 1
[edit]Claims "Photographer not identified, so UK Copyright contended to have lapsed 50 years after publication." {{PD-UK-unknown}} says the cutoff is 70 years, not 50. -- Davepape 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted /odder 06:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Claims "Photographer not identified, so UK Copyright contended to have lapsed 50 years after publication." {{PD-UK-unknown}} says the cutoff is 70 years, not 50. Published in 1940 - not before 1937. -- Davepape 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. /odder 06:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This picture is same as Image:Pochuetam1.JPG --Simon Shek 03:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Please use {{Badname}} next time. Siebrand 09:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
error name,please delete it. --Jasonzhuocn 12:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Siebrand 12:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Error name,please delete it.Thanks --Jasonzhuocn 12:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delted. Please consider using {{Badname}} Siebrand 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong destination filename (sorry, was my first contribution). -- Sebastian.Kraft 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
unused image, there's no utility for this kind of images; in it.wiki it creates only more flames -- piero tasso 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
unused image, there's no utility for this kind of images; in it.wiki it creates only more flames (same as up) -- piero tasso 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Uncle bush.jpg. --Polarlys 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
apparently copyrighted from a user uploads copyrighted logos for this university always and license them as this one (gets speedy deleted) -- Mido 11:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 15:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Picture is not from Openclipart/ it can't be found there -- DieBuche 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- They have restructured the site and the clipart on the old site haven't been transfered yet. The creator has a page there at http://openclipart.org/media/people/nicubunu // Liftarn
- OK, I remove the deletion request --DieBuche 14:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As per DieBuche I am hereby closing without taking any action. --|EPO| 16:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
States "owner of original artwork". Owning the painting does not confer copyright. Vojtech Stašík died in 1978, so the painting is not likely to be PD. -- Davepape 01:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work. No permission from Intel. -- Siebrand 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Very low quality --A.J. 13:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Low quality, not used anywhere. Quadzilla99 04:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work shot from a screen --Flominator 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) --Flominator 16:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. The author of the image released the image under GFDL. The photo is taken from a concert - a public apperance - and qualifies Freedom of Panorama. The screen itself is in public.--Anupamsr 13:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- The screen is copyrighted. --Flominator 10:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work shot from a screen, see Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2.jpg --Flominator 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC) --Flominator 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work shot from a screen, see Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2.jpg --Flominator 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work shot from a screen, see Image:Alanis morissette live in munich april 2005 2.jpg --Flominator 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
useless, former content (erosion shaped pinnacles in Kasha-Katuwe Tent Rocks National Monument, New Mexico) moved to useful categories --h-stt !? 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Unlikely that User:Outematic owns the copyright to the Sinn Fein logo. --Jkelly 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete logo. Wooyi 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work, cannot be licesed PD without Sinn Féin's permission. -- Siebrand 09:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.--Padraig3uk 10:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate with AinSalaam-Brummana.jpg --MHM-com 11:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It's smaller and a duplicate of Image:AinSalaam-Brummana.jpg --Digon3 13:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 16:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Uploaded with incorrect file name. File with correct named was already uploaded.KMR 19:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted please use {{Bad name}} in the future. MECU≈talk 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deathcamps haven't copyright to this photo and there is no evidence that's pd-PRL -- Herr Kriss 11:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect license and/or info. Deleted. Siebrand 10:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Adresses and email of the ORAS student council is far too specialistic to be on wikipedia! -- 83.86.10.239 12:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This appears to be a high quality document. As this is not Wikipedia and because of the high quality, I think there is no reason for deletion. Siebrand 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg. --MatthiasKabel 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now geocoded this, and it's in Rothenburg ob der Tauber indeed. Other sites have reference photos that show the same area. --Para 10:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Please add {{Rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg. --MatthiasKabel 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then, should it be renamed instead of deleted? --Javier ME 21:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- If someone can confirm it's Rothenburg ob der Tauber. MatthiasKabel 09:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the sign on the building to the right in the picture Image:Salzburg-P7113948.jpg. It says "Kunstausstellung des Rothenburger Künstlerbundes e. V.". --88.134.140.64 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right. I have now geocoded this, and it's in Rothenburg ob der Tauber indeed. Other sites have reference photos that show the same area. --Para 10:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Please add {{Rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg. --MatthiasKabel 18:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Flickr page doesn't mention where it was taken; the author is from Dormagen. It would be best to figure out where it is and fix the description, but unless it gets re-uploaded under a more accurate name, Keep. No reason to delete until {{Badname}} can apply. Carl Lindberg 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find the exact location of this place, but it's in the middle of the photographer's other Rothenburg ob der Tauber photos, so it's from somewhere there. --Para 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Please add {{Rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Image was taken from Website David 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's a permission e-mail which is incompletely at the moment (ticket 2007050210004827). I've asked the uploader for further information. – Pill → talk 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Missing permission info. Deleted. Siebrand 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This image was definitly not taken in Salzburg, probably in Rothenburg ob der Tauber. I'm living in Salzburg, this is not Salzburg.--MatthiasKabel 18:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find the exact location of this place, but it's in the middle of the photographer's other Rothenburg ob der Tauber photos, so it's from somewhere there. --Para 10:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Please add {{Rename}} for these cases. Siebrand 10:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong name, not needed, unconventional layout (so not used on wikipedia). It's name "KaartDeinze" means "Map of Deinze": this is wrong and misleading: this image:DeinzeMap.svg is the original map of Deinze. Secondly: it seems this map was created somehow to show the location of the village of Gottem. Well, this image:GottemLocation.svg shows the location. And third: we have hundreds of maps to show villages in a uniform layout, this is NOT a clean and conventional way; an infobox with the SVG image shown before does the job. As this image is wrong and redundant, it may be deleted to clean things up and avoid confusion. --LimoWreck 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not used in any Wikimedia project. Thuresson 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:KaartDeinze.png
Lincense is not clear and the author death date was not informed. -- Dantadd✉ 22:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No license. Deleted. Siebrand 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Lincense is not clear and the author was not informed. -- Dantadd✉ 22:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Source is useless for verifying the license. Quadzilla99 04:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Missing info. Deleted. Siebrand 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
incorrect chemical structure --Edgar181 18:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (uploader request) --ALE! ¿…? 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
May 2
[edit]it's not my work --OrrOz 12:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Its content does not have some sense, if draft of rows of text or pure vandalism.
- 'Deleted, no free licence, request of uploader. -- Infrogmation 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
it's not my work --OrrOz 12:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Its content does not have some sense, if draft of rows of text or pure vandalism.
- Deleted, no free licence and per request of uploader. -- Infrogmation 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
misnamed, reuploaded as image:mecamylamine structure
--Edgar181 16:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Yonatan talk 18:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
fair use. --rtc 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, it was long time ago when I've uploaded this file. Delete. Julo 20:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 20:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Source states a CC-NC license. We do not allow images that cannot be used for non-commercial purposes only. This image was undeleted, but should be deleted again. -- Siebrand 11:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- It can be deleted at will, IMO. / Fred Chess 17:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- As the uploader of the image, I now understand why it was initially deleted, and it should be deleted again. –Crashintome4196 18:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, of course you're right. Deleted. /odder 07:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Logo violation -- Markie 22:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even more than that, it is screenshots of websites which contains copyrighted photos. Delete Carl Lindberg 02:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Even more than that, it is screenshots of websites which contains copyrighted photos.
- My apologies – I found out that Wikinews has a separate upload area for fair use images. Delete --Omaryak 04:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: copyvio
Created by sockpuppet en:User:Trish86, probably not actually taken by the original uploader, and even if it were it should be uploaded to the local wiki - it's out of scope here. Also orphaned, low quality, useless name. --Dcoetzee 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Copied from this Centre Daily Times webpage. The CDT's Copyright notice states that "Any copying, redistribution or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of The Centre Daily Times is expressly prohibited." The photograph was clearly taken after 1923, so "public domain" does not apply. Thanks, GChriss 04:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, seems a clear and obvious coyright violation to me. -- Infrogmation 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, im sorry, terribly my fault, i misread what copyright i was putting it under, delete by all means, truly sorry-- Riot Sauce
Deleted by Bryan: copyvio
Pokémon Chaos Black -- 125.63.132.180 09:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work of copyrighted image. —Angr 20:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, --Polarlys 16:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted because there is FOP in Tunisia. --JuTa 19:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
see: Image:Genova-Basilica Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano-IMG 2817.JPG --「Twice28.0 · contributi · talk」 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, duplicate of Image:Genova-Basilica Santa Maria Assunta di Carignano-IMG 2817.JPG Michelet-密是力 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Mistake between name (PORTE d'Italie) and subject (PLACE d'Italie) -- Babskwal 07:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep : in fact NO MISTAKE, should be kept in Commons !!! --Babskwal 08:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Name and description are correct. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Living artist, copyrighted work. --User:G.dallorto 18:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep Israel has freedom of panorama on 3-D objects. The photo is not a derivative work. Carl Lindberg 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good piece of news. I added a {{FOP}} disclaimer, then. --User:G.dallorto 17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Lindberg 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.dallorto 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Lindberg 15:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.dallorto 11:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Lindberg 15:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.dallorto 11:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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 Lindberg 02:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Philippe (WMF) as Copyright violation: com:OFFICE | DMCA Takedown | wmf:DMCA_Oldenburg.
same as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bird in space.jpg where Lupo stated the author died in 1957 -- Yonatan talk 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where's the {{Delete}} tag? The MOMA says Brancusi died in 1957.[1] Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The "delete tag" was deleted by the uploader, whom I had notified. I put it again at its place. --User:G.dallorto 13:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Where's the {{Delete}} tag? The MOMA says Brancusi died in 1957.[1] Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, Image:Coloana fara sfarsit.jpg, no evidence of freedom of panorama in Romania. Yonatan talk 21:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added to COM:FOP (our list there is incomplete). Romania has only non-commercial freedom of panorama. Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I tried looking for it on google but didn't find it. I'd appreciate it if you could give me the website(s) you use to find this sort of information. By the way, if it's non-commercial freedom of panorama I suppose it should still be deleted. Yonatan talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- See COM:L#Weblinks, which I have expanded a bit now. I thought these sources had already been added there, but apparently not. The Romanian law I found at CLEA. Lupo 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the CLEA fiche is also the second hit in the Google search for +Romania +"copyright law" :-) Lupo 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose I didn't search for the right thing ;) Yonatan talk 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, the CLEA fiche is also the second hit in the Google search for +Romania +"copyright law" :-) Lupo 21:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- See COM:L#Weblinks, which I have expanded a bit now. I thought these sources had already been added there, but apparently not. The Romanian law I found at CLEA. Lupo 07:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I tried looking for it on google but didn't find it. I'd appreciate it if you could give me the website(s) you use to find this sort of information. By the way, if it's non-commercial freedom of panorama I suppose it should still be deleted. Yonatan talk 23:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added to COM:FOP (our list there is incomplete). Romania has only non-commercial freedom of panorama. Lupo 22:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- whay the hell should you want to Delet this pic? i took it in a public space? Talmoryair 04:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete speedy. --rtc 21:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
wrong name --Emx 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's the corrected image name? We won't delete this unless the same image has already been re-uploaded with a better name... Carl Lindberg 03:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right image name is Image:Austria Sbg SL +satellite.png. --Emx 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- right, my fault, I should have placed a {bad name}, I didn't know that that time.. really sorry, please delete, its my image - thanks --W!B: 22:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right image name is Image:Austria Sbg SL +satellite.png. --Emx 10:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, when I think about it, I'm not sure the author's death + 70 yrs applies. Divide 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC) --Divide 19:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the author of the drawing is unknown, the rule is year of creation + 100 years. So it should be ok. --ALE! ¿…? 14:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. PD-old because 100+ years old. Siebrand 10:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
(wrong file, black and white) Artfan 09:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. B/w dupe of Image:Baldungamorc.jpg. Siebrand 10:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: see image already exists on Bietschhorn2.jpg Aaron87 17:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Closed. Please use {{duplicate|Image:Bietschhorn2.jpg}} in this type of cases. Siebrand 10:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
image from 1922, we can’t prove that the author (who is not mentioned here) is dead for 70 years now Polarlys 21:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, pre-1923 work, author unknown. Yann 15:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Why? “Richard Réti (…) was an Austrian-Hungarian, later Czechoslovakian chess player” --Polarlys 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's the person pictured, {{Anonymous-EU}} refers to the photographer being anonymous. Yonatan talk 00:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(deletion request reopened by User:Fred Chess)
Deleted: Unknown author, no indication for PD. --GeorgHH 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to assume that this photo from 1922 is public domain. Reti was not from the US. Photos from 1922 are not public domain as a general rule, except if the author has been dead for over 70 years, and this photo has no information of its original source -- Fred Chess 08:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yann was referring to {{Anonymous-EU}}, I'm a bit skeptical as to what constitutes anonymity for this legal claim. I'm not so sure that us not being able to find who took the picture in a random google search is enough to constitute anonymity and therefore the use of {{Anonymous-EU}}. Yonatan talk 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not. "I can't find the author" is not the same as "the author could not be identified." Delete —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's not. "I can't find the author" is not the same as "the author could not be identified."
Deleted: Unknown author, no indication for PD. --GeorgHH 19:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
photo was taken in Spain, not in Argentina. Template PD-AR-Photo not applicable. In addition the date and media of first publication is not mentioned.
The same goes for: Image:Evita en Madrid 02.jpg and Image:Evita en Madrid 01.jpg.
--ALE! ¿…? 08:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- And are take for a citoyen of Spain or Argentina? For a magazine/newspaper of Spain/Argentina/another? First release at?. If Spain (or international press agency), yes. But if Argentina, not. For example, if you (German, correct?) make a turism to Libia or another country with less time under (C), take photos and release this at Mexico (100 years from death of creator for PD) in a turist guide, who are the copyright legislation to apply? If not bad remember, Mexican if you not release this in another country; if yes, European for image and country-specific for any book/guide/etc as collective work. --museo8bits 12:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I could not follow your arguments. Please try writing in Spanish. --ALE! ¿…? 22:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- =Is the picture taken by a spanish or argentinian citizen? and was it published in Sapin, Argentina, or elswhere?
- The source information is missing, we need at least the country of first publication to determine the copyright. But without source, the image should be deleted. Michelet-密是力 04:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
La foto fue publicada en la Argentina, que es lo que dice la ley que da derecho a usarla públicamente. --Hinzel 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- La plantilla dice: "Advertencia: debe indicarse la fecha y fuente de una publicación anterior a 20 años de modo que pueda ser verificado por terceros, y darse clara evidencia de que la imagen fue tomada hace más de 25 años." Vos puedes probar que la foto fue publicado primero en Argentina? En que revista y en que numero? --ALE! ¿…? 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Evita visited Spain in the summer of 1947. My opinion is that it's nearly impossible to trace the original publication of most of these histroical images of Eva Peron. Hope this helps. -- Andrew Parodi
Deleted: No source, does not fulfil requirements by license tag. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The Bureau of the Royal Household allows use according to CC-By-NC-ND 2.5, which is not accepted by the Wikimedia Commons. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 states that governmental documents (specifically, ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบของกระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่น and คำพิพากษา คำสั่ง คำวินิจฉัย และรายงานของทางราชการ) are ineligible for copyright. This likely does not include photographs and such works which do not constitute part of said documents. Paul_012 (talk) 02:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then Template:PD-ThaiGov should probably be modified. --Delirium 19:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. It's indeed a BY-NC-ND 2.5 license.[2] Lupo 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
May 3
[edit]copyvio. Agent Smith in the background is from the movie Matrix III. (also wrong license: GFDL-opengeodb can only be used for images generated by OpenGeoDB (maps)) -- BLueFiSH 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(uploaded with wrong name, these are a different kind of spore) --Alan Rockefeller 04:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, please use {{Bad name}} in the future. --GeorgHH 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
no licence - no source - may be a movie capture -- Nilx 12:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- now {{speedy}} --D-Kuru 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy. --GeorgHH 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
author's mistake during the loading... excuse newbie :) -- Michał T. 13:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy, please use {{Duplicate}} in the future. --GeorgHH 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
taken from: http://www.frado.net/fotoalbum/estacionleon1.jpg --Porquenopuedo 09:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A dubious {{Self}} claim - may be a copyright violation (see [3]). Uploader used this image to vandalize various articles on the English Wikipedia[4]. --Muchness 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: copyvio. --GeorgHH 12:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
copyvio, pictures from http://www.sxc.hu/ can not be used. also wrong (-> missing) license: GFDL-OpenGeoDB is not suitable. -- BLueFiSH 11:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Clear copyvio. See also Commons:Bad sources. --GeorgHH 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Es un archivo de texto y no una imagen. Fue un error subirlo. --Karina.avellan 17:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-~- Translated by Hellotheworld 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC) : This is a text archive, not an image. This was an error to download it.
Deleted by Drini: Commons:Criterio para inclusión : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Criterio_para_inclusi%C3%B3n#Otros_proyectos
if the author is unknown, how do we know that he was argentinian and that the PD-AR-Photo template can be applied? --ALE! ¿…? 07:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Match was playing in Argentina. Sidik iz PTU 12:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well it still could have been a soviet photographer. Has the image been published in Argentina? When and in which media? Without this data the image can not be kept. --ALE! ¿…? 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it. Now I know that it's Soviet photo. Sidik iz PTU 09:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well it still could have been a soviet photographer. Has the image been published in Argentina? When and in which media? Without this data the image can not be kept. --ALE! ¿…? 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Another same category exist Category:Birds of Tanzania --Rémih 13:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate category hereby deleted. --|EPO| 10:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Rupprecht died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Rupprecht died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Rupprecht died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Rupprecht (cartoon) died in 1975 --Polarlys 22:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
seems to contain picutures that are not PD, or are PD only under the dubious Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Soviet. See also Commons:Deletion requests/MIA pictures not PD-old --rtc 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Like the others: Previous e-mail contact with marxists.org, let to the conclusion that they randomly ripped of their images from the web. As such, their CC claims are invalid. The email is archived in Commons:OTRS under Ticket#2007010810008052. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This image is not Josh Hancock, rather, it is Brandon Claussen. This can be proven because the Reds logo is flipped around and is backwards, and it shows the pitcher throwing right handed in the image, which means that this pitcher is left handed when you reverse the image back to it's original position. --68.56.180.115 21:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is Josh Hancock. Proof is at Image:Baseball_pitching_motion_2004.jpg, the source of the image, which clearly displays the number "43", not reversed, not altered. The number "43" belonged to Josh Hancock during his tenure with the Cincinnati Reds. This is Josh Hancock. It should not be deleted. Zachary talk 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The number 4 is clearly visible on the guy's shirt, unreversed. The proposed basis for deletion is fantasy. --Brianmc 21:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly not a fake, and cleary and properly sourced. DragonFire1024 21:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
WAIT: Notice the Reds logo on the uniform, it is backwards. The Reds have NEVER worn a backwards C with the word "SDER" (in backwards letters) on the left side of the chest in their uniform. I believe the "3" and "4" were photoshopped, as Claussen wore "34" when on the Reds.
There's the image in its proper form, the only thing incorrect is the number, which appears to have been edited.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/6669/claussenrx3.jpg
--68.56.180.115 21:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Also notice the "Reds" logo is on the right on their now old home uniform. In the image, it's on the left. Can anyone explain this? Or am I just fantasizing again? [5] --68.56.180.115 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently you are, I took the time to put the image in photoshop. The logo is illegible, even at 300% magnification. The frame looks right in the link provided by Zachary, and if this image is a fake you should also be nominating this one. --Brianmc 22:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In the image, the logo is on the LEFT. --68.56.180.115 22:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, notice this fact: If you brighten the image, you can clearly tell the C is reversed, and all's you need is a pair of eyes to tell that the logo is on the left. --68.56.180.115 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Forgot I had an account here....all IP edits here were made by me. --CFIF 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see this clearly as well. The image (and its base image) have been manipulated. Look at the logo closely and compare it with a photo of the actual uniform and logo as provided in those links - it's been flopped backward. The original image should be deleted as well. FCYTravis 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- THANK YOU! This is the point I've been trying to make. --CFIF 22:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Should be deleted. It's reversed, and the "4" is Photoshopped on, poorly, probably because whoever did the retouching wasn't skilled enough to make the "4" contour to the body. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that this has been manipulated...the Reds logo is backwards and 4 is obviously overlaid on the real image. We definitely shouldn't be claiming this is Hancock. Christopher Parham 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - blatantly manipulated image - Alison ☺ 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have person consent? -- EugeneZelenko 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, nonsense--Polarlys 11:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, and easily replacable using math tags, which are preferable as they're easier to edit. --Dcoetzee 00:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, and ought to be converted to markup, for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, wrong format, should be replaced with math markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, wrong format, should be replaced with math markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, wrong format. Should be replaced with markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, wrong format. Should be replaced with markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, wrong format. Should be replaced with markup for editability. --Dcoetzee 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have now replaced this image with markup on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad name, wrong format, has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. --Dcoetzee 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
has been replaced with markup for editability on es:Medidas_de_dispersión. Deleted. Siebrand 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Image has been manipulated by being flopped from its original orientation. The Cincinnati Reds logo is clearly reversed from its correct orientation. --FCYTravis 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete or fix. --CFIF 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have a feeling the flip was done so that the pitch would be in the same direction as the progression of images. Regardless, the image was clearly altered. -- tariqabjotu 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per reasons above. Cla68 00:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. So the image has been flipped left-to-right. Does that make it any less accurate an illustration of the motions involved in a baseball pitch? --Carnildo 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, it does, because all the motions are the reverse of what they should be. Furthermore, we are being fundamentally dishonest by hosting photographs that purport to be of historical events yet lie to the viewer. Such an act would not be acceptable in any major newspaper or magazine, and it shouldn't be acceptable on the Commons either. We're not talking about a piece of Photoshop artwork here, we're talking about what amounts to a series of doctored news photographs. Even the jersey numbers have been 'shopped. FCYTravis 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is this a photograph of a historic event, or is it a photograph of the motions involved in pitching a baseball? And is there any difference between the motions of a left-handed pitcher as viewed from the right side of home plate, and the motions of a right-handed pitcher as viewed from the left side of home plate? --Carnildo 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, it does, because all the motions are the reverse of what they should be. Furthermore, we are being fundamentally dishonest by hosting photographs that purport to be of historical events yet lie to the viewer. Such an act would not be acceptable in any major newspaper or magazine, and it shouldn't be acceptable on the Commons either. We're not talking about a piece of Photoshop artwork here, we're talking about what amounts to a series of doctored news photographs. Even the jersey numbers have been 'shopped. FCYTravis 01:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, I'm not exactly sure what has been done to make the C reversed, but I don't think something should be deleted for that. I mean, I agree with FCYTravis, but I take that as a reason to avoid its usage (or make explicit explanation of what was done to the photo) in articles, not for deletion from the commons. It can be a valuable image here and what was done to it should be explained. gren 05:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - It's not just the "C" that has been reversed. The entire image is flipped, and incorrect numbers have been photoshopped in. This came up because the photo was purported to be an image of a now-deceased pitcher (w:Josh Hancock). It's not. The photo is doctored and unsalvageable unless we have the original photos. FCYTravis 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have added Template:retouched. Feel free to add to the description of what has been retouched. I see your point, but since there are no copyright issues I think a description of what we know was retouched (and what we are unsure of) should suffice. gren`
- Comment - It's not just the "C" that has been reversed. The entire image is flipped, and incorrect numbers have been photoshopped in. This came up because the photo was purported to be an image of a now-deceased pitcher (w:Josh Hancock). It's not. The photo is doctored and unsalvageable unless we have the original photos. FCYTravis 08:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete'. Sadly, the image hasn't merely been flipped. A number was added to the chest. When flipped back, the image is obviously doctored. 67.186.190.207 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The original sequence of images (of Brandon Claussen) is now at Image:Baseball_pitching_motion_2004r.jpg. The change in orientation was merely an aesthetic thing; nothing more sinister than that. The hive can decide where to go with it from here; I have no opinion. Rdikeman 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, absolutely! As an illustration for conveying to the reader what a baseball pitch looks like, it's excellent. It was obviously flipped just to show a natural left-to-right progression...nothing sinister or dishonest about it. And that flipping doesn't matter in the least...it's not puporting to document a historical event. If it were a hand-drawn or computer-generated cartoon, showing four stages in a baseball pitch, I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. This is an equivalent thing...an area where some artistic license is permissible. Consider it an artist's illustration based on real photographic source material. Now if it were presented as an actual series of photographs of the subject pitcher, or of his 25,000th pitch, that would be inappropriate. But as an illustrative tool for the pitching article, it's superb. 134.131.125.49 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept. Obviously a use photo that is used in 62 articles in various projects. Thuresson 12:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Within the project’s scope? Advertising? --Polarlys 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't see any encyclopedic value in it... we have pictures of breasts and pictures of cleavage, and probably even pictures of ripped shirts if that's what is needed. This particular one seems more like advertising to me. -- Editor at Large • talk 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Those are not reasons to delete. Since it's a free picture you could ofcourse edit out the text if you'd want to. // Liftarn
- Delete Agree with Editor at Large. Isn't it odd that her torn top displays an url..? --|EPO| 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not used in any Wikimedia projects and the original uploader has made several problematic uploads. Thuresson 17:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
same image as Image:Blason ville fr Le Croisic (Loire-Atlantique) alternatif.svg // Bad name convention for this image. Should have been called image:Blason ville fr Le Croisic (Loire-Atlantique) alternatif.svg. Thx ;) --Hellotheworld 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{Duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 09:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
why should this image be in the public domain? There is surely a known author (maybe not known to us), so PD-old does not apply. --ALE! ¿…? 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Terribly outdated. Not used. Superseded by superior format (SVG). Spelling errors--Ysangkok 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep:Outdated is no reason for deletion. And the superseded procedure will go on if we have consensus about it. --GeorgHH 18:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep:Please don't delete. Outdated is an opinion. The alternative that is being referred to, although more accurate in technical details, is unsuitable for a thumbnail in a Wikipage. Can't someone just update the info without all the highlighting?-Rafael
- Why does the other picture fit better? SVG's ought to scale better because the text can be rendered at the size it should be. And how can outdated be an "opinion"? Take a look at http://kernel.org/ . Here you will see that the latest Linux kernel version is not 2.6.12.5. --Ysangkok 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Outdated" is flatly incorrect. The picture is dated 2005, only two years ago, and provides an excellent overview of the 35-some-year development of the UNIX family. If the precise version numbers are important to you, please edit the picture and upload the updated version. --Tony Sidaway 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've already done that: Image:Unix_history.svg :P. Also, I think it makes a difference if the Linux version is 2.6.12 or 2.6.21. It's not just "off-by-one". --Ysangkok 18:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. --MichaelMaggs 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- (see also the related debates for Template:PD-Finland50 and Template:PD-Sweden-photo)
w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection contained a clause for unifying the demarcation for protection as photographic works (photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account", in direct contradiction to this template). There are court decisions in Germany[8] and Austria[9][10][11] that have decided this uniform demarcation to be very low, such that basically only mug shots and reproduction photography, where the outcome is more or less determined by the task, would remain as simple photographs. Even if, for some reason, this uniform demarcation has not been received the same way in Denmark (but I cannot find a court decision contradicting it), the directive would still cause the works to be protected in other EU countries that agree with the German/Austrian interpretation, because the the EU-wide anti-discrimination laws. When Copy-Dan writes that "Since no established legal practice exists in this field, drawing the line between photographic works and photographic images can be difficult"[12], it seems not to have noticed the German and Austrian court cases, and when it writes that a photograph is non-simple "if the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit. In practical terms it will often be taken into account if the person in question had taken a professional education as a photographer and / or if he had this occupation for a living" ([13], p.5), it seems not to have noticed the clause in the EU directive that, since it was implemented, must be taken as the binding interpretation of any remaining unclarity. Please someone who can speak danish write to copy-dan informing them about these mistakes. --rtc 17:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As we have seen in the PD-Finland50 case, there is some scope in interpreting the "author's own intellectual creation", "personality" etc. Anyhow, I have a strong reservation regarding those "simple photograph" licenses because people don't exactly know about the limitation unless there are some legislative clarifications or exemplary case law. Based on my experience i think that such templates are highly misused and cannot be maintained with reasonable costs. Therefore i think it should be deleted.--Wiggum 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
"Please someone who can speak danish write to copy-dan informing them about these mistakes." Who sad it is a mistake. Just because a german and austrian decision has been mad doesn't make it law in Denmark. (Last time I checked EU is still a collection of independent states). Just because you want the same rules on copyright in every country and your main goal on Commons apparently is deleting as many photos as possible doesn't make it right. --Broadbeer 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to waste my time on German law anymore. I've wasted too much of my life on it last time this template was nominated for deletion, and this is turning into a perpetuum mobile. However, I will say publicly that a German judge has no authority outside of his own nation, and rulings by German courts will very likely not be a deciding factor in a Danish court of law, as Danish legal traditions are based on Danish law with inputs from Scandinavian law, Common law and Roman law, in that order (source: Peter Schønning: "Ophavsretten med kommentarer"). But it is kind of interesting to see that the deletionist rampage isn't applied with the same rigour everywhere. We have a ton of images tagged with {{PD-Coa-Germany}}, and they might very well be PD there. but I don't believe for a second that any image using this tag is PD in Denmark or anywhere else where they don't hold any official status. {{PD-art}} images are PD in Germany and the US, but not in many other nations. If the idea is that images on Commons must be free to use for everybody, then these images are disqualified as well. If there is a higher meaning in these deletion nominations, I can't follow it. Valentinian (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Quite outside of the EU regulations, the threshold of originality varies amongst countries, and such "simple photographs" from Denmark are eligible for copyright as "photographic works" in other countries where the threshold of originality is low (such as the U.S.). Therefore, I do not consider such "simple photograph" exceptions useful here at the commons; such photos may be protected only for a short term in Denmark, but may well be works with a long copyright term outside of Denmark. Such images are better hosted at the Danish WP. Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- (On PD-Coa-Germany: COAs in Germany are PD by virtue of having been published in official legislative documents (which is madated by GErmany's administrative laws), and many countries including the U.S. exclude such official legislative documents from copyright. Furthermore, this tag here is not about official works. On PD-Art, please see COM:ART.) Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also see §5(2) of the Berne Convention: copyright in a country "shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." Lupo 10:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the laws of both Germany and other countries regarding heraldic images (although I still need to check most of Western Europe [14]), but outside of Germany, these images are merely works of art with no special status, so that must make the actual rendition of an foreign insignia a work of art copyrighted for the life of the author + 70 years. {{PD-USGov}} is a false parallel as it applies solely to works made by the US federal government, it doesn't even apply for the governments of US federal states, so it cannot apply for images produced in Germany. I just find it curious that many of these deletion requests are based on the argument that the image X must be free to use in Germany and Austria = an argument that Wikipedia practice must be harmonized on the most restrictive level, not on the level used in the country of origin. However, if this has become the rule, then said rule must be applied both ways, PD-Coa-Germany is merely a case in point. Regarding the current deletion request, I don't see any reason to add further to what I stated the last time. Have a nice day. Valentinian (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, since most of these images refer to World War II, this webpage from Denmark's National Museum suggests to me that the rigid standard demanded here is not applied in Denmark. Valentinian (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, you brought Germany into this debate, not I. Second, I said nothing about PD-USGov. I was talking about "legislative documents". That's two different issues. Many governments, even where they can hold copyrights, explicitly exclude "legislative documents" and such from copyright. Third, my argument for deletion had nothing to do with either, nor with Germany, nor with Austria, nor with any EU regulation, but with the different thresholds of originality in different countries, which IMO severely limits the usefulness of these "simple photograph" templates. Lupo 22:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway, since most of these images refer to World War II, this webpage from Denmark's National Museum suggests to me that the rigid standard demanded here is not applied in Denmark. Valentinian (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware of the laws of both Germany and other countries regarding heraldic images (although I still need to check most of Western Europe [14]), but outside of Germany, these images are merely works of art with no special status, so that must make the actual rendition of an foreign insignia a work of art copyrighted for the life of the author + 70 years. {{PD-USGov}} is a false parallel as it applies solely to works made by the US federal government, it doesn't even apply for the governments of US federal states, so it cannot apply for images produced in Germany. I just find it curious that many of these deletion requests are based on the argument that the image X must be free to use in Germany and Austria = an argument that Wikipedia practice must be harmonized on the most restrictive level, not on the level used in the country of origin. However, if this has become the rule, then said rule must be applied both ways, PD-Coa-Germany is merely a case in point. Regarding the current deletion request, I don't see any reason to add further to what I stated the last time. Have a nice day. Valentinian (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and for more arguments, see the related discussions regarding Finland and Sweden.
I think it's quite sad the way quotes a Danish document like this: "-- -- a photograph is non-simple 'if the image has the necessary independent / artistic merit. In practical terms it will often be taken into account if the person in question had taken a professional education as a photographer and / or if he had this occupation for a living' ([6], p.5)". So doing Rtc leaves out the next sentence: "but in principle (?) an amateur can also create a photographic work" ("men i princippet kan også en amatør frembringe et fotografisk værk"). Samulili 15:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reasons as in the related discussions regarding Finland and Sweden. --C.Thure 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The German courts do not have authority in Denmark and until the Danish courts rule these must be considered PD. If they are not usable in Germany the template should carry a disclaimer similar to the one on {{PD-US}}. -Nard 14:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- KeepAs per discussion above. --Alien life form 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep
the whole discussion about PD-Finland-50, PD-Dennmark, and PD-Sweden is useless for obvious reason, that we all have to respect the regulations of Finnish, Swedish or Dannish law, and the only valid interpretation is F, S. or D. court interpretation of common law, not private German opinions is (or even verdicts of German Courts - there are suitable only on the territory of FRG, not abroad.
Is anyone (brave Viking) in whole Scandinavia to conclude and close these discusssions or there will be disputed without conclusion to the end of the world ;)
Freedom First - every limitation has to be justify in detail. Andros64 10:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
kept; as German court has no jurisdiction outside Germany. Danish laws regargarding copyrights have not changed anything regarding photographic images. When the law is changed we can discuss this template. --|EPO| da: 14:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- (see also the related debate Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Finland50 and Deletion requests/Template:PD-Denmark50)
The first part of this tag is invalidated by w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration. Concerning the second part: The directive contained a clause for unifying the demarcation for protection as photographic works (photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account"). There are court decisions in Germany[15] and Austria[16][17][18] that have decided this uniform demarcation to be very low, such that basically only mug shots and reproduction photography, where the outcome is more or less determined by the task, would remain as simple photographs. Even if, for some reason, this uniform demarcation has not been received the same way in Sweden (but I cannot find a court decision contradicting it), the directive would still cause the works to be protected in other EU countries that agree with the German/Austrian interpretation, because the the EU-wide anti-discrimination laws. --rtc 17:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- None of those court cases dealt with images tagged with this template. The German government or German courts do not have jurisdiction in Sweden or the following countries: The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, France, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Poland or Czechoslovakia. But don't take my word for it. You have claimed: "Since I strongly suppose that it is not the case "that the Austrian and German cases are also significant for other EU members", you are of course right that "showing it individually for the other EU member countries" is the only way to find out.". Thuresson 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I recommend a careful study of Henry Olsson's "Svensk och internationell upphovsrätt", 7th edition, 2006, and Kerstin Ahlberg's "Din upphovsrätt och andras", 3rd edition, 2006. Thuresson 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not an argument. What do they say in there? --rtc 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid repeating wellknown arguments, may I ask which literature on Swedish copyright you have read? Mr. Olsson is a wellknown doctor of law and vice president of "Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt". His book on Swedish copyright is required reading for anybody interested in the subject. Mrs Ahlberg is a wellknown trademark attorney who has written an acclaimed book on copyright for journalists. Thuresson 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not care who these people are, I want to know what they have written that you think applies to the context of this deletion request. I have not read anything by them. If they are still describing old demarcation criteria from times before the EU-Directive came into effect in the book, then you should mail them, point out their error and ask them to fix that. --rtc 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick reply. Which works on Swedish copyright law have you read? Are you familiar with Katarina Renman Claesson? Thuresson 01:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have actually not read any work at all on Swedish copyright law, and I don't think that there is any need for that as long as we are discussing EU-wide regulations. If there is anything in these books that talks explicitly about effects of EU directives, please tell me the details. If not, then these books are all irrelevant for this discussion. --rtc 04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- By your own admission you are unfamiliar with the copyright act. Thuresson 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have actually not read any work at all on Swedish copyright law, and I don't think that there is any need for that as long as we are discussing EU-wide regulations. If there is anything in these books that talks explicitly about effects of EU directives, please tell me the details. If not, then these books are all irrelevant for this discussion. --rtc 04:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your quick reply. Which works on Swedish copyright law have you read? Are you familiar with Katarina Renman Claesson? Thuresson 01:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not care who these people are, I want to know what they have written that you think applies to the context of this deletion request. I have not read anything by them. If they are still describing old demarcation criteria from times before the EU-Directive came into effect in the book, then you should mail them, point out their error and ask them to fix that. --rtc 00:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- To avoid repeating wellknown arguments, may I ask which literature on Swedish copyright you have read? Mr. Olsson is a wellknown doctor of law and vice president of "Svenska föreningen för upphovsrätt". His book on Swedish copyright is required reading for anybody interested in the subject. Mrs Ahlberg is a wellknown trademark attorney who has written an acclaimed book on copyright for journalists. Thuresson 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, that's not an argument. What do they say in there? --rtc 18:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment
A while ago the template PD-Soviet was discussed. There, the United States court interpreted the Russian copyright law in deciding that an image was protected by copyright in Russia, and thereby also in the U.S.
Now, the German copyright law says that it applies to people in all countries of the E.U. (correct me if I'm wrong), so I understand that forum shopping is possible there. Which is what happened to the Italian music/opera that was found to be copyrighted in Germany.
How many countries say that they allow their own copyright law to supersede the copyright law of the country it was created in? For example, the Swedish copyright law would give no reason to do so -- it says in its article 60 that it only apply to works published in Sweden or published by Swedes. [19] And Sweden actually has ratified the EU directive on harmonization of copyright (you can see it being referenced in article 61a). So, I do not think that forum shopping would be possible in Sweden, for example.
So in which countries are forum shopping possible? If it is only possible in Germany then it is better to keep the template with a note that it can't be used on German Wikipedia.
Fred Chess 20:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Forum shopping is possible in all countries (except those which signed no copyright treaty at all, but that can change at any moment, and the Foundation has stated that we do as if there were such treaties, anyway). Swedish copyright law applies to works of all countries with which Sweden has signed treaties. That is, swedish copyright law protects all EU works without consideration of rule of the shorter terms, and it protects external works with rule of the shorter term. The copyright law of the country it was created in is basically completely irrelevant except in rule oft the shorter term calculations. And it is really only this calcuation. Whether the work passes threshold of originality, whether it is a simple photograph, whether panorama freedom applies etc. is always determined by the law of the country in which the restriction is sued for, not by the law of the country in which the work has been created. --rtc 22:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The clause in the directive which to unifies the demarcation for a "work" is the same that has been in use in Sweden for decades before the directive. What Rtc fails to understand time after time, is that the one simple line in directive can be interpreted in many ways—and is interpreted in many ways. Samulili 09:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The EU directive is very clear that photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account", and the German court has said that this means it's original as soon as the photographer chooses the position freely and presses the button by his own choice. This is so broad that hardly any picture remains that is not a photographic work. --rtc 16:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between European Union directive and European Union regulation? --Pudeo 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The directive dictates the result, and the result is very clearly described in the directive. We know the result that had to be achieved. Unfortunately, w:Directive_on_the_coordination_of_certain_rules_concerning_copyright_and_rights_related_to_copyright_applicable_to_satellite_broadcasting_and_cable_retransmission#Implementation lists the implementation in Sweden as unknown.--rtc 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)- Don't you mean en:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection#Implementation? Sweden implemented 93/98/EEC in 1995, when they joined the EU. Lupo 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. Sorry. --rtc 17:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you mean en:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection#Implementation? Sweden implemented 93/98/EEC in 1995, when they joined the EU. Lupo 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The EU directive is very clear that photos are "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account". And you know what? This is what the Swedish law says about photos, too. Samulili 12:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good, then we agree that Sweden implemented the directive in exactly the same way as Germany. --rtc 17:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you understand the difference between European Union directive and European Union regulation? --Pudeo 20:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Quite outside of the EU regulations, the threshold of originality varies amongst countries, and such "simple photographs" from Sweden are eligible for copyright as "photographic works" in other countries where the threshold of originality is low (such as the U.S.). Therefore, I do not consider such "simple photograph" exceptions useful here at the commons; such photos may be protected only for a short term in Sweden, but may well be works with a long copyright term outside of Sweden. Such images are better hosted at the Swedish WP. Lupo 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also see §5(2) of the Berne Convention: copyright in a country "shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." Lupo 10:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep The copyright harmonization directive rtc brings out does not apply to the photos considered here. This template considers photos which are not "author's own intellectual creations reflecting his personality", so they are covered by a related right, not copyright. The German courts demarcate the level of intellectual creation differently from Finland or Sweden and there is no Union-level jurisprudence. The views of German or Austrian courts do not bind Swedish courts or the courts of European Union. The final say on whether Swedish Copyright law provides photos with the protection required by the Copyright directive rests with the Court of European Communities. Before that court issues judgement, nobody knows. However, we should not be overcautious. So, you can get into trouble with these pictures if you use them in Germany or Austria, but outside them, there is no use to restrict the use of these images. --MPorciusCato 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:rtc agrees with you. In September rtc wrote: "Since I strongly suppose that it is not the case "that the Austrian and German cases are also significant for other EU members", you are of course right that "showing it individually for the other EU member countries" is the only way to find out.". Thuresson 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- If this template considers photos which are not the "author's own intellectual creation[s] reflecting his personality", then it is simply misapplied completely. Only reproduction photography, mugshots etc., where the technical goal determines the outcome, cannot be considered "author's own intellectual creation[s] reflecting his personality". As soon as the photographer can in principle choose the position freely and press the button arbitrarily, it is the "author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality" The German court case is well significant for the other EU members insofar as they give a well founded opinion on how the directive's "author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality" is to be interpreted. The Austrian court cases shows that this German court case is cited even by non-German courts, as a uniform demarcation to be applied EU-wide. If you publish a allegedly, but not really simple photograph in Sweden, and I sue you there, do you think the court there would ignore it if I pointed them to the German decision? --rtc 17:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- That you say that principle is completely misapplied is an opinion, not an argument. I think that the misapplication has taken place in Germany/Austrian. This, too, is an opinion, ie. just another stinking asshole...
- And sure, someone in Finland(/Sweden/Denmark) could bring up the case in Germany/Austria. But it is immensely more likely that they will ask the opionion of the Finnish copyright council which will bare immensely more weight and whose opinion we also know. Furthermore, it doesn't really reflect well on the German/Austrian attitude, if the opinions of these two countries are set up as the model for the whole Europe when, in fact, the opinion of the Court of European Communities is the only one which has any significans accross borders. Samulili 18:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What I say is not "an opinion", it is a fact. There has been no misapplication in Germany/Austria. The judgement was well based and the judge was well aware of the former law of Germany which was the same as the old law in Sweden, and which set high requirements for photographic works. But this was the old law, and it has changed since the implementation of the directive. According to your standards, I'd say that whatever you say or whatever the copyright council says is "just an opinion". A wrong opinion is not any better just because it is held by some alleged authority. There is still the pre-directive interpretation of the law floating around, and courts, copyright offices and so on are all not yet completely aware of the change and judge according to the old standards. However, this is the past. --rtc 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What did the old law of Germany say and what do you think that the Swedish law says? The Swedish law: "Anyone who has created a literary or artistic work shall have copyright in that work, regardless of whether it is -- -- a photographic work -- --." ("Den som har skapat ett litterärt eller konstnärligt verk har upphovsrätt till verket oavsett om det är -- -- fotografiskt verk -- --.") Samulili 19:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The old German law was interpreted as artistic merit or purpose being necessary for a photo to be protected as a photographic work. Since the EU directive has been implemented, this has changed, since it explicitly rejects that criterion ("no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account" -- there can be no misunderstanding about that, and it's simply quite ridiculous that people are simply ignoring it) What does the cited part of the swedish law have to do with our discussion? --rtc 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- You claimed something about old and new Swedish law, so it's relevant to know just what stands in the law. Mind you, there is no old or new Swedish in this respect. What I quoted has stayed the same for 47 years. You also write: "The judgement was well based and the judge was well aware of the former law of Germany which was the same as the old law in Sweden." Then you write: "The old German law was interpreted as artistic merit or purpose being necessary for a photo to be protected as a photographic work." Swedish law does not require that a photo has artistic merit or purpose for a photo to be protected as a work. It never has required. Samulili 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then we agree that the criterion is not artistic merit or purpose, but choosing position and pressing the button? (in contrast to mugshots, satellite photos etc. where it is predetermined by the task and no personality reflected). We also agree that the template is certainly valid, but all pictures uploaded under it are actually photographic works? --rtc 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- You want to know my asshole? It is that photos that reflect personality are to be considered works. My asshole also says that choosing position and the moment of pressing the button reflect personality only when choosing the position and the moment of pressing the button reflect personality. The template is certainly valid and, no, the pictures that are using it, are not works. Samulili 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The pictures that are using it are all works, since they were shot by choosing the position and the moment of pressing the button. You can recycle this template for reproduction photography. It covers the same range of photos as Template:PD-art, just for sweden. --rtc 20:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- You want to know my asshole? It is that photos that reflect personality are to be considered works. My asshole also says that choosing position and the moment of pressing the button reflect personality only when choosing the position and the moment of pressing the button reflect personality. The template is certainly valid and, no, the pictures that are using it, are not works. Samulili 19:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Blah, blah, blah. Repeating something won't make it more true. Samulili 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's correct. It was already as true as it can get from the very beginning. --rtc 21:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Blah, blah, blah. Repeating something won't make it more true. Samulili 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Quote: "I have actually not read any work at all on Swedish copyright law" and "I strongly suppose that it is not the case "that the Austrian and German cases are also significant for other EU members". Thuresson 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing of this contradicts my arguments for deleting this tag. --rtc 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Quote: "I have actually not read any work at all on Swedish copyright law" and "I strongly suppose that it is not the case "that the Austrian and German cases are also significant for other EU members". Thuresson 13:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have made an argument on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Finland50 [20] why I believe that many photos tagged with this or the related Finland and Denmark templates are actually OK in the US. If my reason is correct then vote Keep for this template, for the time being. If other wikipedians than German and English would like to have this and related templates deleted, they should come forth and say so. I do not approve of a user who claims to have no juridical background speaking on behalf of them, pretending to be able to interpret various laws based on "common sense", as though such a thing existed in the juridical world. / Fred Chess 16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just because X says Y, and X has property Z, does not have as a necessary consequence that Y is false (for example if Z="no juridical background") or that Y is true (for example if Z="Professor in law"). Critical examination is necessary, and I gave some hints on how to do that (writing an email to the FCC about the issue, pointing to the court decisions and asking them about what they think about it). --rtc 21:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - German and Austrian law does not apply directly to Sweden. If this was more broadly accepted by EU nations, then it might hold more water. --PhantomS 12:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As per discussion above. Huggorm 19:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete EU regulations take precedent, if you deleted the PD italy and related tags, this has to go too Madmax32 02:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is not about EU regulations. Do you comprehend the difference between European Union directives and European Union regulations? Thuresson 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I briefly read your links, it seems that because of legal precedent, EU directives are indeed binding and enforceable for member states, this marginalizes your claims that is acceptable to ignore the EU directive. Also I am not from Europe, but since you like to operate based on international law here on commons, the quote from lupo about the Berne convention seems relevant 'Also see §5(2) of the Berne Convention: copyright in a country "shall be independent of the existence of protection in the country of origin of the work." ' Swedish law has no business on here, not to mention these servers are not hosted in Sweden. Madmax32 08:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- "Notwithstanding the fact that directives were not originally thought to be binding before they were implemented by member states, the European Court of Justice developed the doctrine of direct effect where unimplemented directives can actually have direct legal force and in Francovich v. Italy the court found Italy liable for their failure to implement a directive."[21] and 'Direct Effect' [22] 'In Comet v. Produktschap (Case 45/76) [1976] ECR 2043, the European Court of Justice established that the procedural rules of each member state generally apply to cases of EC law.' That seems plausible that the Swedish copyright law in question could be challenged easily in a court, it's on shaky grounds at best. Madmax32 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is not about EU regulations. Do you comprehend the difference between European Union directives and European Union regulations? Thuresson 12:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- That's all very well, but the question here is not whether EU directives or regulations take precedent over national legislation or not. Samulili 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your claim that Swedish copyright law could easily be challenged in court seem to be a misunderstanding. The directive was implemented into Swedish law in 1996. Thuresson 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically the PD-Sweden, potentially a creator of a work could challenge the swedish law using the case law example set in Germany, this template is really just a liability and should go Madmax32 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please specify. Just like in Germany, most works are protected by Swedish copyright law for life + 70 years. Thuresson 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- As rtc pointed out, the German interpretation sets a case law example, a Swedish citizen could challenge the 50 year law used for tagging certain images here in a court, since it offers them less intellectual copyright protection than those in other EU member states, this tag has the same problems as the deleted Italy PD template Madmax32 21:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please specify. Just like in Germany, most works are protected by Swedish copyright law for life + 70 years. Thuresson 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Specifically the PD-Sweden, potentially a creator of a work could challenge the swedish law using the case law example set in Germany, this template is really just a liability and should go Madmax32 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your claim that Swedish copyright law could easily be challenged in court seem to be a misunderstanding. The directive was implemented into Swedish law in 1996. Thuresson 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, a Swedish citizen could not challenge the 50 year regulation, but they could challenge the interpretation on what is a "fotografisk verk" and what is a simple "fotograf". Secondly, he could do that even if there never was any case in Germany. And thirdly: We can all be sued whether we are guilty or not – but at least we're innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa. Oh, and a fourth thing: equal treatment in EAA regardless of nationality means that every citizen of a EAA state has the same rights in Sweden. They also have equal rights in Germany. That, however, does not mean that they will have the same rights in Sweden as they have in Germany (unless required by a directive or regulation). Samulili 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- first of all US law makes no distinction between "fotografisk verk" a simple "fotograf" as you say, so those Swedish images are problematic since they may still be copyrighted in the US (70 years after death of author), this is the same reason the Italy-PD tag was deleted, but you are ignoring this point Madmax32 01:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, a Swedish citizen could not challenge the 50 year regulation, but they could challenge the interpretation on what is a "fotografisk verk" and what is a simple "fotograf". Secondly, he could do that even if there never was any case in Germany. And thirdly: We can all be sued whether we are guilty or not – but at least we're innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa. Oh, and a fourth thing: equal treatment in EAA regardless of nationality means that every citizen of a EAA state has the same rights in Sweden. They also have equal rights in Germany. That, however, does not mean that they will have the same rights in Sweden as they have in Germany (unless required by a directive or regulation). Samulili 22:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not ignoring it. I've said before that we have a lot of PD-licenses (and other free licenses) used for images which are not PD in the US. But that is a different discussion and is discussed elsewhere. Samulili 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - As per discussion above. Mikael Lindmark 19:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The German courts do not have authority in Sweden and until the Swedish courts rule these must be considered PD. If they are not usable in Germany the template should carry a disclaimer similar to the one on {{PD-US}}. -Nard 14:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As per discussion above. --Alien life form 13:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- This deletion request is based on EU Council Directive 93/98/EEC. However, that directive was repealed in 2006 and replaced with Directive 2006/116/EC which states about photographs that are not works: "The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." National law in this case states that photographs that are not works are protected for 50 years if published after 1968. Photographic works and simple photographs that had become public domain in 1994 when the copyright act was changed did not have their copyright revived (Law 1994:190). Thuresson 19:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep
the whole discussion about PD-Finland-50, PD-Dennmark, and PD-Sweden is useless for obvious reason, that we all have to respect the regulations of Finnish, Swedish or Dannish law, and the only valid interpretation is F, S. or D. court interpretation of common law, not private German opinions is (or even verdicts of German Courts - there are suitable only on the territory of FRG, not abroad.
Is anyone (brave Viking) in whole Scandinavia to conclude and close these discusssions or there will be disputed without conclusion to the end of the world ;)
Freedom First - every limitation has to be justify in detail.
Andros64 10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept as laws of Germany does not apply for Sweden. Copyright law has not been changed. Make a new discussion when the law gets changed. --|EPO| da: 00:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
- (see also the related debate Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Sweden-photo and Deletion requests/Template:PD-Denmark50)
This is a utterly useless license. While i do not dispute the 50 years for non-work photographs this case is similar to the PD-Italy-problem. The limits for works are very low, in case of Finland, Commons:Licensing#Finland states that only photographs in which the "[...] photographer had no control over the composition or lighting of the picture can not be concidered works of art.". I checked some pictures which where tagged with PD-Finland50, not a single one of them was a non-work under the described circumstances. The reason for deletion request on the template and not on the single picture: I can't imagine that there is a photograph which complies with the quoted requirements on "simpleness" and is of any use on commons. Actually Germany has the same requirements for simple photographs and i don't remember to have seen a useful simple photograph ever.--Wiggum 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Once again these Germans come all over Europe to tell what to do. I tell you something, this is a Finnish law, and the Finnihs copyright council has given a decision that this image is not a work so you claims of not-simpleness are bollocks. -Samulili 22:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- This is a very astonishing example, i didn't know it before. Actually, with this picture being a simple work, COM:L is pretty wrong or at least extremely misleading. The photographer has "control over the composition or lighting of the picture" when he uses a simple photocamera (you know, diaphragm, exposure, film speed, used photographic lens, moment when he triggers the shutter etc.pp.), so this is a wording which applies to the example image you provided. If this "copyright council" (what is it?) is correct, the wording should be: "Virtually any photograph is a simple photograph. A picture is only considered as a photographic work when the following criteria apply: ...".
- This leads me to the next consideration. There should be a testable distinction to use the template reasonable. I would like to see a picture which is considered a photograpic work or much better i would appreciate to see the hard criteria for photographic works.
- Finally, with PD-Finland50 we have the same international implications like we had with PD-Italy before. Since each country has it's own definition of what is a "simple photograph" and the rule of shorter term isn't applicable within the EU, the pictures are still protected in a number of countries, in detail in all countries which have a very low limit for photograpic works (i.e. Germany and Austria) and in all countries without a distinction between simple photographs and works. Lupo kindly provided an overview on this issue: User:Lupo/Simple Photographs.--Wiggum 09:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wiggum, I deeply respect your calm tone and I apologize for being such a jerk. I see how you were mislead by the text on the licensing page. I changed the text so that it is clear that the image is only an example. There were further problems on the page, too. The reasoning given was that of the other party in the dispute while the reasoning of the Copyright council was: "Council sees that the photograph -- -- is despite its historical importance a regular photo of current events. The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer and so it can't be considered to be -- a photographic work." The Council also says that the "threshold of originality" is typically considered to be quite high.
- The Copyright council is a council set by the copyright law and whose purpose is to Ministry of Education in copyright questions and to give statements on the application of the law. It consists of parties from copyright holder, users of copyrighted material and legal experts.
- It is my understanding that the legal experts in Finland agree that nobody really knows where the threshold of originality exaclty lies and why it is there. The council does not give legally binding statements and it doesn't create general rules but only handles individual cases. As it probably has the best experts of the field, its statement will nevertheless have a lot of influence in court. -Samulili 12:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- The definition of "the control over the composition or lighting of the picture" is not supposed to mean the usual technical changes made on the camera to produce a good image. It is supposed, in the context of Finnish law, to mean that the author specifically has chosen the overall composition or lighting in a way designed to produce an artistic quality to the picture. Most importantly, this applies to studio photos. Not a single person in Finland has ever tried to claim that a news image or a common family portrait would not fall under "simple photograph". The only persons having qualms over this are here, on the Commons. Let us not have a holier-than-thou attitude. --MPorciusCato 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This has exactly the same issues as {{PD-Italy}}, namely that (a) we don't know where to draw the line between "simple photographs" and "photographic works", (b) that line would be different in any other country, so works that might be "simple photographs" in Finland would be "photographic works" in many other countries, and (c) we don't know precisely what the effects of EU directive 93/98/EEC with regards to that line (threshold of originality) are. Even if (c) should turn out to be a non-issue, (a) and (b) mean IMO that the template is unsuitable for the commons. It may make sense at the Finnish Wikipedia, but hardly on other Wikipedias. Lupo 13:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- c) I think it's a non issue when, in fact, we have nothing that would strongly indicate that the license is not good. Innocent before proven guilty, not the other way around.
- b) If it is a general line that we can't approve of country specific PD-licenses, then we should first discuss that line and only afterwards delete ~100 country specific licenses.
- a) How come we don't know where to draw the line in case of PD-Finland but we seem to know where to draw it in case of logos and we have {{PD-ineligible}}? -Samulili 09:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well, Directive 93/98/EEC defines what a photographic work is, so the point where the line has to be drawn is now the same in all Member States. -- ３２４７ (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Definitions will always have to be interpreted by courts. EU countries have different court systems which may make (and probably do make) different interpretations, and the final word – as I understand it – can only come from en:Court of First Instance or en:European Court of Justice. -Samulili 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep – I do not see a point starting separate discussions for single licenses. According to Commons:Licensing#Country-specific_laws, I do not need to take German law into account when uploading a Finnish picture from Finland. If you think that this guideline should be changed, discuss it there. This is the wrong way and only disrupts work. --ThePeter 08:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- You have to take german law into account when you are sued in Germany.--Wiggum 11:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete When will commons see that rule of the shorter term does not apply within the EU? --Rtc 17:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment re article six in the directive: Copyright protects photographs that are "the author's own intellectual creation". What does this mean? On what qualifications do 3247 and others interpret what it means? / Fred Chess 08:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- On the qualification that "no other criteria such as merit or purpose [are to be] taken into account". Germany and Austria have given a very strong interpretation of this. Even if you assume that the directive has been received differently in different EU countries and even under the presupposition (in contradiction to the German and Austrian courts interpretation of the directive) that Italian simple photos still exist, this does not make Italian simple photos free after 20 years for example in Sweden, where (under the same presupposition) they will be restricted for at least another 30 years. Sweden photos will be restricted for 70 pma in Germany, Austria, and surely other countries who follow their interpretation. There is no rule of the shorter term within the EU. Forum Shopping is possible. --Rtc 16:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we most of the World isn't in Germany. -Samulili 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- What about the other EU countries? Can you prove that the picture is not restricted the rest of the EU countries? --Rtc 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we most of the World isn't in Germany. -Samulili 16:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Rtc, there is a misunderstanding between us. I want to know, on what premise you and 3247 know what an "intellectual creation" refer to? According to Commons:Licensing the Finnish Copyright Council (in 2003?) considered this photo public domain because "-- despite its historical importance it is a regular photo of current events. The photograph does not demonstrate original and personal contribution from the photographer and so it can't be considered to be a photographic work." This is what I consider an interpretation by qualified people. If you say the Finnish Copyright Council is acting against E.U. directive, could you provide material by qualified people to support that claim? / Fred Chess 19:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's not the point. The point is that even if the picture might be free in Finland, it is only free according to the finnish law. Since there is no rule of shorter term within the EU, it would need to be free in each EU country to be legal, which it is for sure not, since it is illegal at least in Germany and Austria (where we know for sure) and many other EU countries (rights holder can try one after another...) Because of forum shopping, the picture may not be kept. If the Finnish rights owner does not succeed in Finland, he can go to a German court with the desired success. You are all somehow ignoring the many new possibilities european citizens have within Europe, including the possibility of forum shopping. We have a proof that forum shopping happens and that it works: a photo that was legal by Austrian panorama freedom and that was shot legally inside Austria and was sued for in Germany, because Germany has stricter panorama freedom rules. Successfully. I do not understand why we are discussing. --Rtc 01:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Why should we care that it may not be used in Germany? Our licensing instructions say "Consequently any licence to use the material should apply in all jurisdictions relevant". No offence, but Germany is not a relevant jurisdiction. -Samulili 07:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- If it would only be Germany i would agree that we should ignore it. Actually, the issue concerns more than one country, please see the list made by Lupo. --Wiggum 12:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- They are no more relevant than Bambustan even if some of them are G8 members. These images have nothing to do with Germany. -Samulili 12:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well ok, I agree that it is probably better to start to remove images with PD-Finland, PD-Denmark50, and PD-Sweden-photo. They should be uploaded to those Wikipedias that thinks it is safe to use them. This might also mean that images from e.g. Germany who are copyright protected in Germany could be uploaded to e.g. Finnish Wikipedia as public domain under some circumstances.
