This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Appears to be a bunch of copyrighted CD covers, so not GFDL as claimed. Probably not even fair use as it is used in en.Wikipedia, but that's another discussion. Mr.Z-man02:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
deleted, we don’t need “variations” of artworks due to technical limitations, we need high quality reproductions with original colours. --Polarlys12:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The "Kriegerdenkmal", which is shown on the postcard, was built in 1934. The postcard (and so the scan) cannot be PD, unless the author's date of death is supplied. --Sir Gawain19:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Because the image you see was not created by Rorschach. See lengthy discussion at [1]. Hogrefe & Huber have a current copyright on the blots as they are with the current Rorschach test. Contact Hogrefe & Huber if you have any doubts. Don't assume the blots aren't copyrighted just because Rorschach died in 1922. Ward300123:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
mmmh, what a case... I've read your talk on en.wp, and I've read something else around.
If you are telling that someone else created it, we should understand not only who created it really, but also what makes it different from the original. However, at least there would be a wrong authorship indicated on the image. But I saw a psychologist, here, opposing his professional Ethical Standards on this image, so it should be really a true creation of Rorschach, or he wouldn't be considering it as something to care about: as far as I could read on the web, in fact, and given a detailed explaination we received from a psychologist on it.wiki, only the original blots are useful for the test, because they are the only patterns which psys can make their analysis upon. I believe that patterns cannot be different, for comparative and metric reasons I presume. But if they still are useful for the test, at the point that psys still oppose to their distribution, the eventual difference will be so narrow that no original addition would be of interest, so it wouldn't actually be a derivative work: it still would be a Rorschach's creation with unmeaningful additions.
Anyway, if it's not an original creation of Rorschach and someone else made it, why making a derivative work out of the original drawing? It cannot be different: it wouldn't be correct to insert it into the test in substitution of the original one, and perhaps it wouldn't be useful for clinical purposes. So why someone should manipulate the original blot? Original templates are still available today, not even a technical reason seems probable. No different authorship seems probable.
The company didn't get its economical rights from the originary work. The author wasn't working for them (they bougth them after his death), this excludes that they can say "that man created it for us as an employee of ours". Rorschach was an employee with Ernst Bircher [2], who could say so. So, if this is the case, and Rorschach created the test on the behalf of his employer (Bircher), if this is really what happened, Hogrefe & Huber only bought this kind of right, which in most jurisdictions is relevantly shorter than the death+70 term.
When editors published the test, they might have reserved rights on the test in its entirety, but if this test includes drawings (technically this is what they are), these still remain drawings and, as such, they follow their own copyright expiration terms, while the test might be patented as a composition of text and drawings or otherwise protected for different periods. This only in case that the composition of some text and some drawings can effectively be considered a medical instrument. But, we are only talking about the drawings. Which are only drawings.
For certain, they registered Rorschach's surname as a trademark, and Hogrefe & Huber enjoys royalties because the test is called this way. Therefore this is perhaps the only right they could ensure themselves, or we would have found (in the official websites), the (R) sign or other indications when the Rorschach test is mentioned; this also, and especially, because the word Rorschach is always tagged that way and we can read "Rorschach®-Test" instead of "Rorschach®-Test®" [3], or different indications. Had they registered, patented or however restricted the use of something else, they would have indicated it as well. But they didn't. Why should they be so precise in putting the ® sign wherever possible, even when talking about the person, and at the same time so self-confident not to put signs over other rights they could own?
Of course I do believe that WMF Projects are not meant to abide by psychologists' Ethical Standards: these may concern those professionals only. Also, the "secret" is not really that secret: the ten plates that served as printing templates are in a museum and can be seen by arrangement (no other restrictions evidenced).
So, in conclusion, I'm starting to consider that this drawing regularly entered the public domain, because too much unusual conditions should have had to come to existence to seriously exclude it is in the PD. This is certainly a sort of feeling about the matter, but also something more than that. So, if you know further arguments which could reveal helpful, please add them. It is an interesting image and it could be very interesting to have it in the projects. I wouldn't hurry up for its deletion, let's give it a chance to be brought to everybody, if allowed. --g02:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a psychologist and an expert on the Rorschach. I'm not trying to impress anyone with those credentials, but the insistence by unknowledgeable editors who are hellbent on displaying the image regardless of facts forces me to exert my expertise. Hermann Rorschach experimented with HUNDREDS of inkblots. Some of the achromatic blots in the test today are a result, in part, of a printing error. H. Rorschach died before the vast majority of psychologists began to use his technique; therefore almost all the psychometric properties of the test were researched AFTER he died. His death in 1922 occurred long before the test became a psychometrically valid instrument.
But let me suggest a very simple solution. Instead of extracting a Rorschach image from a website that also is ignorant of Hogrefe & Huber's rights, or scanning it from a copyrighted book, why not go directly to the Rorschach publishers? Contact Hogrefe & Huber and ask them to supply a copy of a Rorschach image. If they have no legal rights to the images, they should willingly oblige. But the reality is that they probably will inform you of your violation of the law. The Rorschach is near the top of the list of the most widely used psychological tests in the history of psychological testing. If Hogrefe & Huber have no rights, why aren't the images all over the internet? I have resisted contacting Hogrefe and Huber myself because of the respect I have for Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. But if this nonsense continues I'll have to contact them myself. I invite anyone else to go ahead and contact them before I do. Ward300102:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted yesterday, by email, Hogrefe and Huber, to signal the copyright violation of Rorscharch images. I think that every psychologist or psychiatrist has the ethical duty to signal these violations, for their clinical relevance for future patients. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by87.2.181.205 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Don't be fooled by the word typed drawing used there, it just means "a word with standard latin letters", as you can see here. In a "typed drawing" The mark does not include a design element., so obviously the blots are not part of this trademark.
So, while the name Rorschach is protected, the rights on the drawings expired in 1997 1992. Even if the drawings were "slightly modified" this could be hardly called a creative work, and the fact that the copyright is extended by the "new version" of the image is arguable.
Moreover, this image is perfectly identical to the other original rorschach blots that can be found on Internet, and I can't spot any difference between them and an old blot from the 50s. They do not seem so "modified", after all.
Result: The image is perfectly legal and it is PD-Old due to copyright expiration after Rorschach's death. Condolences to Rorschach's widow.
Actually, on Google Images they are not real Rorschach Inkblots (only the first one is true): they are fake Inkblots used to provide a demostration, an idea about "what are a rorschach inkblots", but without showing the real ones (viewing the real images before taking the test in a clinical setting could alterate the results, with consequential CLINICAL ISSUES...). Showing the real inkblots it's not only a matter of PD; is a matter of clinical relevance ! I propose to substitute the Wikipedia "real image" with a very similar "Demo" Inkblot: the INFORMATIONAL value is the same, but this could provide more safety for clinical practice. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by147.162.146.133 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat with me: we don't care about "clinical relevance".
Repeat with me: "Why I want to care only about copyright issues, when many scientific societies all around the world ask - kindly and only - to use fake (but, I repeat, very similar) inkblots to avoid dangerous clinical issues, while mantaining for the general public the possibility to see what is like a Rorschach inkblot?". Simply, use a Demo Inkblot (the Web is plenty of them), and both the "universal right to know" and the "clinical safety issue" will be preserved. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by87.4.184.24 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They will be fake, and it is not good. Sooo sorry for the scientific societies. Maybe it is time to move those brain cells and show up with a new test?
Because, again, Commons should not observe psycologist policies, "clinical safety issues" or *censorship*, just copyright laws. --Jollyroger20:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WMF Projects are meant to spread knowledge, not to hide it. Whatever the knowledge might be. However it is, not however you would like it to be. And in WMF Projects usually no POV is protected, not even a professional one. So please stop this campaigning, we are not judging what the blot means or what you think it means, we just leave our readers to choose whether they want to know it or not. If you are here to share your knowledge, you are welcome. If you are here only to try to change our rules, be honest and admit that no one from WMF came at your Society begging them to change their rules. You don't do it here please. We wouldn't be impressed but very badly. --g01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A complaint regarding this image has been received at OTRS. Please hold deletion discussion until it has been resolved.Swatjester23:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to reopen this, because there has not been a follow up since June. Huber owns the copyright for the Rorschach card. Also, Commons should be concerned with protecting the validity of the test, because psychological organizations can and have pursued legal action in these matters. I am not threatening legal action, I am just trying to underscore the importance of deleting these images as they are copyright violations. -- Psy guy20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask for a different view on this: Copyright is one issue on that topic, and I agree entirely with the position that it is expired (I would even be happy if copyright expired much earlier - why should anyone profit from a work whose author died long ago?).
But there is another issue here that is not about scientific societies but about medical/psychological treatment. And I disagree with the idea that wikipedia would not be bound by ethical questions. As I know, the german wikipedia displays a note on health issues below everything that concerns health - not because of legal obligation, but to protect patients.
In this way I would appeal to respect the necessity to keep these images from the general public because it spoils the test. And inventing a new test would require to do all the work in evaluating it again, while there is already one that works well AFAIK.
I think the option to use an image not required for the test (a "fake" one) sounds a good option without losing too much information for wikipedia.
Again: we are here to make informations available to anyone. What final users will do with them, cannot be a relevant concern against the principle of spreading free knowledge, which is the only ethical issue we can consider here around. I can trust you, and for sure I do believe that you really honestly consider it bad for patients to know the picture before the test. But you too might perhaps consider in turn that WMF projects are not meant to help preserving secrets in science. We are here for absolutely the contrary.
Besides, we actually didn't break the secret: the picture came out from somewhere long time ago, it was not any WMF user to make it available from inside the mistery, probably a psychologist broke this professional ethical code, however now it is available and it is something that has to be made available through Commons too. No reasonable objection was opposed against the conclusion that it is a PD image, it therefore is not a copyviol, it is a free image, and in case of legal action, I believe that your point about inventing a new test could be very interesting, since now it's time to make some more research in this discipline, after so much decades. Time to invent something new, like scientists do in every discipline day after day.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image shows the German language area in the year 962, but this language area omits the areas later to be Dutch. In the year 962 there were no standard languages German and Dutch. The predecessor of Dutch, (Low) Frankish, was closely related to (Middle and Upper) Frankish in what is now the German language area. It's plain national bias and anachronistic to say in the year 962 it was possible to distinguish between Dutch and German. Therefore the map is inaccurate and should be deleted. --::Slomox::><17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I´ve forgotten to enter an approriate tile of the photograph. Therefore I added a second one with proper title. -- AHDG21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is it? The second image? As far as I see there's no image like Spielberg Castle... Put here a link to the second image, please, and I will delete this one. /odder16:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Excuse me, but what about Freedom of Panorama? These statues were taken in Japan! And the gaming console has only elements from Sonic the Hedgehog, what about photos of collections of Star Wars stuff (Image:Swmovies.jpg)? And you deleted the images like an hour after the request! Come on! BeŻet10:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Japan: “Japanese copyright law allows the reproduction of artistic works located permanently in open places accessible to the public, such as streets and parks, or at places easily seen by the public, such as the outer walls of buildings, only for non-commercial purposes.” Feel free to request the deletion of other files. --Polarlys21:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, strongly oppose. In most of the cases, these are SVG elements in coloured flags made from scratch. If they are similar (as they are supposed to be) to football clubs colours, this doesn't matter. There are a lot of pics or images on Commons created to be similar to ones that are copyrighted or trademarks. Here we have only 600px flags made from scratch using GIMP or Photoshop with some colours and elements imported from cities' or states' coats of arms present on commons released in PD. Kanchelskis23:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Checked some of them, by now there are these infrangiments: Bari, Estudiantes, West Ham, . The others are absolutely OK, IMHO. Kanchelskis23:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole f***ing point of this deletion request is that they are made to be similar to... Redrawing doesn't create new copyright most of the time and it sure as h*ll doesn't void any previous copyrights there are for an image. NielsFtalk/overleg/discussion/discussione05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, be calm and learn politeness! However, these, except for some with parts of original badges, are only compositions made with similar SVG objects found on Commons, they are NOT redrawings of the same artworks protected by copyright. This is for you a copyvio? It's the same thing, or worst. Kanchelskis
Delete I dispute these were made from scratch, take a look at Image:600px_Anderlecht.png for example it is clearly resized from a smaller picture Madmax3202:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
look at Image:600px_Colori_di_Volgograd.png as well, that is clearly a resized/resampled image, yet the author claims PD self, many of the others are quite obvious resample jobs Madmax3202:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, some of them contain parts of original badges and must be deleted, the others with only elements from SVG compositions or Photoshop's meshes and colours are ok. These don't contain any part of the original badge: Arsenal, Aston Villa, Atletico Madrid, Arezzo, Austria Vienna, Auxerre, Ascoli, AZ, Barcelona, Bayern Munchen, Benfica, Besiktas, Blackburn, Boca, Bologna, Bolton, Botafogo, Cagliari, Cardiff, Celta, Celtic, Charlton, Chelsea, Club Brugge, Cork City, Corinthians, Cruzeiro, Danubio, Derry City, Dinamo Zagreb, Djurgardens, Drogheda, Dundee Utd, Dynamo Kiyv, Estrela Amadora, Everton, Fenerbahce, Feyenoord, Finn Harps, Flamengo, Genoa, Goteborg, Heart, Heerenven, Hibernian, Juventus, Leeds, Liverpool, Lucchese, Manchester United, Middlesbrough, Marseille, Messina, Milan, Motherwell, Nancy, Napoli, Novara, Olympique Lyon, Padova, Panathinaikos, PSG, Parma, Partick Thistle, Partizani Tirana, Penarol, Perugia, Portsmouth, Portuguesa, PSV, Rangers, Rapid Vienna, Reading, Real Madrid, Real Zaragoza, Red Star, RKC, Sampdoria, Santos, Sevilla, Shamrock Rovers, Sheffield Utd, Slavia Prague, Southampton, Sparta Prague, Sporting CP, Steaua, Stuttgart, Sydney, Torino, Tottenham, Toulouse, Treviso, Triestina, Twente, Udinese, Utrecht, Valencia, Vancouver, Vasco da Gama, Vicenza, Vitesse, Vojvodina, Watfor, Werder, Willem II, Wrexham and Yokohama Marinos.
If you are going to delete them, consider to delete every coat of arms uploaded on Commons, because these images are made up with their (FREE) elements. Kanchelskis08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are SVG files, all are PNG, SVG means someone actually plotted it, PNG could just be a converted jpg Madmax3209:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between your common coat-of-arms and a football club logo in general is that the general design of coats-of-arms isn't copyrighted anymore, while the design of the logo's in most cases still is copyrighted. NielsFtalk/overleg/discussion/discussione01:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, firmly oppose. I agree with Kanchelskis. Apart from obvious copyright violations like the flag of Anderlecht or NEC Nijmegen, the others are personal creations with material which should be free to edit. I will never understand why such images as Oscar icon.svg (quoted by Kanchelskis) can appear on Wikimedia Commons and our flags not. This is unfair. --Freddyballo10:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In most of the cases they're just flags that remind football teams' colours, it's not important how they're put on the flag (see Bologna, Milan, Barcelona). In other cases (see Göteborg) they're flags made with some elements taken from images that anyone can modify (see, for example, flag of Göteborg). I think that only a few flags are true copyviol, but the rest of them are just a personal interpretation of the colours and the style of the badges. --Frankie68814:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from clear copyright violation such as Anderlecht's or Nijmegen's flags, the other pictures are just a box with teams' colours and - in some cases - with their cities' coats of arms. No copyright infringment thus. Blackcat it08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nijmegen's flag is not a copyright violation. The flag was created using Image:600px Rosso Verde e Nero.png for the background and the Copperplate Gothic font for the text. I'll just take it as a compliment that everyone thinks it's a pure copy-paste from the original logo. Luctor IV11:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If they are made from other free editable images I think it's not a copyright violation even if they are similar to teams' colors or badges (if they were different they'd be unuseful!). Only a few (which contain part of the original badge) probably are copyviol and should be deleted or replaced but not all! --Simo8217:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, people, if elements that are by themselves maybe freely licensed are used to create a likeness of a copyrighted image, this ensures that the resulting image isn't copyrighted? So if I take 20 very simple elements (images), put them together and suddenly there I have a picture of the copyrighted Atomium, everything's alright? I very much doubt that. Just because the elements aren't copyrighted doesn't mean that the composition of those element wasn't an original idea in the first place, which still makes these images derivative works, and therefore copyvio's. NielsFtalk/overleg/discussion/discussione01:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you put the SAME objects in different ways you can say something like this. But you're saying that I cannot draw FROM SCRATCH a red flag with an SVG free derived eagle (that's not the same eagle!).. This is patetic and absurd. Everyone can draw and also sell a red flag with an eagle or a bull, if the objects are free! Kanchelskis
As I've already said, I see an unfair interpretation of derivative work, which seems to be applicable to football flags only. I agree with Snowdog. What do you think? --Freddyballo14:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as they are not similar to anything, especially not to the logos of the clubs in question, they just pretend to be similar, if you know what I mean. The second conclusion, however, is the fact that they shouldn't be used in articles about clubs. Airwolf06:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Club logos are only permitted on the English Wikipedia and other wikis that use the fair use license. However, a large part of the wikipedias does not accept fair use. That's exactly the reason why these illustrations are created. Luctor IV10:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been more than a month since these pictures were nominated for deletion. Is there going to be a decision or not? By the way, some of the logos - such as the Eintracht Frankfurt or Dynamo Kyiv one - are PD and therefore no copyright violation. The other flags are inspired by, but not derived from the original logos. Nowhere has been tried to copy a logo, only to create an impression of the logo (or the home colours or the kit, which I doubt to be copyrighted) by using free elements. Therefore: Oppose. Luctor IV21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed on the English Wikipedia at [4], there is no assertion that military insignia, regardless of nation, is uncopyrightable. The only thing that I could find, insignia wise, in international law is that insignia must be worn and disgtinguished in the field of combat.[5]. However, the deletion of this template does not mean all military insignia will be deleted en mass. There are several countries that make military insignia public domain. Russia, Belarus, United States are the nations I can think of that make their insignia PD. (There is also another issue of lack of sources for the images, but that can be dealt with later). User:Zscout370(Return fire)09:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most insignia can be tagged as PD-ineligible. I think this template should be kept but not used as a license template but as a warning template like the Nazi Symbol template. Even if the insignia is PD it still has non-copyright related restrictions. -- Catchi?11:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are insignia PD ineligible - some may be very simple (a combination of stars and stripes prob can't be covered by copyright) but some designs are more elaborate. In any event surely better to have these tagged as PD-ineligible than with a template that may not accurately reflect the copyright position. WjBscribe18:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are utilitarian articles. Any decorative appearance to them is actually utilitarian...a military member needs to be able to instantly recognize a person's rank (designs are similar across countries, usually) and country (individual design based usually on country's heraldic traditions). When I see an officer from another country I know to salute, even if I do not recognize the actual rank or country (the utilitarian aspect comes through even when the design is unknown). Any variation in the design serves merely to convey additional information. Nard17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um...^demon didn't say anything at all in this debate. Anyways, the problem is we have looked many times for the international law and there is none that says military insignia are public domain. Some insignia are public domain, such as that from the US and several of the former Soviet Republics. We can just retag those for now and see what else we have left. User:Zscout370(Return fire)18:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that's precisely the problem - there is no one international law governing military insignia. In each case, we'd need to know the local law. The template would have to change so radically depending on which country was refered to that we may as well have individual templates for each country. WjBscribe18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is misleading - there is no one international law that governs insignia. Any country can have its own law about insignia. Even where not subject to copyright, they are often subject to rules about use that are incompatible with the GFDL. This template should be replaced with templates for each country's insignia where we are able to indentify the relevant laws in those countries. WjBscribe18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sort out the countries which PD their insignia and tag those as appropriately. Then, once we get the rest, delete them. There is some other cleanup too I wish to do with the insignia, but this is the first step. User:Zscout370(Return fire)18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As shown in previous debate - there is no legal basis for this template's claim. Specific cases may be PD, but a blanket statement is simply false. DGtal10:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd really support something more like how country flags were treated. -- Catちぃ？ 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The screen is barely visible and blurred, the photo shows the scene, not only the screen of the game. I always quote this image Image:Swmovies.jpg which still is on Commons and nobody deleted it. Keep. BeŻet18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. According to the uploader, the image was a re-drawn copy of the official logo. The uploader also claimed to be the copyright holder of the work. However, a copyright violation is a copyright violation regardless of whether it was created manually or automatically. —LX (talk, contribs)17:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture and image:Haifatower Image:Haifatower.jpg are Identical. I have uploaded the original to the hebrew Wiki in 2005, and someone uploaded it here in August 2006 without my noticing. yesterday I have uploaded it here, as part of my project to load all the pictures I have uploaded in the Heb Wiki to Commons. since "Haifatower" is used in the Hebrew Wiki in over 20 pages, I suggest this identical image will be deleted. I have already changed it to "Haiftower" in all the Wikipedias it was used. Almog10:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - Keep if source and licensing details are added by the uploader. I note they have done this but since removed the details. Adambro16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some legal requirements to hosting pornography in the US, even if Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was struck down, I strongly urge wikimedia org to delete all such instances of pornographic content, unless it is a historical artwork (this clearly is not) Madmax3204:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And these watermarked images are quite outside the project scope, unless commons is planning to provide hosting for adult websites Madmax3204:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
apparently User:SB Johnny thinks it has some 'educational potential' according to his undelete description, it just looks like explicit and potentially illegal material (depending on the jurisdiction). It has no other use than as sexual stimulation medium, it's pornography. Madmax3207:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is supposed to content hosting for encyclopedic and educational content, pornography doesn't have anything do to with that Madmax3222:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This image should probably go into MediaWiki's "bad image" restriction list to limit inline use---if it's ever used on an article, and putting it on commons facilitate vandalism using this picture. Also we generally don't need pornography images in Wikimedia projects. Wooyi17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let me know according to which country's law you want this image be deleted? Iran? If i ask it's author to put hijab on foxy then this image will lost its main purpose to serve as illustration of yiff. 82.199.102.5510:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Uh... I'm refraining from a delete vote only due to my ignorance about Furry fandom and as to if this is actually informative about some encyclopedic theme in that sub culture. I see that from image/deletion history that this is a modified version of the original image (as the artist first uploaded it, there were no panties); I guess such modifications should be noted if the image is kept. I also saw in Category:Furry this image: Image:Momochan ardilla color jpg.png which I think should probably go as well if this one is deleted (or maybe even if not). -- Infrogmation17:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's illustrative of a particular type of sexual fantasy art. As such it is useful. The Wikipedia does document the various aspects of human sexuality. US law clearly allows blatantly pornographic images, so how does this rather odd cartoon become illegal? --Simonxag 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)comment but I'm a lot less happy about the other image Infrogmation pointed to: if anything might be called kiddiporn, we had better be sure it's not! --Simonxag12:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Bestiality is illegal in many jurisdictions and there are also some legal requirements to hosting pornography in the US, even if Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was struck down, I strongly urge wikimedia org to delete all such instances of pornographic content, unless it is a historical artwork (this clearly is not) Madmax3204:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has value for the wikiprojects as much as everything in category Erotic art. Before Commons the image were used in Ru-wikipedia since 2005, which does not have censore. 82.199.102.5514:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some might deem obscene images of children useful to illustrate articles on child pornography as well. That doesn't mean we should–or even could–host them. Cry censorship all you want, but it won't do you much good when Wikimedia's servers are shut down for hosting illegal animal porn. Then we can really talk about censorship. —LX (talk, contribs)06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image has to go unless there is evidence the creator allowed it to be used under a license other than the cc-by-nc-sa (non commercial - not allowed here) shown on flickr Madmax3207:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Thanks, I did not know the original uploader was a bot. I meant has anyone tried to contact the original Flickr author? Smee09:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep The movie trailers for those movies have also expired because the copyright was not renewed, also I quote from the library of congress website: New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection, 'NYWT&S staff photographs are in the public domain per the instrument of gift. These photos can be recognized by such stamps as "World-Telegram photo" or "World-Telegram photo by Ed Palumbo.'Madmax3201:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also you are wrong, it's a staff photograph by the New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper, not a movie frame Madmax3201:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please update image description. It's sometimes described as a fragment of movie in some wikipedias. A.J.07:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Do they have any basis for their claim? // Liftarn
Keep - if its from a United States military badge, its in the PD. The fact that someone has claimed copyright afterwards isn't significant as a faithful reproduction of a 2 dimensional work would not attract copyright. This should only be deleted if (1) it is not from a US military badge or (2) the reproduction involved some creative process and is not therefore an exact replica of the original. WjBscribe04:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
How do you get that idea? I'm not fully sure and it has transparency so there was obviously image editing. gren05:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is was created here at Transonic systems where I am webmaster and placed the information on behalf of the company. moraviaspy09:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, insufficient evidence of permission. Why is this a tiny GIF and not an SVG or even PNG? It can be uploaded again when either a high-quality original is supplied, or some permission email to OTRS. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Neutralas copyvio. Image is copyrighted. No evidence of GFDL compliant release. pending confirmation of valid GFDL permission. WjBscribe13:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete -- serves no purpose except to vilify and advocate for the forceful destruction of the state of Israel, and to smear and slur all Jews in general. AnonMoos00:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia commons is not described as a pornography host either, but you admins are allowing such uploads to stay. Madmax3218:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by D-Kuru: anti-Semitic image of the flag of israel
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I deleted this because I don't believe freedom of panorama applies, since I didn't believe museums are considered public places or that the work is truly permanently located there. 201.6.179.194 contests this on my talk page, so I'm looking for second opinions. -- —LX (talk, contribs)08:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by D-Kuru: badname - now Image:Novation MM10.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Delete as it seems unlikely that the Flickr user is in a position to release the image under the licence. Image is by Scott Gries of Getty Images. According to the list of team members of GamerScoreBlog he is not part of this team. It is probably true that GamerScoreBlog have permission to use the image but I suspect it is unlikely they have permission to release it in this way. Adambro16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
These are not works of the U.S. Government. These images may have a special status in the U.S., but they are German works copyrighted in Germany and many other countries. DeleteLupo20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, if your objection is to captured photographs only, these could well be non German news reel (it says still from movie) Germany wasn't at war with any country in 1933 for example British Pathe news agency has many newsreels of early nazi figures and Hitler prior to 1939, these are not the property of German citizens and never were. Madmax3222:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Goebbels images are movie stills? So, do you have any evidence that this indeed was shot by a British crew present at the book burning on the Opernplatz in Berlin on May 10, 1933? I find it far more likely that it comes from a German Wochenschau (who were present). Transit GmbH claims copyright on lots of these news reels.[8]. Lupo15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed it was shot by a non German camera crew, but it is indeed possible and I am not going to do any research for you, I was just correcting your false assumption that by its very nature it must be a German workMadmax3220:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, I went to the British Pathe website and they have this same video that this still was obviously made from [9]entitled '"The Burning of the Books 10 May 1933" Berlin, German. (The Square outside Berlin University), and they claim copyright for themselves as with all their videos, in fact they are selling high res copies and even collecting licensing fees, isn't this a type of EU copyright violation, if they and Germany can both claim copyright to the same video?
Good, you have found evidence. That's much better. A pity British Pathé is claiming copyright on it. Lupo21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to wartime asset seizure laws and other reasons, the copyrights may well be owned by different agencies in different countries. For example, Mein Kampf is effectively PD in the U.S., but the German state of Bavaria claims copyright in Germany (and the EU by extension). If all parties have legitimate claims it isn't a violation until the claims are adjudicated. My guess is nobody will bother and these images will eventually slip into PD. -Nard01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Hitler government" photo is not a movie still. Again, is there any evidence that this was not shot by a German photographer? Lupo15:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding only that you decide if the pictures are copyvio or not. If they are delete them, I will not complain. I think I've learned much stuff about commons and WWII images. :-) --Edgar Allan Poe21:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hitler government pic is took in 1933. The author is either unkonow or anonymous so I added the Anonymous-EU template beacuse of the age and the name of the author which is unknown.
deleted,copyvio, „Anonymous-EU“ is the wrong tag, the author is not unknown but not mentioned on one website. --Polarlys14:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The source code is also released for free under the GPL license.http://www.xchat.org/about/. Are you a bit too paranoid? ;-)
I don't want to be considered rude, I am well aware of commons policy of allowing only GFDL content, but installer screenshots of GPL software which I made on my personal computer can hardly be considered as violating somebodies rights. Also, it is NOT screenshot of whole desktop, but only Xchat installer. I don't want that anybody sue wikipedia/wikimedia for violating some rights, but recently I heard of example of commons admin deleting pic which had proper GFDL license (not screenshot), and I'm really curious, where commons are going? I detest Orwell's Big brother kind of behaviour. Kind regards. SpeedyGonsales01:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I uploaded this to the English Wikipedia and noticed that it had been transwikied. Since it is a non-US work (likely taken in France), the {{PD-US}} claim is valid on en but not here. The photographer is apparently not anonymous (initials in the lower right of the image), but I don't know his or her name or death date, so I don't see a way to use this image. --Celithemis08:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure? A photographer who was 30 in 1886 would only have to live to be 81 in order for his or her works to still be in copyright in Europe. Celithemis02:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am relatively new to Commons. According to this, this operative date is 1 July 1909 in the U.S. for foreign published works. Do we have to go off French law? hmm. The author is unknown, so under French law it should be assumed as being 70 years from date of publication per Commons:Licensing#France. -Nard02:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is undoubtedly public domain in the U.S., which qualifies it to be hosted on the English Wikipedia. To be on Commons, it must also be public domain in the source country, which is probably France or some other life-plus-70 country.
I don't know exactly how French law defines anonymous works, but surely we can't declare the author anonymous just because we don't happen to know who it was. As I pointed out originally, the image is initialed. Celithemis04:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I tried to brighten it. I've adjusted brightness, contrast, gamma-value, colours, and others. Either it is too dark, or it is too grayed for usability. Sorry, but this image cannot be repaired. Only a new source image may be ok. Augiasstallputzer16:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to make time to replace the image. But my schedule is very tight at the moment. However, I don't understand why you have requested deletion before even asking me about it. Surely is is better to keep a low quality image than to have none at all? JiFish13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want, that images are included, when it is not sure, that there is a better source file uploaded in future. If you upload a better file "once a day" , you can upload it even if this file is deleted. If you upload it before, then this request will be irrelevant. Augiasstallputzer20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is crazy. Can be replaced at any time by a better image. In the meantime, there is absolutely no harm in keeping this version. JiFish09:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image contains a logo copyrighted by NASA, whose image policy states that "This general permission does not include [the logos, which] may not be used by persons who are not NASA employees or on products (including web pages) that are not NASA sponsored". It is currently tagged with {{PD-USGov-NASA}}, which restates that "Use of NASA logos [...] is restricted". —Pathoschild 17:54:52, 03 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep NASA is retaining w:moral rights for their logo to not be used in a manner which would confusingly imply their endorsement of a third party. This doesn't affect the PD status of their works. Nard21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would say the original version with the logo would not qualify for PD-USGov-NASA. But the new version does. Though it would be prettier just to crop the logo out.. --|EPO|21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In France the architect of a notable building owns copyright over the representations of that building, including postcards and photographs. --Petrusbarbygere10:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In France such an image is not free. Would it be in other countries (for instance Germany with its Landschaftsfreiheit), in other words does it apply to the place of the building or that of distribution ? Régis Lachaume22:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It applies where the picture is taken. If you a have freedom of panorama you take the picture and create a new copyright in the photo. If no such freedom exists, you are violating the existing copyright and you do not own the photo you have taken (the copyright holder retains his rights in the intellectual property). If indeed this photo is unfree in France it cannot be used on Commons. -Nard18:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what? The notion of "abnormal disturbance" pertains to the owner of the building. We are here concerned by the copyright holder, viz. the architect. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dans ce cas-là je comprends encore moins ton intervention, vu que ni la jurisprudence Terreaux, ni celle de l'hôtel de Girancourt ne s'appliquent. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The lady is unrecognazible and the image depicts the announcement. But I made a black strip so everybody could enjoy this chauvinistic announcement without more tales --Russianname10:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, the first photo is too dark to be used in a malicious manner and the other one her face is partially obscured. In any case, anyone who violates anyones publicity rights is liable, not unnecessarily the uploader (his photograph is not used in a libelous manner regarding the woman).Madmax3205:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1st she is not recognizable, 2nd - the announcement in Ukrianian is clearly chauvinistic, nationalist and xenophobic because it aimed against non-Ukrainian speakers in Ukraine, who supposed to be "guests, slaves or occupants". So the main idea of this tagging is clearly anti-Russian too. --Russianname06:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The image is good in the sense that it shows the kindness and tolerance of the European Western Ukrainians to the linguistic minorities. If necessary the woman's face can be blurred by simple photoshop to hide her privacy, or simply having the image cropped and removing her would be enough. --Kuban kazak11:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The image is an edit of two different photos. Why is the lady needed here in the first place ? The text in Ukrainian is cropped and pasted from another image. Wojsyl09:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Heard back: The user who uploaded the file to gd wiki just took it off the BBC website. So, from what I understand about recent changes in our fair use criteria, this should probably be deleted. Oh, Niall-Iain has been found and is alive and presumably ok. --Kathryn NicDhàna02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
the source website appears to be a fansite and collection of images from various sources. I can find nothing to suggest that the image is in the public domain --Rossrs14:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Il n'y a pas d'article sur le groupe Asgarth dans tous les WP. Le seul article a été suprimé sur la WP es et j'ai trouvé l'image sur un site Web [10] avec la licence CC.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The file is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project (subject of vanity deletes on w:en). 731 wikis searched. Dipak_Mehta.JPG is not used anywhere! -- Wizzard2k14:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
picture of a (baseball-style) card which is likely unfree, though it may be a work of the US Federal Government -- MECU≈talk15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no reasonable evidence to support an assumption that the original photograph was taken by an officer or employee of the US federal government, and no indication that the original photographer has agreed to the CC-by-sa license. If it was indeed created by the US government, it is in the public domain and must not be distributed under a CC-by-sa license. Attempting to issue licenses to faithful copies of public domain works is a criminal offense under United States Code 17-506(c). —LX (talk, contribs)17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"Uploaded by the artist itself. Please ask permission before to use this image outside of wikipedia or if you want to manipulate it." on page along with CC-BY-2.0 license which would imply CC-BY-ND-2.0 -- MECU≈talk15:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't know if Apple is GP. If it's not{{screenshot}} someone shpuld change the licence, because it isn't {{PD-sel}} even the quadrate is self made -- D-Kuru23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Potential GFDL vio, may be considered as original work since it isn't exactly a look alike. To be on the safe side, images should be retagged under GFDL (since GFDL requires it) unless the image is considered to be "original work" then it's PD tag would be fine. -- Catchi?01:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Since several people seems confused, I will clarify several issues.
[Free] "Porn" is more than welcome on commons as for example it can be used to illustrate (*drum roll*) porn. Commons is a free image repository. Anything within our project scope is more than welcome. It is neither filtered for minors nor is it censored.
You cannot really {{Agree}} or {{Oppose}} this nom. Correct template to use would be {{Vk}} or {{Vd}}. Votes (they really are comments) without a rationale may be ignored. Comments without a valid rationale may also be ignored.
I feel it is necessary to clarify the status of it. I can't think of a better median than COM:DEL for the discussion. -- Catchi?01:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
we if there is a problem nothing to stop use from relicening to GFDL. However going by practice with tux there may not be a problem.Geni01:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from Kasuga "I think Kohikki can remove his/her si:gnature from the image and reupload under GFDL and/or CC. Perhaps, it's the quickest solution for the first problem. Whether to use it is another problem."So we just need to remove the signature, and re tag it under... GFDL,i supose(or CC,according to Kasuga),since the author of the derivative put his part of the work in PD.--Pixel ;-)01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The signature itself doesn't seem like any sort of problem to me, I removed it as a part of our standard no-watermarks procedures. -- Catchi?01:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
old 112,119 bytes,new 33,678 bytes.Are you sure that you didn't make a little mistake?I can't download it,network problem.--Pixel ;-)01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreewith deletion. Wikipe-tan being a cute and curious girl about ten years old, I don't really like such deviations.
I also encourage the true drawer of Wikipetan to put on Wikipetan the same license that we have on wikipedia logo : "work copyrighted, freely usable by the wikimedia fundation (only)". --Yug(talk)02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not possible, GFDL is non-revokeable. We on Wikimedia Commons are a "free image" repository. We wouldn't be a free image repository if we promoted full-copyright over free licenses. Wikipedia commons currently does not accept images to be used exclusively by the foundation. Image will be kept unless a compelling reason for delete is given. -- Catchi?02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I deleted the image the first time around is that 1, the image had no source (which turned out to be 4chan, where pretty much copyrights are ignored), 2, the uploader was a throwaway account, 3, the image had licensing concerns on en.wikipedia. If they are even bothered by license concerns on English Wikipedia, then why have the image here. User:Zscout370(Return fire)02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We require sources to help establish copyrights. Source claim seems to be self, which is acceptable. Derivative works of free material are still required to be comply with GFDL so I do not see any real problem copyright wise on this specific case. "Concerns on English wikipedia" is not a valid criteria for speedy deletion. From the looks of it, the matter is becoming controversial making a speedy delete less apropirate. I believe the images should not be deleted until this discussion concludes - tho I have no intention of a wheel war. -- Catchi?02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point something out, I do not consider Zscout370's deletion out of line, I merely feel COM:DEL would be a better way to find a solution. -- Catchi?03:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the legal aspects here. From Kasuga's talk page: "That image is not my work. However, I think your(Zscout's) act was not wrong. Kohikki's work seems obviously a derivation work of Wikipe-tan. Kohikki should have uploaded it under GFDL or CC, or used a girl who is not Wikipe-tan. --Kasuga 03:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)" Does the license of this image comply with this? -74.245.90.22718:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The pic was uploaded under a throw away ID, and later claimed by someone with a different ID and only one two previous edits. Kohiki showed up on the Lolicon talk page around the same time as three different brand new anons. Conversations around this are obviously taking place somewhere off-site, thus there's a lack of transparency which is fundamental to the Wikipedia project. Something just doesn't feel right about this whole thing. Regarding the Wiki symbols, the issue isn't censorship, it's endorsement. -74.245.90.22719:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user ID was probably discarded by the author because it was a bad choice of user ID with negative connotations. The image does not have any more problems GFDL- and trademark-wise than all the other Wikipe-tan images. If you want it removed, you need to make a different argument.--129.241.216.4321:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree We do not want Wikipe-tan in a kiddie cheescake pose. We do not want the Foundation's trademarked puzzle pieces used in kiddie cheescake pictures. Period. This is just a bad business, c'mon people. If the artist or another artist removes the puzzle pieces, that'll be different. Herostratus18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled here. If Wikipe-tan is truly GFDL, then there can be no trademark restrictions for this image any more than the other Wikipe-tan images, which also have puzzle pieces, though no actual Wikipedia logo. How is the uncyclopedia logo any less a derivative of the Wikipedia logo? Also, Wikipedia is not censored - see the Mohammed Cartoon controversy article. --129.241.215.16318:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The personal opinion of one people shouldn't be a reason to delete anything. If you don't like it, it's not an excuse to delete something. Kohikki spent time to work on this image so it could be used in the article about Lolicon, and now you are saying "DELETE THIS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THIS"? That's not right. --Anonyymi19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are just a rude snob.Request for deletion all of Wikipetan images then,if they are trademarked.Why not sued unencyclopedia too,there logo is a potato with puzzle pieces,resembling wikipedia logo.--Pixel ;-)20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe copyright issue was setled.The uploader had put it under PD by ignorance.For short ,in all cases the image falls under a free liscence compatible with The commons.Your oppinions on the content are irelevent,it's not illegal,wikipedia is not censored,in my nolege ther's no prosses for deleting images simply because you feel like it,the closing admin will simply discount your votes(we are not a democracy).--Pixel ;-)20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. I'm seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT votes here, but the facts are pretty clear: the image is properly and freely licensed (what Commons cares about), encyclopedic, and representative of its subject (what Wikipedia cares about). There is therefore no reason for deleting it or not using it. --tjstrftalk20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas fast as possible: Even the uploader is the copyrighholder, BUT there is really no need for hentai hentailike pictures on commons. From my point of view especially no wikipe-tan lolicon loliconlike or hentai hentailike pictuers --D-Kuru21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this isn't hentai, genius. Hentai is porn, and this certainly isn't porn. Sure, it might be suggestive, b:ut that isn't enough for this image to qualify as hentai. --Anonyymi22:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@ Anonyymi: Thanks, I know what hentai is. However, I changed every "hentai" or "lolicon" to "henati-" or "loliconlike" pictures to make it more acceptable for you
Now better?
@ Pixel: I don't think that there is a rule for that, but I also think that such pictures aren't compatible with the project scope. Maybe the next pictures of wikipe-tan are toddlercon(like) pictures... So I think that it's better not to allow that pictures from the very first instead of creating a long deletion request where the question "why did you allow it four month ago?" turnes up more often than there are copyviopictures a day.
"Wikimedia Commons is a common central media repository of all Wikimedia projects" there are currently 17 wikipedias with articles on lolicon.Geni02:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment The complication is due to character rights. However since the authour of Wikipe-tan lolicon has released all rights it should be posible to use the images under GFDL or the relivant CC.Geni02:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the original Wikipe-tan is released under GFDL and CC it should be okay for others to do artwork of her, right? This isn't the first Wikipe-tan art by other people, there's a whole gallery for "Wikipe-tan by others" in the Wikipe-tan page. And some of that art is in use for other Wikipedia pages (in fact, the Wikipe-tan image in the Japanese article for Lolicon is not done by Kasuga). --Anonyymi07:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionThis is a Renaissance fresco.A boy masturbates an other one.Isn't this at least,as scandalous as loliwikipetan?Isn't, this real porn?Or is it art?--Pixel ;-)08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's art, but since we're talking about Lolicon here (as a category of hentai), that image wouldn't be accurate. --Anonyymi09:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that picture would be accurate if it got drawn today (or at least after the second world war). Julius III. died in 1555 so I think there is no link to today excapt the topic of that picture.
'Comment. There is no reason to have the Foundation's trademarked puzzle pieces in this softcore kiddie porn image. I have asked the artist to simply remove the puzzle pieces. I have not received the courtesy of a reply. In my opinion, this is deliberate trollery and/or point-making at the expense of the project, and some of the comments here reinforce that belief. I call on the closing admin to consider that rejecting what might well be trollery intended to embarrass the project supercedes all other considerations, arguments, and numbers. Herostratus00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
foundation holds trademark on the name wikipedia and the globe. I haven't run across any claims on puzzel pices.Geni01:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWhether it is legally defined as porn in the UK, Honduras or elsewhere isnt releavnt to me. I dont make the laws but if I can have an influence here delete is to me a mo-brainer. Its use on Lolicon is an important factor, SqueakBox01:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that it is child porn. Since no children are involved the use of the term is incorrect.Geni01:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By attacking the other users, you simply show that you have no valid argument.If you believe that there's a trademark issue,you should propose all wikipetans for deletion and sue Unencyclopedia for their logo(a potato instead of a sphere).--Pixel ;-)19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. "Wikipe-tan is one of the personifications of Wikipedia." If I'm right Wikipedia is a project of Wikimedia. SO it's not directly related, but in one or another way --D-Kuru05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Yug, Herostratus and FloNight. If the article needs an illustration, better one that doesn't pimp the Wikipedia mascot. It's not NPOV to imply that WP supports child porn. IMHO the image is porny not because of presence or lack of clothing, but because of her vulnerable position and frightened look. The presence of WP symbols on her pigtails implies she's part of WP. Kathryn NicDhàna03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (therefore opposing deletion) as per tjstrf, Geni, Anonyymi and Pixel. It's obvious to me that this deletion proposal is driven by personal opinions regarding what the removers like/dislike. Why else would they still bother to try and delete a legal (I don't see how any court can find this to be actual child porn, or ANY porn at all) and RELEVANT image, even after copyright issues were settled? Grgspunk04:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though we are not censored, it would not be a bad idea to keep both Wikipedia's image and Wikipe-tan's image in mind. Since this is under the GFDL, would anyone object to editing the picture to not being Wikipe-tan? (not that it actually looks like her anyways, besides the puzzle pieces). -- Ned Scott05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to upload an alternate version to be used in articles. This unique work shouldn't be overwritten. -- Catchi?22:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the deletion. Using elements of the copyrighed Wikimedia logo and mascot in a picture in which adult sexuality is projected onto a pubescent girl serves to bring disrepute on the project. It certainly doesn't help the project. Will Beback05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked usage to see what educational use this image was being put to and found that an anonymous user had recently placed in at the top of every single project page on lolicon, including the Hanja Korean one in the Incubator. It's clearly created for trolling and it should be deleted as such. - BanyanTree06:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You find continuously ignoring troll bait to take less effort than deleting it right off? I suppose it takes all kinds to make the wiki work. - BanyanTree08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, if someone else not related to the artist puts an image to other pages then the artist made the image for "trolling"? So, if I would spam some articles with images would that make the image artists "trolls"? I don't think so. --Anonyymi07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a well-made point. The uploader of the images doesn't have a contribution history that would allow me to make any sort of declaration that s/he and 87.64.23.34, who added the images to the articles, are the same person. In fact, the conversant English of 4lolicon in the uploads and what appears to be French skills by the anon may suggest that they are not. Apologies to 4lolicon if I have mistakenly combined two people. However, I still hold that the only significant use appears to be yanking people's chains and the "it's GFDL compliant" legalistic argument has failed when the purpose and nature of the image itself becomes controversial, e.g. autofellatio, cumshot woman, and bare-shouldered woman in front of the Quran, for those who remember some old debates. - BanyanTree08:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial images are more than welcome on commons. We have plenty of images banned in some countries such as the Nazi flag for example. -- Catchi?14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The symbols on the puzzle peices do not even show on the globe version. I do not understand the fuss about it. -- Catchi?14:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The puzzle pieces and Wikipi-tan are not copyrighted but are trademarks of the Foundation. They do not have to be registered to (legally) be considered marks of the Foundation. Herostratus15:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you speaking behalf of the foundation? Are you a board member? Only board members can make such a comment. Take it to the board and if they feel a trademark vio is the case all wikipe-tan images would need to be deleted. I'll personally delete them myself if thats the case. -- Catchi?15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the globe an puzzel pieces is such that I can't see the foundation haveing much of a claim. wikipedia is not the only wiki to use a form of puzzel as part of it's logo.Geni16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If ther's relly a trademark issue,doesn't that mean that all images of wikipetan have to be deleted?Why only this one?It does not compute ...--Pixel ;-)17:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added them to thies articles,i do that some times since you don't really knead language skills,i find it helpful especially for small wikipedias,with less contributors.If i'm not mistaken i added them before all this nonsense started ,and the images wherent considered for deletion(if you read the deletion summary).For me this equates to the scandal with Jackson's breast.A quick look,and i don't see any one complaining about it,in the other languages,just see the old one in the Russian wikipedia.The other projects are not aware of the controversy,the commons isn't a subsite of the en-wikipedia.You American's are a bunch of "coincer du cul".--Pixel ;-)17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on altering image - It seems to me that if the Lolicon article (as all WP articles) is about documenting the phenomenon, any image used should be one that has been produced for that purpose, by the groups or individuals being documented. Creating a new image of !child !porn for the purpose seems to miss the point, and again brings us into the territory of Wikipedia somehow sanctioning or even producing !child !porn. Kathryn NicDhàna18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is amoung other things an art style. Since it hasn't been around long enough to be PD due ot age we have to try other aproaches.Geni19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You take a real example of the phenomenon and use it with a fair use rationale. Or you wait 70 years p.m.a. This is what we do with cubism: there may be no free Picassos out there, but that is no reason to make a cubistic version of Wikipe-tan in order to document a phenomenon. Samulili20:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could try the approach of not creating an image for the article. We could provide a link to already-existing images on the net if readers really want to see an example. The argument is often made that articles are "better" with pictures. I believe this is not just because images, well, illustrate the topic, but because they make the page more visually appealing. This argument doesn't necessarily work when you have an image that many find repulsive. Kathryn NicDhàna20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could hide Wikipe-tan under a burka for all practical purposes</sarcasm>. Seriously though... how is what you are suggesting not in conflict with our copyright policies. This does fall under the spirit of wikipedia is not censored... -- Catchi?22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this image has educational/informational value and proper license, and Commons, as Wikipedia, isn't censored, is it? AndyVolykhov19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Lolicon "fans" really need Wikipe-tan lolicon pictures to jerk off? (Also an issue some of you don't agree with, but that's what I think about this)
I have heard of people who "jerk off" looking at pictures of Saturn. "jerk off"ability is not a deletion criteria. We have plenty of pictures of genitals on commons. -- Catchi?20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She isn't even semi-naked, how the heck can it be porn? (actually do not answer to that, I really do not want to know). Also this is wikimedia commons an image repository not a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) -- Catchi?22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia already has an image problem regarding pedophilia and child porn. [13] Perverted justice has a lot of influence. Another example. [14] I'm not advocating what these links say--just saying this attitude about Wikipedia exists. I'm not even saying the picture is obscene. I'm just saying that it isn't smart to have stuff that is associated with the foundation on this image. I can guarantee you the foundation isn't happy about this kind of accusation and certainly doesn't want more ammunition. Some folks volunteer a lot of time to change this perception and fix the underlying causes. Why risk further damage to Wikipedia's reputation, cause trouble for a lot of people, and put the wonderful Wikipe-tan project in jeopardy, over this? -74.245.90.22721:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, since when do we ever actually put "Wikipedia's image" into consideration when editing an article? I see no rule or restriction regarding that. The only thing we SHOULD be concerned about is being as accurate, cited and NPOV (meaning we DON'T edit to promote/condemn the merits of the subject). The possiblilty of negative press is NOT grounds for censorship/POV posts. Grgspunk
If we are considered as a bunch of pedophiles because of this,i'm saying that this is witch hunt and an attempt of intimidation,Are you planning to list all the users that are/will vote keep?--Pixel ;-)21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please pixel you misunderstand me i did not mean to threaten you or label you a pedophile, if you thought that for one second i am sorry. While we civilised human beings are having a rational debate, many in the media would not. They would happily destroy wikipedia to sell a few more papers or advert time. I see real risk for wikipedia's name in this image, there are anti-wikipedia sites out there that would use this to do a lot of damage to the project we ALL work so hard to make. hypnosadist from wikipedia. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by86.53.57.148 (talk • contribs)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." The moment we are intimidated to the point of compromising from free speech for the sake of a little security, it will be the end of the project. This definitely CANNOT be a rationale. -- Catchi?22:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WTF! What do these icons of free speach say? Oh yes that wikipedia wants to be associated with pseudo-images of child porn. If you want to have the freedom to say that message go ahead just don't bitch and cry when this is in the press. The safty of the wikimedia projects must come before anything else. hypnosadist. 86.53.57.14822:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Private art, not within project's scope. Ceterum censeo, it's not child porn but it's still stupid from a PR/image point of view.
She's not Wikipetan, if the images stay, they should be renamed. Say it's a Wikipetan's cousin if you want, but it's not THE Wikipetan. This is modifying the perception of Wikipetan, which -as said- is "one of the personifications of Wikipedia". Platonides22:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas fast as possible This is inappropriate and unnecessary....Pedophilia in nature. It has not place here. DPeterson22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see how this is any way pedophillic. It is simply a cartoon, nothing more. The deletion request was not for the image to be deleted in the first place, it was simply to check whether the license was correct. Lcarsdata14:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that Wikipe-tan isn't an official foundation image doesn't really help. Its a amiage widely associated with Wikipedia and promoted as such. To link a prominent symbol of Wikipedia with a child in an overtly sexual context is inappropriate. It shows a young girl with her legs open and a distressed expression. To associate Wikipedia in people's minds which such an image is problematic - this image should not be used in any Wikimedia project and therefore lies outside the commons scope. WjBscribe21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is well within the scope to illustrate articles related to Lolicon at the very least. Wikipe-tan is not a prominent symbol of Wikipedia. It isn't even a symbol of wikipedia as a whole. It is merely the mascot of anime wikiproject. -- Catchi?03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no copyright issue surrounding this image. If the puzzle pieces are allowed in a normal Wikipe-tan, then they're allowed in derivatives of Wikipe-tan. Any debate therefore should not take copyright into consideration, only other issues such as scope, censorship, and quality. Cary Bassdemandez14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Argh, it is not copyright but trademark at issue here. Company mascots etc are trademarks. Hey, why don't we make a lolicon picture of the Campbell's Soup kids? Think Campbell's'd be OK with that? Then why should do we do a similar diservice to ourselves? Herostratus15:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realise that what your proposing means,that ALL wikipetan images have invalid copyrights?If you can't make derivatives then the GFDL copyright is emptied from it's substence.Should we delete all of them?And what about the uncyclopedia logo(the potato image on this page),should sue them too.--Pixel ;-)17:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another red herring to eat, the uncyclopedia logo is parody as protected under 1st amendment of the US constitution (where i think both sets of servers are based). 86.53.57.14817:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is probably true, but what about the other wikipetans? What's the rational in keeping them? Isn't a trademark violation too? Surely it's not parody. Then what's the meaning of the GFDL on them? --Pixel ;-)17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCloser, please note: this is a trademark issue, although not a copyright one. Wikipi-tan and the puzzle pieces are trademarks. They just are, is all. That they are not registered (TM not ®) is of minor imporant. Look: if an enemy entity -- say Wikipedia Review or a competing encyclopedia -- hijacked Wikipedia-tan for their own (non-parody, non-fair-use) purposes, that would certainly be actionable. It's just... amazing that you would countenance misusing Foundation trademarks. This amounts to Commons attacking the Foundation... why on earth do you want to open that can of worms? Herostratus15:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan is in no way a trademark of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. It is a completely unofficial mascot. Fair-use is not in any way welcome on commons. -- Catchi?17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is that if Big Ed's Fabulous Encyclopedia decided to make a competing encyclopedia they could use Wikipe-tan as their mascot since it's not a trademark. That's obviously untrue. Wikipe-tan is a de facto tradmark and nothing you say can change that. Herostratus02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are more than welcome to use Wikipe-tan as their official mascot. They won't be able to claim trademark rights as can't wikimedia foundation since the author did not restrict such a right. Since image is a freely licensed under GFDL it can be used for any purpose. The license also allows commercial usage and derivative works. Nothing you say will change the fact that image is licensed under GFDL. Tux is licensed under GFDL and I am more than allowed to use it as such. I can make it my company logo if I desire provided I comply with GFDL (aka post the entire license with my logo) which would be rather inconvenient. -- Catchi?03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"First rationale was the question of weather or not wikipe-tan images violate trademark laws of the foundation. The median to answer that is the board, not COM:DEL"... wow. No, the median to answer that is right here: Wikipi-tan IS a trademark of the Foundation. She just IS; no one can deny that for this reason: it is true. If you are unable to understand this I can't help you, except to say: trust me, I know what I'm talking about. Anyway, no one or almost no one has even made the argument that Wikipi-tan is not a trademark (she is); many people have noted that she is not copyrighted, which is true, and irrelevant. Herostratus15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipe-tan is in no way a trademark of Wikipedia/Wikimedia. Your insistence to the contrary will not change this fact. It is being used mostly to avoid trademark and copyright concerns actually. You demonstrate a lack of understanding of wikimedias copyrights and trademarks with this very post, I do not feel comfortable "trusting" you with such matters at this point. -- Catchi?17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus,if wikipetan violates a trademark,don't you think that all wikipetan images are deletable?If the foundation can forbid certain derivatives works,then their GFDL license is radius to a joke.Ι mean it would be equivalent to a copyright of the foundation.--Pixel ;-)04:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"...hurting Wikipedias reputation". Even if [this] is valid, that is no reason for us to delete the images." Wow, is one of us crazy? Protecting the Wikipedia's reputation no longer forms a basis for administrator actions? I guess I didn't get the memo... that is just scary. (The following passage about the Nazi flags is an irrelevant red herring.) Herostratus16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Protecting Wikipedia's reputation" is completely irrelevant for commons Administrators. This is NOT Wikipedia, it is commons. Domestic local affairs on other wikis is of no concern to us as is our domestic affairs no concern to those wikis. Having said that, of course we will delete vandalism only uploads on sight. Vandalism is also not welcome here. -- Catchi?17:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Protecting Wikipedia's reputation" is completely irrelevant for commons Administrators; good to know we are all working together productively, oh wait. 86.53.57.14817:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you bothered re-opening? You personally have made up your mind that wikipedia should create, store and deceminate child porn on the grounds of "free speach". You have been warned of the inevitable outcome of this, i'll just make sure that you and pixel get the hate mail delivered, shame you won't be able to fix the damage you are about to do.86.53.57.14817:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll gladly take the hate mail from cartoon characters that are raped over a non-nude photo drawing of wikipe-tan. -- Catchi?17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am taking this quite seriously just like any administrative decision I make. I am the nominator of this and I had made up my mind before nominating it. I have had some concerns about the licensing of the images as a potential GFDL-vio which were answered. I have raised these concerns to the uploader a few hours after the upload to commons and decided to go for COM:DEL when the uploader did not respond. Beyond that, no one to this moment has provided a compelling deletion rationale inline with deletion criteria/policy. -- Catchi?17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youve been warned of the damage this could cause, and you don't care, youve made that very clear. As i say youve made you decision so just close this "debate". 86.53.57.14818:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem awfully familiar with commons policies and guidelines while only making edits to this page raining accusations. -- Catchi?18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The second image is used nowhere. The first image, like the second, isn't very good quality, and isn't even a good example of Lolicon (someone mentioned an image that seems more appropriate - final-solution-chan? - with an even worse name!). It also strikes me as trolling and in poor taste. If someone made cartoons of wikipe-tan or commons-tan being scared, humiliated, beaten, shot, eaten by lions, melted in Dip by flickr-tan, cloned in a vat by citizend-tan, I would want to see them used in a hilarious satire or deleted; if we don't protect our mascots' honor, who will? I hope the community agrees. (On the other hand, if someone can suggest a use for these images on the projects that can't possible be better served by a better-drawn and less insulting image, please share!) While it is tempting to take this [as with any controversial topic] as an opportunity for devil's and other advocates to showcase their debate skills, I would like to see the images deleted and not caught in the middle of perennial censorship/propriety/policy debates. +sj +02:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe mascots have a sense of honor. You are welcome to draw alternatives. Wikipe-tan is as official as any other image on commons not licensed by the wikimedia foundation. So long as images are freely licensed and are within our project scope, we should NOT delete them. -- Catchi?03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Copyright issues sorted. Commons not censored, we don't delete images becuase of the filename either. -- Drini22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened. Deletion requests stay open for at least one week. Also, the reasons for a decision should address the issues raised, which Drini's decision didn't. Samulili04:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reclosed. There is no rule to keep a deletion request open for a week - the discussion here is no longer about copyright laws or commons scope but peoples ethics. Some of the issues raised has nothing to do with commons.
First rationale was the question of weather or not wikipe-tan images violate trademark laws of the foundation. The median to answer that is the board, not COM:DEL.
Second rationale was weather or not the images may lead to a "child pornography case on media hurting Wikipedias reputation". Even if the second rationale is valid, that is no reason for us to delete the images. We have plenty of controversial images on commons such as flags with Nazi symbol which is explicitly banned in Germany. Any Nazi symbol can lead to a similar problem at least on the German media. Wikipedia is not censored.
If there is still a need for deletion people can bring it up in 1 or 2 weeks. I do not want to have a case until the nonsense leaking from en.wikipedia ceases.
Addressing concerns: Unfortunately, this is not a vote, so the proportion of !votes is irrelevant. So, arguments were weighed. The original concern (copyright) was moot as it was solved. The problems about pornography, were moot, since commons is not censored (see Penis). Wikipetan is not officially related to wikipedia, is not an official logo, is not an official mascot, is not an official anything. So, except for those who want to believe wikipetan represents wikipedia, there's no association at all. The image fell under project scope as it was used to illustrate articles. So... weighing the arguments (and not vote counting), the request was closed as keep. --Drini 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
So, the arguments that gave origin to this deletion reqeust are adressed. If there are others, then feel free to start a new one using that rationale. And IDONTLIKEIT THINKOFTHECHILDREM OMGWTFBBQ rationales are not valid commons arguments.
Deleted by Jimbo Wales: pedophilic sexualization of a community mascot? No. - email me if you have questions —the preceding unsigned comment was added byD-Kuru (talk • contribs)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not sure what you mean by that. Both the image and its derivative are released under the GNU and public domain licenses, respectively. I see no reason to delete this. --Stux21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither am I. I think we must keep this image because it's very essential for the articles about the novel "1984" --Spy-jones15:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Derivative_works was good reading. Under the "Casebook" section, "Images of characters/objects/scenes in books" is explicitly disallowed. Ironically, it says that a drawing of Albus Dumbledore is a derivative work and not allowed, yet the HP Fan Art deletion requestion did inlcude a picture of Dumbledore, which was kept. This map depicts the state of the world, drawn from the descriptions in the book. hbdragon8804:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think Orwell's role in naming and placing the superpower's on his speculative but fictious world quite passes the threshold of originality. Sadly I have not read the magnum opus but based on the image I can easily define Orwell's powers as follows: Eurasia = EU + Russia - UK (= united continental Europe), Oceania = USA + Latin America + UK + South Africa + Australia (= the US/UK "commonwealth"), and last but not least Eastasia representing the Chinese or Japanese sphere of influence. Not very imaginative as such, dare I say, because these "empires" (federations, supercultures, you name it) partially existed already in Orwell's day like the US and UK exerting their interests on their colonies, and/or can be considered rehashings of processes and outcomes of WW II (the empire-building of Russia, Germany and Japan in particular). Due to these reasons, in my opinion the image can not be considered a scene from the book but a mere representation of a few facts from the speculative back story. If the map was even moderately detailed — say on the level of countries, cities and geographical features — I would be otherwise inclined, but this is a rather generic coloring of Image:BlankMap-World.png — not far from a simple layout from a strategic board game like Risk. --jibun≈παντα ρει≈ (keskustele!) 05:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only shows factual information, where the places are located in the real world. It would be different if it were a fictional world, such as Narnia, Middle earth etc --Astrokey4405:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Copyright only covers works, not ideas. Orwell didn't write a map, did he? If someone drew a picture of Winston based on Orwell's description, that's not a derivative work, is it? [If anyone seriously thinks it is and has some examples cases for that, please contact me, because it's really far out from my understanding of what copyright can protect.] --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Picture is of very poor quality, in GIF format (inadequate for a photograph), has errors when rescaled and does not show any source. -- le Korrigan→bla18:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, if a source is provided to show that the photographer's name has never been published or to credit them and show that they died within 28 years of having taken the photo, the image could be uploaded in a more appropriate format after being retouched to remove the artifacts. —LX (talk, contribs)19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete - Seems to be a copy of an advertisement given the logos (which are also no doubt covered by copyright) and the source given by the uploader is "Mon Ordinateur" (my computer) though he also claims to be the author. Uploading this file has been his only contribution to Commons. WjBscribe01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep No need to delete this image. Just upload updated image, and new image will override the old one. I have just uploaded new one, thus the image has been updated. Yassie13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is perfectly ok. human mitochondrion means that it is found in a human cell, mitochondria themselves have their own dna and could be called endosymbionts (animals). but also true is that human cells are animal cells (in the sense of no plant nor mineral.. dont come with religion here!)so the title is appropiate in all senses. if at much you can add a note on the description of the image.-LadyofHats07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolute nonsense to delete such a great picture. A brief explanation in the image description can clear up that it's a typical illustration of any mitochondrion. And a thumbs up for the excellent work LadyofHats does here! PatríciaRmsg01:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same remark, the image does not merit deletion, and even its name is good enough (even if it is not specific to humans, but to any animal, it conforms to Commons policy that want specific names). Remember: humans are animals ! Good quality image. Thumbs up! Verdy p16:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
What's more, picture has very poor colours and the image is almost useless as you can't distinguish any details on the ship. Even recongnising it s a challenge :-) le Korrigan→bla05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - There ain't no such thing as a pseudo-SVG, there ain't also no such thing as a conversion from non-vector images into SVGs and finally this deletion requests didn't fulfill the deletion guidelines - a simple statement is definitively not a proof and vectorizing isn't obviously a copyright violation, especially if it's from an own work. This is not a derivative work. In case of doubt it's simply inspired. Threshold of originality is given. --FSHL23:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ntrno has no right to edit my opinion about this deletion request - edit therefore deleted. And BTW: »The Wikimedia Commons Deletion Requests page is not for voting; rather, it is intended to collect arguments in favor of and opposing deletion.«¹ --FSHL18:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion guidelines lists five cases where images can be deleted, including "Redundant/bad quality". Nominator seem to argue that this is such a case. Thuresson01:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So-called quality judgements/valuations are as well known always relative and in this case he has to give appropriate explanations why this particular file is in his opinion inferior compared to other ones – but he didn't. And if he BTW really seems »to argue that this is such a case« is IMHO just another question... --FSHL04:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not relevant? We don't know if the uploader is the copyright holder and if he is not, we don't have any evidence that the creator/copyright holder indeed released it as cc-by. --88.134.44.25519:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a shame to delete these nice drawings because of the Derivative work clause. Couldn't we just rename this something to the effect of "A Dragon in his Lair" - that would seemingly avoid any derivative work problems, and the artwork could then still be used on the Fantasy page. - 141.213.50.8716:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. I'm not sure if the depiction of Smaug passes the treshold of originality, for that matter. I'll check with the uploader on both points: 1. ID of the copyright holder 2. renaming of the picture. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the uploder of the image. This request is paranoid. I was authorized by the creator of the 2 mentioned image (a friend of mine) to release it under CC-by licence. She already relased it on some homepages, does not expect to have payment for them. It is NOT derivative, as it does not copy any existing painting, not even Tolkien's. It is a picture based on his novel, but making a drawing for a novel is not forbidden. It may seem familiar, but take into account that Tolkien's novels are very picturesque, there are no big variations on illustrations. But if it makes people easier it can be renamed, as some sort of dragon. - Serinde20:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep derivative of what? It is my understanding that to create a derivative picture from a novel, the words must be sufficiently clear to describe something unique and recognizable to that novel. For instance, say Wizard of Oz was never a movie. Then say someone drew a picture of a little girl walking down the road with a tin man, a scarecrow, and a lion. Even if those were the first images ever produced of that foursome, they would be recognizably unique to the novel and it would be a derivative work. Tolkien describes a rather generic dragon in the same manner as millennia of dragon stories. The artist's conception of Tolkien's dragon is in reality the artist's conception of Tolkien's retelling of something much older than him. It can't be derivative of Tolkien if he was derivative of something else. A derivative of a PD work remains PD. -Nard21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the text description itself is a non-creative interpretation of older works. See my comment above. -Nard19:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The uploader obviously has permission from the creator, the artwork is obviously original, so what gives? What possibly logical and rational reason could possibly remain to delete this work from the Commons? --Lemi408:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm... perhaps its not so clear whether or not the creator understands her rights under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-by) license. Did Zsófia Ziaja specifically release this illustration under CC-by, or did you Serinde licensed it under CC-by for Ms Ziaja? If the latter is the case, then she needs to be informed. Remember that there are many Creative Commons licenses, each with their own set of rights and freedoms. Only Ms Ziaja alone, as the legal author, can license her work under CC-by; you can't do it for her. Of course, this could be as simple as her telling you in person, "I hereby license my work, SmaugLiar.jpg, to the Wikimedia Foundation under CC-By". Having it in written form, signed and dated properly would also be nice. (disclaimer: IANAL therefore TINLA) --Lemi408:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I did not make this photo, and the name is not one i would create myself. I guess I got it from some other wiki and uploaded it here as a test. Teun Spaans20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Firmly opposed. First. What is the meaning of deleting a program??? when asking for deleting a picture???? Second: there is no reason to delete this picture, this is how the Italians divided up their occupied territory. You might not like historical facts, but by not liking them you can not change them. Third, this map is based on: Bartl, Peter, Albanien. Von Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Regensburg(Verlag Friedrich Pustet), ISBN3-7917-1451-1, p. 230, where you may verify this map. Guss01:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (creator of this map)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The silk icon version has been moved to Image:House_icon.png, and all links have been changed. This is now a duplicate of the english wikipedia House.png. It is a test image, and all test images named xxx have been uploaded to the english wikipedia under the name xxx.png, so I wanted to have conformity, and have an english wikipedia file named "House.png". I expect that the tag for the english version won't fly on the commons version, so I have marked this for deletion. PAR 14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Deadstar10:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Quadell: listed on COM:DR for over 7 days. Copyright problems
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Images from www.crossroads.odl.state.ok.us are not automatically in the public domain, since that website is not a federal website. No source is given to establish the copright status of the image, so if none can be found it should be deleted soon. -- Iamunknown00:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I only moved the image from en-wiki to Commons via Commonist without verifying the licence. As Jefferson died in 1915, the image must have been published prior to 1923. So the correct license tag could also be PD-US. Image Source --Eva K.Message10:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
We are an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. This map is no visualisation of the book’s content, but an individuals thoughts about the character of Harry Potter’s world. Example: “(…) which is an interesting missing element in Harry Potter’s world. (…)” --Polarlys20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you care about the fictional harry potter world? Since you allow porn uploads, any fictional fan creation passes the bar Madmax3222:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
user made map of fictional children's book is 'unencyclopedic' but women and men sucking penis and obscene drawings hosted are encyclopedic? Rofl. Madmax3201:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be outside project scope. No Wikimedia projects allow OR to be used, so Commons should not host images that are created as a representation of original research. I don't see the relevance of the hosting of "porn" as Wikimedia projects are not censored for minors - I presume an image so indecent that it could not be used on any project (e.g. Goatse.cx) would also be outside Commons scope therefore should be deleted. WjBscribe03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the fallacy and contradictory nature of your argument, your own argument against this image is original research, there is no commons policy against user made map interpretations of a fantasy world. Your definition of what is offensive pornography is also very much your personal opinion and original research, so drawings of bestiality is less offensive than the actual photographs? But yet you say 'it's not censored for minors' what impose limits on your definition on what is acceptable pornography or not?Madmax3203:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an image to be within the scope of Commons, it has to be usable on at least one Wikimedia project: Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons. Which project's policies do you say allow for the use of this image? WjBscribe04:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - »Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.«¹ --FSHL20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
We are an encyclopedia, not a fan forum. This map is no visualisation of the book’s content, but an individuals thoughts about the character of Harry Potter’s world. “It is not said in any of the books where Godric's Hollow is physically located. ”, “If we assume that (…)” --Polarlys20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be outside project scope. No Wikimedia projects allow OR to be used, so Commons should not host images that are created as a representation of original research. I don't see the relevance of the hosting of "porn" as Wikimedia projects are not censored for minors - I presume an image so indecent that it could not be used on any project (e.g. Goatse.cx) would also be outside Commons scope therefore should be deleted. WjBscribe03:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every encyclopaedia started with individual thoughts about something and nobody of us can say what's the project scope really is. That will be determined in the future. --FSHL17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All Wikimedia projects do not allow original research in their articles. That was one of the five pillars on which en.wiki with founded and every other project in every language has to my knowledge followed this. From Commons:Project scope: Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons. Which project's policies do you say allow for the use of this image? WjBscribe18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're right, it doesn't »allow original research in their articles« - but that's all. Can you guarantee that this image will be never useful for any Wikimedia project? I can't and that's the reason for my estimation. --FSHL05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t deal with speculations of participating individuals. If an article is based on such speculations, it should be deleted. „No original research“ is a pillar on every project. --Polarlys14:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But it'll not be deleted if it based on another (academic) work. BTW: »Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.«¹ --FSHL20:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a map of the possible locations of the fictional place Godric's Hollow in the Harry Potter series.