Fred Chess 12:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Samulii: the problem as I see it is that the states of the EU
- if they have signed w:Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection (which many have), they can for themselves define the protection of non-creative photos. This means that:
- they need to have a clause in their copyright law that defines non-creative photos. As you can see from User:Lupo/Simple Photographs not many countries have such a clause.
As a result, there are too many states that (as far as we know) do not have lesser protection for simple photographs.
Fred Chess 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above keeps --Pudeo 15:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
*
Keep ditto. Scoo 10:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. MoRsE 12:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep KEEP IT, if it is finish law that it is PD then it is legal. --Ar-ras 03:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep. Islander 01:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (It is my favourite!)
- Keep Keep. It is ridiculous to claim that we would be compelled to obey German law, while no part of this activity takes place on German soil. Old photographs are routinely used in Finnish historical texts without any qualms --MPorciusCato 13:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Keep --Brattås 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Keep in mind that cheerleading votes must be ignored - if you don't make comment about copyright status or laws, it is pointless to vote --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- What kind of a rule is that "Because they vote against you, ignore them"?! There is a clear majority for keep here. MoRsE 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- The comments disrespectful to others like those by Pfctdayelise must be ignored. --Irpen 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- What kind of a rule is that "Because they vote against you, ignore them"?! There is a clear majority for keep here. MoRsE 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Pfctdayelise is right. It is in the Commons rules that we do not count votes – for or against. They only may indicate which side has provided better arguments, but in the end, only arguments matter. -Samulili 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can imagine that a column of {{vd}} had been more accepted then... To the point: I could very well have paraphrased some of the above discussion, yet I chose to say simply "ditto" to indicate that I've checked the nomination and rebuttal and agree with those wanting to keep the template. As I've earlier said on COM:DEL, I'm quite the layman when it comes to these issues. But I can't imagine a situation where say an heir of a Finnish photographer would go to court in Germany or any other nation and challenge the Finnish law. Until we have a precedent that show that that chapter 5 and other parts can be ignored, keep the template and images correctly associated with it. Scoo 16:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Pfctdayelise is right. It is in the Commons rules that we do not count votes – for or against. They only may indicate which side has provided better arguments, but in the end, only arguments matter. -Samulili 14:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, and be mindful of m:Copyright paranoia. Does any country's altering its copyright laws obliges the commons to delete images? Suppose tomorrow some remote island nation accepts the copyright law that would say life of the author +300 years? So keep and direct the wannabe copyright lawyers here to some productive activity like, you know, adding content. --Irpen 21:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- When reading User:Lupo/Simple Photographs you will notice that this case is not about "some remote island nations". Besides, the productive activity here is adding free content. --Wiggum 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Personal opinions of Lupo are just that and have as much weight as those of anyone else. Lupo is notorious for his original research and interesting interpretations of copyright law. Fortunately, he is not a justice of any court entitled to make sense of the copyright laws by interpreting the. As for the productive activity, I agree with you. And an unproductive activity is attempting to present free content as unfree in order to justify deletion of perfectly legal material. --Irpen 22:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- When reading User:Lupo/Simple Photographs you will notice that this case is not about "some remote island nations". Besides, the productive activity here is adding free content. --Wiggum 22:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Any German court case has no relevance under Finnish law. If the German Wikipedia choses to exclude some images which a German judge claims is not free in Germany, then so be it. Germany may interpret laws like it sees fit. Finland has the same right, and so has the United Kingdom, Italy or any other member of the European Union. What if Iran or Sudan outlaws all images tomorrow? Or the Islamic courts in Somalia? I believe French law outlaws images of a lot of buildings. Ok, does that mean that we should remove all images of buildings because of this French law? Why not all images, just in case somewhere implements shari'a law tomorrow? Any such attitude is only counter-productive. Should any Finnish judge overturn an existing law or demand it interpreted in a new way; then we'll have a new situation. However, no proof has been presented that this should be the case, so let us take Finnish law at face value instead of trying to rival professional international lawyers. I see no strong evidence presented to suggest that Finnish copyright experts don't know what they are talking about, and unless such is established, I place my trust in the Finnish experts. They know their own language, so they can read the law, and they no doubt have more insight in Finnish legal traditions than most of us. Valentinian (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a country-specific template (Finland), used for photos taken in Finland by Finns. EU laws are irrelevant, because only some of the Wikimedia-projects are EU-related (edited by EU citizens, written in European languages etc.). Photos with this template are important material for Wikimedia-projects; it would be a disaster if they couldn't be used. --PeeKoo 11:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- How long do we have to wait for an adminstrative decision? This debate has been inactive for almost two weeks and the voting has been going on for months. Admins, please end this discussion so we can go back to adding material. --MPorciusCato 13:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
With the risk of being reverted, I will close this debate as a keep. During the months since it was opened, I have been waiting for comments from representatives from other larger Wikipedia projects, such as the Spanish, Portugese, and others. As there are no comments from users from such countries, it appears that only users from German Wikipedia want this template deleted, leading it to appear that it should be deleted only because they can't be hosted on German Wikipedia. That must be inappropriate.
Since it wasn't deleted, you may, if you want to, add a warning to the template saying that the images can't be hosted on German Wikipedia.
Fred Chess 02:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I reopened the deletion request, since this is by no means a Problem of Germany only. As Lupo has nicely listed on User:Lupo/Simple_Photographs, most EU countries do not even make a distinction between simple photographs and photographic works. Thus, such photos will be protected at least in the countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply", as rule of the shorter term doesn't apply within the EU (see also w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration). For the remaining countries where it is not the case that "Normal copyright rules apply": We have court decisions refering to an EU-wide, uniform demarcation not only in Germany, but also in Austria. I do not see any indication for why it wouldn't apply to other countries, uniformly, too. --rtc 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you beating a dead horse? You have already brought out all your arguments, and lost. --MPorciusCato 10:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, I have not "lost". The discussion will go on until you will see, or perhaps you won't see. But the pictures will be deleted, there can be no doubt about that. --rtc 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was establsihed in the discussion that the law of Germany or that of Bambustan are irrelevant. The laws of Austria or France or whatever are irrelevant as well. The only other country, whose law matters, is the US, and that discussion is on-going and still open. Samulili 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- They are absolutely not irrelevant. Pictures must be free to use everywhere, with only casual exceptions permitted. However, these pictures are not free in the whole of Europe. --18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was establsihed in the discussion that the law of Germany or that of Bambustan are irrelevant. The laws of Austria or France or whatever are irrelevant as well. The only other country, whose law matters, is the US, and that discussion is on-going and still open. Samulili 18:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why this is needed again? Take it to the village pump instead of pushing your original research here, PD-Sweden, Italy, Poland and Denmark etc..? --Pudeo 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Finnish military photos should definately be deleted, but this is a valid license template. --Jannex 10:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As this senseless discussion has apparently started and will not be ended immediately, as it rightly should be, I will reiterate my position: The copyright harmonization directive rtc brings out does not apply to the photos considered here. This template considers photos which are not "author's own intellectual creation[[s]] reflecting his personality", so they are covered by a related right, not copyright. (In Finnish law, this related right is equated with copyright but has a different term.) The German courts demarcate the level of intellectual creation differently from Finland and there is no Union-level jurisprudence. The views of German or Austrian courts do not bind Finnish courts or the courts of European Union. The final say on whether Finnish Copyright law provides photos with the protection required by the Copyright directive rests with the Court of European Communities. Before that court issues judgement, nobody knows. However, we should not be overcautious. --MPorciusCato 13:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- You may be right (though I don't think so). Yet, as Lupo has nicely listed on User:Lupo/Simple_Photographs, most EU countries do not even make a distinction between simple photographs and photographic works. Thus, such photos will be protected at least in the countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply", as rule of the shorter term doesn't apply within the EU (see also w:Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection#Copyright restoration), even if the pictures were PD in Finland (which they are not). --rtc 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- What are simple photographs? They are photographs which are not works. Surely countries which do not recognize simple photographs recognize that not all photographs are works? Those countries which do not recognize simple photographs just don't give simple photographs any protection (droits voisins). And yes, these images are PD in Finland. Before you claim otherwise, why don't you read some literature on Finnish copright. I personally recommend "Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet" (Copyright and related rights) by Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann, "Oikeus valokuvaan" (Rights to a photograph) by Rainer Oesch and statements by the Finnish Copyright Council ("Tekijänoikeusneuvosto]"). Samulili 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read what I wrote. Yes, countries listed as "Normal copyright rules apply" recognize that all photographs are works. --rtc 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What are simple photographs? They are photographs which are not works. Surely countries which do not recognize simple photographs recognize that not all photographs are works? Those countries which do not recognize simple photographs just don't give simple photographs any protection (droits voisins). And yes, these images are PD in Finland. Before you claim otherwise, why don't you read some literature on Finnish copright. I personally recommend "Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet" (Copyright and related rights) by Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann, "Oikeus valokuvaan" (Rights to a photograph) by Rainer Oesch and statements by the Finnish Copyright Council ("Tekijänoikeusneuvosto]"). Samulili 12:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Incorrect. "Normal copyright rules apply" means for most countries that "probably threshold of originality applies". Thuresson 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- And the implmentation of the EU directive has set the uniform demarcation for threshold of originality such that originality is sufficient as soon as the photographer expresses his personality, for example by choosing the camera position and by choosing the moment of pressing the button deliberately. Only technical photos (mugshots), satellite photos and photos shot accidentally fall below this threshold. --rtc 19:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not only do you contradict yourself in your two previous comments ("all photographs are works" vs. "technical photos are not works"), you also set condition (camera position, pressing moment) which are not from the directive on which you build your case. Samulili 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, "all photographs are works" was wrong, I checked it again. You were right about that. The condition is well from the directive: "it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;"[23] emphasized by me, "2. Das Berufungsgericht hat es abgelehnt, einen Urheberrechtsschutz der Anzeigen aus den verwendeten Fotos herzuleiten. Es ist dabei davon ausgegangen, daß den Fotos urheberrechtlicher Schutz als Lichtbildwerken im Sinne des § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 UrhG nur zukommen könne, wenn sie eine eigenschöpferische Prägung und Gestaltung aufwiesen. Bei einem Gesamtvergleich mit den vorbestehenden Gestaltungen müßten sich schöpferische Eigentümlichkeiten ergeben, die über das Handwerksmäßige und Durchschnittliche deutlich hinausragten. In den Fotos offenbare sich jedoch kein besonderes fotografisches Können. Bei dieser Beurteilung ist das Berufungsgericht von Anforderungen an die Schutzfähigkeit von Fotografien ausgegangen, die jedenfalls seit dem 1. Juli 1995 nicht mehr gelten, d.h. dem Zeitpunkt, in dem die Richtlinie 93/98/EWG des Rates zur Harmonisierung der Schutzdauer des Urheberrechts und bestimmter verwandter Schutzrechte vom 29. Oktober 1993 (ABl. Nr. L 290/9) nach ihrem Art. 13 Abs. 1 umzusetzen war und auch durch das Dritte Gesetz zur Änderung des Urheberrechtsgesetzes vom 23. Juni 1995 (BGBl. I S. 842) umgesetzt worden ist (Art. 3 Abs. 2 des 3. UrhG-ÄndG). Nach Art. 6 der Richtlinie sollen Fotografien geschützt werden, wenn sie individuelle Werke in dem Sinne darstellen, daß sie das Ergebnis der eigenen geistigen Schöpfung ihres Urhebers sind (vgl. dazu auch Erwägungsgrund 17 der Richtlinie). Eines besonderen Maßes an schöpferischer Gestaltung bedarf es danach für den Schutz als Lichtbildwerk nicht (vgl. Schricker/Loewenheim, Urheberrecht, 2. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 33, 179; Schricker/Vogel aaO § 72 Rdn. 21; Nordemann/Vinck in Fromm/Nordemann, Urheberrecht, 9. Aufl., § 2 Rdn. 74; Hertin ebd. § 72 Rdn. 2; Heitland, Der Schutz der Fotografie im Urheberrecht Deutschlands, Frankreichs und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, 1995, S. 60 ff.; Platena, Das Lichtbild im Urheberrecht, 1998, S. 233 ff.; A. Nordemann/Mielke, ZUM 1996, 214, 216)."[24] (emphasized by me), "Fromm/Nordemann (Urheberrecht 9 § 2 dUrhG Rz 74; ihm folgend Ciresa, Österreichisches Urheberrecht, § 3 Rz 7) halten nach Umsetzung der Schutzdauer-RL [that means 93/98/EWG (rtc)] als Lichtbildwerke alle Fotos für geschützt, die einem bestimmten Fotografen in dem Sinne persönlich zugerechnet werden können, dass sich sagen lässt, ein anderer Fotograf hätte möglicherweise das Foto anders gestaltet, also den Blickwinkel, den Ausschnitt oder die Beleuchtung anders gewählt, einen anderen Geschehensmoment festgehalten, die abgebildeten Personen anders gruppiert usw (zu den einzelnen Gestaltungsmitteln einer Fotografie im Detail siehe Nordemann, Die künstlerische Fotografie als urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk 135 ff). Nach Fromm/Nordemann (aaO) werde sich das auch für Amateurfotos und Schnappschüsse fast stets feststellen lassen. Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten)."[25] (emphasized by me). --rtc 19:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not only do you contradict yourself in your two previous comments ("all photographs are works" vs. "technical photos are not works"), you also set condition (camera position, pressing moment) which are not from the directive on which you build your case. Samulili 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There is well defined cases in which this tamplate can be used and there is no reason to remove it. --Joonasl 12:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It looks like that those who want to delete the template don’t know much about the Finnish Copyright Law. As far as I know, at least most of the photographs using Template:PD-Finland50 are PD in Finland. – Nysalor 13:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- The binding interpretation of the finnish Copyright law changed substantially when the EU directive was implemented and came into effect. Courts, experts, copyright offices have a very hard time to see that, even in Germany, and you see many mistaken incorrect claims, based on the old understanding fo the law from the time before the directive. Many have not yet noticed that something was changed substantially. But the Federal Court of Justice of Germany and several Austrian courts eventually made very clear and unambiguous statements about this EU-wide unified demarcation. See my post above. Please do not ignore the facts and please do not believe some minor courts, copyright experts or copyright offices that are still speading false pre-directive information because of unawareness of the EU directive's effect. Please point any copyright expert, any copyright office and anyone else who still holds the incorrect old position in some EU country to the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany and the Austrian OGH and point out to them the general applicability of the reasoning of this ruling to all of Europe. --rtc 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, you have a stricter interpretetation of the threshold of originality than the rest of us. The German courts agree with you. Finnish law does not, so you are claiming that the Finnish law violates the Union directive. However, the German rulings do not have any effect on Union law. Only the rulings of the Court of European Communities are Union-level prejudicates. In fact, in the Finnish law, a foreign judgement on a related case is considered only tertiary source of law (acts, Union regulations, decrees and custom of the country are primary sources, directives, prejudicates and legislative documents secondary). As such, a German court opinion is at par with Finnish legal literature and can be only used as help on reasoning (see fi:oikeuslähde). Forcing German rulings on the whole Union is not acceptable. --MPorciusCato 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a German ruling forced on the Union, it is a EU directive. What I say is not "a interpretation" of threshold of originality, it is the actual threshold of originality for all EU countries. I am not claiming that the Finnish law violates the Union directive. The Finnish law is completely correct, and it is the same about threshold of originality as Germany or any other EU country. If the Finnish legal literature is still based on Pre-Directive-Opinions, please contact the respective authors immediately and point out to them their mistake. --rtc 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Basically, you have a stricter interpretetation of the threshold of originality than the rest of us. The German courts agree with you. Finnish law does not, so you are claiming that the Finnish law violates the Union directive. However, the German rulings do not have any effect on Union law. Only the rulings of the Court of European Communities are Union-level prejudicates. In fact, in the Finnish law, a foreign judgement on a related case is considered only tertiary source of law (acts, Union regulations, decrees and custom of the country are primary sources, directives, prejudicates and legislative documents secondary). As such, a German court opinion is at par with Finnish legal literature and can be only used as help on reasoning (see fi:oikeuslähde). Forcing German rulings on the whole Union is not acceptable. --MPorciusCato 05:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please give me an extract from the directive saying what exactly is the threshold of originality according to this directive? I could find nothing about technical photos or like, at least from the Finnish translation. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- "(17) Whereas the protection of photographs in the Member States is the subject of varying regimes; whereas in order to achieve a sufficient harmonization of the term of protection of photographic works, in particular of those which, due to their artistic or professional character, are of importance within the internal market, it is necessary to define the level of originality required in this Directive; whereas a photographic work within the meaning of the Berne Convention is to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account; whereas the protection of other photographs should be left to national law;" (emphasized by me) Please see my posting 19:59, 7 May 2007 above for further discussion of the effect of this definition, as recognized by several european copyright scholars, and adopted by German and Austrian courts. Technical photography are not covered by the convention, but are "left to national law", and of course this tag is valid for technical photography. However, hardly any picture at all is technical photography, and, in fact, all photos tagged with this template are not technical in this sense. Technical photography is only given if the content, angle etc. of the photo is completely determined by the task, such that the photo is not "reflecting [the] personality" of the photographer anymore. Think of reproduction photography (this photos which would fall under Template:PD-Art in the US), think about mugshots, about satellite photos, about the usual case of photo booth photos. --rtc 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please give me an extract from the directive saying what exactly is the threshold of originality according to this directive? I could find nothing about technical photos or like, at least from the Finnish translation. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think ”reflecting his personality” is a key for this case. The Finnish Copyright Council (Tekijänoikeusneuvosto) says that the photo Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952 “doesn’t especially express the original and personal contribution from the person taken the photograph, and thus it can not be considered a photographic work protected by TekijäL 1 §” [translated and emphasized by me]. On my opinion, it means about the same than “reflecting his personality”. The statement isn’t based on “other criteria such as merit or purpose”: The Finnish Copyright Council especially states that it’s just a photo regardless of the fact that it’s historically important and the only photo taken when Paavo Nurmi lit the Olympic Flame.
- By the way, can you find any personality or creativity from the photo? If I had been there in 1952, could I have taken a photo quite similar to that photo? Finally, I must say that my German is poor – maybe a bit better than your Finnish, though :) –, and I can’t read the German and Austrian texts you gave. – Nysalor 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- For "reflecting [the] personality" of the photographer or a photo being his "original and personal contribution", nothing is needed except that a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently, and that is well the case here. That is what the texts say about the EU directive, clearly and unambigously, and based on several law scholars. The copyright council is not aware of that and should be contacted immediately about it, pointing out the German and Austrian cases as soon as possible. Please do, since you are right that I can't write finnish. --rtc 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, can you find any personality or creativity from the photo? If I had been there in 1952, could I have taken a photo quite similar to that photo? Finally, I must say that my German is poor – maybe a bit better than your Finnish, though :) –, and I can’t read the German and Austrian texts you gave. – Nysalor 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Every writing, drawing or photo made by a human being isn’t a work, that’s the Finnish point of view. As far as I know, “reflecting [the] personality” doesn’t mean ‘made by a human being’, it needs some personality in a photo. If the directive would really mean that every photo taken by a human being is a work, I think it would be mentioned clearly. In Germany and Austria, this may be understood in a other way than in Finland or in Sweden or Denmark, and you should accept this or give more convincing evidence. I rather trust the Finnish Copyright Council with excellent specialists than in the pseudonym Rtc or German texts I can’t understand – especially concerning the Finnish PD. – Nysalor 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is exactly the same in Germany as it is in Finland. Not every photo made by a human being is protected, only if a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently. This is not the opinion of a user with the pseudonym Rtc, but the result of research by reputable scholars of european law, which is completely correct, which the courts refer to, and who certainly have more background knowledge about the EU directive than the Finnish copyright council, which still bases its opinion on the situation before the directive and didn't notice something had changed. You can ignore the facts, but that won't change them. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Every writing, drawing or photo made by a human being isn’t a work, that’s the Finnish point of view. As far as I know, “reflecting [the] personality” doesn’t mean ‘made by a human being’, it needs some personality in a photo. If the directive would really mean that every photo taken by a human being is a work, I think it would be mentioned clearly. In Germany and Austria, this may be understood in a other way than in Finland or in Sweden or Denmark, and you should accept this or give more convincing evidence. I rather trust the Finnish Copyright Council with excellent specialists than in the pseudonym Rtc or German texts I can’t understand – especially concerning the Finnish PD. – Nysalor 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven’t read those “the result of research by reputable scholars [names?] of european law”, and I know nothing about their background. We follow the Finnish Law in Finland, not statements from German or Austrian courts. Please inform the European Commission, if you think that Finland doesn’t follow the directive. – Nysalor 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Finland follows the directive and has inplemented it correctly; it is just the copyright council that has not yet noticed the change. --rtc 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- I haven’t read those “the result of research by reputable scholars [names?] of european law”, and I know nothing about their background. We follow the Finnish Law in Finland, not statements from German or Austrian courts. Please inform the European Commission, if you think that Finland doesn’t follow the directive. – Nysalor 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the statement of the FCC is based on the present Finnish Law! According to the Finnish Law, a photo is protected for 50 years from the time of creation (TekijäL 49 a §). Those photos don’t “especially express the original and personal contribution”, and if other person took them in the same situation, they would be quite similar. Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952 don’t reflect the personality of the photographer. That’s what the FCC states, and there is no contradiction between this statement and the directive. The directive can undoubtedly be interpreted in many ways. – Nysalor 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- The law in Finland is exactly the same as in Germany in that regard since the implementation of the EU directive. The Olympia photo well reflects the personality of the photographer according to the scholar's (Schricker, Loewenheim, Vogel, Nordemann, Vinck, Fromm, Hertin, Heitland, Platena, Mielke, Ciresa) results, the FCC simply is not aware of that and has not noticed yet the effet of the EU directive and the decisions. Make them aware of that. There is no room for interpretation, and anyone going to court and pointing the judge at the German and Austrian court rulings and the scholarship they are based on will be successfull. --rtc 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the statement of the FCC is based on the present Finnish Law! According to the Finnish Law, a photo is protected for 50 years from the time of creation (TekijäL 49 a §). Those photos don’t “especially express the original and personal contribution”, and if other person took them in the same situation, they would be quite similar. Paavo Nurmi sytyttää olympiatulen 1952 don’t reflect the personality of the photographer. That’s what the FCC states, and there is no contradiction between this statement and the directive. The directive can undoubtedly be interpreted in many ways. – Nysalor 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not pretend like you know how Finnish copyright law says or how its interpretation has changed. You already made a fool of yourself in that way when you made bogus claims about old and new Swedish law. And yes, I will believe Finnish experts in the case of a Finnish picture and I don't give a flying about your Deutschland, Deutschland überalles attitude. Samulili 12:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not need to know Finnish copyright law to know that they implemented the EU directive and thus the uniform EU demarcation for photographic works. I know of course how its interpretation has changed, because it has changed the same way as in German and any other EU country. You are making yourself a fool because you are ignoring these facts. And you are making yourself even more a fool by argumentation such as your last sentence. In fact, I am arguing pro Finland if I affirm that finnish photographers have the same rights as German ones. I guess if the finnish experts would be pointed out their error and directed at the BGH ruling, they would immediately acklowedge that what I say is true. Unfortunately I don't speak finnish. Perhaps you can write these experts an email. --rtc 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- You said, “even if the pictures were PD in Finland (which they are not)”. I would like to know some reasons why you think the pictures are not PD in Finland, based on the Finnish Law. The threshold of originality may be different in Finland compared to Germany or Austria, but there is no point in claiming that the German or Austrian one would surely be the interpretation of the whole EU. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Before the directive, the threshold of originality in Germany/Austria was the similar to what people here mistakenly claim still to be valid in Finland (basically, that artistic value or merit are necessary for protection as a photographic work). The court rulings argued explicitly that this has changed because of the implementation of the directive and its uniform demarcation criteria. There is no difference in theshold of originality for photos anymore within the EU, since the Directive explicitly required a uniform level to be implemented. Do you see my posting above with lots of text in bold letters, 19:59, 7 May 2007? Please read it. I do not wish to repeat myself again. --rtc 21:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- You said, “even if the pictures were PD in Finland (which they are not)”. I would like to know some reasons why you think the pictures are not PD in Finland, based on the Finnish Law. The threshold of originality may be different in Finland compared to Germany or Austria, but there is no point in claiming that the German or Austrian one would surely be the interpretation of the whole EU. – Nysalor 20:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The directive was given in 1993, and the Finnish Copyright Council gave their own statement in 2003. No “artistic value or merit” is taken into account in their statement. – Nysalor 23:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then the copyright council is wrong, and I guess that is so, because it does not yet know the German and Austrian court decisions and the research they are based on, and still bases its opinion on the pre-directive situation. We had that in Germany too, even by courts, until the federal court corrected them. Please write to the copyright council and point out their error to them as soon as possible, referring them to the rulings I cited. I think this is important so they can correct their error soon and noone gets successfully sued who based its decision on the copyright councils incorrect example. It would be a great loss of prestige for the council... --rtc 00:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why should we think that German and Austrian courts would be right and the Finnish Copyright Council wrong? The FCC has surely the best specialists of copyright in Finland. If you would like to contact the FCC, you can find their contact information here. I’m sure they understand English. – Nysalor 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because the German aud Austrian courts explicitly discuss the problem concerning the effect of the implementation of the EU directive, which the Finnish copyright council seems not to be aware of it at all. FCC has not more authority than any other person in the world, and is hence as fallible as anyone else. It is not an authority, it is merely an institution. I am sorry, I cannot speak Finnish, and I would need that to cite the correct places in their publications etc. I again beg you to do it. There is nothing to loose for you. Are you afraid of the truth? Why do you look away and close your eyes? Test your position for correctness and write them an email! If you are right, that shouldn't be a problem for you. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that the German and Austrian courts only interpret what they think the directive means: there is no “only if a different photographer could in principle have shot the photo differently” in the directive. It’s just their opinion, if they think so which I don’t know for sure because of my bad German. “Are you afraid of the truth?” – I think I can ignore irrelevant questions like that. If you like, you can send an email to the FCC, but I’m not going to tell them what an anonymous (German?) person claims about the Finnish PD. If you can convince them, I will gladly change my opinion to delete. Meanwhile, I trust the FCC. – Nysalor 22:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous to claim that the careful judgement of the German court, adopted several times by Austrian courts, and backed by reputable law scholars and real arguments, is "just their opinion". You know that I have no chance to do this given that all sources are in Finish. It is dishonest und irrational to deny your help to find out more about the issue; and it is a crime against reason and the autonomy of the individual to trust a state institution or any other alleged authority (be it scientific, religious or social) instead of questioning and criticizing the correctness of what it says. The question "Are you afraid of the truth" is a very relevant one. You do not refer to what I say, you can refer to the German and Austrian court decisions I cited above. --rtc 23:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Only you tell me that the judgement of the German court is “careful”. Concerning the Finnish PD, I trust more in the Finnish copyright experts. I’m not a copyright expert, so I have to consult an institution, and the FCC looks like reliable, much more reliable than German statements I can’t read. In addition, the facts you have told me about the interpretation of personality by German and Austrian courts look like quite questionable and problematic. – Nysalor 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- In any matter of public concern, trust is a crime, and there is no such thing as "realibility" (or "authority", which is a different word for that). Please ask the FCC what they think about the issue. Even if you fallaciously trust in their erroneous statements, that does not imply that you must not make them aware of the German/Austrian court rulings. --rtc 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Reading this discussion which is on and on about the scope of photographic works and simple photographs respective ist very exhausting. Even if rtc is wrong we have a situation where pictures are free in some countries because they use a higher treshold of originality approach while the same pictures are not free in other jurisdictions because of a lower treshold of originality limit. We have to make a decision considering the concurring regulations. Usually we require a picture to be free in the country of origin and in the US.--Wiggum 13:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is crucial guideline we need to follow in this case also. We have a warning in the template to not use it in Germany already. I don't really see why this original research of an EU directive should be pushed here. But, if copyright paranoia wins in Commons, can those images be moved to Finnish or English Wikipedia, so the work that lasted for years won't be for nothing? As far as I remember, when the Italian template was removed, all the work was wasted, which these people seem to aim for. --Pudeo 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's what it says in the policies, yes. But we infact have an ongoing discussion regarding a) whether we actually follow that rule (as there are tens of approved templates that break it) and b) whether we ought to follow it. Samulili 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm addressing Wiggum and Lupo. If the images must be public domain in the US, they should comply with certain formalities (such as being published with a copyright note). Except if the w:Uruguay Round Agreements Act applies, which it does if a works was still covered by copyright or neighbouring rights in its source country on January 1, 1996. However, it has effectively been proven in this discussion that a wide number of photographs are not subject to the pma 70 copyright, but to a 50 years after being created, whereafter they enter the public domain in its country of origin, Finland. So if an image was created before January 1, 1946, its copyright would have expired in Finland by January 1, 1996, and hence its copyright would never be restored in the US. / Fred Chess 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- It has not been proven that a wide number of photographs are not subject to the 70 pma copyright. The contrary is the case, as far as it seems, except a very narrow range of photos, every photo is now protected by 70 pma. --rtc 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment After people have refused to do so, I have myself taken the initiative to write an email to Niklas Bruun about the issue. Please do not complain that I am not 'neutral' enough to do this. You had the opportunity to do it yourself. --rtc 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- “You know that I have no chance to do this given that all sources are in Finish. It is dishonest und irrational...” -- rtc. Somehow your lame excuse did not stop you from writing the same letter to someone else. That's dishonest and irrational. Samulili 13:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not. I have no idea about Finnish at all, and had to write about a text which I do not understand at all and for which I can only guess what it says. --rtc 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it matters what you say, you are truely a distruptive troll with 14 bans in the German Wikipedia [26]. Then moved to Commons, eh? So much for the letters.. --Pudeo 08:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is not. I have no idea about Finnish at all, and had to write about a text which I do not understand at all and for which I can only guess what it says. --rtc 21:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.” --Polarlys 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Could we have an administrative decision on this matter? The discussion has died out and it is unlikely that any new points will be raised. In case that the template is deleted, could we have a grace-period of a couple of days to back up the images and their descriptions for use in Finland, where the use of these images is considered legal. In any case, I believe that Fi-Wikipedia will be using these images regardless of Commons decision, waiting for an order by the Foundation to remove the content. --MPorciusCato 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- This and similar "discussions" with arguments going on ad nauseam from certain zealous parties is one of the chief causes I lost faith in the project and opted to remove myself via self requested ban. Now to my point, please do keep the template and files where it is correctly used. Speculation that the project may or not be harmed by keeping files under said license amounts to nothing but copyright hysteria from my point of view. Ultimately, what's the point of the Wikipedia project at any rate as human civilization might end via any means any moment now or at some distant point in the future... Hope you got my somewhat off-topic point. Scoo/85.131.31.4 18:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Now, I understand the need to be careful in copyright issues. But the law is clear on this matter and in all other instances the use of Finnish photgraphy in the ways that the law allows is commonplace and indiscriminate. I do not see why Wikimedia should selfrestrict itself from a use that no other media worries about. Because of the fear that maybe someday thorugh some weird loophole in a foreign law someone might maybe consider Wikimedia to be infringing on copyrights? Well if that happens, let's take them away then. I suspect that it's never going to happen because in that case the use of these photos in all literature and other medias would instantly become such a huge problem that a law or a decree would be given to extend the right to use them again. Until such time we should be happy that the Finnish law allows the use of these photos and that, as any other media everywhere does, so can Wikimedia us them for its noble purposes. Please do not delete important historical pictures due to legalist hysteria that is not founded on any precedent in the case of these photos that are explicitely pronounced usable in the law. --Tungsten 08:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep We have {{PD-US}} that carries a warning that the images may not be usable in some countries. Why can we not have similar templates for other unusual cases in the law? We can avoid the copyright paranoia and let at least some of the projects have these files. -Nard 13:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- KeepAs per discussion above. --Alien life form 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (and opinion: Keep) Just wanting to post what Thuresson posted at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Sweden-photo "*This deletion request is based on EU Council Directive 93/98/EEC. However, that directive was repealed in 2006 and replaced with Directive 2006/116/EC which states about photographs that are not works: "The protection of other photographs should be left to national law." --Pudeo 22:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course the restriction of other photographs is left to national law. It has been that way with 93/98/EEC; and nothing at all changed here. It has nothing at all to do with my argument! Please stop using the Chewbacca defense. --rtc 23:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- And in which way exactly do your blunt "shoot first, ask questions later" (actually more along the lines of "delete now before we see any court case pertaining to Finland that might change status quo") differ? 85.131.26.46 17:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- keep per N and ThePeter M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 14:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The whole discussion about PD-Finland-50, PD-Dennmark, and PD-Sweden is useless for obvious reason, that we all have to respect the regulations of Finnish, Swedish or Dannish law, and the only valid interpretation is F, S. or D. court interpretation of common law, not private German opinions is (or even verdicts of German Courts - there are suitable only on the territory of FRG, not abroad. Is anyone (brave Viking) in whole Scandinavia to conclude and close these discusssions or there will be disputed without conclusion to the end of the world ;) Freedom First - every limitation has to be justify in detail. --Andros64 10:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept as laws of Germany does not apply for Finland. Copyright law has not been changed. Make a new discussion when the law gets changed. --|EPO| da: 00:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
May 4
[edit]becauase i cant do them -- 210.8.54.32 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a valid reason for deletion -- Editor at Large • talk 00:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Manchego 07:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Please tag such images {{copyvio}} next time. That will be a lot easier and fast for all parts. As this is a non-free logo it has now been deleted. --|EPO| 10:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyrighted - even has c logo in bottom left -- Markie 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Bryan (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Needs to be removed. I created this work -- Monkeyblue 09:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok.. But why does it need to be removed? --|EPO| 10:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wikimedia changes the font depending on the size. When viewed as any .png then the stems of the Lambda are cut off. When this happens it is of no use.203.87.39.30 02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC) which is Monkeyblue not logged in.
I fixed the image by converting the text to a path to prevent the font from changing. -- Editor at Large • talk 02:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can this deletion request be closed or does uploader have any other comments? --|EPO| 12:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Closed. Monkeyblue 13:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept, problem solved -- Editor at Large • talk 17:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Copy vio AP- i uploaded this when i was new here, didnt no what Common's rules were, and although i have permission, im going to upload it onto wikipedia where it is copyrighted. Happyme22 04:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
uploaded erroneously, don't need -- Ebyabe 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - completely unecessary — H92 (t · c · no) 14:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- What's the use of this page, when I set {{speedy}} earlier and when The uploader worte: "Error uploading, please delete" ?
- --D-Kuru 15:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 2 days
This is a risky legal move; Wikipedia's servers are in the US, where the en:Digital Millenium Copyright Act forbids the distribution of tools to circumvent copyright. This could be interpreted in this way since this file encodes a key that can be used to circumvent en:AACS encryption. This is hardly a violation of 'free speech' if it's potentially against the law. I'm new to Commons, but this image does not appear to be used on any article pages on EN (not sure about others?). Mithent 23:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment You can use CheckUsage to see which Wikimedia projects are using this image. Thuresson 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Except, of course, on English Wikipedia, where the toolserver database has not been updated for quite some time - David Gerard 19:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, the image is used by a couple of user pages and its inclusion in the main en:AACS encryption key controversy article over on the English Wikipedia is currently in active dispute (see en:Talk:AACS encryption key controversy#Flag). It's also quite debatable whether this is a DMCA violation. See en:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Official Office/WMF response to HD-DVD key controversy where Jimbo states that there's no clear case to be made either way and that the Wikimedia Foundation has received no threats and takes no position at this time. Finally, the reason the file is titled "Free-speech-flag" is simply because that's what the original source file was titled. Bryan Derksen 00:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Bryan Derksen's comments. —Lowellian (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Oh come on, this is hilarious! These are just colours, it's not an explanation how to crack a HD-DVD! It is certainly NOT a DMCA violation, since we neither EXPLAIN HOW TO USE THE CODE to crack the technology, nor showing it on the picture. Wake up kids. BeŻet 09:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the contrary, BeZet it is explained how to get the key from the image on the en:AACS encryption key controversy page. And the key itself could be considered part of a circumvention device as defined by the DMCA, and thus illegal to possess or distribute in the USA. --65.31.193.187 13:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the explanation may be removed and consequently the image is legal. It's like I told you how to extract those digits from the wikimedia commons logo by adding numbers to the ASCII values of the letters (
wikimediacommonsis 16 letters - 16 bytes - the length of the code;). Would the logo be illegal then? BeŻet 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the explanation may be removed and consequently the image is legal. It's like I told you how to extract those digits from the wikimedia commons logo by adding numbers to the ASCII values of the letters (
- Keep This is absurd. If you delete that, then where do you stop? The number 9 could be considered forbidden, because its use "could be used to circumvent copyrights" as the number 9 is a part of the code. 70.63.55.18 16:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If the tons of links that point to the exact code on other sites from wikiedia does not cause a problem then this won't. it's a flag. 99% of the population, myself included would have no idea how to extract anything usefull from this.. instead we would run a google search for one of the 300,000+ pages that have the code in plain text. 71.106.236.141
- Actually, its 1,520,000+ BeŻet 17:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. AFAIK, no "cease and desist" notice from MPAA, AACS LA or their satellites has been received by the Foundation. Hiding information "just in case" is plain nonsense. Cinabrium 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. It's a work of art and a political protest all rolled into one. If you ask me, the guy should've released it under a non-commercial license and kept the commercial rights to his artwork. Selling fine-art prints would be a good way to raise funds for victims of wrongful DMCA lawsuits. Davidwr2 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, he still has commercial rights. BeŻet 18:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's my understanding he placed the work in the public domain. Nobody controls it. Sure, he could sell prints, but so can anyone else, reducing their value as a fund-raiser. Davidwr2 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, I agree with you. However, on the other hand, claiming copyrights for the image would be controversial, don't you think? BeŻet 20:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's my understanding he placed the work in the public domain. Nobody controls it. Sure, he could sell prints, but so can anyone else, reducing their value as a fund-raiser. Davidwr2 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- If it were just a flag with vertical-striped colors, yes. The "+C0" in the lower-right shows some element of creativity, and a "free if you don't charge" license would probably be non-controversial. Davidwr2 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong and Immediate Keep. This is such a hypocracy. This image CAN NOT BE USED to crack anything. hell, taking out every 1000th symbol of this discussion might probably be used to crack something too? What the hell. Kirils 18:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Don't be silly - David Gerard 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong and Speedy Keep. The image does not tell you how to crack the encryption, therefore it does not pose a credible legal risk to the foundation under the DMCA. Disavian 23:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Yann 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Watching Penn and Teller its apparently legal for women to bear their breasts in the context of a protest and be protected by the 1st amendment even if it is illegal in any other context. This image is clearly a work of art directed at political protest for freedom of speech and should be granted the same 1st amendment rights as any other work of art. If Wikipedia doesnt take a stand right now then its credibility will further suffer.
- Strong Keep. Shall be ban the alphabet while we are at it, as it can be used to write copies of someone's code? Someone needs to take the WikiLawyers and Book Burners out into a dark alley....... 71.204.133.75 03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If my vote is discounted because I don't have an account please reply to me and I will. I am MrMacMan on english wikipedia. 148.100.209.218 03:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - it's an image of a bunch of colours, is all. Nothing to see here, move along folks - Alison ? 07:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Anonymous votes have been striked out. Lcarsdata 07:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why? Please cite the policy allowing YOU to do this. Do YOU require everyone to register now? I long abandoned my account to stop a WikiStalker, does that make me a second class wiki editior? 71.204.133.75 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Striking them out is common sense, since you could be a sockpuppet of someone who has already voted and may not understand the copyright policies and principles behind the Wikimedia Commons. I suggest you register a new account if you would feel a need to vote (although this will probably be kept anyway) to aid in the infrastructure of the community. I have also noticed these are your first edits to the Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps you don't understand why this should or shouldn't be deleted. If it makes you happy I am speedy keeping this deletion request. Lcarsdata 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment perhaps if the image does indeed get deleted this should serve as an incentive to establish an entity seperate from the wikimedia foundation outside the US to which would host materials that violate US law but aren't in any way wrong. --212.76.33.108 08:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bollocks and keep. Rama 08:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep, unanimous keep voting. Lcarsdata 08:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Not own work. Derivative from http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/images/ezine/0610_ShinKoyamada.jpg -- Siebrand 08:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right, delete it! Used commonshelper to get it from en:Image:Shin11.JPG, because someone wanted to use it at the dutch wikipedia. en:Image:Shin11.JPG and en:Image:Shin Koyamada 1.JPG should be nominated for too for deletion too. Multichill 09:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Siebrand 20:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work --88.134.140.64 13:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work --88.134.140.64 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I remember Middle Earth maps were deleted as derivative works. -- EugeneZelenko 14:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
A snapshot from tv is a copyright violation --Herrick 13:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Its a old request who i found in making a categorisation of Category:Golfers. And that is a problem. Because if that foto is a bad licensed - most of images of Golffan will be that. And that is something about 700 images. And that will be bad day for a golfers.--Pmgpmg 21:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh my god. :-( Could some people confirm this suspicion? I checked several dozen images: Snapshots from tv. --Polarlys 22:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yuck. He claims "private snapshot" on most/all of them, from what I see. He either travels constantly to see tournaments in both Europe and the U.S., gets to the same angles that the TV cameramen do, and takes cell-phone-camera-resolution pictures (with cell phones and cameras being banned at golf tournaments), or ... these are TV snapshots. And I'm sure lots of them are used on wiki pages. Carl Lindberg 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn’t matter … --Polarlys 12:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all and block the user, nothing else remains to be done, unfortunately.--Wiggum 12:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, user blocked. --Polarlys 13:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
no reason for PD given --Polarlys 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If copyright status of that photo has not changed, then its copyright holder is afp. (see http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939711526.html) 85.178.254.79 23:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your hint. So it’s an obvious copyvio. --Polarlys 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
screenshot of copyrighted program -- Winterheart 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: copyvio
no reason for PD given --Polarlys 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Unlikely that the uploader holds the copyright to this photo, particularly when it says "AP" (Associated Press) in the lower right corner. Thuresson 17:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
own work, poor quality,not used -- Rapturerider 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Those are not reasons to delete. // Liftarn
- I am the author of this work and want it deleted // Rapturerider
- That is no reason for deletion. // Liftarn
- What is the reason for keeping it?// Rapturerider
- It's a free image. // Liftarn
- What is the reason for keeping it?// Rapturerider
- That is no reason for deletion. // Liftarn
kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
mistaken spelling -- Pelikana 18:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
request closed, please provide the correct name or use simply the template {{rename|new name}} --ALE! ¿…? 21:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
This work is created from the Lenna image, which is fair use -- Sylenius 19:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
own work, better version uploaded -- Rapturerider 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then you can just use {{Superseded}} instead. // Liftarn
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
copyvio, the image is only 50 years old --ALE! ¿…? 09:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
copyvio, the image is only 45 years old --ALE! ¿…? 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
image is only 50 years old, author is unknown, so why should he be Swedish? --ALE! ¿…? 09:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The same goes for:
- Image:Gusarov in action.jpg
- Image:Valentin Kozmich Ivanov after scoring to Sweden.jpg
- Image:Tchislenko.jpg
- Image:Yashin after missing.jpg
--ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it was my mistake to upload this files here. --Sidik iz PTU 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
to use this license tag, the image has to be older than 1955 --ALE! ¿…? 09:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
if the author is unknown, why should he be soviet? --ALE! ¿…? 09:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The same goes for:
- Image:StanleyMatthews.JPG
- Image:RogerLivesey.JPG
- Image:Elizabeth and actors.JPG
- Image:JackHolden.JPG
- Image:TomFinney.JPG
--ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was published before January 1, 1954, and the creator (if known) died before that date. But creator is unknown and it was published in Soviet newspaper Британский союзник (see source). --Sidik iz PTU 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry again, how do you know, that the unknown (!) creator was a soviet citizen? The images were taken outside the CCCP, weren't they? --ALE! ¿…? 15:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- In Soviet Russia there were not strange reporters in newspapers. --Sidik iz PTU 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No rule without an exception? They never used press agency photos? --ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly. It was era of Stalin and begining Cold War. Iron Curtain was a barrier too. --Sidik iz PTU 07:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like even if it's PD in Russia, it's not in the U.S., because the critical date for that would be 1946 (must have been PD in Russia by 1996). Since our servers are in the U.S., we usually require that works be PD in both their country of origin and in the U.S., which this work, being from 1947, fails. So I'd say delete, unfortunately. --Delirium 18:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the US argument is nonsense otherwise we would have to delete a whole bunch of {{PD-AR-Photo}} images. --ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, we unfortunately must delete a whole bunch of such images. Please see Commons:Licensing#Interaction_of_United_States_copyright_law_and_foreign_copyright_law, which is official policy. We really have no choice about this, because our servers are in the U.S. so we cannot ignore U.S. copyright law. --Delirium 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really do not agree with you. Why should we then accept {{PD-US}} images? They might be still protected in other countries. --ALE! ¿…? 17:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If there is no objection, I will delete the image tomorrow --ALE! ¿…? 08:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As Adolfo Coppedè died in 1951, and Italy has no Freedom of Panorama, copyright will expire only in 2021. --User:G.dallorto 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Changed into copyvio --User:G.dallorto 12:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Category:Karl Begas is misleading and should be deleted, because there are Carl Joseph Begas (or Carl (Joseph) the Elder, a painter) and Karl Begas (or Carl Begas), his son, a sculptor. see: de: Carl Joseph Begas and de: Karl Begas. Greetings Mutter Erde 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: All the images are paintings from the Elder, and the Elder is linked (not the younger), so it's only used to refer to the Elder. Should the category name be changed? To what? Quadell (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
use {{Category redirect}}, --ALE! ¿…? 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
derivative work --Polarlys 22:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please ellaborate what you mean by derivative work and how you know it is derivative work. Darth Skynyrd 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, isn't this just a modification of a picture that's free to distribute modify under the GNU Free Documentation Licence? Darth Skynyrd 02:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Commons:Derivative works. Which picture should that be? The original cover? --Polarlys 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay... the original cover is copyright, but this isn't the original cover. This is a prop used during a concert, which Faulkie 1788 took a picture which is available to distribute and modify under the GNU Free Documentation License, and was then modified by Kocio, as it is allowed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
I think we should Keep this picture. --Darth Skynyrd 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this picture, as it is a picture from a concert and not the DSOTM cover; therefore not bound by copyright. Ka5hmir 12:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep not a derivative --ALE! ¿…? 09:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this picture is a derivative work (the prop is a copyrighted work and the image is too similar with original cover).--Trixt 22:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If this is picture is deleted, then by the same logic we should delete all photos taken by anyone during a concert. To Trixt: the prop is a copyrighted (industrial) work, but this is not the prop — it is a photo of the prop. The Chrysler Building is a copyrighted (architectural) work and the iMac is a copyrighted (industrial) work, but if you take a photo of either of them you are free to distribute it any way you like.
kept, --ALE! ¿…? 22:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Siam Paragon1.jpg is a copyright violation from the Store's website, [27]. Bangkok by night.jpg was uploaded at Flickr by the same user, and falls under doubt as to whether it is the user's actual original work. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have contacted the original uploader at Flickr, who confirmed that Image:Bangkok by night.jpg is his/her original work.
- Delete Image:Siam Paragon1.jpg, Keep Image:Bangkok by night.jpg Paul_012 (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The claim by original uploader at Flickr is questionable since the image were uploaded to both Flickr and Commons on the same day. Both accounts are likely belong to the same user. -- Lerdsuwa 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Siam Paragon1.jpg has been deleted because flickr says "all rights reserved". The other image stays. (→O - RLY?) 00:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
May 5
[edit]Copyrighted image: http://www.gestair.com/uploads/logo.gif -- Aadrover 10:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. --EugeneZelenko 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
vandalism -- Pimke 16:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality -- Adam78 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Julo: bad quality
Image has been downloaded by me under another name -- Pimke 09:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- You should use {{Db-author}} instead of requesting here. Of course, speedy delete. — Kalan 12:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, nominated for speedy delete through template badname. Pimke 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: Dupe of Image:Konferencja Wikimedia Polska 2007 - Wikimedianie przy ognisku 01.jpg
bad person name --RenekW 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted. Please use {{badname|Image:ImageName.ext}} in the future. Siebrand 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Governmental documents ineligible for copyright according to the Act include ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบของกระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่น and คำพิพากษา คำสั่ง คำวินิจฉัย และรายงานของทางราชการ (loosely, rules, protocols, announcements, orders, memorandams and rulings). These are very unlikely to contain any media relevant to the Commons (as they usually consist of text). --Paul_012 (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, use for e. g. Wikisource possible. --Polarlys 16:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Source doesn't specify any license and main page of website says copyright. -- Lcarsdata 09:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Under Maps their terms are specified: "All images are the property of Nordregio. They may be freely used as long as the logo of Nordregio is clearly visible and the source is cited accordingly (Source: Nordregio at www.nordregio.se)." --|EPO| 10:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Requiring the logo to be displayed att all times sounds like a clear restriction to the derived works allowed. In addition to this there is an obvious copyright problem with the logo itself. /Lokal_Profil 11:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As per above it is problematic with display of their logo. --|EPO| 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Quadzilla99 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This simple crayon drawing of a robot and a monkey does not seem useful for any Wikimedia project. --Thuresson 11:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed :) I used it for a sandbox article. Benmento 13:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This page is redundant. All info is included in Category:Acrocorinth --FocalPoint 11:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Since when have gallery pages been redundant just because all images are already in a category? Might as well delete 90% of gallery pages by that criteria. --Tony Wills 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Polarlys 16:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Uploader tagged it for deletion in May 2006, presumably because of no license --Tony Wills 12:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Misleading duplicate of Image:Svenska spåkets utbredning.PNG. Estonian Swedish is for all practical purposes extinct. Last available figure from SIL was 28 (yes, just 28). There are more speakers in Norway and Denmark, or for that matter almost any major country in Europe and North America. Peter Isotalo 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also, no licensing information. Thuresson 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad quality: out of focus -- EugeneZelenko 14:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I agree that it's a bad quality photo. I was experimenting on how to upload a picture and am now learning how to do it. Please delete if it does not fit a category.--I'm nonpartisan 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Image doesn't show properly -- ElTigre0546 15:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Bad focusing -- ElTigre0546 16:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I corrected the problem, which was the transparency. DanMS 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Polarlys 17:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality -- Adam78 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. No pages use this image. Further questions, please contact me at en:User talk:IanManka. --IanManka 03:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Can't foresee any usage. Quadzilla99 04:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per above and Commons:Project scope. --|EPO| 18:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Insufficient public domain evidence that require any Finnish-speaking admin to verify. --Jusjih 20:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The license is actually {{Copyrighted free use}}. But I think this should be deleted because this is not the kind of educational material which Commons holds. Samulili 07:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleting per above and Commons:Project scope. --|EPO| 18:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
All photos uploaded by Gzill
[edit]- Image:Ballack Chelsea.jpg
- Image:Rafa Benitez.jpg
- Image:Pepe Reina.jpg
- Image:Zidane France.jpg
- Image:Zinedine Zidane.jpg
Obvious copyvio by a user with previous copyvio problems. See User talk:Zillaman, User talk:KingZilla --Ytoyoda 16:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This image is too bad quality, I'm afraid. Adam78 19:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Julo --ALE! ¿…? 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality --Adam78 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Julo --ALE! ¿…? 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality -- Adam78 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Julo --ALE! ¿…? 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality -- Adam78 19:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality -- Adam78 19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
five files deleted Julo 19:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality --Adam78 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Julo --ALE! ¿…? 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
too bad quality -- Adam78 19:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Julo --ALE! ¿…? 17:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
no use indicated, no location, no details --Polarlys 17:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment is that really the entrance of Hitler bunker? Wooyi 15:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is really a good photo, isn’t it? We don’t know anything about its content. --Polarlys 19:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no proof that it is really the entrance. --ALE! ¿…? 07:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
May 6
[edit]The image is improperly labeled at Flickr. I have corresponded with the Flickr user 'zendave', and he did not take this photo, he just edited it to make an album cover (and the same with his other Elliott Smith image on Flickr). --Pharos 04:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've deleted the image (which I apologize for uploading). It's unfortunate that David Greenwald failed to change the copyright tag after you brought this issue to his attention. —David Levy 05:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by the uploader (me). —David Levy 05:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Crop from an image that was deleted as a copyvio; no link to source at NIH. --grendel|khan 04:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Cropped from copyvio gives a new copyvio. --|EPO| 09:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Not old enough for PD-Old (1938) -- Rosenzweig 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
ANSWER: I am surprised that this image taken by the nazis during the Kristal Nacht for their propagand could be copyrighted.
Burn a synagogue and take a picture, and you will have a right on it, seems to me surprising.
None could get a profit from his crime. --FLLL 06:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is a copyright issue, not a moral issue. Regardless of who took this picture, according to law it is copyrighted until 70 years after his/her death. Since this picture was taken in 1938, it can't be PD-Old. --Rosenzweig 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted: PD-Old inapplicable, no other reason for PD. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The map is self-made and is not in keeping with the best sources cited in the article in which it is used: British Mandate for Palestine -- 84.13.82.250 09:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: a higher resolution exists at Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png Michelet-密是力 06:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP -- "Self-made" is actually good, because that means it's not a copyright violation (though it would be even better if it were of higher-quality, and not so pixellated, of course). Furthermore, it seems to be a reasonably-accurate depiction of the boundaries of the British Mandate of Palestine during the years 1920-1923. The author of this image seems to be pro-Israeli, but pretty much the same map is found on the pro-Palestinian site PASSIA.org at http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1923-1948-british-mandate.html , so the basic geographical facts do not appear to be in dispute between the opposing sides. AnonMoos 14:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's no basis for discounting all of the reliable sources used in the article. These indicate that "Palestine" could not have had these borders in 1920. --Ian Pitchford 19:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- About passia's map. The big and major difference is the fact that the land is partitionned into Palestine and Transjordan, which is not properly shown on the map here above...Ceedjee 12:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- That’s false. The word Palestine is not associated with a divided portion of a partitioned land mass on passia's map. Take another look at their map. Their use of the word Palestine is associated with only one land mass on the map, and that land mass is identical to the map you want to delete. There is no difference between theirs and mine, except I’m just showing the San Remo Conference as of 1920, not the history from 1923-1948. And, I use substantially the same description of that area in my caption as they do in theirs. The only other place they use the word Palestine is in the title that references 1923-1948. Yet, the map you want to delete is San Remo 1920. You really have to keep your dates straight, you seem very confused. -Doright 23:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- This difference is a crucial one- no such partition into Palestine and Transjordan existed in 1920, which is why the Passia map is inaccurate. 208.246.79.241 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- In 1920, there was no British Mandate on Palestine. The British Mandate existed from 1922 to 1948 and both "countries" were together a few months only. See more details on the talk page of en:British Mandate of Palestine. Ceedjee 19:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- This difference is a crucial one- no such partition into Palestine and Transjordan existed in 1920, which is why the Passia map is inaccurate. 208.246.79.241 18:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- DELETE. This is not here a problem of copyrights but a problem of accuracy. This "map" is not true because this territory is not the territory assigned to a Jewish state in 1920. This view of matters was defended by Irgoun and revisionist Zionists who claimed that. And let's not even talk about the comments... (see [28] for details) and compare with this version which is nicer and more neutral : Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg Ceedjee 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP -- The source for this map and language comes from published and highly credible WP:RS sources plus both major opposing POV's including the pro-Palestinian Passia and the Israeli MFA.
- the WP:RS source: Page 8 of Sir Martin Gilbert's "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th edition," (ISBN: 0415281172) published by Routledge in 2002 and page 10 of the First American Edition of the same book published by Macmillian 1975 (ISBN: 0-02-543370-9) shows this area as
"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home," [29]
- the WP:RS source: National Public Radio (NPR online) that captions the identical area as
"The original Mandate granted to Britain." [30]
- the WP:RS source: Page 8 of Sir Martin Gilbert's "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th edition," (ISBN: 0415281172) published by Routledge in 2002 and page 10 of the First American Edition of the same book published by Macmillian 1975 (ISBN: 0-02-543370-9) shows this area as
- Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1923-1948-british-mandate.html ,
"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home"
- the Israeli government source [31]
"Area Allocated for Jewish National Home San Remo Conference 1920."