It is not said in any of the books where Godric's Hollow is physically located. However we have some indication from Hagrid. In the Philosopher's stone, first chapter, Hagrid brings back the one year old Harry Potter from Godric's Hollow to Surrey on a flying motorbike. He says to professor Dumbledorre and professor McGonagal that Harry fell asleep as we was flyin' over Bristol. If we assume that Hagrid flew a straight line, there are only 2 places where Godric's Hollow can be: Southern Wales or Southern Ireland. --Polarlys21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A map is by definition an interpretation of some reality. We don't go to delete all the maps made by Wiki users, and it doesn't matter if the reality is a work of fiction. --Juiced lemon10:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
According to NARA, ARC image #535791 is an image from International News Photos. The copyright status of these images is undetermined (see link). In particular, the LoC states that the copyrights on these images may be held today by Corbis. Corbis does claim copyright on this image; it's their image U656178INP. (Go to pro.corbis.com and search for "book-burning"; it's the sole result. Don't know how to deep-link Corbis' search results.) Lupo06:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure, the link from LoC says only a few images before 1963 had their copyright renewed and Corbis and other stock photography agencies often have 1800s photographs with (C) notice on them, even though it's impossible for them to have any copyright on those images. Department of defense has this image in their war and conflict collection[16] DoD claims that all the photos on those CD rom collections are : are cleared for public release and are approved for unrestricted use and publication[17]Madmax3222:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always wonder about these statements. On the other hand they don’t know about the date and the location. Corbis knows (May 1933, Berlin, Germany). --Polarlys00:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sometimes they claim copyright for just digitizing an image, although it's difficult to prove whether the Corbis copyright claim is valid, it certainly isn't being enforced by them (at least the US government distributes the image in high res with no copyright notice) Madmax3201:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Corbis' copyright claims are not beyond doubt :-) I brought the image here because we normally are quite careful with "not renewed" claims, and even the LoC writes "researchers should be advised that determining the copyright status of photographs can be problematic because of the lack of pertinent information, and researchers often have to make calculated risk decisions concerning the appropriate use of an image when its copyright status is unknown or ambiguous." So much for that. Now, given that you've found this image at the DVIC, I would suggest that in this case we might keep it as {{PD-US-not renewed}}, giving additionally the LoC explanation ("only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed") as a rationale and furthermore, pointing out that the DVIC appears to think the work was PD. We should, for honesty's sake, also mention the copyright claim by Corbis. And then, we should replace the image with the much better DVIC version. Lupo10:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good recommendations. I just noticed that pretty much all of the US archives photos are on corbis (test and see), so I don't think that alone can be used as a reliable test of copyright Madmax3218:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know about Corbis. Sometimes, they clearly make fraudulent copyright claims on images that clearly are PD, such as {{PD-USGov}} images. But this one is not such a clear case, as it clearly is not PD-USGov. Because there's a slight chance that actually Corbis' claim might be valid, I preferred to have a discussion about it here. And indeed I'd still like to see what other people think. Lupo19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can use Corbis to judge if a image is copyrighted or not. This time the corbis laywers decided that this image is not copyrighted at all. This allows Corbis to reclaim a copyright on their own, without beeing in fear to be sued for this. Otherwise corbis would either name the photgrapher or claim "Corbis represents exclusive rights to this image." Since this is not in the image description this image is PD in USA without doubt. Compare [18] and manymany more -- 80.145.19.10612:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Picture taken about 1920, thus less than 100 years old. The copyrights are unknown, thus the picture should be deleted. DaTroll12:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Picture taken 1910, thus less than 100 years old. The copyrights are unknown, thus the picture should be deleted. DaTroll12:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not sure if the do what the fuck you want to public license is actually free. The file may not be modified under the same name. -- Siebrand07:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure either, though I would be inclined to treat it as {{PD-self}}. However, if this image was indeed taken by the uploader in Austria, it's misnamed. (Switzerland ≠ Austria). Also strange that the uploader uses a bizarre license written by Sam Hocevar... Lupo08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. Anyone who understands English language knows that 'Do what the fuck you want to' means you actually can do what you want to, including copying of anything, using any name...etc. It's a surrender of all rights. Don't you understand English? OR are you just trying to get the image deleted because you're offended by the word 'fuck'? —the preceding unsigned comment is by81.152.120.191 (talk • contribs)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. Not used in any Wikimedia project. Image description page has no information about what this is an image of. Thuresson00:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a logo so likely to be unfree. Also given lack of description its hard to judge whether this is within the project scope - lack of use suggests probably not... WjBscribe08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Picture taken 1912, thus younger than 100 years old. The copyrights are unknown, thus the picture should be deleted. DaTroll12:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should notify the uploader. I left a message on his/her talk page. en:User:Geometry guy 14:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Geometry guy. Thank you for your message about Image:Hilbert.jpg. I uploaded that image to Commons a long time ago, and I suppose I had copied it from the Wikipedia in English, as I was so careful to inform the interwiki to the WP:EN. Meanwhile, it has been deleted from the WP:EN. I'm sure I copied all image information provided in the WP:EN, so I'm afraid I cannot help in avoiding the image to be deleted if that information is not enough for Commons. Regards, Mschlindwein14:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to track this one down. This is an iconic image of Hilbert which appears in many places, and in no place have I found a copyright notice. The most authoritative and helpful publication is in Constance Reid's book "Hilbert", first published by Springer in 1970. In this book, no acknowledgement or copyright notice is given for the use of the photograph. Instead it states that the photograph was taken for postcards of faculty which were sold to students at Gottingen. This indicates that the photo was not only taken but published in 1912, i.e., before 1 January 1923.
This suggests to me that it is actually not under copyright in the US. Perhaps the tag needs to be changed, but I think deletion is unnecessary. User:Geometry guy 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Mh? I notified Mschlindwein already on the 5th of June? If it can be kept under an appropriate Copyright-Tag, sounds good. --DaTroll08:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My view at the moment is that the best tag for this is {{PD-old-50}}: although it was not published in the US, it was published as a postcard in 1912 and it is rather unlikely that the photographer was still alive in 1957. However, both copyright law, and Wikipedia policy, are not as helpful as they could be in resolving 1909-1923 copyright issues for material published outside the US. Geometry guy, 23:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Since this has not been disputed, I will retag the image on that basis. I've erred on the side of caution and used {{PD-US}}, but added a remark about copyright in other countries. Geometry guy, 16:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploader asks us to refer to the site's ToS, which explicitly states "You may not use any of the Content or Services for commercial purposes." Not compliant with licensing policy. It goes on: "Further, you may not distribute, modify, republish or publicly display any of the Content or Services unless you have the prior written permission of HHOF, which permission may be withheld in HHOF's sole discretion." No evidence of any permission received. riana_dzasta15:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Zirland: in category Copyright Violation
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete --Martin Kozák09:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC) — The copyvio message was because of copyvio text of appropriate article in Czech Wikipedia, not this image, but because this file is unused now at cs: and bad quality, would be well to delete it.[reply]
Comment If this really is a free image of C. Lee then it should be kept, as we have no other. I do not believe it is, and I think the fact that the original uploader's text contributions on cs: (where the image was uploaded) were a copyvio is relevant to assuming good faith. William Avery19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This version is an unused picture which is left over when i uploaded a better version [Image:View over adirondack park.jpg] of this picture, cause i mixed up upper and lower case (JPG and jpg). This old version suffers from chromatic abberation. The other version is much better, so there is no need to keep this version --Simonizer 12:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Simonizer12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"I work for Poker Heaven and have received authorisation to create and distribute screenshot images of Poker Heaven software, licensed from Boss Media." != public domain, nor a free license -- Iamunknown06:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted/licence unclear, if the site Poker Heaven gives you the right to distribue screenshots from the site, please get the email that states that they release the pictures into the public domain, note which images this applies to, and forward it to OTRS and upload it again. Petrusbarbygere15:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Neutral Do we keep pictures of which we don't know what (if anything) they depict in a particular category? I'm asking because if this image is kept, the description needs to be changed. Deadstar07:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
speedy delete/copyvio was: "Once that it shows clearly recognizable faces, it should have authorization from these ones that have been photografed. As obviously there's not any of this, I think this picture is a copyvio." but this isn't a copyvio, but permission of identifyable people may be needed, depending on the country. -- MECU≈talk12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
According to the Finnish law, decisions and statements by an authority or a public body of Finland are exempt from copyright (§ 9.1). This, however, does not apply to independent works included in these decisions or statements (§ 9.2). [19]
Independent works are works which are not created to be part of the decision or statement:
Päätöksen tai vastaavan osana tai liitteenä oleva teos on kuitenkin usein sellainen, että sitä ei ole valmistettu nimenomaan päätöksen osaksi tai sen liitteeksi. Tällaisessa tapauksessa ei ole kohtuullista, että myös liitteenä oleva teos automaattisesti menettäisi tekijänoikeussuojan. (section 3.2.1.)
1 monetissa tarkoitettuihin asiakirjoihin sisältyviin itsenäisiin teoksiin ei sovelleta 1 momentin määräystä. Näitä teoksia ei ole nimenomaan valmistettu ko. päätösten tai lausumien osaksi tai niiden liitteiksi. (Pirkko-Liisa Haarmann (2005) Tekijänoikeus ja lähioikeudet, s. 95. Talentum: Helsinki)
Keep However, according to the opinion of the Constitutional board of the Parliament (PeVL 7/2005), there are no independent works as parts of the works mentioned in § 9.1 in normal cases. In my opinion, § 9.2 means works added as appendices to the authority decision. Such appendices may include works prepared by private parties for the authority. The photo in question, on the other hand, has been purposely added by the authority to the body of the work. If such photo were copyrighted, it would invalidate the free right to copy the public document integral part of which it is. However, quaranteeing this right is the purpose of § 9.1. The law is somewhat unclear, but in my opinion, we should not engage in paranoia. If the Ministry of Interior disagrees with us, it will surely inform us. --MPorciusCato07:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This picture was put up for deletion again, this time by creator of the image. I have requested user put a reason in for the deletion request, and he answered on my talkpage. This is the user's band's logo, not meant for import to Commons. It was only used on his userpage. He does not want someone to take the logo and bandname and run with it, and would like to see it removed. As this is request is based new information, I reopen the debate. Deadstar07:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The description reads: "it is not allowed to misuse this image, save it or remove it. It is, however, allowed to view :)" This is not compatible with PD, as claimed license Tjipke de Vries14:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, what to do with this? Both the permission and the license have been formulated by the creator. Should the broader or the narrower permission prevail? In case of the former: Keep, in case of the latter: Delete. How is this usually handled on Commons? Siebrand16:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it does definately not solely consist of a simple font. This deletion debate is about which permission provided by an uploader should prevail in case license template and written permission differ: the broadest or narrowest. Siebrand13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a very simple font, far below anything that could be copyrighted. For something that could be copyrighted, see [20] or [21] .A font is non-simple only if it consists of more than mere design of existing letters. --Rtc13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then many of the large publishing clients I work for must be very stupid to be paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the simple fonts they are using... I'll let them know they might as well not pay the licensing fees to Adobe e.a. Siebrand18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are paying for scalable vector fonts, which some consider to be copyrighted as computer programs, because of hinting and other elements. The typefaces as such are not copyrighted. They can be restricted by design patent law, but that only applies to the font as such, not to text written with it. So speaking correctly, a font can be copyrighted (under some circumstances; pixel fonts are not copyrighted for example), but not the typeface. This picture does not contain a font, though, only letters written in a typeface. --Rtc08:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I moved the content of the first to the second, but apparently that name was also wrong. So both categories should be deleted. 82.212.68.18320:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In order to apply {{PD-AR-Photo}} an exact citation of the print media where the image was first published is absolutly necessary. Furthermore I doubt that the Argentine Army has released all rights on this images ALE! ¿…?13:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it, I am a novice using wikipedia. I found the image in an Argentine forum, was the best, but the author rights do not belong to the Argentina Navy. The real author of the photo is Barrie Lovell.
I will send a mail to ask to him about the photography. My English is bad, for that reason I use the altavista translator. Greetings. —the preceding unsigned comment is byShinK (talk • contribs)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Greetings. Although the site is copyrighted - I, the creator of this particular image submit it to wwikimedia commons under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. If you find that any of this is in error kindly let me know.
Keep Am i not right in thinking that this is just the output from a computer program? You input a number and it mechanically outputs a barcode. It is not a product of human artistic creativity, has no originality, and is therefore ineligible for copyright. So change to {{PD-ineligible}}. William Avery20:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete - PD-GE-exempt does not say that all government photographs are PD, only official documents and state symbols. WjBscribe05:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Leftmost image of the four is a promotional image from boeing, therefore this entire image is an unfree derivative work. -- 130.58.150.9721:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I'm going to respin the image w/o the Boeing one. Will update here when it's done. I recommend holding off on deletion, just let me replace it when I'm done (or delete it if I don't get to it in a few days). Georgewilliamherbert18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we shouldn't leave an unfree image in the upload history. And why couldn't you use a free image of a Boeing? -Nard18:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete I disagree with the proposer's rationale, but we have enough penis pics, unless it's an example of a medical condition or otherwise remarkable. William Avery07:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems to stand in connection with erectile dysfunction/impotence/penis enlargement or something like that¹... --FSHL09:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
::*Comment This is a picture that shows a natural variation of a circumsized penis in a semi flaccid state with glans that are oversized in relation to penis shaft circumference. Glan size and function are cited as a semen displacement device. Refer Comparative Evolutionary Psychology of Sperm Competition Todd K. Shackelford and Aaron T. Goetz Florida Atlantic University Journal of Comparative Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 120, No. 2, 139–146 for further reading.--BigBoris
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is supposed to come from he "Mexican Air Force", yet 1) no precise source is indicated, and 2) I haven't seen anywhere that the Mexican Air Force releases its photgraphs under free licences. -- le Korrigan→bla13:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image come supposedly from SEPRA, but this agency (like ESA) does not release its images under free licences, as far as I know. -- le Korrigan→bla13:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This photograph appears to me to be outside the scope of the exemptions as stated on {{PD-GE-exempt}} in english translation. It's not a text, so "laws, decisions of courts, other texts of administrative and normative character" cannot apply, and it's not "flag, emblem, anthem, award, monetary symbols, other official signs and symbols of state", and it is a photo, so cannot be covered by "information of events and facts" (that would mean no news photos were copyright in Georgia). William Avery18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Source=Billy Pontoni; Permissio=Billy Pontoni - Moreover I don't think that this picture is self made at all. Maybe copyvio -- D-Kuru12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very large image, with EXIF info. It certainly seems like an original photo and not a normal publicity shot; it seems likely that the uploader at least obtained the photo from the original photographer or Pontomi himself (as claimed). I think we would need a copy of the permission email in OTRS to keep it (maybe someone could contact him to see if he was aware of this), but this does seem different than the normal copyvio from a website. Carl Lindberg04:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image is a logo belonging to ERP, organization that has its copyright. Marked for deletion on 15 October 2006 by IP 200.122.11.167
I have checked [22] but cannot find the logo as is uploaded here, nor can I find any particular mention of copyright yes/no. I did not want to take the template off this "incomplete deletion request" as I think "IP number" might have a point. Deadstar15:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Although there are several FIFA trophys on Wikipedia an Commons, it seems that I made a mistake by uploading this picture. The Confederations Cup Picture was already speed-deleted, so I think the same reason applies also for the other two ones and I therefore requtest deletion for my picture. Sorry for the extra work for the admins. --Curnen 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Curnen14:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Although there are several FIFA trophys on Wikipedia an Commons, it seems that I made a mistake by uploading this picture. The Confederations Cup Picture was already speed-deleted, so I think the same reason applies also for the other two ones and I therefore requtest deletion for my picture. Sorry for the extra work for the admins. --Curnen 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Curnen14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Bild diente der Illustation eines wegen völliger Irrelevanz gelöschten Artikels in der de. Nutzlos, kann weg. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 18:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Image was an illustration for an irrelevant deleted article on the German wiki. Useless, can be deleted) Deadstar15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nicht relevant für einen Löschantrag. Mit mehr Infos bezüglich der Örtlichkeit könnte es durch weiter verwendet werden. Baulich ist es durchaus etwas besonderes. --FSHL16:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, nein, wir behalten hier nicht irgendwelchen Fußgängerzonen-Kram, den pubertierende Kinder für „Hurenball“ nutzen und dies der Welt mitteilen wollen. --Polarlys23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Bild diente der Illustation eines wegen völliger Irrelevanz gelöschten Artikels in der de. Nutzlos, kann weg. ((o)), Ja, bitte?!? 18:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Image was used as an illustration in an article on de: that was deleted because it was completely irrelevant)
Keep - Not relevant for deletion. With more information concerning the location it could be still used. It’s quite something special. --FSHL16:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The original uploader Mownb stated simply "free for all" without any further explanation and used the inappropriate PD-art tag (it's not yet 70 years since Mondrian's death). Later, DaB. changed the tag to PD-ineligible, giving The "painter" is not 70years dead, but I guess the picture is to simple to have an copyright as reason. I do not think that this is correct. Gestumblindi18:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The uploader says it is GFDL because there is no copyright statement at all in the source site, which in fact means it is copyrighted User:BarceX21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
On June 10th, 2007 The Green Party of Südtriol sent an email to permissions-de@wikimedia.org and permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, in which it grants the use of the image under the license "Attribution ShareAlike 2.5" (cc-by-sa-2.5). Noclador10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Very blurry poor quality image, unused and unlikely to be used. It also appears that the party doing the fellating is very young and potentially a minor.WjBscribe05:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will accept that I may be mistaken in judging the age of the lady, but the photo is still quite blurry which raises questions as to whether it is within the scope of Commons. I also wonder if others may judge the woman as young, whether that imposes a record keeping requirement on us to be able to prove she is 21? WjBscribe15:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this discussion, too? Nobody has raised age of the person on the photo so far, I think...
Keep She is 21, and the picture was taken yesterday, so it could not have been uploaded before... Es ist the same woman as in my other pictures. Don't see no reason to remove it./DrMüngele05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have her consent to publish photos with her? I think consent in written form is the best, not only, erm, oral. ;-)
Ach... Of course I have her Consent. Mann can not identify her on the Pictures anyvay, so written I do not think is necessarie./DrMüngele20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very bad quality, so as there are already similar images of much better quelity, no reason to keep. Knutux06:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are reason enough, let's not quibble over technicalities. If enough people say the image is too poor, then that's reason enough. --Gutza07:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Democracy, this stupid stupid system. Wikipedia can go fuck itself. Good bye, idiots./DrMüngele 07:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I vill not tolerate being called a Pedophile. Perhaps my Foto is bad qualität, but I have not seen better, so why nicht use it? I vill leave der Wiki now anyvay./DrMüngele10:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Gutza - This isn't a democracy and this page isn't for voting. It's intended to collect arguments – that means that the best argument will win and not the majority. --FSHL10:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad quality. For me this is hardly a censorship issue because I vote for retaining Fellatio1.jpg which is simply a clearer image of the same subject without arty pretence such as soft focus. I am sorry that DrMüngele is regarding this motion as ill willed or underhand, but there are plenty of other things he can photograph.84.210.139.18913:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bad quality; looks like captured from a video, no exif information, likely copyvio. High quality porn is always welcome. -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People, you are officially SICK, and Bryan is officially The Biggest Wikipedia's Pervert. U want porn? Go on www.xnxx.com. Wikipedia is supposed to give information. Tell me at least ONE REALLY SATISFACTIONERY reason to keep porn on Wikipedia. As long as it's not Pornopedia, keep ur porn for yourself. Thanl you for reading. Bush sucks xD
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Althingi did not alow anyone to upload their images as GNU or anything similar. I am working on their agreement, but until then all images that come from althingi.is have to be deleted. Steinninninn13:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
unknown author, dubious source description: it says
"Painting taken from book [23]" but there is no book under this link. Therefore impossible to establish neither the copyright nor what exactly this painting shows. Hence it is useless for common knowledge. Mikkalai19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a modern artwork rather than something that would be PD old, in any case it should be deleted for having no source Madmax3220:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Bryan: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 18 July 2007|Unknown as of 18 July 2007]]; no permission
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of project scope because: User created a page where s/he wrote ""Nightingaze" is a painting, painted by Synskis, and is recognizable to the obvious frequent use of dark paint." -- D-Kuru01:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
University of Santiago, Chile, logo. [24] - My Spanish isn't good enough to read the site, perhaps someone else can check to see what the rules are regarding this. Deadstar 07:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Deadstar07:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No compatible license (not in PD: "El actual escudo distintivo (...) fue fijado por Decreto Universitario del 13 de diciembre de 1991"). 15:35, 10 September 2006 190.46.49.142
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Sorry, could you point to object of author rights in this image? Does serial number protected by copyright? Or this image contain a some commercial software? There is no term "piracy" in law, only "vioaltion of author rights". Is this image contain anything protected by the law? (sorry for poor english, i'm prefer russian). #!George Shuklin18:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read the Windows 98 user conditions, but I assume that we will get problems distributing a serial number. So: blur the serial number, upload the new file and delete the old revision. --ALE! ¿…?11:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witch kind of problems? Serial number is not an object of author rights. If you talking about adding this list to black list of microsoft, do not worry, i'll never use 98 more. #!George Shuklin09:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. I kinda doubt there's a real problem here... but I uploaded a new version with the product key partially blurred. If another admin wants to delete the old revision where it's not blurred, go ahead.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No it does not. The original request for permission is at [25] and the response at [26]. The request was:
Pussycat, estas fotos se merecen estar en un tread internacional...dejame ponerlas oK?
and the response was:
Tienes mi permiso, J Block y toda la gente q quiera. Eso sí, dadme crédito, por favor.
I can't translate the request, but I can the response; a rough translation reads, "You have my permission, J Block and all people who want it. However, please give me credit.". ("Eso sí" does not translate directly; I think the best translation would be as an adversative conjuction, such as "however", "nevertheless" or "but".)
That said, a "perfectly compatible"-license for Commons must (in terms of copyright) permit unlimited commercial reuse (including commercial resale) and derivative works. Was that asked for? Was it granted? No and no. This license is not perfectly compatible; it is incompatible; the image should be deleted. --Iamunknown19:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Iamunknown and here it goes the translation:
Pussycat, these pictures deserve to be in an international thread(wikimedia not notyfied)...let me add these there, ok?
You have my permission, J Block and everyone who wants it. However, give me credit, please
I don't think so. The {{Attribution}} template says, "Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted." Pussycat never said that. I think it is very presumptuous of us to assume that Pussycat agreed to license the photograph for commercial reuse. --Iamunknown20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose --Polarlys12:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, why isn't use for wikipedia enough? Just because: The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose? If so why there is then all kind of choices for licensing the file? Is there another place inside wikipedia to store images that should be used only in wikipedia? Ges13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one should be deleted without any hesetation since it isn't needed anymore. better version of the file is Image:Battle of Nördlingen(map1).jpg. Ges12:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also please remove another duplicate: Image:Battle of Nördlingen (map).jpg. The one that should be keeped is Image:Battle of Nördlingen(map1).jpg. Ges13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for someone else (one user isn't enough for me) to come in here and say what they think before I'll start to reload these files to finnish wikipedia. I'll understand what kind of licenses commons accepts, and will license according that from now on. (The problem is just that as a Finn I can't (it's basically impossible) just give away my copyrights and tagging these files as used only in wikipedia is just to warn people that there may be some copyright issue when using the files. not a big deal.) please give me some time to reload/re-license these files before deleting them. Ges13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a matter of a single user's opinion. It's a matter of COM:L clearly stating that "Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose" in its third sentence. "Wikipedia only" is clearly inconsistent with "by anyone, for any purpose." (In fact, even disregarding what kind of licensing Commons accepts, it cannot legally be displayed on Commons, since Commons is not Wikipedia.) There is no need to re-upload any files, but the Wikipedia-only restriction must be removed for the images to remain here. —LX (talk, contribs)21:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"for use on Wikipedia" is not enough, false license (Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 needs an author, but no author is specified, license is not mentioned in the so called „authorisation“). Can someone please point this out on it.wikipedia.org? Thank you. Polarlys12:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian Army has only one condition: "l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte= the only condition is, that the source be named." so the image Image:Italian Soldiers on Parade.png can be used!
Well, what you read is irrelevant, as the official email clearly states: "l'unico vincolo è che venga citata la fonte= the only condition is, that the source be named." So: “Authorization for use on Wikipedia granted by the Italian Army” needs to be removed and than everything is exactly accoring to the licence granted by the Italian Army! Noclador15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it’s irrelevant, but it’s what you added to the description. So please remove this hint (not the request for deletion!) everywhere, add an author (author is needed for this license) and forward the permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). Whatever an “official email” is. --Polarlys15:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once more: Polarlys can't you read? Follow this link and read at the top of the page: Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute/EsercitoTHIS is the permission as it was emaild from the Italian Army TO the Italian wikipedia!
Und noch mal auf Deutsch: Das italiensiche Heer hat der ORTS der ital. wikipedia bereits die Genehmigung erteilt! Falls Du Dir mal die Mühe machst dem Link, denn ich Dir schon 10mal aufgezeigt habe zu folgen wirst Du sehen, dass es zu einer Seite der wiki Italy geht unter dem Titel Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute auf Deutsch: Wikipedia:erhaltene Authorisierungen
On it.wikipedia.org I see a part of a mail, but nothing about OTRS. The images are not correctly licensed, since an author is missing, but Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 requires an author for proper use. It’s nowhere mentioned, that the Italien army agrees to any use under this license (commercial use, derivative works). The permission sounds like the typical “press license” to me. One thing: stop removing my request for deletion. --Polarlys16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Than I will translate once more for you: "Per sua natura, il progetto è aperto alla contribuzione da parte di chiunque, a patto che il materiale pubblicato non violi il diritto di autore e possa essere liberamente redistribuito secondo la GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)." This IS the request that was sent to the Italian Army to which it responded by granting the license!
Translation: "According to its nature, the project is open to contributions from anyone, under the prerequisite that the published materials does not infringe the rights of the authors and can be freely redistributed under the GNU Free Documentation License." so as you may understand now the Italian army has therefore clearly granted a license that inculdes "free redistribution under the GNU Free Documentation License" as long as the author is named! Also all images carry the followind description: "Downloaded from the official homepage of the Italian Army. Authorization for use granted by the Italian Army (see Italian Wikipedia at: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_ottenute/Esercito) under the condition that the source always be named." so, and now you tell me that there is the author missing? What about the 2! the Italian Army is mentioned as source?! Noclador16:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no explicit response to this whole license part. It’s not said: Use the images under GFDL or CC-by-SA but use it but cite our site. That’s not the same. --Polarlys16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are/were many cases were such organizations reply to such emails with with answers like "you can use them, just credit us", and later it turns out they didn't know anything about licenses or the person replying didn't have the authority to release the images under a free license. In many cases those replies just mean "sure, use these images that we published online for press use, Wikipedia doesn't seem to be a commercial project and will surely only use it in articles about our organization". As long as they don't explicitly say that they release the images under a free license (and explicitly state that license in the email), we can never be 100% sure that the images are indeed free to use for anyone for any purpose. --88.134.44.25500:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Polarlys, I'm user Empar of the german edition of wikipedia. I wrote almost all the articles regarding the Italian military on de.wikipdia and I have used many of the italian coat of arms available on commons. Now, besides the fact that with this request you are going to destroy or in any case to reduce in value most of the work that I have done without any reason even though there is an explicit authorization coming from the italian ministry of defence, I would like to know from you, if you don't have anything better to do here in wikipedia than to be a pain in the ass for other people who try to do their best in order to improve the articles. It may be, that the webmaster in the italian ministry of defence is not an expert in legal and copyright issues, but it is more than clear, that this person has a general order from the ministry, that states that this material can and may be used on wikipedia. What you are trying to do here is to find excuses or details that might serve as such to delete hundreds of coat of arms that other users have legally patiently prepared and uploaded for use on wikipedia. Are you aware of the fact, that you are nothing else than destructive? The Italians are explicitly authorizing it and you are searching for tiny irrelevant reasons to couterdict this authorization. I don't know what's going on with you - don't you have anything else to do? Why don't you search for reasons to put in pictures instead of eliminating them, why don't you try to improve articles instead of creating problems where there really aren't. If the italian military as source of the information/pictures was against such use, they would have protested long time ago - instead, they are helping some users answering questions and helping them with the coat of arms. So I'm asking you to withdraw this deletion request, because it doesn't violate the copyright of the italian military since they are granting the necessary authorization! If you doubt the authenticity of this contribution you can obtain my confirmation on my page in the German wikipedia -- Empar=190.56.74.21616:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your personal attacks. It’s not my intention to “destroy” anything. Commons is for free content only and it’s my work to deal with any sort of problems here. A solid legal basis is vitally important for the whole project and its future. If you uploaded a lot of pictures under wrong circumstances, it’s a pity if we have to delete anything. Unfortunately I see no „explicit permission“ for the use under CC-by-SA-25. Allows the Italian army to use this photos in a discriminating or commercially context or am I allowed to make some funny derivative works? At the current point, the “permission” is just another press license for me. --Polarlys17:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The license state is currently unclear. Are both commercial use and derivative work allowed, by anybody, not just Wiki[mp]edia? -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are. Description placed in the images is badly written but authorization states that images can be used with only attribution required. --Jollyroger07:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it is more accurate than what you make out of it, since you can't even read this authorization not speaking italian. --Jollyroger09:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's right, Italian army did not explicity permitted them and is a problem. So we (it.wikipedians) we'll probably upload all that with, at least, EDP rationale on it.wiki. If they start listen to me we'll upload ALL images used by it.wiki ouside this (useless) project. --DracoRoboter20:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guy.. Ok, you're right, my english is horrible but I think I clearly wrote "EDP" not "with CC-by-sa license". We (I mean wikipedia) already have permission for that, no? Anyway I could not get why a "coat of arms" must be modifiable.. maybe this is another problem --DracoRoboter21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don’t have a suitable permission. We have just a sort of press license, which is used for coat of arms and photos. Maybe the use of the coat of arms is restricted in another way. --Polarlys21:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of information is NOT a information (or a proof), and maybe tomorrow sun do not rise. it.EDP says that "Non sia ragionevolmente possibile ottenere un file equivalente dal punto di vista illustrativo e dotato di una licenza libera conforme alla definizione di Opera Culturale Libera" (we cannot get that in a free license) and italian army said, at least, that we can use them (==copyrighted with edp permission) Draco "I quote D-Kuru" Roboter
As usual. A german "admin" shows up and ask deletion of things he do not understand. We saw it lot of times, nothing new.
Please, read and try to understand:
We have a license granded by the army itself, stating that all material from the website is usable under an attribution clause.
The license is granted by redazione del sito ufficiale dell'Esercito. -> The legitimate owner og the site. It clearly states that the material is given with a license similar to NASA's one, with only attribution required, all uses allowed.
So, why should we delete anything on the premises that Maybe the use of the coat of arms is restricted in another way? There is no "maybe": we have authorization, from the legitimate owners, and there is no special laws for that coat of arms.
if the problem is the words Authorization for use on Wikipedia granted by the Italian Army, just change them with a bot, this is just bad wording for a perfectly good authorization.
There is „no license similar to NASA’s one“, that would be public domain („NASA still images, audio files and video generally are not copyrighted.“) . There is no license at all. Am I allowed to use these files commercially, am I allowed to make derivative works? Why are they CC-by-SA? Where is „CC-by-SA“ stated? --Polarlys08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are allowed to use these files commercially, am I allowed to make derivative works, provided you cite the source. This is stated in the authorization that you apparently can't read. --Jollyroger09:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
„Gentile Signor (omissis),
Le risponde la redazione del sito ufficiale dell'Esercito.
Può utilizzare tutto il materiale che è on line sul sito, l'unico vincolo è
che venga citata la fonte.
Cordiali saluti e buon lavoro.“
I'm starting to think there should be something bad in german's water, air or so then...
It says YOU CAN USE ALL THE MEDIA ONLINE ON THE WEBSITE. ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE SOURCE.
Does it says "no commercial use, please?" NO.
Does it says "no derivatives?" NO.
Was the condition of use presented to the licens owner? YES, THEY WERE. even the GFDL text was linked, so the license owner knew the terms of use (commercial-derivative). He did something more and requested only source citation instead of all the GFDL stuff.
Please stop insulting me. What do you know about my origin? Is Polarlys from Germany, Switzerland, Austria or Luxembourg or is he even living abroad and just speaks German?
They just don’t think of derivative works etc. The conditions of use were presented, but there was no response (e.g. „yes, put it under GFDL“) and finally it was uploaded as CC-by-SA-25. There is a diffence regarding the term „free“ between „free beer“ and „freedom“ … --Polarlys19:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem should be in german language...
If you had known Italian language, you would have known that there is a strong difference between "free" as "free beer" and "free" as "freedom".
they are completely different words. First one is "gratis", or "gratuitamente". This is not the case.
second one is "liberamente", that means "free" as in "freedom", "free as a bird", "freefall" etc.
we are arguing about the same problem we are going into in the "agenzia Fides" matter: you do not know the difference in meaning of two different italian words meaning different things but both translated in english as "free". In both this cases you wanto to use a mistranslation to support the idea that those images are not authorized: it is an ERROR, an error due to your misunderstanding on Italian language and an errore due to you not admitting you made a misinterpretation of those authorization.
Commons is suffering from too much german (ops, german-speaking) admins, like you or Rtc, that do not even try to understand the words of a culture they do not understand and proceed according to a wrong interpretation they are too proud to correct.
That's why lot of people from it.wiki stopped uploading images here preferring it.wiki, where people understand local copyright laws better, and where people is used to try to understand the point of the argument.
actually, I'm one of the few remaining it.wikians using commons, and only because with Commonist is easier.
Why do you become impolite and unobjective again and again? Have a look here: Commons:Copyright_tags#Unknown_nature. Everywhere the same: „use them, mention the source“. Everywhere requests for deletion, not by me. We don’t need more unclear templates like this. Why don’t you contact the army, asking for another permission? What could happen? I mailed FIDES as well to prevent the possibility of a later deletion and to put it on solid fundaments. Rtc is no sysop by the way. I would nominate him, because he is a truly reasonable person, but I don’t think he would like to do this job and a lot of incited users would vote him down, whenever most of them never argued with him in a reasonable way or even tried to understand his judgement. --Polarlys22:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've written today to the Italian Army and inquired about a new and clearly stated license. If there is an answer it will be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and in cc to me. As soon as I know more I will post it here- until then I suggest to suspend this discussion before more people get banned besides me :-) --Noclador01:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On June 20th, 2007 the Italian Army sent an email regarding the images license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org: "The Italian Army as owner and author of the material published on its webpage (www.esercito.difesa.it) releases aforementioned material under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 {Cc-by-2.5} license, which stipulates that the source of the material (Esercito Italiano- Italian Army) must be always named. Images of badges and insigna of the Army cannot be used to make commercial use of the work without permission of the Army." Therefore all images are now licensed under {Cc-by-2.5} and the insignia and badges too, but under national Italian restrictions: see Template:Insignia. --Noclador08:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...that is clearly what was stated in the first e-mail they sent. Do anyone wish to waste more time having other authorizations re-stated? Please, if you apply to this position, be sure not to understand a single word of the original license. --Jollyroger08:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPermission has been received. However most images mentioned do not contain a source url which proofs that they are from www.esercito.difesa.it. They can not be kept unless the explicit source is found. Also note that the permission does not apply to insignia and badges which are not free for commercial use. See Template:Italian army. -- Bryan (talk to me) 10:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The original photograph was probably overwritten with this message screenshot. I don't think there is point in keeping it. Deadstar11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but revert to the originally uploaded image. It's a simple concert photograph. Neighbouring rights of the artist do not cover photography, as far as we've been able to determine, so the GFDL/CC-BY-2.5 licensing should be ok. Lupo14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by D-Kuru: duplicate - other Image:Baltimore light rail at BWI.agr.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Nach Rücksprache mit dem Autor bzw Fotographen ist es aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen womöglich streßfreier, wenn Image:Jahn2007.jpg wieder gelöscht wird. fz JaHn18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The source is a Flickr user that published this only 7KB picture. It seems clear to me that's a case of "license laundry" -- Dantadd✉03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is unlikely the Flickr user is in a position to release the image under a free licence. Lack of EXIF data makes this more likely. Adambro18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by D-Kuru: duplicate - other Image:Baltimore light rail at BWI.agr.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Violation of copyright. There is no doubt that the club is the owner of this logo and there aren't any informations about aproving it for Wikipedia by the Club. 14:20, 29 May 2007 User:Galileo01
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. Treat this as a German work unless you can find evidence that it was taken by a non-German photographer and published first outside of Germany. The PD claims of the NARA and the USHMM may apply within the U.S., but unless we can show that these are U.S. works, that doesn't help us much. Lupo07:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Date: Mar 1938 - Apr 1938
Locale: Vienna, Austria
Credit: USHMM, courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration, College Park
Copyright: Public Domain
I see that there is no photographer mentioned. But I thought, if the USHMM and NARA say it is in the public domain, there should be no problem for us ... --Tsui18:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Treat this as a German work unless you can find evidence that it was taken by a non-German photographer and published first outside of Germany. The PD claims of the NARA and the USHMM may apply within the U.S., but unless we can show that these are U.S. works, that doesn't help us much. Lupo07:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Date: Circa 1938
Locale: Vienna, Austria
Credit: USHMM, courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration, College Park
Copyright: Public Domain
I see that there is no photographer mentioned. But I thought, if the USHMM and NARA say it is in the public domain, there should be no problem for us ... --Tsui18:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the links. It looks, like we find more and more images „in the public domain“ where Corbis is the copyright holder. --Polarlys11:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Treat this as a German work unless you can find evidence that it was taken by a non-German photographer and published first outside of Germany. The PD claims of the NARA and the USHMM may apply within the U.S., but unless we can show that these are U.S. works, that doesn't help us much. Lupo07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Polarlys: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Aichi_Ichinomiya_City.png
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
¿A terribly daring one? (sorry, couldn't help it :-). Well, if you look at the "source" part of the description (although just in spanish and portuguese), it says the image comes from the Imperial War Museum, and was ceded to them by the family. But truth is, I'm not able to find it on the on-line expositions. ¿Perhaps it comes from a not-yet digitized batch? --Richy08:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, you made me laugh ;) Mh, this „source“ is nowhere stated except here, I couldn’t find the image on their website. Whenever it says „Access: unrestricted“ (whatever this means) it doesn’t mention any source at all and I have to pay $ 15,00 for other prints of comparable photographs. Also, I am not allowed to „reproduce IWM photographs“ without permission (and fees). Regards, --Polarlys11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of looking for a way of erasing this file, mister manager, deberia to look for the way of solving the problem, not only of placing the sign "to "destroy". Daga00:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, this is a pretty iconic image - the cool and wise and "good" soldier. I don't know why anyone would question its authenticity or object to it.
Deletion is asked by a license problem, not by any problem witht the image in itself. Fact is, seems we're unable to confirm the license of the original image, so it's questionable if it can be used in commons. I would deeply regret losing it in the same way as other pictures from Rommel, but if it cannot be referenced... Well, it would have to be retired. I'll try to find a valid reference again this weekend. --Richy08:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of one way to solve this. If Fair Use Images are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons, why not post a duplicate of this image to Wikipedia's image server (which is seperate from Wikimedia and does allow Fair Use) with a valid Fair Use Rationale. Would that be satisfactory? Otherwise, I say that unless the legal copyright holder complains about the use of this image here, leave well enough alone. Gabeb83 17:26, 1 July 2007 (PST)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Scan of page 924 (Ezekiel chapter 18) of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, scholarly edition published 1977, not in public domain. 22:30, 2 June 2007 User:AnonMoos
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
this image seems to have copyright and the author seems not the real author. The license on it was incorrect (free software). Deadstar11:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
That said the original uploader, and none of you provided evidence in one sense or another. Who may claim copyright over this image? --Galio17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image was restored by an commons-administrator immediately after it got deleted last year. He left an explicit statement, that this image should be considered PD according to the license-statement on the website of origin. Do we really have to go through this again? --h-stt!?09:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This images appears to have been licensed by the creator, but it is a derivative work, for which I do not know what the license may be like. -- Siebrand23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More than 60 years? And German Reichsmark are definitively PD but an official 25 Dinar banknote couldn't be CC-BY-SA. May be it should be also changed to PD. --FSHL13:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I incline to Keep the images because we have also kept other images of money due to a lack of consensus on whether these images are copyrightable in the first place. Please note: There was never a discussion that money should is allowed to be reproduced in such a way that it can be confused with real money. --ALE! ¿…?08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This images appears to have been licensed by the creator, but it is a derivative work, for which I do not know what the license may be like. -- Siebrand23:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is not the work of the uploader. You cannot release a scan under the GNU license, this English language map is probably still under copyright Madmax3206:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploaded with incorrect filename - same image with corrected filename now here: Image:HMS Ledbury (M30) - Portsmouth 2007 - BB.jpg Ian Dunster07:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Source URL suggests image is released under Creative Commons by-nc-nd which isn't allowed on Commons. Could be useful for someone who understands German to take a look. -- Adambro16:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I, as the original uploader (and speaking German) agree that it should be deleted. because of the by-nc-nd license. --HAH17:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Go ahead, delete it. The new image is better. The font is different, though - would you please double check that the font in the other image is correct first? Andrew pmk21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. No evidence that the software depicted is freely licensed. Specifically, no evidence that it is published under the GNU Free Documentation License as claimed. This is also an unlikely license for software. —LX (talk, contribs)23:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete as uploader. There was a decision on the source earlier, with a consensus to delete. To be honest, I thought these were already gone. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 06:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Should be deleted once all current uses of it are changed to the newer templates. Pmsyyz, maybe there should be a page that says all that stuff, actually, there probably is. Yonatantalk00:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by D-Kuru: duplicate - other Image:Bitihorn.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't see how, Armin T. Wegner was a German citizen, he never lived in the USA. The 1923 rule applies to works published in the US by a US citizen or agency, or if it was public domain in its home country between 1923 to 1977[32], that doesn't seem to be the case here as Wallstein Verlag claims copyright. Madmax3223:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well see, here's the interesting thing, apparently he smuggled some of his photos to the U.S. for publication [33]. Sadly the exact details are unknown. Nard23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Transwikied from Wikipedia. Original logs say uploader "colored" existing image. [34]. No source is listed for the original map in this image. Therefore it is impossible to verify the copyright status. --Nard00:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Sorry, I naively thought all .gov sites were part of the US Federal Government. I guess I should have checked. -- Avenue07:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not withn project scope. This PDF file is about a novel that uploader has written. Novel is not available from Amazon or Barnes&Noble. -- Thuresson00:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photograph was taken by me (ploncomi), and not by sebas (my brother, who tried to make a funny joke against me). Then, the license info is wrong. Ploncomi04:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
True, but it looks like the original work might be an official work for public information and/or a work permanently located in a public place, which would make it a free work (see COM:L#Germany. Can this be verified? —LX (talk, contribs)18:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Self-made claim questioned, originally claimed missing essential source information by Dantadd with improper speedy deletion after 7 days.--Jusjih15:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader never answered, so I would vote for Delete when the source is questionable. Thanks for your background information and discussion. If any admin has very good reason to speedily delete it, I would not object.--Jusjih13:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Combination of two images with incompatible licenses (one is under the GFDL, the other under CC-by-sa-2.5). The uploader gave wrong information on authorship before, in addition. --:Bdk:18:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This request is not about multi-licensing of one image, which is, of course, allowed. It's about the combination of two different images with two different licenses, that are not compatible. --:Bdk:19:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That section means you can publish a work which you allow others to distribute under the terms of either one of the licenses. It does not mean that you can combine images with incompatible licenses into one work, because the entire modified work must be licensed under the same license as the original. —LX (talk, contribs)19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Description= cover; Source= Book -> copyvio
Permission=It is permitted the reproduction for a didactic or pedagogic use
What now? --D-Kuru21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep. Since Mohamed Ali Yousfi is a Tunisian writer that has an article in at least twowikipedias, this photograph, in spite of not being of great quality, does have an encyclopedic interest. For example, it can be cropped to isolate the writer's face which would be of better quality than this webcam shot. — Xavier, 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep. Since Mohamed Ali Yousfi is a Tunisian writer that has an article in at least twowikipedias, this photograph, in spite of not being of great quality, does have an encyclopedic interest. For example, it can be cropped to isolate the writer's face which would be of better quality than this webcam shot. — Xavier, 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep. Since Mohamed Ali Yousfi is a Tunisian writer that has an article in at least twowikipedias, this photograph, in spite of not being of great quality, does have an encyclopedic interest. For example, it can be cropped to isolate the writer's face which would be of better quality than this webcam shot. — Xavier, 12:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep. The author claims he drawn this with MS Paint. Why doubt it ? The design is obiously not his and he might have used a scan of the official coat of arms (which is certainly PD) as a template, but many Commons contributors do so (when drawing SVG files for example). There are already many other Colombian blasons on Commons and most, if not all, are not 100% original work. BTW, you may want to talk with Ricardo on en:WP if he doesn't answer here. — Xavier, 13:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as a (useless) double-licensing, which is far from unusual. Why would it be contradictory ? In either case, the image is compatible with Commons policy so I see no reason to delete it. — Xavier, 12:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The uploader didn't specify a license, but claims to be the author, which seems unlikely given the apparent age of the work. —LX (talk, contribs)07:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Karol Zieliński died in 1835. This portrait has certainly been painted while he was alive and is therefore PD. Jerzy56 just took the photograph so authorship/source may be considered as incorrect though. — Xavier, 12:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Who says that the federal reserve board is a part of the US government? Their website doesn't say all material on it is in the public domain and that's disregarding the fact that this picture wasn't found on their website. 84.108.245.22214:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Can I link to the Board's web site?
We do not have any objection to your providing a hyperlink on your site to the Board's web site. This permission extends only to a hyperlink and does not include authority to engage in any other activities such as the "framing" of the Board’s web site on your web site." [36]
The Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve System (as opposed to the Federal Reserve Banks) is indeed an independent federal government agency (similar to NASA). See en:Federal Reserve System#Legal_status_and_position_in_government and the court case it references. All things considered, I find the claim that the image originally came from the Board's website to be credible, even if it has since been removed from the site. It still remains to be shown, however, that the images were taken by an employee of the Board, as opposed to an independent contractor. —LX (talk, contribs)14:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I noticed that too, right after I uploaded it. It had been under the other license when I uploaded it to Wikipedia, and I was trying to move the image here. Guess I should have re-checked the license first. --CrazyLegsKC16:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Flickr image guidelines, "images verified as freely available, should be considered free, even if the license on Flickr subsequently changes." (This is because a Creative Commons license is irrevocable, as stated in section 3 of the license.) Can somehow confirm that the license changed at some point? If so, I think it should be kept. —LX (talk, contribs)16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
the author is the photographic agency of Heinrich Hoffmann [37]however legally this image is public domain in the US as a seized property, you do know these servers are hosted in Florida USA, and Jimmy Wales says we abide by the laws of that state? Madmax3223:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true, the physical location of a server determines what laws it is subject to (in this case Florida USA), and this image is illegal in your country anyway, unless it is censored to remove the nazi symbols Madmax3201:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Licensing"It is important to remember when uploading a material from a country outside the United States that the copyright laws of both that country and of the United States apply to the upload."
And it is not illegal to use images containing the Swastika in historical context (museums, movies about that era, encyclopedias). --88.134.44.25503:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoffmann photos are copyrighted in Germany and many other countries, even if they may have special status in the U.S. They are not U.S. works. Lupo07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No indication that all materials found at moneyfactory.gov are in the public domain. Government websites could have non-public domain works which they didn't create unless they state they don't. 84.108.245.22214:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the official portrait of a U.S. government official, this is precisely the kind of image 17 USC 105 was designed to exclude from copyright. Nard21:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually I would tag such a image with no source. Link to a web page with image description is needed. That page will explain if this is a public USGov photo. --|EPO|21:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find it. moneyfactory.gov does have a copyright notice on the bottom of every page. They are a semi-independent agency of the government. Possible this image isn't actually PD. Nard21:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the copyright present doesn't apply to all of the website. This is a U.S. Government entity, thus much of its work is presumably in the public domain. However, the coinage they produce is a bit more complicated when it comes to copyright, which is probably what that notice applies to. At any rate, this image seems to be from the Federal Reserve, so the issue may be moot. I've sent an email to help clarify. --Tom (talk - email) 00:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This figure contains a serious error. Cytosine contains an amine, not a methyl group (which cannot hydrogen-bond) so this image must be deleted quickly! 137.131.130.21421:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep It is eneligible because it consists entirely of information that is common property. Nobody has any copyright on german shoulder ranks.--Fornax08:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
„925-928 is the date of the orignial creatuon of the map. So more than 1000 years old.“ that’s wrong, is a modern work --Polarlys14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Bryan: Commons:Project scope; This image was uploaded by a sock of somebody whose images have been deleted earlier after a deletion request
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This map is scanned from a history book published in 2005 - it is not in the public domain and there is no proof that permission was given to distribute the image under GFDL. Also, better version is available at image:Prussian clans 13th century.png --Renata301:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
from http://www.concellodemonforte.com/vercontenido.asp?sec=3&sub=17&id=25 : Os Contidos deste sitio web, tanto textos coma fotografías, son propiedade do titular do dominio ou ben de terceiros, quedando expresamente prohibida o uso ou reproducción total ou parcial para fins que non sexan os meramente informativos. 24 September 2006 User:Tano4595
On the talkpage of the image, it states: Esta imagen no debe ser borrada, porque sus derechos pertenecen a mi familia.Además de que está autorizado su uso público. This pic should be not removed beacuse his legal rights belong to my family. Plus is autorized his public use. --User:80.24.196.18, 15:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "it is expressly forbidden the total or partial use or reproduction for all purposes except the merely informative ones." (Excuse my poor translation.) --Dodo21:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Wow, I see that the jew lobby here is quite strong, nevermind I know that it will be deleted anyway.
There are plenty of modified flag in commons, but nobody can upload nothing about the massacre that are doing the jew in Palestina or something like that.
Well, that's quite funny: ``fascist propaganda`` XDDDDDDDDD oh man, the only nazi here are you, doing your coward censhorship.
"Fascist propaganda" is not a reason to delete. "No encyclopedic purpose", on the other hand, is one. I can't think of an encyclopedic purpose for this image, so unless someone shows how the image is being used encyclopedically, Delete. —Angr19:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The comitter wants to stay for public anonymous.Please either delete or erase my information as a contributor. You can keep the author information where it is not accessible for everibody. 12 November 2006 User:Audriusa.
Not sure we can do what is requested. I propose deletion of form based on the fact that user did not make the letter photographed themselves, and could not release it under the license given (GFDL-Self). Deadstar11:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The file/page is not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. 4 September 2006 User:190.46.49.142. Out of scope. Deadstar 12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image has been created by me, Gregor Kjellström. A similar image has been published in a paper written by me: Kjellström, G. The evolution in the brain. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 98(2-3):293-300, February, 1999. Sorry to say, I don't understand what license term should be used, and how it should be attached in such a case?--Kjells06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, there is a bit of a misunderstanding, "changing it is not allowed" refers to the licence, not to the drawing. In fact, this is an excerpts of the GPL licence, hence the Copyright to the Free Software Foundation (I'm pretty sure Mr. Kjellström doesn't belong to the FSF). My guess is that Mr. Kjellström provides his drawing under the GPL licence.
Gregor, as stated on Commons:Copyright tags, you should use GFDL instead, since "GPL is intended for computer programs, not for media files" (well, I agree this neural network may be seen as a program in some way). If you chose GFDL, just put {{GFDL-self}} in the description page. If you want to stick to GPL, put {{GPL}}. — Xavier, 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image has been created by me, Gregor Kjellström, using random number generators, mathematics and plot routines in MATLAB. It has earlier been published in a pamphlet written by me: Kjellström, G. Evolution in a nutshell and some consequences concerning valuations. EVOLVE, ISBN91-972936-1-X, Stockholm, 2002. Sorry to say, I don't understand what license term should be used in this case, and how it should be attached.--Kjells06:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should edit the page, remove the "no derivative works" clause and add a license tag for a free license. After that, you should save the page. All information on licenses can be found on Commons:Licensing. All information on license tags can be found on Commons:Copyright tags. You probably want to select a tag containing "self'". Cheers! Siebrand09:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't know the legal status of such an image : this is a public place (the museum belongs to the department of education), but of course, the painter has not been dead enough to make his painting public domain. I have not a clue if this image is legaly ok, then. On the fr.wikipedia (tougher on copyright than the en.wikipedia as france has no "fair use") this kind of image used to be ok... But now a lot have been taken off... don't know. Jean-no14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
For what reason ? - {{PD-Polish}} License is for photos published in Poland before 1994 without copyright restrictions.
There is no possibility for censorship at all
The uploader has to prove that the chosen license is valid, also regarding images from wartimes. We can’t choose PD-USGov-Military for works done in 1945 in Germany if we don’t know the photographer and we can’t adopt German copyright law for works done by the US military in Germany. Same here. --Polarlys22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the uploader is claiming the author is an anonymous Polish citizen, can you prove otherwise? It is possible for some photos to be anonymous works. Madmax3222:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have to. If someone says, that the author is unknown, but he knows his nationality (despite wartimes), that’s shady. --Polarlys22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it was published in a Polish book, and I've never seen it before. Why was a German taking photographs of the destroyed castle? Memories of their handiwork? Madmax3223:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Have you ever seen the hint „Please provide where the image was first published and who created it.“ in PD-Polish? Nobody cares about. :( --Polarlys23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just assuming that the work is anonymous, it might not be maybe the uploader can provide more information, books usually says who made images in the index Madmax3206:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep // This law does not apply to the works of Polish photographers exclusively, but also to the works first published in Poland (or simultaneously in Poland and abroad; see the 1952 law, in Polish). The source of the image is given and it is reasonable to assume PD in this case. // tsca[re]18:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the age of this photo and the fact that its author is anonymous... it is practically PD everywhere. You can't seriously expect someone to appear out of the blue and claim (c) for this work after almost 70 years or be in any way hurt by the fact it's published on the net. The publisher - even if still existing - won't complain either since the republication is legal according to the law within which the company operates (operated). There's nothing illegal or unethical about making this document available to the public. // tsca[re]09:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia projects are not about "collecting and publishing things nobody will complain about". They are about "collecting and publishing things that are free". Lupo10:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively it could be considered out of copyright because of lack of artistic creativity (just a documentary photo) but that's debatable, if it's really anonymous, in 2010 it will be anonymous PD worldwide (assuming the person who took this photo was not Polish) Madmax3210:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, for some users every portrait isn’t an expression of „artistic creativity“, now even „documentary photos“? How do you define „documentary photos“, how is „artistic creativity“ measured and on which law is it based? --Polarlys11:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be difficult to answer since the laws of different countries have differing interpretations, but a photo of a bombed out building is probably on the lower end of the creativity scale. The one of the artillery hitting the building is creative though, the timing is quite perfect. Madmax3211:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong - it is a photo from Polish newsreel of 17.09.1939 in Warsaw. The city was surrended to Germans 28.09.1939. Just after Soviet aggresion on Poland Hitler ( who was under Warsaw gates ) give an order to forced Polish for an inmediattialy surrender . Destroying of Royal Castle should to be an element of "forced coversation".
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
it says 'Photo made in secret by Polish underground ( resistance) intelligence service' so maybe the template is okay Madmax3220:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This claim has to be proved. I don’t believe it, since people try everything here, to upload copyrighted pictures for usage in their articles. No claim is bogus enough. In 50 years someone will discover the remains of this project, files with places, dates and authors „improved“ to fit special needs of special license templates, pictures „done in the US“, whenever a certain person never ever left his European homeland, pictures of nazi officials with „unknown author“, whenever they were done well-known photographers like Heinrich Hoffmann, modified image descriptions to fit special needs or even points of view, places and situations which were put back in the past, for ten years maybe, to make it „old enough“. Ooops, there is a photographer’s name who worked between 1920 and 1930 but died in 1970 and his work remains protected for some decades? Erase the name, make it „unknown“, look for a fitting template, upload it. That’s Wikimedia Commons these days regarding historic photos and artworks.
We could discuss the possibility to take such a photo with the technical possibilities of 1940, the photographer hidden 2 or 3 meters over the ground (in the wood), close to German soldiers, but that’s kind of boring. :) --Polarlys21:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem unlikely but not impossible for someone to have clandestinely taken that photograph, after all there are photographs by Germans taken secretly of the Warsaw Ghetto on USHMM, even though it was forbidden.Madmax3223:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete A large chunk of the Pramid appears in this picture and cannot IMO be considered as incidental. In the Terreaux case, the artwork consists in a number of small fountains which are barely visible when viewed from a distance. I don't think this applies at all. FWIW, a practical guide for photographers (Le Photographe. Guide pratique et juridique pour le professionnel et l'amateur) states : "there is apparently no exception allowed for pictures of the Louvre Pyramid or of the Grande Arche, even if these works appear only in the background". Jastrow (Λέγετε) 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same: it's impossible to shoot a picture of the Place des Terreaux without showing a bit of Buren's fountains. It's perfectly possible to shoot the Pavillon Richelieu, which is depicted here, without showing the Louvre Pyramid, and I'll do it if it's reasonably sunny this week-end. If we keep this picture it'll mean we try to sneak around the FOP legislation (or rather, absence thereof) in France. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually more difficult than I thought. You can picture the Pavillon Richelieu without showing the great Pyramid itself but it's almost impossible to avoid the small one without a PC lens. All I could do was this, Image:Pavillon Richelieu Louvre 2007 06 23.jpg, for which I believe the Terraux jurisprudence could apply. I won't lift a finger if an admin decides it should go with Image:Louvre DSC00662.JPG, though. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Pyramide and Grand Arche are exeptions please to report the Jurisprudence. If this kind of jurisprudence exist we must deleted all french modern buildings. Petrusbarbygere20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The excerpt I quoted precisely states that both monuments are no exceptions. Monuments and buildings are protected under the French law if they have a distinctive artistic character and if they're not one of a series (CA Riom 26 May 1967).
Concerning the Pyramid, the "Terreaux" decision specifically insists on the fact that Buren's fountains are "embedded" in the piazza and that their original characteristics must be represented if you want to picture the said piazza (« l’œuvre de MM. X... et Z... “est fondue” dans cette place dont elle fait partie et dans laquelle elles est “intriquée” ce qui implique que ses traits caractéristiques originaux sont nécessairement communiqués au public lorsque la place est elle-même représentée »). This is not the case here. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this OK?And like this?* Comment I can't say for this particular picture if it shows too much of the pyramid to keep the picture or not. But I clearly see that this kind of legal interpretation is going to create ridiculous results. Copyright in Wikimedia projects cannot be decided base on subjective interpretations, which is the case here. Commons should draw objective rules, with the help of the Foundation, to decide what to keep and what to delete. See the examples here... Yann22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Petrusbarbygere: There is no freedom of panorama in France : pas cool
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
it says published between 1920 and 1937, so there are several possibilities for it being PD. Published before 1923, published between 1923-1963 and copyright was not renewed, or anonymous PD since 1937 with no author mentioned makes it 70 years old at most Madmax3220:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But (a) not a US-Gov work, and (b) no proof of non-renewal. In fact, we don't even know the photographer. Might just as well be an unpublished portrait photograph, in which case it's either 70 years p.m.a. (if author known) or 120 years since creation (if unknown, or author's death year unknown). Pointing out possibilities without providing evidence won't get us nowhere. We need evidence. Besides, where did you get "anonymous PD since 1937 with no author mentioned makes it 70 years old at most" from? I don't see that in 17 USC. Lupo07:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a)quite possibly true and (b) no proof but likely since most copyrights were not renewed, I am not familiar with that 120 year since creation rule, but it's obviously been published since the LoC obtained it and doesn't list a private donor. I was thinking of the Anonymous-EU template but maybe that doesn't apply here since this is probably a US photo, but that would make it PD in most of the world (LoC says published 1920 and 1937) so more than 70 years. Besides to me it looks like this photo was taken the same time as this underwood and underwood photo [41] because she is wearing the same clothes and appears to be the same age, but not conclusive proof obviously. The underwood & underwood photo is PD because that photo agency went out of business in the 1940s and none of their copyrights were renewed.[42] I guess the only way to prove copyright for this image is if the LoC updates their information, but that seems unlikely. Madmax3210:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's a pretty good observation. Indeed she is wearing the same clothes as in the Underwood & Underwood photo. I think I could agree to treating it as {{PD-US-not renewed}} under these circumstances. The only minor problem is that we don't know whether this image was received by the LoC through copyright deposit (known PD due to non-renewal in that case) or as a "stock surplus" gift (unclear copyright status in that case, the company restricted use of the gift images to non-commercial uses, but the LoC says that "searches have not turned up any existing copyrights for Underwood & Underwood images"). Lupo07:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep. Put it this way. it was taken before 1937, perhaps long before because Earhart went missing in 1937, so an photo of her could not have been taken after 1937. DragonFire102422:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
? YOU have to prove that the author is anonymous and never disclosed his identity. You don’t even mention where the image is from. --Polarlys12:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an old book that I own, there is this pic, it is an art encyclopedia, it says anonymous author. Maybe they didi not know the euthor, but if the author should come out, you can delete the pics, beacuse thet in is copyrighted. --Edgar Allan Poe08:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe you a single word, look at your upload log. Just because one reproduction (whose name and author we don’t know) doesn’t state the author, it’s still not anonymous. Where was it published first? --Polarlys10:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fisrt of all I am not here to be attacked or anything. I said that the info from the book might be wrong and that I so not know 100% if the author is anonymous. But since no evidence has come forward, I think that he is anonymos. It was took in Paris in 1924, probably published in a newspaper beacuse it looks like a studio photo, but not froma press photographer, so until more evidence comes forth. --Edgar Allan Poe15:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Initial reason: False license (not in PD). 15:36, 10 September 2006 User:190.46.49.142.