- In any case, there is no excuse for deleting this WP:RS map just because you are afraid it might be used in an article that does not exclusively conform to your POV. This nomination for deletion is a violation of WP:Point and is an attempt to preempt the discussion on the relevant talk page. [32]-Doright 22:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. On grounds of quality alone; the image is horribly pixelated and very poor quality. It should also not have an embedded caption, as this effectively confines its use to the English Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 01:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a pretty transparent and weak excuse for deleting valuable and well sourced content. It not just the caption, All the areas of the map are in English. According to your "logic," they should not be there either because it limits it use to English Wikipedia. Quite an odd map that has no information, titles or labels. Don't ya think? Um, what language should the map be in? Regarding the quality, perhaps if you were not wasting my time here, I might consider producing a higher quality, less pixelated image, if you asked nicely. By the way, at its intended display size, it does not appear pixelated. [33] -Doright 06:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- COMMENT -- I don't think it's the role of Wikimedia Commons to take sides in legitimate disputes about facts or the interpretations of facts. If an image is obviously blatantly glaringly incorrect, or if it's being used with a malicious intention of deliberately spreading falsehoods, then it can be deleted of course -- but if there's a legitimate controversy about something, then there's nothing wrong with allowing images representing both sides of the dispute to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, whereupon the individual language Wikipedias will make their own decisions about which images will actually be used in articles. It's not our role here at Commons to make those decisions for them. AnonMoos 13:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP Per AnonMoos and Doright. The map is historically accurate as per voluminous sources. See, e.g., an anything by pro-Zionist source [34]: "....This strategic thinking was confirmed by Winston Churchill at the Cairo conference on Middle Eastern policy held in 1921. Britain subdivided the Palestine Mandate along the Jordan River to Gulf of Aqaba line. The eastern portion, called Transjordan, was to have a separate Arab administration operating under the general supervision of the commissioner for Palestine and with Jewish immigration specifically avoided. The League of Nations agreed and confirmed the borders of this mandate the following year. Not for the first time, a state had been created for the express strategic convenience of the British."--Mantanmoreland 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mantanmoreland created his account on May, 8 in order to vote on this request. Sock puppet ? --Juiced lemon 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am a "sockpuppet" of Mantanmoreland. However, I must admit that I was in blissful unawareness of Metawiki until this page was brought to my attention. Be that as it may, I have left a warning on your talk page about your "strikeout" of my vote.[35]. That kind of thing is vandalism on Wikipedia and I presume it is on Metawiki as well. Do not change or strike out the votes of other editors.--Mantanmoreland 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Mantanmoreland created his account on May, 8 in order to vote on this request. Sock puppet ? --Juiced lemon 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Juiced lemon, You are employing a double standard. You improperly strike out a registered user's vote in this matter because, although they are an established WP editor, they are new to commons. While at the same time you support a brand new IP editor's nomination for image deletion, despite the fact that this nomination has been their entire contribution to commons. Special:Contributions/84.13.82.250 -Doright 17:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
See the administrator's comment here[36] in the Administrators Noticeboard. Note in particular his comment that this is not a "vote" and that the quality of arguments is what matters not length of time on Commons, and also that the number of "votes" is immaterial. Insofar as thie image is concerned, there is no question that the map is historically correct, and that is all that matters.--Mantanmoreland 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- DELETE The caption text is a deliberate distorsion of historic sources. So the creator made clearly this poor quality image for propaganda. On 2006, I found in Commons a Gibraltar map which showed the Rock as a Spanish territory (and it was used in numberous wikis instead of the normal map!). We must be watchful to such propaganda. --Juiced lemon 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- If what you say is true, how do you explain the fact that published and highly credible WP:RS sources (cited above) plus both major opposing POV's including the pro-Palestinian Passia and the Israeli MFA publish the same map and captions found on this map? -Doright 16:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are
a liarlying; there is no such fact, and this is precisely the reason why I gave a DELETE opinion. --Juiced lemon 12:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)- Please stop the personal attacks.--Mantanmoreland 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not call people liars, even if they are wrong or you believe them to be lying. Thanks, Yonatan talk 03:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop the personal attacks.--Mantanmoreland 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are
- Keep Per AnonMoos and Doright. — Jeff G. 23:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep: No grounds for deletion of excellent image. Amoruso 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- A map of Palestine without Jerusalem but with Gaza and Kuneitra as only cities shown if obviously excellent ! :-) Ceedjee 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - we don't need lower resolution\bad quality dupes. We already have a better quality map as a PNG, which is the preferred format for these types of files. People here should note that the closing administrator will choose to keep or delete not based on how many votes you were able to stack for whichever side. In addition, the caption text is wrong\POV and should be deleted for that reason alone. The map is of the en:British Mandate of Palestine not of the area designated as a national home for the Jewish people in the State of Israel (as designated by the en:Balfour Declaration in 1917). Yonatan talk 03:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You call it a "dupe" and then point out some of the differences that in fact makes it not a dupe. The obvious fact is that if it were a "dupe," there would be no controversy. You then claim that the map is "wrong\POV." Yet, I have provided links to maps from both major points of view, plus two reliable and independent sources [37] that are all virtually identical to the features contained in this map. You, on the other hand make bold assertions supported by nothing more than your opinion/POV. And, the map that you prefer has not a single source identified in support of its accuracy. -Doright 04:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You aren't addressing any of my points which don't suit you. For example, the caption is completely wrong. The map itself is very similar, if not an exact duplicate (I haven't exactly checked), of the PNG version, which is a preferred file format, is better quality and generally looks better. Commons doesn't have a policy of reliable sourcing, we tend to use common sense, and your POV caption violates it. Editors from both sides of the political spectrum have voted for this map's deletion (ChrisO and I) so something's gotta be wrong with it. Yonatan talk 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have addressed your points. In fact I have refuted them and will do so one last time. You claim your "common sense," trumps the cited references, including noted historians, e.g., Winston Churchill's official biographer (Sir Martin Gilbert), National Public Radio (NPR online), the official State of Israel website and the pro Palestinian, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs website. Well, how can I "address" your points when both reason and evidence are refuted by mere bias and unsubstantiated claims of superior knowledge? Against all of them, you on the other hand claim to be in possession of "common sense." Second, The simple and obvious fact is that it is not a dupe and that's why you insist on deleting it. It presents information you do not want others to see. Therefore it should not be deleted. If others create a better quality image in a better format that contains the identical information boundaries and caption, that's great. But, you do not delete information and maps from commons when it results in loss of information resource to the community. -Doright 06:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please, you are totally misjudging what I mean by comments, which is unfortunately something that's common online due to the fact that you cannot hear the tone of voice of the person you're speaking with. You are being a little too combative for my taste, so please, remember, we aren't enemies. I wouldn't have much of a problem (although I still probably wouldn't like us to keep the image, due to the other reasons I have stated above) with this picture if it weren't for the biased caption. Please show me a reliable source supporting that caption in some way. For obvious reasons I studied all about this region, this specific part of history and the Balfour Declaration, in which the national home for the Jewish people isn't defined as the whole British Mandate of Palestine but it rather states, a national home for the Jewish people in the land of Palestine. Yonatan talk 06:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Original British Mandate for Palestine" would certainly be accurate. Why not just make it that? Would that satisfy your objection? I can't see any other possible issue with the map.--Mantanmoreland 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please, you are totally misjudging what I mean by comments, which is unfortunately something that's common online due to the fact that you cannot hear the tone of voice of the person you're speaking with. You are being a little too combative for my taste, so please, remember, we aren't enemies. I wouldn't have much of a problem (although I still probably wouldn't like us to keep the image, due to the other reasons I have stated above) with this picture if it weren't for the biased caption. Please show me a reliable source supporting that caption in some way. For obvious reasons I studied all about this region, this specific part of history and the Balfour Declaration, in which the national home for the Jewish people isn't defined as the whole British Mandate of Palestine but it rather states, a national home for the Jewish people in the land of Palestine. Yonatan talk 06:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have addressed your points. In fact I have refuted them and will do so one last time. You claim your "common sense," trumps the cited references, including noted historians, e.g., Winston Churchill's official biographer (Sir Martin Gilbert), National Public Radio (NPR online), the official State of Israel website and the pro Palestinian, Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs website. Well, how can I "address" your points when both reason and evidence are refuted by mere bias and unsubstantiated claims of superior knowledge? Against all of them, you on the other hand claim to be in possession of "common sense." Second, The simple and obvious fact is that it is not a dupe and that's why you insist on deleting it. It presents information you do not want others to see. Therefore it should not be deleted. If others create a better quality image in a better format that contains the identical information boundaries and caption, that's great. But, you do not delete information and maps from commons when it results in loss of information resource to the community. -Doright 06:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- You aren't addressing any of my points which don't suit you. For example, the caption is completely wrong. The map itself is very similar, if not an exact duplicate (I haven't exactly checked), of the PNG version, which is a preferred file format, is better quality and generally looks better. Commons doesn't have a policy of reliable sourcing, we tend to use common sense, and your POV caption violates it. Editors from both sides of the political spectrum have voted for this map's deletion (ChrisO and I) so something's gotta be wrong with it. Yonatan talk 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yonatan, I appreciate your change in tone and your new interest in sources. Yet, unless you were saying something other than what you meant, I do not believe that I have misjudged the meaning of your words. However, now I am completely baffled. You ask me to "Please show [you] a reliable source supporting that caption in some way." Perhaps you have not noticed the reliable sources I have already provided above and on the image source description that not only support the caption, but use the identical words.
- Here it is again:
- The source for this map and language comes from published and highly credible WP:RS sources plus both major opposing POV's including the pro-Palestinian Passia and the Israeli MFA.
- the WP:RS source: Page 8 of Sir Martin Gilbert's "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th edition," (ISBN: 0415281172) published by Routledge in 2002 and page 10 of the First American Edition of the same book published by Macmillian 1975 (ISBN: 0-02-543370-9) shows this area as
"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home," [38]
- the WP:RS source: National Public Radio (NPR online) that captions the identical area as
"The original Mandate granted to Britain." [39]
- the WP:RS source: Page 8 of Sir Martin Gilbert's "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th edition," (ISBN: 0415281172) published by Routledge in 2002 and page 10 of the First American Edition of the same book published by Macmillian 1975 (ISBN: 0-02-543370-9) shows this area as
- Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/1923-1948-british-mandate.html ,
"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home"
- the Israeli government source [40]
"Area Allocated for Jewish National Home San Remo Conference 1920."
- Yonatan, Do you agree or disagree that I have provided reliable sources that support the caption? -Doright 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I withdraw my previous suggestion on the caption. The caption as it stands now is accurate.--Mantanmoreland 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. Your sources do mention region of a Jewish National Home. You, however, decide to restate this, calling it a region for a Jewish National Home, a statement which does not bear the same meaning and no, I don't think it's good to rely on the Israeli government source for this (it's the only source that uses the word for as opposed to of). I also don't think a caption should be included as part of the image. If someone wishes, they can and are welcome to add this caption manually where it's being used but adding the caption in English prevents the proper use of this map in other Wikipedias. In addition to that, the drawing of the bodies of water (Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River and the Dead Sea) is largely inaccurate. This is, of course, beside the fact that the map isn't of good quality (and the choice of colors is pretty bad as well), and for some reason only mentions certain cities such as Quneitra and Gaza, while Jerusalem, for example, which is probably the most notable city in the region, isn't mentioned. Also, no differentiation is made between the Emirate of Transjordan and Palestine, which would be fine in and of itself (as well as the quality and color issue) but when there's a better alternative, we shouldn't have people using this inaccurate\POV map whose author has made some odd choices, IMHO. For these reasons, this map should be Deleted. Yonatan talk 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as a better image is available: Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png. I am not certain what the reason for this heated debate is. This is a routine deletion. -- Cat chi? 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Too bad the discussion was closed within 6 minutes of Yonatanh's reply without giving us the opportunity to complete the discussion. For example, he complains:
"Your sources do mention region of a Jewish National Home. You, however, decide to restate this, calling it a region for a Jewish National Home, a statement which does not bear the same meaning. "
It doesn't? Then Yonatanh goes on to, in my view absurdly, highlight the major distinction between "of" versus "for." If he would have bothered to look at even the first sentence of the Mandate for Palestine article, he would have read that "of" and "for" are used interchangeably. For goodness sakes the first sentence of the article says, "The Mandate for Palestine, also known as the Mandate of Palestine ... Then he complains there should be no caption. I must question how the value of a map is improved by insisting on deleting its legend. In fact, cartography 101 suggests a map without a legend is less than useless. But to pile it even higher, he then anachronistically attempts to engage in historical revisionism by ignoring the very caption he wants deleted. He complains, "no differentiation is made between the Emirate of Transjordan and Palestine". Well, Yonatanh, Emirate of Transjordan did not yet exist as of the date of the San Remo conference. And, anyone that read the legend (caption), that Yonatanh wants to delete, and is familiar with the subject and not attempting to revise history would know that. And, no there isn't a reliance on Israeli government as a source for this. Reliance is made on, Sir Martin Gilbert's "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 7th edition," (ISBN: 0415281172) published by Routledge in 2002 and page 10 of the First American Edition of the same book published by Macmillian 1975 (ISBN: 0-02-543370-9) shows this area as
"The Palestine Mandate, granted to Britain at the San Remo Conference in 1920, as the region of a Jewish Nation home," [41]
The only purpose for citing the Israeli government source, along with the Palestinian POV source, was to demonstrate that even these opposing parties do not dispute this fact. Quneitra and Gaza are shown because they help identify the boundaries for the highlighted area. Quneitra is outside and Gaza is inside. Jerusalem being in the middle of the map is not relevant for this purpose, although I understand that it is important to POV's such as Yonatanh's. He also complains about the accuracy of the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River and the Dead Sea. I agree the shorelines of these can be improved. However, I would point out that they do exist in the locations shown on the map. Yet, Yonatanh, prefers to use the other map that goes so far as to put non-existing POV bodies of water on their map (e.g., they admit that they added to the map, "Lake Houla, which existed at the time but was later dried up by Israel." [42] Although the lake is found on biblical era maps, by 1920 (the date of this map) so called Lake Houla was more of a swamplands that are now fertile land. Maybe this is why they had to add this lake to their map. Finally, this leave standing only Yonatanh objection that apparently his prefered map is better "quality" and better "choice of colors." Personally, I indifferent with respect to the color differences between the maps, but this can't be a serious reason for deletion, yet I do agree resolution of the map can be improved. However I must wonder if that is considered a valid reason for deleting what is currently a unique map from commons?
In any case, is it customary to give a reason for the deletion? Or are we just left to guess? -Doright 00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Deleted as a better image is available: Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.png. I am not certain what the reason for this heated debate is. This is a routine deletion. -- Cat chi? 17:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)"
- You are not addressing my points at all. The words of and for can be used interchangeably in the context of the Mandate of Palestine and the Mandate for Palestine (although the latter doesn't sound very good grammatically, IMHO). There's a distinct difference between the "region of a Jewish National Home" (ie. the whole region is designated for a Jewish National Home) and the "region for a Jewish National Home" (ie. a Jewish National Home would be in this region). If there's no difference between them, why didn't you change the caption instead of arguing profusely? The outlining of the different bodies of water is extremely inaccurate. There's another map that already does this stuff accurately (and again, there's no need for a caption) and is generally better so there's no reason to keep this map. Regarding Lake Houla, as you say, it existed at the time and therefore should be included in a map of the region at that time. Yonatan talk 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Image requested for deletion on nl, because lacking source info. --Kameraad Pjotr 12:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
picture related only to deleted advertisement on pl-wiki Man 15:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like a photo taken by the original uploader to en -- Yonatan talk 14:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a copyvio from here. Carl Lindberg 05:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Clear copyvio. Majorly (hot!) 08:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
copyvio and uploader has not responded since notified on 27 April -- Strangnet 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Wooyi 15:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
the sisteen chapel is a 3D work of art and therefore doesn't fall under bridgeman vs. corel -- Yonatan talk 14:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep But it falls within the spirit of bridgeman vs. corel. --rtc 21:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Unlike with a sculpture, this seems very unlikely to be judged copyrightable, since there's not really any angle selection or other decision to make: It's a perfectly flat-on view. --Delirium 02:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep That a painting is completed on a surface that is curved or that itself composes part of a structure does not render such painting, or a part thereof, a sculpture or other three-dimensional work the taking of an image of which might require Bridgeman’s
skill or expertisecreativity(correcting my editing error) and produce an original work, and the fresco here most especially should not be understood as part of any such structure because, as this broader image well illustrates, it comprises, as any other two-dimensional painting, but one flat wall; Delirium's analysis, then, is, I think, quite right. Jahiegel 06:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)- Bridgeman says that no matter how much skill and expertise are needed to reproduce a 2D work of art, that is not an argument for copyrightability. So skill and expertise are exactly not the criteria to be taken into account. Creativity is the criterion, and creativity is given if the photographer has a choice in camera position etc. --rtc 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Suffice it to say that it was not a deficiency in my understanding—I did mean to convey my belief that no creativity is required or present here (hence my original work formulation and my referencing the facts underlying Delirium's {{Vk}})—but, instead, in my typing; I had this DR and several related images open in tabs at once, and I ultimately excised from my exceedingly long comment the provision that the taking of an image such as this, in view of the location, etc., might require much skill and expertise, it would not entail any creativity, but I rather failed to preview/pay any attention at all. Apologies. Jahiegel 07:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bridgeman says that no matter how much skill and expertise are needed to reproduce a 2D work of art, that is not an argument for copyrightability. So skill and expertise are exactly not the criteria to be taken into account. Creativity is the criterion, and creativity is given if the photographer has a choice in camera position etc. --rtc 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The stated argument is flawed: The Sistine Chapel is not the work represented here, it is the painting by Michelangelo. Simply because it is painted on a curved surface does not make the painting itself 3-D. It is a two-dimensional painting. Similarly, if one unframed the Mona Lisa and placed the canvas against a concave backing, would it too then become un-reproduceable? Also, the original complaint misspells "Sistine," which undermines credibility.
Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
copyvio and uploader have not responded -- Strangnet 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: no permission
no mention of a free license anywhere at the source. If you try going to it directly from commons you'll get a 403, no permission error but you can get to it from here -- Yonatan talk 22:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I uploaded it so that it could be used on Wikiquote. Originally it was upload to en.wiki by w:User:Retiono Virginian, who has now resigned. I am sure the image will not be missed by him. Based on the reasons you have provided, I think it should be deleted. Cbrown1023 talk 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't know if the w:User:Retiono Virginian has a history of pictures like this, but if don't have a verifiable source and the exact author it should better to delete the file. Dantadd✉ 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Said user is a banned sockpuppet on English Wikipedia with a history of disruptive editing. Majorly (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Said user also has an extensive history of uploading non free images on Wikipedia, claiming them to be free. I would trust nothing asserted by him, based on his past (70+ sockpuppets blocked at Wikipedia). Martinp23 15:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. -- Editor at Large • talk 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
We need permission from the photographer, not from the displayed person. --rtc 20:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: “Bruce Schneier writes his books and essays by generating random alphanumeric text of an appropriate length and then decrypting it.” – What about photos? ;-) --Polarlys 22:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Someone should ask Schneier if he owns the copyright on this photograph before deleting. --Delirium 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I assume he some restricted, non-exclusive right to copy and distribute, but I guess it doesn't go far enough for GFDL. Especially, I doubt that commercial use is included. --rtc 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: This is all speculative. All we know is, Mr. Schneier has claimed to release the photo under the GFDL (an implicitly claimed copyright). We generally believe these sorts of claims unless there some reason to think it's a violation. I don't think we have any evidence except the speculation that he might have been incorrect in his claim of GFDL release. Quadell (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nope, we don't generally believe such implicit stuff. Too many misconceptions are prevalent, even among those who should know better. --rtc 14:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence whatsoever of permission from the photographer. If it exists it should be supplied via OTRS
and other chords photos from Special:Contributions/Sameerkale.
Bad quality: out of focus -- EugeneZelenko 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Low quality, so tagged. Majorly (hot!) 08:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
all unused images deleted (usually I am not in favor of deleting images for their bad quality but in this case the quality was really overwhelmingly bad and so I deleted all unused images. Hopefully somebody will upload images showing the chords in a better quality.) --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
the money was printed in 1968 and is therefore still copyrighted -- Yonatan talk 00:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yep, 1968 is just 39 years ago, copyright still applies.. Majorly (hot!) 08:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
No it should not be deleted, as it is being used for informative purposes only. If copyright infringements are being feared then the scanners and cameras should be banned because many people can scan both sides of any currency note and after printing they can use the same. THOUGHT (June 19, 2007, 12:51 PST)
Nonsense. The images of coins and paper money are all over the Internet. The coin publications freely print pictures of coins, etc. from around the world. I should know especially about Israeli currency since I am President of the American Israel Numismatic Association. There is no need to remove this image. (July 2, 2007)
- Keep, because may its allowd - see scans of the coins/papers of the euro. --Alkab 19:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Axed, money is still copyrighted. (→O - RLY?) 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
no author is given and image is not older than 100 years, so pd-old is not possible -- Frumpy 16:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Does commons use the 100-year rule? At any rate, if the author is unknown, then {{PD-UK-unknown}} would apply. There is a larger version here; maybe someone can look up the book mentioned to see if there is a photo credit in there. Carl Lindberg 06:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops, I meant here. It was en:Horace de Vere Cole (died 1936) who sent the photo to the newspaper, but it's not mentioned on the web page who actually took it. This page has a thumbnail of a similar but slightly different photo; there must have been a series taken (apparently from the cover of this Spanish book; maybe that has more info). Maybe an admin could see if there was any further info on the original wiki page that has since been deleted. According to this page, Cole is the person on the far right in the photo. He presumably did have the photo commissioned... if he is the owner, then it would be PD-Old. If the author was not mentioned when it was published in the newspaper, then PD-UK-unknown would apply I would think. Carl Lindberg 14:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Until user who requests deletion has links that make sense; recommend not deleting image. 68.50.247.189 06:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a crusade against useful pictures in Wikipedia on? I find this deletion request pretty sinister. Let's not split hairs, Cole asked for this picture to be published so it can safely be considered to be in the public domain. Maikel 22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept, assuming that de Vere Cole was the author. / Fred J 15:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
May 7
[edit]Reasons for deletion request /Wegge 18:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
For being a busybody that have lost focus of what commons was created to be, ie. a service to all wikimedia projects, and instead going ahead on (his/her) own campaing for deleting anything in sight, I nominate User:Rtc for deletion. Whereas I have no illusion that this proposal will have better survival prospects than a chocolate kettle, I still want to make a stand here. In my opinion the rest of the commons users have been neglect of the signs of deletitis for too long.
Go ahead and block me, just to prove my point.
Comment His rampage against a huge bunch of license templates surely made him loose a great deal of points in my book. Seemed more like a personal vandetta than anything else. --|EPO| 18:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete All of the photos from Category:Folketinget.dk will have to be uploadet on the english and dansih Wikipedia instead. And if the deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Www.folketinget.dk is going through I will stop uploading to Commons and have all my uploads deleted as I don't want to support the project anymore. --Broadbeer 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Spurious deletion request. User page didn't even exist until the deletion request was added to it. —Angr 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was the user, not it's userpage. -- /Wegge 18:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's trolling and an ad hominem attack. Completely unproductive behavior of User:Wegge. Lupo 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- This request is not trolling. It's a honest attempt at bringing some attention to the problem that commons have ceased to be a common resource for the wikimedia projects, to be replaced by a fiefdom for deletionists. If you can point me towards a better way to get rid of people whose only mission seem to be deletion of usefull content, I'd be happy to go there. Until then, I'll stand by this deletion request. -- /Wegge 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's trolling and an ad hominem attack. Completely unproductive behavior of User:Wegge. Lupo 20:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Rtc has been banned from the German Wikipedia already? But someone should take this under consideration though, we can't fall to copyright paranoia and deleting everything (see contribs.) --Pudeo 20:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nonsense, he has never been banned from German Wikipedia. PDD 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Rtc is a valuable member of the community and will not be deleted. Kjetil r 01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- Siebrand 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope, unused. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
probable copyvio, the original page on en has no desc nor source information and it was the user's only upload -- Yonatan talk 04:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The image certainly has the feel of a copyvio and, in view of the uploader's lack of prior or subsequent involvement, I don't think our assumption of good faith can extend to our taking his representation of the image's provenance as necessarily accurate (or dispositive). Jahiegel 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Pure Advertisement. Also misleading metatagging...I was searching for Air Traffic Controllers. -- 139.72.158.28 15:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete advertisement. Wooyi 15:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No idea what this is supposed to be, but it appears to lie out of the project's scope. -- Siebrand 15:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- Siebrand 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Althingi.is photos
[edit]- Image:DavidOddson.jpg
- Image:BenediktGrondal.jpg
- Image:SivFridleifsdottir.jpg
- Image:ValgerdurSverrisdottir.jpg
- Image:GunnarThoroddsen.jpg
- Image:SteingrimurHermannsson.jpg
- Image:ThorsteinnPalsson.jpg
- Image:SverrirHermannsson.jpg
- Image:Gisladottir.jpg
Cannot possibly be CC. It is not clear from this short sentence from the supposed e-mail from althingi.is how far the permission to use goes. --Biekko 00:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- A better permission mentioning a specific license and an understanding that anyone can use this commercially sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org would make it fine. Otherwise, Delete Yonatan talk 04:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough for hosting on Commons. --MichaelMaggs 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 13:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4469 - Milano - La Borsa - Allegoria dell'aria - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4470 - Milano - La Borsa - Allegoria del fuoco - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4471 - Milano - La Borsa - Allegoria del fuoco (dettaglio) - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4472 - Milano - La Borsa - Allegoria della terra - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4473 - Milano - La Borsa - Allegoria dell'acqua - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4474 - Milano - La Borsa - Allegoria dell'acqua - Dettaglio - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4493 - Milano - La Borsa - Dettaglio sul fianco - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4495 - Milano - La Borsa - Dettaglio sul fianco - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4502 - Milano - La Borsa - Dettaglio sul fianco - Foto di Giovanni Dall'Orto - 20 jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Paolo Mezzanotte died only in 1969. Italy has no Freedom of Panorama. Please note: I myself took this picture, before I knew I was not allowed to upload it :-( --User:G.dallorto 14:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete all. Italy has no FOP --MichaelMaggs 17:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Uploader claims own work, but image quality is high at low resolution and no meta data present. Suspected copyfraud. -- Siebrand 15:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- While I cannot confirm (yet) that the user account used to upload this picture belongs to Sasha Grey herself, the previous attempt to upload this image (though over at Wikipedia, rather than Commons) has been confirmed as belonging to Sasha Grey. I would ask that the final determination not be made on this image until the actress can be contacted to confirm whether or not she uploaded the image. -- Yukichigai 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- You misunderstand this, nobody is saying the account belongs to her. To me it looks like it was taken at a booth in an adult entertainment seminar/show.--86.70.9.223 05:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If the shot was taken by her publicist or a photographer hired by her, (or her agent) then she would have legal rights to the image, as well as rights to release the image under the CCA 2.5 license. Also FYI, the image is one that appears on Sasha Grey's MySpace account. -- Yukichigai 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's a bit late since the request has been suspended, but I've received confirmation from Sasha Grey that she is the person who uploaded the pic. -- Yukichigai 08:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Suspend request for now, I am in contact with person in question and am requesting an e-mail be sent to OTRS. -- Editor at Large • talk 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Closing. OTRS has since been added. --MichaelMaggs 17:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is my photo up for deletion? It's been confirmed by OTRS, Wiki users continue to harass me but aren't deleted... Madjabuds 11:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Madjabuds. is Sasha Grey
Uploader is not the copyright holder of the image. The original image was taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/41306992@N00/365383376/in/set-72157594483935686/ The owner of the flickr account is the copyright holder and the entire set of photos that he photographed from the same event and hosted on his flickr account corroborates it. --Morbidthoughts 17:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per previous keep voteCommons:Deletion requests/Image:SG01.jpg. -Nard 18:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
The photographer has asserted his copyright at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:SG01.jpg Morbidthoughts 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't override the previous OTRS permission. -Nard 02:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I had the OTRS ticket checked and it confirmed that madjabuds is Sasha Grey and that she uploaded the picture. Still doesn't prove that she owned the copyright. Not sure what you would need for an override but it's been deleted. Morbidthoughts 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. by Videmus Omnia (Copyright violation from http://www.flickr.com/photos/41306992@N00/365383376/in/set-72157594483935686/) Rocket000 18:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Pictures of statues in Central Park
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama for artworks such as statues in the USA, and each of these images appears to be a photo of a statue in Central Park, without sufficient attribution and without proof of permission. Per Commons:Freedom of panorama#USA, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, ... any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork." -- — Jeff G. 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Bethesda Fountain.jpg
- It appears that this was BY-NC-ND... Lupo 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Angel of waters Central Park.jpg
- Actually, a Stock Exchange image. What's our policy on those? Lupo 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Our policy on those is at Commons:Bad_sources#Stock.Xchng. As this image was originally uploaded to w:fr:Image:Angel of waters Central Park.jpg "7 juillet 2004 à 15:30", it is "allowed for the time being" per our policy. Those seeking further information should note that the template w:Template:Sxc-warning and category w:Category:Unfree SXC licensed images were deleted as a result of this debate at 15:42 on 8 May 2007 (UTC). — Jeff G. 15:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, a Stock Exchange image. What's our policy on those? Lupo 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Pilgrim Father Central Park NYC.jpg
- Keep. Sculpture by John Quincy Adams Ward, d. 1910. Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:AliceOnMushroom.jpg
- Delete. Sculpture by José de Creeft.[43] Commissioned in 1959. Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:CP-Hans Christian Andersen.jpg
- Delete. Statue created in 1956 by Georg John Lober.[44] Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- do what you think needs to be done, but why should we be holier than Google Earth and Flickr? --Rainer Halama 02:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- The litigious climate in St. Petersburg, Florida may have something to do with that. Or perhaps having a foundation to protect. — Jeff G. 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Falconer statue central park nyc.jpg
- It appears that this was BY-NC-ND... Lupo 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:King Jagiello statue central park nyc.jpg
- I'll pass on that one. See King Jagiello Monument for its history. The sculptor died less than 70 years ago. (This also concerns Image:Wladyslaw-Jagiello.jpg!) However, it was apparently commissioned by the Polish government... Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It appears that Image:King Jagiello statue central park nyc.jpg was BY-NC-ND... Lupo 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll pass on that one. See King Jagiello Monument for its history. The sculptor died less than 70 years ago. (This also concerns Image:Wladyslaw-Jagiello.jpg!) However, it was apparently commissioned by the Polish government... Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Lebow.png
- Delete. Sculptor was Jesus Ygnacio Dominguez. Created after 1970.[46] Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Mad Hatter.jpg
- Delete. Sculpture by José de Creeft.[47] Commissioned in 1959. Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Obelisk central park nyc.jpg
- It appears that the image was licensed as BY-NC-ND... Lupo 10:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Statue of Balto in Central Park.jpg
- Sculptor was Frederick George Richard Roth (d. 1944). Sculpture unveiled 1925.[49] Does it bear a copyright notice? Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It does bear a plaque (see [50]), but I can't find any image on the internet that shows a copyright notice. Assuming, therefore, that it's ok under US law. --MichaelMaggs 17:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Three Dancing Maidens, Central Park.JPG
- Sculptor: Walter Schott (d. 1938). Created 1910, presented to the city in 1947. Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The artwork itself is public domain per the death of the creator being more than 50 years ago. This seemed fairly clear from the 1910 creation date, which I had added to the description precisely to address a potential deletion request. [51] - BanyanTree 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, what's got 50 years to do with it? We generally apply 70 years p.m.a.
The U.S. has never had a 50-year copyright term.(Rubbish. Of course they did, from 1978 - 1998 for works published 1978 or later. But that's of no use to us, as no such 50-year p.m.a. copyright expired in that time, before the extension to 70 years. Lupo 21:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)) It may be though that the sculpture is indeed PD-US, or PD-US-not renewed. But it's still copyrighted in Germany until the end of 2008 (Schott was a German...) Lupo 14:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)- Untangling my thoughts: I uploaded the picture thinking of w:Template:PD-old-50, which states that works created in the U.S. prior to 1923 etc etc. Schott created the work in Germany and and it was then sold to a U.S. family, so that's clearly flawed reasoning. Delete, and apologies for the mess. - BanyanTree 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Eh, what's got 50 years to do with it? We generally apply 70 years p.m.a.
- The artwork itself is public domain per the death of the creator being more than 50 years ago. This seemed fairly clear from the 1910 creation date, which I had added to the description precisely to address a potential deletion request. [51] - BanyanTree 12:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sculptor: Walter Schott (d. 1938). Created 1910, presented to the city in 1947. Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Next stop: the other images of statues and sculptures in Category:New York City statues and sculptures, Category:Statues of the United States, and Category:Sculptures of the United States. (gotta run!) — Jeff G. 23:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all that are copyrighted or that do not specify the sculptor. However, some photos in these categories are ok, such as Image:John Ericsson Battery Park.jpg. Kjetil r 02:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, but the nominator should weed out those that are obviously in the public domain first and then list the rest here for individual consideration. Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, I didn't mean to nominate "the other images of statues and sculptures in Category:New York City statues and sculptures, Category:Statues of the United States, and Category:Sculptures of the United States" as a part of this nomination, just to put them "out there" (so to speak) as the categories I intended to look at next (and others could do the same if they wish). I'm sorry if I gave any impression to the contrary. — Jeff G. 11:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, no big problem. Just try not to nominate the obviously PD ones. (The nomination of the obelisk for FOP violation above was hilarious.) Preemptive notice: the Statue of Liberty is PD. (Erected 1886, designer Frédéric Bartholdi (1834 - 1904).) :-) Lupo 07:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, I didn't mean to nominate "the other images of statues and sculptures in Category:New York City statues and sculptures, Category:Statues of the United States, and Category:Sculptures of the United States" as a part of this nomination, just to put them "out there" (so to speak) as the categories I intended to look at next (and others could do the same if they wish). I'm sorry if I gave any impression to the contrary. — Jeff G. 11:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, but the nominator should weed out those that are obviously in the public domain first and then list the rest here for individual consideration. Lupo 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Closing. All images specifically listed have been dealt with. If there are others they should be listed explicitly in a new Deletion Request. --MichaelMaggs 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
not old enough, 1932 --Polarlys 14:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
not old enough for PD-old, image form around 1935 --Polarlys 14:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: Image probably not old enough to be PD, and cannot be assumed as such unless creator and year of publication can be provided.
"The creator and year of publication are essential information and must be provided." --Polarlys 14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 18:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Images are probably not old enough to be PD, and cannot be assumed as such unless creator and year of publication can be provided. --MichaelMaggs 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Image is corrupt. Upload is incomplete. --J Milburn 09:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's a bleeding joke, why does Commons hate me so? Now Image:Deathstars Baraonda 08-Oct-2006.jpg has failed... J Milburn 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just reupload them with the same title and overwrite them. --User:G.dallorto 14:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's a bleeding joke, why does Commons hate me so? Now Image:Deathstars Baraonda 08-Oct-2006.jpg has failed... J Milburn 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image is of text of low quality, \which could easily be replaced by actual text --Ashfire908 14:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image is used in an old signature of a very prolific nl.wikipedia-user, but has very little worth for Commons and/or other projects I would think. Has been uploaded by bot by Siebrand who maybe shouldn't haved moved it anyway. Anyway, deleting it here means it 'll have to be restored on nl.wikipedia. Effect on database: zero. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 23:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, --ALE! ¿…? 22:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
This image is from gminsidenews.com and is not the a work of the owner. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 16#Images of cars from gminsidenews.com. -- Iamunknown 06:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted; copyvio. (→O - RLY?) 00:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the American English pronunciation of taoiseach (if such a thing even existed), it's just a mispronunciation. —Angr 18:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC) --—Angr 18:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This was tagged for speedy deletion, but I am posting this here because it looks like there is conflicting information on the Flickr source page.[52] On the one hand, it is marked with the "All Rights Reserved" license there. On the other hand, the caption there reads, "I provided this picture to Wikipedia , so you can use this under the GPL licene. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wfm_x51_area51_warningsign.jpg" I noticed that the page history of this page does originally mark it as GFDL.[53] Thanks. --Zzyzx11 02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- I mailed the flickr contributor before I uploaded it and he explicitly released it under the GFDL for us. I can forward his email to OTRS if that would help. -- Finlay McWalter 09:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Seems to solve it. Maybe add the letter (or an appropriate excerpt) to the page and set the license to GFDL. --Stephan Schulz 08:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep there's no reason a flickr user can't specify multiple licenses for his work, and you can reserve all rights and then give some of them a way. -Nard 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. -- Infrogmation 22:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's cool, and it seems it was released under GFDL for us anyway!
- Keep this picture is ironic in how the sign says no photography
Kept with GFDL license. / Fred J 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
May 8
[edit]Image:X1pbglk-vqL4BvJsZfiJIfEqhj3TUb57gOhDcBWsUXPzeXn0z1eJTVG2yINStLgW3Iux9j66JUB tn0RDRHOUutrVZnApKbaEfLUoSM-BqdIEzFsv2ODOOpzcaDHCrh TCW fifZlmUgaXAD9vtu.jpg
[edit]Out of scope - license dubious - bad name - similar files already deleted (here, and here) Dcoetzee 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:X1piYkpqHC 35kmwGnXRv32wDWwZGBRFFnbRxgZKeDlINdFj5sud-dEC-HONjLqvLBmz5m-gc sihViqcf5 x-rYque1JvQzpY6Dm6Pfgcznozwlsh3q4q5gA.jpg
[edit]Out of scope - license dubious - bad name - similar files already deleted (here, and here)Dcoetzee 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:X1pNWjjkHJ3o w4kcgP6VgwU-EWZLbzGvMrB8HGaLehFpLdt21-ObTK5DFEvz1F98gCWtVgfqx348CdnLb7x57neF6dLjOZ2ifmJzUt YlMRYvbnivhy22Dogjl N.jpg
[edit]Out of scope - license dubious - bad name - similar files already deleted (here, and here) Dcoetzee 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect name, should be Category:Rangers F.C., see en:Rangers F.C. Archibald99 15:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC) --Archibald99 15:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 19:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, renaming a category is not a big deal. Just create Category:Rangers F.C., move all images, and put {{Speedy}} in the old category. Kjetil r 19:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's all done but the last bit, what's the procedure for doing the last bit while this subpage and pointer are still here? Thanks! — Jeff G. 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'll fix it. Kjetil r 23:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's all done but the last bit, what's the procedure for doing the last bit while this subpage and pointer are still here? Thanks! — Jeff G. 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, as it is replaced by Category:Rangers F.C.. Kjetil r 23:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No artist given, derivative work? --Polarlys 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- it's my own work ! This picture is from an old statue which is in my family from the end of the XIXe century. I have done a picture of it, whith my camera, in my house... I can show you this statue.. Why do you wont to delete it ? Theoliane 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader appears to be from France, thus the copyright law which appears to apply is "if the work is anonymous, pseudonymous or collective, [duration of copyright] is 70 years following the publication of the work (unless the authors named themselves)" plus "about 8.5 years for WW2" per Commons:Licensing#France, so about 78.5 years. 78.5 years ago was 9 November 1928. I conclude that the statue is out of copyright, {{PD-old}}. — Jeff G. 15:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, I withdraw my request for deletion. See Commons:Derivative work for my former motivation. --Polarlys 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a derived work of a sculpture by a born in 1949 and still alive artist. Obviously a good faith miscomprehension by the uploader of intellectual law rules about derived work. --Touriste 19:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 19:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- (no vote yet) As the uploader, i am unclear about the intelectual property laws in France. In Germany, if it is shown in public over longer periods of time (like this sculpture), then photos can be taken freely. Not sure what the french laws are, or if they apply on an US server. Could someone please fill me in on that one? Thanks -- Chris 73 06:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Commons:Freedom of panorama#France refers to Unofficial translation to English of the copyright act. Neither appears to contain "freedom of panorama" for pictures whose subject is plainly one copyrighted work, in this case a sculpture. — Jeff G. 10:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- Chris 73 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
all we need in "high-profile-page downtimes" (see description) is such a useless illustration --Polarlys 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This image is presently used in the English Wikipedia js file, and is set to appear in lieu of the no-such-article article text on the English Wikipedia Main Page if it gets deleted again (which it has several times in the past few days). Hence why the image is protected from editing. - Mark 03:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand... it's being used in a Wikimedia project, and is a properly licensed image. I don't understand why someone is asking for its deletion because they disagree with its use on another project. Mak (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Mark. If/when English Wikipedia's Main Page (or another language version of Wikipedia that adopts the same methodology) is deleted again, this file will again be eminently useful. Of course, inclusion of Mark's information on Image:WikipediaTechnical.png or Image talk:WikipediaTechnical.png would have been helpful. :) — Jeff G. 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, sorry about that. It was only after I got it protected that I thought it would be useful to put information there, but I didn't want to bother another commons admin. :) - Mark 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as Jeff G., with thanks to Mark for his explanation; I gathered that the image existed simply to foist upon one or more projects an idea not favored by any Wikimedia project (which itself isn't an amazingly compelling reason for deletion but which may suggest that a continued presence on commons is unhelpful), but I see that I quite wrong. Jahiegel 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Polarlys 20:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the threshold of originality is extremely low in Austria. Basically all images are works, and thus protected for 70 years p.m.a. This image from 1938 cannot possibly fit that criterion.
- Delete Lupo 08:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete But by no means this applies only to Austria. The threshold of originality is the same all over europe. "Fromm/Nordemann (Urheberrecht 9 § 2 dUrhG Rz 74; ihm folgend Ciresa, Österreichisches Urheberrecht, § 3 Rz 7) halten nach Umsetzung der Schutzdauer-RL [93/98/EWG] als Lichtbildwerke alle Fotos für geschützt, die einem bestimmten Fotografen in dem Sinne persönlich zugerechnet werden können, dass sich sagen lässt, ein anderer Fotograf hätte möglicherweise das Foto anders gestaltet, also den Blickwinkel, den Ausschnitt oder die Beleuchtung anders gewählt, einen anderen Geschehensmoment festgehalten, die abgebildeten Personen anders gruppiert usw (zu den einzelnen Gestaltungsmitteln einer Fotografie im Detail siehe Nordemann, Die künstlerische Fotografie als urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk 135 ff). Nach Fromm/Nordemann (aaO) werde sich das auch für Amateurfotos und Schnappschüsse fast stets feststellen lassen. Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach (von Zufallsfotos infolge eines versehentlichen Auslösens der Kamera abgesehen) nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis, nämlich eine technisch einwandfreie Wiedergabe, erzielen müsse (also etwa Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen und - im Regelfall - Passbilder aus Fotoautomaten)."Eurobike This clearly refers to the low threshold of originality as an effect of the implementation of the EU directive, not as something that is peculiar about Austrian law. --rtc 22:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This category is moved to "Category:Soya cape" — Jeff G. 13:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
The correct name of the physical location is "Cape Soya" per w:Cape Soya. I nominated Category:Soya cape at Commons:Deletion requests/2007/05/09#Category:Soya cape instead. — Jeff G. 16:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. --GeorgHH 12:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
not within the project scope --Polarlys 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I cannot imagine that this should, at present (or, really, ever), serve any Wikimedia-related purpose. Jahiegel 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete political propaganda Federix 16:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Also a violation of User:Jastrow's copyright. Thuresson 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Replaced with a better name by the creator - please see User talk:Butko#Category:Bronze_horsemen_.28Saint_Petersburg.29 for details. — Jeff G. 13:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sorry, typo for Category:Canton de Guilvinec. Thanks, Ibn Battuta 05:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) — Jeff G. 14:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Correct the E in Ecology... My mistake Pristigaster (talk • contribs) 22:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (to be clear, the proper category is now at Category:Aquatic ecology). Jahiegel 05:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t
no free licence --Polarlys 21:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
See also:
- Image:Beatles retouched.jpg
- Image:Beatles John Lennon 1964.jpg
- Image:Beatles George Harrison 1964.jpg
- Image:Beatles Ringo Starr 1964.jpg
- Image:Beatles James Paul McCartney 1964.jpg
- Image:George harrison.jpg
- Image:Ringo starr.jpg
Deleted by Tom: Not a PD image; rights to pre-1991 UPI images are now owned by CORBIS: http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/151_upi.html; confirmed in CORBIS database
not within the project’s scope --Polarlys 12:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete To my mind, the subject looks more like Saddam Hussein drunk than like Osama drunk. In any event, though, I cannot imagine that this should serve any purpose related to a Wikimedia project. Jahiegel 05:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Image no more used. Has been replaced by image:HEPL-RS-ISIL-2.JPG. -- Dodeeric 09:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: It is no acceptable reason if an image is unused. --GeorgHH 14:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I am the author and I have mad a mistake --Rocchini 09:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Rocchini
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
surely copyvio on en.wp, no explicit source given --Polarlys 15:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and orphan status in all projects. — Jeff G. 19:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
derivative work --Polarlys 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Doubt uploader is author. --|EPO| 10:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am the author of the work - you might doupt that I exist, but I do. I spend some time making the work, much longer than it took you to delete it! --FinnWikiNo 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (derivative work)
this is no U.S. work, Rudi Feld still lived after 1930 (can't find detailed information) --Polarlys 15:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, no fair use posters in Commons, and orphan status. — Jeff G. 19:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This Rudi Feld is very possibly the same as the German-born art director who worked for UFA in the 1920s and died in 1994. --Davepape 15:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- The painter worked fot the UFA, that’s true. There are some more posters with PD-US by R. Feld. --Polarlys 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I contacted a museum, the artist and Rudi Feld († 1994) are identical. --Polarlys 23:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
webmasters are no photographers and usually don’t have the right to give such a permission. The photographer’s permission is needed. --Polarlys 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
accidentally duplicated Image:BlankMap-World-Subdivisions.PNG when updating. Wiz9999 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC) rescued by — Jeff G. 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The images are not identical --ALE! ¿…? 09:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
No, they're not. This one appears to have some lakes the other one doesn't have. Input from Wiz9999 would be helpful in resolving this discrepancy.— Jeff G. 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- They are identical, I uploaded both images myself. The .png image is the duplicate and the .PNG image is the original. The changes I made to the image were to add the South African provinces and to add the lakes etc. For some reason the preview image on the .PNG article still shows the older version (some kind of glitch in wikipedia), however if you click on the full resolution of that image you can see the lakes etc.
- I think that this glitch might be fixed by re-uploading the image, but I am not certain. Wiz9999 23:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed it by purging the thumbnail with http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?action=purge&f=BlankMap-World-Subdivisions.PNG&w=800. Please indent your replies. Thanks! — Jeff G. 15:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this request done now? --ALE! ¿…? 08:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - The images now display identically for me, so I no longer see a reason to deny uploader and only substantive editor Wiz9999 its request to delete this image. So, yes, the request is done, but it remains for an Administrator to close this discussion and do the deletion, prefereably ALE!, who still has the unstruck comment "The images are not identical" reflected above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Dupe. (→O - RLY?) 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Henri Berssenbrugge died in 1959 --Polarlys 14:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's different licence, not {{PD-old}}, so the date of death has nothing to do with that. The important thing is permission. That's what I understood: photo is from the collection of Jan Weijers. As it's often with personal photos taken in atelier, photographer releases rights to the object. In this case object is not alive anymore. So if the owner of the photo permited to put the photo with such licence we shouldn't discuss it. Photo existed with that licence on nlWiki, so I hope everything is allright. Pilecka 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Where is the proof that "the collection of Jan Weijers" licensed the photo as "CC-BY-2.5-NL"? — Jeff G. 19:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No proof of permission, therefore this has been D'd. (→O - RLY?) 00:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is a common domestic cat, not a Kodkod. Compare http://images.google.de/images?hl=de&q=oncifelis%20guigna. If necessary, the image may be uploaded under another title. Another user, who detected the error, just changed the description, but that is not sufficient, since the image is still used in many Wikipedias. Baldhur 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 19:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you uploaded the image with a better name and tagged the old one with {{Badname}} / Fred J 09:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Closed, image tagged with {{Rename image}} and kept for now. / Fred J 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Same as Image:Oncifelis guigna 2.jpg: This is a Domestic Cat, not a Kodkod --Baldhur 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Closed, image tagged with {{Rename image}} and kept for now. / Fred J 09:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
May 9
[edit]from Google Earth. -- --Calculus ✉ 10:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 00:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I am the uploader, is wrong version -- Pranayama 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Template created to make searching for public domain photos of automobiles easier. After discussing this matter with the author and pointing out proper ways to perform that kind of searches, I ask bot operator (or very patient user) to replace this tag with PD-self (circa 100 images) and then delete. A.J. 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Former discussion: User_talk:Ejdzej#PD-self-automobiles, User_talk:Alnokta#Template:PD-self-automobiles.
- You are just vandalizing my work..what discussion are you talking about? a message after changing things? you change things then tell me..please read what I wrote in your page before changing anything...if you cannot understand me then pretty please don't change what I do...okay? but that attitude is just annoying...--Alnokta 14:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wiki means quick... I did just the same thing that you: you didn't discuss this template before creating it ant listing between copyright tags, didn't you? Please, assume good faith! I put this request after contacting you for explanation... Besides: have you tried Mayflower? It works beter, because it does't require any changes in existing copyright templates. A.J. 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again..you aren't helping here..you are wasting my time with your vandalism..please cut it..I didn't discuss the template because it is uncontroversial..I'm doing something to help here..again..if you don't want to understand; leave it..I assume good faith of course..how is mayflower is relevant here? I use mayflower already to find what I need..did you hear about the something they call 'usability'? the category pd-self is somehow dysfunctional without splitting it to children...just don't vandalize what I'm doing.. all right?--Alnokta 09:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please coooperate then. Put somewhere at Commons:Community Portal your idea of splitting copyright categories in subcategories per subject. Then Commons users would discuss if they are useful or not. More of your time would be wasted, if your idea is not accepted and *-automobiles tag: reverted. I'm not going to "waste your time" anyway. EOT. A.J. 10:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again..you aren't helping here..you are wasting my time with your vandalism..please cut it..I didn't discuss the template because it is uncontroversial..I'm doing something to help here..again..if you don't want to understand; leave it..I assume good faith of course..how is mayflower is relevant here? I use mayflower already to find what I need..did you hear about the something they call 'usability'? the category pd-self is somehow dysfunctional without splitting it to children...just don't vandalize what I'm doing.. all right?--Alnokta 09:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wiki means quick... I did just the same thing that you: you didn't discuss this template before creating it ant listing between copyright tags, didn't you? Please, assume good faith! I put this request after contacting you for explanation... Besides: have you tried Mayflower? It works beter, because it does't require any changes in existing copyright templates. A.J. 15:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect or Delete. This method of creating copyright tags as the means of categorizing has not been approved. It is confusing. / Fred Chess 10:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, there is something called categories that can be used instead. Thuresson 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unnecessary template. --GeorgHH 12:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, ACK Fred, this is not the right way to go about things. Try hard to keep licensing and annotating separate. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I will recat with a bot and delete the template afterwards. Siebrand 08:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This template was deleted. It contained only a transclusion of {{PD-self}} and had no additional value. For a contributor to keep track of his uploads, we have upload histories, gallery pages and categories. Siebrand 08:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- Siebrand 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Out of project scope, unused. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I am the uploader, is wrong version -- Pranayama 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
I am the uploader, is wrong version -- Pranayama 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
I am the uploader, is wrong version -- Pranayama 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
I am the uploader, is wrong version -- Pranayama 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
I am the uploader, is wrong version -- Pranayama 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Accidentally uploaded under the wrong (meaningless) filename; not yet used in any other Wikimedia pages. --121a0012 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Replacement uploaded at Image:One Lincoln Street.jpg. 121a0012 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. — Jeff G. 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- EugeneZelenko 14:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 17:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- EugeneZelenko 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"Seit der Umsetzung der EU-Schutzdauerrichtlinie durch den bundesdeutschen Gesetzgeber im Jahr 1995 ist davon auszugehen, dass die früheren Maßstäbe, die eine besondere künstlerische Leistung oder Originalität voraussetzten, nicht mehr gültig sind und auch normale Fotografien als Lichtbildwerke zu betrachten sind." (de:Lichtbildwerk) --rtc 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
-->"Für den einfachen Lichtbildschutz verblieben demnach ... nur technische Fotos, bei denen jeder Fotograf mit denselben Fähigkeiten und Kenntnissen dasselbe Ergebnis ... erzielen müsse." Ebenda. LOL. -- Stahlkocher 09:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
-->Insbesondere "Reproduktionen von Gemälden, Fotos von Maschinen, Fotos für die Verbrecherkartei, kartografische Luftaufnahmen...". DoppelLOL -- Stahlkocher 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Trifft das hier zu? Ganz klar nicht; man kann diese Flugzeuge aus einem anderen Blickwinkel fotografieren und daher sind verschiedene Ergebnisse möglich. Daher handelt es sich hier völlig ohne Zweifel um Lichtbildwerke. Mit "Fotos von Maschinen" sind hier Fotos gemeint, die eine Maschine (unbemannte, autonome Aufklärungsdrohne z.B.) geschossen hat, nicht Fotos, auf denen eine Maschine abgebildet ist! --rtc 23:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, § 64 UrhG --Polarlys 11:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This picture doesn't adequately include the members of Diamond Rio. Only three of them are visible, and the image seems to focus more on the crowd than the group itself -- 68.188.191.9 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - not perfect, but still a perfectly fine performance photo. --Davepape 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- How can it be perfectly fine if you can only see half the group? 68.188.191.9 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not sure which of the deletion criteria is being applied here. Of the ones listed, the only semi-relevant one is Redundant/bad quality, but so far as I can tell, that only applies if there are alternative free images already uploaded. Other than Image:Diamond Rio USAF 2.jpg (which has the same problems as this one), there don't seem to be any other images of the group on Commons. If you find/take a better freely-licensed image and upload it, then yeah, I'd probably support deletion. But so far as I can tell, these two images are the only freely licensed photographs of the group on the Web. Even a bad image is preferable to none. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 08:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept. Thuresson 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
derivative work --Polarlys 08:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - possibly ok on English Wikipedia as fair use (if it were tagged that way), but not here. Please remove {{NowCommons}} from the English Wikipedia version upon deletion here. — Jeff G. 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request wrong uploaded. The correct image is Image:Korean-speaking-Community-Map.png 아흔(A-heun) 15:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 15:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Deadstar 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
copyright problem (most probably) -- --Calculus ✉ 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Promotional material such as a brochure, while it may qualify for fair use in Wikipedia, isn't allowed here. — Jeff G. 17:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
奥崎謙三 photographs
[edit]I think that these photographs are copyright violation of the sentence. --KENPEI 14:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Text in the images should be attributed to Okuzaki Kenzo (奥崎謙三, 1920 - 2005). Freedom of panorama doesn't apply to literature works.--Kareha 15:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleting as obvious copyvios. --MichaelMaggs 18:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like self made. Author probably only added an arrow, map is taken from somewhere else. Especially that user loads a lot of pictures with wrong licence. Pilecka 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't believe it's uploader's work. Herr Kriss 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and Herr Kriss. — Jeff G. 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
copyvio -- Pjacobi 19:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If I read the signs right, this image originates (with some intermediary steps) from the Swedish Wikipedia article and was originally uploaded there by who uploaded my pictures with missing or fake license information, most of them deleted by now. --Pjacobi 20:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and Pjacobi. — Jeff G. 15:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work of a copyrighted architectural model. (Architects' copyright covers also the plans and models, not just the final building.) Delete. Lupo 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- (The other images in Category:Zentrum Paul Klee are fine by Swiss and U.S. freedom of panorama. FOP does not apply to this image, though, as the model is inside the building.) Lupo 10:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There appear to be more problematic images in Category:Building models... Lupo 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. IMHO, there should be no voting (except withdraw) by a nominator - nomination already counts as a vote for deletion. — Jeff G. 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do so to clarify that I indeed think it should go. I sometimes also bring images here where I'm not sure what to do with them in oder to get more community input. In such cases, I make that clear in the nomination statements and typically do not add {{subst:vd}}. Also, when the time comes that an admin processes the nomination, he or she can see at the first glance that at least one person was in favor of deletion. Furthermore, it's not a vote, it's an expression of opinion. We don't vote here. And please, let's stop that irritating practice of striking out (parts of) other people's comments before that becomes an accepted practice here. Lupo 19:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per Lupo. / Fred J 09:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted as de:Paul Klee died 1940. The model is PD since 2010. --JuTa 18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
copyrighted --Michiel1972 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment this seems to be from Germany, and it's a photo of a building. Does Germany has freedom of panorama? Wooyi 15:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the building is located in the Netherlands where als freedom of panorama exists. @Michiel1972: Did you mean with copyrighted that the images was not given away to be used freely? --ALE! ¿…? 09:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, yes I think that ALE! is right, the photo is copyrighted. It had no source, only tagged with "Copyrighted free use". / Fred J 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Images from unb.br
[edit]Images from unb.br have only a freeware authorization, not a free use authorization. There is a list of affected images:
Lugusto • ※ 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (portuguese)
- Discordo da posição do Lugusto, tendo em vista que a Assessoria de Comunicação Social da UnB, tem a seguinte menção no final da página principal da "UnB Agência":
- Todos os textos e fotos podem ser utilizados e reproduzidos desde que a fonte seja citada. Textos: UnB Agência. Fotos: nome do fotógrafo/UnB Agência.
- Ou seja, é o mesmo parâmetro solicitado por outras agências, tais como a "Agência Senado" ou "Agência Brasil" (utilização ou reprodução, desde que citada a fonte).