My Spanish is not good enough to check the website and find out if Copyrighted Free Use is correct for this logo of the University of Chile. --Deadstar12:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
missglückter Test. 10:51, 7 April 2006 User:Annettegruen. I see a corrupt file Deadstar 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted. According to [43]: "Die in diesem Online-Verzeichnis eingetellten Schriften sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Für Sie als Leserin bzw. Leser bedeutet dies, dass die Inhalte ausschließlich zu Ihrer persönlichen Information bestimmt sind. Unzulässig ist deshalb, ohne unsere entsprechende Zustimmung Inhalte gewerbsmäßig zu nutzen, zu verändern und zu veröffentlichen."—"The regulations published in this online directory are copyrighted. ..." (only personal use allowed; republication expressly forbidden). Lupo07:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Uploader claims This image is a screenshot made by Petrusbarbygere from a public domain movie's trailer. Trailers for movies released before 1964 are in the Public Domain because they were never separately copyrighted. Is that correct? -- Siebrand15:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be possible. As I had not heard of this before, I started a DR for this. If it is true, we need a seperate license tag for this type of images, as it does not fit any of the existsing tags (aside from {{PD-because}}. Cheers! Siebrand11:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both links only repeat the claim. The first is a web site showing such trailers, the second an unsourced Wikipedian's assertion (Note: I highly respect Jkelly). But I haven't seen any confirmation of the claim from a respected legal source. In view of en:WP:PD#Movies and movie stills, I guess we'll need at least to be careful about trailers for films based on earlier novels or plays. (Not the case with North by Northwest.) In any case, it applies only to U.S. trailers, and only within the U.S. And if a trailer, even if pre-1964, should contain a copyright notice, one would need to check whether it was renewed. The "never" in the uploader's claim is a bit strong... Lupo21:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
My understanding was that for PD-art-US to be applicable one would need evidence that the picture was published in the US before 1923. William Avery12:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged as PD-old, but the artist died in 1966. Artist is Japanese, so a 50-year pma rule applies, but it still hasn't been 50 years yet. -- howcheng {chat}05:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If published before 1978, it's 95 years since publication. If published 1978 - 2002 (inclusive), it's until the later of the end of 2047 and 70 years p.m.a. If published 2003 or later, or unpublished, it's until 70 years p.m.a. (In this case, since the author is known.) See WP:PD#Unpublished works. Lupo20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
File doesn't open for me. Very likely to be an earlier try to upload file Image:La Fontaine par Rigaud.jpg. Nominated by uploader shortly after uploading. Fix request. Deadstar 12:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. Right, this is the very same picture (same resolution and same quality), it does open for me with a separate viewer. — Xavier, 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Propably not "own work", see http://www.steadydrive.com/html/legal.html "The information, text, video, or pictures/images (collectively, "Materials") contained on the STEADYDRIVE Website are protected by copyright laws. You may only access and use the Materials for personal or educational purposes. You may not modify or use the Materials for any other purpose without STEADYDRIVE 's express written consent. Except as provided below, you may not reproduce, republish, post, transmit or distribute any Materials on the STEADYDRIVE Website." --84.185.174.10423:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
see: this site: We allow Private Non Commercial Users to download images from our web site as long as you follow the simple rules - see page: free photo. 18 October 2006 User:Bollero
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The uploader says it is GFDL because there is no copyright statement at all in the source site, which in fact means it is copyrighted BarceX21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
States: The photo taken in Jordan is under jordan law where the copyright is only for 25 years We do not appear to have a copyright tag. Has this license been accepted based on this reasoning? -- Siebrand14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
This is not a reasonning : the link to the Unesco website where this law is explained is given in Image:Qibya2.jpg.
I suggest we create the tag instead of destroying the work which was : having found the image, having found the copyright law and having found the source and reference. Ceedjee10:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request is strange. If this photo (whith the date, the geographical site, the detail of copyright law) is destroyed, every photo on wikimedia should be destroyed. If Siebrand considers that it exists a pb about this photo, it should be better he explains clearly why, because I don't understand at all. Christophe cagé11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is being destroyed. Deletion requests are meant to get clarity on the copyright status of media. I'm all for creating a tag if the license is valid. Cheers! Siebrand16:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the license possiibly being correct, I would like to ask an additional question on this particular image. The image is only PD if it was copyrighted under Jordanian law. The image alledgedly originates from an employee of CADN. Is CADN a Jordanian organisation? The only CADN I can find is Centre of Diplomatic Archives in Nantes (CADN), which is obviously French... Siebrand18:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
possibly being correct ? Did you read the references ?
You attitude is not very respectful ! Please, read en:WP:CIVIL
I wrote 95% of 3 featured articles and one about fr:Qibya.
I have no idea what you think is disrepectful in my, what you call, attitude. I'm sure you are a respected and recognised contributor on other wikis and in fact here, too. A deletion procedure is nothing personal. It runs to establish consensus on a copyright status. As we now stand, I have asked a question which you explicitely refuse to answer as you, as I see it, demand that I inform myself, as you have done so and are right. That may well be, but has not been established here. As nominator is will not be closing this request, so we will indeed see what another admin thinks... Cheers! Siebrand19:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My last word Siebrand is that on wiki-projects we don't have to see what "another admin thinks" but what other contributors think. On the heart of the matter, I answered you. Ceedjee07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not. I asked you about what CADN was and you resorted to scolding. So I'll restate my question: what is CADN? So far you appear to be littering this discussing with irrelevant points, taking the focus off of debate on validity of the license claim. Siebrand09:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, Ceedjee, this is Commons. We care very little what you do on other sites, we just try to prevent people from ruining Commons. So your bragging about featured articles on fr: are quite irrelevant.
Besides, in the last few days, you have insinuated that several admins of Commons were antisemitic, for no tangible reason whatsoever, and you have threatened to have Siebrand shot (you and what army, that is anyone's guess). So don't get us started about being civil, you'd be the sorry one. Rama19:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rama,
I have been blocked following what you have just written and the reason was that I would have "threat" Siebrand to be shot ! As explained by Korrigan, who speaks French and who deblocked me on the talk page, your accusation was not true.
I never insinuated any administrator was antisemite. In both case you refer to (what directed to you, one to commons) that was not the case and I know what I am talking about. More, I have never threaten Siebrand or any other people.
Let's not image the consequences of this in real life.
From my point of view you go to far as some people tried to explain you.
The reference to our work on other wikipedias only means we are not vandals. And the constructive work I made here concerning copyright is valuable here and on others wikipedia.
I speak French quite perfectly, thank you. You wrote "Ce serait même vrai; la seule conséquence sera de te faire fusiller pour l'avoir écrit." [45], which litterally translates as "It would even be true; the only consquence will be to have you executed by firing squad for having wrote it". Now, excuse me for understanding this as a threat... If someone wants to buy your story that you were muttering incoherent rambling about death and executing, in writing, that's their problem.
" God mit Ihnen" [46] and "Tu as un problème avec les Juifs ?" ("do you have a problem with Jews ?") [47] are, I am sure, perfectly normal and innocent words, in your mouth.
And in here [48] you perfectly show that you are aware that your behaviour is unacceptable.
You have had the good fortune to find people patient enough to assume that you can be a normal contributor, and I accept this. But I'd advise you to try and have yourself forgotten, and refraining from hypocrite whining would be a fine starting point. Rama09:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you go on when you know you are not right ?
If people are interested by that I can explain but I am not sure you will be interested to listen. You interpretation is not right. Ceedjee09:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the subject. I agree with Siebrand. First, author is unknown and we don't know if this picture was published on the Jordan territory, therefore we can not assert whether Jordan law applies or not (same as this other deletion request).
Second, the source (CADN – Centre of Diplomatic Archives in Nantes — which AFAIK belongs to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs) is in France therefore, in doubt, you should assume the photograph is French and that French law applies.
This said, the CADN archives what diplomats sent or collected during their mandates and I would guess that this photo has been taken by a Jordan photograph, or published in a Jordan newspaper, and then acquired by a then French diplomat. But this is just my opinion and here, the precautionary principle usually prevails. — Xavier, 00:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it says the photo was discovered and the actual author may be unknown but I don't think there is a rush to delete since there appears to be some reliable source information Madmax3201:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all references to the initial origin of that image are provided in the external source given in the links on the image page. If this should be deleted, we should delete all pictures claimed to have been done by users because this is not verifiable. Ceedjee07:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Author remains unknown, period. And therefore PD is not asserted. Saying "CADN - Amman série B carton 20" is like saying "Boston Public Library - 2nd floor - 4th shelf - box 20". It's quite interesting if you want to find the real picture in order to verify something or make a better copy. However, contrary to what you claim, it doesn't lead you to the real origin, which is the author and where the picture was actually published (if it was). — Xavier, 01:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mis-spelled, so at the very least should be moved to "marriage". But I think this is a rather strange category, what Wikipedians call a "trivial intersection"; so it should just be deleted altogether. Hesperian23:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this is a quesion of mispelling (use by mistake of the French word "mariage" instead of the English word "marriage"), we just need to change it, this is not really a problem (I will do it during my lunch break). For the rest, there are a category "Black and white photograps" and a category "Marriage", I have difficulty to understand why it is not possible to have a category at the intersection of them : "Category:Black and white photographs of marriage". That give the great advantage to access to these documents by two ways and that allow to have less pictures in the mother categories.Romary06:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyright violation: Released into the public by "Linus Akesson", who appears to be not the original copyright holder of the song. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not used by any wikiproject. Redundant: the latest version of these files exists under Image: Investment property valuation. In short: the electricity used to maintain this image on the server is a contributor to global warming while the image is totally useless. RCSB23:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
copyright violation -- modern illustration, not an authentic old one. Removed PD-old tag, as this illustration is NOT one made back when the murders were going on, but a modern one. This is a copyright violation. There are no known illustrations of Kosminski. This came from some modern comic book or something. 14 December 2006 User:172.128.80.214
Comment I re-added the (I hate to say vandalized) removed info from the file description. However I can't speak Chinese, so I can't understand it. Something about being transwikied from the Chinese wikipedia and babelfish says something about an Arab League. -Nard01:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Where does the "only" come from ? Is it mentionned on the attached letter ? License is too ambiguous nonetheless. — Xavier, 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See attached translation. Moreover, the permission limits the use to articles on the city of Bratislava only. --AtonX10:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you for the translation. The licence seems not only limited to WP but also to the Brastislava articles. I see this as fair use and therefore I vote for deletion. — Xavier, 11:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be kept even if we use it just in the articles about Bratislava. Well, there is no reason to use it in other articles anyway. Tankred19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the wording in the permission is vague (in Bratislava article BUT in various language mutations), I don't see good reason to delete coat-of-arms, if we will stick into Bratislava articles and possibly to the articles dedicated to the description of the coat-of-arms. Plus, although it isn't related to this discussion, it was quite difficult task to obtain some sort of permission from the city. Therefore I'm voting for keep. MarkBA19:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not changing my vote yet, I'm considering because: The licence restricts usage to Wikipedia + only on Bratislava articles, what is perfect fair use and the law requires a special permission from the city, and we don't have that kind for unlimited use. Though requesting new permission would be time-consuming and there's a chance that they may not reply at all plus we have a snowball's chance in hell that we'll get better permission than this (for unlimited use). MarkBA16:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So how it is going to end? We're sitting almost seven weeks about this and still nothing happens. But no one wants to wait for the outcome forever, though, repeating my own words, we'll hardly get something better than that. MarkBA17:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies all but criterion 9 of en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria, which can be fixed. Further, the text and tone of the letter amounts to "we don't much care", if you're familiar with Slovak bureaucracy. Finally, like other coats-of-arms, this could be converted to straight-up fair use with the permission letter deleted and still pass muster. MikeGogulski21:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be welcome on those WP that tolerate faire-use (en.WP is ok IMHO). But Commons is not Wikipedia, WP criteria don't apply here, and all content here must be free (as a speech). See Commons:Licensing. The fact that this image is restricted to Bratislava related articles (and even if it was restricted to WP) makes it non-free, therefore it must be deleted from Commons, sorry. — Xavier, 02:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately, the Slovak law requires a special permission if you want to use it commercially, so it probably should be deleted. One could argue that since the Wikimedia org. + servers are situated in the USA, the situation is different because copyright on that coat of arms expired many centuries ago, but that's too tricky an issue.--Svetovid15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dont want to imagine what will follow after deletion. Many wikipedias dont know "wikipedia only" status, many dont allow "fair use" for coat-of-arms, it will be disaster. I understand this voting as chance to make commons rules more softly :) --kelovy08:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A keep-vote should be supported by arguments, why this image is free-use and thence may stay on Commons. Current evidence is, that it is essentially non-free (restricted) and must be removed. --AtonX14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As AtonX already explained, the permission letter in sense of VZN 11/1993 concerns permission to use as per 369/1990 Zb. A free license in sense of 618/2003 Zb. (Slovak copyright law) was not granted, therefore it can't be at Commons. Commons in general doesn't care about non-copyright restrictions like 369/1990 Zb., so the permission doesn't have any effect at Commons anyway. ~~helix8412:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accompanying letter
Concerns: Use of the coat-of-arms of Bratislava - approval By means of your letter of 11 February 2007 you have requested approval of use of the coat-of-arms of Bratislava. On the basis of the aforementioned request we issue hereby, in accordance with the generally binding regulation No. 11/1993 of the capital city of Bratislava on the conditions of use of the coat-of-arms of Bratislava in the electronic internet encyclopedia Wikipedia. The approval is being issued for the depiction of the coat-of-arms of Bratislava in the encyclopedia Wikipedia as a part of the entry "Bratislava" in various language mutations. Greetings, Ing. Anna Pavlovičová Director of the City Office"
Info Municipalities in Slovakia exist as legal persons on the basis of the law of the National Council No. 369/1990 Col. on the municipal establishment. This act states in its § 1b sect. 1, that
"Symbols of the municipality are the coat-of-arms of the municipality, the flag of the municipality, the seal of the municipality and it may be the tune of the municipality. Legal persons established by the municipality, other legal persons and natural persons may use the symbols of the municipality solely with the approval of the municipality."
At the Slovak wikipedia we tend to suggest, that this paragaph forbids any use of the symbols, unless approved by the municipality; the word "use" includes the upload and/or depiction in Slovak-language Wikimedia projects (as the aforementioned law is applicable only in the Slovak Republic). --AtonX14:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] P.S.: Moreover, the graphical representation of a coat-of-arms is a work of an graphic artist, which must be licensed (or released as free content) by the author (or holder of the respective rights); unless—of course—the picture is redrawn by someone and the resulting/new graphical representation is released... --AtonX12:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Derivative work. Caption says "Part of a retrospective of Chillida's work" so it is not permanently installed, therefore no UK Freedom of panorama is applicable. William Avery11:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sculpture is now back in Chillida-Leku Foundation in Hernani, very close to San Sebastian where Eduardo Chillida was born and lived. He created this private museum and Chillida Belzunce family manages it. They own and present quite a large number of Chillida's sculptures. Very nice open air museum, you should visit it when you come to the Basque Country.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
request from uploader -- could be an imitation from a later date. 21 January 2007 User:BostonMA
This page whence the picture came seems to say that the style of painting is still practiced today. It is likely that the pictures there are modern interpretations of this style. PD-old would not apply.
The authors and copyright statuses of these photos are not known, see [49]. Some of them could be public domain, but without source information we cannot verify this. —Remember the dot(talk)22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For ships of the 1950s and before, like the couple I checked, I would think {{PD-UKGov}} would apply and we should Keep those. For newer ships, they may still be under Crown Copyright. Carl Lindberg08:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is insufficient evidence that these images are PD as claimed. The images found in a skip have no provenence, and those taken from the NavyPhotos website are suspect as the site does not understand UK law. It says that " ... photos taken from government sources and are therefore already public property" which may be correct in the US but not in the UK. Most UK governmant and military images are Crown Copyright, and that copyright is normally not waived by the UK government. --MichaelMaggs05:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Images by user Brendel with no-commercial-use conditions
I have contacted the user at his en-WP talk page. Wait a week to give him a chance to either confirm that the IP was he, or to correct the licensing on the image pages. Lupo07:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-free licences. This seems to be a long-standing issue with this contributor, with talk page entries asking for free licences dating back to 2006. --MichaelMaggs21:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Used it for a wikipedia article - this article has now been deleted and there is no other apparent use for the picture. Rsuave07:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Used it for a wikipedia article - this article has now been deleted and there is no other apparent use for the picture. Rsuave07:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment AFP rarely releases the highest resolutions for web use. It is not impossible that the author posted it on Flickr and sold it to AFP. --Bongoman12:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Flickrreview failed, but image is used at least once and was uploaded 8 months ago, but has GFDL license since the start, which isn't flickr compatible so I doubt the image was ever free -- MECU≈talk13:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Zirland: Dupe of Image:Tranvía de Tenerife.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The reenactment is an annual event as part of the Liberation Day celebrations in Jersey. It's a photo of a national event which is part of the culture of Jersey - the photo is of a military parade by currently-serving soldiers participating in this year's reenactment which took place on 9 May 2007. What next: Category:Bastille Day military parade up for deletion? Man vyi17:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of those Bastille Day photos could be deleted but not the ones where see real French troops not some English kids with WW2 era British uniforms, this is a original research outside project scope Madmax3217:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely all photographs could be classed as original research. I am not aware of any Commons policy or guidelines which regarding original research but Wikipedia:No original research specifically excludes images for this reason. I also do not understand how this image is not within COM:SCOPE and would invite you to clarify how exactly this is. Adambro20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely not. If they were real soldiers the photo may have had merit, since the admins here deleted photos bashing George Bush, and want to delete harry potter fantasy maps, I don't see why photos of fake British kid soldiers should be allowed Madmax3221:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most people here seem to agree that original research in images and other creations is not allowed, this is not flickr or youtube Madmax3200:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: this is a photo of an actual, real military parade; these are actual British soldiers wearing the style of uniforms worn by their predecessors; there is nothing "fake" about the photo; Liberation Day is Jersey's national day and I would have thought that the annual events are worthy of illustration. We haven't yet got an article nrm:Jour d'la Libéthâtion, but when we do we'll surely need illustrations of the ceremonies. Man vyi05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Madmax32 - »Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy.«¹ --FSHL14:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
kept, whenever this image was just used for vandalism on en.wikipedia.org (“British gay Armed forces march”) I decided to keep it. Reenactment is a part of local culture, not just in the US, also in Europe. Some examples? Battle of Leipzig (Germany), Battle of Grunwald (Poland, see photos), Battle of Naseby (England), Gettyburg (USA). I checked some projects and these events are mentioned in the battle’s article. Maybe there are also large events with their own articles. To document the modern way of dealing with history is within the project’s scope. Please use photos like this one carefully, using a modern times Napoleon in a description of the chronological sequence of the Battle of Waterloo is surely the wrong way. Regards --Polarlys02:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - I'm sorry but I fail to understand how this image is outside the project scope and how it can be described as "a useless image". Adambro18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not illustrate the subject matter adequately, that could be why its not used in any articles. Only other upload by user is a copyvio Madmax3219:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that eventually it may not illustrate the subject matter adequately (I don’t think so) isn’t relevant for deletion. --FSHL15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete User has requested right to vanish on en.wp. However, since it's PD now, some people probably should save it for derivative works. :-) Wooyi15:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image consists almost solely of a pin copyrighted by Paramount. Paramount retains rights to derivative works of that pin. Therefore, this image is not compatible with Commons licensing --Durin16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's like saying a photo of a corvette and only a corvette is copyright infringement because Chevrolet owns the copyright to the car's design. Unless someone with real legal knowledge comes along and shows that it's a copyvio, keep. Steevven103:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A car design can't really be reliably copyrighted, but the care manufacturers logos and badges definitely are, and this seems to be more of a star trek logo, in it's current state it may not be a copy vio but I doubt paramount would appreciate derivative works using this logo, it is copyrighted even if of a trivial design. Madmax3211:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Madmax32. Simply taking a photograph of, say, the logo for McDonald's doesn't free it of copyright concerns sufficient to allow inclusion on Commons. It most definitely is not free. Imagine the consequences if you manipulated this supposedly free image, and created a bunch of t-shirts based on it. --Durin14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Translation of the reason by Geo-Loge22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC): There must be a written authorization by the Foundation of interior images. This is why the images should be deleted.[reply]
The Frauenkirche Foundation does not allow to take photos from inside the Frauenkirche (German information), while the outside falls under the Freedom of Panama. --16:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep: There is no Werk (work, creation) according to German Copyright Act (UrhG) to see that demands freedom of panorama (§ 59 UrhG)! The Frauenkirche Foundation is not the creator of the interior and may forbid the act of taking images, but not to publish these ones under any licence! There is nothing against copyright! A copyright violation would be to include a work on an approved image without asking the real holder of the copyright. Geo-Loge22:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Geo-Loge wrote, only the creator holds the copyright of the interior. While there is a creator of some drawings inside the roof, this doesn't apply to the rest. The mentioned drawings are not shown at the pictures. By the way, signs at the entry just ask for not taking pictures. There is no sign of actually prohibiting of taking pictures nor any guard there will insist of not taking any. Of course this doesn't apply for the mass but just for the reason of keeping the time of worship quit. --Henristosch23:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Some coats of arms, claimed to be licensed by Željko Heimer
no license/no permission. The tagging on some of these images has been reverted twice of more often. So let's get some carity in this deletion request. I've seen images by Željko Heimer pop up on many wikis, but IIRC always without a proper and verifiable license. See list of images below. --Siebrand09:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image has been tagged three times in the past 5 months and uploader has removed the tagging 3 times. The image is not licensed and no permission can be found. Admins: please check the page history for deletion of text. This uploader has a way of making things disappear and demanding reverse proof. -- Siebrand14:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Since this image is from europa.eu.int it is useless to cite a notice from ec.europa.eu. And since this is a living person, it is not possible to obtain a more free license, which is valid. -- Stahlkocher09:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ec.europa.eu had their own copyright notice. They now use a more restrictive license, but the one used 2005 is fine und fulfill our needs. -- Stahlkocher10:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Reproduction" is not enough for Commons, we require allowing derivative works and commercial use of the work. Kotepho02:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Likely copyvio by Flickr user. I kind of doubt he was right there with these soldiers. Also look at other images in his photostream. They cover a wide variety of subjects and are all too professional. None of them have any EXIF info either. -- howcheng {chat}20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I believe the photo is a copyright violation from WWE.com though I can't seem to find the exact picture on the site. The reason I'm giving is that the image has the same dimension used from that site, 456x352 (compare with photos in here). Oakster18:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Suspected copyvio from [63]. Claimed as non-copyrighted by the uploader with permission from the site owner, but the image is in all likelihood a scan of a copyrighted printed map — note the slight tilt and the illegible text in the center, even at full resolution. --Jpatokal11:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a GFDL/CC by-sa map on Wikitravel that could be adapted here as well: PNG, SVG. It's missing the planned extensions though. Jpatokal08:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. The link is no longer live, and the uploader has not responded to the Deletion Notice placed nearly 3 months ago. Still no valid licence. --MichaelMaggs06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Bryan: dupe: Inschriftentafel_Römerkastell_Vitudurum.JPG
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I am the owner / copyright holder. The photo is of a friend of mine, and I hadn't intended to CC license it for use here. I've since changed the license. Roguealy20:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Even if we could take an unintended license declaration we should not when we have no compelling reason to keep it. It isn't unique and it is unused, why fight with the copyright holder over it? Kotepho02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because you can't revoke a CC license once you publish it under that license. I should note that it was uploaded here by a bot.Madmax3205:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A license saying that it is irrevocable does not make it irrecovable, but that isn't even my point. Even if we had a valid license we have no reason to keep it against their wishes as it is easily replacable and not used. Kotepho19:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personality rights only apply if you use the photograph is a defaming or libelous manner , since the copyright holder published the photograph publically they can't really claim having it here unaltered is violating the personality rights, so keep Madmax3222:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the photos I post to Flickr are of nature and architectural subjects and I don't mind if they're used elsewhere, which is why my default licensing setting is a CC Attribution-NonCommercial license. However, I didn't think to go back and change the license for photos I didn't necessarily want to CC license -- namely, photos of friends and family. I've since rectified that within the licensing settings of my Flickr account -- though, reading the legalese of the license in full, I now see that changing the license doesn't revoke usage rights for users who picked it up under the previous license. (The short version of the license says that "Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights." I apparently misunderstood it as giving me the option to withdraw the license if desired.) Still, fully admitting my own culpability in mis-licensing the photo in the first place, I'd still like to ask for the community's understanding in removing this photo. --Roguealy05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
my work -> wrong description; picture shows eggs of other species; same picture with new description already uploaded as Periplaneta-americana-Eier.jpg 200.102.27.18400:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep POV is not a reason for deletion -- it can still be used to illustrate an article about that point of view, for instance. Its usage in certain articles may be a problem but that is not a reason for deletion from commons. It appears to be in use on pl-wiki. Carl Lindberg08:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(I wanted to use this picture on my page but it's useless and I don't want to waste server space. I am the author of this picture.) Centrifuga21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is this photo real or photoshopped? If it's photoshopped, we can use it to illustrate how photoshopping can alter an image. Wooyi15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The copyright in Croatia doesn't work like in US. IMO this is a public photo, most likely from an archive of Croatian Academy of Science and Art. I don't see why it wouldn't be used here and I also don't see any copyright issues. --Raguseo00:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment In history I see an appalling revert war and nothing else. If the Department doesn't own the copyright, who else does? Wooyi20:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer. Don’t call it „edit war“, when a user with a history of copyvios and even an abusive sock (CU!) removes a template. --Polarlys22:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well all White House photos of U.S. Presidents are taken by "photographers" but White House release them to PD. So this may apply here too. Wooyi15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Music written by Gershwin, so scanner cannot release it GFDL. Conceivably could be "Fair Use" on enwiki but not GFDL on commons. Storkk15:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image is taken off of a MySpace site for a U.S. Presidential candidate. There is no evidence this is in the public domain, and simply because an image is released to the public doesn't mean it lacks usage restrictions. --Tom (talk - email) 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please hold on deletion until later this week. I am in contact with the campaign, via Dr Paul's grandson, to secure a statement of release and authorized use of the photo. Give a guy a chance? :) His grandson said he'd address this first thing Monday, so I will keep checking back. Hope to have it by Friday at the latest. Foofighter20x18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the effort :) However, please note that a permission to use on Wikipedia is not enough for the image to be allowed on Commons, or any other wiki that does not allow fair use. Please try to get permission to use the image under a free license, such as the GFDL or the CC-BY-2.5, and try to make them understand that releasing an image under such a license allows anybody to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use and derivative work. See also Commons:Email templates. Thank you, -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dr Paul's grandson confirmed that Dr Paul himself has personally expressed his desire to use the photo on the article. As I can't speak for the photo, in what way would you guys like the campaign to confirm? I sent them the email template instructions; will that do? Foofighter20x18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not enough to simply ask for permission for use on Wikipedia. Whoever made the image must expressly license it under the GFDL, the Creative Commons, or release it into the public domain. This means that anyone can use this image for any reason at any time, not just Wikipedia or other Wikimedia Foundation projects. Also, forward any email correspondence, including contact information and verification of what I just said above to permissions@wikimedia.org so it can be logged. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 16:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know. I'm having the campaign fill out the very email template Bryan linked to in his post above. I've made it clear to them what they need to do and that they need to release all rights to the photo. I'm also having them check to make sure the professional photographer that took the photo didn't retain any rights to it when they hired him to snap the shots. Please keep in mind that they are running a Presidential Campaign and have a lot of work to do at the same time we are trying to resolve this. It might take a little more time, but they will get it done. I've emailed you specifically so you can instruct me on how you'd like me to forward to you the correspondence I've had with Matt. Foofighter20x15:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I have made duplicity of the picture by mistake. This image is the old one which I wanted to update. Thanks for the deletion.
--Honza Beran19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete A bit disturbing, as the Naval Historical Center asserts that to the best of their knowledge, all of their photos are in the public domain. grendel|khan16:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
That's because there are stupid people who insert it into those articles. #1 no evidence the mouse it is dead or it is engaging in sexual contact (for all we know this was staged) #2 necrophilia refers to a human sexual fascination with corpses, mice are not people. This is okay on a joke website but not on an encyclopedia Madmax3203:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please: we are not the moral guide of Wikipedia, we are their image provider. The image has been there since 2005 and has been discussed (en:Talk:Necrophilia#Mouse_Photograph) with consensus for it to stay. It makes no sense to delete it from here. / FredJ16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the necrophilia page it would have told you that necrophilia was the "love of corpses". It does not refer to singularly human behavior, we are just egotistic and assume that it can only refer to people in the act. However this picture does at least prove a point; that animals are culprits of the act of necrophilia as well. Staged or not this picture should not be removed just because someone doubts its athenticity.
OK, other animals have sometimes exhibited necrophilia. Noted. That discussion is not particularly relevent to this deletion requests-- it is an image of dubious source at dreadful low resolution that we don't know if it depicts what it claims. I disagree that there is any "consensus" about use of the image on en:Wikipedia, but in any case source and licencing requirements are somewhat looser there then here. Lousy low res possibly faked dubiously sourced image? Not for Commons. -- Infrogmation20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing seems to be going on here. This image is unencyclopedic, awful quality and adds nothing to the project. It isn't even verifiable that these mice are real or they're engaging in the "activity" they're supposedly engaging in. Night Ranger19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its only awful quality because someone came in and compressed the ever living shit out of it. I've reverted back to the original which is MUCH clearer. Alkivar23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not that anyone will give any weight to my !vote as i'm not a regular commons contributor. However it should be obvious 1) I dont falsely claim copyright 2) I have contributed many images in public domain or had friends release images GFDL/CC-by-SA. 3) If someone wishes to remain anonymous and still contribute text its allowed... why not an image? Alkivar00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic and unverifiable. It is impossible to determine what the two mice are doing here or even that they're actual mice and not fake. Furthermore, the uploader does not have rights to the image (according to his own comments on the image page) and therefore licensing and copyright are impossible to verify. Night Ranger19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person "Alkivar" says "I did not take the photo, my friend did, he authorized its release via GFDL but stated he did not want his name associated with it." If this logic is okay, then I could just as easily take a picture of Madonna from the internet, claim "my friend" took it and released it as GFDL but they don't want their name associated with it. Real copyright licensing can't be done by "a friend of a friend" it needs to be done by the copyright holder. Delete this thing. Night Ranger19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person "Alkivar" is me, an admin on EN Wikipedia. I have credibility, and do not upload copyvio. My friend who took the photo is a professional journalist who didnt want his name attached to the photo but didnt mind it being released. We allow anonymous text contributions, why not image contributions? I can certainly give people who are required evidence that it is in fact GFDL released. Alkivar23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dreadful quality is because someone came in and jpeg compressed the ever living shit out of it for no apparent reason. I have since reverted to the original version which is clear. Alkivar23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as Keep Due to apparent bad faith actions by some of the people opposed to keeping it. (The quality of the image was destroyed, then people voted against it on that basis). If someone wants to make an argument to delete this purely on the grounds of non-usefulness they can open a new deletion request, but this one is too tainted by incorrect information. --Gmaxwell00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) This image is still of poor quality, even though a new version has been uploaded. It cannot be ascertained what these 2 "mice" are doing, whether they are real mice (they look like rubber toys to me), or if they are, indeed engaging in the claimed activity. As such, image has no value to the article on the behavior for which it has been uploaded and is unencyclopedic due to poor quality. (2) I don't know anything about these claims of bad-faith that were brought up in the last IFD, but admin status should not make one exempt from the rules. Everyone who uploads an image must either state that they own the rights to the image and release them into GFDL, or else provide evidence that the copyright owner released the image under GFDL. Saying "my friend released it" isn't good enough. If evidence can be obtained then, please provide it via the correct channels. Night Ranger17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image, after ages and ages, still has copyright problems. License shows that Alkivar is the copyright holder, but in the Summary, he says he did not take the picture, his "friend" did. He was asked in February to provide pertinent info to OTRS for verification and there is no evidence of him doing so. He has since been desysopped and has retired. Night Ranger00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this image was pre-existing on the web the source would have been found by now. So it is reasonable to believe it is an original image. -Nard02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Due to my experience with coat of arms, the blazon describing a "suger beet with leafs of gold" can be drawn in many ways and is not PD-ineligible. One might think it is PD-ineligible, in fact I tagged it as such myself when I uploaded it on English Wikipedia in 2005, but that is incorrect. / FredJ12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep. Author=self (dufourm) so source="Own work". License=libre (means "free", like GFDL). Permission is compatible with Commons but actual license must be specified. Just wait for the author/uploader to react. — Xavier, 03:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the libre part, but that still doesn't help. :) I am only for deletion if there is no license. Also the fact that the username and author are not the same is a little suspicious (as is the source as Image.jpg). Cbrown1023talk19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with your no-license argument. After all, noone can be sure what this user means exactly by "libre". This said, I don't share your suspicions at all : this user needs serious help placing his images on Commons, that's all. He wrote twomessages showing that 1. he wants to share his collection of old tractor pictures but 2. he doesn't really grasp how Commons works. A search on Google confirms those claims. That's why I asked to be patient but anyway, this user may have given up since we see no reaction following all those deletion requests, despite the help he received on our Bistro. — Xavier, 00:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you and him, I was just explaining my past reasonings when I nominated the image. I am glad that you are willing to help and I will help too if you need it. Cbrown1023talk01:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Require authorization for 3rd party usage: Использование материалов возможно только после согласования с авторской группой и при наличии ссылки на сайт. (terms of use). Possibility of creating derivative works is unclear too (it's not allowed explicitely).