- --chico 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Chico, unb.br have a limited usage authorization. I don't see any refereces to allow derivative works and commercial usage, do you see it? {{Agência Brasil}} is currently a mention to the cc-by-sa-2.5 Brazil and {{AgenciaSenadoBr}} is nominated for deletion. Lugusto • ※ 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, no free license. --Polarlys 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The image was taken from here: http://www.poze-romania.ro/regiune.php?idj=77784 . --Olahus 14:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The link above goes to some rogue site that Firefox warns for. This image was uploaded to commons 2005. The DR is incomplete: the uploader of File:Romania Regions.png was not notified. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Sadly I've not see anything that would make me think of feel that this file is not the uploader's. Bidgee (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
May 10
[edit]sorry, allready exists as Image:Jaundice in newborn.jpg --Drahreg01 04:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 19:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No evidence to suggest that the image is life+70 - just a random image from the internet. --Megapixie 13:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Image from the american TV show Avatar: The Last Airbender. Copyrighted. -- ManecoWifi 19:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by User:Bastique. Lcarsdata 19:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
wrong licence, surely no work from the US --Polarlys 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually yes. Go to http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ and enter BM-21 in the search box and you'll find the picture. ID: DA-ST-89-06607, date shot: 27 Apr 1989[54] // Liftarn
- That is your task, if you don’t provide a suitable source and a correct licence. --Polarlys 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- The source URL was given. You shouldn't jump to conclusions. // Liftarn
kept, --Polarlys 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons is not private photoalbum -- EugeneZelenko 14:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Unused, out of project's scope. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
we don't accept cc-by-3.0 -- Yonatan talk 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Last I checked cc-by-3.0 was still being debated and there was no definitive decision one way or the other. Either way, the owner of the site in question has been contacted to request release under cc-by-2.5, as many photographers don't realize that there is a difference. Please hold this deletion request pending the outcome of that exchange. --Selket 03:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have recieved approval to release under all of the images on hear.org under cc-by-2.5. I am in the process of forwarding to OTRS for archiving. --Selket 13:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep pending further info from Selket. — Jeff G. 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. Authors have agreed to license all their images on the site with CC-BY-2.5 in addition to CC-BY-3.0 (OTRS ticket 2007051610003507) --Para 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
1) Typo in title. 2) If this page is going to stay, it should be called "Blurs" or something similar, whether it is beautiful is in the eye of the beholder. 3) Should this perhaps be moved to userspace as three of the pics are by creator of page. 4) There might be a point to having perhaps a category of blurry pictures so the useless can be rooted out and the useful ones kept, it sitting under "photography" cat? Don't know if this discussion has been had. Opinions needed. Thanks. --Deadstar 09:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I created this page and I am not very experienced (yet). Concerning 1) I don't know what I did wrong here. Is there still a way to change the typo of the page-title? Concerning 2) I agree! Concerning 3) I am not sure. I think there is a potential that other users could contribute to this collection and that it helps users to find what they are lookig for. Can't we give it bit time and see whether this page will be used or not? Concerning 4) The idea of this page was actually to create a space for pictures that, in a general undestanding, have "mistakes". The sharpness of pictures is something that seems to be out of question for photography, but I think you loose many pictures if you are not aware of the quality some blurred pictures can have. Yes, it might be better to put it in the photography section, if I understood you correctly. Best wishes.--Christoph Michels 12:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Christoph - thanks for your reaction & firstly: you did nothing wrong. It is just a typo in the title and it can be changed. I am however interested to hear if we want a page/category with blurry pictures as I don't want to encourage people to upload unclear images "just because there is a category for it". Deadstar 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Move to Images with blurs, and have it only for images that are intentionally blurred. Images that are too blurred to be useful, where the blur is not intentional, should be marked with {{low quality}} so they can be replaced. -- Editor at Large • talk 00:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Images with blurs exists so there is no use for that side any longer --D-Kuru 12:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: non-NPOV, not needed
I think this picture is - just like like Image:Tanlines-female.jpg was - a copyright violation. This user got blocked for one week, because he was/is a vandal. So I don't think that picture is one of his. Espeacially when I have a look at his gallery. --D-Kuru 19:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boyshorts1.jpg - picture was not editet for more than a month
I think this picture is - just like like Image:Tanlines-female.jpg was - a copyright violation. This user got blocked for one week, because he was/is a vandal. So I don't think that picture is one of his. —the preceding unsigned comment is by D-Kuru (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Boyshorts2.jpg - picture was not editet for more than a month
The flag that appears would have been illegal in Greece, so I doubt that it is the actual flag or emblem of the team. Greek law forbids any sign to be put on the national flag of Greece. This appears to have been uploaded to both en. and commons. Orderinchaos78 12:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and due to very low quality. — Jeff G. 15:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per above. WjBscribe 16:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of project scope -- EugeneZelenko 15:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 15:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: outside project scope. WjBscribe 16:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Cropped version of http://www.chanlam.co.uk/photo/album18/slides/DSCF2604.html The uncropped original carries a watermark indicating copyright. --Valentinian (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 15:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quadzilla99 13:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: copyvio. WjBscribe 16:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
No painter given. --Polarlys 15:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 15:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --ALE! ¿…? 09:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
no indication for Copyrighted free use. --Polarlys 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
erreur de titre lors du loading -- PRA 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:La Printse Mündung.jpg -- 62.167.98.57 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
see, Image:Bisse d'Ayent Tseuzier.jpg
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:La_Printse_1.jpg -- 62.167.98.57 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
see, Image:Lac de Mauvoisin.jpg
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:La_Printse_2.jpg -- 62.167.98.57 18:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
see, Image: Lac de Cleuson.jpg
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:La_Printse.jpg -- Löwenzahn2 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
see, Image: Lac de Mauvoisin.jpg
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I assume the other title is more apt. Quadzilla99 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
§ 72 UrhG doesn’t apply here, since this is no Lichtbild but a Lichtbildwerk, so § 64 UrhG: 70 years pma --Polarlys 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --rtc 00:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: Wrong name. I have uploaded it and wrogly identified the trees as Downey Birchs. But the trees in this picture are in fact Common Aspens. Rename it as Populus tremula 01.jpg if possible, if not, delete it. Nikanos 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Support move/rename per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{Rename}} --ALE! ¿…? 11:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The copyright license given appears to require that a particular address must be notififed of any modification or reproduction of this image. As such it does not comply with GDFL --WjBscribe 02:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The conditions imposed make this a non-free license. Lupo 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. — Jeff G. 15:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-free license. And: Isn't the Atomium copyrighted anyway without Panoramafreiheit in Belgium? --ALE! ¿…? 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Panoramafreiheit ist not a right to take a picture, but to publish it in certain countries under certain conditions. In those with a similar right than in germany. Dont confuse this. -- 80.145.19.106 10:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Das Atomium wird bis zum Dienstag, den 31.12.2075, 24:00 Uhr (MEZ) nach belgischem Urheberrecht geschützt sein, und Belgien hat die Panoramafreiheit immer noch nicht eingeführt. Heute haben wir erst den Sonntag, den 22.07.2007. Damit sind alle Bilder des Atomiums auf Commons immer noch entgegen belgischem Urheberrecht veröffentlicht worden, da die Rechteinhaber am Atomium die Urheberrechte immer noch strikt verfolgen, und dies wird voraussichtlich bis zum Dienstag, den 31.12.2075, 24:00 Uhr (MEZ), oder bis zur Einführung der Panoramafreiheit in Belgien, so bleiben. Deshalb muss das Bild "Atomium by night Luc viatour.JPG" so schnell wie möglich von Wikimedia Commons gelöscht werden. --88.77.242.62 08:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
„for wikipedia“, no explicit permission --Polarlys 11:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 15:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Dazu erkennen wir die Bedingungen nach GNU-FDL an." Is this not enough? --Spongo 11:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I’ll take all photos (“Inhalte der DaimlerChrysler Medienseiten”), put them in a book and sell it. Then we will see … --Polarlys 17:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Tu dir keinen Zwang an. Genau dafür sind sie nämlich gemacht worden. -- Stahlkocher 18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
No explicit permission. Axed. (→O - RLY?) 00:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Maps of Almeria - Incomplete requests
[edit]Pasted from [55] -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC) The first file out of the two mentioned below has in each case been put up for deletion by User:Scudero in August last year, but was marked as an incomplete deletion request as no reason was given. His edit is the top edit for all the files below. From my little research, it seems that he has uploaded a different version (2nd image in the list below). The user was asked about the incomplete requests in February, but did not answer. Can we decide if we want to keep both or whether one can be deleted.
- Image:Map of La Mojonera (Almería).png - Image:LocationLa Mojonera.png
- Image:Map of Instinción (Almería).png - Image:LocationInstinción.png
- Image:Map of Illar (Almería).png - Image:LocationÍllar.png
- Image:Map of Huércal Overa (Almería).png - Image:LocationHuércal-Overa.png
- Image:Map of Huércal de Almería (Almería).png - Image:LocationHuércal de Almería.png
- Image:Map of Huécija (Almería).png - Image:LocationHuécija.png
- Image:Map of Gérgal (Almería).png - Image:LocationGérgal.png
- Image:Map of Gádor (Almería).png - Image:LocationGádor.png
- Image:Map of Fondón (Almería).png - Image:LocationFondón.png
- Image:Map of Fiñana (Almería).png - Image:LocationFiñana.png
- Image:Map of Fines (Almería).png - Image:LocationFines.png
- Image:Map of Felix (Almería).png - Image:LocationFelix.png
- Image:Map of Enix (Almería).png - Image:LocationEnix.png
- Image:Map of El Ejido (Almería).png - Image:LocationEl Ejido.png
- Image:Map of Dalías (Almería).png - Image:LocationDalías.png
- Image:Map of Cuevas del Almanzora (Almería).png - Image:LocationCuevas del Almanzora.png
- Image:Map of Cóbdar (Almería).png - Image:LocationCóbdar.png
- Image:Map of Chirivel (Almería).png - Image:LocationChirivel.png
- Image:Map of Chercos (Almería).png - Image:LocationChercos.png
- Image:Map of Castro de Filabres (Almería).png - Image:LocationCastro de Filabres.png
- Image:Map of Carboneras (Almería).png - Image:LocationCarboneras.png
- Image:Map of Cantoria (Almería).png - Image:LocationCantoria.png
- Image:Map of Canjáyar (Almería).png - Image:LocationCanjáyar.png
- Image:Map of Berja (Almería).png - Image:LocationBerja.png
- Image:Map of Bentarique (Almería).png - Image:LocationBentarique.png
- Image:Map of Benizalón (Almería).png - Image:LocationBenizalón.png
- Image:Map of Benitagla (Almería).png - Image:LocationBenitagla.png
- Image:Map of Benahadux (Almería).png - Image:LocationBenahadux.png
- Image:Map of Beires (Almería).png - Image:LocationBeires.png
- Image:Map of Bédar (Almería).png - Image:LocationBédar.png
- Image:Map of Bayarque (Almería).png - Image:LocationBayarque.png
- Image:Map of Bayárcal (Almería).png - Image:LocationBayárcal.png
- Image:Map of Bacares (Almería).png - Image:LocationBacares.png
- Image:Map of Armuña de Almanzora (Almería).png - Image:LocationArmuña de Almanzora.png
- Image:Map of Arboleas (Almería).png - Image:LocationArboleas.png
- Image:Map of Antas (Almería).png - Image:LocationAntas.png
- Image:Map of Alsodux (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlsodux.png
- Image:Map of Almócita (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlmócita.png
- Image:Map of Alicún (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlicún.png
- Image:Map of Alhama de Almería (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlhama de Almería.png
- Image:Map of Alhabia (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlhabia.png
- Image:Map of Alcudia de Monteagud (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlcudia de Monteagud.png
- Image:Map of Alcóntar (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlcóntar.png
- Image:Map of Alcolea (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlcolea, Almería.png
- Image:Map of Albox (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlbox.png
- Image:Map of Alboloduy (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlboloduy.png
- Image:Map of Albanchez (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlbánchez.png
- Image:Map of Adra (Almería).png - Image:LocationAdra.png
- Image:Map of Abrucena (Almería).png - Image:LocationAbrucena.png
- Image:Map of Abla (Almería).png - Image:LocationAbla.png
- Image:Map of Almería (Almería).png - Image:LocationAlmería.png
Also the following flags:
- Image:Granada flag big.jpg, Image:Granada flag.jpg and Image:Granada flag.svg have been put up for deletion. A different "Flag of Granada" was uploaded by user under Image:Flag of Granada.png
Deadstar 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: I can't see a good reason for deletion of this maps. --GeorgHH 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- If we keep, is there a quick way of removing the deletion templates from all those files or is it a manual proces? thanks. Deadstar 13:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep both versions have perfectly fine licenses. @Deadstar: Yes, I think it is a manual task. --ALE! ¿…? 11:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
copy from http://www.africanculture.dk/gambia/pcphotos/bambo.htm without licence --87.122.244.61 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'm going d'accord... event that its not an exact copy... --Stefan-Xp 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this appears not to be an exact copy at all, but instead appears to be a fuller realization of the "Crocodile in the Moon" concept in Gambian culture. — Jeff G. 16:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If you compare the two crocodiles carefully (especially the light/dark colors) you'll see that Image:Crocodile in the Moon.jpg is a copy and paste work whereas in http://www.africanculture.dk/gambia/pcphotos/bambo.htm it fits. / Fred J 09:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: Derivative work from http://www.africanculture.dk/gambia/pcphotos/bambo.htm
May 11
[edit]Personal attack page. IE 7.0 screenshot -- EugeneZelenko 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation -- Dleangen 02:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Mistaken transparency in background rendered caption texts unreadable. Useless, needs to be done from scratch. Self nom, speedy please. -- NikoSilver 11:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed to {{speedydelete|Mistaken transparency in background rendered caption texts unreadable. Useless, needs to be done from scratch. Self nom, speedy please.}} per the request of the uploader nominator. — Jeff G. 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am person who upload this image. I tended to replace another image (Image:Burmese alphabet.png) with new corrected data but I didn't see its name when I submitted. So I uploaded it in the second time and then they are duplicated.,--Octahedron80 17:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Changed to {{duplicate|I am person who upload this image. I tended to replace another image (Image:Burmese alphabet.png) with new corrected data but I didn't see its name when I submitted. So I uploaded it in the second time and then they are duplicated.,--Octahedron80 17:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)}}
Woops, should have been placed outside the div-tag:
This proposed deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
New request
[edit]- Well yes, this (above) is definitely the old request I made in December.
Obviously not all involved at the time were telling me the whole story. My request was obviously handled, but not assented. Never spoke to this user Thuresson at the time though. He might have missed the discussion we had about the picture on the discussion page of the article it was part of at the time (Mats Molén, svwp). See also post in WikiEN-1, titled "Defamation of biographiees". // (sv:User:RIL) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per nomination. Feel free to copy it to any project that allows fair use, but be sure to use it fairly and follow Template:Personality rights. — Jeff G. 06:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Student took an "invective" picture of teacher, Mats Molén. I probably fumbled last time I made a RFD. See also post "Defamation of biographees" on WikiEN-1 (not indexed yet when typinig this) -- 83.255.135.151 23:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Feel free to copy it to any project that allows fair use, but be sure to use it fairly and follow Template:Personality rights. — Jeff G. 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Discussion closed. There is still no issue about copyright. Uploader claims it is his/her own work. Thuresson 19:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Image was placed online without consence of person on the picture -- Fly-Man 00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- No objections - misunderstanding: I thought he was asking for it and waiting for them Pelikana 12:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Matt314: uploader's request: No permission of the depicted person for publishing
Copyrighted cover illustrations --Phrood 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC) --Phrood 20:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination and put back on de:w and en:w (the latter I know would allow it as fair use). — Jeff G. 04:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
... but not put back. :( — Jeff G. 22:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- It’s not allowed on de.wp either and I don’t know the fair use guidelines on en.wp. --Polarlys 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I have doubts that this image was indeed taken by this Fickr-user. Images like this can only be taken by professional photographers (who else is allowed to take pictures at events like this from this position?). There's no information about who this Flickr-user is in his profile on Flickr - which professional photographer would avoid to give his name? This picture is the only one of his Flickr uploads that is available under a CC license, all others are tagged as "© All rights reserved.". And several others of his pictures contain watermarks such as "americanidol.com" which really makes me doubt that he took them himself. --88.134.140.64 22:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, and add all of this Flickr-user's photos to the nomination. — Jeff G. 06:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Licensing
[edit]
- You are free:
- to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
- to remix – to adapt the work
- Under the following conditions:
- attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.
|
This image was originally posted to Flickr by Celebrity Hubris at http://flickr.com/photos/15108400@N00/365496542. It was reviewed on 6 April 2007 by FlickreviewR and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-sa-2.0. |
--91.0.141.135 11:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I read that, and I still agree with 88.134.140.64 that this Flickr-user is not to be trusted - specifically, that it is granting rights it did not have in the first place. — Jeff G. 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment There's a duplicate file named Image:Mandy Moore.jpg, which has been approved by a user named Dodo, who is currently an administrator. Spellcast 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I agree that the flickr user is not likely the owner/author. Communication with the flickr user to clarify their ownership status would be beneficial if someone wants to retain/undelete this image. MECU≈talk 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Image was placed online without consence of person on the picture -- Fly-Man 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- No objections - misunderstanding: I thought he was asking for it and waiting for them. A pity though because he isn't recognisable from the picture and his name nor nick are mentioned with it. Pelikana 12:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Project scope arguments notwithstanding (we surely have many meetup-related images here, but these aren't particularly illustrative or incredibly useful), I'd have to ask whether any individual depicted in this image or the two nominated infra has requested deletion. Because these images appear to have been taken on a public street, and because no right of personality or privacy would have, to my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong), been or would be assertible in the Netherlands (where the photos were taken) or in the United States, the identifiable people guideline would seem to apply. If the uploader accedes to deletion, though, as he appears to, I would support Delete in view of the absence of any grand project-related usefulness. Jahiegel 08:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted per nom and lack of usefulness. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 23:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Image was placed online without consence of person on the picture -- Fly-Man 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC) No objections - misunderstanding: I thought he was asking for it and waiting for them. Silly nomination for deletion though, because the person (all persons) is (are) with his back to the camera in this group-picture and I didn't mention names or nicks with this pic. Pelikana 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted per nom and uploader consent. NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 23:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Press picture, only for promotional purposes -- Dantadd✉ 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
...as said: "Author has released the work for any promotional or informational purpose with the condition that author's (Sakari Viika) as well as production's (OUT) and director's (Ismo-Pekka Heikinheimo) names are mentioned." That, as far as I comprehend, includes usage as encyclopedia illustration. If the chosen licence option doesn't describe the given rights appropriately, please give a hint. Bottom line: the photographer as well as other rights' owners approve this kind of use of the photo (which can be confirmed) but I personally as the one responsible for the article which exploits these images might be mistaken how to express the state of matter in fact. --hakeliha 23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright owners must give authorization to ALL uses, even commercial use. This applies to all pictures uploaded here. Please check yours. Dantadd✉ 01:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Forgotten deletion request, added to today's deletion requests by me, so it can be closed by an admin. --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Martin H. (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The woman who is the subject of the photo has asked me to delete it. I don't have the means to do so, of course, so I am requesting that an administrator delete this. --en:Jmabel | talk 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the picture I am trying to get deleted is Image:Seattle Bauhaus 17A.jpg. - en:Jmabel | talk 03:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- No objection; legitimate deletion request by uploader. -- Infrogmation 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
refined by using seperate article: Gloriosa rothschildiana —The preceding appears to have been the intent of this post by Tauʻolunga (talk • contribs) at 06:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Odder
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual / Template:GFDL-CC-triple / Template:Erin Silversmith Licence /
Template:CoryL / User:Ghiz/Licence-photos / User:Chamaeleon/Copyright
[edit]creativecommons Noncommercial licenses --來尔顿 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no problem with those license tags. They are always a combination of at least one free license (in most cases GFDL) with a CC NC/ND license component. Reusers have the option to choose a free license or one of the restrictive CC ND/NC license options (or to contact the author and ask for another license option). --Denniss 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- 日本語: Template:CoryL は当方作成の資料を公開する際に使っておりますが、Denniss 様にもご指摘いただいたとおり、他のライセンスと併用することを想定して設定できるようにしたもので、単独で用いる予定はありません。Commons の規約では「フリーな」ライセンスで公開されている必要はありますが、他のライセンスを付加することを禁止しておらず、違反にあたらないと考えております。
- English: This request isn't appropriate for Template:CoryL. It is using with my works, contains "cc-by-nc-sa-2.1-jp" is just additional license, will be supposed to use with GFDL or other free license.
- Unfounded claims as per Denniss, so long as one of the licenses if free, it doesn't matter what the other license(s) is/are. See [56] as one reference. lensovet 03:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think so. If the image is already GFDL, what does it matter if it's also CC-nc? Don't delete those templates. --Valadrem 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can an admin close this? Please? Thanks. lensovet 03:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept: at least one free license is specified on all templates. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
We don't accept non commercial licensing, not even if it is just half non commercional --Huib talk 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, there is at least one valid license. The author may choose to multilicense his work as he/she wishes to, and we shouldn't prevent such information to be posted on the file's description. It looks a bit silly, but we've had these arguments before. It's not "half non commercional", it's either non-commercial or commercial, depending on the license you choose. Patrícia msg 21:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep, dual-licensing is fine, even if the latter is non-free. If someone wants to let someone use a file non-commercially without having to worry about the advanced nuances of the GFDL, its their choice. As long as there is at least one free license. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy close as Keep. There's still no reason to delete this license template. --Denniss (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Kept. →Diti the penguin — 23:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Ugly and replaced. --Ysangkok 16:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fixed deletion request Deadstar 09:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
After a Namechange, this page is not needed anymore! --Siegele Roland 10:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete with its talk page per nomination. — Jeff G. 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the uploader, use of this coats of arms was (verbally) given by the Mayor of Écully with the following proviso « à condition de ne pas le modifier », which means « forbidding any modification ». This condition does not seem compatible with the uploading under a "free" licence and our licensing policies. --Touriste 14:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Unfree licence. --MichaelMaggs 18:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
copyvio --Polarlys 14:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kann IMHO keine URV erkennen, es wurde auch noch etwas "drumrum" fotografiert, von daher dürfte es auf eine Art Panoramafreiheit rauslaufen. Auf die Fahndungsfotos dürfte es ebenfalls keine URV geben, da die Bilder von einer festinstallierten Überwachungskamera stammen. Es gibt also keinen namentlichen Fotografen bzw. Kameramann. Wo liegt also die angebliche URV? --kandschwar 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also Panoramafreiheit gilt definitiv nicht, von „bleibend“ kann hier keine Rede sein. Inwiefern das Argument der automatischen Erstellung zum Tragen kommt, weiß ich nicht. Grüße, --Polarlys 19:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, gelöscht --ALE! ¿…? 15:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
duplicate file; a new one has been uploaded in png format --KaiHB 19:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests
duplicate file; a new one has been uploaded in png format --KaiHB 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 04:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests
This is a recent artwork (it was mad after WWII so I think is copyrighted by its creator or owner) --Moroboshi 19:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 04:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
exact duplicate of: Image:Grand astre Ramseyer Geertebolwerk.jpg -- Brbbl 05:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 02:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since the original is deleted because of insufficient information about it's creator (me) I suggest this image may be left on wikicommons. Brbbl 05:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean to write that this image is subject to freedom of panorama in The Netherlands? — Jeff G. 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe that this image (and most of the images I upload) are subject to freedom of panorama in The Netherlands. But that's not the reason I want to redraw my "Deletion request". I mistakenly uploaded the file twice under a slightly different name. I requested the second upload - this image - to be deleted. But now I noticed that the first upload of the image was deleted because of insufficient information. This second image is the only one that remains. Brbbl 05:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep due to the above and because 'The copyright in the pictured statue is not relevant per freedom of panorama in The Netherlands because it is in Utrecht and "the work is depicted as it is located in the public space."'. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe that this image (and most of the images I upload) are subject to freedom of panorama in The Netherlands. But that's not the reason I want to redraw my "Deletion request". I mistakenly uploaded the file twice under a slightly different name. I requested the second upload - this image - to be deleted. But now I noticed that the first upload of the image was deleted because of insufficient information. This second image is the only one that remains. Brbbl 05:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean to write that this image is subject to freedom of panorama in The Netherlands? — Jeff G. 17:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Image exists on this link [57]--pertile 00:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and also the other image uploaded by the uploader --ALE! ¿…? 09:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
mistake —The preceding appears to have been the intent of this post by Urban (talk • contribs) at 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get it? Mistake? What was/is a mistake? User should explain. --|EPO| 09:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- This image contains illegible and superimposed text, and is an orphan. Perhaps it was intended as an overlay for some other image, like a picture depicting San Francisco, California? — Jeff G. 18:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned, so axed. (→O - RLY?) 00:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Old, unlisted deletion request by the uploader User:Longbow4u: prohibits third party use, unfree image. It is probably Public Domain, but author is anonymous. Taken before 1914. --GeorgHH 14:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would think that would be {{PD-UKGov}}, and if not, {{PD-UK-unknown}}. Carl Lindberg 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept / Fred J 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio. This is an edited version of en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg (fair use). The same user uploaded similar adaptions to german WP which have been deleted; see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Bilder/9._März_2007#Bild:J-10-01.jpg, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/Bilder/10._März_2007#Bild:Jian-10.jpg. --Noddy93 10:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep There's a little difference between expressis verbis artist's impression and a so-called edited version, even in german WP. See: de:Wikipedia:Werk_(Urheberrecht), de:Wikipedia:Kleine Münze and de:Bearbeitung (Urheberrecht). But this is not a derivative work. In case of doubt it's simply inspired. I don't deny that this photography was to a certain extent the starting point for my work, but that's all. Image:Jian-10.svg is absolutely different from en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg. The fundamental difference between a lossless scalable vector image and a bitmap graphic is IMHO relevant to this relationship. Because totally zero of en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg is part of my work, it can’t be an edited version of that bitmap graphic. And if it's not an edited version, it’s therefore NO COPYVIO - that's simply elementary. Threshold of originality is given. --FSHL 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S.: To be able to judge the fundamental difference between a lossless scalable vector image and a bitmap graphic a suitable browser is undeniably necessary. Firefox without Adobe-SVG-Plugin (Mac OS X) e.g. isn't. --FSHL 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The picture is just a little work with the inkscape bitmap-to-vector image-tool using a fair-use picture, as a derivate of the :* Comment to Jeff G. - original pic it is also just fair-use---> Delete P.S.: i think all these kind of pseudo-svgs by FSHL should be deleted, also the drawings, they also have a non-free origin and are just converted to svg. All of them just plagiats, he just deleted some part of the material he got from the graphictool, no own work, everyone could do so in minutes--217.68.184.202 19:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to 217.68.184.202 - The nature of vectorizing is total transformation of the appropriate object into an absolute other one. A fundamental different image can’t therefore be a vulgar derivate of the so-called »original«. But if you think so than simply everyone do derivates of the first picture humans make. --FSHL 17:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I changed my mind. This is still a derivative work, and the original's licensing was so bad it got deleted from English Wikipedia. — Jeff G. 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Jeff G. - The circumstances that en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg has been deleted from English Wikipedia don’t have any effects on Image:Jian-10.svg. Image:Jian-10.svg is ad oculos not identical to en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg only similar and I never negated that. They must be similar otherwise they don’t illustrate the same airplane. There’s simply no proof that Image:Jian-10.svg is de facto and de jure a derivative work of en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg – it’s no more than inspired. BTW: It’s even not certain that Image:Jian-10.svg is in fact a vulgar vectorizing – I’ve never stated that... --FSHL 08:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- P.S.: My comment about the nature of vectorizing referred exclusively on that. Each resuming conclusion about the real state/nature of Image:Jian-10.svg would be in case of doubt simply an invalid generalisation. --FSHL 10:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
- When and where did you actually see a Jian-10 airplane from that angle? If you did not actually see one, on exactly what basis did you make your image? Thanks! — Jeff G. 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Jeff G. - That’s the product of my workmanship. Even en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg didn’t show it from that angle and from that side. Check it here. --FSHL 05:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- So it is the product of your workmanship in creating a derivative of this image? How did you find this image on ImageShack? — Jeff G. 19:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Jeff G. - en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg and this image are AFAIR identical. And en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg was as I already mentioned to a certain extent the starting point for my work – at the pre-production of Image:Jian-10.svg to be more accurate... --FSHL 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- So, as a derivative of a copyrighted work that would not be allowed here, Image:Jian-10.svg should not be allowed here, right? Where is my reasoning faulty? — Jeff G. 00:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment to Jeff G. - I’ve used en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg at the pre-production just as study object in order to analyse its proportions. I’ve created Image:Jian-10.svg totally independently of en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg. The only community between en:Image:Chengdu J-10 photo 1.jpg and Image:Jian-10.svg is the fact that it’s the same airplane. --FSHL 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
- When and where did you actually see a Jian-10 airplane from that angle? If you did not actually see one, on exactly what basis did you make your image? Thanks! — Jeff G. 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted, derivative work --Polarlys 13:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a scan of a copyrighted French map (from fr:Institut Géographique National (France)) --Touriste 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Circuits-poueze.JPGn'est pas un scan ou numérisation d'une carte IGN mais une photographie du panneau municipal officiellement cofinancé par le Départemement de Maine-et-Loire, les Offices du Tourisme du Lion d'Angers et de Segré et inauguré en même temps que le balisage réglementaire des circuits de la Pouëze. Le bandeau de copyright de IGN n'a pas lieu d'être maintenu, ou alors faites détruire le panneau par les instances départementales, ce sera plus difficile et plus coûteux en procédure !!! [User:Poussin jean] 09:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Rough translation of the previous intervention : « Image:Circuits-poueze.JPG has not been scanned or numerized from an IGN map, but is a picture taken from a municipal sign, which has been cofinanced by the Departement of Maine-et-Loire, Tourism Offices of Le Lion d'Angers and Segré, and inaugurated aside the waymarking of the paths of La Pouëze». The IGN copyright sign must not be maintained, or ask destruction of the sign by departmental authorities, it should be harder and more costly !! »
- Sorry I fully maintain my legal analysis (just correcting my factual inaccuracy : this is indeed a photograph of a sign, not a scan of a map). Even if the Institut Géographique National has given permission (probably for money) to use a detail of one of its maps on a sign, this sign is itself protected against reproduction, even if it has been financed on public money. This image is copyrighted and cannot be legally kept on Commons. Touriste 14:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Nos réponses se sont croisées : mais je maintiens que ce panneau est un objet visible de la voie publique (ici l'objet est le dessin des circuits et non le fond de teint de la carte ign) ; cet objet a déjà été reproduit de nombreuses fois, en de multiples exemplaires. Le mieux c'est d'interroger IGN ou le Département ; ou bien j'efface les traces d'Ign derrière le dessin des circuits; ou je le re-dessine... il faudra bien trouver une solution... [User:Poussin jean] 13 mai 2007 à 12:13 (CEST)
ci-joint l'autorisation IGN : A partir de la carte IGN n°1421E au 1/25000 - Copyright: c IGN - Paris - 1988 - Autorisation n°40-0059 Poussin jean 12:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Circuits-poueze.JPG, Image:Panneau-poueze.JPG, Image:Copyright-ign.JPG
Deleted. The authorization of IGN refers to the community being allowed to reproduce the map on their sign, it does not imply a right of anyone to reproduce this map. As there's no COM:FOP in France, these images are just derivative works of a copyrighted map. Lupo 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This map is not correct. Where is the reference? --Meursault2004 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I second the request. If there's a reference, I'd like to see it, too... MartijnL 14:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
THIS PICTURE WOULD NOT BE DELETED!
WE HAVE REFERENCE IN HERE, CAMBODIA AND THE OLD BORDER STATUS UP THERE
AS THE HISTORIC MEMORAL.
This comment was added by 202.178.112.8
- If you have a reference, please provide more info so that we can check it. MartijnL 10:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I object as well. The map is correct, read upon the articles concerning Srivijaya [58] and Champa [59], the geographic depictions fit the descriptions in the articles. The references can be added to the map descriptions, under no circumstances should this map be deleted however. Should there be some mistakes, then it should be corrected within the file, but never deleted unless it's a copyvio, wrongly named, or utter nonsense. Gryffindor 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The map is correct. One can see the references in R.Mazumdar (Ed) History and Culture of the Indian People( Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Publishers, Bombay). D.Bose
Keep the map. If it's wrong then it can be corrected and updated. Those who claim it is wrong should show proof/source info to back up their claims. Talessman 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you could have a look at this image... Martijn →!?← 17:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Kept Deletion request of 11 May 2007: Not listed at COM:DR, no arguments why this image is incorrect. Feel free to start a new request. --GeorgHH • talk 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This map is unsourced and incorrect, see also Cribb, Historical Atlas of Indonesia (2000:76). For you convenience I have photographed the page in question. See Image:Book and Wikiball (Cribb 2000-76 on Srivijaya).jpg. --Meursault2004 10:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete see the reasons stated above. Martijn →!?← 22:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- This map is absolutely correct. Nowadays, it is true when we want to tell someone something, we have to have a reference. Otherwise you will be considered as a liar. But please keep this map because it is very important for the people who want to know real history related to Cambodia and other neighbor countries. Thanks for understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.223.35.5 (talk) 17 April 2008
- You say it is "absolutely correct". Please state your references so others can check it. Martijn →!?← 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Could someone delete this image already? The request has been made in March?! No references are given to support it. Martijn →!?← 15:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- You say it is "absolutely correct". Please state your references so others can check it. Martijn →!?← 15:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- This map is absolutely correct. Nowadays, it is true when we want to tell someone something, we have to have a reference. Otherwise you will be considered as a liar. But please keep this map because it is very important for the people who want to know real history related to Cambodia and other neighbor countries. Thanks for understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.223.35.5 (talk) 17 April 2008
Delete. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
May 12
[edit]Not useful, not in use, previously deleted at Wikipedia EN -- Kingboyk 20:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, A similar image has been deleted here some days ago. Unfortunately Liftarn is unwilling to avoid the transfer of nonsense images, derivative works, images with corrupt licences etc. pp. --Polarlys 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC) --Polarlys 20:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
no reason for GFDL or PD-old given, upload.wikimedia.org is no source. --Polarlys 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
For missing sources please tag it such using {{subst:nsd}}. --|EPO| 09:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Due copyright --BDantas 21:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
updated: resigned to speed deletion --BDantas 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: Copyright violation of original artwork with copyright notice
Bogus license - "free use in press releases, articles and other informational purposes" isn't freely usable per the mission of Commons. If the uploader is Kary Mullis he should post a release to the OTRS volunteers --64.222.155.55 23:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Claiming own work is violation of copyrights. --|EPO| 18:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I reuploaded this image under EdmontonCapybara.JPG to correct name of animal. -- ChrisStubbs 16:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged for speedy as {{Duplicate}} (not presently used). Jahiegel 09:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand as dupe of Image:EdmontonCapybara.JPG. Jahiegel 01:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: copyright RadioEstrella.NET Tano4595 16:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 17:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not likely to be usable on any Wikimedia project. Deleted from Wikipedia EN several times. -- Kingboyk 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, pardon me, it's used on the Portuguse Wikipedia. Nonetheless this has been deleted several times at EN because of licencing. --Kingboyk 19:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Whatever the other issues, it lacks any free licence. -- Infrogmation 22:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: In category Unknown as of 3 May 2007; not edited for 6 days
Uploaded originally to the English Wikipedia, and deleted there for Lack of licensing or source information. Alonr (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Deleted it again, now it came back from the small wiki yi.wikipedia.org. --Martin H. (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
they might agree to release under cc-by-sa-2.5 if we ask them but there's no implication on the website that the picture is under any free license -- Yonatan talk 14:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete – fluffy fair use claims doesn't grant you a CC-by licence. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No fair use in Commons. — Jeff G. 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I suspect no single copyrighted work appearing in the image exceeds what's acceptable under de minimis provisions, but the image is still problematic because it doesn't clearly state who took the photo or who granted the licence. It appears that en:User:Dmsar is the original uploader, but he does not appear to have tagged any of his uploads with licences himself, so it's probably a case of en:Template:GFDL-presumed, which has no place on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Redundant category. We already had Category:Landscape paintings. I have relocated the contents. --Goldfritha 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a photo of any particular 2D work in the chapel, but a photo of the 3D chapel as a whole. Hence, it is copyrighted. --rtc 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete plainly 3D. Jahiegel 08:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- This and the accompanying photo of the Sistine Chapel from the opposite direction give a total picture of what is a remarkable series of 2D works. While on one hand, yes, it is a 3D pic, it is also, and very importantly, a depiction of the world's most significant scheme of 2D pics. Despite the fact that the link doesn't seem to show up, this picture is in use on the wikipedia page "Sistine Chapel". --Mandy 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- A series of 2D works, though, when situated on multiple interior walls of a 3D structure, are necessarily a 3D work, such that (the taking of) an image of such series and is, per rtc, copyrightable (cf., many of the images in Category:Sistine Chapel, including Image:Michelangelo - Fresco of the Last Judgement.jpg, an image of a single [flat, i.e., 2D] wall of the Sistine Chapel, presently nominated for deletion but likely to kept in view of its being necessarily a slavish reproduction in the production of which a photographer would not make any creative elections). Jahiegel 09:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- This and the accompanying photo of the Sistine Chapel from the opposite direction give a total picture of what is a remarkable series of 2D works. While on one hand, yes, it is a 3D pic, it is also, and very importantly, a depiction of the world's most significant scheme of 2D pics. Despite the fact that the link doesn't seem to show up, this picture is in use on the wikipedia page "Sistine Chapel". --Mandy 08:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
screenshot from TV --rtc 21:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know why, but I had never been thought that the pic could be a screenshot. If it's true, the other one frome the same flickr.com-User should be also deleted (see Mark Medlock). --HohesC 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Here is the full image. Why you think it's a screenshot from TV? The quality is barely any TV camera quality, and why the TV camera would be filming from behind another camera? The Flickr user seems to be a trusted member there, and has taken other images clearly his. We can't start to question whether a Flickr image is not SA 2.0 without any proof. --Pudeo 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. By screenshot, do you mean a capture from a tv card or a photograph of a TV screen? Unless the Exif data has been doctored, the image was taken with a Finepix F30, so it would have to be the latter, and I'm not seeing any reflections, pixelation (given that the image is 18.5% taller than HDTV output) or other artefacts to indicate that. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
withdrawn. --rtc 07:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
not within the project scope, no permission --Polarlys 19:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; has been tagged npd for a week. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Unknown as of 12 May 2007; not edited for 10 days
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
seems to be scanned from somewhere rather than own work -- Yonatan talk 14:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, probable bogus licence. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Igreja de Brie.gif
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Contains only one image, and that one's miscategorized -- the parent categories for the subcat are "People" and it's a momument, and "Legend" and the momument is to an unquestionably historic event. --Goldfritha 16:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Doesn't seem a useful category and clearly not appropriate for the image in it. WjBscribe 14:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
„self-made“ - surely not --Polarlys 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Identical Image:Marcelo mansfield.jpg by same uploader. -- Infrogmation 22:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, web resolution, toned edges apparently to fit into some site design, and the user's history of lying about the copyright status of his or her uploads add up to reasonable doubt. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 22:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Mmansfield.jpg
Redundant category; we already had Category:Romantic landscape paintings. I have relocated the handful of paintings. --Goldfritha 19:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- IMHO the normal succession of the words is "paintings of [the subject]". Please let - if it does not go at all differently - at least a redirect. --Wst question 21:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not for paintings of landscapes; the normal terminology is "landscape paintings". Goldfritha 00:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- But I see, this is the only cat in Category:Paintings. Or what? --Wst question 08:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- It shouldn't have been in that one anyway, because it was in a subcategory.20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- But I see, this is the only cat in Category:Paintings. Or what? --Wst question 08:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not for paintings of landscapes; the normal terminology is "landscape paintings". Goldfritha 00:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t
no reason for GFDL given (and also not for PD-old) --Polarlys 20:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The source given is clearly not the original source (oldpoetry.com did not photograph Miguel de Unamuno), nor do they say who did (they state their source as "Rich Geib's Heros (sic) site," which, as far as I can tell, is this one – also not an original source, obviously). Furthermore, oldpoetry.com could not possibly be even a secondary source, as the Commons image has a higher resolution. Supposedly public domain at English Wikipedia (without source or reason), and probably just as much make-believe there as here. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted /~Pyb 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Book cover - not GFDL (fair use) -- Sylenius 11:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Looks to be a clear copyright violation.
- Delete {{Copyvio}}. Called into question on English Wikipedia as well. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete: unfree image. WjBscribe 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Image is rotated. I uploaded correct one: Image:20070505 Frampol Church belfry.jpg. - Rklisowski 22:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Siebrand --ALE! ¿…? 14:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Category contains only one image, and only one parent category. Unnecessary layer of indirection. The image should be moved back to the parent category, and the category deleted. --Goldfritha 01:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, a reasonable category within Fairy Tales for which we may have more images in the future. -- Infrogmation 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- We can always re-add the category when we have something to put in it; at the moment, it just make naviagation more difficult. Goldfritha 19:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
for now, it is just hard to navigate, so you should delete it
Keep. The parent category is overloaded with poorly classified images, but that's not the result of the sub-category which is a useful one. Several corresponding 'sister' categories already exist. --MichaelMaggs 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Image is not shown correctly, I uploaded a correct one. -- Radek Bartoš 05:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the photo appears to have been taken in 1927. It fell into the {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}.--Kareha 20:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I was stupid, there's no evidence it's a photograph. Delete as per {{Nsd}}.--Kareha 09:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. / Fred J 09:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No fair use of logos in Commons. — Jeff G. 16:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am expanding my nomination to all of Maksim's uploads. That user appears to have been carelessly using a bot to transfer to Commons images from other Wikipedias, many with questionable licensing tags (leaving over 150 complaints on its user talk page), and abruptly stopped editing Commons at 11:44 (UTC) on 9 April 2006. I'm sorry I didn't do this (nominate all of the user's uploads) yesterday, but I didn't have sufficient information, and I didn't know I was allowed to do this. Now, I have sufficient information, and I have been informed that I am allowed to do this. — Jeff G. 16:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- The "Kruger logo wagon.jpg" is from a wagon that used to belong to Paul Kruger (1825-1904). I don't think copyright can be of any concern in this case. Thuresson 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The underlying work would appear to still be covered by the Berne Convention's "minimal term of 50 years after the life of the authors", HOWEVER, new research based on the South African Copyright Act has shown the following:
Duration of Copyright in terms of the South African Copyright Act.
This depends on the type of work that has been created. Generally, the term of copyright is 50 years, subject to the following:
- Literary, musical or artistic works - copyright exists for the life of the author plus fifty years following death, calculated from the end of the year the author died in or 50 years from the date of first publication, performance in public, offering for sale of records thereof or the broadcasting thereof , whichever is earlier
- Assuming from the above that Paul Kruger or one of his ancestors commissioned this artistic work and it was first published on his wagon before his death in 1904, copyright on it expired on or before 31 December 1954.
- Conclusions:
- The underlying work is subject to {{PD-South-Africa}}.
- The photograph of the underlying work is subject to {{GFDL-user-w|en|English Wikipedia|Stephantom}}.
- The rest of Maksim's uploads are still suspect.
- Conclusions:
- From what I understand, he is now moving free images from local wikis. He is being careless and is also uploading non-free images (that are claimed to be free at the local wikis)... -- Cat chi? 17:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (copied from this edit)
Image kept, with PD and GFDL tag. I have not deleted Maksim's other uploads, as they need to be checked individually. / Fred J 09:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
no reason for public domain given --Polarlys 12:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
(comment removed after complaint) Stahlkocher 16:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The uploader has clearly noted that evidence of public domain status needs to be provided, but has failed to provide it during the past week. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
-->Ich habe keinen Zweifel das die Beschreibung des BMW Archives den Tatsachen enstpricht -- Stahlkocher 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I think it is very vague to assume that this image is in the PD. 1932+70=2002. So the author must have died the latest five years after taking the image. This is not very credible. --ALE! ¿…? 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Whats up with this: Image:Mercedes-Benz Coupé-Baureihe 140.jpg. Who is the copyright owner? And who released it into the GFDL? And now: Where is the difference? -- Stahlkocher 18:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- We are talking about the photographer's copyright. You too? --ALE! ¿…? 23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what you are talking about. We talk about the circumstance, that the BMW archiv stated that their image is "gemeinfrei". I copied the image information 1:1. -- Stahlkocher 07:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could you provide a link for that? --ALE! ¿…? 07:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But the content changed in the meantime. This is why i wrote "stated". -- Stahlkocher 16:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok If found now the image in the BMW Archive: http://www.bmw-konzernarchiv.de/1/webmill.php?id=158219&ditem=12506&lin=detail&foldertype=all&foldergroup=irc&t_printadetail=1
- There it says that the photographer is "Atelier Lill" and it does not say that it is gemeinfrei (public domain). So I say Delete --ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As you might see, the images (watermarks) are different, because the content changed on 24.04.2007, 15:21:54. The information i quote is dated 18:38, 3. Dez. 2006 and is fully correct. All copyright informations where removed from the images within this period. -- Stahlkocher 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is no proof that this is correct. Could you please contact the BMW Archive asking them to confirm this and send the response to Commons:OTRS? Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 08:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted for the moment (if Stahlkocher can provide proof that the image is in fact PD than I will happily restore it) --ALE! ¿…? 11:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
May 13
[edit]the pic is copyrighted, take a look de footer. --BDantas 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
updated: resigned to speed deletion --BDantas 00:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 01:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Original uploader on the English Wikipedia admits that he/she mistakenly uploaded this nonfree image. See here. Rebelguys2 00:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-free image. Wooyi 15:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyvio copied makes a new copyvio. --|EPO| 18:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Il-27R.jpg --Ntrno 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Image may be free, but permission is unsure and documentation needed - {{subst:npd}}. --|EPO| 17:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't find where does NNDB says all images are in PD, and this guy Al Smith ran for president in 1928, so it cannot be sure it's pre-1923 either. --Wooyi 15:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
In other words a copyright violation. --|EPO| 17:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request:
- Not in use and not likely to ever be.
- Name and summary misleading
- Basically a bad joke (Head of Britney Spears on Andre Agassi body).
DGtal 17:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per above and Commons:Project scope. --|EPO| 17:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong name, renamed here. --孔明居士 07:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
So basically a {{duplicate}} --|EPO| 18:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
useless -- 81.105.190.208 11:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - illustrates captive breeding. Certainly a better pic could be made, but it hasn't been uploaded so far, and that still wouldn't make this one so bad as to require deletion. --Davepape 13:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Wooyi 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
duplicate of Image:Poland Torfy Lake.jpg --Wojsyl 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred Chess 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
taken from http://www.diegus.es/diegus/El%20blog%20de%20Diegus/C112CB57-157B-4745-AC02-A0AA343B8547.html --Porquenopuedo 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Does the uploader own the blog and the picture? If not then delete. Wooyi 15:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Info This user uploaded many images with no source, metadata, author information, etc. (including one aerial/satellite shot marked as pd-self); all in Category:Unknown since May 3rd. The images marked as no source have been deleted. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)- Delete I firmly think that the author of the blog isn't the uploader. Furthermore the uploader hasn't got a clean history, see User talk:Pablox38. Greetings from Spain and sorry for my English --Porquenopuedo 09:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete due to his copyvio history I assume he does not own the blog. Wooyi 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
superseded by svg version --221.127.96.148 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Superseded images are no longer deleted. Adding {{Vector version available}} to the page is sufficient. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, --Polarlys 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Probable copyvio. Image looks like it was retrieved either from a web page or from a scientific article. --PatríciaR msg 16:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
double image, see Image:Dywizjon Kosciuszki.jpg --Dryke 22:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Quadzilla99 20:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Not in scope, not used. Not useable for anything. -- Editor at Large • talk 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete -- We are not anybody's personal photo album. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of a Star Wars Game (Star Wars: Lethal Alliance) which was developed by Ubisoft. Now it seems Ubisoft has agreed to release screenshots of their games under a free license (although this deletion request isn't closed yet). But this screenshot incorporates stormtroopers and a Twi'lek alien, and AFAIK Lucasfilm Ltd. always retains all copyrights to its characters, starships, stories, etc... The developers of Star Wars games, authors of SW books and pencillers of SW comics don't own all the rights to their SW creations and can't release them under a free license without permission by Lucasfilm. So while Ubisoft games screenshots may be available under a free license, screenshots of Star Wars games are not. --88.134.140.64 23:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Most certainly outside the scope of what Ubisoft is able to license freely. —LX (talk, contribs) 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Derivative works never void its original copyright.--Kareha 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete independently from what Ubisoft grants us, this image is not free because it contains derivative works of copyrighted materials --ALE! ¿…? 15:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete: derivative work of copyright material. WjBscribe 17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Who was the sculptor? There is no freedom of panorama in the USA. --Polarlys 20:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete looks quite new to me. --ALE! ¿…? 15:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in the US, derivative work --Polarlys 01:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- you serious? a picture of a tree shaped into Pluto. Well, start nominating all pictures of car models and buildings, since they are all derived work from the creator/designer Michiel1972 17:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- This Pluto could be seen as a sculptures and sculptures do not fall under the freedom of panorama in the US. However, this is a border case. --ALE! ¿…? 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as a derivative sculpture. / Fred J 09:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
May 14
[edit]If this image is being used under fair use, then it's certainly not in the public domain. ShadowHalo 06:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. --Gmaxwell 11:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged speedy as 'not old enough (discovered 1940)--Locutus Borg 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC). I'm unsure about this one, so making it a deletion request. -- Siebrand 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 18 days
Not currently used on any project. The original en uploader's PD-self images are highly questionable and I can only assume that this one is as well. In any event, it is too small to be useful anywhere. --BigDT 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- "too small" and "not used" are not arguments for deletion, but OK for that it is questionable. Since it's both questionable and non-used delete it. // Liftarn
deleted, --Polarlys 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Bitte löschen, da sehr wahrscheinlich Urheberrechtsverletzung! Da als Quelle http://www.ftd.de angegeben wird. Dort aber steht: © 1999-2007 Financial Times Deutschland und unter Nutzungshinweise: III. Urheberrechte – Bestimmte Daten auf Finanztreff.de sind geistiges Eigentum des Anbieters oder der entsprechenden Nachrichten- und Informationsserviceanbieter oder dritter Parteien, die diese Daten an die bestimmten Serviceanbieter liefern. Die Daten sind durch Urheberrecht und andere Rechte geschützt. Alle Eigentumsrechte verbleiben je nach Sachlage bei den entsprechenden Nachrichten- und Informationsserviceanbieter oder dritter Parteien, die diese Daten an die bestimmten Serviceanbieter liefern oder den Anbieter. Es kann also keine Rede von GFDL sein! --kandschwar 20:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Source is cited as en-WP, but en-WP's page says it comes from Lithuanian WP. Meanwhile, we can't find this image there, so as it turns out the real source is competely unknown. -- howcheng {chat} 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, on lt:Paprastieji ežiai, there is a red link for the species article (E. concolor), so it's highly doubtful the photo came from lt-WP. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. An earlier version was uploaded on September 7, 2005 by the same user (over at en-WP) as Image:Eastern_European_hedgehog.jpg (lowercase "h") and tagged {{GermanGov}}. This tagging was recognized as wrong on January 30, 2006, and the image was deleted on February 7, 2006. Clearly, the source claims made are spurious. Lupo 08:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
taken from: http://www.pueblos-espana.org/castilla+y+leon/leon/leon/Pasarela+sobre+el+Bernesga/ --Porquenopuedo 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Taken from http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/4781/dsc005434xl.jpg --Porquenopuedo 18:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
license not available on mentioned site -- 86.92.243.235 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep According to the page, the licence is "attribution sharealike". The problem is that the link of the license send you to a blank page. I send an email to the author asking to the author if he meant "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike" includin commercial use and etc... he answered this: You can use my photos from nagi.ee if there is Attribution-ShareAlike. --B1mbo 03:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept. Thuresson 21:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
This is a very unlikely PD-author claim, and the source given returns a 404 error. Jkelly 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have sent an email to Ed Stelmach True Blue Alberta for more information. It is likely that I will receive a response on this soon which should resolve any confusion. Either this image will be confirmed as public domain or I hope to receive a link to an image that is. Klingoncowboy4 05:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have never recieved a response, and have just uploaded an alturnative image, so go ahead and delete. Klingoncowboy4 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
i have upload Image:Provincia di Frosinone.png -- Luigi.Vampa 12:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work -- Dantadd✉ 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree As you said, it's derivative work... Clearly, the image has less than 70 years to fall under PD-Chile --B1mbo 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, portrait officiel reproduit en plusieurs centaines d'exemplaires et librement photographiable au musée de Valparaiso, disponible également sur la version anglaise de l'article concerné. Georgio2 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)- Agree Is a derivative work... --Yakoo 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 23:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 08:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Sourced from w:Image:Churchill-fallspowerhouse2.jpg, original image lacks source information. --Oden 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I uploaded this image, but I'm sorry but I can't say anything about the source, only: it's from the english wikipedia. --ProfessorX 19:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - no source, no keep. Majorly (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no source, and poor quality anyway. --Digon3 19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The image is used at the German WP, along with Image:Churchill-fallsgeneraters.jpg, that is lacking source information, as well. --Matt314 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Image not found in [60]. Search "Chiang Kai-shek", see [61] --Shizhao 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Cat
- I am resisting this here, I am hesitant to delete it as a speedy. out 13:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Probably made of this image: [62]; looks like rotated, colour-adjusted and cut-down. Look at the plane locations. --Denniss 16:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 10:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Logo, unknown source, licensed as GFDL. --Oden 21:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted (no source) --ALE! ¿…? 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
(I've asked this to be deleted long ago, the free license is withdrawn.) --Anders 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- You can not withdraw a free license. --ALE! ¿…? 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's published under a free license which can't be withdrawn. But on the other hand: it's obviously a photo of the uploader and although we are not obliged to do so, I see no reason why we shouldn't grant his request to delete it. It's out of of the project scope anyway and there are personality rights which make the image unuseable for most purposes. --88.134.140.64 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 11:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
The current license states that the image is public domain because: "no response of objection to the use of image was received from the owner". --Oden 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
deleted, possible copyvio --ALE! ¿…? 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
no source, appears to be official photo. --Oden 10:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, inappropriate license anyway. Majorly (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, possible copyvio --ALE! ¿…? 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 11:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Derivative work, photograph of another (framed) photograph. --Oden 10:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
This flag was used only during the soccer-world-championship in Germany. It is used no probably more of the Turkish minority! Postmann Michael 01:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 09:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Image:Denard Bob.jpg : Partial image of http://www.dinofish.com/cimages/Denard.jpg , apparently not taken by davric as claimed, and therefore not PD. --Magnus Manske 11:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
This is a manipulated photography, but this fact is not clearly stated. The text on the mural is in reality: You are now entering free Derry. Ekko 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've restored the original image, that was modified by User:204dot96. Note that the fake is also here: Image:Londonderry_mural.jpg. Zubro 20:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've taken the delete template off it. Deadstar 07:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
old revisions deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
PD-author-version of the logo with higher resolution exists under Image:Logo Die Gruenen.jpeg. --Sampi 16:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Deleted, I replaced occurances. / Fred J 09:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 10:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
Are CalTech publications images free of copyright?. If yes, I apologize, please remove delete tag. If no, delete image unless uploader brings up new info--FocalPoint 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. I see no evidence of http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/eands/articles/LXVII1/samos.html is released under the given cc-license. / Fred J 10:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Flickr user is not the author of this picture -- Dantadd✉ 14:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
I doubt that Images from 506pireasyco.com are PD-US-Army. I also doubt that this site holds any copyrights of the picture, becouse it looks like the photograph of an photograph. -- 85.176.97.58 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Deleted due to insufficient sourcing. / Fred J 09:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 14:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:South_Azerbaijan.PNG
False and politically motiviated file name. There exist no such thing as "south Az." —the preceding unsigned comment is by 81.68.228.49 (talk • contribs)
- Please use {{Rename image}} in these cases --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Closed, kept for now. / Fred J 09:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged speedy as Not old enough (discovered in 1914 but published in Breuil H, Begouen H. - Les cavernes du Volp. Travaux de l'I. P. H., CNRS, Paris, 1958.--Locutus Borg 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC). I'm unsure about this one, so making it a deletion request. -- Siebrand 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (Henri Breuil died in 1961) --ALE! ¿…? 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged speedy as Not old enough (discovered in 1914 but published in Breuil H, Begouen H. - Les cavernes du Volp. Travaux de l'I. P. H., CNRS, Paris, 1958.--Locutus Borg 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC). I'm unsure about this one, so making it a deletion request. -- Siebrand 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (Henri Breuil died in 1961) --ALE! ¿…? 12:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Was tagged speedy as Not old enough (discovered in 1914 but published in Breuil H, Begouen H. - Les cavernes du Volp. Travaux de l'I. P. H., CNRS, Paris, 1958.--Locutus Borg 20:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC). I'm unsure about this one, so making it a deletion request. -- Siebrand 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (Henri Breuil died in 1961) --ALE! ¿…? 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
(This is a request from Category:Incomplete deletion requests not previously listed. --ALE! ¿…? 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
This covers both the SVG and the PNG version.
from: http://web.archive.org/web/20041110073310/http://www.nanoq.gl/tema.asp?page=tema&objno=69468 this page doesn't say it's public domain
Info about the picture
[edit]The polar bear has since it was drawn on a coin in 1665 been the symbol of Greenland, and has since 1819 been a regular part of the Big Danish State Coat of Arms, shown below. Strangely, the polar bear lifts its right jaw in the Danish version. This version is also used by the State ombudsman, where the sheild is crowned. The artist in the 17th century Copenhagen did not know that the polar bear does not use its left jaw. In 1985 the Greenlandish drawer Jens Rosing drew the Greenlandish version of the coat of arms. Here, the polar bear lifts the left jaw and it is this coat of arms you can see the home rule using. Sorry for the bad translation. --80.63.213.182 11:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Danish version:
[edit]Isbjørnen har siden den blev afbildet på en speciedaler i 1665 været symbolet på Grønland, og har siden 1819 været en fast bestanddel af det Store Danske Rigsvåben, afbildet herunder. Pudsigt nok løfter isbjørnen i den danske version, sin højre pote. Denne version anvendes også af Rigsombudsmanden, hvor skjoldet også er kronet. Tegneren i 1600-tallets København vidste ikke at isbjørnen bruger venstre pote. I 1985 tegnede den grønlandske kunster Jens Rosing den grønlandske version af våbenskjoldet. Her løfter isbjørnen den venstre pote og det er det våbenskjold du kan se hjemmestyret bruge.
From http://www.nanoq.gl/Om_Isbjoernen.aspx?lang=da
Ergo the drawing is from 1985 and redrawn in 2004 and covered by copyright, because the site does not say different.
- Keep the .svg version. If uploader has received permission then keep the .png as well. Commons established precedent by accepting images from Vector-images.com. I see no reason to delete this .svg created the very same way. This insignia was created more than 300 years ago without a clear blazon, and the bear has been shown in several versions - including walking - so the idea about the left-handedness might not be original at all (I haven't checked). Regarding the official .png version, I notice that the uploader, User:Arne List, uses the words "courtesy of". Has he been contacted at all so we can determine if this choice of words means that he has received an e-mail from somebody regarding this image? I can see no such message on his talk page. Valentinian (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Btw, if this arms has to go then a ton of other images created the same way have to go the same way. Including the U.S. flag; the person adding the 50th star hasn't been dead for 70 years. Furthermore, the SVG isn't identical to the PNG. Valentinian (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative of an image, which itself does not considerably creativity to an image that is long in public domain. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is safe to keep it --ALE! ¿…? 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Was nominated as:" Copyrighted work. Danish coats of arms are not exempt from copyright, and this drawing is less than 20 years old." And deleted as a copyvio. Multichill (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I reuploaded the file and saw above deletion request which suggested it should be safe, afterwards I saw that it had been speedied. I see several issues still to be resolved: Arne List speaks of "courtesy of", has this been cleared yet? Is the design original enough to be copyrighted etc. NielsF ? (en, nl, fr, it) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This is heavily dependent on older representations, and does not pass the threshold of originality. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, per nominator. Kameraad Pjotr 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
May 15
[edit]either it's a copyrightviolation or it's only clanspam --D-Kuru 09:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 12:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
empty, orphaned and redundant --Wojsyl 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: empty category for more than one month
No Freedom of panorama in the USA. The statue is in located in Atlanta. -- Matt314 13:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
and Image:Escalamiento Multidimensional2.pdf.