Issue was raised twice on uploader's talk page, but it seems unanswered.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete uploader is absent on en.wiki and here since March 2006, that long of absence usually merits deletion of userpage photos on en.wiki Madmax3209:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what the precedents are, but in the general case I would have thought that if a user has made other contributions to the wikis, common courtesy would mean retaining their user page, and any images they cared to attach, indefinitely. But in this particular instance their contributions appear to consist of just the user-page and photo. --Tony Wills10:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep Both versions. One of these images is recognised as a Commons:Quality Images, the revised version is about to become a Commons:Featured pictures. I'm sure there are many images not used anywhere yet, and it is standard practice to keep revisions of modified images. The deletion request has no basis. --Tony Wills09:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same image, one is not even a subset of the other (different crops from the same original). I don't believe there is a guideline or rule or even precedent requiring similar images to be trimmed down to just one version. Exact duplicate images are deleted, not similar images, and not revisions of the same image. --Tony Wills21:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete. Don't forget that this kind of private photo is allowed in order to be used on a user page. However this one is 1 year old and isn't used anywhere. Yet, it may illustrate w:bartender, but I'd prefer not ;-), so deletion is ok for me. — Xavier, 02:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
"Transport" doesn't make much sense to me since the intended scope is transportation. The proposed change applies to this category and all sub categories. (example: Transport in Europe -> Transportation in Europe) A more complete list: [64]
NeutralDantadd✉23:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC) - I'm not a native English speaker, so it's difficult to argue. For romance languages speakers, "transport" is a more pleasant word though, but this doesn't count.[reply]
Keep current name Transport would refer to a device or method of transportation. Pictures of trains, cars, elevators, would all be correctly called "transports". "Transportation" is the action of transport. -- Ned Scott04:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Transport it doesn't make much sense to you? Are you surprised when there are buses and trains and bikes and cars and boats inside?? I doubt it. Existing system is understandable, and there's compelling reason to make mass changes. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 06:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In spoken and writen language you generaly do not refer to it as as "transport" but as "transportation". It is not "wrong" either way but it makes more sense to say "Transportation in Europe" rather than "Transport in Europe". Transport generaly refers to the means of transportation. Even then you'd say the type of transportation (bus/train/plane/on foot/by bike). A plane or a bus is a transport. An airport, a railway (the actual rails), a road make transportation possible but they do not "transport" people by themselves. The term "transport" should be used for vehicles rather than a general referance to inanimate objects relevant to "transportation". I think the contents of the categories and sub categories should be put into consideration. -- Catchi?07:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep “Transportation” is mainly an American English variation of the English term “transport”, for some restricted meanings. Therefore, I have searched this entry in the American Heritage® Dictionary: it appears that none of the 5 found meanings matches the subject of this category. In particular, this category is not for means of conveyance, but for any system of transporting passengers or goods. So, you'll find in the transport substructure a large variety of related subjects, like lighthouses, pipelines, stamps, airlines. The matching article in the English Wikipedia is transport. As a result, no need to be an expert in the English language to deduce that the current request is inappropriate. I recall that I made consistent the transport substructure a few months ago, following this talk in the village pump. --Juiced lemon10:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think you're right that this is a matter of American English versus Commonwealth English (see, for example, the article on en:public transport (or, if you're an American, "public transportation"). —LX (talk, contribs)21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May I point out that the related category on enwiki is en:Category:Transportation? So enwiki appears to be inconsistent in its usage. My argument is that I see no reason not to use Transport. It is preferred in large parts of the English speaking world, understandable throughout, and more succinct. I do agree with Cat that transportation sounds more natural to those familiar with the American variant of English, but I don't think that point is sufficient. Walter Siegmund(talk)16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmm... in traditional English "Transport" is using more common, but in United States "Transportation" is more common, right? I think that has no problem to use one and another, but it doesn't become a reason that change category name already been used. --corytalk/hist/gallery15:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Consensus is to keep Transport, mainly because it is short and there is no reason to switch from traiditional English to American English. Siebrand11:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
flickr user I found the photo here [65] yet it is used there with (c) all rights reserved, and the uploader here has the same notice on the image, which makes me wonder if he even got permission to release under GNU Madmax3210:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
In addition the copyright of the photograph being photographed makes this a derivative work, the photographer may not be legally able to release this under a GNU license Madmax3210:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Picture is unclear, does not really show snow, looks like someone's backyard. Out of scope as will not be used. --Deadstar22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Missouri Botanical Gardens prohibits commericial use of images taken of or in its gardens (they print this on their admission tickets for all to see).[66] Commons is not the place for non-free images. --Rklawton16:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That does not affect the copyright of the image in question, they simply cannot enforce such a rule since it has no legal basis Madmax3217:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The gardens and their design are the intellectual property of the Missouri Botanical Gardens. They have every right to enforce the protection of their property rights - and they have communicated their intention to do so on their admission tickets. This is well established in U.S. copyright law. Rklawton20:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are they going to copyright in that image? It's not a sculpture or artwork, it doesn't have their logo in it, it is just some trees and and plants, they can't enforce a copyright on anything depicted in that image. Please cite a case law example where someone has enforced copyright on trees. Madmax3221:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other two are debatable (maybe no freedom of panorama depending on age of those works), but I stand by my comments regarding Image:Missouri Botanical Garden - Seiwa-en.JPG Madmax3211:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment copied from COM:AN by Siebrand It's worth noting that lots of organisations claim copyright over things they don't have copyright over - libraries and museums are prime offendors. In the past we have dismissed claims of copyright where there's no basis for the claim. It seems unlikely to me that their "PR coordinator" is an expert in copyright. As the restriction is printed on the ticket it seems likely to me that taking/publishing such photos is a violation of the terms of entry, and as such the person could be tossed out of the gardens, but I'm not convinced the wording on the ticket transfers ownership of the copyright to the gardens rather than the photographer. So far we have dismissed similarly worded statements from e.g. sports venues entry conditions. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 07:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reworking the email I sent you earlier on this matter...)
This is not a claim of copyright, as far as I can see, it is a claim that the pictures were obtained illegitimately - it should be distinguished from the arguable claims (made legitimately and in good faith, even though we disagree with them) often made by libraries/museums that digitised material, etc, is copyrightable.
Basically, the photos were taken in breach of contract; the photographer is a Naughty Person and should get no pudding and/or be made to read the notices better next time. There doesn't seem to be any way the garden owns *copyright*, but it is not at all clear, however, what status that leaves the images in - can they legally be released under a free license? We ourselves almost certainly aren't legally liable for any hosting of offending images - but should we, in principle, be supporting the production of legally-tainted material when our primary commitment is to free content? Long chewy discussions to be had, preferably in the abstract, and we need to thrash this out one day.
We've had this problem before with photographs taken at ticketed sporting events, as I recall. There doesn't seem to be a clear answer, beyond being able to say "approaching this purely from a copyright standpoint doesn't work". We can demolish at length the idea that the museum "owns the copyright" to the photos taken on its grounds, but such a demolition is an exercise in futility, because that's not the issue we need to worry about.
The garden doesn't own the copyright unless some steps are taken to give it the copyright. That's pretty clear, and very few of these notices go as far as to actually claim they do. But they may have some legal power to restrict the use of the image, and we may have to worry about that. That's the issue here, and comments like Madmax32's above about "[nothing] to copyright" are missing the critical problem. Shimgray12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are all innocent until proven guilty at least, theoretical waffling about future court decisions aside, if they want to sue someone I'm sure they would sue the uploader of these photographs, but until then there is nothing wrong with keeping the images. The disclaimers put out by this botanical garden are not legally tested and should not be honored on the internet, we abide by laws not botanical garden disclaimers. Madmax3213:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we took "innocent until proven guilty" as the only standard to use for image retention, Commons would never delete copyright violations unless we had notarised proof from the original author! We have these images. We have found reason to believe they are not legally able to be released under a free license. Normally if we do that, we get rid of images, not say "oh, well, they can sue the uploader if they want".
As to "not tested in court" - the owners of a private place are fully entitled to set legitimate conditions for entry and I don't believe anyone has seriously challenged that. The debatable issue is how that intersects with the ability to relicense material under a free license, but as free licences themselves are pretty much legally untested, I'm not sure we can reasonably ignore the problem on that ground. Shimgray16:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the owners of a private place are fully entitled to set legitimate conditions for entry that is irrelevant to the discussion, we are not talking about conditions of entry but copyright of images. If you can find some examples where owners of a private place successfully enforced non commercial copyright of images taken by others on their property, please do so. Madmax3218:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feat that saying things like "enforcing a non-commercial copyright" demonstrates that I need to emphasise the essential distinction here... You're conflating two things. One is simple copyright, the ownership of the intellectual property of the images. The other is a contractural agreement on what you can do with that copyright. It's a bit like the situation with moral rights - a person can own no part of the copyright and still be in a position to limit what can be done with it.
I have failed to find a specific court case over this, but the matter is usually trivial and settled out of court - there is rarely more than a "fee" of a hundred dollars or so, and publishers usually pay up when challenged to avoid the bother. See Susan Bielstein's excellent and pragmatic "Permissions: a survival guide", which has a brief chapter on this topic; for a work which is vigorous in denouncing fraudulent claims of ownership, it is notable that she does not ever claim this is not a legitimate activity. It's a rather ineffective one - most people won't bother to chase you - but it is still not quite legal.
So the question remains - what does "not quite legal" mean? It might be worh chasing up trespass cases to see if the photographer or the publisher got sued... Shimgray20:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to howcheng - The so-called contract between British Natural History Museum and the photographer is only relevant for these but not for us. --FSHL22:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FSHL is right, the laws of each country are unique to that country, US freedom of panorama related law 17 USC 102(a)(8) does not give author rights to plants, however Missouri Botanical Garden - Climatron with artworks by Dale Chihuly.JPG may have to go since that is a copyrighted sculpture and the artist is still alive see Commons:Freedom of panorama#USAMadmax3200:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Author rights"? Note the complete absence of any such claims on the linked page, please. We can demolish a thousand and one different frivolous copyright claims, but that doesn't help us get anywhere productive if they never made them in the first place. Shimgray12:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom of panorama allows you to photograph certain items without copyright worries, and prohibits others, my point was that plant life is not considered a work of art Madmax3213:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. But it is still completely irrelevant. With the exception of one comment which appears to have got the wrong end of the stick, no-one here - including the gardens - is trying to claim that the gardens hold copyright in these photographs. This part is a non-issue. Shimgray15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I was saying is that it's the same situation as the NHM issue and it's a matter of contract law, not copyrights. I have no opinion as to whether the images should be allowed to remain on Commons or not. howcheng {chat}17:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I understand it, while the contract cannot prevent the photographer from obtaining the copyright in the photograph that they take, it can prevent the photographer from validly licencing the resulting image under a licence that permits commercial use. Commons can't use this image. --bainer (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no copyright issue here. The botanical gardens can sue the author if they wish to but these are contractual concerns that our none of our business and aren't related to copyright, the copyrights to the photo belong to the photographer. We do have an obligation to delete the photo if the uploader\author requests us to, but it has been a long-standing rule on commons not to take third party contracts into consideration when deciding whether we accept photos or not. Do you understand how many free (in terms of copyrights) pictures would have to be deleted if this starts to be enforced? Let's start with about every picture taken in a museum or football stadium. Yonatantalk12:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we had this problem before e.g. with the olympics, world cup and other things => contracts between author and some organisation don't have any effect on the license status -- Gorgo12:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We want Julica to keep uploading her great photos. Deleting them will put her off. Check out her credentials on her personal gallery before you make a decision. --Fb7822:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's unencyclopedic and unused (We hope users upload high quality, used and encyclopedic images not high quality only!). Please, do not close the request early..--OsamaK18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not care about de.wp ;). we are in Commons ,and when we delete this image he will gives us better photos!--OsamaK12:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No, the logo can be used as any other public logo of any other party. I gave the license to it and named the source of the license as well, as translating it into English. -- Arne List18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
the arrow whitout a tab in the background makes no sence a new on will be painted by me (SVG) this picture was uploaded by mistake of another user. The author -- Mjchael19:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
See also:[reply]
If you are an admin, please delete this pictures. I made a much better Version in SVG. Lock at Guitar rhythm I didn't see the pictures, because there is no category on the picture, which were uploaded by RedRooster. He tried to help me, but he was a little bit to bustling (officious !?). He would not have anything against it, when the gifs will be deleted. And I am not really familiar with English, so that I don't understand everything of what is written on a help-homepage. I am rather sure that these pictures were not used anywhere. --Mjchael09:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are under the same category, same user, same subject:
This is not a US work, thus the PD-US template cannot be used. Furthermore neither Georges Méliès nor Lucien Tainguy, one of the cinematographers, died more than 70 years ago (I couldn't find out about Michaut, the other cinematographer). Phrood11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The distributor, Georges's brother Gaston, is dead more than 70 years and it'll be 70 for Georges, who's the producer as well as director, this January. The PD tag could be switched. Doctor Sunshinetalk22:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's irrelevant that it is not "a US work," because whether "PD-US" applies is purely a matter of whether its copyright is enforceable in the U.S. Because it was published in 1902, its copyright has expired as far as U.S. law is concerned. It doesn't matter where it was created or by whom. But by all means, tag it {{PD-old}} if that applies. Postdlf02:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we apply PD-US only to US works. Georges died in January 1938, so the 70 years will expire on December 31, 2008, not earlier. Does anyone know whether such an old movie would have been copyrighted back then? (It was even pirated by Edison!) If so: move to the en-WP until 2009. Lupo07:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody opposes I will delete the image in two days from now. So if you want to move it to the English Wikipedia, then do it now. --ALE! ¿…?08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by D-Kuru: badname - now Image:Pigeon Columba livia amk.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The so-called armenian Genocide is no genocide due to UN resolution - this image propagates an armenian genocide, which is a falsification of history. please delete! 89.15.50.9618:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to comment on your comments regarding whether it's a genocide or not because some countries do recognize it as a genocide, however the person who made this doesn't list his sources used for making the map and other details on the map, therefore it could be original research Madmax3218:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don’t care about this politically motivated request, I also see no possibility for original research in this case. --Polarlys20:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't the creator provide sources for the facts and figures he uses on the map? Otherwise the map is not useful as a research tool. Madmax3221:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the settlement area was Richard Andree's Allgemeiner Handatlas (from Verlag von Velhagen & Klasing, Bielefeld and Leipzig 1882). For map sources regarding to the armenian history, please look there. For specific informations about this map, then look there. You'll find it on the german wikipedia and so it's in german language, but it should not be a problem. --Mikmaq04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Both the details of the publication and the photo authors are provided in the image description - their names definitely sound Polish. // tsca[re]10:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
For me it's only useable for education purposes. i'd suggest NOT to delete this!
Comment : this deletion request has been actually started on fr.wikipedia following a long debate on whether this animated image should stay on the associated article. A majority proposed to delete it, but it has to be done on Commons anyway. See this discussion. le Korrigan→bla17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : If the deletion debate on this animation started on the French wikipedia article, and they have a consensus to remove it, then they need to remove it from that article. If you delete it from the Commons, then nobody can use it on any wiki project anywhere. Evidently the person who nominated this animated gif for deletion from the Commons never went to the image page of this animation and clicked on the tab that says "Check Usage". As of my post now, this animation is being used on 13 pages in 10 different international wiki projects. I am convinced by it's usage across these 10 wikis that it evidently meets the project scope. Can you please define the term "pornographic" and tell me what qualifies this animation as "pornographic" ? Speculation has no place here in this deletion discussion. This animation didn't come from some "funny" site. It was made from a "public domain" ogg video (uploaded on July 27 2006) that has been on the Commons for almost a year and is currently being used on 9 pages in 3 wiki projects and has survived 2 separate deletion requests. If the French don't want to use this animation on their wiki article, then remove it from the article, but don't deprive the other 9 international wikis that do want to use it from doing so by deleting it from the Commons. One of the steps that is supposed to be taken before nominating an image for deletion is to check it's usage across other wiki projects. You need to do your research first. 67.35.41.23704:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what is so educational about this? Is this something you want to show to children as a sex education guide? Is it really 'educational' or is it just pornography? Usage means nothing, wikipedia is not a democracy. The popularity of pornographic websites proves many like this sort of material, unfortunately hosting it here will just mean commons and various wikipedias get blocked as adult websites worldwide. Madmax3205:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "sexual activity" in this animation that makes it "pornographic" ? All I see in this animation is a demonstration of the proper functioning of the male sex organ for procreation, no different than watching an animation of a beating heart pumping blood to support life. 67.35.41.23705:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not attempt to be disingenuous with us, obviously its graphic footage of a sexual or obscene act and it qualifies as pornographic in nature in most if not all jurisdictions. Also I kind of find it funny you call sex 'procreation' yet you don't think this is pornographic because it's not 'sexual activity (?) but pornography isn't just copulation, it can be any number of obscene acts, masturbation, ejaculation, copulation etc etc etc. It is still pornography, marking it is 'educational' is disingenuous just like your attempt to defend it, where is this being shown to children to 'educate' them? obviously not anywhere since it is so graphic, and obscenely pornographic. Madmax3205:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing pornographic about this, shocking only to those who wish to be shocked by normal bodily functions. Rama12:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this photography hasn't any educative value, it's just a provocating photo. We could accept if this photo wasn't animated (showed only the penis). It's obscene to show the ejaculation in an animated image. Commons accept only educative and informative images, so it's normal to delete this obscenious photo. Spy Joneshder m'âya17:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing this. It seems to me that leaving it open will only lead to a flamewar. The image is kept. Please see Commons:Project scope: This also means that files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons. [...] # The Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored. The Wikipedia:Content disclaimer also applies here. As CheckUsage indicates, this image is used in multiple Wikimedia projects. This means per the statement above that the image is within Commons' scope. And as above, Commons contains content that readers consider objectionable or offensive. But Commons is not censored.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Doubt that is taking a picture to which the main performance permission has not been obtained. The audience was prohibited from taking a picture all in a live hall. Ron08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I put the wikiproject birds tag on there, but that's no gaurantee it was correctly categorised! I expect the uploader actually knows what's he's doing. The reversion of his deletion request was rash and somewhat confusing! I have done a quick check and it indeed looks more like Columba livia, so I have reversed AngMoKio's change. Image:Pigeon Columba palumbus amk.jpg is the one to delete. --Tony Wills04:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I really made a mistake in categorizing it. But I have to say that when I saw your wikiproject birds tag, I thought you agree with my categorization. --AngMoKio06:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work in picking up your and my original mistake. I didn't look carefully enough. I agree with your categorization now :-) --Tony Wills07:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, {{Duplicate}} is maybe the best solution as there is already a version with the correct name uploaded. I should have done that in the first place actually - I am sorry about that too ..it is a very nice self-critical atmosphere here - I like that :-) --AngMoKio13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Tagged as {{PD-Art}}, but this is not a photographic reproduction of an old (author's death+70 years) two-dimensional work of art, but rather a photograph of Bill Hayden, who was born in 1933. —LX (talk, contribs)19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Le problème est que la source et l'auteur ne sont (apparamment) pas spécifiés sur lt:Image:Billhayden.jpg donc difficile de vérifier les allégations de "public domain" avancées par l'uploader. Vous pouvez éventuellement lui poser la question. — Xavier, 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Je ne sais pas comment le joindre mais encore une fois cette photo était dans commons au départ et je ne l'avais pas vu. J'ai fait le transfert et c'est quand j'ai eu fini le transfgert que commons m'a dit que la photo existait déja C'est pour cela que je l'ai effacé par erreur. A mon avis si vous effacez la mienne, vous allez vous retrouver avec la précédente qui existe depuis belle lurette
Je crois qu'il y a confusion. Voici quelques éclaircissements :
L'ancienne photo n'est pas sur Commons à ma connaissance, elle est sur la WP lituanienne et j'imagine que Commons vous a empêché de charger une photo sous le même nom ici pour éviter des conflits potentiels parce qu'elle existe ailleurs. Si toutefois une autre photo identique existait sur Commons, elle serait effacée de la même manière.
Si cette photo disparaît de Commons, l'autre continuera d'exister, c'est vrai, mais uniquement sur la WP lituanienne. Chaque wikipédia est indépendante, a ses propres règles et sa propre "police" pour faire le ménage, donc ça n'est plus notre problème. Par contre, tant que cette photo reste sur Commons, par un système d'héritage, _toutes_ les WP y ont accès. Si les droits d'auteurs ne sont pas respectés, c'est notre problème.
Je ne sais pas ce que vous entendez par "effacer par erreur" mais seul un administrateur peur effacer une image ici donc vous n'avez rien effacé, rassurez-vous.
Si vous avez quelques compétences en lituanien ou en russe, vous pouvez discuter avec celui qui a téléchargé la première photo sur la WP lituanienne en cliquant ici. Il pourra peut-être vous dire où il a été chercher cette photo.
Voilà, j'espère vous avoir apporté quelque éclairage sur les interactions parfois obscures entre les wikipédias et Commons. — Xavier, 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This has been demonstrated to not be the flag of Lewis. It is an internet hoax only. Details can be found here. Note, on first glance, the website seems to confirm the authenticity of the flag, but read in full to see it is clearly demonstrating it to be false. -- MacIomhair
Strong support for above reasons. The fact the images are here are leading people on other language wikis with a lesser grasp of English to conclude the image exists, so the flag is real. I have seen some say they'd accept it as a fake only if removed from commons. MRM16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I only did the svg version (I think it "is" nice flag), maybe we should use it as example of hoax. -xfi-19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I think an example of a hoax would be a good idea, you wouldn't believe the bother its presence here has caused in other language Wikis! ;-) Perhaps a single graphic of it and other Hebridean 'flags'?MRM20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It’s not about licensing. We don’t create “historical artworks”, we collect them. This photo doesn’t exist in a colorized version and so we don’t provide one. It’s a private interpretation, made in 2006. It has no encyclopedic worth at all. --Polarlys20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think this is all that different from some of the user-created portraits in Category:Portrait drawings. As long as it's clearly labelled as an artist's impression of an historical, public-domain work, I don't see a problem. Keep. —LX (talk, contribs)21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LX. I understand your point Polarlys but I don't think History is hurt by just a colorisation. However it must be stressed in the image description that this colorisation is arbitrary. Doing so right now. Nice work BTW. — Xavier, 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons is no project for personal artworks, used to illustrate articles on cubism, impressionism and so on, right? It’s a sort of original research. A colorized version of this phot never existed. From a black and white print, you can’t extract information on colours. Illustrating an article on Bismarck with this file is fake. It’s neither a work of a notable contemporary artist nor an interpretation by an artist. It’s a wikipedia user playing with photoshop. He can do this, sure. But this is an encyclopedia and we focus on reliable information. We shouldn’t use photoshop to remove spots from the nose of an actress (they are reality) and we shouldn’t use photoshop to create derivative works of historical documents for further encyclopedic use. A coloured version of this photo never existed. --Polarlys01:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, and that applies to it's use in an encyclopedia article, however the uploader spent much time colorizing this photograph, and did a decent job. I don't see any harm in it at all, and it's certainly within the scope of commons that someone may need a colorized photo of Bismarck. Besides what about old photochroms? They were just hand colorized b/w photos. Madmax3202:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, I see no pb with such a so called "original research" on Commons as long as it is tagged as such. Every drawing here may be seen as original research since Commons doesn't ask for a reliable source as a reference (does it ?). Look at this user's drawings, do you really think they should go away ? They are useful, despite this is not reality and they have not been approved by any authority. How can you be sure this neural network is not original research? Is this bridge going to collapse? Am I really going to save someone with this? Those drawings are the work of Commons users: how far are they from reality? IMHO, it's not our responsability to judge, it's the responsability of WP editors. Our responsability is to give useful and accurate information on an image, in the description page, so that they can decide to include it or not in an article.
Reality is an unattainable goal. Digital cameras are far from perfect. Pictures you get from government sites may well have been enhanced (how can you know George Bush had not a spot on the nose when the photo was taken ?). Pictures from Nasa are retouched, color enhanced and combined. etc. We should only focus on providing as much information as we can on the content hosted here. Personally, as long as this photo is tagged as "arbitrary colorized" and the source is given, I'm happy. Now it's up to WP editors to choose it or not to illustrate their articles, and it's their responsability to provide a caption that is not misleading. Just my opinion, I won't start a war on that matter. — Xavier, 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Was listed as speedy with the reason "better version here Image:Meister der Ada-Gruppe 001.jpg", which I am contesting. I would argue the second image is not clearly a better image. Although it has better resolution, it suppresses the background, in effect it presents the illustration freed from its context. The nominated image, although admittedly not a high quality image, makes it clear that this illustration is on vellum, which gives it greater value in an article on the manuscript. --Dsmdgold23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
supposedly taken circa 1935, however just because its after 1923 doesn't mean an image can't be PD, it could have had its copyright not renewed or it could be from a PD movie trailer, but I don't know about this image, since it probably isn't PD because its used on en.wikipedia article as fair use Madmax3204:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As I already said Polarlys, please withdraw your deletion request concerning this file [69], since 1946 it is a property of Warsaw Municipal Archives and is considered a public domain in Poland see this for instance [70] and everyone may publish it without any permission as a office document. Hubert Gross, if he is an author, lost his rights to this files in 1940, firstly as an architect of Warsaw Architecture Bureau in 1940 (he didn`t issued it as a privete person), secondly it was given in 1940 to the war criminal Hans Frank [71] and was one of proofs against him during Nurnberg Trials [72], because this plan was about destroying capital of Poland, Warsaw, completely - 90 % buildings nazis wanted to destroy, and finally in 1945 they were able to destroy Warsaw in 70-85 %. Then in 1946 was given to the polish authorities by american prosecutors and authorities and since 1946 the only propietor is Warsaw Municipal Archives Office. Hubert Gross had never tried to recover this document because he might be charged of war crimes by the Polish State, as for example other nazi architect[73]. That`s why Hubert Gross and his descendants since 1940\1946 are not propietors, the only proprietors is the state of Poland, particularly Warsaw Municipal Archives Office, and because of it is a public domain according to the polish law, especially that when publishing in 1971 (my source that I delivered according to "polishpd" tag rules) Hubert Gross was not the proprietor. In other words you have no right to requesting to delete it. Spetsedisa13:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that Hubert Gross had no legal rights to this picture since 1946, the only proprietor is the Polish State, Warsaw Municipal Archives Office.Spetsedisa15:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was his work during employee's duties. And such way property ( not personal) rights) to the work belongs exclusively to the employer - Warsaw Municipality , if it wasn't restricted in an agreement between employer and worker. This way it belongs to {{PD-Polish}} Andros6406:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As a downloader I explain, please withdraw your deletion request concerning this file [74], since 1946 it is a property of Warsaw Municipal Archives and is considered a public domain in Poland see this for instance [75] and everyone may publish it without any permission as a office document. Hubert Gross, if he is an author, lost his rights to this files in 1940, firstly as an architect of Warsaw Architecture Bureau in 1940 (he didn`t issued it as a privete person), secondly it was given in 1940 to the war criminal Hans Frank [76] and was one of proofs against him during Nurnberg Trials [77], because this plan was about destroying capital of Poland, Warsaw, completely - 90 % buildings nazis wanted to destroy, and finally in 1945 they were able to destroy Warsaw in 70-85 %. Then in 1946 was given to the polish authorities by american prosecutors and authorities and since 1946 the only propietor is Warsaw Municipal Archives Office. Hubert Gross had never tried to recover this document because he might be charged of war crimes by the Polish State, as for example other nazi architect[78]. That`s why Hubert Gross and his descendants since 1940\1946 are not propietors, the only proprietors is the state of Poland, particularly Warsaw Municipal Archives Office, and because of it is a public domain according to the polish law, especially that when publishing in 1971 (my source that I delivered according to "polishpd" tag rules) Hubert Gross was not the proprietor. In other words you have no right to requesting to delete it. Spetsedisa13:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if you want it kept, you need to add a correct template. The current template says it is for photographs and this is a drawing. / FredJ14:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also, i don't think it can be PD. Gross might never have claimed copyright, but that doesn't mean his heirs cannot do so. It has happened before, you can read about Alberto Korda on how he sued for his rights to the famous Che photo he took many years earlier and that had been spread all over the world. And after his death, his daughter again forced an organization not to use the photo when they were protesting against Cuba. So Delete / FredJ15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His hairs cannot do so - Gross made the drawings for the Architecture Bureau so the (c) belongs to the bureau (and has since the beginning). // tsca[re]15:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, that Commons is no project for media files nobody will complain about but files that are free (to cite a well-known user). To deny someone’s copyright because of morally reasons doesn’t work. War criminals, terrorists, nazis, communists enjoy copyright independent from their believes and their deeds.--Polarlys15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s no fact. A work by a German artist is protected by German copyright law. Stop blaming me for revanchism, this is a defamatory statement. The template PD-polish is often intentionally used in a wrong way („you have to name the Polish author“) and that’s what these requests are about. --Polarlys22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was his work during employee's duties. And such way property ( not personal) rights) to the work belongs exclusively to the employer - Warsaw Municipality , if it wasn't restricted in an agreement between employer and worker. This way it belongs to {{PD-Polish}}
Comment - German copyright doesn’t apply in Poland. Just this unjustified demand is IMHO an act of revanchism and that’s definitively not a defamatory statement if you aren’t also the opinion that Günther Oettinger was as well a victim of defamatory... --FSHL17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition- photo of this drawing (Polish property in Polish possesion) was made in Poland in 1950-ties and first published in Poland. Place of the first publication is resolving for the question of law , which shall to be apply (regulations of Berne Convention Berne Convention, §5the law, which shall to apply in the case). And it was published in Poland anyway - such this is Polish, not German copyright law. This way {{PD-Polish}}
That’s wrong and you know that. Repeating this point of view doesn’t change anything. Creating a reproduction of a copyrighted work and “owning” this reproduction on paper doesn’t make you the copyright holder. --Polarlys12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a strict distinction between personal ( non-tranferred) rights of author to the work and the property rights ( to intellectual property ) which are transferrable from the person of author by selling, donation etc. The only proprietor of documentation is Warsaw Municipality since 1940 when mr. Gross and his collegues was paid for. (You wouldn't like to tell us that it was non-profit work :)). Under German occupation in Central Poland (Generalgouvernemount) Polish municipalities still existed, however with German appointed administrators as mayors.
The photo of one page from architectural documentation , which (as an intelectual property) is property of the City of Warsaw, made by Polish photographer after the war ( in 1950-ties )belongs to {{PD-Polish}}.
Ownership of property rights for work has nothing in common with the author personally. When he has not property rights for work ( for reason it was transferred before) he just cannot put any claims to the work apart from marking of his authorship (personal right to work).
Oppose to Polarlys - The so-called problems between Polish copyright laws and your imaginary copyright holder is only relevant for these but not for us. Fact is: the Polish and the copyright laws of the USA permit both the publication. All further implications are for that reason IMHO still irrelevant - auctoritas, non veritas facit legem. --FSHL16:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
wrong GFDL license, no proof that user Ciphin is copyright owner of the picture. Ciphin, as one of authors of w:Norbert Wójtowicz article in many languages, seems to be Wójtowicz himself, but not the author of his exlibris --89.79.68.22108:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
funny images, Image:ChruschtschowUndIch.jpg is based on a deleted PD soviet image so maybe it can be deleted as a copy vio . Madmax3206:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Image uploaded to English Wikipedia by w:en:user:Rebert, who claims to be Roger Ebert. Ebert placed a GFDL license on his image, upon uploading. Believe this or believe it not. Who is the photographer by the way? --Polarlys23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image remained on en.wikipedia for a long time, people believed him, it is a high resolution image from the 70's with no other apparent source on the web (nearly impossible to do unless you personally owned the photograph) and the "who is the photographer" line is just smoke and mirrors. I didn't take my own personal photograph and I've licensed it GFDL and nobody is after my blood. Wikipedians (such as Mr. Ebert) generally are allowed to upload personal photographs and release them under the GFDL. -Nard21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some days ago I blocked „Sandra Nasić“, a user who uploaded a lot of copyvios (not just with this account). We don’t know if the user is „Roger Ebert“ or just a fan and there is a small difference between the picture your wife took for usage on your wikipedia page and the picture of a prominent person. This person is obviously not the photographer. See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Bruce-Schneier.jpg for a similiar case. --Polarlys21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then his wife has to release the copyrights and give the permission. I will delete the image now for unknown copyright status. --ALE! ¿…?07:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Unlikely that Marvel Comics, the copyright holders, would release such an image in such a way. I would suggest that without a source documenting this the image be deleted. Steve block 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC) --Steve block19:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
How could you know ? You don`t know so why you keep requestin for deletion ? Proove that an author was not polish if you want to delete. Besides please read this discussion concerning "polishpd tag" Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish, according to this if author is unknown the tag is valid. Spetsedisa15:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prove the origin of this picture, I gave all necessary sources, but is impossible to establish an author, he might die and nobady even knew his name or surname - it was during second world war. According to this template discussed here Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish this is allowed. Spetsedisa15:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see this pictture uploaded by one of users [81] there is also no author specified, there is only the information about uploader. Take it to advance. Spetsedisa21:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyway, according to Berne Convention Berne Convention, §5 the law, which shall to apply in the case is the law of country of the first publication. It is an anonymous photo, first published in Poland , under Polish law, and no one from the day of publication till today put any copyright claims against publishers for sixty years from date of publication ( never disclosed his identity). From legal point of view it ist anonymous photo first published in Poland , under Polish copyright law - and it is binding conclusion, that the regulations of Polish law are applied to. Besides it is an evidently post-war photo from exhumation.