Out of project scope -- EugeneZelenko 15:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for pd -- Leipnizkeks 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for pd -- Leipnizkeks 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It was uploaded to English Wikipedia but with unknown source and then deleted.--Jusjih 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for pd -- Leipnizkeks 19:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is PD-Old, it was taken in 1918, i.e. 89 years ago (and counting), and the unknown photografer most likely died during the uprising of 1918-1919. Also, it is a known photo that has been published in many books - I scanned this photo from an old East German book, and I have seen it in in many other occations. Vattkoppa 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't count as an evidence for public domain since the image is far not old enough to say it is pd by itself. --Leipnizkeks 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can use this to be sure: {{PD-Russia}} Vattkoppa 11:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, country of origin is Germany, not Russia. --EugeneZelenko 14:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- But obvious {{Anonymous-EU}}
deleted, if the page on Commons or any page on the web says “author unknown” it doesn’t mean that the author never claimed authorship. --Polarlys 11:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This movie poster of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is certainly not licensed under any CC license. --Thuresson 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, please use copyvio instead.--Polarlys 11:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Old incomplete deletion request 16. Apr. 2006 by User:Anna
According to the disclaimer on http://www.hqfl.dk/:All logos are trademarks of their respective owners, and are offered for non-commercial use and as a convenience for their lawful use only, with proper permission from the copyright or trademark holders.
Downloading material from this website does NOT give you authorization or permission to use the copyrighted logos without the specific consent of the copyright or trademark holder. Before you use, reproduce or distribute in any manner any logo found on this website, you must first receive the express permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark of that logo. Failure to obtain such permission is a violation under international law. --GeorgHH 20:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 22:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reopened (@Thuresson please use the {{Delh}} and {{Delf}} tags!)
- The image was correctly tagged as {{PD-ineligible}} according to German law. See e.g.: [63] --ALE! ¿…? 08:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Kept. I guess this is closed. This has been floating around—incomplete, listed, deleted, reopened, archived—since April 2006. I'm not going to relist it. Feel free to nominate it again if you want. Rocket000 07:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Zhang Ziyi
[edit]Image:Mylen3.jpg copyvio,from [64]. Not PD-self. and Image:Zhang ziyi 01.jpg, Category:Zhang Ziyi--Shizhao 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
copy vio url = http://image2.sina.com.cn/ent/s/m/2004-07-24/U738P28T3D453396F326DT20040724224952_small_h.JPG
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio from http://ent.sina.com.cn/s/m/2004-07-24/2249453396.html
I doubt that this image was indeed released into the public domain by its author. It was uploaded to the English Wikipedia from sxc.hu with the comment "from www.sxc.hu: no restrictions". But unfortunately not all images from that site are in the public domain, see Template:Sxc-warning and discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Sxc-warning. We could just add the Sxc-warning template, but I couldn't find the original image on sxc.hu, so there's no way to contact the author and ask for permission to use it under a free license. --88.134.140.64 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete First of all, that is not Brasov, but Cârţa Monastery. Could not find the original
Deleted -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Very poor resolution --Guilherme Paula 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Seems useful as an icon (as opposed to as an actual map of Brazil). Its being used on multiple Wikimedia projects, including over 100 pages on es.wiki. It appears to form part of project/ stub tags. WjBscribe 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Same reason described above. As the name says, it is supposed to be used as an icon... Mschlindwein 15:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
kept, --ALE! ¿…? 23:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Lower quality duplicate of Image:West ryde railway station footbridge.jpeg -- John Dalton 07:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
kept (image taken before 1867) --ALE! ¿…? 15:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
kept (image taken before 1881) --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
kept (image taken before 1891) --ALE! ¿…? 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. From 1860s. Rocket000 07:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for pd -- Leipnizkeks 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- its IMO an anoymus Photo, more than 70th year after taken. (ich lass mich da aber gerne eines besseren belehren) --Machahn 12:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, unsourced as the uploaded did not mention the source for the scan. I might have been PD-old if more was known. --Siebrand 10:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
same image of Image:Img0916 Gastornis.jpg -- User:Esculapio on 26 April 2006
- I fixed this deletion request. Other image is not exactly the same (larger size but darker). This looks like the cleaned up image. Not sure which to delete if any, but this was the request of the original uploader. Deadstar 08:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
this is not a real svg file - It has an embeded jpeg and was made by me by mistake... Fractal plant.jpg exists and is the only one used--Tó campos1 17:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Because of a template which says "This image should be recreated using vector graphics as an SVG file." I would say that the jpg. file should get deleted. --D-Kuru 18:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic; strong POV. Very one-sided portrayal of Georgian conflicts with demonization of Russia. Baseless accusation of instigation of ethnic conflicts, occupation, running of puppet regimes, etc -- Óðinn 22:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I do not think that POV or unencyclopedic should be the question. I think the map gives a clear overview of the conflict. When this map is considered to be POV, when used one can add a remark that this mag gives to a Georgian view on the conflict. I oppose deletion of this image. I would prefer using a map more neutral, but als long as that is not available, I would use this map. Electionworld 12:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Clear overview? I beg to differ; it grossly misrepresents the conflict. I especially enjoyed the passage about the mythical Russian emissaries instigating the uprising among the Azeris in Georgia. Such BS. And since when do the rules of NPOV and original research do not apply to this image? Óðinn 15:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- There are more lies, like the claim of occupation of Abkhazia and S.Ossetia... There are no regular Russian troops stationed there, only the peacemakers, whose presence is approved by the UN. When some Georgian nationalist have attempted to insert such blatant lies into the English Wikipedia articles on Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, they were quickly reverted, and rightly so. So why would such outrageous POV be allowed here?Óðinn 15:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is NPOV and encyclopedic to use such an image if one clearly states at the same time that the image represents a Georgian view of the conflict. Electionworld 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- So you're not arguing that the image itself is neither NPOV nor encyclopedic? Óðinn 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- And to claim that this picture represents the view of the whole country is a POV on its own. Óðinn 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, I never argued that the image itself is either NPOV or POV or (un)encyclopedic. I think a POV image can be used if placed in a correct context. You are right , it should be a Georgian. (I corrected it here above) Please look to the way the image is used at this time, with a correction text. BTW, I'm wonering if other people will take part in this debate. Electionworld 17:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is not enough to merely mention that this map is a product of Georgian propaganda. It needs to be stated somewhere that some claims are blatant lies (occupation of Abkhazia and S.Ossetia, instigation of ethnic conflicts) and some are highly controversial (participation of the Russian troops in the conflicts, which was never proven). Óðinn 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Blatant lies might be as POV as the content of the image. But I think that debate could take part at the talk pages of the entries that use this image. Electionworld 08:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, in this particular case, "blatant lies" are quite NPOV. Or you can tone it down to "totally untrue", I don't care. In either case there is a whole bunch of UN resolutions concerning the status of the Russian peacekeepers in Georgia that commend their stabilizing role in the region. As for discussing this on individual pages... I don't know about you, but my Hebrew is pretty much non-existent. And that's exactly why such dubious materials should not be hosted here on Commons. Óðinn 19:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- My Hebrew is absent. But I still don't agree with you and I still don't see more support for deletion. Electionworld 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote, but rather a presentation of pro and contra arguments. Whether or not more people participate is irrelevant; it's up to the reviewing admin to decide which side's arguments are more convincing. Now, this image is not only NPOV, it is also factually incorrect. That alone is enough to warrant its deletion. You change in description that the image presents a Georgian point of view is insufficient, as it doesn't tell the readers, unfamiliar with the subject, which information is highly controversial and which is plainly not true. This is an encyclopedia after all; why do you insist on using an image that is intentionally designed to mislead people? The only condition I would agree on keeping this image is that it's modified in a way to address and explain all the factually incorrect and controversial claims. Óðinn 21:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I said earlier (I think), I don't mind replacing the image with a more neutral version. As an admin I wouldn't delete it just because of the arguments brought forward. Electionworld 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, what's stopping you? :)Óðinn 00:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't make the map and I don't know how to make maps. Sorry. Electionworld 11:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this does have a POV, but as long as this is taken into account when viewing it (and it does clearly say it is biased) then it is still encyclopaedic. Also in this situation there is little alternative material to illustrate the matter instead. Strong Keep. 62.231.221.106 13:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This page can be replaced by Image:Spaceship Earth tiles (close).jpg in any situation. That image is of significantly higher quality (e.g. resolution). bdesham 04:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- they aren't identical, though, so there's no reason to not keep both around. Night Gyr 01:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well... there really are reasons. This image has a horrible Moiré effect, and is overexposed. Further, it is only 640x480, while the other is around 2 megapixels... much better if it were ever going to be printed. --bdesham 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
File name is misleading - image shows Araucaria columnaris. Has been reuploaded as Image:Araucaria columnaris2.jpg -- Kahuroa 10:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Further to this, a look at the image shows that it differs from Araucaria heterophylla in its columnar form which is a feature of the related species Araucaria columnaris, whereas A. heterophylla, which is noted for being symmetrical, is an extremely common tree here in Auckland, New Zealand, and never takes the twisted columnar form shown in this image Kahuroa 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. / Fred J 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
no evidence for pd -- Leipnizkeks 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- its IMO an anoymus Photo, more than 70th year after taken. (ich lass mich da aber gerne eines besseren belehren) --Machahn 12:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, unsourced as the uploaded did not mention the source for the scan. I might have been PD-old if more was known. --Siebrand 10:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- PD-old. --Polarlys 14:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd be happy if you can document this. Who is the author and how can you tell the date if you don't know it? --User:G.dallorto 12:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- C’mon, the person on the picture died 1852, the image is definitely no modern work, see these round passepartouts for example – they simply were in vogue in the 19th century. Camera.it is for sure not the copyright holder, whenever websites often claim copyright for public domain artworks (“copyfraud”). We can delete thousands of files here, when we assume that all these engravings and photos just have a retro look … --Polarlys 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with copyfraud, but with lack of source. The point is that, because of the bad quality of the image, you can't tell when the drawing (or photo?) was created. We have to be positive about the fact that the drawing is in the PD. If this is a drawing made in 1930 based upod a picture made in 1852, it might very well be copyrighted anyway. Sorry, it's not me who made the rules. So I'd rather like keeping this picture (it's useful), but knowing when was it made and by whom. --User:G.dallorto 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- C’mon, the person on the picture died 1852, the image is definitely no modern work, see these round passepartouts for example – they simply were in vogue in the 19th century. Camera.it is for sure not the copyright holder, whenever websites often claim copyright for public domain artworks (“copyfraud”). We can delete thousands of files here, when we assume that all these engravings and photos just have a retro look … --Polarlys 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep If the photo was taken in 1852 and the photographer did have died immediately, the image would have entered the PD in 1923. This is 84 years ago! If the author had twenty years of age at the moment of taking the image and if he would have died after a reasonable time of 55 years in the year 1907 the image would have entered the PD in 1978. Because this is also roughly 30 years ago, I think that this image and the others can be savely kept. --ALE! ¿…? 12:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the image shows a man in the age of approx. 50, so it’s from 1860 (!) --Polarlys 14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep arguments see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vincenzo Gioberi iii.jpg --ALE! ¿…? 12:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep arguments see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vincenzo Gioberi iii.jpg --ALE! ¿…? 12:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Misleading file name - species is actually Araucaria columnaris. This file has been reuploaded as Image:Araucaria columnaris01.jpg -- Kahuroa 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Further to this, a look at the image shows that it differs from Araucaria heterophylla in its columnar form which is a feature of the related species Araucaria columnaris, whereas A. heterophylla, which is noted for being symmetrical, is an extremely common tree here in Auckland, New Zealand, and never takes the twisted columnar form shown in this image Kahuroa 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This graph is non-sense. It is a really approximative vision of the evolution of debt of French State. MaCRoEco 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, as there are no objections. / Fred J 09:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The source given does not contain the text informed by uploader about the copyright -- Dantadd✉ 21:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The page is under maintenance[65]. Until yesterday, the page stated that the images could be used freely if sourced. Limongi 15:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Dantadd. This image has already been deleted from WP-PT. It does not seem to be free. --Tonyjeff 17:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). --User:G.dallorto 10:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Misleading file name - species is actually Araucaria columnaris. This file has been reuploaded as Image:Araucaria columnaris01.jpg -- Kahuroa 10:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Further to this, a look at the image shows that it differs from Araucaria heterophylla in its columnar form which is a feature of the related species Araucaria columnaris, whereas A. heterophylla, which is noted for being symmetrical, is an extremely common tree here in Auckland, New Zealand, and never takes the twisted columnar form shown in this image Kahuroa 10:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
May 16
[edit]and Image:Scene from a cafe in Western Ukraine.jpg.
Derivative work -- EugeneZelenko 14:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not really a derivate, a duplicate. I just added the duplicate tag. Komdori 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is photo of calendars and other images, so it';s definitely derivative work. --EugeneZelenko 14:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Scene from a cafe in Western Ukraine.jpg
License restricts the use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia and thus is not compatible with Commons. — Xavier, 22:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- More exactly, license is CC-BY-NC-SA outside wikimedia/WP. See note in Licensing section. — Xavier, 22:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, a CC-BY declaration, once made, is universal. The problem is that he wants it CC-BY-3.0 which has the "moral rights" clause in it, which is still incompatible with Commons. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, unfree, see also Commons:Deletion requests/Flickr images uploaded by Marmoulak. --GeorgHH 20:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a Book Coved, a book cover shouldn't be uploaded to commons. -- 210.240.213.97 08:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it's the similar picture as here. Rico Shen contact... 08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Bryan: copyvio
not used Ditschi 11:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- This was originally a speedy deletion request by Ditschi. I disagree, that “not used” is a regular reason for speedy deletion. I also disagree, that this is a reason for deleting this image at all. So Keep --norro 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Notschrei: die dinger werden seit tag und jahr schnellentsorgt
out of focus --Deadstar 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Tagged since 6 January, incomplete request
- I created the image for use in http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Basic_English_picture_wordlist by cropping from a larger image, hence the poor apparent focus. It has been replaced there by a better image, so I have no objection to its deletion for the reason stated. --agr 21:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
kept (image is used) --ALE! ¿…? 15:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Picture from 1997 was from a Swedish ad -- not author's own work!! (completing incomplete del request for user:ketil3 -- pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It is incorrect, see [66]. Correct version now available at Image:Anisindione skeletal.svg—Fvasconcellos 14:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Self-drawn picture of questionable artistic and informative value. Wikimedia is not picture gallery. — Mikkalai 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Withdrawn after discussion in w:talk:Non-penetrative sex. Mikkalai 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
gross 67.142.130.24 00:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep If you consider it gross, please don't look at it. This project is not censored. Line drawings don't have permissions issues and this image has some public health relevance as an illustration of a safe sex practice. Durova 02:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Kept. Invalid reason. Rocket000 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Very unlikely to be GFDL; a store owner letting you take a photo of franchise artwork doesn't mean it's usable. If I blew it up and submitted it for use to Borders Books, they might complain. In any case, since you are not the creator, and cannot release under CC. We don't know the creator, or the copyright status, but it's likely copyrighted by Barnes and Nobles.
If this picture is deleted, there are unfortunately quite a few from the same mural uploaded by the same user. Komdori 19:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Permission to "take" a photograph does not imply permission to "publish" said photograph. The painter of that mural holds the copyright (unless he transferred it to the store owner or somebody else). We'd need permission by teh copyright holder to publish this photo under a free license, not permission to take a photo. Lupo 07:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
tihs is animation. Not ineligible for copyright. --Shizhao 08:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It is my own work which I published here:
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 01:45:01 -0700 (PDT) From: "doukali abdelhai" <hgfvhks@yahoo.com> Yahoo! DomainKeys has confirmed that this message was sent by yahoo.com. Subject: Re: من موقع الأرقام To: <alargam777@yahoo.com>
--Aissa 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
no reason to vand on every language article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.130.135.46 (talk • contribs) at 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
this fraud was being propagated on various wikipedias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deeptrivia (talk • contribs) at 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not remove {{Delete}} until the discussion has concluded. — Jeff G. 13:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what's going on here. What is the problem w/ the image? -- FayssalF 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding signed but incorrectly dated comment was added at 14:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
- It is allegedly vandalism and fraud, and the "Author" field appears unrelated to the uploader. Also, it appears that the systems you used to post are running exactly one month behind. — Jeff G. 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Who doubts that the "Author" field appears unrelated to the uploaded, he could send a message to the mailing address located at the original site. hgfvhks@yahoo.com
- The main problem with the image is that it represents original research in conflict with established, well-sourced information already existing in the pertinent articles. In addition, the image itself is of poor quality, its attendant description/explanation is largely incoherent (and is original research), and it has no potential value to wikimedia projects. It should be deleted. Ruyn 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- The propagation of a picture in the encyclopaedia is not new, if looked at the following picture
- , find it spread widely, although it indicates that the Arabic numerals is European which is denied by all historical evidence.--Aissa 18:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- That picture does not indicate that Arabic numerals are European in origin. Ruyn 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Its name is known in the manuscripts; Arabic numerals. And this image Image:وهدَفي حسابْ.gif is a confirmation of this fact.--Aissa 15:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I meant that the table you referenced directly above, Arabic numerals-en.svg, does not indicate that Arabic numerals are European in origin. The image under discussion for deletion, وهدَفي حسابْ.gif, as well as its description, do not reference any "manuscripts" or other sources. It is original research, and therefore cannot be presented as "confirmation" that your opinion is fact. Even if it weren't in conflict with the established facts, which it apparently is, and even if your weak command of the english language hadn't produced such an incoherent description, which it has, and even if the quality of the actual image weren't poor, which it is, the content itself is unsourced original research and has no value to wikimedia projects. This is why it should be deleted. If you are capable of addressing this inherent fault, you are welcome to do so, preferably in understandable English. If not, then I suggest you concede the point. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this is not the place to present it as fact. Ruyn 01:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the English Wikipedia this image exists only in one page of discussion. I think that this image can be removed because it indicates that the Arab numerals are Arab of origin, but other images indicating that the Arab numerals are Indian or European of origin finds no harassment, like this:
Description:
Theoretically it can be assumed that each number originally contained accurately the amount of angles whose number if desired to represent. Thus number “1” was represented for two traces that if joined in a superior vortex (as a “inverted V”), the “2” as a “Z”, the “3” as a sigma (Σ) inverted, the “4” almost accurately as it is today. --Aissa 10:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- That image (or any other) demonstrating the "angle origin" cannot be used to promote that theory in any wikipedia article without reliable reference. Since that theory happens to be proven false, the only possible use it might have is as demonstration of a referenced historical theory, in the context of illustrating something that was or is falsely believed. See the following note from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arabic_numerals:
- "Just checked out Ifrah's book on the history of numbers, which is a 600 page comprehensive book. It contains half a dozen theories like this (including this) under a section on "Fanciful Explanations for hte origin of "Arabic" numerals" which have long been rejected. This one comes from a Spaniard Carlos Le Maur (1778). These explanations, the book says "are flawed because they are the fruit of the pseudo-scientific imaginations of men who are fooled by appearances and who jump to conclusions which completely contradict both historical facts and the results of epigraphic and palaeographic research". It's a pity that some schools still teach this angle stuff! deeptrivia (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)"
- if you see any article in any language promoting the angle theory as fact, you should fix it with references to the relevant material. So, in short, that image is no better than the animation under discussion. If you can document a similar reference demonstrating that your theory was or is propagated in published material of significance, that would allow your image to be used in the context of illustrating said theory, which would address the biggest reason for its proposed deletion (though not allow it to be used in the manner you were attempting to use it in the articles it was removed from). Since you seem to claim to have developed the theory yourself (as original research), and in the absence of any references so far, the image under discussion should be deleted. Ruyn 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Since this animation could only illustrate original research in a Wikimedia project, we must delete it. --Juiced lemon 13:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The image was added to several Wikipedias, including the Danish, the Russian [Арабские цифры] and probably others. To prevent further abuse of the image and spreading of incorrect information, I am deleting it. / Fred J 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
May 17
[edit]I uploaded this file with a bogus name. The entire path got left in from root on down. I've since uploaded a duplicate without this bogosity. Oh what I'd give for a "remove embarrasement now! delete key"... -- E. Michael Smith 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I removed your request and replaced with a {{Duplicate}} marker. It should been deleted in some hours--DieBuche 07:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:EMS-RotelleS-Rotini-120250.JPG
double --Vassil 21:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fait, done. Greudin 14:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Greudin: requested by author (double)
No evidence has been presented that the Central Bank of Ireland or the engravers have released the bills under GFDL." per Commons:Deletion requests/Irish_money --DieBuche 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- This request has been superseded by Commons:Deletion requests/Irish money. — Jeff G. 16:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss this at Commons:Deletion requests/Irish money, thanks. Lcarsdata 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Derivate work based on non-free maps from encarta. Also applies to Image:Australia--Exploration--1881-1900AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1863-1880AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1821-1837AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1501-1525AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1601-1610AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1641-1698AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1681-1780AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1781-1790AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1791-1821AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1837-1858AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1858-1862AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1863-1880AD--UA-01.jpg Image:Australia--Exploration--1881-1900AD--UA-01.jpg --Peta 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unfortunately they are derivative works. Note there is also: Image:Australien--GeodaetExtrema--RS01.jpg Image:Australien--UeberseeEntfernungen--RS03.jpg, Image:Australien--Wüsten--RS01.jpg, Image:Australia--Exploration--1611-1640AD--UA-01.jpg and Image:Australia--Exploration--1501-1600AD--UA-01.jpg --Astrokey44 09:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and replace with free equivalents. I suggest using Image:Topography of australia.jpg as the base instead. Brisvegas 11:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 20:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
No source given. -- Omerzu 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
picture of the screen at Comic Con rather than a direct pic of topher grace at comic con -- Yonatan talk 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Editor at Large --ALE! ¿…? 09:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This picture is not older then 100 years. It is by an unknown author and not taken by user Torvindus or user Rolling Thunder in de:Wiki. copyvio. --Rlbberlin 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This picture is not older then 100 years. It is by an unknown author and not taken by user Torvindus. copyvio --Rlbberlin 01:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Images by User:Elin87
[edit]Not in scope, not encyclopedic or educational. Commons is not a personal photo album. -- Editor at Large • talk 17:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The status of the image doesn't seem to be very clear to me. "copyright free image from English Wikipedia"? Why "copyright free"? Tschichold died in 1974, he's not a young man on the picture, so it's quite likely that the photographer's 70 years p.m.a. didn't pass yet. Stated is "Source=self-made" - although one could read this as GearedBull claiming to be the photographer, I think it is more likely that this user just edited the picture as indicated by the somehow unclear description, and doesn't have the right to decide its licensing status. Gestumblindi 04:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --Polarlys 17:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
discontinuation of publisher does not imply PD for images taken in 1980 --Kjunix 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This image is sourced to Flickr[68], where it is tagged as cc-by-sa-2.0. However, the photo is copyright 2006 Getty Images: [69] --Muchness 06:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete User does not seem to understand what copyright is. He has shots from websites, newspapers and different kinds of promotional images released under cc-by-sa. As per above I doubt it is his own photo.
- Though if one with a Flickr account could try contact him and try sort it out it would be great. --|EPO| 09:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The image has, according to the link [70] been released for Editorial use. I believe that the use of this image on Commons is justified in this regard, and does not infringe on the copyright of Getty Images due to the fact that the use of the image on Commons (in my view) meets the criteria set out by the copyright holder, Getty Images. Pursuant to this, I move that the image be kept. Matt.T.911 12:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- This image is not available under a free license – that is, the copyright holder does not permit the image to be used by anyone for any purpose. As such, it falls outside Commons' project scope. --Muchness 15:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, let's look at it another way: this image is not truly the image that the source website displays for two reasons. One: the image displayed on the source website has a "Getty Images" watermark, whereas the image on Commons does not. Two: Even if they were exactly the same image (watermark and all) there is no copyright pertaining explicitly to that image on the source website. Given that there's no copyright available, I'd be inclined to believe that the image in question is in the public domain. --Matt.T.911 15:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- This image is not available under a free license – that is, the copyright holder does not permit the image to be used by anyone for any purpose. As such, it falls outside Commons' project scope. --Muchness 15:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted, obvious copyvio --Polarlys 00:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of the permission of the women pictured; image is an orphan; Commons:Freedom of panorama obviously doesn't apply; and " Freyja.”" is a joke or does not yet apply. — Jeff G. 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete All the photos of this Flickr user are likely to be copyvios, he's just a fan of this type of stuff. If he really was the photographer, there would be links to photography related pay sites. --Para 16:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete I agree looking at the Flickr user's account that it is unlikely he owns the copyright to all those images. There is also the personality rights issue given the lack of evidence of permission from the subjects. WjBscribe 13:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete EXIF info for image is very suspicious. Also personality rights is concern. --EugeneZelenko 14:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete LetsGoStros' account on flickr is now closed. I don't know the reason but this might be another evidence of copyright infringement. — Xavier, 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as a likely copyvio. --Kjetil r 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
procedural nomination, the author placed the tag and didn't put a reason. Probably because the image might be a copyright violation of http://library.byways.org/view_details.html?MEDIA_OBJECT_ID=61435 --Lucasbfr 10:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The source also indicates the image is in the public domain. I don't see any copyright problem. Lucasbfr 10:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Duh. howcheng {chat} 16:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Only for use in Wikipedia and only in articles of "proper quality" --Thuresson 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, unfree license terms --ALE! ¿…? 08:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe this photo is a self-portrait. (I saw it in a book of his photography, I believe--I can't find a copy via Google Images, though.) Mucha died in 1939; this won't be PD-old until January 1, 2010. --grendel|khan 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and uploader's history. — Jeff G. 16:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 10:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
no source on lt.wikipedia, surely copyvio, please delete it on lt.wikipedia as well --Polarlys 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 13:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
photograph of copyrighted work can't be gfdl'd --81.170.235.234 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I see, would it solve the problem if i took a picture of the artwork in another way? I feel that it would be good to give an example of the art that the artist Anders. A. does on the page about him.
- Not really, that's the point about the Wikipedia copyright rules. However you take the picture, I don't think Anders would be happy that his works can be reused for about everything, even commercial use. It's better to just link to an external page containing images of his works. /81.170.235.234 22:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio, if you want an example upload it to your local wikipedia as fair use. Lcarsdata 08:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Jusjih 16:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
seems to be identical to the MoD image (crown copyright), see here; http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConMediaFile.25062 -- 81.77.250.30 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --ALE! ¿…? 13:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted.--Jusjih 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
summary says he has permission from his friend but we don't have that permission -- Yonatan talk 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This image is terrible, we have to change.
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
copyright violation (see also name of file), Author does not seem to be the same person as uploader, image can be found here: [71] (in a smaller version) --Kjunix 15:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded the picture by order of the author, which has also written an official book over the history of the village "Mäusdorf". So there's no copyright violation... --Dominic_Egger
deleted (no permission sent) --ALE! ¿…? 12:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
description says "permission granted", but this is not creditable for maps published by German authorities --Kjunix 15:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Derivate work from a non-free source. All the map contributions from User:Ghuoargh are non-free maps from encarta or geoscience Australia with annotations added by the user. They include
- Image:Australasia--Schelfgebiete+Wallacea--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australia--States+Capitals--RS01.gif
- Image:Australis--Eiszeit--RS02.jpg
- Image:Australis--Eiszeit+Schelfe--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australien--GeodaetExtrema--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australien--Wüsten--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australien--Wüsten--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australien--UeberseeEntfernungen--RS03.jpg
- Image:Europa-Lingvoj--RS2006030842.jpg
- Image:Australis--Eiszeit--RS02.jpg
- Image:Australis--Eiszeit+Schelfe--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australien--UeberseeEntfernungen--RS03.jpg
- Image:Australien--Qld--Townsville+Thuringowa--UreinwohnerStämme--RS03a.jpg
- Image:Australien--Haupt-Landschaften--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australien--GeodaetExtrema--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australasia--Schelfgebiete+Wallacea--RS01.jpg
- Image:Australasia--Schelfgebiete+Wallacea--RS02.jpg
--Peta 03:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete derivative works as noted in the image descriptions. would be nice if they could be recreated though --Astrokey44 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
All deleted. / Fred J 09:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Source mentioned is Flickr (with correct license) but the photo bears a watermak "Getty Images / NHLI" which seems to be contradictory. Some more detailed information would be better... -- le Korrigan →bla 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can not find the image on Flickr --ALE! ¿…? 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 09:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Graham died in 1987, author isn’t „newepoch digital image“ and why GFDL? --Polarlys 11:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Same problem (not just paintings, also photos by unnamed individuals)
- Image:Peter-1954.jpg
- Image:Peter with his mother.jpg
- Image:Waters-Of-Lethe-1964.jpg
- Image:The-Blind-Fiddler-1947.jpg
- Image:Kangaroo Paddock by Peter Graham 1957.jpg
- Image:1949-017.jpg
- Image:1957-018.jpg
- Image:1956-068.jpg
- Image:1956-129.jpg
- Image:Peter-Graham-1947.jpg
- Image:Kangaroos-1954-68.jpg
- Image:BSA-500a.jpg
- Image:Peter-Graham-1953.jpg.
--Polarlys 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
These digital images are my creation. I took the photos of the paintings. I restored the photographs that were taken by Peter Graham or members of his family. I also own copyright of the original artwork. The GFDL seemed to be the most appropriate because I would like Peter Graham's name to go with the images if they are reused. If you want me to add more information or change anything please let me know --Newepoch 13:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe you could send an E-Mail with the formal proof that you are the copyright holder of all these images to OTRS. Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 07:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone want to make further inquiries about this? I am inclined to believe Newepoch (so Keep), but he hasn't edited since May and I don't think we will get an answer from him. (oops forgot to sign, but is was from me, Fred J)
- All in all we need an OTRS permission. --Polarlys 17:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is simple to contact, because the contact information is added to the template. It says "Contact via Jan Martin, Director of Lyttleton Gallery 2A Curran St, North Melbourne, Australia, 3051, Ph (03) 9328 1508". The last part is a phone number. Someone from Australia can call. / Fred J 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Their e-mail is listed here. I've sent Mr. Martin an E-Mail. Lupo 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- And did you get any answer? --ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a few hours ago. Mr. Martin confirms that Newepoch does own the copyrights to Peter Benjamin Grahams work. I'll forward the E-Mail exchange to OTRS now. Lupo 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and Keep, of course. Lupo 08:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please add {{PermissionOTRS|see the template for the format of the ticket number argument}} to the images, remove the deletion request warnings and also close this request? Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- No, I don't have OTRS access, so I don't know the ticket number. Even if I had, I think it's better if someone else looked at that confirmation. I don't like being judge and jury in one person. Lupo 14:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please add {{PermissionOTRS|see the template for the format of the ticket number argument}} to the images, remove the deletion request warnings and also close this request? Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 11:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and
- Yes, a few hours ago. Mr. Martin confirms that Newepoch does own the copyrights to Peter Benjamin Grahams work. I'll forward the E-Mail exchange to OTRS now. Lupo 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- And did you get any answer? --ALE! ¿…? 07:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Permission received -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
May 18
[edit]Copyright Violation, not allow Fair use --孔明居士 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Greudin 12:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Greudin: only fair use:(, not free :(, low res :(
Lacking source info --Kameraad Pjotr 11:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Luis Vicente de Velasco2.jpg
copyright tucoo.com / psv -- Michiel1972 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Thuresson: Football club logo, PSV Eindhoven
Private image -- Tomasz Chorwat 15:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope. MECU≈talk 16:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons is not private photoalbum -- EugeneZelenko 15:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, out of scope. MECU≈talk 16:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I have the same doubts 88.134.140.64 has about the same Flickr user - see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MandyMoore.jpg for details. And this is a duplicate. — Jeff G. 16:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I agree that the flickr user is not likely the owner/author. Communication with the flickr user to clarify their ownership status would be beneficial if someone wants to retain/undelete this image. MECU≈talk 16:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Built in 1939, therefore still copyrighted. Freedom of panorama does not apply to statues in the Usa. --User:G.dallorto 18:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- delete per nom (we have deleted a similar image just a short time ago) --ALE! ¿…? 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 16:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Built in 1939, therefore still copyrighted. Freedom of panorama does not apply to statues in the Usa. --User:G.dallorto 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom (we have deleted a similar image just a short time ago) --ALE! ¿…? 20:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 16:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The image description claims that SS veterans are pictured along with UPA, however this is not supported with sources nor is it evident in the picture, which shows UPA soldiers and scouts. It is not clear why the uploader thinks that SS soldiers are portrayed. -- Riurik 04:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Its true there is no evidence of any Galizia SS venetans among the UPA veterans on that photo. Also after observing visually, I dont see any Galizia veterans, only UPA ones are visible.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 64.56.235.16 (talk • contribs)
Keep Wrong description is no reason to delete the image. Fix the caption instead. Wojsyl 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Ok, I guess that is a good point. What is the next procedure? Is it the "badname" template or something else?--Riurik 19:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert but I would copy it to another name and then file a badname request for the old copy. Wojsyl 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Re-uploaded the image with another name see here. The old image was tagged with "duplicate," instead of "badname," since I am not the original uploader.--Riurik 19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good, I have replaced the links in 3 articles on Polish wiki (also corrected the captions where applicable). Wojsyl 21:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert but I would copy it to another name and then file a badname request for the old copy. Wojsyl 20:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:UPA veterans berezhany ternopil 2006.jpg
Lacking source info --Kameraad Pjotr 11:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- From here: [72] A painting from the 18th century, license is OK! --Herbert Ortner 19:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I added also Image:Luis Vicente de Velasco1.jpg to this request. --ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Luis Vicente de Velasco2.jpg deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 21 May 2007; not edited for 8 days
Deleted I guess. Rocket000 07:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Derivative work -- EugeneZelenko 15:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Per nom - also appears to be outside project scope. WjBscribe 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete silly. Majorly (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Most likely made by German military -- EugeneZelenko 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think they claim copyright though, and the image is at least 64 years old. --J.StuartClarke 15:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Terms of copyrights protection in Germany is 70 years. --EugeneZelenko 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Has copyright ever been claimed though? --86.135.209.139 18:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Point is that copyrights can be claimed potentially. --EugeneZelenko 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- If someone claims copyright to a photo of a tank they made or saw whilst working for the Third Reich then I'll be quite surprised, but if it's the rules... --J.StuartClarke 10:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, § 64 UrhG--Polarlys 11:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Lacking source info --Kameraad Pjotr 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - npd, nld, nsd. Lcarsdata 08:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This picture is a logo and shouldbe deleted, but maybe this picture is allowed, because it's a logo of public transport forn Spain (does look as if). --D-Kuru 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I don't think this is eligible for copyright. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- KeepHi, this image is drawing for Transantiago (in Chile), and it doesn't a copy logo from any place. It's a drwa but it doesn't use logo of Metro or similar. Superzerocool 03:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (sysop at es.wikipedia)
- Keep The image don't show the copyrighted logo of Transantiago so its ineligible for copyright. --B1mbo 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The image don't show the copyrighted logo of MTransantiago --Masterdjinn 02:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not deleted --D-Kuru 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Better version available. -- Greyskull 17:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Support, Comment other version is here: Image:Beach Street Penang Dec 2006 014 remake2.svg--DieBuche 14:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, the better version was deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This picture is a logo and shouldbe deleted, but maybe this picture is allowed, because it's a logo of public transport forn Spain (does look as if). --D-Kuru 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- not eligible for copyright -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Hi, this image is drawing for Transantiago (in Chile), and it doesn't a copy logo from any place. It's a drwa but it doesn't use logo of Metro or similar. Superzerocool 03:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC) (sysop at es.wikipedia)
- Keep The image don't show the copyrighted logo of Metro de Santiago so its ineligible for copyright. --B1mbo 17:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The image don't show the copyrighted logo of Metro de Santiago. --Masterdjinn 02:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not deleted, because now {{PD-ineligible}} --D-Kuru 14:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This image is from Santiago de Chile, no Spain, I'm chilean and I use this public transport. This image is very inportant in a group of articles called Transantiago, and delete in a bad action.
(Sorry for my very bad english)
double posting for testing the license -- NicoleB72 05:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please do not use the upload form to test licenses. Lcarsdata 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Double posting of what? Lcarsdata 08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It was for testing it should be speedy deleted. Majorly (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Fred J 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the site of the wildlife service: "Not all the information on our site is in the public domain. Some images/graphics are licensed for use under the copyright law, and the use of the Service logo is restricted to official publications (see below)".[73] -- DieBuche 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work -- EugeneZelenko 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 13:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The image content cannot be determined. It is clearly a monument, but it is not evident whether this is a monument of the SS-Galicia. -- Riurik 04:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
kept (no copyright issue), apply {{Rename}} when needed --ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a wish from a contributor. Quality of image is inferior. --GeorgHH 09:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Majorly (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
no reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 09:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Built in 1939, therefore still copyrighted. Freedom of panorama does not apply to statues in the Usa. --User:G.dallorto 18:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't a statue, though, it's part of a building facade. That makes a significant difference. Night Gyr 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- You reasoning is correct, since if the facade were the main subject, then Freedom of Panorama could be invoked, which is possible in the Usa. However, here we have the close-up detail of the sculpture, not a general view of the facade of which this is but a detail. There is no "facade", here, just a relief. Therefore FOP may not be invoked, in this case. --User:G.dallorto 13:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Does a relief qualify as a statue? --ALE! ¿…? 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have written "works of art other than buildings and landscapes" rather than "statues". Or, in this case, to make a long story short, "sculptures". My mistake. --User:G.dallorto 10:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- You reasoning is correct, since if the facade were the main subject, then Freedom of Panorama could be invoked, which is possible in the Usa. However, here we have the close-up detail of the sculpture, not a general view of the facade of which this is but a detail. There is no "facade", here, just a relief. Therefore FOP may not be invoked, in this case. --User:G.dallorto 13:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
right of likeness violation and title missed --N.C 13:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- This does not seem to be a valid reason for deletion. --ALE! ¿…? 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- (db/即時削除)すいません、この件については本人依頼で即時削除をお願いします。special rapid(会話/talk/対話項/履歴/history/en/zh)09:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
19:47, 18 August 2007 Zirland deleted "Image:Jal-boing767 sakitoku.jpg" (In category Other speedy deletions; no permission)
I have done a mistake and I have wrongly named this flower -- Stef1432 13:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please upload the image under the correct name and put {{Bad name}} on the old image --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This picture is a card with a logo and should be deleted, but maybe this picture is allowed, because it's a logo of public transport from Spain (the article does look as if). --D-Kuru 18:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 18:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep this is {{PD-textlogo}} or not? --ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that it is a textlogo, but maybe {{PD-ineligible}}
- --D-Kuru 23:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
tagged with {{PD-ineligible}} and kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
May 19
[edit]Logos aren't allowed, but what about pictures of logos. We discussed (german) the problem of such pictures. --D-Kuru 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 09:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will tag this for deletion per mail from JW. -Susanlesch 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zzyzx11: Derivative work of a fair use logo
Miss naming and uploading. Correct name is "H-II-GTV" image. I don't have a "H-IIA-GTV" image. -- Masamic 12:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)(midified) -- Masamic 16:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:H-II-GTV.jpg
screenshot of copyrighted software -- ChrisStubbs 19:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - copyright infringement of Microsoft and possibly the website being shown.
I do not like it -- 91.89.157.230 19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's not a reason to delete photos. Thuresson 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy keep - Invalid deletion reason, 'I do not like it' is not a reason to delete images. Lcarsdata 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually just a box cover -- Night Gyr 00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the author died over 70 yrs ago. I think it's a copyvio. -- Herr Kriss 18:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unless someone can quickly prove that it isn't as Herr Kriss suggestst, this one should go. Wpedzich 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I can remember I took it from some PD-resources page. In fact I don't know its author, so maybe it'll be safer to delete it. Vindicator 19:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Old (incomplete) deletion request of 18. Mai 2006 by MPF
copyvio from listed source --GeorgHH 20:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The source is not available. --GeorgHH 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Old incomplete deletion request of 25. Mai 2006 by Anna
http://www.regioncentre.fr/home.php?num_niv_1=99&num_cons_1=5 copyrighted --GeorgHH 21:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Harmonia axyridis larvae 3.jpg is better cut -- Rupp.de 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - deleting it will not save disk space (it will actually use more) and it is nice to have images that show more. I recommend putting number 3 in the other_versions section of number 2 and vice versa. Lcarsdata 08:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Multiple versions are okay. MECU≈talk 15:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sculpture: Derivative work. FOP is nc only in Japan. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: FOP in Japan is nc
A photo of Adolf Hitler. The full record for this photo shows that the photographer is w:Heinrich Hoffmann (1885-1957). The LOC do not claim that the photo in any way is public domain. Hitler did not visit New York to have his photo taken by New York World Telegram. --Thuresson 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - since the image was taken after 1923 it is not pd-old. Lcarsdata 08:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete --Poirot 13:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- Contrary to what the nominator says, the Library of Congress page does indeed say clearly "No known restrictions on publication." [74] Andrew Levine 06:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete all the same. The Hoffmann photos are PD only in the U.S. They are not U.S. works, though, and are copyrighted in Germany. They are also copyrighted in other 70years p.m.a. countries. Lupo 11:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Image is unused; its only previous use was in an English Wikipedia article where it was subsequently removed (and the same editor was indefinitely blocked [75]). --EVula // talk // 15:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Unlike Wikipedia, Commons is intended to be an image repository; unused images are perfectly acceptable. Krimpet 15:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but what about images that were uploaded for vandalism purposes? EVula // talk // 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have nominated such images for speedy deletion on Commons before, and they have been deleted for not coming under project scope. riana_dzasta 16:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I have also nominated such images for deletion, and they have been kept. Kjetil r 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this image was uploaded by a vandalism-only user. There is no reason to believe that he/she actually has rights to it. In any event, it is now on Wikipedia's bad image list so it is blocked from our end. --BigDT 16:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - while the Wikimedia Commons is not censored, this image is clearly out of project scope. Lcarsdata 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Uploaded for vandalism. Source is therefore untrustworthy as far as determining copyright is concerned. Also it is outside project scope in that there are higher quality images available to illustrate this topic- Commons should not becomne a repository of exhibitionist images. Checkusage shows no projects using this image. WjBscribe 17:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Update Okay, the user has been unblocked on en.wiki,[76] but I still feel that, given its usage in questionable edits, the fact that other editors have noted that it isn't within project scope, and other concerns (such as it being of lower quality in comparison to similar items), it should still be deleted. EVula // talk // 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)- Wikimedia Commons is not censored, this image falls within project scope. Nevertheless, I a copyright violation. This image is probably replaceable by an image with a clearer copyright status, so Delete -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I assure you that I am the copyright owner of this image, and that it was uploaded to illustrate the topic. However, if you agree that the image is not helpful to illustrate the subject to which it pertains, I have no objections to its deletion.Alembic922 04:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I feeling very bad that ! It's scandal that user udapted some picture like that ! / Je me sens vraiment mal de voir des images comme celle ci ! Je pense qu'il y a des utilisateur qui exagère ! Mikani 08:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Well then delete it already! I am very sorry that I shocked and offended you all with this image. I took the picture, am the owner of the image, decided to release it (I thought in a way that was appropriate to its content); I see that I should not have done so on this website. You should really make your rules more explicit if you intend to censor content like this. Please be assured that I will never post anything here again. I hope that helps you all sleep well. Now just get rid of the picture that offends you so. Alembic922 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not used in any Wikimedia project. Thuresson 20:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No information about authorship, the source is not working anymore and no authorization was explicitly given -- Dantadd✉ 15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Sculpture: Derivative work. FOP is nc only in Japan. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MECU: FOP in Japan is nc
Not the oficial logo, sexual conotations --Alex:D 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. The official logo is not released under CC, see en:Image:Beijing2008 logo.png. Thuresson 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It has no information about the author --80.63.232.5
- Delete - npd, nsd. Lcarsdata 08:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 01:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
This image is not a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art; it is a photograph of a book which, to me, looks like it is raised up in three dimensions. Since there is no source and thus no way of verifying that the photograph is freely licensed, I say "delete". -- Iamunknown 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The book itself is clearly public domain so the image could be classed as a derivative and so must be released into the public domain. Lcarsdata 08:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Now that is surely a novel interpretation. Show me any source that says that there cannot be a copyright on a photo of a 3D object if the copyright on that 3D object itself has expired. It's just not true. Lupo 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is a photograph of a book, not a slavish reproduction of an image. Therefore someone holds the copyright to it; we, however, don't know who holds the copyright since we don't have the source of the image. Thus we do not know if this image is in the public domain or even if it is freely licensed. --Iamunknown 03:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 13:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Evolution of Chinese Pictograms and all image under it
[edit]can be replaced by COM:ACC(Commons:Ancient Chinese characters:214 radicals Chanueting 07:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - there is no harm in keeping superseded images and the table on that page is actually useful. Lcarsdata 08:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment some of the information is not correct at all. Chanueting 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - your view point has changed a lot. How do I know you are not just saying that to get it deleted? Anyway I suppose I should AGF. Lcarsdata 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep then. Please close this request.(actually, some of the Chinese character in not correct at all. I would like to use this rather then this, as Lcarsdata said we should keep it, then keep it. I trust his choice. ) Chanueting 06:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama does not apply to statues in the Usa. However the statue is not the main feature, so does fop apply after all? --Rainer Halama 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the sculpture is not the main subject of the image --ALE! ¿…? 08:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
A photo of a wax figure is a derivative work. --Celithemis 22:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have made that photo by my own. It was made in Dunte (Latvia) within the "Museum of Munchhausen" after paying for the permission to make professional photos. The Dunte's "Museum of Munchhausen" hosts the wax works exhibition with several figures belonging to the latvian history. The photo should not be deleted! --Exxu 09:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please provide some kind of proof that you paid for and were granted permission to make professional photos at the Museum, and the license terms of that contract? MECU≈talk 15:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Photos from Yugoslavia
[edit]It is not true that photos from Yugoslavia are public domain by default. The succesor states have their own copyright laws. Some of these photos are from other countries than Yugoslavia. --Thuresson 00:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Tito-brionska-izjava.jpg
- Image:Tito-poza.jpg
- Image:Tito, josip broz.jpg
- Image:Titoindiranaser.jpg
- Image:Tito-gadafi.jpg
Image:Tito-i-nixon.jpg
- Also an offical photo of the USGov, beacuse Tito was with the president, and a photographer who is not an government official cannot take such good pics of the two. The licence is on the pic, so this one does not beling here.
- Also an offical photo of the USGov, beacuse Tito was with the president, and a photographer who is not an government official cannot take such good pics of the two. The licence is on the pic, so this one does not beling here.
- Also an offical photo of the USGov, beacuse Tito was with the president, and a photographer who is not an government official cannot take such good pics of the two. The licence is on the pic, so this one does not beling here.
- I disagree. It could well be a news photo. The image apparently was taken at an assembly of the UN in 1960.[77] Besides, what's that halo around the head of the second person from the left? Lupo 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also a photo made by the british government before 1957, while Churchill was still primeminister. So PD. The licence is there.
- Also a photo made by the british government before 1957, while Churchill was still primeminister. So PD. The licence shpould be put there.
Well, as i put on the two in the USA, they area alos pics from the USGov, that is surely. And it is defeinte that all picas, except maybe with Nasser and Indira aree made in Yugolsvia. Bironska izjava is made on Brijuni, SFRY (today Croatia), so made and puvlished durning SFRY. With Gadafi also, he came to Belgradi to Beli dvor durning Tito's rule, so made in and puvlished durnig SFRY. The portraits of Tito are surely made by the Yugolsva government, beacuse he was adorend in SFRY and many of his portratits were made by the government, or the official portraiters of Tito. So, all except Image:Titoindiranaser.jpg, are surely made in and published durning SFRY. --Poirot 09:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a reputable source to verify your claim that every litterary or artistic work made in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1943-1991 are public domain. Thuresson 18:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wait a sec. SFRY collapsed in 1991. 5 new countries were created, all with differenet laws. Also, the laws are different from the lwas of the SFRY. So, as the SFRY has no legal succesor, the laws (unlike the Third Reich which has a legal succesor), do not apply for any videos, or pics created by the SFRY government, or by any official of the government, and are published in the SFRY. Beacuse all of these were made by Yugoslav officials, and were pulblished in the SFRY, the laws do not apply to them, and they are PD. --Poirot 13:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a reputable source to verify your claim that every litterary or artistic work made in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1943-1991 are public domain. Please provide a source for your claim that SFRY has no legal successor. Please provide a source that can verify that these photos were taken by employees of the Yugoslav government. Thuresson 14:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- you provide that it is not as I said, and you will also have proof. If you do not find, than my theory is correct. --Poirot 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's not how copyright works; that's not how Commons works. We assume full copyright protection, unless proven otherwise. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have found a reliable source that indicates that the SFRY has no legal successor: [78]. However, I cannot find proof that this means that government work is PD. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I found some more information about copyrights and the former states of the SFRY: [79]. Still nothing on governmental work. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- In terms of copyright, all the successor states have continued the international obligations of the SFRY. The SFRY was a member of the UCC since May 11, 1966, and so are all the successor states. See Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, and the list of UCC (1952) members. All these countries started out by taking over the last copyright law of the SFRY, which had a 25-year from publication copyright term for photographs. See also Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 3#PD-Croatia? and this old discussion. Lupo 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was member of the Berne Convention since 1930.[80]. The SFRY signed the Stockholm Act of the Berne Convention before 1968.[81] It also signed the Paris Act on July 24, 1971, and ratified it in 1975. The Paris Act of the BC entered in force with respect to the SFRY on September 2, 1975.[82] Note that there is an explicit "declaration of succession", so clearly the SFRY does have legal successors when it comes to the Berne Convention. Lupo 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, I find these "made by this or that government" claims unfounded. These may well be news images. News reporters routinely do photograph meetings between heads of state, don't they? Lupo 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- In terms of copyright, all the successor states have continued the international obligations of the SFRY. The SFRY was a member of the UCC since May 11, 1966, and so are all the successor states. See Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, and the list of UCC (1952) members. All these countries started out by taking over the last copyright law of the SFRY, which had a 25-year from publication copyright term for photographs. See also Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 3#PD-Croatia? and this old discussion. Lupo 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- you provide that it is not as I said, and you will also have proof. If you do not find, than my theory is correct. --Poirot 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
They aree made by the government --Edgar Allan Poe 17:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide evidence for that? Lupo 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you that they are not. They surely would not allow smoe newsreporter to take sucha good photo of such meetings. The govermnent later released the pics to the press. --Poirot 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:Thuresson is right, although he doesn't know why. There is the Agreement on Succession Issues of the Former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [83], signed in 2001. Its Annex G, Article 3 says: "The successor states shall respect and protect rights of all natural and juridical persons of the SFRY to intellectual property, including patents, trade marks, copyrights, and other allied rights (e.g., royalties) and shall comply with international conventions in that regard."
- User:Bryan's claim that "SFRY has no legal successor" is plain wrong: The preamble of the agreement says: "Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Slovenia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, being in sovereign equality the five successor states to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, ...".
- The question of Yugoslavia's legal successor has been heavily disputed in the 1990's. Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) claimed that they were the sole successor of SFRY according to en:Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties, since the "renegade" republics have seceded. There was no unanimous consensus on that issue, but since Serbia-Montenegro does not support its claim any longer, for the purposes of this deletion procedure, we can safely assume that there were five successor states, each with its own copyright law, under obligation to comply with international conventions in that regard (as mentioned by User:Lupo).See [84] and [85] for more information. --El Cazangero 22:12, 14 June
- Can you that they are not. They surely would not allow smoe newsreporter to take sucha good photo of such meetings. The govermnent later released the pics to the press. --Poirot 18:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
2007 (UTC)
- So you say that all the succesor countries protect the pic on thei own laws ? So, all of these official goverment meeting pics can gon under {{PD-SCGGov}} beacuse they are govermnet pic protected by the Serbian law ? Ist taht correct, or are they copyrihgtad and cannot go on commons with any image tag ? PLease explain ? --Edgar Allan Poe 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Do you relay want to knwo ?! Tehn go and read it: [86]. --El Cazangero 18:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- So you say that all the succesor countries protect the pic on thei own laws ? So, all of these official goverment meeting pics can gon under {{PD-SCGGov}} beacuse they are govermnet pic protected by the Serbian law ? Ist taht correct, or are they copyrihgtad and cannot go on commons with any image tag ? PLease explain ? --Edgar Allan Poe 10:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sory, I do not have a law degree, so please tell me. Yes or no ? So you say that all the succesor countries protect the pic on thei own laws ? So, all of these official goverment meeting pics can gon under {{PD-SCGGov}} beacuse they are govermnet pic protected by the Serbian law ? Ist taht correct, or are they copyrihgtad and cannot go on commons with any image tag ? PLease explain ? --78.3.97.44 16:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Can anybody answer my question ? --78.3.121.48 13:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
All deleted. As Lupo said, images need to have a source, and just assuming they are PD because they are believed to have been taken by a certain government, first published in a certain country before a certain date is not acceptable. / Fred J 11:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Uploader claims that any work from Vichy France is public domain by default. The successor to Vichy France is the Republic of France, so I assume that regular French copyright law is applicable. --Thuresson 00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You assume wrong, the 2 countries did unite, but the laws of Vichy France were different from the 5th republic laws, so the cannot be applied. --Poirot 13:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please provide a reputable source who can verify your statement about French copyright law. Thuresson 14:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- you provide that it is not as I said, and you will also have proof. If you do not find, than my theory is correct. --Poirot 19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- This looks like a photo from the 1920s or 1930s. Do you have a source who can verify that this photo was taken in Vichy France? Thuresson 12:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can show that this image was indeed PD in France. Lupo 11:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is an official Vichy government photo, so it is PD beacuse the Vichy France, as it self, has no succesor. The unification i sa different thing, beacuse the laws changes. So PD. I also uploaded Laval m.jpg, whivih is PD beacsue it was took in 1935 in moscow, so it is PD-Russia.
- Also an {{Anonymous-EU}}. Beacsue the author is unknown, the pic is took more than 70 years ago ina country withe the copyright law of publication +70 years. --Edgar Allan Poe 16:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted (bogus or at least doubtable explanation; if the uploader can proof his theory, than he can start an undeletion process.) --ALE! ¿…? 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
May 20
[edit]Bad file name: inconsistent with others in the series. Re-uploaded with better name -- Roger Davies 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Tagged for speedy deletion as {{Duplicate}}. Jahiegel 05:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Lorraine American Cemetery and Memorial 3.jpg
improperly sourced image, uploader on wikipedia was not creator of the image,was taken from an unspecified flickr user (bare image url provided) -- Night Gyr 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete After searching flickr, there was no license specified. V60 干什么？ · VContribs 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Also Flickr images can only be licensed under CC licenses and 'All rights reserved' - that one was licensed under the GFDL which seems unlikely (but nevertheless still possible). Lcarsdata 08:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. copyvio, flickr source is all rights reserved and nothing to state GFDL license otherwise obtained. MECU≈talk 15:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
derivative of the copyrighted wikipedia logo without permission. --Elian Talk 02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake! It was thought for a proposal on Wikimedia for a Travel Wiki, and I forgot to set it up here for deletion afterwards. So, yes, please delete! --Manuel (Diskussion) 10:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Since there is no move function, I re-uploaded the image under a better name Image:Mtl. Biosphere in Sept. 2004.jpg. Obviously, this object is not former Montreal mayor, Jean Drapeau. Please delete ASAP. -- Abebenjoe 08:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sculpture in Central Park, USA, age unknown, but probably to young, therefore still copyrighted. Freedom of panorama does not apply to statues in the USA. --Wuselig 08:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Sculpture by José de Creeft.[87] Commissioned in 1959. Lupo 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Info sculptor en:Jose de Creeft died 1982.
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
typo cemetEry not cemetAry -- Roger Davies 10:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Bad name}} (if you are the uploader) or {{Duplicate}} in the future. MECU≈talk 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a band logo -- ChrisStubbs 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but the Licence of the original source is Attribution-NonCommercial 1.0 and noncommercial can't be used here. --Lyzzy 19:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
{{PD-Art}} does not apply to three-dimensional works. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Different Metadata for the same user. --Tarawneh 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{PD-Art}} does not apply to three-dimensional works. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 10:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC) ---
- deleted. --Tarawneh 19:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
{{PD-Art}} is not applicable to this photograph. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 10:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Deleted. James F. (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
{{PD-Art}} does not apply to three-dimensional works. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 10:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Deleted. James F. (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Boleslas Biègas died in 1954, which is less than 70 years ago. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 10:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Deleted. James F. (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Louis-Ernest_Barrias,La_Nature_se_dévoilant_devant_la_Science,1899,Musée_d'Orsay_Paris03.jpg
[edit]The photograph appears to be taken too recently for its copyright to have expired. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 10:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Deleted. James F. (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Antonin_Carlès,1851-1919,Hommage_à_Goudouli,Capitole_de_Toulouse,_Salle_des_Illustre.1892.jpg
[edit]This photograph appears too recent for its copyright to have expired. -- —LX (talk, contribs) 10:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC) Deleted. James F. (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
catlogue des pompe hidrolique -- 81.192.12.139 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Unless I'm missing something this one should be kept. It appears to be an orginal photo by en:User:Aarchiba of a parked excavator and seems unlikely to be an image from a catalogue. If the suggestion is that this a copyvio could the nominator suggest the alleged source more precisely? One might have queried on the basis of project scope, but checkusage shows it is being used in articles on en.wiki, fr.wiki, he.wiki and ta.wiki. WjBscribe 17:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept; I also don't see why it should be deleted. / Fred J 13:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Aus_C_10Feb2005at0657UTC.jpg and most pics in Category:Weather maps generated by WeatherChecker 1.9
[edit]since this system was abandoned, all pics uploaded using it should probably be deleted, except for the 5 or so that were requested not to be deleted in the last deletion request (I believe it's the September ones). These ones weren't deleted because they weren't uploaded by WeatherBot but rather by David Vazquez before he had a special bot account for it, I guess. All unused pics should be deleted. -- Yonatan talk 00:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Why? Deleting images doesn't save space (it in fact uses even more space) and there is no harm in having unused images. Lcarsdata 08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- As a wikinewsie, I don't really care either way (its really old). But I would like to point out we are currently in the process of restarting the weather service, so the system isn't entirely abandoned anymore. Bawolff 21:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a derivative work of the original Jesusland map (see en:Image:New map WEB.jpg), and so is subject to copyright restrictions by the original creator. —Bkell (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The most maps of Earth are drawn and painted before Wikipedia and Wikicommons were born. The many-many maps on Commons are redrawing of pre-existing maps. Alex Spade 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, the idea of a map with "blue states" transfered to Canada is ineligible for copyright protection. Kjetil r 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that? If so, then we should replace this with the original image (en:Image:New map WEB.jpg). —Bkell (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- May be. But this image is more accurate. It's in PNG, not JPEG, there are borders on them. Alex Spade 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should elaborate more. It seems to me that there are three general possibilities here:
- Neither the original map (en:Image:New map WEB.jpg) nor the redrawn map (Image:Jesusland.png) enjoys copyright protection.
- The original map enjoys copyright protection, but the redrawn map is free from copyright restrictions.
- Both the original and the redrawn map are subject to copyright restrictions.
- The second possibility is easiest to dispose with: The redrawn map is very obviously a derivative work of the original, so if the original is under any kind of copyright protection, this protection applies to the redrawn map as well. Thus, there is no reason to have this redrawn map; it can be no freer than the original.
- So the question comes down to whether the original map is eligible for copyright protection. I believe it is, as a form of an editorial cartoon. While Kjetil r is correct that ideas cannot be copyrighted, the expression of an idea can be. Open any newspaper to the editorial section, and you will find cartoons expressing political or social ideas in a creative (and often humorous) manner. This is exactly what this map is doing. I don't believe there is any dispute that editorial cartoons are copyrighted; why is this image any different? It is a novel and creative expression of frustration with the outcome of the 2004 U.S. presidential election.
- So it is apparent that the second possibility above cannot hold; either the first or the third must be the case. I think it is clear that the original map enjoys copyright protection as a creative work, so this redrawn version is bound by the same restrictions. —Bkell (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the original may have problems passing the threshold of originality. // Liftarn
- Why is that? If so, then we should replace this with the original image (en:Image:New map WEB.jpg). —Bkell (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The easiest would probably be to ask Jeff Minter, I don't think he'll have a problem with it. // Liftarn
- weak delete because the colors and text are very similar. If it was a map which marked the provinces and states in a different color scheme I think this would be ok as it would be factual information. But here, elements of the design have been copied, not just the facts of which state is which. --Astrokey44 13:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. In many cases USSR is painted as RED, accroding to you, for Commons, we must paint it as GREEN. This is nonsense. Alex Spade 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strongly keep This is not der.works. This map consist of North America Map (there many free of them), five words (words are uncopyrighted), and some color scheme for coloring. It's consist of trivial facts: this state is painted by red color, that province - by green color and etc. There are many another fictional maps of Earth (not Middle Earth, Tatooine and etc.) see Category:Maps of alternate histories. The color scheme for coloring of Earth map is trivial, so it's uncopyrighted. Statement "State A (country, region, town, city and etc.) is a part of the union Super WWW" is fact, facts are uncopyrighted. In other case, the many-many maps from Commons are der.works. Alex Spade 16:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- So again, if what you are saying is true, then the original image is uncopyrightable, and it is the original that should be here on Commons, not this redrawn version. —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can see my answer above, after your second thesis. But in additional to my previous answer - we don't know, is the contour map of original image copyrighted? For new image, all there components are free (free contour map + trivial words + trivial color scheme), for original image the freedom of contour map is unknown. Alex Spade 18:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, some users here (most notably User:Rtc) would claim that the original is ineligible for copyright. Personally, I do not think I agree, but I consider Image:Jesusland.png to be sufficiently original so that it is not a derivative work. Kjetil r 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- So again, if what you are saying is true, then the original image is uncopyrightable, and it is the original that should be here on Commons, not this redrawn version. —Bkell (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, should the colours be changed? That is a trivial change. Unless "Jesusland" is a trademark the name shouldn't be a problem. // Liftarn
- On the one hand, I doesn't see necessity of changing for colors.
- But the other hand, wny not? Color isn't principal ;-) Alex Spade 16:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- If we're going to keep this, we should at least change the colors to the conventional red and blue. It's certainly going too far to consciously copy the arbitrary color scheme of his particular map.--Pharos 02:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here's another version of this map: Image:Jesusland_map.png. Andrew pmk 13:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, though I created Image:Jesusland map.png, so feel free to discount me as having some kind of conflict of interest. On the plus side, however, the version I created at least uses red and blue ;o) — OwenBlacker 09:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Unused, superseded, outside project scope. -Nard the Bard 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
If someone bothered to supersede it, it's clearly in scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Taken from image page, was marked speedy. -- Siebrand 14:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, I already "voted" in the quoted material below. — Jeff G. 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright Violation
[edit]{copyvio|Implausible ownership claim. Seals/coats of arms are generally copyright; see the seal template on en.}
- Not a copy right violation
- The law of Tonga only forbids the use in business or where the suggestion may exist someone wants unrightfully to represent the Tongan government. See [88] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tauʻolunga (talk • contribs) at 07:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Where did this image come from? Did you, Tauʻolunga, design it, license it to the Tongan government for many purposes, and then at 00:53 (UTC) on 18 August 2006 suddenly decide to release the rest of your rights to it by uploading it to Wikimedia Commons with "cc-by-sa-2.5" permission? I seriously doubt that.
- Assuming, then, that you did not design that image, authorized use of the Tonga Coat of Arms is not authorized "for business purposes", not for commercial purposes, and therefore "noncommercial-only", within the meaning of "Commons also does not accept noncommercial-only content" per Commons:Licensing, and such use is therefore incompatible with Commons. Details follow.
- The 1988 Revised Edition of "the Tonga Royal Arms and Flag Act" ("ROYAL ARMS AND FLAG ACT - Act No. 17 of 1962 - AN ACT TO PREVENT THE UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THE TONGA COAT OF ARMS AND THE ROYAL ENSIGN", "His Majesty in Council", "Kingdom of Tonga") (as available online at http://legislation.to/Tonga/DATA/PRIN/1988-007/RoyalArmsandFlagAct.pdf) clearly states the following (fully justified):
- 2 Restriction on using Coat of Arms or Flag.
- A person shall not, without the authority of His Majesty in Council, use in
- connection with any business, calling or profession the Tonga Coat of Arms or
- Flag of Tonga, or arms or flag so resembling them as to be calculated to deceive,
- in such manner as to be calculated to lead to the belief that he is duly authorized
- to use the Coat of Arms or the Flag of Tonga.
- 2 Restriction on using Coat of Arms or Flag.
- 3 Use for business purposes prohibited.
- The grant of authority to use the Coat of Arms or the Flag shall not authorize the
- use of the Coat of Arms or Flag for business purposes or for use on any patented
- article.
- 3 Use for business purposes prohibited.
- Even if you were given "The grant of authority to use the Coat of Arms", you still do not have the right to use it "for business purposes", and you may not transfer any right you do not have. — Jeff G. 16:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see your problem now (I hope). Not so much the issue as whether the seal can be used in such a free, non business, surrounding as wikipedia, but whether I had the right to put the cc2.5 license on it. I thought it that it applied to the construction I did, not the original. Apparently I misunderstood. But in that time (much improved now) choosing a license at an upload was an extremily confusing task. If you can suggest a better license I am happy to change it. If not, would it be really in wikipedia's educational interest to have the seal of all countries, all provinces, all cities over the whole world, removed? Tauʻolunga 06:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- If it were on English Wikipedia and used for fair use, that would be ok. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. — Jeff G. 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. It seems to be a lawyers' quibble to me, but if that is the way it is, then that is the way it is. All right then, all seals will be removed from commons, but we can put them with fair use in any language wikipedia where they are still needed. You do that, or whoever wants can take care of any seal in any language? And flags too, I assume? Tauʻolunga 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner. Regarding lawyers, it is lawyers who would represent His Majesty in Council in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida when suing the Wikimedia Foundation for copyright infringement via its servers in St. Petersburg, Florida, lawyers for the Wikimedia Foundation who would have to defend such an action, lawyers (in the form of United States Federal Judges) who would decide the case or handle appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and lawyers (in the form of United States Supreme Court Justices) who would handle appeals to the United States Supreme Court. I don't want that to happen, and I don't think you want that to happen.
- As I understand the situation, per the Wikimedia Foundation Licensing Policy Resolution of 23 March 2007, you may upload a copyrighted seal or flag for fair use purposes to any language Wikipedia which allows you to do so under an EDP (such as the English Wikipedia Non-free content Policy), but the fair use cannot go beyond what is allowed by US copyright law because US copyright law is the most stringent copyright law of all of the copyright law which covers all of the servers operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. — Jeff G. 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank for your answer. All right go ahead. Be done with it. As long the picture is stuck here it cannot be fairly uploaded on a local wikipedia. Tauʻolunga 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why is that the case? I uploaded it to English Wikipedia as w:en:Image:Sila ʻo Tonga — Coat of arms of the Kingdom of Tonga.svg. — Jeff G. 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank for your answer. All right go ahead. Be done with it. As long the picture is stuck here it cannot be fairly uploaded on a local wikipedia. Tauʻolunga 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your answer. It seems to be a lawyers' quibble to me, but if that is the way it is, then that is the way it is. All right then, all seals will be removed from commons, but we can put them with fair use in any language wikipedia where they are still needed. You do that, or whoever wants can take care of any seal in any language? And flags too, I assume? Tauʻolunga 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- If it were on English Wikipedia and used for fair use, that would be ok. Fair use is not allowed on Commons. — Jeff G. 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hold on. I say Keep on this. The restrictions mentioned by Jeff are trademark-like restrictions pursuant to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, article 6ter. Similar restrictions apply to basically all official state emblems, but they have nothing to do with copyright. It's perfectly fine to show such emblems, even in commercial contexts (e.g. in a commercially sold booklet on state emblems). Only using the emblem (e.g. placing it on a commercially sold object or its packaging to imply some sort of official approval, or incorporating it into a trademark) is subject to express authorization. Lupo 07:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: according to Coat of arms of Tonga, the COA was designed in 1875. Lupo 07:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- However, there is some point that has been raised at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Grundsatzfragen: the foundations' licensing resolution, which is binding for all projects, is based upon the definition of "Free Cultural Works" as given on freedomdefined.org. The licensing resolution states that all project shall host only works that are free in the sense of the freedomdefined.org definition. Limited exceptions are allowed under so-called Exemption Doctrine Policies (EDPs), but the Commons is explicitly barred from having any such EDPs. Now, the problem is this: freedomdefined.org states that a "free" work "must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above." That would mean that we'd need to look beyond copyrights, and that the foundation's licensing policy did not consider COAs and the like "free" works, even if they were fine copyright-wise, because their use is often restricted by other laws. Ugh. Looks like the overarching "free culture" activism expressed at freedomdefined.org has some rather drastic and unpleasant consequences for us. Lupo 09:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Quoting from Eloquence, from the mailing list: the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_". It does not require the absence of impeding moral rights restrictions. However, since "Public Domain" is not a free content license, this still is ambigious for us. I think I am sending a message to the mailing list. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- This has got nothing to do with moral rights. It's a trademark issue, or, if you like, an issue of sui generis emblem laws (like that Flag Act cited above). Lupo 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this has anything to do with moral rights. What I tried to explain, is that I assume that the Licensing resolution was not meant to delete images that are under additional restrictions, but that this is something that might be overlooked when the resolution was made. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- This has got nothing to do with moral rights. It's a trademark issue, or, if you like, an issue of sui generis emblem laws (like that Flag Act cited above). Lupo 20:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Quoting from Eloquence, from the mailing list: the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_". It does not require the absence of impeding moral rights restrictions. However, since "Public Domain" is not a free content license, this still is ambigious for us. I think I am sending a message to the mailing list. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- However, there is some point that has been raised at de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Grundsatzfragen: the foundations' licensing resolution, which is binding for all projects, is based upon the definition of "Free Cultural Works" as given on freedomdefined.org. The licensing resolution states that all project shall host only works that are free in the sense of the freedomdefined.org definition. Limited exceptions are allowed under so-called Exemption Doctrine Policies (EDPs), but the Commons is explicitly barred from having any such EDPs. Now, the problem is this: freedomdefined.org states that a "free" work "must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above." That would mean that we'd need to look beyond copyrights, and that the foundation's licensing policy did not consider COAs and the like "free" works, even if they were fine copyright-wise, because their use is often restricted by other laws. Ugh. Looks like the overarching "free culture" activism expressed at freedomdefined.org has some rather drastic and unpleasant consequences for us. Lupo 09:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: according to Coat of arms of Tonga, the COA was designed in 1875. Lupo 07:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Inclined to vote "keep" unless someone explains how this national emblem has a status significantly different from the other hundreds of national emblems hosted on Wikimedia Commons. This situation is what Template:Insignia was invented for... AnonMoos 03:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is also something I start to wonder. It looks to me a campaign against this emblem in particular and maybe a few more, but not against the majority others. For the rest I do not care. Neutral vote. Tauʻolunga 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a precident here. It may be that we have just not taken the time to talk this thing through until now. So let's do it for this image and assess, based on the outcome, if anything has to be done about the other images that fall into the same category. Siebrand 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- What did you have in mind? The long-standing practice here at the Commons was to allow insignia (COAs, flags) if they were fine copyright-wise, and maybe add {{Insignia}}, in accordance with our tradition of only considering the copyright status of an image. Individual Wikipedias and other projects could use such insignia under an EDP. The commons may not have EDPs as per the licensing policy, and that licensing policy does seem to consider usage restrictions as they exist on insignia not acceptable as per the definition of "Free Cultural Works". So, what options do we have? We could copy insignia to all 200+ projects, set up an EDP for insignia on each of these projects, and delete them here. That'd be compliant with the current WMF licensing policy, but an awful waste of time, effort, and resources. Or we could try to get the WMF to authorize EDPs at the Commons. Then we could still be compliant with the policy, draw up an EDP for insignia here, and be done. Or we could try to get the WMF to drop that problematic "other restrictions" condition, but that might be difficult, as freedomdefined.org doesn't seem to be a WMF entity. (Even though Erik and Angela are involved in both. I'll never understand how in heaven's name the WMF could give the authority over such a central definition out of its hands. The WMF, not some other entity, should define what's free enough for WMF projects. the WMF should do so in its own licensing policy, and not rely on an externally controlled definition.) Or we could simply ignore the WMF licensing policy. See also these threads on the mailing list: [89] and [90]. Note that this policy issue not only concerns insignia, but also e.g. images showing people (such as this one, as such images cannot be used without the subject's consent in an advertisement in many jurisdictions). What other options are there? Lupo 11:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am very, very, very much against non-free content on Wikimedia Commons. I'm even very much against fair use in any Wikimidia project. I think fair use actually harms Wikimedia projects in the long run, both legally and in growth potential of really free content. We are dealing with Commons as a meta project only here, though. However we treated content in the past is no reason to treat it the same at this point in time. Views and insights can alter.
- As for the coats and the flag: there are many different kinds of them. National insignia and flags, provincial insignia and flags, municipality flags, sub-municipality flags, insignia and flags from other gouvernment related organisations (water boards, armed forces related, policy, firefighting related, etc.). For each country and intity law and rules of usage may be different and all these sub classes of flags and insignia by country by type cannot be treated as one. For each we have to establish its license status.
- In this particilar case, we are, as far as I can see, dealing with a national coat of arms of an independant state, en:Tonga. As far as I know, we declare all of those to be in the public domain, whomever created it and whenever, unless the source was a website with restrictions on distribution (like FOTW), in which case the image has to be recreated. Siebrand 07:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.s. if you think we have a freedom problem, it might be a good idea to consult the organisation you mentioned and ask them how they perceive the content in light of their definition of free.
- I agree with your first point. The question is indeed "what is free?" For me, free means "unencumbered in terms of copyright". The freedomdefined.org definition goes much further. It's an utopian definition not really useful for applications outside of Utopia. Wikimedia projects are not Utopia. Images of COAs, flags, people, design-protected objects such as cars, freedom-of-panorama images (since in some jurisdictions, those must not be modified), official documents (ditto), all seem to fail the freedomdefined.org definition even if all these images were fine copyright-wise. That has got nothing to do anymore with building encyclopedias or publishing free knowledge, that's pure activism of a splinter group. And yes, I am in the process of contacting the WMF about this. Lupo 08:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- What did you have in mind? The long-standing practice here at the Commons was to allow insignia (COAs, flags) if they were fine copyright-wise, and maybe add {{Insignia}}, in accordance with our tradition of only considering the copyright status of an image. Individual Wikipedias and other projects could use such insignia under an EDP. The commons may not have EDPs as per the licensing policy, and that licensing policy does seem to consider usage restrictions as they exist on insignia not acceptable as per the definition of "Free Cultural Works". So, what options do we have? We could copy insignia to all 200+ projects, set up an EDP for insignia on each of these projects, and delete them here. That'd be compliant with the current WMF licensing policy, but an awful waste of time, effort, and resources. Or we could try to get the WMF to authorize EDPs at the Commons. Then we could still be compliant with the policy, draw up an EDP for insignia here, and be done. Or we could try to get the WMF to drop that problematic "other restrictions" condition, but that might be difficult, as freedomdefined.org doesn't seem to be a WMF entity. (Even though Erik and Angela are involved in both. I'll never understand how in heaven's name the WMF could give the authority over such a central definition out of its hands. The WMF, not some other entity, should define what's free enough for WMF projects. the WMF should do so in its own licensing policy, and not rely on an externally controlled definition.) Or we could simply ignore the WMF licensing policy. See also these threads on the mailing list: [89] and [90]. Note that this policy issue not only concerns insignia, but also e.g. images showing people (such as this one, as such images cannot be used without the subject's consent in an advertisement in many jurisdictions). What other options are there? Lupo 11:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as a precident here. It may be that we have just not taken the time to talk this thing through until now. So let's do it for this image and assess, based on the outcome, if anything has to be done about the other images that fall into the same category. Siebrand 08:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that anything bearing Template:Insignia when there is in fact one or more "restrictions" is by definition "not free", and is therefore not compatible with Commons. — Jeff G. 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then you should also consider Image:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg not "free". If you wanted to use that image in an advertisement, you could do so only with the subject's written consent in many jurisdictions. The image is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.5 and thus fine as far as copyright is concerned, but personality rights still apply for certain uses. Lupo 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- What did the subject of that photograph license it for? Can we get that license in written rather than verbal form? — Jeff G. 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can have the Hamburg Police department sent an E-Mail to the OTRS. I'll request it on tuesday when I'm back home. --Dschwen 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. — Jeff G. 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is requested. Non the less, per Template:Personality rights I am solely responsible for ensuring that I do not infringe someone else's personality rights. Which makes this my problem and - pardon me - not yours. I know that I in fact have the permission and per AGF and a little trust this should be a non issue. --Dschwen 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry, Dschwen, nobody is questioning your actions at all. Read the template again: it talks about re-users of that image. There are restrictions on re-uses of this image and other such images. The "free cultural works" definition the WMF has adopted in its licensing policy does appear to not consider the work "free" because of this. That's the problem! Lupo 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, too, Dschwen. I was not questioning your good faith, and I'm sorry if I appeared to be doing so; you were the one who brought up that image in the first place. — Jeff G. 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, no need to be sorry, in fact I'm sorry that my response came across a bit harsh :-). I was just trying to boil down my POV to the essence. But Lupo is right, the you in the template is directed at the user, while I mistook it as an uploader information template. Yeah, well, stupid policy, see my rant here [91]. --Dschwen 22:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is requested. Non the less, per Template:Personality rights I am solely responsible for ensuring that I do not infringe someone else's personality rights. Which makes this my problem and - pardon me - not yours. I know that I in fact have the permission and per AGF and a little trust this should be a non issue. --Dschwen 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. — Jeff G. 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can have the Hamburg Police department sent an E-Mail to the OTRS. I'll request it on tuesday when I'm back home. --Dschwen 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- What did the subject of that photograph license it for? Can we get that license in written rather than verbal form? — Jeff G. 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then you should also consider Image:HH Polizeihauptmeister MZ.jpg not "free". If you wanted to use that image in an advertisement, you could do so only with the subject's written consent in many jurisdictions. The image is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.5 and thus fine as far as copyright is concerned, but personality rights still apply for certain uses. Lupo 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is also something I start to wonder. It looks to me a campaign against this emblem in particular and maybe a few more, but not against the majority others. For the rest I do not care. Neutral vote. Tauʻolunga 06:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to say keep too. One of the nations I deal with the most, Belarus, has a similiar restriction on the national emblem. What the the Belarusian law says that anyone can use the emblem as long as they are not trying to act like agents of the government. This law that was pointed out, I believe it means the same thing. The law states that we cannot use the arms to deceive people that we are agents of the Royal Government. The second part says we canno take sections of the arms or flag to use in a logo or for advertising purposes. I feel that we are safe. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, wikipedia allows insignia. And if what Sieband says is correct, then there can hardly be any problem. Mr Mo 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept for now. / Fred J 11:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
May 21
[edit]A small mistake...--PhiLiP 10:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: content was: '{{delete|A mistake...|Editing Image:Polychaeta anatomy zh.svg}}PhiLiP 10:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)' (and the only contributor was User:PhiLiP)
copyright violation; it's a en:Template:Non-free DVD cover --Salander 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Please use {{Copyvio}} or another speedy delete in the future. MECU≈talk 15:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The image is tagged as non-free film screenshot. However, it is own work as stated by uploader. Either to provide it under a free license or it should be deleted. -- Meno25 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as copyvio. Please use {{Copyvio}} or another speedy delete in the future. MECU≈talk 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in USA -- EugeneZelenko 14:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in USA -- EugeneZelenko 14:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. MECU≈talk 15:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
shows a copyrighted website -- Prince Kassad 17:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 17:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
(Old request, that was never listed --ALE! ¿…? 12:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
copyrighted, see: [92] User:Anna 25 May 2006
Delete Logo of region of France. Clearly unfree content. WjBscribe 17:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Against policy; not edited for 1 days
nonsense, like „No-Sarkozy“, „No-Bush“ and so on. Like most of the content of Anti logos. See project scope. --Polarlys 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not "nonsense"; it's intended to express a certain political point of view, and does so reasonably effectively without ascertainably violating copyright restrictions. AnonMoos 20:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is no encyclopedic use indicated. --Polarlys 23:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I maked it as replacement for image with disputed license. It's used in template(s). I may upload it to Wikipedia, but why image with good license can't be at Commons? ~ putnik 04:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - clearly out of project scope, IMHO most anti- logos should be deleted as they provoke arguments and could upset people. Lcarsdata 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's just an image with a "no" sign slapped over it, which we could do for pretty much any controversial person and end up with thousands of these. I don't see much educational or cultural or encyclopedic use for it either. --Delirium 00:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Not used in any Wikimedia projects outside user pages. Thuresson 21:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
outside of project scope -- Prince Kassad 17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. Thuresson 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I doubt that the licence is correct (and couldn't find anything about free use on the source-page). --NoCultureIcons 02:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, promo photo. MECU≈talk 15:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a logo, but I'm not sure if it is maybe allowed --D-Kuru 00:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 00:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that it is not allowed on the Commons. However, German laws permit the publishment in de:Bild:Bundesliga-Logo 3D.svg --Pumbaa 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: not {{PD-self}} -> logo
Mario Botta is a living artist. No freedom of panorama in Italy, sorry :-( . --User:G.dallorto 12:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate copyvio request today. --User:G.dallorto 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MichaelMaggs: Mario Botta is a living artist. No freedom of panorama in Italy, sorry
no source and athor given since upload --D-Kuru 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. It was used on En:Delian Slavov but that article was deleted as Non Notable. / Fred J 13:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
No mention of GFDL on source site. -- -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Fred J 13:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It is obvious that this user is malicious and disruptive. He steals and then publicizes in his own name, rather than contacting the author of the file to resolve any differences in oppinions regarding the file that I (Rainman) have published in commons.wikimedia.org under the license. User Zlin has broken the rules set by the above mentioned license and thus commited a violation of a part of copyright set by CC-BY-2.5 license. This is why I want his contribution in a form of a file to be deleted from the commons.
Proof: When my file is displayed in a 613px (613 × 599 pixel) resolution it is the same as the stolen file (ends with .PNG - in capitals).
It would be in all ways different thing have I published under the GNU license, which I have not done in order to prevent from dishonest use of the file.
In all of the languages of the southern Slavic origin the word zli means in English language the word evil. This user came on the commons to harase yours truly (e. g. myself) hence the lack of files published by this author.
And another thing. We should publish files in the greatest resolution possible, not the lowest, respecting the rule of minimizing the file size, but maximizing the quantity of information.
Thank you for your work.
Rainman 20:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Odd. Clearly disruption. Delete -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
D. (→O - RLY?) 18:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This is maybe a foto af an italian flag, but not selfmade --D-Kuru 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 00:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is not an Italian flag, for sure. This is the symbol of a Polish sport club named MKS Varsovia Warszawa (Warsaw) Adress:Międzyparkowa 4/6 Warsaw. You can check this: http://www.sbmec.pl/~varsovia/ Arzotino.
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Superseded byImage:Wikinews-logo.svg. Almost completely orphaned after a few weeks of work, except for less than a handful of protected pages. -- Siebrand 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm strongly opposed to this deletion. This logo is used by all Wikinews project. I'm french Wikinews bureaucrat, this image is used by plenty of templates and pages. This image is not orphaned by our french wikinews project.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → (écrire) 08:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- It appears as if this image is not (or no longer) on use at the project you mention. As stated above, the one uses are on protected pages and requests had been made to replace the image at the date of this DR. Siebrand 10:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 11:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Image was tagged for deletion, which I reverted because the site states that the content is CC-by-2.5. However, after email conversation, it turned out that the logo does not fall under the CC-BY-2.5. I was also told that these restrictions apply. However, is the logo creative enough to be eligible for copyright? It is, by the way not registered as trademark. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Due to no evidence of the contrary, I am assuming it is copyrighed. But it wasn't used anywhere, so it's no big deal. / Fred J 17:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
this user is not the author of this image, and also he is a sockpuppet of the banned user:NisarKand from the English Wikipedia. He is known to upload images under the own work license. this is not his image and neither are the other 3. User:Le Behnam 21:42, 20 May 2007
- Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.JPG and Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.jpg should also be considered --ALE! ¿…? 11:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment . All 3 clearly have invalid licenses - the uploader is not the copyright holder. It seems likely these are old paintings now out of copyright, but without further information about the artist there's no way to confirm this. Anyone recognise them? WjBscribe 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- These images do have the correct licenses. I, PRTkand, am the uploader and the copyright holder of these pictures. I photographed them inside Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan by the full permission from the museum staff. I also have them loaded on to www.Flickr.com, so it's useless to make false claims against me because I am the copyright holder to all these images since I took the pictures with my own camera. You will not be able to find these images anywhere else online, like I said they are one of a kind. The original paintings are hanging in Kandahar Museum. If you claim that I am not the copyright holder then you must provide clear and convincing evidence, otherwise you are violating the rules of Wikimedia by knowingly and falsely accusing someone of not being the copyright holder when in fact they are the copyright holders.--PRTkand 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a mistaken assumption. Image's EXIF data does not show camera etc for the first two. On the third, EXIF claims the image was made with an Olympus C-740UZ on January 14, 2003... but apparently that camera model was first presented by Olympus at PMA in Las Vegas on March 2, 2003! (See List_of_Olympus_products, [93], [94], [95].) How can that be? It's up to you to provide proof that you are the copyright owner on these images. Send such proof to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, and mention clearly to what images it applies. Without such evidence, these images may be deleted. Lupo 13:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note that according to a Japanese news release from Olympus (as far as I understand it thanks to babelfish), the C-740UZ first went on sale in Japan in mid-May 2003.[96] So it seems highly unlikely that the C-740UZ was available anywhere before that March 2, 2003 date. Lupo 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Discussions of who took the photos aside, photographing someone else's work does not make you the author of the work in question (in this case, the painter is the author), nor does creating a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional work in itself merit any copyright protection, since the reproduction does not introduce any creative elements not already present in the work depicted. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's a mistaken assumption. Image's EXIF data does not show camera etc for the first two. On the third, EXIF claims the image was made with an Olympus C-740UZ on January 14, 2003... but apparently that camera model was first presented by Olympus at PMA in Las Vegas on March 2, 2003! (See List_of_Olympus_products, [93], [94], [95].) How can that be? It's up to you to provide proof that you are the copyright owner on these images. Send such proof to permissions AT wikimedia DOT org, and mention clearly to what images it applies. Without such evidence, these images may be deleted. Lupo 13:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- These images do have the correct licenses. I, PRTkand, am the uploader and the copyright holder of these pictures. I photographed them inside Kandahar Museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan by the full permission from the museum staff. I also have them loaded on to www.Flickr.com, so it's useless to make false claims against me because I am the copyright holder to all these images since I took the pictures with my own camera. You will not be able to find these images anywhere else online, like I said they are one of a kind. The original paintings are hanging in Kandahar Museum. If you claim that I am not the copyright holder then you must provide clear and convincing evidence, otherwise you are violating the rules of Wikimedia by knowingly and falsely accusing someone of not being the copyright holder when in fact they are the copyright holders.--PRTkand 13:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I never said I was the author of the original paintings that are hanging in Kandahar Musuem. I am the uploader and owner of these pictures is what I stated. User:Lupo, all that detailed search you made about my camera is irrelevant because the sources you provided are not from the Olympus manufactoring plant that actually physically put-together or build these cameras, and ship them to people but rather from different marketing agents of Olympus and other cameras. Products can be released to some individuals or organizations ahead of their original launching dates. I don't think I need to go further with explaining how and where I got my camera in January 2003. I am from Asia so perhaps we get our hands on some Asian products before you get them in the west. According to Olympus C-740UZ, the camera was out for the public to buy in 2003, the same year I took this picture with it, there are no months shown in the article or in its sources. I am the owner of these pictures and tons of others. I own several cameras, and by the way, I have fixed some of my pictures using Adobe photoshop, so the information of my camera may not be available on every picture. I will show you a link to www.flickr.com, showing these same images with copyright protection (all rights reserved) under my name. I also have many other paintings, several of Hamid Karzai, old historical paintings and real views of Kandahar. That's only if you insist. If you believe I chose a wrong license and can help me fix it to the correct license then that will be fine with me. Anyway, why are you all wanting my pictures deleted from here? I see many pictures uploaded by people on commons, similar ways I uploaded my pictures, and those are not under deletion but mines is because User:Le Behnam made false accusations that I am not the author. Since I produced or created this image on my PC, I believe I should be the author of my work, unless someone has a claim to this. I don't see anyone making a claim to this work, so you people still lack evidence to prove that I am not the rightful owner of this work.--PRTkand 23:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you cannot be the copyright holder of the pictures, because authorship is a status earned by making creative decisions to produce a copyrightable work, and faithfully reproducing a two-dimensional work does not involve such creative decisions. (Similarly, if I take a pen and paper and write down the script for Hamlet, I cannot call myself the author. There is no such thing as "author of a copy.") The only question is whether the copyrightable elements in the pictures (the original paintings) are GFDL-licensed and CC-licensed (unlikely), {{PD-Art}} eligible (in which case the licences must be changed), or copyrighted and non-freely licensed (in which case they would have to be deleted). Actually, it doesn't matter whether you or someone else took the photos, so long as the copyright status of the original works can be determined. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong again, this is a picture of a painting that is displayed at a public museum in Kandahar, Afghanistan, for the public to view it and take pictures. I am sure in your country, where ever you live, there is also a public museum for people to go in and take pictures of paintings hanging there. If the paintings that are hanging in the museums had copyright rules then I am absolutely sure that taking pictures of such paintings would not be allowed by the museums in the first place. Example, if I go to a museum in the United States and take pictures of George Washington's paintings, those pictures are considered mines, not of the museum or the government of the United States and or anyone elses. This is the case here, I took these pictures and the copyright to these pictures are totally mines, or to whoever I release my rights to. Since most museums don't restrict the public from taking pictures of paintings that are hanging inside them, well that means that whoever takes a picture of the paintings are given permission to claim copyright to "their own copy" of the paintings, which is in a form of a picture. The person in the painting, Ahmad Shah, who was the King of Afghanistan in 1700s had die over 100 years. So far you have not shown me any rules of commons that explains to me that I cannot upload a picture of a painting. Your argument is based on pure POVs.--PRTkand 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please read en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. Copying a public domain work does not make you the author, and you don't earn any copyright by doing so. Copies of public domain works remain in the public domain, and if the original work is indeed in the public domain, claiming that you hold the copyright of a copy or otherwise attempting to impose copyright or licensing restrictions is a criminal offence in the US under United States Code 17-506(c) and similar laws in other countries. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've read and the court decided in favor of Corel Corp., not in favor of the plaintiff (Bridgeman Art Library), so therefore, that decision supports me here. Although the decision or opinion was rendered in the United States, it does not apply to the laws of Afghanistan. Also, why you showing me laws of the USA when I had already stated I am from Asia? Anyway, you are trying to change the main subject, my "pictures" to the original paintings. I've never claimed to be the "author" of the paintings, which is something I can't be because the author's (artist's) signature (Tapand) is marked on the paintings. The original paintings are perhaps the property of Kandahar Museum in Afghanistan, and they do not have a policy to restrict photographs of these paintings because they allow the public to view and make personal photographs of them. I claimed to be the "copyright holder of these pictures" that I uploaded to Commons, which were taken of unknown paintings by unknown artist. This is what the license on Commons asks for, nothing else. Lets make it simple, show me proof that these pictures or images are somebody elses, otherwise no need to make false accusations.--PRTkand 19:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader shall provide proof. Besides, there is something fishy about the EXIF tag on the third image. I have provided sources (including an Asian source directly from the manufacturer!) that indicate that this camera model was not available at the date the EXIF data claims the picture was taken. Lupo 07:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Here is my proof showing that I am the copyright holder to these pictures ---->>>PRTkand's pictures. I, the uploader, provided convincing evidence to prove that I am the copright holder to all these pictures, yet nobody made any claims to the ownership of my pictures. I am unessary disturbed for no reason, probably due to someone who dislike me because I tell the truth. Also, the dates when pictures were actually taken are not always 100% authentic proof because cameras can be set to any date, sometimes purposely and sometimes by mistake, so the dates when a picture was taken cannot ever be 100% correct. It's the first time I ever saw someone arguing over this here.--PRTkand 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Afghanistan did not ratify the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works so the works are not obliged to be protected by copyright, even though this may be PD old. Madmax32 22:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept all as PD-Art (although I deleted Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.JPG as being superseded by Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.png) .
Lupo's main argument is incorrect. If a camera is relased in May 2003, its setting when you first turn it on will often be January 1, 2003.
I could see no other reason why they should be deleted.
May 22
[edit]It's a copy of Image:SkyExpress_B737.jpg and I think we don't need two same images. - Dmitry-spb 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as duplicate. Lcarsdata 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
no reason to flip and if it is done, it should be done to the highest resolution version -- Yonatan talk 16:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: low-resolution duplicate
better one -- Lopiadx 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- And which would that be? Siebrand 12:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 21 May 2007; not edited for 7 days
No use for this picture, and out of focus. Description is "Photo of tobacco packaging that has spent one week in my back pocket. Do with it as you please." I propose we delete. Deadstar 08:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar 08:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to be outside project scope. Was added to an article on nl.wikipedia by the uploader - [97] about a month a ago and hasn't been removed. Still I don't see it as a very valuable illustration of articles about rolling tobacco. WjBscribe 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 10:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
need to know location for freedom of panorama concerns, if location given and FOP does not apply then keep, if location not given of FOP fails, then delete -- MECU≈talk 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Location provided, seems okay to me. COM:FOP#The_Netherlands. Can be speedy closed if someone agrees with me it's okay. MECU≈talk 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- The only bit I'd query is the "made to be permanently located in a public place" part of the Dutch law. Its not clear from the photo if the sculpture is permanent. Might be worth checking that with the uploader, otherwise I agree. WjBscribe 18:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- All sculptures in the KMM Museum in The Netherlands are part of the permanent collection. Sorry it was not made clear by me at once.--Gerardus 12:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, Keep. WjBscribe 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- In that case,
Nomination withdrawn. MECU≈talk 20:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
He died in 1956 as a 12 yo boy, so it's not PD-Old, and "Officially public used picture" isn't reason to be PD. -- Herr Kriss 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete it isn't PD-OLD so.... delete it --Szczepan talk 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by MesserWoland COM PL 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that this picture is taken by the author when I look at his page on the englisch wikipedia (Ira Ko). I think this picture was only uploaded to fullfill his "hot asian chicks" gallery --D-Kuru 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. --Benn Newman 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Dantadd: no real souce, copyvio
I don't think that this picture is taken by the author when I look at his page on the englisch wikipedia (Ira Ko). I think this picture was only uploaded to fullfill his "hot asian chicks" gallery --D-Kuru 19:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The filenames verify my assumption --D-Kuru 19:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. --Benn Newman 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Doc7.svg.
Deleted by Dantadd: no real souce, copyvio
and Image:Doc77.svg.
Bad file: Firefox 2.0 doesn't display it. -- EugeneZelenko 15:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not in SVG format at all (doesn't contain a single tag) -- it seems to be image http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Natukawaj.jpg converted to Microsoft Word format, and then renamed with a ".svg" extension... AnonMoos 19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both. See also ../Image:Hotgirl.JPG. --Benn Newman 23:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
DELETE this already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Blaster12345 (talk • contribs)
- As the uploader has added their voice to the deletion request, I have speedy deleted it. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Infrogmation: Deletion request, agreed to by uploader
Hi. Replaced speedy delete with delete so I can ask this question. Commenter says it has no freedom of panorama, and is only an image of a trademark. If that were so, I'd agree with the speedy delete. But we have an unusual building here, shot with a shadow that knocks out other details, and a fortuitous combination of blue sky and complementary orange. The sum is totalling something much more than only a logo. Do you agree this store, and lighting is allowed? -Susanlesch 14:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - IMHO the focus of the picture isn't necessarily the Best Buy logo (and we're concerned with copyright issues rather than trademark ones). MECU probably wasn't sure of it which was why he tagged for speedy deletion rather than deleting himsefl. Yonatan talk 16:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While I agree there is more to the image than just the logo, I cannot see this being used other than "this is a Best Buy store" which then would highlight the logo. Especially since the image was cropped from the flickr source to specifically show the Best Buy store and little else. I initially put speedy deletion so that I would get confirmation to my suspicions. Upon further review, the author is from Canada, so it is like the store is in Canada which the freedom of panorama is therefore allowed and my initial deletion request seems moot. MECU≈talk 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
QuestionHello. When will this image deletion question be resolved? No rush as this is a volunteer effort. Also I would ask Mecu, why did this one of a Best Buy store come up for speedy delete yet this image of a Target store did not? Thanks for any information. -Susanlesch 07:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Because I thought of it then. I think the Target one should be deleted along the same lines as the BestBuy one, if it is decided as such. MECU≈talk 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Question Hello, Mecu. Pardon me, I don't follow. Above your descision was what? I read "Upon further review, the author is from Canada, so it is like the store is in Canada which the freedom of panorama is therefore allowed and my initial deletion request seems moot." I'd rather not have to check back here every day for another month to find out if the two articles to which these images are linked now have red links for deletions. So you now want to delete both images, is that correct? Best wishes. -Susanlesch 19:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep - rationale above. Hope this helps. -Susanlesch 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
kept, Canada has FOP --ALE! ¿…? 07:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actualy its in the USA, but thats covered by FOP too. --JuTa 22:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I suspect a copyvio with the "registered trademark" in the name. However, it comes from a Brazilian government website: http://www.serpro.gov.br/, so there might be a different license needed than the one that's on it? Deadstar 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar 14:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is a copyvio, works (including logos) made by brazilian governments are copyrighted. Manually orphaned at pt.wikipedia, deleted. Lugusto • ※ 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This picture is not freely use because add in it, it's someone's own work. I, creator of this picture, suggest to remove this picture. --Argus fin 03:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 13:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This image was taken by Ms Moorman on the day of the assassination of JFK. As far as I know, unlike some other famous pictures taken than day (such as Image:Hudson Exh1-Willis20-183.jpg), this one was never published in the Warren Report or the HSCA Report, so no "governement work" copy of this picture should exist under PD. I may be wrong, but I scanned again the WC and HSCA documents that are available online, and no copy of the Moorman polaroïd seems to have been included therein. I can also not find any kind of declaration by Ms Moorman allowing for th use of her picture under PD. This may be unfortunate, considering the historical importance of the picture, but so it seems to be. Bradipus 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence was presented to support the claim of {{PD-USGov}}. — Jeff G. 07:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 13:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Summary section says it's an album cover -- ChrisStubbs 20:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 14:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reason to think it creates a risk of seizure for people with photosensitive epilepsy. See this discussion on the en wikipedia and this w3C working draft section --DESiegel 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Note also this edit on the creator's talk page.DESiegel 21:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)- Er, that was a joke between friends...please don't use it as any kind of evidence.
Cary Bass demandez 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very well, pardon my misunderstanding. DESiegel 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did you mean this discussion ? Pigsonthewing 12:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. i thought i had linked it, but appear not to have done so. My apologies. DESiegel 14:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete, per nom and appears to breach WAI-WCAG Web Content Accessibility Guideline number 7.3: "Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages". Pigsonthewing 12:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Absurd. The above objections apply to use, not to the image. Is it free? Can it be used to benefit the project? JzG 14:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Free it clearly is. Its only use appears to be on user and user talk pages, to call attention to an indicator of the online or offline status of an editor. Is this a major benefit to the project? Surely it is a function that could be performaed by any of a number of images, incluing one that flashed ratehr more slowly, thius avoidign possible problems. Trust me, it is not funny when a computer image unexpectedly induces a seziure, and I have been present on such an occasion. DESiegel 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The kinds of things that one can come across here... amazing. If you're worried about seizures, just slow it down. I think that should cure that problem. Besides, any epileptic viewer should probably surf the web only with GIF animation (and flash, and...) turned off for maximum safety. Modern user-agents (aka browsers) do allow one not to play GIF animations. At least mine does. Lupo 16:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Free it clearly is. Its only use appears to be on user and user talk pages, to call attention to an indicator of the online or offline status of an editor. Is this a major benefit to the project? Surely it is a function that could be performaed by any of a number of images, incluing one that flashed ratehr more slowly, thius avoidign possible problems. Trust me, it is not funny when a computer image unexpectedly induces a seziure, and I have been present on such an occasion. DESiegel 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose208.70.120.2 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
just slow the blinking down
- Strong Delete. Just slow the blinking down?! Did you know that some people may be sensitive to rates as low as 3Hz (Reference)? This image has no educational value whatsoever and is a potential public health hazard. Aditya Kabir 05:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Does not meet deletion criteria. Rmhermen 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The deletion criterion should be potential public helath hazard. That is not covered, yet, by the existing criterion. I hope we would not be so bureaucratic as to ignore such a hazard just because it was not on the list. If you want evidence that it is a hazard, I'm sure it can be provided. Aditya Kabir 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Advise contributors to use alternative images. Public health hazard? Not too sure about that, epileptics usually take great care in making sure they are not exposed to seizure-causing sights. Or, just slow the blinking down to 1Hz. ˉanetode╦╩ 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- An interesting discussion is going on the Wikipedia regarding evidence of a potential public health hazard. It has been proposed there by me and a couple of other editors that we put a mandatory start button on blinking/flashing images, so that epileptics can decide on if they want to expose themselves to the hazard or not. That would be fine for images with an educational purpose. But, for an image which serves simply as salad dressing it may ruin its aesthetic value. That value will also be ruined if we reduce the blinking rate down to less than 3Hz. Isn't it wiser to delete the image than to painstakingly create a version useless for all purpose? Aditya Kabir 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete This is a public health hazard. We can't be selfish and keep it just because it's cool. I got a little dizzy just from looking at that thing! Something similar to this was on an episode of pokemon, and it cause 600 kids to have seizures. 208.120.123.117 21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you get dizzy from looking at it, then don't look at it! This isn't "http://please-the-medical-needs-of-every-person-commons.wikimedia.org/. Its free content, so keep it. ~ Wikihermit 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep For the reasons I said above. ~ Wikihermit 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep As per Wikihermit.--NAHID 10:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Do we actually know whether this image reaches the typical danger threshold? BTW, this says that 2-55Hz is the danger zone. If this image is outside that, then this discussion is pointless. Mike.lifeguard 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Strong keep - per Mike and Wikihermit
Kept:
- no evidence of such small image icon a health hazard....
- The proposed policy on English Wikipedia does not appear to have materialized.
- It is being used on several user pages.
In the beginning I set {{logo}}, because it looks like the logo of chrysler I think. However, it is also the logo of V Corps. Which is "a corps of the United States Army." (From my point of view the licence should be {{PD-US-Gov}} or something like that, even it's made by the author --D-Kuru 18:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
License was changed to {{PD-USGov-Military-Army-USAIOH}}
User:Rosenzweig has created with my, the original uploader's consent a better. higher quality image. This image here was only a working copy, as the title implies. --Wuselig 09:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate of Image:Seracher Dichterkreis.jpg, which is the preferred version -- Rosenzweig 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. — Jeff G. 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this picture is allowed, because it looks like a copyrighted logo. However, it is a logo at all --D-Kuru 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 09:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sourced from Independence Seaport Museum which gives no information its content is in the public domain. --Medvedenko 22:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- HOLD ON That image was given to us to use by the ISM. The email was sent to permissions@wikimedia.org. I don't know why the ticket was never posted. --Evrik 22:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Would someone please check the OTRS --Evrik 19:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment As it currently is, the permission is not sufficient, as it is a wikipedia-only permission. OTRS responded end May that the permission was not sufficient, but there have been no follow ups. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
May 23
[edit]- Old incomplete deletion request of 16. Jul. 2006 by User:137.226.101.101.
photo is useless --GeorgHH 08:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Not in project scope. Deleted Siebrand 10:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
New Version: Image:Russian Subjects merged.png -- Fremantleboy 09:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- no need for a deletion request. Use {{superseded|Image:Russian Subjects merged.png}}. Siebrand 09:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Superseded. Kept. Siebrand 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
corrupt file, new version Image:Russian Subjects merged.png -- Fremantleboy 09:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- (See entry last entry: Image:Russian_merged_subjects.jpg) - Same problem, I understood--Fremantleboy 09:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Corrupt image. Deleted. Please use {{Speedy}} for this type of problem. Siebrand 10:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
NOT gfdl picture -- 86.92.243.235 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: fair use, see Commons:Licensing
This file was uploaded with info from the en.wiki version of this image [98]. However the original uploader says he found the file on it.wikipedia under the same filename. The image does not exist on it.wikipedia under that filename and the it.wikipedia deletion log has no entry for this image [99]. It doesn't therefore seem possible to confirm whether this file was indeed uploaded to it.wikipedia and if so on what terms. WjBscribe 23:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also Image:Mc72 profilo.jpg, same uploader and stated source with no entry that I can find at it.wikipedia [100]. WjBscribe 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's it:Immagine:Mc72 trittico.JPG and it:Immagine:Mc72 profilo.JPG (notice the case). // Liftarn
According to those files the images are copyrighted and commercial use is not allowed. As such the images are unfree and need to be deleted. WjBscribe 16:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- True, they should probably be deleted from En and It too... Or the license changed. // Liftarn
- Yeah, they can only be kept on en.wiki if a fair use claim can be made for them. WjBscribe 16:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Done non-commercial. Yonatan talk 02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I apparently misunderstood something and this doesn't belong here. My own upload. --User:Badlydrawnjeff]]
- Fixed request. Reason possibly that it's a copyrighted box design product thingy. Deadstar 13:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: per request of the uploader
Old incomplete deletion request of 6. Apr. 2006 bei User:Makthorpe.
I just uploaded this picture by mistake. It is a lower resolution, poorer reproduction than one already on commons- Image:Edouard Manet 004.jpg Missed it because not tagged, but that's fixed now.-Mak 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC) --GeorgHH 07:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The colours are very different. --GeorgHH 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 11:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Too out of focus to be of use. Topic is young hedgehogs. Deadstar 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar 09:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree--DieBuche 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wrong file again, sorry! The Effable Neutrino 03:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC) --Deadstar 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed request. Deadstar 15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Blurry and not a good file name --User:Immunity
- Fix request Deadstar 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Aren't images from second life copyrighted? --Kameraad Pjotr 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Linden Lab allows users to own the rights to anything they create in Second Life; see [101]. Each of the avatars was probably created by a different user, but they're relatively incidental; if User:Frankzweers created the avatar and the garden, I think it should be okay. --Davepape 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I made the picture myzelf. It is a portrait of my own Avatar. It is correct that Linden Lab allows the use of images made by users. They don't copyright those images. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Frankzweers (talk • contribs)
- Then there are two things that should be mentioned:
- There should be an extralicence for pictures of second life (maybe an extra category)
- What is the exactly relevance of those pictures?
For me it isn't a problem at all that those pictures get uploaded, but I'm not sure if there will be many people who want to upload their character on seond life - which is (again:) no problem for me at all. I only carry obout the useage of this pictures
- --D-Kuru 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Then there are two things that should be mentioned:
- In Wikipedia there where no pictures of Second Life. Only a lot of text. With my pictures I hope to give a better insight of Second Life to Wikipedia users. If you search Flickr you will find lots of SL images.
- That attitude sounds good to me, but that's not the crucial point.
- What I'm worried about is that everybody wants to upload his character, because of "He also is allowed to". No more, not less.
- --D-Kuru 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The engine of Second life is GPL, and the copyright of the avatars belong to their owners. I created {{Second life}} some time ago for this purpose. This image seems also to be fit the project scope. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Kuru,
I don't see the problem in more uploads of SL pictures. Everybody will contribute something else. Just as irl. And Wiki Commons is not about judging pictures. It is a judge-free collection of Media (see Commons:Welkome). Or did I mistake the purpose? Frankzweers 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe it looks like, but I don't judge that picture ^^
quotation:"For me it isn't a problem at all that those pictures get uploaded"- It's still not a problem for me and - from my ppoint of view - I didn't judge that picture, because I said I'm worried about something.
- Because there is a a licence tag for second life pictures, I would say that you can remove the {{self|GFDL}} licence.
- The next question is under which category we should categorise the Category:Second Life. I think the best category would be Category:Video games, because somebody renamedCategory:Computer games.
- --D-Kuru 06:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, you should not remove the {{self|GFDL}} tag. As it is written on the template: Note: this is not a copyright tag. Additionally a free license for the object shown is required!. Category:Second_Life can probably be created using an include in {{Second Life}} -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Not deleted because the image is not copyrighted and usefull --D-Kuru 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no information about who the copyright owner is and how and when a permission for free use was given. This photo was deleted from en: after due process at WP:PUI since the uploader was unable to show that a permission had been given (link). --Thuresson 16:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Files by User:Suschimoby
[edit]- Old incomplete deletion request of 9. Nov. 2006 by User:Voyager
no source given, PD is very unlikely.
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 11:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
harmful
Appears to breach WAI-WCAG Web Content Accessibility Guideline number 7.3: "Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages". Pigsonthewing 12:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is fine copyright-wise. Do you want to clear all animated gifs? If they bother you, switch off GIF animation in your browser. Lupo 16:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment: Have I nominated all animated gifs for deletion? Until I do, perhaps you might refrain from "slippery lope" arguments. 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have not asked about what you did, I asked about what your intentions were. And you avoided to answer my question. Lupo 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- "No". HTH. Pigsonthewing 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I have not asked about what you did, I asked about what your intentions were. And you avoided to answer my question. Lupo 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- comment: Have I nominated all animated gifs for deletion? Until I do, perhaps you might refrain from "slippery lope" arguments. 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The image is fine. --Chetblong 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I apparently misunderstood something and this doesn't belong here. My own upload. --User:Badlydrawnjeff
- Fix request Deadstar 15:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Fred J 14:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request Spellcast 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Flickr user not the copyright holder. A previous image added on commons from the same flickr user has been deleted: Image:Rihanna.jpg by an admin. Deletion log says image was from Getty images. Spellcast 17:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Arrrrgh! In the first photo in the set, it's credited to the AP, but it's not listed on any subsequent pages. However, almost all of the images are titled IMG_#### which suggests that they haven't been modified much since coming out of the camera, if at all (and they still have the EXIF data in them too). The Flickr user is Gamerscore Blog, which is made up of members of Microsoft's Games Global Marketing team, so it's possible that they obtained the images from the AP photographer. I've written an email to them to clarify. Hold off on deletion for at least a week. If I don't hear from by then, I guess we'll just have to assume these are AP photos. If I hear from them later, I can always undelete the image... Man, and I was so happy to find great a CC-BY-SA licensed pic of Kobe too. howcheng {chat} 19:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I just hope they had permission to obtain all the images on that flickr account because there's many other good images. We'll just have to wait and see. Gotta love copyright laws :P Spellcast 14:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, the week is over :-) -- Deleted
According to the description it's the Symbol of the Odyssean religion and logo of the Canadian Wiccan Church. However, I'm not sure if it's allowed, because of {{Trademarked}} --D-Kuru 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment {{PD-ineligible}} ? --ALE! ¿…? 11:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Zirland
According to the description it's the Symbol of the Odyssean religion and logo of the Canadian Wiccan Church. However, I'm not sure if it's allowed, because of {{Trademarked}} --D-Kuru 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's {{PD-ineligible}}
--D-Kuru 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
author is unknown, gnu-fdl impossible -- Frumpy 20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, bogus licence. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I used the proper {{Cc-by-2.5}} license requested by the producer who will remain anonymous for security reasons. This is like the Crackdown in Iran over dress codes[102]. Draconian measures in Iran like cutting women’s lips with razors because the women were wearing lipstick-see REVOLUTIONARY DISINTEGRATION (Jun. 26, 1995)-and such haven't been un-usual in Iran's since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.--Izba 03:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The author demanded to be attributed and to be anonymous? —LX (talk, contribs) 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The actual person who took the photo after the woman was punished by the morality police has to be anonymous. The Website it is posted on to which we are attributing this photo is not in Iran, of course, where it could get shut down. Therefore, we attributed using the URL.--Izba 08:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- So the stated licence is simply something that you hope the author would agree with. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't hope. Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License is at the bottom of the Website [103].--Izba 16:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- So the stated licence is simply something that you hope the author would agree with. Unfortunately, that's not good enough. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The website is not the author. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- All photos on the Website are available under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.--Izba 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot grant permission on a picture you do not own the copyrights of. Besides, being anonymous and requiring attributions is contradicting. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't grant any permission personally. The Website producer has licensed it under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5.--Izba 20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- You cannot grant permission on a picture you do not own the copyrights of. Besides, being anonymous and requiring attributions is contradicting. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- All photos on the Website are available under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.--Izba 17:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The website is not the author. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Izba: you don't make it clear if the author actually allowed his image to be used on http://www.radiozamaneh.org/ ?? / Fred J 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted (license is doubtful, we need the permission of the author of the photo) --ALE! ¿…? 08:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The owner states "(c) 2006 W.D. van den Top, Vierhouten, www.dorpvierhouten.nl The photograph has been taken by the person who uploaded it to Wikipedia and can be used for non-commercial uses by private persons, with mention of the source." To qualify for here, the photo needs to be free use for every circumstance, including commercial. Deadstar 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar 09:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- However, as the picture was appreciated, the user had been urged to change the license on his talkpage at Dutch wiki, and he did. But because the file has now been migrated to commons, I can't see the history of the orginal file and see what the user changed? Is there any way of checking this? Link is here for those with Dutch Will we assume that GDFL is indeed what he changed it to? Thanks. Deadstar 09:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, {{Eigenwerk}} was added by the user himself at Wikipedia (checked deleted revisions). --Siebrand 17:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. fix request 25 march 2007
Money of Algeria is copyrighted --Deadstar 13:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Why that? Source? --ALE! ¿…? 11:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, no proof for reason given --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Interstate Business template shields
[edit]- Image:Business Loop 00 Template.svg
- Image:Business Spur 00 Template.svg
- Image:Business Loop 000 Template.svg
- Image:Business Spur 000 Template.svg
Apparently these do not meet the specifications of the MUTCD, as the numbers are way too big. More images will be nominated later after I've uploaded the new images. See Interstate shields#Templates for making new shields (use my revision if somebody has edited the page) for the correct shields. V60 干什么？ · VContribs 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
More images and information:
- Image:Business Route 00 Template.svg
- Image:Downtown Loop 00 Template.svg
- Image:Downtown Spur 00 Template.svg
- Image:Downtown Loop 000 Template.svg
- Image:Downtown Spur 000 Template.svg
The original shields that were designed by SPUI are based off of the metric MUTCD, and new shields will be based off of the metric one, as the customary one's specs are misleading. V60 干什么？ · VContribs 22:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- This nomination makes no sense to me. Why can't you just upload over the old images if that is the only problem? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 12:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Because there were correctly named and formatted shields sitting around before these came up. These are now basically redundant to the ones that were here before these. See Interstate shields#Templates for making new shields for the correct shields and naming. (→O - RLY?) 21:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
May 24
[edit]The picture is LANDSCAPED, -- Domitori 14:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Siebrand --ALE! ¿…? 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a copyright commercial image available for purchase from WireImage[104]. --Muchness 17:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio. Archibald99 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded it before: Image:Maldini champions league.jpg. So both of them have to be deleted. Jarke 12:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Double --Vassil 23:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I see that it's a duplicate. I've changed the template to {{Duplicate}}; there's a speedy-deletion process for just this situation. Also, when reporting a duplicate, please specify the image that the deletion candidate is a duplicate of. grendel|khan 17:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: duplicate - other Image:NYC Public Library Research Room Jan 2006-1- 3.jpg
personal photos of a wikipedian's personal trip. There's not a family album. 20:13, 21 February 2007 Vilallonga
- The idea behind entering the photo is to show the "Club Med experience". This shows the type of activity done at the all-inclusive resorts worldwide. The article this picture attaches to is about a vacation type "experience" in an exotic place. This type of vacation would be something different than say a "family vacation" traveling throughout the United States.--Doug Coldwell 00:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed request. Above uploader comment from the Image talk page. I vote to Keep for reasons mentioned by Doug. I would not know what "club-med" is, and if this is typical, then by all means. Deadstar 10:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed request. Above uploader comment from the Image talk page. I vote to
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
error creating thumbnail -- Domitori 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --GeorgHH 14:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BulletBlueSkyDrums2.mid
image already exits with .gif extension. Image:Carretera Federal 10 Mexico.GIF --Deadstar 09:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
This picture can be deleted because a PNG version is also available, see Image:Budapest districts2.png --28 January 2006 User:Adam78
- Fixed request. Not sure if this is "superseded" or whether it is "duplicate" or not. Deadstar 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (thre is no need to keep the gif, if there is an identical png) --ALE! ¿…? 15:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Private image collection, out of Commons:Project scope --29 March 2007 GeorgHH
- Fixed request --Deadstar 10:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
kept (image is used) --ALE! ¿…? 15:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
mistakenly titled Clavecin 19:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I listed this for deletion because I gave it the wrong title. It can be kept if someone wants to change the title. I don't know who the tennis player is (it was a junior match), though it was taken at Wimbledon 2006. Clavecin 11:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (unknown player)
Copyright ? -- Alecs.y (disc. - contr.) 15:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
bad quality,best version uploaded --Vassil 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Colosseum in Rome-April 2007-1- 2D.jpg
Fragment of 3D artwork (amphora), so PD-Art can't apply. The larger image was previously deleted for same reasons (Image:Achilles and Ajax.jpg). Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC) -- Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 00:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think we can assume that a small piece of the cylindrical surface is flat. --ajvol 07:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- If the full-sized image (Image:Achilles and Ajax.jpg) was deleted because it was a copyvio, how would a cropping from it suddenly become free? Derivative work from a copyvio is still copyvio. Bibi Saint-Pol (sprechen) 12:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Derivative work on a 3D object; deleted. (→O - RLY?) 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
"I doubt NASA is a copyright holder for this image, even is was taken from it's site. --Panther 06:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)" Panther has doubted the license but tagged it no source speedy deletion in error, so I change it to regular deletion.--Jusjih 04:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it looks like a still image from an unknown video, not a photograph. I think it is possible to found an image with a more clear source. --Panther 06:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Note, the source was http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/facts_4.htm / Fred J 10:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The image is completely irrelevant to any articles and has the wrong license as it is a copyrighted logo created by Adobe. --Colds7ream 11:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's not an image, but a PDF. Please click on it to show the contents. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yea its not an image, ands it is the source for the commons copy of wikisource:Mir Hardware Heritage, and it is a NASA doc. there for Public domain.Clh288 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept, no copyright problem here. / Fred J 10:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this would fall under "derivative works" and may not be allowed --Deadstar 13:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Although this is a derivative work of a copyrighted image, it should be allowed under fair use because it is being used to illustrate Bender's importance in pop culture. See Futurama and Bender on Wikipedia. --Cheeesemonger 23:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Can a photograph of graffiti seriously be considered a copywritten image? It's in public, publicly viewable with no restrictions. I believe it's cool to leave up. Jablan 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You know its people like you that really piss me off, leave the fucking picture up there! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.20.49.238 (talk • contribs) at 10:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the man above me! Leave the picture up! Who is it hurting? It adds to the article, citing the shows popularity in countries other than the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Titiwaka (talk • contribs) at 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that this is a derivative work however if it is determined that it is can I request that it be moved to English Wikipedia so that it may be used under the fair use policy there. Stardust8212 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this qualifies as a derivative work. EVula // talk // 05:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with everyone except Deadstar, who, in my opinion, is an ignorant fool (and probably republican). Leave the picture alone, as stated above, it shows how popular Futurama is in other countries. MrNobody 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think this qualifies as a derivative work, but if it turns out to be a copyvio, I guess a lot of the pictures on Graffiti would be deleted. Spellcast 10:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted per COM:DW (please read the page). If you want to upload this image to English Wikipedia to claim it is fair use, you can make a crop of image:Bender_Futurama_Saint_Petersburg.jpg. / Fred J 11:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Dubious source. The flickr contributor is either a professional photographer with a very diverse range of interest or a copyright violator. This image [105] is the same as the above albeit cropped more. I suspect the original image oculd be found if someone tries hard enough -- Nil Einne 15:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Uploaded by myself in good faith, copyvio. Apologies for not noticing. Archibald99 17:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 11:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
It looks sneaky -- 88.114.34.188 18:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I have added the licensing. (Source: en-wikipedia) MrHope, 12:27, 27 May 2007 (CET)
Kept / Fred J 14:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There's absolutely no evidence that the Flickr user is the author of this picture. Browse his album and you'll see he's not a professional photographer. This picture is available only in a thumbnail size. Dantadd✉ 19:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. I agree with you. / Fred J 12:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned (see CheckUsage); low quality; appears to be a screenshot (see common display resolutions), which would indicate that the image is not be the work of the uploader. -- Iamunknown 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 12:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Problems with copyright: This picture shows of a modern postcard, depicting in a modern drawing a scene from an Ancient Egyptian tomb. Udimu 20:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC) --Deadstar 10:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Its a photo of a 2 dimensional work that is out of copyright. Faithful reproductions of copyrighted works do not attract copyright. WjBscribe 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Yes, its out of copyright.--Harry Wad 05:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Logo of http://www.elcasar.net/aboutme.htm & http://www.dguadalajara.es/municipios/casar_el.htm -- 12:17, 7 August 2006 User:Lmbuga
- Fixed deletion request. From the sites mentioned above, I don't see that the photograph is copyrighted by them. The first one has a very small version on the homepage (www.ecasar.net - I couldn't find it in the link above), the second page has a bad quality version of the picture. My Spanish isn't great, so maybe I'm overlooking something. Deadstar 09:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- From the user's talkpage it appears that a number of user's other uploads have been deleted because of lack of license. Deadstar 09:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
(Fixed request. Deadstar 09:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC))
Images from oceandots are 'enhanced'. The site operator has indicate that he does not like our usage of images from his site. --User:Gmaxwell, 01 February 2007
- So, and what was the "enhancement"? To crop and rotate the image? No big deal! I can do that too. Keep --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Non-free derivative work of the Mac OS X logo (see for example w:Image:All_boxes_of_apple_os_x_releases.jpg) -- Iamunknown 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
kept (you can not copyright a general typeface (see: {{PD-textlogo}}), so this work is in the PD) --ALE! ¿…? 08:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
because of CR restrictions outsite USA. 23 May 2006 User:Lofor
- Also, the text states it was probably taken around 1926, the PD-US states it's applicable for works from before 1923. So that license wouldn't apply in this case. --Deadstar 09:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry .. I mistakenly uploaded this picture from the en wp - please delete it in case of copyright restrictions. Kind regards, --Lofor 11:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. / Fred J 17:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
no proof this image was published in 1922, although it's possible this was taken when she became first lady of wyoming (ie. 1922), also possible copyright was not renewed but again, no proof of that either -- Yonatan talk 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- This link says it's a public domain photo, per the website this was obtained from. I would be surprised if Wyoming renewed copyright; while possible it seems rather unlikely. Almost certainly PD-US, given its common occurrence around the web and the link I mentioned. If it is deleted, it should be restored on en-wiki and marked as fair use at the very least. Carl Lindberg 05:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep unless it is shown the image is in the copyright registry. Remember in this case one must prove the negative (an onerous task!) so the burden should be reversed, ie showing that the image is in fact in the registry. Although I think it is probably not a 1922 photo, so the current license is not correct. -Nard 10:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Kept, on the balance of probability that the About.com editors bothered to check the copyright status. If anyone finds more specific information that contradicts this public-domain-claim, we can have another request and delete it then. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
May 25
[edit]Copyright Violation: I, Bret J. Fynewever, own this photograph and did not give permission for it to be posted on Wikimedia Commons. My original photo can be found at this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/36089418@N00/337682295/in/set-72157594446855868 --BretFynewever 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, copyvio (unless you would be willing to freely license it! :-)) --Iamunknown 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- (Oh, and to those who may be disbelieving, see the "Uploaded on December 29, 2006" on the Flickr image description page and the "03:09, January 4, 2007" log event on the Commons image description page. --Iamunknown 05:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
- deleted--Shizhao 07:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a copyright commercial image from http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=es&msa=10. --Jarke 16:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time please use {{Copyvio}}. --Dodo 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Taken from a screen, not of the actual subject. Still subject to copyright. --ShadowHalo 21:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Image was taken from a live screen while he was on stage. I uploaded it over a month ago when I didn't know those type of shots are not allowed. I have since learnt that these are copyvios and have also reported over a dozen other screenshots, which have now been deleted. Spellcast 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Editor at Large: Photograph of a screen displaying a video feed; the video/film is likely copyrighted making this an unfree screenshot.