Keep I agree that this looks rather like a post-war exhumation, and thus in all likelihood is a Polish work (taken by a Pole, or first published there). Might also be a Russian work, but then it'd also be PD. Lupo09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - Not relevant for deletion. Fact is, that this image is in Poland PD and therefore your deletion requests is in my eyes simply an act of revanchism. --FSHL21:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s no fact. A work by a German photographer is protected by German copyright law. Stop blaming me for revanchism, this is a defamatory statement. The template PD-polish is often intentionally used in a wrong way („you have to name the Polish author“) and that’s what these requests are about. --Polarlys22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - German copyright doesn’t apply in Poland. Just this unjustified demand is IMHO an act of revanchism and that’s definitively not a defamatory statement if you aren’t also the opinion that Günther Oettinger was as well a victim of defamatory... --FSHL17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyway, according to Berne Convention Berne Convention, §5the law, which shall to apply in the case is the law of country of the first publication. It is an anonymous photo, firstpublished in Poland , under Polish law, and no one from the day of publication till today put any copyright claims against publishers for sixty years from date of publication ( never disclosed his identity). From legal point of view it ist anonymous photo first published in Poland , under Polish copyright law - and it is binding conclusion, that the regulations of Polish law are applied to.
"Publication" is only possible with the consent of the rights holder. Any other dissemination is not publication. Lupo07:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a strange definition in case of anonymous photo, where no "holder" disclosed his identitity for over sixty years, and in fact doesn't exist. This is a legal publication and noone opposed towards publishers for sixty years after the publication was first made. Do you know any legal representative of anonymous "holder", who put any claims to the publisher in past or today, or may do it in the future ? If you don't - it isn't a question to discuss about.
Oppose to Lupo - Publication is publication and everything else is simply hair-splitting. The so-called problems between Polish copyright laws and the consent of the anonymous photographer is only relevant for these but not for us. Fact is: the Polish and the copyright laws of the USA permit both the publication. All further implications are for that reason IMHO still irrelevant - auctoritas, non veritas facit legem. --FSHL16:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It is not a derivative work, I made this photo on the street, it had no author it was completely anonymous, and it was shown to the public as informational annocement or sth. ERxplain why this is derivative. Spetsedisa15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone painted it, okay? He is the copyright holder. If you asked someone at the exhibition/the museum they would tell you whose work it is. „anonymous“ doesn’t mean: There is no author mentioned in a prominent position. Taking a photo of a copyrighted work doesn’t create a free work, see Commons:Derivative works. --Polarlys15:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that this is work of unknown or anonymous author, it was NOT exhibited at the museum or exhibition or whatever. It hangs on the street on the wall. So this is not a copyrighted work, it is a public domain - this work doesn`t mention an author or any copyright restriction. It is a completely amateur work. Spetsedisa15:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you to read a bit about how copyright works. It is not required to put a copyright notice or the creator's name on a work to become copyrighted. Someone created this picture/poster and put it on a public wall without leaving his name on it. But this does not make it public domain, nor does void the creator's copyright. Otherwise all advertising/posters/etc.. in public space without copyright notice/creator's name on it would be public domain, which clearly isn't the case. --88.134.44.25501:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It`s not the point, this posters advertise nothing, no institution, organisation, product or whatever, it`s only informational aimed at the public. Let`s say that I don`t like some politician, I make home made poster and I hang it on the wall somewhere - that is the same case, no institution or whoever is written above the poster, nobody knows to whom (or what particular institution) it might be associated. It`s a huge difference between a poster that inform about the movie, drama or exhibition and this anonymous poster. Spetsedisa10:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is true in most countries however according to polish law it could be PD, since they specifically exempt photographs published without a copyright notice from copyright prior to 1994, now this is not a photograph which is a problem since that polish pd template is for photographs not wall murals Madmax3203:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't know that. But this drawing/photograph seems to be from 2007, so the pre-1994 copyright exemption IMHO doesn't apply. --88.134.44.25513:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A photograph of an anonymous poster or sign as displayed on the wall is not a "derivative" work. No copyright paranoia please. Also, the image is being used to illustrate a wikipedia article. Wojsyl09:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that the creator of the poster does not have the copyright? It's copyrighted and as such, a photograph of it is clearly derivative work. --88.134.44.25513:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to put in a request for deletion. The existence of a copyvio does not legitimate the existence of another one. --Polarlys12:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that these images qualify for deletion, then why don't you delete whole Category:Signs with its subcategories ? I've picked the images randomly from there. I do not support copyright paranoia. Wojsyl20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COM:FOP. Putting your favorite (copyrighted) cd cover or any other print on the next wall and taking a photo of it isn’t covered by freedom of panorama. Most of these signs are permanently installed. --Polarlys21:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, for the same reason the photo of the poster in question can stay. It is permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible street in Warsaw. Case closed. Wojsyl13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep - Not relevant for deletion. Fact is, that this image is in Poland PD and therefore your deletion requests is in my eyes simply an act of revanchism. --FSHL21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s no fact. A work by a German photographer is protected by German copyright law. Stop blaming me for revanchism, this is a defamatory statement. The template PD-polish is often intentionally used in a wrong way („you have to name the Polish author“) and that’s what these requests are about. --Polarlys22:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See another picture from the same series that is already here[82] there is also no author, but nobody reasonable request it for deletion. It is the property od polish Institute of National Remembrance [83], as it`s written in the desription above. Spetsedisa09:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Polarlys - German copyright doesn’t apply in Poland. Just this unjustified demand is IMHO an act of revanchism and that’s definitively not a defamatory statement if you aren’t also the opinion that Günther Oettinger was as well a victim of defamatory... --FSHL17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyway, according to Berne Convention Berne Convention, §5the law, which shall to apply in the case is the law of country of the first publication. It is an anonymous photo, first published in Poland , under Polish law, and no one from the day of publication till today put any copyright claims against publishers for sixty years from date of publication ( never disclosed his identity). From legal point of view it ist anonymous photo first published in Poland , under Polish copyright law - and it is binding conclusion, that the regulations of Polish law are applied to.Andros6407:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Publication" is only possible with the consent of the rights holder. Any other dissemination is not publication. Lupo07:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a strange definition in case of anonymous photo, where no "holder" disclosed his identitity for over sixty years, and in fact doesn't exist. This is a legal publication and noone opposed towards publishers for sixty years after the publication was first made. Do you know any legal representative of anonymous "holder", who put any claims to the publisher in past or today, or may do it in the future ? If you don't - it isn't a question to discuss about.
Oppose to Lupo - Publication is publication and everything else is simply hair-splitting. The so-called problems between Polish copyright laws and the consent of the anonymous photographer is only relevant for these but not for us. Fact is: the Polish and the copyright laws of the USA permit both the publication. All further implications are for that reason IMHO still irrelevant - auctoritas, non veritas facit legem. --FSHL16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The same image is on en.wiki is used as fair use, and is better quality than this one but slightly lower in resolution. I think what he says about being handed over is true, there was a discussion on one of the articles its used in, it was used in a war crimes investigation and was handed over by a German soldier, I don't know what kind of copyright it would have, but even the Polish government website only allows non commercial use and thats where it comes from on the en.wiki, and they have the original photo. Probably not a true commons license. Madmax3211:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to polish historical books, this picture was given to Polish Military Office/Bureau in Berlin in 1950 completely anonymosly (probably a former nazi soldier), so it`s obvious that nobody will ever know who personally author is - especially that this file is a proof of crime. Spetsedisa15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revanchism? For what reason? Your knee-jerk reactions reminds me of the critisism on your talk page some time ago. --Polarlys22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please come down, let`s talk about the picture. It`s clear to me that any author (nazi soldier or nazi SS member) wil never admit that he is an author, because simply he might be charged of war crimes and punish by any court. Besides, since 1950 the only legal proprietor is Republic of Poland, some military archives of Polish Army I suppose (since it was handed down to Polish Military Office in Berlin), this picture was published according to PD-Polish tag rules - meaning published in Poland before 1994 dozens of times without copyright information, as a property of the Polish State. Spetsedisa10:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the photographer could have done, doesn’t matter. There is no „morality“ in copyright law. The photographer has to be Polish to use this template. --Polarlys11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where it was taken is irrelevant. For published works, the country of first publication is the source country. For unpublished works, the source country is defined by the author's nationality (or, IIRC, if he's stateless, by the country where he habitually resides). "Publication" is only possible with the consent of the rights holder. Any other dissemination is not publication. Lupo07:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Polarlys - German copyright doesn’t apply in Poland. Just this unjustified demand is IMHO an act of revanchism and that’s definitively not a defamatory statement if you aren’t also the opinion that Günther Oettinger was as well a victim of defamatory... --FSHL17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyway, according to Berne Convention Berne Convention, §5the law, which shall to apply in the case is the law of country of the first publication. It is an anonymous photo, first published in Poland , under Polish law, and no one from the day of publication till today put any copyright claims against publishers for sixty years from date of publication ( never disclosed his identity). From legal point of view it ist anonymous photo first published in Poland , under Polish copyright law - and it is binding conclusion, that the regulations of Polish law are applied to.
"Publication" is only possible with the consent of the rights holder. Any other dissemination is not publication. Lupo07:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a strange definition in case of anonymous photo, where no "holder" disclosed his identitity for over sixty years, and in fact doesn't exist. This is a legal publication and noone opposed towards publishers for sixty years after the publication was first made. Do you know any legal representative of anonymous "holder", who put any claims to the publisher in past or today, or may do it in the future ? If you don't - it isn't a question to discuss about.
Oppose to Lupo - Publication is publication and everything else is simply hair-splitting. The so-called problems between Polish copyright laws and the consent of the anonymous photographer is only relevant for these but not for us. Fact is: the Polish and the copyright laws of the USA permit both the publication. All further implications are for that reason IMHO still irrelevant - auctoritas, non veritas facit legem. --FSHL16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Whatever you call it, you know perfectly well that this is not possible to know who the author is (especially if the source doesn`t say anything about it). In my opinion this is anonymous, and definately old (1920-1925). So "PD-old" tag is correct here. Spetsedisa15:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know that there are 1.500.000 files on Wikimedia Commons, a part of them was never checked by someone towards their integrity and several ten thousand files are pure copyvios or files with unclear licensing? No, uploading even more works tagged as PD-polish, whenever no one knows the nationality and the name of the artist, or „anonymous works“ whenever no one truly checked what „anonymous“ means and if the work is „anonymous“ at all, is no solution. Please upload your favorite (copyrighted) cd cover and refer to another copyvio of your choice to legitimate it. --Polarlys19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in any case it is {{Anonymous-EU}}. Almost every photos till the end of 30-ties are simply anonymous, because there were just sold to the publisher by author, and the period of securing of copyright was short ( 10 y. from date of publishing in Germany for example ( German KUG from 1908, changed in 1940 ( from 10 to 25 y. from date of publishing photo). In Poland under pre-war regulations the legal and practical situation was similar. I've changed tag to the correct one.
Forget about historic short copyright terms under old laws in EU countries. EU directive 93/98/EEC has retroactively instituted 70years p.m.a. throughout the EU in 1995, even for works published before the EU existed, and even of authors who died before the EU existed. Lupo07:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not in the case - the photo is anononymous, was made before 1925, and published before 1925 in Poland. Such {{Anonymous-EU}} ( 70 y. after publication) and {{PD-Polish}} ( anonymous photo published in Poland before May 1994)
That's all in this case.
Andros6407:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Whatever you call it, you know perfectly well that this is not possible to know who the author is after 90 years from publishing (especially if the source doesn`t say anything about it). In my opinion this is anonymous, and definately old (1920-1925). So "PD-old" tag is correct here. Spetsedisa15:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in any case it is {{Anonymous-EU}}. Almost every photos till the end of 30-ties are simply anonymous, because there were just sold to the publisher by author, and the period of securing of copyright was short ( 10 y. from date of publishing in Germany for example ( German KUG from 1908, changed in 1940 ( from 10 to 25 y. from date of publishing photo). In Poland under pre-war regulations the legal and practical situation was similar. I've changed tag to the correct one.
Forget about historic short copyright terms under old laws in EU countries. EU directive 93/98/EEC has retroactively instituted 70years p.m.a. throughout the EU in 1995, even for works published before the EU existed, and even of authors who died before the EU existed. Lupo07:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt is not in the case - the photo is anononymous, was made before 1925, and published before 1925 in Poland. Such {{Anonymous-EU}} ( 70 y. after publication) and {{PD-Polish}} ( anonymous photo published in Poland before May 1994)
That's all in this case.
Andros6407:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Whatever you call it, you know perfectly well that this is not possible to know who the author is after 90 years from publishing (especially if the source doesn`t say anything about it). In my opinion this is anonymous, and definately old (1920-1925). So "PD-old" tag is correct here. Spetsedisa15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in any case it is {{Anonymous-EU}}. Almost every photos till the end of 30-ties are simply anonymous, because there were just sold to the publisher by author, and the period of securing of copyright was short ( 10 y. from date of publishing in Germany for example ( German KUG from 1908, changed in 1940 ( from 10 to 25 y. from date of publishing photo). In Poland under pre-war regulations the legal and practical situation was similar. I've changed tag to the correct one.
Forget about historic short copyright terms under old laws in EU countries. EU directive 93/98/EEC has retroactively instituted 70years p.m.a. throughout the EU in 1995, even for works published before the EU existed, and even of authors who died before the EU existed. Lupo07:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not in the case - the photo is anononymous, was made before 1925, and published before 1925 in Poland. Such {{Anonymous-EU}} ( 70 y. after publication) and {{PD-Polish}} ( anonymous photo published in Poland before May 1994)
That's all in this case.
Andros6407:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Whatever you call it, you know perfectly well that this is not possible to know who the author is after 90 years from publishing (especially if the source doesn`t say anything about it). In my opinion this is anonymous, and definately old (1920-1925). So "PD-old" tag is correct here. Spetsedisa15:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in any case it is {{Anonymous-EU}}. Almost every photos till the end of 30-ties are simply anonymous, because there were just sold to the publisher by author, and the period of securing of copyright was short ( 10 y. from date of publishing in Germany for example ( German KUG from 1908, changed in 1940 ( from 10 to 25 y. from date of publishing photo). In Poland under pre-war regulations the legal and practical situation was similar. I've changed tag to the correct one.
Thats true, most of the photos from the old news agencies like underwood and underwood or bain news, don't ever mention the photographer, I don't think they were granted author rights Madmax3207:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about historic short copyright terms under old laws in EU countries. EU directive 93/98/EEC has retroactively instituted 70years p.m.a. throughout the EU in 1995, even for works published before the EU existed, and even of authors who died before the EU existed. Lupo07:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but does not affect this image if it was an anonymous work, and since it was published more than 70 years ago. Madmax3209:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not in the case - the photo is anononymous, was made before 1925, and published before 1925 in Poland. Such {{Anonymous-EU}} ( 70 y. after publication) and {{PD-Polish}} ( anonymous photo published in Poland before May 1994)
That's all in this case.
Andros6407:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that may well be the case. Just don't argue in terms of the KUG or other old laws of EU countries. Lupo09:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right - I have invoked KUG as an sample of European regulations , which in practice have made vast majority of photos from 20-ties and 30-ties anonymous. For reason of short period of securing copyrights , photos ( and right of intellectual property) were just sold by authors to the publishers in common (the practice was to sell - not to licence). Such was a practice in Europe and USA. For this reason - there is no possibility to establish name of author - nobody took care about it that time.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I see this photo in a collection but I can't post a link to that website because the spam filter here blocks posting that URL, here is more info 'The only information the donor gave was that he had found the album, which had belonged to a German, in an apartment in Sosnowiec in Silesia, after the end of the second world war' [87]Madmax3212:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the Guardian article appears to refer to a different image, namely the one shown at the top of that Guardian page, which wasn't taken at Bochnia. Interesting article, though.
I can find several similar images, some maybe even from that same execution.[88][89]. Some are also at http:// www. deathcamps. org /occupation/bochnia%20ghetto.html, (remove blanks, spam filter avoidance). As far as I can tell, the image must have been taken by a German soldier. I guess anybody else would have been included in the execution right away if he or she had dared to photograph there on that field. As an unpublished anonymous work (Ok, it was published at some point, but presumably without the consent of the photographer. That makes it technically an unpublished work. In fact, an unpublished anonymous work because whoever took that picture is unknown, and he most certainly won't step forward.) it would be copyrighted in Germany until the end of 2009 (70 years after the creation of the image). Delete and re-upload again in three years, if someone then still feels the need to do so. Lupo14:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The photo is on that same death camps website http:// deathcamps.org /occupation/pic/bigbochnia03.jpg - remove the two spaces Madmax3223:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the tag "polishpd" and the discussion Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Polish it is considered a public domain, made before 1994. I found it in the polish book: Tadeusz Mazur, Jerzy Tomaszewski, Stanisław Wrzos-Glinka " Cierpienie i walka narodu polskiego, 1939-1945", Zarząd Główny Związku Bojowników o Wolność i Demokrację, Warszawa, 1958, page 19
There are following authors given, according to the description in the book: Stefan Bałuk, Władysław Choma, Tadeusz Kinowski, Stanisław Kopf, Bolesław Malmurowicz, Stefan Józef Stryjniak, Dawid Szmulewski, Jerzy Tomaszewski, Ludwik Wajner - it means that they probably made photos of the photos, because there are a lot of pictures in the book. This particuler picture was found by one of german anonymous soldiers who was killed, according to the description in the book. Spetsedisa15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, especially that this picture is a property either some of archives in Poland or the government, it is not German property. Anyway it is in Poland at the moment and It was published a lot of times since 1945 to 1994 without clear copyright notice. I may only speculate about an author, It might be polish photographer, or a German soldier or whoever - there is no proof that this picture was made by Germans, although it was found in album called "Suhne fur Bochnia" (punishment for Bochnia) held by one of nazi soldiers - the alleged German author is only supposition anyway. Spetsedisa 20:12, 19 June 2007
(UTC)
I checked who is the proprietor now, and it turned out that since the end of the second world war the only proprietor of this picture is polish Institute of National Remembrance[90][91], so it doesn`t matter who was an autor because we`re talking about holder of copyrights, and this is a polish institution. Also when it was published in my source that I provided from 1958, the Institute of National Rememberance was also a proprietor, so it`s clear that "polishpd" is valid (published before 1994 without copyright notice). No German soldier or SS member (if it really was made by one of them) would ever admit that is an author, because it is an obvious proof of nazi crime in Poland during German eccupation (1939-1945), and he would be immediately punish and taken to prison. Spetsedisa21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t matter. We don’t use unfree photos because of the fact, that we consider the author a criminal and thus therefore deny his copyright or act on the assumption that this person will never enforce his rights because of his deeds. This project is for free content, not for content nobody will complain about. Whose copyright will we deny next? There are enough possibility left, there are millions of people who participated in any conflict worldwide. --Polarlys07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see this picture uploaded by on of users [92] there is also no author specified, there is only the information about uploader. Take it to advance. Spetsedisa21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter at all who owns a physical copy of the image, or even the negatives. Ownership of the physical object does not equal ownership of the copyright. The author did not transfer his copyrights or grant an exclusive license to the polish Institute of National Remembrance. Hence they don't own the copyright. It's an unpublished anonymous photograph made by a German and thus a German work. (See Berne Convention, §5(4)(c).) Its copyright status in Poland is thus utterly irrelevant for us because Poland is not the country of origin. Lupo22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question that is not related to this image, but are you so sure ownership doesn't have anything to do with copyright? If you give your camera to passerby to take your photo does that mean they can claim copyright, I don't think it's legally tested nor correct to say only the person who takes the photograph owns the copyright, and yet I see people claiming that even for photos from someones own private photo album. Madmax3223:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, {{Polishpd}} is also inapplicable because the image was not "published", which implies the consent of the copyright holder. It may seem strange, but technically, this is an unpublished work. Lupo07:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the photos were found in different places owned by different German soldiers, I wonder if distribution of an album counts as publishing Madmax3207:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might be the author of the photo since it came from this album 'Fotoableithung des Distriktes Krakau, Leiter: Reg. Oberinspektor Paul Brondner'[93]Madmax3207:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is written clearly there [94] that the album was confiscated or sequestered by allies, so anonymous author (we don`t know for sure who particularly made this pictures, although we suppose that the formar proprietor was some German officer) lost his rights to is when allies got it. Allies gave this document to polish Institute of National Remembrance, and this is also written there [95]. I repeat that since 1945 it is the property of Republic of Poland, and nobody will ever sue wikipedia because of publishing it at wikipedia commons an so on, the original author has no legal rights to this picture. It was published in Poland hundred of times since 1945, and never, ever any German author (if he was an author, which is not sure) sue polish institution or government to give this pictures back, because there no legal basis to do so. Spetsedisa09:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyway, according to Berne Convention Berne Convention, §5 the law, which shall to apply in the case is the law of country of the first publication. It is an anonymous photo, first published in Poland , under Polish law, and no one from the day of publication till today put any copyright claims against publishers for sixty years from date of publication ( never disclosed his identity). From legal point of view it ist anonymous photo first published in Poland , under Polish copyright law - and it is binding conclusion, that the regulations of Polish law are applied to.
"Publication" is only possible with the consent of the rights holder. Any other dissemination is not publication. Lupo07:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a strange definition in case of anonymous photo, where no "holder" disclosed his identitity for over sixty years, and in fact doesn't exist. This is a legal publication and noone opposed towards publishers for sixty years after the publication was first made. Do you know any legal representative of anonymous "holder", who put any claims to the publisher in past or today, or may do it in the future ? If you don't - it isn't a question to discuss about.
Oppose to Lupo - Publication is publication and everything else is simply hair-splitting. The so-called problems between Polish copyright laws and the consent of the anonymous photographer is only relevant for these but not for us. Fact is: the Polish and the copyright laws of the USA permit both the publication. All further implications are for that reason IMHO still irrelevant - auctoritas, non veritas facit legem. --FSHL17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
We`re not sure that it was Geman author, you can`t prove it, the picture could be equally done by polish administration stuff or forced by Germans jewish or polish photographer. You can`t establish who the author was, it is impossible. Spetsedisa09:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
… and that’s why the uploader has to prove, that the requirements („Please provide where the image was first published and who created it.“) of the template (PD-Polish) is fullfilled. If this is impossible, we can’t use it, neither as PD-Polish nor any other „free“ license. Regards, --Polarlys11:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Polarlys - If you think that (PD-Polish) isn’t fulfilled or that’s a German work than you’ve to prove this - in dubio pro reo! --FSHL17:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has to prove, that the given license is valid: „Please provide where the image was first published and who created it.“ --Polarlys17:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I consider it highly unlikely that these German soldiers posed for a Polish photographer. Unless someone can provide convincing evidence that the photographer was not another German soldier, this should be treated as a German work and thus be deleted. Lupo22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I just noticed the uploader identifies them as police not soldiers. We don't know their nationality though, they could be Volksdeutsch from eastern europe, Ukrainians recruited by the Germans etc Madmax3202:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but he doesn't seem to know enough details about the photograph such as the author to conclusively define their nationality. Also German is both a nationality and ethnicity, this is not an argument for the copyright of the image, but the local police in Germany did not wear those kind of visor caps during WWII. Madmax3202:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Lupo - Without a designatable German author (or however his nationality finally likes to be) only the Polish copyright applies to this work. --FSHL04:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anyway, according to Berne Convention Berne Convention, §5the law, which shall to apply in the case is the law of country of the first publication. It is an anonymous photo, first published in Poland , under Polish law, and no one from the day of publication till today put any copyright claims against publishers for sixty years from date of publication ( never disclosed his identity). From legal point of view it ist anonymous photo first published in Poland , under Polish copyright law - and it is binding conclusion, that the regulations of Polish law are applied to.
Sorry, Andros, but "publication" is only possible with the consent of the rights holder. Any other dissemination is not publication. Lupo07:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a strange definition in case of anonymous photo, where no "holder" disclosed his identitity for over sixty years, and in fact doesn't exist. This is a legal publication and noone opposed towards publishers for sixty years after the publication was first made. Do you know any legal representative of anonymous "holder", who put any claims to the publisher in past or today, or may do it in the future ? If you don't - it isn't a question to discuss about.
Andros6407:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A perennial problem with these orphan works, yes. Unfortunately, copyright laws just do not account for cases like these. The works are copyrighted, even if one cannot get hold of the copyright holder. For libraries and archives, there are usually some provisions in copyright laws to allow them to reproduce such works, but we're neither. (Well, maybe we'd be an archive. But that doesn't help us much, because only other libraries or archives might under these provisions re-use such images, and the Wikipedias and Wikinewses clearly are neither. These library provisions don't make images "free".) And the Commons doesn't want to be the repository of "images nobody complains about", we want to be a collection of free images. Thus the question of whether someone might sue is a bit besides the point. Orphan works are frustrating, I know.
Country-specific tags are applicable only to images that have that country as their country of origin. If we want to apply a Poland-specific tag to it, we'd thus need evidence that either the image was published first in Poland at a time where we may assume that indeed the photographer agreed to it (we can never be absolutely sure, I guess), or, if it is an "unpublished work", we need to make plausible that the photographer was of Polish nationality. If these are German soldiers/policemen, that strikes me as rather improbable. But what exactly are they? Does anyone recognize the uniforms, and know what kind of auxiliary troops existed? Lupo09:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand the concern over copyright on the WW2 images, particular those ones that are nazi related, like someone mentioned copyright could be enforced just to make sure the image wasn't being used in a negative fashion (like the castro photo mentioned in a previous thread), anyway this photo is really nothing special, it looks like a typical private snapshot rather than an official photo (German soldiers made millions of photos like this). I will try and find out more about it, but the uniforms don't look like those of German Ordnungspolizei (I could be wrong) anyway rounding up people for forced labor was a pretty lowly task, probably assigned to low ranking recruits who are probably locals, this is just like the various ghetto polices in poland which were made up of Jews. Madmax3211:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking quite seriously your remarks – Lupo - it would be impossible to publish any anonymous photo at all - it was no possibility to ask anonymous author for permission. There wouldn't be published anonymous photos at all – it is an absurd – there are published on basis so called silent consent . In general - every photo has its author, but not every photo has its proprietor of rights for ( in meaning of civil law). Rights for intellectual property may be ( and were transferred from author to another subject of law ( publisher, other legal person)). The question of intellectual property is independent from authorship. Regulations of copyright law depicted only limits, where the claims may be laid for (deadline period of claims, subject etc). In general - what is not openly legal restricted or limited - it is allowed. In common sense - we don't need ask explicit permission for every move we are making. There is an essence of legal presumption of legal deeds ( and legal care) of publisher. There are a lot of photos ,which are not a subject of intellectual property now ( for example - author, owner of rights died without legal heirs, author sold his rights to legal person , which ceased to exist without legal successors, the work was not copyrighted from early beginning by regulations of copyright law etc). It is an area of PD.
In Wikipedia our problem IMHO is to respect real existing rights for intellectual property of real authors , not chasing shadows of anonymous authors from 30-ties or time of WW II, who never put any financial or personal claims to the publishers of their photos published in Poland ( for over sixty years) and - with a little bit of common sense thinking - who will never do it in the future.
Anyway – the publication of anonymous photo , not contested be anyone for such long time has legal presumption of full legality. Anyone who wants to contest such presumption has to prove his attitude – not in contrary. In civil law it is named presumption of good will ( good faith ) and legality (equivalent of presumption of innocence in criminal law). So always the charge of proof is on the contesting side.
Such way there is no reason to contest anonymous photos from 1940-ties of XX century , which was published first time in Poland before 1994 under regulations of Polish copyright law and which wasn’t contested by anyone till today.
Anyway from two to four years there are definitely{{Anonymous-EU}} , and there is no reason to contest now regulations of Polish law towards this photos in according with clear regulations of Berne Convention towards the country-origin.
Besides – Commons is an repository worldwide ( not only in EU, in Europe it is just Norway, Switzerland, Serbia , Ukraine) and there is no obligation to use any graphic in particular Wikipedias if members of such project has his own restrictions towards using some kind of photos. Let us give to everybody possibility to choose and use. We just have to respect regulations of civil law of country origin – not to exceed this regulations. It is not our duty to make worldwide investigation for shadows of anonymous authors from early forties XX c. – it is not necessary at all at legal basis of presumption of good will and legality .
Andros6414:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You started off with "it would be impossible to publish any anonymous photo at all". This is simply wrong. In 70years-p.m.a. countries, the usual rule is that for anonymous works, the copyright runs until 70 years after the creation of the work, or 70 years after its lawful publication, if that occurs within 70 years from the creation of the work. If the identity of the anonymous author becomes know in that time, 70y p.m.a. again applies. So, just wait until 2012, and hope that the photographer's identity remains unknown until then, and that you don't have to abide by the U.S. rules for such works. In the U.S., the copyright on unpublished anonymous works runs until 120 years after the creation! (And yes, it is possible for an author to publish anonymously or pseudonymously: just add a clause in the contract with your publisher that your real identity is not to be disclosed.) Lupo19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, the whole question here is whether this photo indeed is a polish work, i.e. whether it has Poland as its country of origin. And that's not determined by the place it was taken, but (in the case of unpublished works) by the nationality of the photographer. Which complicates matters tremendously for these WWII photographs from German-occupied areas (not just Poland!). Lupo19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I see you can hardly distinguish particular questions of civil law :)). Discussion on regulations of German copyright law (72 UrhG) (terms of expiring copyright security) has in common with disscusion above only vast subject - matter of copyright and civil law in Europe :) Andros6417:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you didn’t saw the comment: „in some way“. I refer to statements like „I have just changed some licences, because photographs from 1943 are also the subject of Polish law.“, „The second group of photos are these, which copyright is definitely expired with the end of existing the only owner of these rights - Nazi German state, which has not any successors in civil law.“ or „There is no basis to acknowledge amateur photos documenting genocide crimes in 30.-ties an 40-ties as Lichtbildwerke. “. A fragile meta discussion as above, with a lot of boldface. --Polarlys17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All it is true, and I can repeat it once again, but it is quite different juridicial case - really. Unhappily every discussion on juridical questions, law,its regulations and rules has to be conducted on some level of abstract - it is specificity of the matter discussed.Andros6418:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Lupo - Publication is publication and everything else is simply hair-splitting. The so-called problems between Polish copyright laws and the consent of the anonymous photographer is only relevant for these but not for us. Fact is: the Polish and the copyright laws of the USA permit both the publication. All further implications are for that reason IMHO still irrelevant - auctoritas, non veritas facit legem. --FSHL16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dissemination without the authors consent is not publication. If you lose your camera, and I happen to find it and publish your holiday photographs, do I own the copyright? Certainly not. If I publish your holiday photos in Afghanistan, do they become PD? (Afghanistan does not have a copyright law yet.) Certainly not. Why not? Because they were published without your consent.
Can you put together a coherent case that the photographer was Polish, or if not, that the work was first lawfully published with the photographers consent in Poland? If not, then why should Polish law be relevant outside of Poland as Poland then isn't the country of origin? Lupo19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Lupo - Because the photographers consent isn’t needed for this special image in Poland? And without a designatable author there is simply no prove that Poland isn’t the accurate country of origin? If you aren’t able to disclose the identity of the author a further discussion is simply senseless. --FSHL19:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problem is - it has been published and not contested till today discussion. Charge of proof against is on the contesting side.
First publication of anonymous photo has been made in Poland far before 1994 under Polish copyright law.No claims has been put to the publishers till today. And all the rest is the legal consequence of these facts.
Andros6420:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt simple constatation of facts. Legal situation is clear. Anonymous photo first published in Poland before 1994. According to Berne Convention it is decisive to the question of law , which has to be applied to. This is Polish law. According to Polish law it is copyfree. Clear ? ( I try to express it as simple as it is possible , without any abstract manner , which could be difficult to unterstand) So is it clear ?
PS. I have never heard the term "dissemination" apart from agriculture ( insemination in farming ) - it is not the term of copyright law . Photo was published or not. .There is not the third way in reality and in law.This one was published.
Andros6420:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after further research it is likely these are in fact German sponsored Polish police compare to photos here [96] and [97][98], besides German is both an ethnicity and nationality so it would be difficult to guess who or what the photographer was and that isn't a good criteria alone to decide who took a photo. Madmax3221:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No matter who is shown, when we don’t know who took the picture. It’s not about guessing, since PD-Polish requires an author. --Polarlys21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Madmax32. This is the first time in this whole discussion that we're getting anywhere. Good find. I didn't know that even Polish auxiliary troops existed... but I guess one can find collaborators anywhere. If they were "Polish police" it might indeed be possible that they posed for one of their fellow policemen. This is the first time that someone has shown evidence that would lend credence to the claim that this was a Polish work. Do we have a Wikipedia article on this "Polish police"? Might be time to write one... I notice that the article en:Holocaust in Poland makes no mention of this "Blue police". But why did the uploader (or that book from 1964) identify them as "German police"? Though I could imagine that in 1964, at the height of the Cold War, it would have been inconvenient to admit that there had been Polish collaborators with the Nazis. Lupo20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in fact we do have an article on the collaborationist polish police on wikipedia [99] and yes I agree it's a misrepresentation to call them 'German police' but Hans Frank ruler of the general government did run the show. Imho most ethnic Germans would have been conscripted into the armed forces since they were registered with the so called volksliste, only Polish and Ukrainians in Poland would be in this police force, except maybe their commanders. Madmax3207:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Furthermore - are you fan of historical revisionism- Lupo? It could many explain in context of disscussion :) and it is your right , but historical impressions ( and hopeless investigation for identity of anonymous author) are not a subject in this case - clear from the legal aspect. Ceterum censeo ad nauseam : The place of first publication of this anonymous photo is Poland. According to Berne Convention art.5 Poland is a country of origin. Such way regulations of Polish copyright law are legally binding. That's all. You may dislike Polish law , but it is not Afghanistan ( state of anarchy) , but clear legal regulation which we all have to respect, even if anyone dislike it.Andros6407:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anonymous works first published in Poland before May 1994 is assumed {{PD-Polish}} ( as every works published without clear copyright notice). See - template. It is also regulation of Berne Convention
Andros6421:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Polarlys - An anonymous author is an author. So we know who took the picture: an anonymous author. Any questions, Winston? --FSHL22:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep published in Poland before 1994 - according to law it is PD. Don't try always use left hand to right ear. Julo11:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitively ending the question – according to Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907 , SECTION III : MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE ( art . 42 and foll.) ( binding both for Germany and Poland see : en:Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) ) (full text in German ) fact of military occupation by Nazi-Germany military forces territory of Poland has not created any effect in area of civil and international law at the territory occupied. Such deeds of Germany like declaration that Polish state ceased to exist, proclamation of General-Gouvernement , and every rights of German occupation authorities was illegal from the beginning and not valid in international law. All the time of WW II Polish State still exist with legal government in exile in Paris and then in London and the territory of Poland was only under military occupation of Germany. This state was acknowledged all over the world during WW II ( apart only of - Germany and – partly (and by force) – their allies Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia ).