Deleted at the English-language Wikipedia (see discussion) as a probable copyright violation. I agree: the original uploader has made very few other contributions (and some other uploads that are clearly copyright violations), it is professional in appearance, it is low resolution (self-photographed portraits should be higher resolution). I recommend that it be deleted. -- Iamunknown 05:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Photo by Paul Hawthorne / Getty Images; copyvio. [106] Carl Lindberg 03:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 18:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyviol. Pietro Cascella is a living artist and Italy has no freedom of Panorama. --User:G.dallorto 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Request changed into {{copyvio}}
Deleted by EPO: Derivative work
Unnecessarily gratuitous. Doesn't add anything that multiple sketches in Category:Fellatio don't already cover. -- pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - I don't know what you mean by saying that it is gratuitous, but this photo illustrates something that obviously needs to be illustrated in real life, not just sketches. The Wikimedia projects are not censored, and shouldn't be.
- They're not censored. As I said, we have sketches. Why exactly does it "obviously" need to be illustrated "in real life"? --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 05:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - see above. --Silenus 08:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, but because it is likely a copyright violation: too low resolution, lacking exif data, jpeg artifacts -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - That bitch is fucking hot. Don't delete some of Wikipedia's precious hardcore pornography! It would mean you hate freedom and would let the conservatives win! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 74.136.204.61 (talk • contribs)
- Delete - likely a copyvio: The 'author' doesn't seem that reliable to me [107] Especially with this kind of explicit content (which I personally do think is out of place on wikipedia for its lack of giving any added value) explicit consent of the displayed person (see en:Personality rights) is needed in my opinion. --Hardscarf 13:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is a good illustration for a common way of sexual play. "gratuitous", "jpeg artifacts" ... nonsense. -- Simplicius 19:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I also think its a good illustration, and sometimes sketches are not enough! Keep it, wikipedia is about real life and living, we dont live in a happy sketch world! Julius G. --81.189.33.85 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Unnecessarily gratuitous". People should be given the option about whether watching or not at sexually explicit pictures. Which, by the way, I like to do. But as my personal choice. --User:G.dallorto 21:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, no obvious copyright problem, and it is a useful picture. It is not possible to identify the girl, so personality rights is not an issue. Kjetil r 13:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep --Econt 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Unencyclopedic, illegal to receive in certain jurisdictions (and thus failing commons requirements), and likely stolen from a pornography website Madmax32 03:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- User contributions of original uploader show no evidence of credibility regarding copyright, only two uploads, both cropped thumbnail size images, professionally posed, likely copyright violations (but unfortunately difficult to prove conclusively) Madmax32 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- In spite of the enthusiastic remarks by some here, hosting such images makes wikipedia fit the legal definition of a pornography website according to US federal law (and these are US hosted servers), I draw no conclusion from that, but just stating the facts Madmax32 03:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Madmax32 please do not confuse a legal opinion with a fact. The legal test of obscenity in the US is currently the Miller test that you can find stated in Wikipedia. On that basis you may argue law, but please do not harass those who have voted here.84.210.139.189 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- In spite of the enthusiastic remarks by some here, hosting such images makes wikipedia fit the legal definition of a pornography website according to US federal law (and these are US hosted servers), I draw no conclusion from that, but just stating the facts Madmax32 03:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- User contributions of original uploader show no evidence of credibility regarding copyright, only two uploads, both cropped thumbnail size images, professionally posed, likely copyright violations (but unfortunately difficult to prove conclusively) Madmax32 03:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, Andim 09:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- this is not a vote, but to discuss the issue of deletion, cheerleading votes like yours that lack any content will be ignored Madmax32 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, good enought and better than most sketchs. dontworry 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is a simple and objective illustration free of artiness and it could have been photographed anywhere yesterday. FWIW everything in Wikimedia that is provided free is "gratuitous", and using that as pretext to attack this particular image seems due to the censorous POV of the objector (who has studied multiple sketches of fellatio already!) rather than any genuine encyclopedic concern.84.210.139.189 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- No it is not censorship, anonymous user from Norway, but the fact that this is not supposed to be a pornography host and fails to warn potential viewers of such graphic content, this must be stopped. Also go and get yourself an account, we don't count anonymous opinions here Madmax32 18:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Madmax32, thank you bothering to locate me, you are correct that I live in Norway and FWIW you can keep an eye on me at Wikipedia where I am "cuddlyable3". Here I am just a voter that you may count or discount as you wish. I labelled the objector's POV "censorous", which is of course my POV, but nowhere do I see censorship mentioned. However you seem to bring exactly the language of censorship ("This must be stopped!") to this discussion, and very outdated language at that. If you still think that viewers who have a right to objective information need their eyes shielded from encountering this graphic, and keep posting as zealously as you have done here, then you may find some support, but these are people who should consider which century - 19th 20th or 21st - they are living in. One other thing: you are not the boss of me.84.210.139.189 18:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, so how about this image, too? It is also in category "this is not supposed to be a pornography host and fails to warn potential viewers of such graphic content, this must be stopped", so how about removing it, too? 140.113.94.101 22:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- thanks for pointing that out, it should be deleted as well. Let me put it this way are the admins here willing to accept responsibility when wikipedia is banned by libraries and schools worldwide (as well parental filters), because most adult websites are, and you are hosting explicit photographs and sketches of sexual acts. Madmax32 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't want to worry you too much, but en-WP and commons are full of porn. These 2 photos are only tip of the iceberg. Here are more examples: child porn, BDSM porn, a lot of photos of penises and vulvas, etc. etc...
- Keep Strong keep. I see no reason for deletion. Good enought and better than most sketchs. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 22:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - No reason to have it. It only promotes further uploads of the same image by other editors who will think that their image is "better" than what is being used. Animated images fix this, as you don't see animated people arguing about which is looking the best. It will only bread other images like poeple taking pictures of themselves having anal sex, vaginal sex, masturbation, etc. Which will itself cause people to fight over who is doing it the best. It isn't censoring when you opt to use animated images. Censoring would be not allowing images of the act at all, or doing a black bar over the "offending" area to protect younger readers. What this is doing is keeping camera happy editors from clicking away at their privates, or the privates of others in an effort to have their junk on Wikipedia. Bignole 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bignole, I have contributed some animated images (on other subjects) and can assure you that people like me do argue sometimes about which is best. You draw some fine distinctions about what is and is not censorship, but what I see in your scary apocalyptic vision of anarchic mayhem is simply the CHILLING effect of censorship. If an editor wants to provide a better picture of anything, we say go ahead, be bold, do it. Selecting by consensus is not "fighting over who is doing it the best". I have voted Keep Fellatio1.jpg while Delete Oralsexfemalesuckmale.jpg 84.210.139.189 13:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Bignole, I have contributed some animated images (on other subjects) and can assure you that people like me do argue sometimes about which is best. You draw some fine distinctions about what is and is not censorship, but what I see in your scary apocalyptic vision of anarchic mayhem is simply the CHILLING effect of censorship. If an editor wants to provide a better picture of anything, we say go ahead, be bold, do it. Selecting by consensus is not "fighting over who is doing it the best". I have voted
- Keep It's a perfect and legitimate image of the subject.
- Keep While certainly graphic, that seems to be the idea. It illustrates the topic well. Gratuity may be in the eye of the beholder, but it doesnt violate policy and has the clear support of consensus. 67.34.105.65 02:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Incredible. Unencyclopedic becouse is sex? If there are countries that don't accept make another service, like the differences about fair use. --Libertad y Saber 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Strong keep Good photo, shows exactly what its all about. Better than bad illustrations! KEEP!
- Keep Strong keep Exact picture of what it is. No reason to delete. 193.190.253.146 13:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep until proven guilty of copyright violation. Although lacking professional quality, the photo obviously illustrates fellatio. Replacing it with a drawing would be counterproductive for Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information (free from restrictions based on religious values or suchlike). Libido 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. There are countless topics that could be illustrated sufficiently with a drawing and without a photograph, but that's no reason to delete the photographs! Powers 23:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright concerns. As MadMax said, it would be easy to take it off any porn site and the uploader has no credible history. There is also no confirmation that the girl is over 18 (required by law in the US). / Fred J 01:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
„photo by fan, no copyright“ --Polarlys 00:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete See the deletion log on fr.wiki [108].
It appears that the image was first uploaded without a license (and described as from www.evanescence.com). It was the deleted and reuploaded by the same person less than a day later.WjBscribe 16:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)- I've asked an admin on French Wikipedia to take a look at the deleted images, and apparently the second upload was of a different image [109]. Nonetheless it appears that no description was given beyond the fact that the photo was taken by "a fan" and no assertion that uploader was the fan in question [110]. WjBscribe 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- KeepMikani 08:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Any arguments? --Polarlys 09:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes; I object to keeping this as-is. We need to have source information; "a fan" isn't enough. Either the uploader needs to attest that they took the photo, or it needs to be deleted. Does anyone speak enough French to ask about that, or email the user if they have that set up? grendel|khan 17:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
A`vwala,talih achmin,as it were.the female jack sparrow has adopted this pic into her mighty army of pics!and is it were tovarischiis,ill float around here abit more for some pics —the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.51.195.106 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The CC-by-sa license requires the author to be credited, which isn't done, and a source is also necessary to verify that the author approved the license, yet no source is provided. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no freedom of panorama in the US. The statue was created by Nina Akamu who is still alive, so the statue is still copyrighted. --88.134.44.255 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Polarlys --ALE! ¿…? 10:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyviol. Pietro Cascella is a living artist and Italy has no freedom of Panorama. --User:G.dallorto 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Changed into a copyviol request. --User:G.dallorto 15:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 2 days
Copyviol. Pietro Cascella is a living artist and Italy has no freedom of Panorama. --User:G.dallorto 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Gentilissimo Sig. G. Dallorto,
pur riconoscendo che la legge in Italia non ammette la pubblicazione di foto panoramiche, debbo sottolineare il mio dispiacere nel non poter pubblicare una foto di un'opera che altrimenti non verrebbe valutata nella sua pienezza e per come rapresenta la città di Pescara.
Pertanto, confermo che, nel rispetto della legge, toglieremo la foto dal sito italiano, consentendoci la libertà di mantenere la pubblicazione della stessa in quelle enciclopedie di altri paesi in cui tale legge non ha vigore, sempre nel rispetto delle leggi del luogo.
Consideriamo di fatto la foto rappresentativa della Città di Pescara, un elemento che sarebbe un peccato dover eliminare del tutto.
RngraziandoLa, Le porgo i miei più
Cordiali Saluti --Ra Boe 21:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Changed into a copyviol request --User:G.dallorto 15:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 2 days
This Image is copyrighted by GTS industries -- Kimdime69 09:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: copyvio
This image is copyrighted by GTS industries -- Kimdime69 09:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: copyvio
This image is copyrighted by GTS Industries -- Kimdime69 09:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: copyvio
Copyright violation. --KENPEI 12:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly error in file -- EugeneZelenko 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: corrupt file
Bad quality,best version uploaded --Vassil 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
perfectly fine image, kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The Chinese text on the image said that "本图仅允许发布在维基百科上" ("You can only publish the image to Wikipedia"), so it is not a free licensed image. --Jnlin 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
moved to Image:Crimea locator map.png
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate
moved to Image:Crimea-Alushta locator map.png
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate
moved to Image:Crimea-Aqmechet locator map.png
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate
moved to Image:Crimea-Aqsheyh locator map.png
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate
moved to Image:Crimea-Curchi locator map.png
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate
no source from which this svg was derived, I dunno Pengo but it isn't very probable he was present at the study (this picture was taken during some study by some professor, according to the caption in the en article in which it's used). -- Yonatan talk 01:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted due to reasonable doubt whether this image is based off a copyrighted photo. The author has had reasonable time to answer the request. / Fred J 13:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I am the uploader: I may have misunderstood the flickr category "This photo is public" for a copyright statement. --Moonraker88 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- What do you exactly mean?
- If it's the licenceproblem, I (you, whoever) can change the picture very fast to the flickr licence (It's a creative commons licence)
- --D-Kuru 14:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am the uploader to Wikimedia Commons, not the flickr uploader. I have contacted the flickr uploader, just to say thanks (thinking the license was ok), but I didn't hear back. --Moonraker88 16:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete It is not licensed under a Creative Commons license, and there is no evidence that it has been like that. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, all rights reserved. / Fred J 10:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've made SVG version: Image:Broesen1932.svg --Brosen 07:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, PNG was not used --ALE! ¿…? 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
noncommercial licence --Tohma 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
the copyrightowner sent me an e-mail, in which he agreed that we show that on wikipedia Waylon 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's not enough; anybody, for any purpose must be allowed to use this image, including commercial and derivative use. Permission for Wikipedia solely is not enough. This isn't even Wikipedia. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
noncommercial licence --Tohma 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
the copyrightowner sent me an e-mail, in which he agreed that we show that on wikipedia Waylon 06:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's not enough; anybody, for any purpose must be allowed to use this image, including commercial and derivative use. Permission for Wikipedia solely is not enough. This isn't even Wikipedia. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
According to the source page, the photographer is unknown. Therefore one cannot say it is the product of the US Federal Government. -- howcheng {chat} 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it was a crop of a staff photo in used on this page. That was almost certainly an official staff photo. The photographer may be unknown but he would have been a U.S. government employee, so PD-USGov is quite reasonable. Keep Carl Lindberg 05:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, given the page you found, I'd rather replace this photo with his head shot -- it's a much clearer picture. howcheng {chat} 19:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely, no reason we can't have both. here is a larger version of that picture, BTW (though the smaller one looks to have better brightness and/or contrast). Carl Lindberg 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Kept. / Fred J 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Derivative of a non-free Wikimedia logo, creator of derivative does not consent to distribution under any terms other than PD. I don't think there are thus any terms we can legally distribute this under. -- Ilmari Karonen 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have removed the PD-Self license and replaced it with {{copyrightbywikimedia}} until further notice. I will change it to GFDL once a suitable change has been made by the Graphics Lab. Booksworm 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept then, as no further arguments in favor of deletion have been presented. / Fred J 22:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Unused image containing a non-free Wikimedia logo, claimed to be PD by uploader (who also uploaded Image:Wikipedia-francophone.gif). Unless the logo is removed or the creator transfers copyright to the Foundation, I think there's a licensing conflict here. -- Ilmari Karonen 20:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- The comments above have nothing to do with the image in question. Booksworm 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but it has something to do. --ALE! ¿…? 08:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The Wikipedia logo is not PD... I think the uploader's been given enough time to change it. / Fred J 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No indication of copyright holder, no way to establish the fact that the copyright to this image has expired. -- Iamunknown 05:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. The source page indicates the image was taken from one of two books; one was a compilation of NY Times articles from 1915-1922, and the other was a 1968 book by James Nazer, The First Genocide of the 20th Century: The Story of the Armenian Massacres in Text and Pictures (T & T Publishing: 1968). Determining the actual photo author is probably impossible, though it would be good to check those books if possible to see if they have further source information. This may qualify for {{Anonymous work}}. Carl Lindberg 04:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh, thanks for that source (I missed it :-(), I'll check at the local University library. --Iamunknown 04:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also found here, [111] --Artaxiad 23:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- From that page: "The Armenian Genocide in the U.S Archives, 1915 - 1918 Available From the National Archives and the Library of Congress - the most comprehensive documentation in the world on the Armenian Genocide." Great! Thanks for the additional info, Artaxiad. I tried a brief search in the library but found nothing ... I'll try again tomorrow. I just wish I could find more information about the photographer. --Iamunknown 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete probably taken by Armin T. Wegner (1886-1978) Madmax32 23:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- The book author would not have owned copyright; that is not an issue. The national archives typically have public domain material, so very little of what comes from there is a copyright violation. This picture is PD in the U.S. as it was published prior to 1923, which is why the book could use it. If the photo is by an Armenian though, the copyright there would last 50 years past his death. Interestingly, if it was published anonymously, the copyright would only last for 50 years past publication, and if at that point the author was still unknown it would be completely PD (all this according to Armenian copyright law). Also NPOV is not a reason for deletion, unless the photo or caption itself is an unsubstantiated accusation. I don't know how it's likely that Wegner took this; apparently the U.S. embassy took in lots of photographs at the time. Do you have information on this specific photograph being from him? It would be best to see what credits (if any) are in that book, or what NARA has. Unfortunately NARA's information may not be online; their web page says about half of their material is listed in ARC and only a small fraction of that has online images. If the author is unknown, then it is PD. Carl Lindberg 14:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- The only problem, Carl Lindberg, is that the National Archives (NARA) has no pictures of the Armenian genocide, neither does the library of congress, the only photos I could find in Loc were of a US diplomatic mission by the US army to armenia, which has no photos of any atrocities. If anyone can prove me wrong, go right ahead and post some links, I realize not all the national archives stuff is available online, but I couldn't find any record numbers, these seem to be falsified sources to me. Madmax32 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Contacting the Library of Congress would be a good move. Their collection is not fully digitized. Anyone know how to contact them? --Iamunknown 22:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- They must have some, as they made an exhibit on it in 2000. The vast majority of the Library of Congress' holdings are not available online, not even the catalog records unfortunately (their FAQ says only items catalogued since 1980 are definitely available, and presumably these photos would predate that). Carl Lindberg 04:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- After some further research I found out that The Armenian Genocide in the U.S Archives, 1915 - 1918 is a microfiche collection [112] published in 1994, however this seems to be a collection of documents rather than photographs.
"Chadwyck-Healey Publishes Guide to Armenian Genocide Documents in U.S.. Archives
With the release of the Guide to The Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Archives, 1915-1918 on April 24, 1994, the publishing firm of Chadwyck-Healey, Inc. announced the completion of this significant project which now furnishes a comprehensive collection of the documents related to the subject of the Armenian genocide found in the United States National Archives and the Library Congress.
The publication includes documents on the Armenian genocide from seven record groups in the United States National Archives: Record Group 59, "Records of the Department of State," 1910-1929 - specifically the files concerned with "Internal Affairs of Turkey," "American Consular Offices," "Protection of U.S. Interests in Turkey," "Claims against Turkey," and "Political Relations between Armenia and Other States" - Record Group 84, "Department of State, Consular Post Records"; Record Group 38, "Chief of Naval Operations, Intelligence Division, Naval Attache Reports," 1880-1939; Record Group 165, "(War Dept. General and Special Staffs) War College Divison, General Correspondence," 1903-1919; Record Group 256, "American Commission to Negotiate Peace, Inquiry Documents" (Special Reports and Studies) 1971-1919 and "General Records of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace," 1918-1931; and Record Group 200, "Records of the American Red Cross," 1881-1961, 1917-1934. From the Library of Congress, the two collections examined were "The Papers of Henry Morgenthau, Sr.," and the "Woodrow Wilson Papers." Madmax32 12:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
- Check there website [113] they have there address and number. Also by searching there site they have documented events on the Armenian Genocide. --ArmeniGen 23:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep by --Digon3 talk Found in US archives before 1923
Delete The image has no correct, valid and detailed Source information. --Молох (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete Such images are not for enzykopedias, the source should be 10 percent clear, but it isn´t --131.130.223.74 18:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, your copy-paste statement is incorrect and you didn't even take the time to read the information provided with the image. According to the given source (yes, the source is given), the image comes from the U.S Archives, 1915 - 1918, Available From the National Archives and the Library of Congress. –Tryphon☂ 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- To be more precise, the website refers to this book. –Tryphon☂ 22:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep The source is National Archives of US. The IP appears to belong to Молох. VartanM (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The image is in the US Archives which is in the public domain. How can anyone argue that the quality of the picture is a reason of deletion for an image in the 1910's? Its not like this was taken in the 1980's or 1990's with superior cameras. This is an important image too. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep There may be a bad faith element in this DR. The nominator is Turkish and the victims in the photo are all Armenians. Turks and Armenians dislike each other (a lot). Turkey still refuses to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of WWI. --Korman (talk) 09:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Kept. Eusebius (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
May 26
[edit]bad name, moved to Image:Alushta-Alushta locator map.png
Deleted by Zzyzx11: [[:Template:Bad name|{{Image:Alushta-Alushta locator map.png}}]]
(It is a very good picture, which shows the dog and his eyes very well. It is the only picture of that rare kind of dog on Wikipedia, but user Pharaoh Hound does not like it and I'm just tiered to fight with her. She claims that image is not encyclopedic, so let's delete it. ) --Mbz1Mbz1 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It is a very good picture, which shows the dog and his eyes very well. It is the only picture of that rare kind of dog on Wikipedia, but user Pharaoh Hound does not like it and I'm just tiered to fight with her —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mbz1 (talk • contribs)
- I never asked to have it deleted, I haven't any clue what this is about. I tagged the file as needing renaming, but that's it. --Pharaoh Hound 11:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
privacy concerns — Jeff G. 15:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right. Deleted. /odder 16:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Possible unfree image, description that it is from the Dutch Wikipedia is not enough. --Gryffindor 22:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Permission is clearly stated: self2. So what is the issue here? --Hardscarf 12:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Possible unfree image, description that it is from the Dutch Wikipedia is not enough. --Gryffindor 22:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Gentlemen, I have drawn this image myself as I have drawn many images of ribbons and battons.The weak point in an image like this is that it does not look realistic enough because the same pattern is repeated over and over again. The colour is allmost correct though and that is what counts. Robert Prummel 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
other examples, the Cambodian ribbon is the same technique but has been repeated dozens of times, are:
The results vary. Sometimes I take a lot of time.Sometimes I am in a hurry.If the image is larger I have to bring in more details. Now I will show you an image that took several hours because every stitch was individualy drawn.
If you look carefully you will notice a few leftover beeds at the bottom of the picture.Robert Prummel 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, so you took a picture of the ribbons or drew them yourself? It sounds a little bit confusing. Could you please add some more information then to the images (where taken if photo, when exactly, date, etc.) so that confusion can be avoided in future. Thank you. Gryffindor 21:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes I select a colour from a painting or picture. It need not be the same object but the shade and colour have to be just right. Sometimes I magnify a ribbon of a knight's cross in my own extensive collection (200+ medals and stars) and draw a commanders ribbon.Sometimes I use just one of the colours bcause it is the right one and I combine it.Fabrics and wallpapers provide a lot of colours. The coffins in my drawing of the Dutch royal vaults are lined in lead taken from a picture of a garden ornament.The mahogany of other coffins comes from old furniture. I use a very small sample of a colour, magnify and mirror it again and again and combine it with a pattern of lines of a lighter or darker shade as shown in the picture. Part of a stone of the facade of Versailles was magnified and editet to make a tile of the right colour. This small tile was used again and again to make a tiled floor in the vault. If I would use just basic colours the picture would be very dull, it is silk, wood or stone after all!
Robert Prummel 01:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC) .
- Ok, sounds good. In that case I commend you for your work. Could you please add information to the description what exactly the image is, such as what order, which class, etc. that would be greatly appreciated. sincerely Gryffindor 09:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Allright. I will add more info on what it is. Greetings from the Netherlands, Robert
Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The russian text of terms runs [114]:
- Использование разрешается безвозмездно, в любом виде и контексте при сохранении ссылки на сайт происхождения.
- The using is permitted without compensation, in any form and context, only link to site is required
There is not clear permission for der.works. The next phrase also didn't grant such very good permission to users of site, it's grant permisiion only for its administration.
- Администрация сайта оставляет за собой право на использование размещённых здесь фотографий: кадрирование, поворот, ретушь, фотовывод, тиражирование, удаление, предоставление третьим лицам и иные действия.
- Site administration is reserving to oneself rights for using of photoimage: framing, turning, retouch and etc.
Alex Spade 12:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your reading is flawed. The owner of the site informs the authors that he hosts them on the understanding that they may be altered by him as he thinks fit. In other words, it's a precondition for their publication. You fail to demonstrate how this claim runs contrary to the assertion contained in the template: "grants full permission to use any image from the site, provided that a reference to the source is given". You should prove that the webhost does not "grant full permission to use any image from the site" before your "request for deletion" is considered seriously. --Ghirlandajo 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- The free use is permitted clearly, but not der.works. Now we have got some problems with such permission. The {{Kremlin.ru}}, which was deleted not long ago, had same (or similar) problem.
- The situation with commercial use is also disputed. There is not clearly information about it in terms. The {{Kremlin.ru}} had same (or similar) problem. The {{MosNews}}, which is still being discussed, had same (or similar) problem in some users' opinions.
- You should prove... - I should not. I has tried such trick on Kremlin.ru-discussion, but it was failed. As we can see at named discussions, the licenses with unclear terms can be deleted as default, and voters should prove the free (commons-suitable) status of license for keep-decision. Alex Spade 15:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ghirlandajo is correct. The Autotravel site just warns the authors that they may publish modified version instead of original. It does not in any way limit the right of others "to use as they see fit" Alex Bakharev 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think we'd better ask the site administrator to define the licension more precisely (whether the only term of use is attribution, or not) VanHelsing.16 05:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your reading is flawed. The owner of the site informs the authors that he hosts them on the understanding that they may be altered by him as he thinks fit. In other words, it's a precondition for their publication. You fail to demonstrate how this claim runs contrary to the assertion contained in the template: "grants full permission to use any image from the site, provided that a reference to the source is given". You should prove that the webhost does not "grant full permission to use any image from the site" before your "request for deletion" is considered seriously. --Ghirlandajo 12:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and all images assosiated -- No clear permission modifications by anybody for any purpose, no clear mention of commercial use. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- "In any form and context" is not good enough for you? Can you explain what's the signal difference between "in any form and context" and "by anybody for any purpose"? Could you cite a specific guideline which requires the phrase "use the image anyway you please, including commercial use" rather than "use the image anyway you please"? --Ghirlandajo 11:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not. We cannot assume that if people say "for any purpose", that they also mean commercial use. Commercial use must simply be explicitly permitted. I hope that the email that has been sent by Alex Bakharev will clarify this. -- Bryan (talk to me) 16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- "In any form and context" is not good enough for you? Can you explain what's the signal difference between "in any form and context" and "by anybody for any purpose"? Could you cite a specific guideline which requires the phrase "use the image anyway you please, including commercial use" rather than "use the image anyway you please"? --Ghirlandajo 11:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please, do not require from men or site owners that they use the terminology you used to. The license is CC-BY, but expressed in other words and in russian. Only a few man in Russia know what means CC-BY.----Vissarion 11:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that these terms are CC-BY-like.
The {{Attribution}}-like permissionThe free status acording Definition of Free Cultural Works must be clearly given. Alex Spade 12:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Upd: Alex Spade 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)- First, you should distribute the {{Attribution}}-like permission among russian Internet community, only then you can ask them to employ the termins you want. I can't catch what difference in CC-BY meaning and the discussed case. Please, don't tell me that CC-BY is the 4 letters they must apply to say that it is a free content, and they are prohibited to use other words with the same meaning. ----Vissarion 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what are you taking about. I am supposing, that you didn't understand clearly my reflection in second phrase, so I have rewritten it in other terms (without link to any license tag). Alex Spade 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I may be a dumb person but I see no difference in CC-BY terms and the russian license except that they are written in different words. Please, point me the difference in their meaning. ----Vissarion 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I said several times above: the der.works must be clearly permitted. In CC-BY case (for ver.1.0/2.0/2.5) such permission is clearly given in Article 3, point b [115]. Alex Spade 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- О.К., I got it. You want that russians write in english: deriative works is permitted. They have written it in russian: право на использование размещённых здесь фотографий: кадрирование, поворот, ретушь, фотовывод, тиражирование, удаление, предоставление третьим лицам и иные действия. The listed operations (retouching and any other operations ) are clear derivative operations with the photos. It seems you try to mislead men who can't read in russian. ----Vissarion 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You are thoughtless. I had commented this text in the begining of request. You have omited very impotant part: Администрация сайта оставляет за собой право на использование размещённых здесь фотографий: Site administration is reserving to oneself rights for using of photoimage. This is not permission for users of the site. Alex Spade 07:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- О.К., I got it. You want that russians write in english: deriative works is permitted. They have written it in russian: право на использование размещённых здесь фотографий: кадрирование, поворот, ретушь, фотовывод, тиражирование, удаление, предоставление третьим лицам и иные действия. The listed operations (retouching and any other operations ) are clear derivative operations with the photos. It seems you try to mislead men who can't read in russian. ----Vissarion 06:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I said several times above: the der.works must be clearly permitted. In CC-BY case (for ver.1.0/2.0/2.5) such permission is clearly given in Article 3, point b [115]. Alex Spade 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I may be a dumb person but I see no difference in CC-BY terms and the russian license except that they are written in different words. Please, point me the difference in their meaning. ----Vissarion 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what are you taking about. I am supposing, that you didn't understand clearly my reflection in second phrase, so I have rewritten it in other terms (without link to any license tag). Alex Spade 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, you should distribute the {{Attribution}}-like permission among russian Internet community, only then you can ask them to employ the termins you want. I can't catch what difference in CC-BY meaning and the discussed case. Please, don't tell me that CC-BY is the 4 letters they must apply to say that it is a free content, and they are prohibited to use other words with the same meaning. ----Vissarion 13:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think that these terms are CC-BY-like.
- The only cc-by is cc-by, in those words, and no other - possibly in another script, but always linked to the Creative Commons full text. Siebrand 11:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Source for these assertions? --Ghirlandajo 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact the Creative Commons License has no official Russian translation and there are doubts that it is compatible with the Russian Law [116]. This ine of the reasons some people keep inventing the bicycle Alex Bakharev 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please expand on those doubts? Do they apply to all Creative Commons licenses? Perhaps it is time for a new license which is compatible with both Russian law and Wikimedia Commons? — Jeff G. 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- As I understand it, the Russian copyright law has an atavism of a nanny state: it states that if the agreement should be in the best interests of the author. Thus, theoretically an author who changed his or her mind about the creative commons license can argue in court that he did not received any advantages from signing the creative commons license; thus is was null and void from the very beginning. I am not aware if somebody have actually tested this in court. In the case of Autotravel the owner of the site sees him surrender part of his author's rights in exchange for the references to his site as a mutually beneficial agreement (see below) Alex Bakharev 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can you please expand on those doubts? Do they apply to all Creative Commons licenses? Perhaps it is time for a new license which is compatible with both Russian law and Wikimedia Commons? — Jeff G. 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact the Creative Commons License has no official Russian translation and there are doubts that it is compatible with the Russian Law [116]. This ine of the reasons some people keep inventing the bicycle Alex Bakharev 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Source for these assertions? --Ghirlandajo 12:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have contacted the owner of the website for verifications of their permissions. Lets wait Alex Bakharev 14:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and all images assosiated -- No clear permission modifications by anybody for any purpose, no clear mention of commercial use. — Jeff G. 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Information I have received Email from the owner of the site Ilya Kulagin. He agrees that the photos can be used commercially and modified, but requests that references to his site autotravel.org.ru are manadatory. Fragments from his E-mail:
- Полагаю, обмен информации на рекламу (в частности - фотографии на ссылку) есть дело абсолютно взаимовыгодное, и, надеюсь, никакой юрист не станет доказывать обратное.
- I think that exchange information on advertisement (e.g. photograph on a reference) is mutually beneficiary and no lawyer would argue with it.
- Коммерческое использование, на мой взгляд, не отличается от некоммерческого. И тут никаких иных тонкостей нет, нам интересны посетители, а заплатили они предварительно деньги за "членство в закрытом клубе неясно чего", за компакт-диск, или только за договор с провайдером услуг связи (не правда ли, ведь в Сети людям интересна тоже информация, а не сам по себе ip-траффик) - это не должно нас касаться.
- Commercial use, in my opinion, is not different from noncommercial. There are no subtleties here, we are interested in visitors and whether they payed for a membership, compact disk, etc. is not our business.
- Иное дело - издание статического контента без ссылок. Здесь действительно неясна наша выгода, а где нет выгоды одной из сторон, соглашение может быть легко признано ничтожным.
- Another things is publishing of a static content without references. Here we do not have any benefits, and if there are no benefits for one of the sides the agreement could be recognized as invalid. (AB - I believe the Atribution tag already handles this, maybe we should emphasize more that a reference to the autravel.org.ru is an absolute must for those materials).
- Модификация однозначно разрешается и если я про это не написал недвусмысленно, то только по небрежению и сие, конечно, надо исправить...
- Modification is certainly allowed and if I have not stated it it then it was my oversight that I will fix.
- Сейчас я подготовил изменение режима работы с архивом, мы его немного обсудим с авторами на форуме
http://autotravel.org.ru/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3655 и лично, Вы тоже можете высказывать замечания-идеи-пожелания.
- Now I have proposed changes in the conditions for using the archives that we are discussing on http://autotravel.org.ru/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3655 and your feedback is welcome
- I think the E-mail is pretty straightforward. The owner agreed with the commercial usage and modification of the images Alex Bakharev 12:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please put that email on OTRS, then {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} will probably be appropriate. Thanks! — Jeff G. 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have forwarded the EMail to OTHRS, no answers yet Alex Bakharev 06:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please put that email on OTRS, then {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} will probably be appropriate. Thanks! — Jeff G. 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Kept: Permission received. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
No authorship defined, no real source either. -- Dantadd✉ 18:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep According to the description in the page, this was a drawing by es:Usuario:MiguelMTN, and was originally uploaded on the es wiki in 2004. The authorship and source are plainly stated (in Spanish) from what I can see. Carl Lindberg 02:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's an IP number that claimed authorship: el dibujo es mio. Dantadd✉ 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I call this a derivative work of the photo shown here (horizontally mirrored). We don't know anything about the copyright status of that photo. Lupo 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, derivative status, and uploader's history. — Jeff G. 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete A personal picture should not qualify as the main image for a historical figure. I don't know the exact rules for this type of matter, but I would suspect that an original computer drawing might be considered a poor choice for the primary image. 66.65.61.139 19:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- On what page is this the "primary image"? It's not Category:Luis Buñuel. Gallery Luis Buñuel doesn't exist. Perhaps you meant article w:Luis Buñuel or an article page on one of the other 15 language sites of Wikipedia where this image is used? If so, please feel free to choose another free image from Category:Luis Buñuel and discuss using it on that page's talk page. Thanks and welcome! — Jeff G. ツ 08:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
From the corresponding city council we are requested erased since it is not the original shield. --Xelo2004 22:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, no copyright issue --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
May 27
[edit]this image seems to have copyright and the author seems not the real author -- Jjvaca 01:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use
Licensed on Flickr under cc-by-nc-nd-2.0, which isn't compatible with the Commons. — Jeff G. 05:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. --Dodo 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
mistake --Kjoonlee 12:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Some pictures are maybe usefull, but most of them are only party photos. However, that what commons isn't is a partyalbum --D-Kuru 12:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The same for all images in Depeche Mode Party in Gdynia (Polska). --GeorgHH 15:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, see Commons:Project scope. There are enough possibilities on the internet to upload > 400 party photos. Unbelievable that even sysops don’t know about the goals of this project. --Polarlys 19:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Artist died in 1952 -- EugeneZelenko 17:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 19:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: work of 1927, presumably published then, and artist died in 1952 Platonides (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Bad quality. Category:Penis is overflowed already -- EugeneZelenko 17:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: no need for yet another penis
ja Deletion requests --Jnn 05:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No reason is shown by the requester in this request. Deletion request in Japanese Wikipedia does not mean anything until it is actually deleted. Even if it is deleted in jawp, some images can be kept onto Commons (typical examples are CreativeCommons images). Yassie 06:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Strongly 1. Discussion on jawp is still proceeding and nothing is decided. 2. This image does not violate any laws of Japan. 3. Similar images exist on commons (cf. Image:Kiss.jpg, Image:You may now kiss the bride.jpg) and are used on many projects. There is no reason why only the requested image should be deleted. --端くれの錬金術師 06:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Same as above. This image is not againt any law or Commons Licensing Policy.--Shata 17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 0 days
Reopen following Commons:Undeletion requests, unclear on what grounds it was speedy deleted. / Fred J 15:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No source information. The author is unknown. Additionaly, low quality. Tietew 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Low quality, dubious condition of copyright and privacy right, and not usable for our projects. --Kinori 02:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC) It was deleted in ja.--Kinori 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment First, copyright status is clear. The original uploader says it is self-made, so it is self-made, unless true original author other than the uploader appears and/or the link to the original image is shown. Second, Commons is not jawp. Regardless it has been deleted in jawp or not, this image does not fall under any of Commons' Deletion Policy. It is obvious that nobody shall even try to delete images/files that does not fall under Deletion Policy of the project, even if it is deleted in other project(s). Yassie 03:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Copyright status is clear" is yassie's opinion. At least 4 users expressed suspicion in jawp. Japenese speakers recognize that the original contributer's comment lacks seriousness. '自分' is 'I' but rest characters are meaningless. We can't know if 'I' is the photographer or the object or both. It caused the suspicion about copyright. And under Japanese privacy precedents, this photo needs at least two persons' permissions but we only read contributer's '自分'. And others 6 (include me) said it is a mischief and/or not usable. Total votes are delete 10 vs keep 7 so it was deleted. Here commons Yassie uploaded for the purpose of escaping ja's deleting process. In this way he excessively complicated and prolonged the process. The original uploader in jawp contributed only one this image, and have never answered to any questions. He inserted it to two pages and left. One page was protected after many reverts. The other shows it still now, supported by minority opinion and IP's stubborn revert. I know Yassie holds very critical view to the policy and practice of Japanese Wikipedia. Though I don't dare to criticize his principle, I beg not to ignore other people's opinion. Obviously 'Not usable' and 'Low quality' are commons deleting policy. --Kinori 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment All the above is nothing but Kinori's opinion as well. In addition, Commons is not Japanese Wikipedia. Yassie 21:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- CommentAll 6 voters here are known as Japanese wikipedians. And 5 except Tietew already voted in the jawp's deleting process. And Jnn, Tietew and I are sysops of Japanese Wikipedia. This is a deleting process of Commons but practically an extention of jawp's one at the same time. Jawp's stuffs recognize the difference between commons and wikipedia, so recommending to move to commons in some cases. But this case is not a divisoin of labor but an evasion from one project to another. I presented multiple reasons why this file should be deleted on our (commons) policy, and next explained the dicision of jawp community. Now I want to say that our difference becomes reason of cooperative action, not of rivality to embarass each other. --Kinori 02:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment So, who decides "not usable"? How about "low quality"? Source information? The original uploader says it is self-made, so it is self-made. All the reasons Kinori has presented are nothing but his/her opinion -- his/her POV -- rather than factual reasons. Again, Commons is not Japanese Wikipedia. This does not fall under any of Commons' deletion policy, so this image shall be kept on Commons. Period. Yassie 08:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to be deleted. And there's no persuading arguments in Wikipedia:削除依頼/画像:Chu.JPG, seems the admin just followed the majority rule without any idea.--Kareha 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to delete it. --TwoWings (jraf) * Wanna talk? ;-) 14:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing wrong. (IP addresses can vote, right?) 67.150.168.96 22:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Anyone can argument for or against, but this is not a vote.
- Deleted. Many of those who speak Japanese have expressed their concern that the original uploader isn't the photographer. What is significant is that the image has the most typical telltales of a copyvio image: small size (but good quality), no EXIF data and the contributor can't or doesn't even try to explain where, why, and how they took the photo. Further still there are serious privacy issues. Samulili 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
bot test -- 83.11.63.95 20:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 0 days
Orphaned (see CheckUsage), redundant to MediaWiki's TeX renderer -- Iamunknown 23:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- deleted
- by Julo 23:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
probably copyvio --Polarlys 16:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Deleted. /odder 16:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Document appears to be out of project scope. -- Siebrand 18:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The document contained nothing but text, which would be better represented directly in wiki form where relevant. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
((That picture was called "a fake","a photomanipulation" and it was vandalised by IP bandit. I'm not interested any longer to display the picture at Wikipedia. )--Mbz1 00:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)}} --Mbz1 00:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC) --Mbz1 22:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- "When you upload your work to commons you are donating it to the world by using a free content license which allow everyone to use, modify, and redistribute your work for any purpose. This donation is non-revocable." - it means you can not request to delete it or to change the license.
Per this reason - Keep Julo 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above, besides it is not a photograph of a person in which case I might be sympathetic to a delete request, this image could be useful to the project. Madmax32 07:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Copyright holder not inidcated, no way to verify release of rights. -- Iamunknown 23:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. No proper source added in the last seven days. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
this image seems to have copyright and the author seems not the real author -- for Jjvaca (talk • contribs) 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC) — Jeff G. 05:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: copyvio - fair use
Minguzzi died in 2004 and there is no FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 0 days
- Factual errors (status of Berlin and the Saar area) * Image is an artistic impression without further relevance, better use maps of the area with border overlay --84.144.199.87 10:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep no reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The image is presenting plainly wrong facts. It is not showing west germany in the borders of 1949-1990, but 1957-1990 (Saar area). Berlin was neither part of west germany, like indicated by the coloring - in fact it looks like whole Berlin belonged to west germany, where the eastern part was not de jure but de facto part of eastern germany. De jure both were something sui generis. I don't know how to change the graphic so that it is correct, not displaying to much extra borders and footnotes, and still delivering the artistic idea.
- Comment used in more than twenty Wikipedias; much better would be to correct under the same name, than to delete. Julo 18:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hm...keeping a factual wrong image because it is widely used? -- Sorry, doesn't work for me. The image as is is painful. I don't know how to change it so it is simple enough for an illustration yet accurate. It transport a primitive idea (2 [should be 3!] parts -> 1 part). It is not even showing the geographical position. - As it is the picture should be deleted asap just BECAUSE it is used in more than twenty wikipedias. Prevent them from spreading such. --84.144.216.78 08:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and btw the most relevant, the german WP, dumped the image. --84.144.207.53 17:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- The image is presenting plainly wrong facts. It is not showing west germany in the borders of 1949-1990, but 1957-1990 (Saar area). Berlin was neither part of west germany, like indicated by the coloring - in fact it looks like whole Berlin belonged to west germany, where the eastern part was not de jure but de facto part of eastern germany. De jure both were something sui generis. I don't know how to change the graphic so that it is correct, not displaying to much extra borders and footnotes, and still delivering the artistic idea.
As the image has been corrected, it can be kept. --89.246.46.129 16:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Duilio Cambellotti died in 1960. Not PD, no FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a Copyviol request. --User:G.dallorto 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 2 days
Manzu' died in 1991. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Changed into Copyviol request, --User:G.dallorto 15:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 2 days
Minguzzi died in 2004 and there is no FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 20:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into copyvioil today. --User:G.dallorto 18:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: Minguzzi died in 2004 and there is no FOP in Italy
Portaluppi died in 1969 and Italy allows no FOP. :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into copyviol today --User:G.dallorto 18:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: Portaluppi died in 1969 and Italy allows no FOP. :-(
Messina died in 1995. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete 1957 work, may not still be in the PD (at least 70 years from creation). No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:DSC02761 - Milano - Monumento a Sandro Pertini - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 20-jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into copyviol today --User:G.dallorto 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no FOP in Italy
Image:DSC02764 - Milano - Monumento a Sandro Pertini - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 20-jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into copyviol today --User:G.dallorto 21:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no FOP in Italy
Copyrighted work: Merz died in 2003. No FOP in the Usa for sculptures. --User:G.dallorto 21:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Marino Marini died in 1980. Copyrighted work. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Marino Marini died in 1980. Copyrighted work. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Marino Marini died in 1980. Copyrighted work. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Manzu' died in 1991. No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- The subject of photo is the museum, in my opinion, the sculpture is marginal because is too little. --Luigi Chiesa 20:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Although in Italy the "Freedom of panorama" does not apply, we could accept your objection anyway, but in this case we still had the problem with this detail of the museum, which is patently built as a work of architecture, and is too recent for having been built by an architect dead for at least 70 years... (on the Net I found that it was built by a "Studio Gregotti e associati" in 2004: please correct me if I am wrong.) --User:G.dallorto 21:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- In 2004 the building was only restructured, in the past it was a monastery (see Galleria d'Arte Moderna e Contemporanea di Bergamo). --Luigi Chiesa 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Yes, but the current aspect is what you see, and it is it that is copyrighted. If you publish a sketch of the ancient monastery as it was before restauration, then you will be allowed to do it. You may like or dislike, but this is the Italian law. It was approved by Silvio Berlusconi. You may like or dislike it, and him, but he was the legitimate Prime Minister and he had the power to do it. If the law is wrong, as I think it is, it should be changed. While in process of changing it, pictures that break it must be deleted, though. Sorry. --User:G.dallorto 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Does Italian copyright law actually protect buildings from being depicted? (If this is true, we'll have to go through Category:Buildings in Italy and delete all photos of recently constructed buildings.) In most countries, even where freedom of panorama does not exist to permit depiction of sculptures and other works of art which are permanently located in a public place, buildings may be freely depicted. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to http://www.interlex.it/testi/l41_633.htm : "In particolare sono comprese nella protezione: (omisiss) 5) i disegni e le opere dell'architettura;" ("both architectural drawings and buildings".) Yes they are, then. :-( Deleting pictures (including my own) of all recently built buildings in Italy is in fact what I am doing, although I hope I will not have to repeat this same discussion for each one of the hundreds of pictures that should be deleted, please... --User:G.dallorto 11:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Giuseppe Terragni died in 1943. Not PD yet. Italy has no freedom of Panorama. --User:G.dallorto 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Giuseppe Terragni died in 1943. Not PD yet. Italy has no freedom of Panorama. --User:G.dallorto 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Monument to the slain in World War I at Erba. architect Giuseppe Terragni.jpg
Image:DSC02765 - Milano - Monumento a Sandro Pertini - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 20-jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:DSC02766 - Milano - Monumento a Sandro Pertini - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 20-jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:DSC02767 - Milano - Monumento a Sandro Pertini - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 20-jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:DSC02769 - Milano - Monumento a Sandro Pertini - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 20-jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Andersen died in 1940. Not in PD yet until 2011. --User:G.dallorto 20:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (derivative of a copyrighted work)
Restored as the depicted work is PD since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Image:Andersen, Hendrik (1872- 1940) - Atleti cantori - Museo Andersen Roma - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 17-08-2000a.jpg
[edit]Andersen died in 1940. Not in PD yet until 2011. --User:G.dallorto 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (derivative of a copyrighted work)
Restored as the depicted work is PD since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Image:Andersen, Hendrik (1872- 1940) - Calciatore - Museo Andersen Roma - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 17-08-2000.jpg
[edit]Andersen died in 1940. Not in PD yet until 2011. --User:G.dallorto 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (derivative of a copyrighted work)
Restored as the depicted work is PD since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Image:Andersen, Hendrik (1872- 1940) - Giacobbe e l'angelo - Museo Andersen Roma - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 17-08-2000 2.jpg
[edit]Andersen died in 1940. Not in PD yet until 2011. --User:G.dallorto 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (derivative of a copyrighted work)
Restored as the depicted work is PD since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Image:Andersen, Hendrik (1872- 1940) - Giacobbe e l'angelo - Museo Andersen Roma - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 17-08-2000.jpg
[edit]Andersen died in 1940. Not in PD yet until 2011. --User:G.dallorto 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (derivative of a copyrighted work)
Restored as the depicted work is PD since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Image:Andersen, Hendrik (1872- 1940) - Henry Janes - Museo Andersen Roma - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 17-08-2000 01.jpg
[edit]Andersen died in 1940. Not in PD yet until 2011. --User:G.dallorto 20:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (derivative of a copyrighted work)
Restored as the depicted work is PD since 1 January 2011. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Image:IMG 4994 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg
[edit]Trubetzkoy died in 1938. Not in PD yet until 2009. --User:G.dallorto 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:IMG 4995 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg
[edit]Trubetzkoy died in 1938. Not in PD yet until 2009. --User:G.dallorto 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:IMG 4997 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg
[edit]Trubetzkoy died in 1938. Not in PD yet until 2009. --User:G.dallorto 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:IMG 4998 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg
[edit]Trubetzkoy died in 1938. Not in PD yet until 2009. --User:G.dallorto 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:IMG 4999 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg
[edit] Delete Trubetzkoy died in 1938. Not in PD yet until 2009. --User:G.dallorto 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
Image:IMG 5002 - Intra - Monumento a Daniele Ranzoni, di Trubetzkoy - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3 febr 2007.jpg
[edit]Trubetzkoy died in 1938. Not in PD yet until 2009. --User:G.dallorto 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (no FOP in Italy)
redundant PNG version (192 kB) of an existing JPEG image (Image:Francisco I de las Dos Sicilias.jpg, 12 kB) --Sakurambo 13:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This version has a transparent background. It's not redundant. (If it doesn't have a transparent background, then I screwed up.) --Andrew Hampe Talk 19:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- You screwed up :-) Actually an SVG clipping mask is a much more efficient way of knocking out backgrounds from images like this. Here's an example (only 17 kB). But is it really necessary? -- Sakurambo 11:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (bad file format, not used) --ALE! ¿…? 12:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Giuseppe Terragni died in 1943. Not PD yet. Italy has no freedom of Panorama. --User:G.dallorto 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted / Fred J 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Image:DSC02771 - Milano - Monumento a Sandro Pertini - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 20-jan 2007.jpg
[edit]Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep For me the architecture is not the main subject of the image. --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted -- this image shows the whole architecture, see for example http://www.vitruvio.ch/arcgallery/vitruvio/italia/rossi/viacrocerossamonument_03.jpg , so I think it has to be deleted. / Fred J 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
May 28
[edit]Not in use and one person want this delated its not in a public place (right to own picture)---Nina- 10:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Kjetil r 11:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Because it looks horrible, and I can`t believe you cooked a poor guinea pig, it didn`t even think about cooking you!!! -- 66.230.89.109 08:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Personally disliking the subject of a photograph isn't a legitimate reason for deletion. --Delirium 00:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article in which it's used in Wikipedia is about taboo food, so it's hardly unreasonable to expect that parts of it would reflect different views to your own in another part of thr world. Stonejag 06:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Kept. No reason for deletion. Siebrand 07:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
not focused - outsize --Lantonov 12:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: per request of the uploader
The website states that "All material herein Copyright © 1997–2007" and I cannot find anything even remotely resembling a PD and/or cc-by-sa release --rtc 16:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It would appear at first that the uploader took the photo, however the license he used indicates it was released into the public domain by the European Graduate School rather than himself. Madmax32 03:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Rama (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 09:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Taken from here. No indication there that this is a work of the US government. -- Rosenzweig 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't. The photo was taken by Milner Moshe on September 25, 1969. See The State of Israel - National Photo Collection, item #011496, picture code D701-116. Milner Moshe apparently was an Israeli photographer working for the Israeli Government. Copyright is either held by the Israeli Government or Milner Moshe.[117] Thus: Delete Lupo 20:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (The UWM's © claim is nonsense in view of the Bridgeman case, though.)
- This photo was taken from the English WP. When transfered to WM, I used same tag. --FLLL 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing this out. I've tagged en:Image:Golda Meir and Richard Nixon.jpg appropriately. Lupo 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- This photo was taken from the English WP. When transfered to WM, I used same tag. --FLLL 20:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
ip created category with ambigiuous description and meaningless name; empty since two months --$traight-$hoota 20:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Odder: empty category - ReinDeel33t
Images from the Dutch National Archives (Nationaal Archief) are not 'copyrighted free use' according to the policy that is linked on the image description page. It mentions explicitly that "This image is under a license that permits non-commercial-use only." – Ilse@ 08:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I don't understand Dutch but if the license does not allow commercial use than just delete it. Cruccone 20:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The policy template has the English line in small font. – Ilse@ 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. howcheng {chat} 21:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Redundant —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Ketone16 (talk • contribs) --rtc 16:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Tagged as {{Duplicate}} --rtc 16:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
(Also: Image:Jean-Dubuffet-Four Trees.jpg & Image:KCA entrance.jpg)
These photographs are derivative works of copyrighted sculptures located in the USA where freedom of panorama law does not apply to such objects (see Commons:Derivative works) --JeremyA 22:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Unfortunately, this is the case. --Delirium 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- But this is not a US artist! He is French! Does this mean I can purchase something in one country, take it somewhere else where different copyright law holds, and now make different laws valid for this? I find this absurd. --WiseWoman 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- These sculptures are located in the United States and these reproductions were made in the United States (unless you have a very long camera lens). The Wikimedia servers are also located in the United States so publishing a photo on the Commons is publishing it in the United States. The United States is a signatory to the Berne Convention, as such it is required to recognise the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (including France) in the same way it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. With sculptures of this nature it is also very likely that a copyright has been registered in the US. Unfortunately freedom of panorama in the US does not apply to sculptures. —JeremyA 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- There is an alternate free image of just the building at w:Image:Kentucky Centre.JPG. Please use this as a replacement where appropriate. Danged copyright laws. --W.marsh 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by JeremyA: derivative work of copyrighted sculpture (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:The Chicago Dubuffet and the Illinois Center 1993.jpg)
Derivative of copyrighted work. No freedom of panorama in Belgium. -- 80.100.132.51 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok if it's the law... TCY 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Derivative of copyrighted work. No freedom of panorama in Belgium. -- 80.100.132.51 17:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Source is "VDG Security - MDRIESSEN" so maybe a copyvio --D-Kuru 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC) -- D-Kuru 18:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Source is VDG Security - MDRIESSEN. Moreover maybe a {{personality rights}} problem -- D-Kuru 19:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded a new uncropped version: Image:Flying bat with tree orig.JPG -- Mr.Rocks 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I doubt this is actually released into the public domain. -- ChrisStubbs 20:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Androidin Maria
[edit]This applies to Image:Androidin Maria.jpg and Image:Androidin Maria cropped.jpg. Replica (derivative work) of a copyrighted prop. The robot was designed by Walter-Schulze Mittendorff --Phrood 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The robot is copyrighted and so the image cannot be used under a free license. Chaddy 22:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (derivative work of a sculpture, the author died in 1970s) --ALE! ¿…? 12:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Possibly for wikisource. This PDF contains a plain text poem and as such does not constitute an asset for a media repository. -- Siebrand 22:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- They are not. --Polarlys 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm where did you find this information, Polarlys? --Leviathan09 15:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as being original art that not by itself is notable. / Fred J 16:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Is Image:DRAMap.png really PD ? Following their main page, it is said that « All articles, maps and charts are copyright protected and may not be duplicated without permission of their authors. », so this map lacks that authorization, either with an OTRS # or a mail. Without one of these, nothing tells us we received the right to publish it under PD. --Sting 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I originally uploaded that map and I have permission from its author Andrew Andersen to use it. -- Aivazovsky 19:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, perfect, so can you please put a copy of the authorization on the description page of that map (and others if there are), or better, get an OTRS # : it will clear all the doubts one could have reading the (very) short description. Thanks. Sting 21:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted (no permission) --ALE! ¿…? 10:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to be a photo of a maybe copyrighted work -- Taxelson 11:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This object is under open air, seems to be public domain using panorama freedom rules. It is not a work of art, just simple educational presentation. Julo 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please make your mind: either it's {{PD-ineligible}} and we don't have to worry about copyright, or it is and we consider FOP exception aplicability. A.J. 11:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Freedom of panorama exception in Polish art states, that one cannot use work of art "for the same purposes". This is a reproduction of 2D work, so it is used for the same purpose. Delete A.J. 12:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is not what COM:FOP#Poland says. Could you please update that page, if you are correct? Otherwise, Commons must follow this guideline and Keep the image. / Fred J 16:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The catch is provided that the propagation is not for the same use. And what uses may be for text and ilustrations reproduced on this photo apart from describing birds in Park Białowieski? My IANAL opinion is that phrase "the same use" is not limited to "make copy of this presentation and put in on open-air" - I doubt we could put this in Wikipedia article. A.J. 11:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, per A.J. Kameraad Pjotr 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
May 29
[edit]"Distribution for non commerical purposes only." is not enough for commons -- Deadstar 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: permission=Distribution for non commerical purposes only
"Distribution for non commerical purposes only." is not enough for commons -- Deadstar 15:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: permission=Distribution for non commerical purposes only
El autor da permiso para publicar la obra pero no de ser modificada. De querer utilizarla contactar al autor Marcelo Babini. "No modification"? Not on Commons -- Deadstar 15:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: permission=Distribution for non commerical purposes only
Unused portrait of unknown person. Out of project scope. -- Siebrand 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Image is not displayed. Probably error in file -- EugeneZelenko 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done a mistake in the name of this map (it's not shaedings, but sheadings). It's replaced by IsleOfMan_SheadingsAndParishes-fr.svg -- Sémhur 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I've done a mistake in the name of this map (it's not shaedings, but sheadings). It's replaced by IsleOfMan_SheadingsAndParishes-en.svg -- Sémhur 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- done
Image:Nuvo!a ball.svg and others
[edit]- Image:Nuvo!a ball.svg
- Image:Nuvo!a ball.png
- Image:Poké Ball icon.svg
- Image:Poké Ball.svg
- Image:Pokeball.JPG
- Image:Flickrball.PNG
- Image:Portal poke logo.PNG
Derivative works of nintendo artwork -- -- Drini 21:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Little gem from Flickrball: This image was originally posted to Flickr as PokEBall. I then cropped it. It's current status clearly shows that it is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0. Anyway it's a PokeBall from Pokemon. (Derivated works of such are not copyrighted by Nintendo.).
- At the request of Geniice, I've removed Image:Poké Ball.svg now. -- Drini 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The question is if this is even a Pokeball (i'm referring to the first image here). It's not white on the bottom side, but blue, and the whole design is so simple it seems pretty ineligible for copyright to me.
Husky (talk to me) 22:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Foto_di_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_-_20_jan_2007.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_models_Jassi_and_Dana.jpg){kind=link}
_Pinacothèque_de_Munich.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Giuseppe_Terragni.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Atleti_cantori_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_17-08-2000a.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Calciatore_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_17-08-2000.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Giacobbe_e_l'angelo_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_17-08-2000_2.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Giacobbe_e_l'angelo_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_17-08-2000.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Henry_Janes_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall'Orto_17-08-2000_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_BW.svg){kind=link}
_Blank.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.cincinnati.com/spotlite/claussen_qanda.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://www.bestsportsphotos.com/images/baseball/HARANG-AARON-CNR-1.JPG){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_alternatif.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Palestine_Mandate_1920.gif&diff=5579409&oldid=5579224){kind=link}
![[37]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3ADeletion_requests%2FImage%3APalestine_Mandate_1920.gif&diff=5559957&oldid=5557243){kind=link}
![[42]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BritishMandatePalestine1920.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Foto_di_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_-_20_jan_2007.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Foto_di_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_-_20_jan_2007.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[53]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Wfm_x51_area51_warningsign.jpg&diff=572393&oldid=572275){kind=link}
![[54]](http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/Assets/Still/1989/Army/DA-ST-89-06607.JPEG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[57]](http://www.maipu.gov.ar/municipalidad/historia/images/mapa.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[63]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:FC_Schalke_04_Logo.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[71]](http://stadt-kuenzelsau.de/cms/mlib/media/brunnenhof-klein.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_models_Jassi_and_Dana.jpg){kind=link}
_-_models_Jassi_and_Dana.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_models_Jassi_and_Dana.jpg){kind=link}
_-_models_Jassi_and_Dana.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pinacoth%C3%A8que_de_Munich.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Pinacoth%C3%A8que_de_Munich.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[98]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mc72_trittico.jpg){kind=link}
![[99]](https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale%3ARegistri&type=delete&user=&page=Immagine%3AMc72+trittico.jpg){kind=link}
![[100]](https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale%3ARegistri&type=delete&user=&page=Immagine%3AMc72+profilo.jpg){kind=link}
![[108]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3AAmy+Lee.jpg){kind=link}
![[112]](http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Visual___Artistic_Resources/Armenia/The_Armenian_Genocide_in_the_U/armenia11.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Giuseppe_Terragni.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Giuseppe_Terragni.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Giuseppe_Terragni.JPG){kind=link}
_-_Atleti_cantori_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000a.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Atleti_cantori_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000a.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Calciatore_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Calciatore_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Giacobbe_e_l%27angelo_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Giacobbe_e_l%27angelo_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000_2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Giacobbe_e_l%27angelo_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Giacobbe_e_l%27angelo_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Henry_Janes_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Henry_Janes_-_Museo_Andersen_Roma_-_Foto_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto_17-08-2000_01.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- So?, it's still a derivative work (changing colors), which is what I stated. -- Drini 22:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, the fact that you identify a pokeball when you see it, shows the design isn't as simple as to be ineligible for copyright. -- Drini 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Terms of use of pokemon-related stuff is at http://www.pokemon.com/termsofuse.asp Not compatible with Commons Barcex 22:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Well, it's artwork, but what about some Harry Potter images? I don't think we have to delete them. Specially Portal Poké logo (which is the logo used for Portal Pokémon, since we can't use the Pokémon logo), the Nuvo!a balls and Poké Ball icon. They are still fan-arts, but if we don't have those images, then our work would be lost in non Fair-Use Wikipedia. I ask reflection of this point of view for you. The balls are the most important thing in the Pokémon articles in Wikipedia. For the Pokémon.com terms of use. It only states it is forbidden to copy text and images from the website. ManecoWifi 00:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fan art Harry Potter images are derivative works and also have to go. -- Drini 02:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The reason you can't use the logo is the same reason you can't use the pokeballs. Use a text-only portal logo. Fanart is Derivative work. It's tough, but no fair use in commons, including derivative works of copyrighted stuff. -- Drini 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These are all clearly derivative of works that are not compatible with Commons. --bainer (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Well, if I read http://www.pokemon.com/termsofuse.asp correctly, the Pokeballs are The Pokémon Company or Pokémon USA, Inc. We cannot ask them about if we can modify or make our own balls since both companies reject any email regarding permission issues. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- All right, it seems the works will be deleted, but can't you do that after we feature our article in the Lusophone Wikipedia by September (seriously. If we feature this article, it'll only be shown in the main page by September)? ManecoWifi 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely no. If it's a copyright violation, featuring it on the front page makes us more vulnerable on the legal side.-- Drini 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- What do you sugest, then to an alternative image? ManecoWifi 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not use an image :P or use Image:Portal poke selected.PNG -- Drini 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- What do you sugest, then to an alternative image? ManecoWifi 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely no. If it's a copyright violation, featuring it on the front page makes us more vulnerable on the legal side.-- Drini 13:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
There's consensus that they're copyrighted and thus not allowed. Instructions say: Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier, so Deleting'.
Also relevant here: Commons:Derivative works -- Drini 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Unused photo: Out of focus and poorly framed—is unlikely to be useful to any Wikimedia projects -- JeremyA 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deriative work; Boxes and manual of AoE is copyrighted by Microsoft --schlendrian •λ• 09:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC) --schlendrian •λ• 09:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Tagged as PD-ART but is a photograph of a 3-d work of art and therefore not covered by that ruling. Currently the subject of a copyright investigation at the English Wikipedia (see possibly unfree images for May 14). Uploader took the image from a book and therefore is highly likely to be a copyright violation --Madmedea 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note. Deleted from English Wikipedia. Garion96 17:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Bridgeman v. Corel does not apply to photos of three-dimensional objects. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Paintings by Wassily Kandisky
[edit]and all the images therein. (See below. Lupo 07:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Kandinsky died 1944, so his works are copyrighted until 2014 in 70 years p.m.a. countries. Delete Lupo 09:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note to uploaders: Paintings made by Kandinsky while he lived in Germany are protected by copyright until 2014 (life of author + 70 years). Those made in France have longer protection due to extra years granted to compensate the world wars. It says so on commons, and all of these are made in France, so PD. --Edgar Allan Poe 09:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- You misread: "Those made in France have longer protection". Lupo 09:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- In 1914-1921 he lived in Russia. Suppose that for pictures of these years will approach the template {{PD-Russia}}, so category to delete not it is necessary. --Yakudza 12:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- True, but according to en:Wassily Kandinsky, "he painted little during this period." If the category is kept, the text from Василий Васильевич Кандинский should be copied over to the category page, too. Lupo 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- He lived in Russia in 1866-1896 and 1914-1921. Works of that period should be considered by the Russian Law and they are in Public Domain. Works of German and French periods seems to be copyrighted. We should check the dates on all the paintings and delete those outside the pale. The category itself is usable and should be kept. Alex Bakharev 14:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- All images currently in this category are from his "French period" (1938 and later). Lupo 15:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- An again, according to en:Wassily Kandinsky, he didn't start painting until 1896. Are there any paintings done by him in Russia at all? Lupo 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I upload Image:Kandinsky white oval.jpg. In russian article ru:Василий Кандинский is list of him paintings in 1914-1921. --Yakudza 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done, you delete all pics from the French period, whicih I uploaded, but I will upload all pics from his Russian period 1914-1921, beacuse the are made and publiched before 1954, and the cretore died before 1954, so they are PD-Russia. --Edgar Allan Poe 16:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I upload Image:Kandinsky white oval.jpg. In russian article ru:Василий Кандинский is list of him paintings in 1914-1921. --Yakudza 16:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- An again, according to en:Wassily Kandinsky, he didn't start painting until 1896. Are there any paintings done by him in Russia at all? Lupo 15:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- All images currently in this category are from his "French period" (1938 and later). Lupo 15:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- All right: Category request withdrawn, even though I'm not sure that the "Russian period" paintings are indeed PD anywhere else but in Russia. The "French period" paintings that need deletion are:
- Lupo 07:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the category (perhaps with a subCategory:Wassily Kandinsky (Russian period 1914-1921)), but delete the "French period" paintings detailed above. — Jeff G. 15:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
deleted, just „french period “--Polarlys 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:HLHimmler.jpg for an earlier deletion debate about an image with the same name. I don't know whether that one was about the very same image. Lupo 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
1. Who is Mr. Giles? Probably not the copyright holder. 2. Image may have special status in the U.S., but is copyrighted in Germany until 70 years p.m.a. 3. Where's the OTRS ticket? Delete Lupo 11:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Geoffrey Giles, the holder of the copryight, who provided the pic, so he owns it, his pic. He gave me permission, but with attribution so it can stay. --Poirot 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Owning a copy of an image doesn't mean one owns the copyright. Mr. Giles is a still living professor in the U.S., he certainly didn't take this image himself. (He was born in the early 1950s—see his CV: primary school from 1958 - 1965.) It's image #45293 at the USHMM: a 1939 German calendar photo shot by the Conrad studios in Berlin. Lupo 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Geoffrey Giles, the holder of the copryight, who provided the pic, so he owns it, his pic. He gave me permission, but with attribution so it can stay. --Poirot 17:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- He holds the coopyright to the original. He allowed the use. --Poirot 10:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that you understand the concept of copyright. Thuresson 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Technically it is legally possible for Giles to have secured the rights to those images, you can purchase copyrights. Madmax32 19:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that you understand the concept of copyright. Thuresson 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can't purchase copyrights because you can't sell, give away or barter copyrights, that's my understanding of German copyright law. Thuresson 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hugo Jaegar sold his collection of color photographs to time life pictures in the 1970s, and they now claim copyright on those images, it is possible to sell or give unlimited rights to use images.Madmax32 14:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can't purchase copyrights because you can't sell, give away or barter copyrights, that's my understanding of German copyright law. Thuresson 03:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- So it can stay ! --Edgar Allan Poe 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- He didn't sell his copyright, he probably sold an unlimited right for Time Life to use the photos within certain limits. Thuresson 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Time Life pictures owns the copyright in the USA at least, [118], the photos say (c) time life pictures, btw there is no proof Geoffrey Giles gave permission to use his photos, but I am just pointing out it is possible for him own the copyright Madmax32 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I akesd mr. Gilles, and he owns the copryights and he allowed the pic of Himmler for use on commons, but with attribution. I also asked for Goebbels but seeing that this is not yeat cleared, I wont upload Goebbels until thi is cleared. unfortunately I deleted the mail, well, the computer did when the HD broke, but I ot permission. --Edgar Allan Poe 11:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Time Life pictures owns the copyright in the USA at least, [118], the photos say (c) time life pictures, btw there is no proof Geoffrey Giles gave permission to use his photos, but I am just pointing out it is possible for him own the copyright Madmax32 22:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- He didn't sell his copyright, he probably sold an unlimited right for Time Life to use the photos within certain limits. Thuresson 22:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Always these hard disks … unfortunately “for use on commons” is not enough. --Polarlys 12:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
SO what should I do ? --Edgar Allan Poe 12:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- We need a permission from someone who is the copyright holder to use Mr. Himmler everywhere, also with commercial intent and pink rabbit ears. --Polarlys 12:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to browse for the mail, and if not I will ask mir. Gilles to send me the permission again. I think that that is OK ? --Edgar Allan Poe 19:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Gilles sent the mail, do not know if it was recived by you or not, but tell here. I am removing the tapmplate. If the mail has not been sent put the request template back on the pic. --Edgar Allan Poe 12:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is an easy case: Mr Gilles was not th person who took the photo. So he is not the copyright holder, h only holds rights to use it. The copyright holder or his heirs could give us the permission. Mr Gilles can't. --ALE! ¿…? 20:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted (not PD in Germany) --ALE! ¿…? 20:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No source given at GWPDA for image #0640. Delete unless there's evidence that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Lupo 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- He died surely, Orlando died in 52', and this pic was took, before or durning WWI, and 890% of WWI pics are PD, and beacuse that site is a PD source, it is PD, and it is took by the Government of the Kingdom of Italy (whicih does not exist), and it is took in the period od 1910-1918. The photographer is unknown beacuse it is an official government foto of the Kingdom. --Poirot 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- But obvious {{Anonymous-EU}}
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 21 June 2007; no source
(Imagen ilegible) --Masterdjinn 03:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Que quieres decir con eso? --10:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
License states "for personal use only" which is incompatible with Commons. Deadstar 14:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The same for Image:The Punk Illution3.jpg, Image:ThePunkIllution2.jpg and Image:APBack01.jpg. --GeorgHH 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
problem with svg inkscape format, i uploaded a new version. Please delete immediately this one. Thx -- Cehagenmerak 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
PDF with text. Outside of project scope. Plain text should reside on s:. -- Siebrand 11:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
Out of project scope. -- Siebrand 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
Out of project scope. -- Siebrand 13:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)
Not used. Out of project scope. -- Siebrand 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete useless on Wikimedia projects. Wooyi 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Uselessness on Wikimedia projects is not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 23:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope --ALE! ¿…? 15:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is reopened #Image:ESA Columbus module.jpg Discussion 2
Image:ESA Columbus module.jpg Discussion 1
[edit]
ESA image, see [119] --195.83.11.66 11:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Wooyi 04:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as copyvio. --GeorgHH 09:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- KeepFrom ESA Website: Copyright Notice
- The ESA Portal Multimedia Gallery contains images and videos used throughout the ESA Portal. The images are offered in the Gallery in :the highest resolution available.
- Most images have been released publicly from ESA. You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes.
- Do not delete this image.
- 86.40.186.202 00:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)]
- Keep due to the reasons listed above. The image serves a purpose in the articles it is present in, and does not appear to be a copyvio. --69.47.187.71 12:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. "You may use ESA images or videos for educational or informational purposes [...] on the following conditions:
- "Credit ESA as the source of the images. Examples: Photo: ESA; Photo: ESA/Cluster; Image: ESA/NASA - SOHO/LASCO
- "ESA images may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by ESA or any ESA employee of a commercial product, process or service, or used in any other manner that might mislead.
- "[...] Some images contained in this Gallery have come from other sources, and this is indicated in the Copyright notice."
- We have to change the copyright notice to credit ESA, not NASA, and we must not use the image in a way that makes it seem like ESA is sponsoring Wikimedia. Simple. (Also, the image we've got is not the full resolution one, it's downsized and very poorly compressed. We ought to upload the original once this deletion request is over.) w:User:Hymyly 17:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept as it appears to be PD. Retagged. / Fred J 09:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:ESA_Columbus_module.jpg Discussion 2
[edit]
- Re-opened discussion
Not PD because http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Intellectual_Property_Rights/SEMXGG25WVD_0.html says If these images are to be used in advertising or any commercial promotion, layout and copy must be submitted to ESA beforehand for approval. If the copyright is by David Ducros, we need a written permission for PD license.
The same reason for Image:Columbus module EVA outfitting.jpg and Image:ATV 001 Jules Verne (artist impression).jpg. GeorgHH 21:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- Image:Atv.jpg Can probably be added to that list. I very much doubt that it is a NASA image. TheDJ 20:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely not PD. Even before reopening it, the information was already present on this page. ESA was requiring attribution, that in itself, makes it not PD. Rocket000 06:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete guess I should of voted :) (If this gets deleted, maybe the others can be speedied.) Rocket000 07:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Educational use only. {{Noncommercial}}. No explicit allowance for publication of modified works. Definitely not in the public domain and definitely not freely licensed. I have previously speedied other ESA images. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. i agree. unfortunatly :( TheDJ 17:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Question OK to use on wikipedia? If so can they be urgently transferred there given this (and perhaps others) are extensively used? --Tony Wills 19:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should be OK under Fair use supporting wikipedia's. And indeed would be good idea to make sure they are there. Actually, i think i just got these dupes deleted from en. the other week. :D TheDJ 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I should note however, that most wikipedia's will also have non-copyrighted NASA pictures of Columbus now, so there is little point in using these drawings anywhere. Except for those of ATV. TheDJ 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should be OK under Fair use supporting wikipedia's. And indeed would be good idea to make sure they are there. Actually, i think i just got these dupes deleted from en. the other week. :D TheDJ 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Seems I made a mistake above. I think I only read as far as "The publicly released ESA images may be reproduced without fee, on the following conditions: " and then the three criterias which were all OK for Commons. / Fred J 21:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Concerning Image:Atv.jpg: This particular image is available from a NASA source (http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/ss/4/5.cfm) and has no copyright or credit notice attached to it. As such it falls under NASA's copyright policy ("This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. NASA copyright policy states that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted") as being a free image. Since Wikipedia and Commons consider NASA "free" material to be non-copyrighted and PD, Image:Atv.jpg is to be considered to be a PD image.Dutchsatellites 11:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it. It wouldn't be the first time that NASA didn't properly credit an ESA image. Unless we find who exactly created the image with a date and a tag or something, I will consider this to be an error by NASA webmasters. (note how there is no ATV image in the nasa image exchange, or KSC media archives and this NASA page http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_articlea.php?id=03-069, for instance uses an ESA image without proper credit as well as proven by this page http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0306/17esaatv/ ) TheDJ 11:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Found it I think. original source would be: http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESA4ZJ0VMOC_iss_1.html most likely. TheDJ 12:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- This being your opinion on it I suggest you start tagging lot's of other images on Commons for deletion. There are numerous images here residing under the PD-USGov-NASA license that have origins outside NASA. If the current image is deleted because it falls outside the "NASA license", than many other images on Commons must have the same fate.Dutchsatellites 14:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Wherever those images are located by me, I will put them up for deletion yes. But this is not a "vendetta" or anything. It's just what GeorgeHH and later I have found by working on articles. TheDJ 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it. It wouldn't be the first time that NASA didn't properly credit an ESA image. Unless we find who exactly created the image with a date and a tag or something, I will consider this to be an error by NASA webmasters. (note how there is no ATV image in the nasa image exchange, or KSC media archives and this NASA page http://www.nasaexplores.com/show2_articlea.php?id=03-069, for instance uses an ESA image without proper credit as well as proven by this page http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0306/17esaatv/ ) TheDJ 11:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Something we should consider looking up is if these "restrictions" are license restrictions, or if they are separate restrictions which are enforced trough some sort of EU law. I say this because basically the same restrictions apply for NASA images, but with NASA images these restrictions are not part of the license, but defined in a seperate law much like Trademarks are. And even though the result for the average user is the same, we handle these kinds of images very different on commons. See also recent discussion here: Commons:Village pump#Astronaut photo's and mission emblems TheDJ 12:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. __ ABF __ ϑ 13:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Out of focus. Cannot be used. -- Siebrand 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. —Benn Newman 15:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete too bad quality. Wooyi 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the image is used --ALE! ¿…? 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Kept, is in legitime use. / Fred J 09:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The uploader claims that this was PD because it was taken from the Art Renewal Center, "which is in the PD, so all pics from there are PD". This is nonsense. There is no evidence that this is PD. Where does the Art Renewal Center say it was? Who was the photographer? Delete Lupo 13:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (And, for that matter, where does this site claim "all pics" from there were PD?)
- Keep - A simple statement that this isn't PD is definitively not a proof. --FSHL 00:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Copyright status of Commons images must be verifiable, which it is not in this case. William Avery 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted, no evidence that Kurz released his rights for the photo. [120]/ Fred J 10:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Most likely cropped from a non-free television programme making this exact frame a copyright violation seen in the perspective of Wikimedia Commons' licensing policies. --|EPO| 21:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- You can see here [121] that all the albums images are declared in public domain. You can find the file by clicking on the sub albums Nauru -> People and Personal...
- It is sufficient? I do not know. Rémih 08:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just because user marks uploads as PD does not neccesarily mean they are PD. If user does not own the rights to the image user may not state image to be PD. Just like music albums on Flickr licensed as cc-by or that alike. --|EPO| 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand. So the file will be deleted in this case. Rémih 16:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Just because user marks uploads as PD does not neccesarily mean they are PD. If user does not own the rights to the image user may not state image to be PD. Just like music albums on Flickr licensed as cc-by or that alike. --|EPO| 14:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Copyright status entirely unclear to me. See Commons talk:Licensing#Cuban copyright: PD before 1997? about Cuba's international copyright relations (since 1957 member of the UCC). Delete Lupo 09:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Cuna joined the Berne Convention in 1997, so it can stay. --Poirot 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- And I cropped this pic from Image:Simone_de_Beauvoir_-_Jean_Paul_Sartre_-_Ernesto_Che_Guevara_-1960_-_Cuba.jpg, so it is PD. --Edgar Allan Poe 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Deletion request extended to that image, too. Lupo 07:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- And I cropped this pic from Image:Simone_de_Beauvoir_-_Jean_Paul_Sartre_-_Ernesto_Che_Guevara_-1960_-_Cuba.jpg, so it is PD. --Edgar Allan Poe 09:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, as per Lupo. --Polarlys 20:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
This is copyrighted by the authors of the "fake travel guide" about Molvania. This is not an official flag, but purely fictional. -- ♦ Pabix ℹ 08:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the basic flag image is copyrightable in the first place, though this SVG may be (not sure). If the user drew this himself, then he/she could legitimately own the copyright on this particular version. Carl Lindberg 04:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- But this fake flag has no use on Wikimedia projects. Wooyi 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's in use in articles in two wikis now. Carl Lindberg 17:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why would it not be copyrightable? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- The flag is basically the Soviet flag, except the right half is solid yellow (not a copyrightable change), and the addition of a shovel (more a stock arrow outline) to the hammer and sickle. I'm sure it could be trademarked if the author went that route, but I don't think an outline of an arrow passes as artistic creativity. The textual content of the .svg file may be copyrightable, but that is licensed properly anyways. Carl Lindberg 01:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- But this fake flag has no use on Wikimedia projects. Wooyi 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Sigmund Romberg files
[edit]I am nominating Image:Sigmund Romberg - Adagio.ogg, Image:Sigmund Romberg - Allegro.ogg, Image:Sigmund Romberg - Minuet.ogg and Image:Sigmund Romberg - Rondo.ogg for deletion because these files are misnamed. These works are not by Sigmund Romberg but are by Bernhard Romberg. See the readme file on Pandora Music and the radio schedule for the radio station that played them for evidence. I have created a category and reuploaded the files at category:Bernhard Romberg. The reason why I listed this at requests for deletion is I was wondering what should be done with category:Sigmund Romberg - once the files I nominated are deleted, that category would be empty, and I can't think of a suitable place for a redirect. Graham87 09:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
closed here and no action taken. Please use {{rename}}! --ALE! ¿…? 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
derivative -- Jayen466 11:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Huh you just uploaded this... Majorly (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep: The audio recording is copyrighted, but not the cassette by itself. --GeorgHH 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
sign by Mao is copyrighted. Mao NOT staff was the president of a region in the Republic of China. -- Shizhao 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete {{PD-China}} can be applied 50 years after the death of the author which in this case is Mao Zedong who died in the 1970s. --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted , was copyrighted. / Fred J 16:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Mistagged. Highly unlikely that Godfrey Argent took this official photo of a Kosmonaut. The LOC gives no indication of the copyright status. According to [122], it's a Soviet postcard from 1961. Lupo 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Retagged --Poirot 17:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. There is no evidence on http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?pp/PPALL:@field(NUMBER+@1(cph+3b43069)) why the image should be PD. If you think otherwise, please contact me. / Fred J 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a member of the Berne Convention since 1930.[123] Under article 35 of the BC, this image would thus be and have remained eligible to copyright in other BC countries. Hence we would need evidence that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. Delete unless such evidence is forthcoming. Lupo 13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- P.S.: Also compare en:Image:Milan Nedic.jpg, which is a "fair use" screenshot. Lupo 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The pic is an official army photo took durning his sering in the Yugoslav army. So the photographer is unkowon beacuse it is an official photograph made in an now non-existin army that has no copryiught over the pic. Even other countries hold no corpyight to the pic beacuse of that. --Poirot 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Also an {{Anonymous-EU}}. Beacsue the author is unknown, the pic is took more than 70 years ago ina country withe the copyright law of publication +70 years. --Edgar Allan Poe 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- it was definitely taken before 1939 when he was a general in the Yugoslav army, but you can't prove the author was anonymous, try and find some sources Madmax32 23:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also an {{Anonymous-EU}}. Beacsue the author is unknown, the pic is took more than 70 years ago ina country withe the copyright law of publication +70 years. --Edgar Allan Poe 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the pictures in the Yugoslav army were either took by army or government officials so that the autor is in 90% of cases anonymus. Lika any other govermnet pic that was not took or painted by an famous painter, the author is anonymus. And I also searched and I never found a name of the author.
Deleted, because the image has no source at all, it is not possible to say it was made by a photographer in the Yugoslav army. (Poirot, how can we know that it was an "official photograph made in an now non-existin army that has no copyright over the pic"?) Please try and find a reliable source, for example in a book or encyclopedia. Then we can evaluate whether Anonymous-EU really applies. / Fred J 17:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
_BW.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_BW.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not a valid IC carrier, as per JEITA specifications --Inductiveload 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
_BW.svg){kind=link}
- Keep - A not valid IC carrier is not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- But there is a massive list of TSOP packages at Category:IC Packages and what's the point of keeping ones that don't, in actual fact, exist - there are more than enough to go around. It will just confuse the matter. The water is muddy enough as it is, with Type 1 and 2, different nominal lengths, lead pitch etc. In fact, I think I may have made a horrible mistake, and should have uploaded them with JEITA lables, like P-TSOP(1)-028-0820-0.50. There are so many (I havent done most of them yet). I will do this in future. This was a result of me reading the specifications wrong...sorry about thatInductiveload 02:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as being wrong and on uploader's request. / Fred J 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
_BW.svg){kind=link}
_Blank.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Blank.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not a valid IC carrier, as per JEITA specifications --Inductiveload 18:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
_Blank.svg){kind=link}
- Keep - A not valid IC carrier is not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as being wrong and on uploader's request. / Fred J 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
_Blank.svg){kind=link}
These are works of the government of China, not the U.S., and as such are subject to copyright protection. -- howcheng {chat} 18:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Iamunknown 19:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
To: howcheng
Yo, wtf u are talking about your china government copyright (kind a there is no copying in china...)???
"not the U.S." - are u saying that works of the US government aren't copyright protected (as of PRC gov?!?)
"and as such are subject to copyright protection" - by the government of the US or who??
It's a public image - read original upload log, what's wrong if people see this image, moron??
--pavel —the preceding unsigned comment is by 192.75.88.188 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please see the image description pages. I quote, "This image was created by the PRC government." Then look at the licensing information: {{PD-USGov}}, which is for works created by the United States government (which are not subject to copyright protection). At this point it should be obvious that the licensing is wrong. Works by the PRC are copyrighted by the PRC. Thus, we can't use them here. Simple as that. howcheng {chat} 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:
Ok, it's copyrighted by china's government as, probably, anything that china creates is copyrighted by it's government, BUT, does that mean that the image cannot be used here, displayed etc?? I think that there's only an incorrect banner shown about us gov copyright, that's it. Why works by rpc can't be used here??? Just delete your requests man, let people see it in wikipedia instead of going to google and searching it there if they need. Don't act like and asshole
By the way, are u working for rpc gov (in this case I apologize for my comments), or you are simply an asshole who has nothing to do but to protect prc's rigths?
--pavel
- The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, which includes content available for unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. Works of the People's Republic of China, unless they are expressly licensed as such, are not free. Thus we do not accept them. --Iamunknown 04:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Re:
Ok now I understand what this noice is all about. If it were me I'd never give a shit about copyright of RPC organizations and surely of it's government. Anyways... picture log says that "This image was created by the PRC government; it is a public image with no private copyright reserved."... let's just drop first sentence and we are ok
--pavel
- Nice try, but then it would be deleted for not having a source. howcheng {chat} 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- What convinces you that the People's Republic of China elects not to reserve their copyright? I see no evidence suggesting as much. --Iamunknown 06:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- What convinces you that they DO reserve the copyright? I request the OP to post the basis on which he assumes the image is copyrighted and unfit for distribution. Otherwise, keep. --Mikael Grizzly 15:59 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Guess what, it doesn't work like that. It is the uploader's responsibility to provide proof that images are free. Without such proof, they need to be deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- What convinces you that they DO reserve the copyright? I request the OP to post the basis on which he assumes the image is copyrighted and unfit for distribution. Otherwise, keep. --Mikael Grizzly 15:59 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- The evidence you seek is detailed at COM:L#China. In short, none of the exceptions to copyright in the People's Republic of China apply to these images. --Iamunknown 06:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly a copyvio. I'll be uploading some free replacement images shortly. Megapixie 01:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Chinese copy right law [124] as stated here under article 5 gov't article and current news article are not subject to the copy right law.
Hallo84 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment My Chinese is terrible but the babel fish translation says:
- Fifth article this law ill uses in: (1) law, the laws and regulations, state agency's resolution, the decision, the order and other have the legislation, administrative, the judicature archery target document, and its official official translation; (2) current event news; (3) calendar, general mathematical table, general form and formula.
- Which suggests to me the normal kind of state PD that many countries have - i.e. 1) laws and judicial documents cannot be copyright. 2) News events - i.e. "In south Beijing today man bites dog" 3) Basic P.D. ineligable documents.
- Now there are two problems with these images: 1. There is no proof that they are actually the work of the Chinese government. 2. The law you cited doesn't suggest that such works are P.D. even if they are the work of the Chinese government. Megapixie 23:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a pic from Jie Fang Jun Bao which means PLA news service. i.e. PD from gov't source. The pic was for article covering Bei Jian (Northern Sword) 2005 exercise.
I can't find the original ariticle anymore and really can't be bothered to do so. For future referrence all PLA shots like these are taken by PLA reporters under gov't supervision for gov't news source and public consumption. Generally we can be safe to assume these staged shots to be gov't sponsored shots for the purpose of imporving public relations. No freelance , commercial reporter or individuals are allowed to be this close to an exercise. Hallo84 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
All deleted per howcheng, Megapixie et al. No source. / Fred J 17:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
May 30
[edit]
I have uploaded an identical copy at Image:Paul Hill (flight director).jpg. This was done because there was a picture of a murderer of the same name uploaded to Wikipedia. -- Gaff 04:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted please use {{Duplicate}} in the future. MECU≈talk 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons is not Flickr or Photobucket. Out of project scope. -- Siebrand 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons is not Flickr or Photobucket. Out of project scope. -- Siebrand 07:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Commons is not Flickr or Photobucket: out of project scope. -- Siebrand 07:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Installation manual. Contains copyrighted Windows screenshots. -- Siebrand 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
wrong license type --Htgf 08:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted logo/uploader (self work) request, unused MECU≈talk 13:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Another 1939 German Nazi calendar image. Not a U.S. Government work. German Nazi images may have special status in the U.S. and the UK, but are German works copyrighted in Germany and many other countries. Delete Lupo 09:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
(reason for deletion) --D-Kuru 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio--Polarlys 15:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No permission, most likely not a free license --Erwin85 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Next time please use {{Copyvio}}. --Dodo 07:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a free license -- Siebrand 08:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: {{noncommercial}}
(Image is probably misidentified) --Ed Uebel 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a reason for deletion. Is the license incorrect? Add {{Subst:nld}}. Is the name incorrect? Re-upload the file and mark this one {{Badname}}... Cheers! Siebrand 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by D-Kuru: uploader says:"I would like these 2 images deleted: Image:Bryoria trichodes.jpg, Image:Bryoria trichodes-1.jpg Thank you. Ed Uebel 16:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)"
Not used in any article, controversial. Succo 16:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 27 May 2007; not edited for 5 days
External source only says the image was taken during Laval's trip to Moscow. It doesn't say when and where the image was published, nor who the photographer was. The French source site claims ©. Lupo 07:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
A piece of typed text without images, appears to be original work. Should be present as plain text in an appropriate wiki. -- Siebrand 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - outside project scope. WjBscribe 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not used, no information given. self-made claim doubtful. -- Siebrand 08:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio http://www.unisa.edu.au/blueprint/buildings/mawsoncentre.asp (http://www.unisa.edu.au/copyright/) --GeorgHH 10:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 18:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
unused artwork. -- Siebrand 12:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Either a logo or clanspam --D-Kuru 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The simple fact that's unused isn't relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think that this image is compatible with the Commons:Project scope --D-Kuru 18:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, as per Kuru. --Polarlys 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Need to know if the statue is in the public domain, as FOP in the USA doesn't allow free works of copyrighted statues -- MECU≈talk 12:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- It is made by Nina Akamu ([125]).
- A similar image has been speedy deleted (Image:Grand Rapids Cavallo 2.jpg), even though it was kept the year before (Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Grand Rapids Cavallo 2.jpg). Kjetil r 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, this photo is the same photo as Marco Bonavoglia uploaded as GFDL-self two years ago. I will block User:Grguy2011 for stealing other users' work, claiming PD-self. He has been warned several times. Kjetil r 13:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- User:Grguy2011 may be a cross-wiki sockpuppet of w:en:User:Eman1114. Evidence is here - [126], [127]. Eman1114 posts those copyvio images onto w:en:Grand Rapids, Michigan article of enwp right after those images were uploaded by Grguy2011 on Commons. Yassie 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The horse was unveiled in 1999. Definitely not free. MECU≈talk 20:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Image:Meijer Gardens 01.jpg (same statue) is also nominated for deletion. --88.134.44.255 20:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 18:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Bild wird auch nach wiederholtem neu-hochladen in der Vorschau falsch angezeigt und als Thumb überhaupt nicht angezeigt -- 34er 15:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep bei mir passt alles --D-Kuru 15:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hallo D-Kuru, ich sitze gerade an einem anderen Rechner und das Bild wird in der Vorschau trotzdem falsch angezeigt. Was mache ich falsch? Gruß --34er 20:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The simple fact that 34er isn't able to handle his computer isn't relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
kept, works --Polarlys 18:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
see Commons:Project scope --Polarlys 15:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It is not out of project scope, because used on nl.wiki nl:Cora Tamarinof. But it is a derivative of a work by a living artist. The same is for Image:Drooggevallenbootjegr.jpg and Image:Huisgr.jpg. --GeorgHH 11:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, thank you for the hint. copyvio, derivative work. --Polarlys 11:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Hitler et al.
[edit]Some more uploads of Edgar Allan Poe (talk · contribs):
Some German WWII images have special status in the U.S. and the UK. However, these are German works copyrighted in Germany and many other countries. Delete Lupo 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note: that Edgar keeps uploading such images even though he should by now be aware of these copyright issues makes it kind of difficult not to assume bad faith. Lupo 07:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 11:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
one of the two pictures in here has been deleted as copyvio —the preceding unsigned comment is by 84.63.123.173 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Made up of two images, one of which is not free [128]. WjBscribe 20:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
![[128]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Michael_Uhrmann.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete copyvio. Wooyi 04:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Changed today into a copyviol request --User:G.dallorto 12:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Petrusbarbygere: Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama.
Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Changed into a copyviol request. --User:G.dallorto 12:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Petrusbarbygere: Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama.
Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete changed into a copyviol request today --User:G.dallorto 12:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Petrusbarbygere: Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama.
Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete changed into a copyviol request today --User:G.dallorto 12:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Petrusbarbygere: Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama.
Renzo Piano is a living architect, therefore, copyviol, since Italy has no freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 21:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete changed today into a copyviol request
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 3 days
Gae Aulenti is a living architect, and there is no Freedom of Panorama in Italy.. --User:G.dallorto 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no FOP in Italy
Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into Copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Zirland: In category Copyright violation; no license
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". --User:G.dallorto 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [129]. Yann (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
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". --User:G.dallorto 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Of course and unluckily. --Lucas 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Undeleted: as per [130]. Yann (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Image:IMG 0912 - Perugia - Scala del cortile di Palazzo Penna - Foto G. Dall'Orto - 6 ago 2006 - 01.jpg
[edit]
Franco Minissi died only in 1996: copyrighted work. No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 4 days
Image:IMG 0915 - Perugia - Scala del cortile di Palazzo Penna - Foto G. Dall'Orto - 6 ago 2006 - 02.jpg
[edit]
Franco Minissi died only in 1996: copyrighted work. No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today --User:G.dallorto 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 4 days
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". --User:G.dallorto 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- No arguing with that. However, the building isn't the main subject here. Cropping it would suffice, or is the sculpture by Piacentini as well? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I could agree, and I do not know who the author is, but the building was made in 1939-1942, therefore 70 years have not elapsed anyway. Sorry. However, I asked the author of the photograph, just in case. --User:G.dallorto 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I got the answer from the uploader, the statue is by Publio Morbiducci, who died in in 1963. Sorry. --User:G.dallorto 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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". --User:G.dallorto 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
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". --User:G.dallorto 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete : no FOP in Italy. Many content of Category:Italian architects not in the Public Domain yet should be deleted as well. Petrusbarbygere 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 11:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: no FOP in Italy
Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Freedom of panorama does not apply to sculptures in the Usa. --User:G.dallorto 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriat copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; no permission
Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 14:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 0 days
Delete Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate Copyviol request today --User:G.dallorto 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; not edited for 0 days
Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 14:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; no permission
Delete Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 12:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: Derivative work, see Commons:Derivative works
Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 12:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: Derivative work, see Commons:Derivative works
Image:IMG 0916 - Perugia - Scala del cortile di Palazzo Penna - Foto G. Dall'Orto - 6 ago 2006 - 03.jpg
[edit]
Franco Minissi died only in 1996: copyrighted work. No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am the author and I changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; no permission
Image:IMG 0917 - Perugia - Scala del cortile di Palazzo Penna - Foto G. Dall'Orto - 6 ago 2006 - 04.jpg
[edit]
Franco Minissi died only in 1996: copyrighted work. No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am the author and I changed into a more appropriate copyviol request today. --User:G.dallorto 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Polarlys: In category Copyright violation; no permission
no work of the United States Federal Government --Polarlys 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, Mach weg, lieber Polarlys. Gruß Maiplatz 22:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
no license, "own work" seems questionable --ALE! ¿…? 12:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Also:
- Image:CLPHoPingPowerStation3.jpg
- Image:CLPGPECinIndia3.jpg
- Image:CLPEGCOinThailand3.jpg
- Image:CLPBlackStation3.jpg
Suspected copyfraud based on geographical distribution of topics and image size (thumbnail). -- Siebrand 12:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed; one of the pictures is one on this page. Delete Carl Lindberg 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, here is the source of the first nominated image. ©2006 CLP Holdings Limited. All rights reserved. I would presume the rest are on similar pages there... yep, here and here are index pages with all of them. Delete Carl Lindberg 06:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted all as probable copyvios. / Fred J 10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Out of focus image. Can hardly be used anywhere. -- Siebrand 12:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is being used somewhere though: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caminos_del_Sonido?uselang=en MECU≈talk 13:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Darn. Is is me, or does CheckUsage sometimes actually fail to report and appear to report all? I did do a CheckUsage on this image... Siebrand 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
kept, image is used --ALE! ¿…? 15:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milanocadorna0001.jpg
From uploader,
I'm sorry to make you be in trouble. This photograph, I own an original photograph, but it is unclear. Then, from the book named "kitakaze iji"(Kitakaze family story),I copied this image. "kitakaze iji"is published in 1st/May 1963,befor the influence of current Japanese cpyright law. I judged it expired from the old Japanese cpyright law's right after 10 years. I have tried to search the auther's relatives, however,I could't find them. The man in the photograph is Shozo Kitakaze, whose descendants don't exist now on earth. I'm from Kitakaze family,but I'm not his descendant. "kitakaze iji"'s auther,Zempei Kita was the descendant of business clerk under Shozo Kitakaze.
Then, please delete this photograph, if you may.I only wanted to inform you,readers, of Kitakaze family.
I'm sorry again. --Jnn 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted as per request. / Fred J 10:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete and oversized SVG image. Unused. -- Siebrand 12:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Please, by all means, delete this image. I tried to create it, and it looks fine in the drawing tool I used, but after loading the text boxes don't appear as they are supposed to. That's why I didn't use the image at the end. So, I urge you to purge it or find someone who is able to make it look alright. The text boxes are in Hebrew, so this might be the problem. Thanks. --E kiv 16:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- If you still have the original: convert the characters to paths, so that the render engine does not require the fonts to render it. Siebrand 16:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Freedom of panorama? -Panser Born- (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- You will find the explanation of the concept here: Commons:Freedom of panorama. The section a bout Italy is here: Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Italy. --User:G.dallorto 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. So what kind of copyright would this image be subject to? -Panser Born- (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- By the sculptor of the work of art, unless he gave permission, or unless the laws of the country where it is on public display allow photography under the "freedom of panorama" clause. Italy is not, unfortunately, among these countries. But if the very same work of art were on public display, say, in France or in the UK instead, there would be no counter-indication for it to stay in Wikicommons. --User:G.dallorto 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have a feeling getting it through customs might be a bit difficult! =) It's a pity Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama — is there any particular reason they don't have it? Anyway, thanks for the information. -Panser Born- (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes there is, the European copyright agreement was accepted into Italian law books by Silvio Berlusconi, who onws three TV networks, and several publishing houses and periodicals, and who also rules the main Italian political party. The tighter the copyright is, the more he earns. We have a law, called "Legge Ronchey", giving museums monopoply over images of the works of art they have on display. Ronchey, who proposed the law, was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi. After the law was issued, all catalogues of museums are now published by publisher Electa, which is owned by Mondadori, which is owned by a... Silvio Berlusconi. The CEO of Electa, after Ronchey ceased to be a minister, become a certain mr..... Ronchey. Now you have a clearer view, have you? --User:G.dallorto 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see — how unfortunate. =( Thanks for the explanation. -Panser Born- (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- (Firstly, I think a single joint discussion would be better than hundreds of deletion requests when the issue raised is the same for all images.) You mentioned in another deletion request that buildings are protected by copyright law in Italy. I still wonder if this covers mere depiction of buildings as opposed to replication of the buildings or their drawings. I'd also like to know when the law was ratified, as I find it doubtful that the law would apply ex post facto to works created before it went into effect. Also, is there any case law supporting your view that photography for distribution is effectively banned in urban Italy? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion there is no need for a general discussion since in THIS case the issue is clear. However, if you are interested in a general discussion about the freedom of panroama issue, I saved in my sandbox the long discussion (now closed) from the Village pump on the matter: you find it here. Furthermore, copyright laws may revive copyright ex post, as in the recent extention from 50 to 70 years, that revived copyrights on scores of authors who had fallen into the PD. This is a general principle, internationally valid. Please get some information on copyright laws. Thanks.
- In the "other discussion" you mention, I already gave legal reference and already answered all of your questions: "Please refer to the Italian copyright law : "In particolare sono comprese nella protezione: (omisiss) 5) i disegni e le opere dell'architettura;" ("both architectural drawings and buildings")". The text of the law is explicit: BOTH the drawings and the buildings themselves. So no further discussion is needed. What we need, is simply to change the Italian law. For a discussion about this issue, if you read Italian please refer to the ongoing discussion in the it:Wikipedia here:
- Yes there is, the European copyright agreement was accepted into Italian law books by Silvio Berlusconi, who onws three TV networks, and several publishing houses and periodicals, and who also rules the main Italian political party. The tighter the copyright is, the more he earns. We have a law, called "Legge Ronchey", giving museums monopoply over images of the works of art they have on display. Ronchey, who proposed the law, was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi. After the law was issued, all catalogues of museums are now published by publisher Electa, which is owned by Mondadori, which is owned by a... Silvio Berlusconi. The CEO of Electa, after Ronchey ceased to be a minister, become a certain mr..... Ronchey. Now you have a clearer view, have you? --User:G.dallorto 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have a feeling getting it through customs might be a bit difficult! =) It's a pity Italy doesn't have freedom of panorama — is there any particular reason they don't have it? Anyway, thanks for the information. -Panser Born- (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- By the sculptor of the work of art, unless he gave permission, or unless the laws of the country where it is on public display allow photography under the "freedom of panorama" clause. Italy is not, unfortunately, among these countries. But if the very same work of art were on public display, say, in France or in the UK instead, there would be no counter-indication for it to stay in Wikicommons. --User:G.dallorto 12:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. So what kind of copyright would this image be subject to? -Panser Born- (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- You will find the explanation of the concept here: Commons:Freedom of panorama. The section a bout Italy is here: Commons:Freedom_of_Panorama#Italy. --User:G.dallorto 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_progetto:Coordinamento/Immagini#Quesito_su_immagini_di_palazzi
- http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/2007_04_20#Problema_con_architetti_viventi
- http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Alcuni_Wikipediani/Lettera_aperta_sulle_leggi_sul_copyright
- http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Il_mondo_Open_Source_ricevuto_in_Parlamento._E_l%27Open_Content%3F
I hope I answered once for all you doubts. --User:G.dallorto 12:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Franco Minissi died only in 1996: copyrighted work. No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Rossi died in 1997. Italy has no freedom of panorama :-( --User:G.dallorto 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- strongly keep. This photo may remain with a {{FOP}}, despite Freedom of Panorama voidness in Italy. In fact the template explains meticulously that the photos could be used "independent from where the photo was taken originally".--Grifomaniacs 13:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- If Italy does not allow FOP, why whould you want to invoke it? We may not custom-tailor our laws to adapt to our needs. We can but change them, if we deem them unjust (as I do) and if we can... --User:G.dallorto 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- If Wikimedia Commons allows to stay here pictures made in the common acceptation of freedom of panorama (a panorama isn't property of a state or of an architect), why should we follow an unexistent Italian law prohibiting this kind of photos? Italy has a lack of laws in this point, consequently no laws is equal to a deregulation that allows also in Italy the freedom of panorama. Moreover the author of this picture is a British guy. Finally, if we apply rigorously this criterion to all the photos made in Italy, we'll have a tremendous gap between Wiki Commons and Italy, to be added to the serious matter that Italy's concept of Public Domain in this project is not yet recognized. --Grifomaniacs 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with the evaluation you write, even if what you say about the law is wrong: the international conventions forbid (binding for Italy too) by default such a use, UNLESS a national law makes an exception. And Italy has not any such laws. So your reasoning does not work. It is not me who made the stupid rules, is the Italian State (Berlusconi... yet another "conflict of interests" of his) and the Wikimedia foundation. We should not discuss here whether these rules are sane or insane, but only if this image may stay here under the rules observed by Commons. My opinion is: unfortunately not. I had to put in the deletion list scores and scores of images of mine I upoloaded before I discovered FOP did not apply to Italy. --User:G.dallorto 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- If Wikimedia Commons allows to stay here pictures made in the common acceptation of freedom of panorama (a panorama isn't property of a state or of an architect), why should we follow an unexistent Italian law prohibiting this kind of photos? Italy has a lack of laws in this point, consequently no laws is equal to a deregulation that allows also in Italy the freedom of panorama. Moreover the author of this picture is a British guy. Finally, if we apply rigorously this criterion to all the photos made in Italy, we'll have a tremendous gap between Wiki Commons and Italy, to be added to the serious matter that Italy's concept of Public Domain in this project is not yet recognized. --Grifomaniacs 13:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- If Italy does not allow FOP, why whould you want to invoke it? We may not custom-tailor our laws to adapt to our needs. We can but change them, if we deem them unjust (as I do) and if we can... --User:G.dallorto 12:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete : no FOP in Italy. Many content of Category:Italian architects not in the Public Domain yet should be deleted as well. Petrusbarbygere 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:IMG 0911 - Perugia - Scala del cortile di Palazzo Penna - Foto G. Dall'Orto - 6 ago 2006 - 01.jpg
[edit]
Franco Minissi died only in 1996: copyrighted work. No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I am the author and I changed into a more appropriate copyvio request today. --User:G.dallorto 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
deleted by User:Siebrand --ALE! ¿…? 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As per picture, (c) Yuri Hooker/WWF. However, if user Hookery is "Yuri Hooker", perhaps he can clarify the WWF copyright situation. -- Deadstar 14:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Yuri Hooker: No hay problema sobre el copyright. Las fotos son de mi propiedad pero las tomé bajo contrato con WWF-Perú. El acuerdo es que yo puedo usar las fotos pero tengo que mencionar tambien los creditos de WWF.
Kept, added cc-by license to it (eg attribution). / Fred J 15:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Arnaldo Pomodoro's works are not in the PD, and Italy has no Freedom of panorama. --User:G.dallorto 13:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the sculpture is not necessarily the main subject of the image. --ALE! ¿…? 12:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. Sorry, but the sculptures are not incidentally in the image, they take up one third of it. / Fred J 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
May 31
[edit]
misguided licence User:Orland
Deleted by Cnyborg: Unfree press license
Yahoo article down or non-existent, so thus no proof at all that this image is PD or copyright, free use. User:Zanimum
- Delete Yahoo almost always uses photographs from AP, Reuters, AFP etc. None of these would be released under a free license.Madmax32 19:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
better image (no black parts) at Image:Marie-Bamberger2.jpg -- Drahreg01 20:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, --Polarlys 23:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
No evidence of Public Domain status, unlikely to be work of uploader -- Madmax32 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- A look at the upload history shows the uploader cropped a border, this thumbnail image is probably stolen from a government of Peru website Madmax32 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to have been obtained from here. Unfree image. WjBscribe 23:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Its was not stolen from the goverment of Peru as you said. it was taked for the Minicipality of San Iisdro, and is not used anymore...so please put again the photo. And investigate before. Thanks
Claims PD-old Japan, but not dated. -- Siebrand 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- All I did was get the current one from the Hideki Tojo wikipedia article and process it in photoshop to remove pixelation and sharpen. What's the problem? --Javit 09:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this would quality as a photograph either. And the date is pretty obvious! --Javit 09:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- As no date of creation is mentioned and I am not aware of who Hideki Tojo is, this is obviously not obvious to everyone... Siebrand 11:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Signatures are usually ineligible for copyright, besides he was executed in 1948. Obviously if the signature is real, the date does not matter (over 50 years) Madmax32 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment In the public domain in Japan because the author, w:Hideki Tojo, died in 1948, though signature are generally protected as a calligraphy in Japan. If it was signed in 1947 or latter, and if US law protect signature, URAA may restore the copyright in US.--Kareha 16:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Kept. All info present now. Siebrand 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
look closely at right side of image, tag says AP Photo -- Madmax32 23:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- obviously not a work of the uploader, likely taken by a professional press photographer Madmax32 23:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Rama: trivial copyvio
The licence on flickr is "All rights reserved" so I think it's a copyvio --D-Kuru 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC) --D-Kuru 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- it says 'Permission sent to OTRS.' if that's true it should not be deleted Madmax32 21:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but how says that that realy happened?
- If there isn't a link it also can be a fake
- --D-Kuru 22:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep I was the one who uploaded it. I sent the flickr user an email to see if it was ok to upload it under CC-BY-SA-2.5 to which she agreed. I then sent a copy of the permission to permissions-commons.at.wikimedia.org. I received a reply from them with a ticket number. This is the first time I uploaded a picture in which I requested the owner to release under a less restrictive license. So if I missed out on something, please say so. I assure you this is not a fake. Spellcast 02:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Update: I just realised that I had to reply to the permissions-commons.at.wikimedia.org email. I just sent them a link telling them where it was uploaded to Commons. Spellcast 02:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Not Deleted because ORTS ticketnumber is 2007053110009643 --D-Kuru 22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
surely not PD-self --Polarlys 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted. The user appears to be here solely to upload copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
surely not PD-self --Polarlys 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Please help to check all other uploads by this user: Every file is PD-self, some have ebay logos it its corner, others are obvious copyvios from websites (resolution), mostly the given description is not reliable (taken bevor the user was even born – but PD-self). --Polarlys 01:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted along with all other self-attributed uploads. The user clearly has no intention of abiding by copyright laws or responding to our concerns. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Uploading to en.wiki without source then claimed to be released under the GNU FDL by the uploader. It appears however that the image was taken from TimesOnline ( see [131]) --WjBscribe 19:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Deleted by Siebrand: In category Unknown as of 29 May 2007; not edited for 5 days
Replaced by original higher-resolution Image:Lock-jaw 2857.jpg -- Centrx 00:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It is prefered to use the high-res version. --GeorgHH 11:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep higher-resolution can not be a reason for deletion.
deleted, we don’t need thumbs of files --Polarlys 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Delyan Slavov2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Information Note on Turkish Political Life.pdf Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Taxwoman1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Enterprise telefoon.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:BoulleCommode.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:SHOCKCODE.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gsm.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vinichenko Re.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Seper 2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano - Piazza Duomo - Pzza Diaz da Pza Duomo - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3-jan-2007 - 02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:IMG 5425 - Milano - Piazza Diaz - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 17-Febr-2007.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano Nuova Fiera 1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano-Nuova-Fiera1.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano-Nuova-Fiera2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano-Nuova-Fiera3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano-Nuova-Fiera4.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano-Nuova-Fiera5.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Jade goody.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bozner Siegesdenkmal.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Kdf-Wagen und Hitler.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Von Rundstedt.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Werner von Blomberg.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Alfred Rosenberg.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Martin Bormann 02.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Reinhard-Heydrich.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Martin Bormann.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Rommel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Model.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Keitel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Liberty3869.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Prince Zaixun of Qing in USA 2.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Conseil union.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MalekBoutih.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Wilno Kosciol Misjonarzy Zygmunt Vogel.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Logo Masarykova univerzita.gif Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sonderzugbann38.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Milano al mattino.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tesla Memorial NF small.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Schirmflieger 6955.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Dandelion2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:MeinKampf1933Ed.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:EddiemurphyDARE1994.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Pictures of User:Pogrebnoj-Alexandroff Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Borg-Warner Trophy.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Veii5917.png