So fact of military occupation of foreign territory ( like military coup d’ etat) doesn’t create any legal consequences on the occupied territory towards the laws and rights of this territory and at that territory.( Art. 43. of Hague IV).
For this reason it is without any meaning in this case fact of foreign military occupation of Polish territory. Every legal deeds made on such territory are subject of jurisdiction of the state occupied , not the law and jurisdiction of invader (occupant). It is not our problem here that Nazi Germany have not respected almost any international conventions (law) ( i.e. Hague Conventions) – these conventions are legally binding. At the territory of Poland was in effect only Polish law ( and international treaties legally binding Poland) and for everybody in occupied Poland during WW II - international conventions and Polish law too.
In conclusion – anonymous photo, first published in Poland according to art. 5 #.4 Berne Convention is subject of regulation of Polish law – as a country of origin. This particular photo , first published before May 1994 is copyfree and {{PD-Polish}} is fully legally applied.
Andros6411:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still ignore that Poland is only the country of origin if the image was published there with the consent of the author, or else if the author was Polish. At least Madmax32 has shown some indication that these policemen were not German but actually Polish auxiliaries, and thus it appears plausible that the photographer was also a Pole (might have been a fellow serviceman). The stuff about the Hague Conventions doesn't matter much: nobody claimed German law was applicable because of the German occupation of Poland. That's completely besides the point.
Your insinuation about revisionism is also besides the point, by the way. We don't care about political motives for including or not including images here. Keep cool and consider the copyright angle.
Comment I am really happy, that you have distanced yourselves towards historical revisionism. Hague was quoted because of your earlier remark ,that :
. whether it has Poland as its country of origin. And that's not determined by the place it was taken, but (in the case of unpublished works) by the nationality of the photographer. Which complicates matters tremendously for these WWII photographs from German-occupied areas (not just Poland!). Lupo 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
So – you have to decide from day to day you are talking in contrary – first. I just proved that it was all the time Poland - only under military occupation, which doesn't abolish laws and rights of an occupied territory. That's all.
Second - it is not a case of previous unpublished workes. Publication is publication – and as you know it is impossible to get explicit consent of anonymous author. The result is not that it is was and it is impossible to publish anonymous works ( and that, when it has been done under Berne Convention and Polish copyright law in 50-ties , talking that it is done without legal result ). I’ve written about the term of silent consent which is in use in such cases permanently, when publisher couldn’t establish name of author.
Third – no international regulation limits the term "publication"( apart from definition from Berne Convention art.3). You would be right only in the case the publication was made against openly expressed will of author of the work. It is not in this case. You cannot suggest that publication of anonymous photo first in Poland under Polish law and Berne Convention is no legal valid. In case of published photos - and it is an published photo - the law of coutry of publication applies (according to Berne Art.5.#.4.). Exactly definition - This is legal publication made with the silent consent of anonymous author, not contested for over sixty years. So country of origin-Poland, anonymous photo first published before May 1994. In conclusion- {{PD-Polish}}.
If you have taken my remarks personally – I’m sorry . It was not my intention.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
update reloaded under the same name but with a mistake on the extension (.JPG/.jpg) so this one is now a copy to remove (sorry) --Jmr16:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete in the process of nominating this I realised this was already here, don't know what happened in the discussion, am new to deletion procedure at Commons. PageantUpdater11:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Respectez les mineurs qui consultent ce site ! Un simple bandeau ne suffit pas, les images sont visibles dès le chargement de la page, et c'est très choquant de montrer le sexe d'un exhibitionniste comme ça ! Utilisez des schémas ou des liens ! De plus, ces photos ne sont certainement pas libres de droits, ou si elles le sont, c'est que le donateur est un exhibitionniste. Que l'on voit sa tête sur la photo alors !
Un pénis, c'est honteux ? Je vais vous faire une confidence : à peu près la moitié de la population mondiale en a un... En plus, dans certaines circonstances, il peut même grossir, grandir, et la personne en face est généralement flatée. Une autre confidence : les mineurs ont aussi un sexe, et une curiosité pour connaître celui des autres. Vous voudriez plutôt qu'ils se rassurent en visionnant des photos ou des films pornographiques ?
Cacher certaines parties de son corps, c'est purement culturel, voyez-vous. C'est quand il peut y avoir équivoque entre la situation et ce que l'on pourrait en penser. Or, à moins d'être hors de ce siècle, ou légèrement ignorant, on sait à peut près sur quoi on va tomber lorsqu'on cherche le mot "pénis" dans une encyclopédie. Pas d'équivoque donc.
Maintenant vous n'auriez aucune honte à voir figurer une oreille ou une bouche (il y en a partout) dans une encyclopédie, qu'est-ce qui vous fait peur quand on affiche un pénis ? Savez-vous que la bouche est un endroit encore plus intime ? Certaines personnes refuseront un baiser sur la bouche, mais ne refuseront pas que vous accédiez à leur sexe. Faut-il pour cela censurer toutes les bouches de l'encyclopédie ?
Remarquez, il n'y a plus qu'à tout cacher et vivre dans l'hypocrisie la plus totale. Cela se fait dans certains pays. Pas ceux où la liberté est la plus vivace...
Quant à l'hexibitionnisme, c'est votre idée... Si quelqu'un donne une photo de son pied, vous allez le traiter de fétichiste, aussi ? Sur la page anglaise, il y a le sexe d'un éléphant en érection. Les anglo-saxon seraient-ils zoophiles aussi, pendant que vous y êtes ? ;o) Quant à voir sa tête, vous voulez peut-être un rendez-vous
Non derivative only, in direct violation with Commons:Licensing. Email contact established:
No you can not modify them.
Regards,
Catherine Juckler
-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Tong Minh
Sent: 19 June 2007 13:02
To: JUCKLER Catherine
Subject: Re: Images from http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/
So this means that I am allowed to modify them?
Sincerely,
Bryan Tong Minh
On 6/19/07, JUCKLER Catherine
wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> You can use our photos as they appear on the website. They are free of
> charge but must be credited "photo: European Parliamen".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Catherine Juckler
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bryan Tong Minh
> Sent: 18 June 2007 21:57
> To: JUCKLER Catherine
> Subject: Images from http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/
>
> Dear madam,
>
> I have a question regarding the rights of the images on
> <http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/>. On
>
<http://www.photo-service.europarl.europa.eu/Cumulus/Standard/agree.pdf>
> it is written that the images can be freely used. Does that also mean
> that I can use the images in commercial work and modify them?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Bryan Tong Minh
>
Damn it! It's not written that "they can be freely used", the PDF says that files are copyright free! I don't know it was deliberate, but it was certainly unnecessary to confuse her. --Ssolbergj13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Email contact with the EU photo personell have earlier proven that their copyright answers are incoherent. They have no clue! I'm sure her boss wrote the PDF. When you asked her if you could use their images commercially and edit them, she got scared and answered: "well of course not". This tag should not be deleted without further contact. And discussion if needed. --Ssolbergj13:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Junker seemed more willing to help, can I ask people hold off for a while as I send a few emails seeing if this can be cleared up. If it is copyright free I'm not sure how they can have limits on them, and modification isn't a major right to them surely, they may be willing to surrender it. If anyone else would like to lobby on this I'd suggest you contact now. 88.105.179.64 13:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (- J Loganc/en: 13:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If anybody wants to clear up and receive permission for modifaction, go ahead, deletion requests stay open for at least a week and generally for two months. The current situation however is that the images are unfree. -- Bryan (talk to me) 13:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would think with all the lawyers around they could write a better copyright disclaimer. big difference between copyright free and 'royalty free' you would probably get a better response if you faxed the right people at this organization rather than emailing some webmaster Madmax3212:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Madmax: This contact provided for the service.
General update, I got one responce but it has been silence, trying again. This is the last thing I heard: "Our photos are actuality or historical photos, it's not necessary to modify them. You can resize them or make a light colour correction if you need. If you really want to modify them you can send me a copy before publication and I'll agree or not with it." - as I said, I am responding again, did anyone else heard back if you emailed?
But regardless of that, their statement says "The photos published on this website are copyright free, but must be credited "Photo European Parliament". " - Copyright free... if they have stated that, do they actualy have a right to say we can't edit them? From a legal point of view? The two do conflict, and the official document takes precedence wouldn't it? That document says copyright free, that's public domain. - J Loganc/en: 15:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we had this all before (Swedish Riksdag, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs): This is a sort of unclear press license and an explicit question if we are allowed to use them to create derivative works of for commecial purposes mostly provokes an hysterial “Of course not!” And I keep on repeating that we shouldn’t create templates or use files without an explicit permission to do that under a common license like CC-by-SA. Regards, --Polarlys16:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not comment in the legal side, because I cannot, but from an ethical point of view, I would say that we should look at the intent of the statement, not at the statement itself. It is very clear that this statement meant, you are free to use this in publishment. They did never intent to release the right to modify the image. That said, I would say that we should Delete the images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they will say no. But it is not a question of copyright, but of personality rights of the shown person. If you take a picture of a person, you may not modify them in most legislations. So it is pointless to ask for authorisation in this matter. Not even US-Goverment will give permission to do so. -- Stahlkocher10:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The US Gov't is public domain isn't it, so they do give that. That's what I'm thinking with the Photo Service, they say copyright free which means they might have just said no as an immediate reaction. They might be willing to change on this. I still haven't got another responce, they were quick before. I'll try the other addy as well and unless I hear back by the end of the week then go ahead and wipe, just give me these last 4 days to talk to them. - J Loganc/en: 09:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a more fundamental problem. They can not give permission to modify the images. It is not a copyright question, but one of personal rights. This means, even if a image is marked as GFDL, it may not be modified, if it shows living people who did not agree to these modifications. It further may not be used for advertisement and only in certain context. This also applies e.g. to the image Image:Whn.jpg, which is CC-BY-SA-2.5. It is not limited by the copyright owner, but by a different law. So it is either useless to ask for such a permission or to ask for fulfilling such a precondition. The used templates are misleading in this matter. It is also unexplainable why someone requests a template deletion for such cases. -- Stahlkocher17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to w:Personality rights, they do not concern modification, but commercial use. What we have, is that we are not allowed to even modify them. Realize that this means that we are not even allowed to crop them, or correct the lightning. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then ask to crop or adjust the lighting. Also ask to change to b/w. Do not ask just for modify. You also may not exchange the image later. Have a look at Image:Herbert beim Interview.jpg, and see the GFDL license: "with no Invariant Sections". Do you see that there is something incoherent? In this case the license is lying. I know what your intention is, but be honest and ask the right questions. Of course you may crop it, you may adjust the lightning and you may denoise it. Up to a certain amount. If you want everything, you will get nothing. -- Stahlkocher18:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You probably did not know: The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany makes 2004 a decision, in which they denied the right to manipulate images of persons. This also (probably) means that you must not change the background, if this is missleading. Espacially in the case, when the person did not agree to the modification. So it is a question of personality rights. -- Stahlkocher19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, now you got it. The limitations are owed not by copyright. And the rightsowner can not unleash ist, because it is not in their power. It is the same with COA or with work created in Panoramafreiheit. Modifying in such cases is unlawfull. -- Stahlkocher16:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it has nothing to do with copyright and Wikimedia Commons. It’s limited by other restrictions which are different from one jurisdiction to another. We provide files without potential copyright concerns, what you do as an individual is within your responsibility and you have to deliberate about other restrictions in your jurisdiction. --Polarlys19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats what i say. The images are usable with the attribution-tag, but it is unlawfull in many countries to use them eg for advertisement or to modify them. So it is pointless to ask the copyright owner for permission to do so. The modify? question is abstracted: "Do you allow me to do something unlawful?" And the answer is: "NOOOO". As you wrote: It has nothing to do with copyright or Wikimedia Commons. -- Stahlkocher17:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not what you said. The permission to modify an image is one thing, we always need this permission from the author (independent from the character of the work). Modifying covers a wide range of possibilities; cropping, colour adjustments and so on, and doing this isn’t unlawful. --Polarlys20:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you've all lost me - copyright was never my area - but whatever the situation is, I have not heard back from either contact. If you can reach a consensus on this and decide to wipe them or not that would be great. - J Loganc/en: 21:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, modifying is a wide range. If it is just a technical matter, like cropping or resizing, it is never a problem. But if you ask just for "permission to modify" you also ask for unlawfull things. Modify eg also includes "replacing" which means 100% modifying. No honest copyright owner could give you permission to modify images of living people, except the images shows paid modells. Neither they could give you permission for unrestricted use. This is *because* it is are not a copyright issue. -- Stahlkocher07:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. We need a permission to modify works, regardless of local laws concerning personality rights. According to Stahlkocher’s argumentation, nobody would grant the permission to modify text, just because someone else could add passages which are illegal somewhere on the globe. --Polarlys14:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is forbidden, by which law ever, it is definitely pointless to ask for a permission. They have the {attribution}, add the personality tag and everything is fine. See {PD-Coa-Germany}: never a rightsowner gave permission to modify or even to "use" them. -- Stahlkocher18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the images cannot be modified or used for commercial purposes, they are no better than a CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDeriv license, which is not allowed on commons. Why would this instance be any different? Images on commons should be free to be modified in any way anyone else wants. Someone wants to use the image for parody purposes, that should be fine. Restricting modification means the images are not free and have no place on commons. Perhaps they can be uploaded to the individual projects under a fair use claim. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-6 13:50
deleted, this request is two and a half month old, there is a obvious conflict with Commons:Licensing (“Non derivative only”) and we received no further statement from the copyright holder about a different licensing possibility. --Polarlys13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
From what i read they were an organization based in German eastern territories like what was east prussia and konigsberg, I guess authorship is difficult to determine and may be anonymous, especially with all the ethnic and regional changes after WW2. Madmax3203:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The poster is not post-WWII. It's from 1933 - 1945. (The Bund Deutscher Osten was founded in 1933.) East Prussia at that time was clearly a part of Germany. (See also History of Masuria.) It's a German work. I don't think it's an anonymous work. Before concluding that, we'd at the very least need to know what the text in the lower left and right corners says. Hence, Delete unless we can make a reasonable case (with much more verifiably documented research) that indeed it was anonymously published and the author did not become known, or we can figure out who the author was and show that he died more than 70 years ago. Lupo08:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, plus according to copyright changes when it was published in that 1970s book it may have been considered PD but now apparently it isn't since German copyright law is not as lax. Up to the uploader to provide more information. Madmax3210:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments regarding difficulty in determining authorship is to all WW2 images uploaded by the same uploader not this one in particular, what about ethnic Germans in Poland, they were Polish citizens prior to WW2, but expelled and became German citizens after 1945 (majority at least) so what about their copyright? Polish or German? Interesting dilemma Madmax3210:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to me I have no info. where it was published firstly, there are thousands of such posters on the German strets. Bund Deutscher Osten was closed in 1941. What if there was several authors ? I mean the propaganda section of BDO ? It might be anonymous as well. Spetsedisa15:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there were several joint authors, the copyright term (70 years after the author's death) would start running with the death of the last surviving author. Lupo15:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I don`t know it for sure, maybe there was on anonymous author, who knows, maybe he died during the second world war - I may only speculate on it, so it is safer to consider an author unknown person. Very similar posters are already at wiki. commons such as [100] there is also no author at all, but this is not removed by nobody. Also, another poster [101] - the same situation, no author at all. These are web-resolution political posters (also Bund Detscher Osten poster) and such files are allowed here as desription [102] says. Spetsedisa19:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It is not a derivative work, I made this photo on the street, it had no author it was completely anonymous, and it was shown to the public as informational annocement or sth. It was completely amateur work of somebody unknown. Explain please why this is derivative. Spetsedisa15:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, this posters advertise nothing, no institution, organisation, product or whatever, it`s only informational aimed at the public. Let`s say that I don`t like some politician, I make home made poster and I hang it on the wall somewhere - that is the same case, no institution or whoever is written above the poster, nobody knows to whom (or what particular institution) it might be associated, nobody knows then who is the legal proprietor. It`s a huge difference between a poster that inform about the movie, drama or exhibition and this anonymous poster. Spetsedisa10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don’t think that Micr75 is the copyright holder, pictures like that spread over the web. There are similiar pictures from different persons, uploaded by the same user.--Polarlys12:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We need an explicit permission for derivative works and commercial use. Clarification via OTRS (!) is needed, before someone uploads +4500 pictures. --Polarlys15:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While clarification is always nice, does a license that says "Tutte le fotografie dell'archivio dell'agenzia Fides possono essere utilizzate liberamente. Si richiede solamente la citazione della fonte." - which appears to translate to, "all these images can be used freely, only the citation of the sources is required" (per prior discussion here) require clarification? WjBscribe23:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification is needed. At en-WP, I recently came across an image from this Italian site. They say at the bottom in several languages "more than thousand free photos of Rome", and in the Latin languages, they use the adjective "libre". However, after some searching, I found a more elaborate copyright statement of theirs, and it turns out that the images are free of charge only ("gratis"), not "libre". (And furthermore, they demand "authorisation to freely use the pictures"...) So no, "liberamente" at the FIDES site not necessarily means "free as in beer". If they wanted that, why don't they just license them as CC-BY? Lupo08:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@lupo: I fail to see the relevance of your remark: as you say yourself, it is another web site, another copyright, a whole different kettle of fish. In Italian, libero and gratis are not equivalent words by any length. To infer otherwise from their incoherent use on two pages pulled from a random web site strikes me as bizzarre. --Alien life form10:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what lupo said is nonetheless relevant by stressing you must not trust the conditions of use you may read on a site, and therefore that it's preferable to get an explicit permission for derivative work and commercial use. I admit the Italian sentence ("Più di mille foto di Roma gratis") is unambiguous (only free as a beer) and the English one is ok and ambiguous as usual, but the French, Spanish and Portuguese translations are completely wrong and misleading : they don't say gratis but libre, as a speech.
More generally, despite this example does not apply to Fides, it demonstrates that what you read is not necessarily what the author means. And it's not a matter of a bad translation. Here is a example you may find more relevant: this page, from the French ministry of affairs web site, says unambiguously that the pictures are copyright-free ("les photographies de ces expositions sont libres de droit") and when you ask them, they reply that commercial use is stritcly forbidden. Sigh... — Xavier, 13:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It gets stranger and stranger. I fail to see the point of debating one issue in the context of examples taken from different and unrelated situations. The sentence Lupo pointed to on the web site is note even logically consistent within itself (if I can use it - gratis or otherwise, why do I have to ask permission? conversely, if I have to ask permission for usage, then I cannot use it, now can I?). Most translations to foreign languages of any given site are bound to be misleading, however in FIDES' case, we are talking about the original language versions, and their understanding by native speakers. Taken at face value, your comment means that not even a cc license on a web site cannot be trusted (who's to say that they know what they mean?) and that we need to get an OTRS for everything.--Alien life form14:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have known that an Alien life form might have problems understanding us poor Earthlings. Just kidding :-) I pointed to that other Italian website (their text is, BTW, also in Italian) to show that just because someone writes "liberamente", one cannot conclude that they don't mean after all "gratis". It was an analogy.
If someone places his own work under a CC license, we can be pretty sure that they mean it. Would you place a license tag on a work of yours if you didn't know what it meant? And the CC licences are explained at creativecommons.org in very simple language. Lupo19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, really? The italian translation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 web layman version does not mention "commercial distribution" (though the chose-your-license form does here). The layman license version is not even fully translated to italian, and the full legal text is not translated period. I'm willing to bet that a good deal of people using CC-BY-SA would be surprised if I were to tell them that I can make a bound book of their pictures and sell it for 30 bucks apiece and they get nothing. In fact I would contend that to a (italian) layman "Puoi usare liberamente" - "you can use freely" is much clearer than "Make it available under the same terms" ("You are not sharing alike: I did not sell it to you"). So I wouldn't be surprised if someone recanted on a CC, say they did not fully understand the "commercial part" (and they as well may, considering that consent is by omission). They're bound to have a better understanding of "freely", methinks. --Alien life form09:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might well be right but I'm afraid we are drifting away from the topic. We are not talking about a layman that chooses carelessly and randomly (i.e. by not using the chose-your-license form which is quite clear as you admit) a license among six Creative Commons licenses. We are talking about an official news agency which is familiar with copyright laws and can afford legal advice. If those pictures and sounds were offered under a CC-by licence, we would have no reason to discuss and thoses files would have already been uploaded on Commons.
As an example, you give the "web layman version" of CC-BY-SA 3.0. On this page, I can see the verbs "riprodurre", "distribuire", "comunicare" and "modificare". Do they appear on the Fides license ? No. All you see is "utilizzare" which is an ambiguous verb: if I lend you my car saying that you can use it freely, I expect you to not resell it to anyone, to not paint a big white daisy on the trunk, to not put a Formula One motor in it, and even to not try stunts with it. As I've writtenbefore, freedom of use is not precise enough: you can use most freewares freely and that does not mean they are free softwares, in the FSF way.
Alien life form, since your mother tongue is Italian, would you be kind enough to contact Fides and ask them if modifying and redistributing (even commercialy) are allowed? IMO, this would increase our chance to get an answer from them. Personally, I'd like to see thoses pictures and sounds on Commons. — Xavier, 12:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no real status for three months now, so this will be deleted until further notice from OTRS. If somebody sends in a permission to permissions-commons at wikimedia dot org, somebody will confirm that, and this template will ultimately be undeleted if the permission is confirmed. —O (说 • 喝) 19:07, 22 September 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete I concur with EugeneZelenko that this issue was resolved in that Vector-Images.com released it's rights. However, I am still very uncomfortable with the idea that we are delegating our copyright clearance responsibility to a third party. 3400 images is a heck of a lot of images to wave a wand over and declare them all free of copyright concerns because a third party said so, a party that may or may not have rights to do so. --Durin22:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'd much rather we content with those issues than to assume that Vector-images.com has it right. We have the horsepower to do our own homework on the copyright status of these images. That said, I'm sure there are a LOT of images from vector-images.com which are original work of theirs, based on blazons. We should be evaluating such instances on a case by case basis and asserting free license based on their release statements given to us. I don't think we should be using that model that since it comes from them, it must be free license since they said so. That's a perilous path. --Durin18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Near 2400 of them are russian minicipal insignia, in fact, ineligible to copyright. Why we should delete them? Please use individual approach to these images. --Panther11:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am still very uncomfortable with the idea that we are delegating our copyright clearance responsibility to a third party
is copyright paranoia.
Why we cann't trust to this third party? VI.com have been working on US market since 2002 year (yearly then Wikimedia). Their US-office is working in same state Florida, that Wikimedia. Do you have any information about their copyright violations (judicial decision, official penaltyies)?
If we cann't trust to such third party, how we (or you) can trust to Wikipedia users concerning their self works?
Have we got the proof that some user nickname correspond with declared real name? No.We trust until somebody will have demonstrated falsehood.
Have we got the proof that some work is really belong to respective user? No.We trust until somebody will have demonstrated falsehood.
In many counties (for example in Russia), the copyrights (or some of them) can be delivered to another party through written contract only. Has Wikimedia got it for certain images? No.We trust users, that they are honest and consistent in their electronic decision.
We can't trust this third party, because they don't own the copyright to at least one of their images, as shown in the Dublin CoA thing. Furthermore, I doubt one can claim copyright on images legally released under one law or another of a country (like the U.S. or Russia, etc.). Blast 06.07.07 0237 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are these images useful for us? Yes. Has the situation with vector-images been regulated? Yes. Have we got any limitations for the images, contradicting our rules? No. Do we need а holy war for the color of this template? Yes? Really? --Panther09:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but carefully (by carefully I mean a special deletion/replacement process, not a spontaneous deletion). My opinion is based on a phrase at Meta: Avoid Copyright Paranoia -
“A digitized picture that may be copied from elsewhere, but has in fact been created hundreds of years ago. Sometimes, the companies who have digitized these pictures claim copyright on them, but I find such claims highly dubious.”
I mean that some of the copyright statements stated on Vector-Images website could be easily contested. For example, the copyright on all Russian Coat of Arms falls under Template:PD-RU-exempt. But a number of Russian CoAs are tagged with this template. Note, that this PD status is certainly correct for non-scalable bitmap representation of CoAs and at least dubious for vectorized versions from V-I. (For a discussion in Russian about the example I mentioned see w:ru:Обсуждение:Томилино) --Yuriybrisk19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above, that's an argument to keep the images, not the template. The template throws a blanket over the problem. And, it is a problem. --Durin18:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of theese images are in PD, e.g. Coats of arms/Flags cities/regions in Russia and ex-USSR are out of Copyright. --Pauk08:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not for closing this DR if we do not have a game plan on how to resolve the huge no license situation we will run into if we deleted this template. Any volunteers to put in the 3000 or so minutes (50 hours) needed to resolve this? I'll give you a nice barnstar! ;) Cheers! Siebrand09:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has nothing to do with the copyright status of the symbols themselves. Maybe Vector-Images.com do own the copyright on their digital representations. However, they clearly licensed the raster images under the conditions, described in Template:Attribution, which is compatible with Commons.
Raster preview images in GIF or PNG format of Vector-Images.com can be free used on other web sites or any other media for any purposes with quote to Vector-Images.com (link to http://vector-images.com) only.
I don't see a reason to delete the template or the images.--DStoykov22:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentioned, the conditions are similar to those, described in Template:Attribution (in most cases even PD-exempt). This template is redundant (link + PD or Attribution is enough). Don't forget even the words
Use attribution|Home Corporation to state copyright holders name.
Well, there's nothing wrong with having a specific template (this one) for a commonly used source in addition to the generic one (Attribution) - this can save a lot of work in the future. Alternatively, we can replace the contents with {{Attribution|[http://www.vectorimages.com/ Vector-Images.com]}}. --DStoykov08:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template (perhaps, with some modifiactions). Using the template for indicating the source and the copyright of the images (possibly, with some copyright issues) is good, not bad. Removing the template means removing additional information, which is bad.--Imz21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a flag or coat of arms image from the Vector-Images.com website and may be copyrighted or in the public domain. This tag will be deleted and cannot be considered a license. Please donate some of your time there should be a link to a small project description page with possible licenses that are applicable to deciding if this associated image should be nominated for deletion there should be a link to a sdescription page with instructions on nominating this type of media (sub process?) or if a particular public domain license tag is appropriate.
It will take considerable time to work through all the images. Still, it's the needed action. I don't think we should delete all the images wholesale, but we should deprecate the use of this tag and then review all of the images that have used this tag. This replacement tag is acceptable for this purpose. --Durin14:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should we maybe add a "fix before" date, say 1 November 2007 at which all images for which this license is the only used will be deleted? Siebrand14:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, raster versions of copyrighted (non-PD) CoAs may not be owned by Vector-Images (they are owned by the creators - artist or the organization hired by a municipality to draw them). The template misleads users in that case. --Yuriybrisk16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read respecive pages from their site carefully. VI.com guarantees, that they are copyrighted holder of all-non-PD-arts, which are demonstrated on their site. The proporsals of official symbols don't belong to municipalities, they belong to respectives authors. VI.com guarantees, that they are repay the copyrights from authors. [104][105][106]Alex Spade09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why the deadline? I see no particular reason for it and it will result in plenty of babies getting thrown out indiscriminately with the bathwater when the calender clicks over to that arbitrary date. It seems likely to do more harm than good. Bryan Derksen08:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the deadline approaches when a considerable number of "babies" are still pointing at this template, then the deadline just elongate itself for another period of time. We just need to be in touch of this matter and mark the decreasing number of pages linked to this template. --Yuriybrisk16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a good option; we don't want to lose images that rightly fall under another license, but obviously they each need some scrutiny. Shell Kinney17:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support this particular revised template over the original and this gets the message that it is free with attribution across fine. However, since we already have a custom template we could use this to add a bit more text that links to the particular licence in question, as I do believe that the attribution terms of this site can be considered a valid licence (as it fulfills Commons:Criteria for inclusion) and I think this information is relevant to the images that fall under this template. It might also be useful to mention, as the original did, that this is a flag and coat of arms site. This may assist other contributors with sourcing other free images. Alaisd08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very bad proporsal - VI.com permits such condition only for COAs and flags. There is no one word about this in proposed template. Alex Spade09:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can you show newbies and users which aren't taking a part in this disscussion, for which images this license tag is suitable and for which images is's not suitable? There is no one word about this in proposed template. Alex Spade19:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, we can't put on many Russian, ex-USSR flags and coas from VI.com lic.tag {{PD-RU-exempt}} or other PD-ex-USSR-exempt tags solely. The VI.com made many images with distortions of official drawing. See for example: official drawing of COA of Dushanbe [107] and version form VI.com [108]. Therefore, this is my version of proposed new template content, which can comply with most of cases. Alex Spade06:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Wow, thank you for the observation; I briefly checked the exif data but I somehow missed it. I will tag it for speedy deletion. --Iamunknown18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Source says that photos are "collected from the World Wide Web" and that they are intended for "educational use only." Rebelguys209:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, „ Please do not copy images as many of them are copyrighted. If you would like to use an image, please e-mail the above address, and we will try to give you the contact info for the owner.“ --Polarlys02:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is not PD-old. The date given of 1873 is invalid because the trains visible where first build around 1955, so the image is much jounger. LosHawlos15:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, copyvio, thank you for your attention. What people are willing to do to get pictures for their articles? --Polarlys02:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyright violation. This picture shows a sculpture of Bruce Naumann. It is not public domain.--09:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep ffs it's a hole in the ground. There's no way artistic expression covers that. Freedom of panorama doesn't necessarily apply as the work is not permanently installed (See [109]). -Nard20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Richie: Dupe of Image:MtCleveland ISS013-E-24184.jpg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep ffs it's a hole in the ground. There's no way artistic expression covers that. Freedom of panorama doesn't necessarily apply as the work is not permanently installed (See [110]). -Nard20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, is this a permanent hole on the ground? I can't imagine that someone would dig a "temporary" hole on the ground like that and then fill it up later. Wooyi22:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heee funny joke. The link I gave clearly states the work had been moved. What was done with the hole under the slabs of concrete when it was moved isn't said. But as I've mentioned, it resembles any number of concrete drainage ditches, public squares, and pools that slope down towards the middle. You know, other "square depressions". I've uploaded Image:blue drain.jpg and Image:the ducks are gone.jpg as examples. This can't be eligible for copyright. Anyway the image appears to have been taken in Germany where there is freedom of panorama (but where the standard for creativity is also ridiculously low, so YMMV) -Nard23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It is impossible for the picture to be PD. The date for the image of 1901 is invalid because the locomotive was first build many years later. LosHawlos15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly this is a de:Preußische T 16.1, first build 1913. But: the number visible was first issued in the middle of the 1920s, and the third light was not commonly used before 1959. -- LosHawlos09:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Wrong licence. I prefer to load this image only on fr. Demande par mail au webmestre:
>L'utilisation des images du site web placées sous le copyright de la ville >de Cherbourg-Octeville est possible dès lors qu'elle ne contribue pas à une >utilisation commerciale. (Commercial use not permitted) -- 29 November 2006 User:Xfigpower
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I think there is a special template for this, I am new, but Template:Rename might be the right one - if you put that on then someone will eventually come along and upload it under the new name. Also as far as I know if you upload the renamed file you can just put Template:Duplicate on the old one and it will eventually get deleted. There might be a different template though, not sure. UberHalogen19:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This user uploaded another image taken from here [111] and claimed it belonged to him here [Joya apr17.jpg]. Also, this user is a sockpuppet of a banned user User: NisarKand and he commonly uploads pictures and claims he is the owner. Please also do a User Check on him. Thanks. 5 April 2007 User:Le Behnam
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
user:Thomas Blomberg argued on the image's discussion page that the restrictions for this image are comparable with those of a freely licensed coat of arms. However, I believe he is wrong: normal copyright applies to this symbol. FredJ16:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why this image would be any more free then, for instance, the SAAB logo. Maybe usable under fair-use on en.wiki but thats up to them. /Lokal_Profil23:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the image discussion page, Tomas Blomberg argues that this image is acceptable since Wikipedia is a non-commercial project. For obvious reasons, this argument is flawed. I have not been able to find out how old this design, "Sundsvalls drake", is. Thuresson22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It states "The image can be used freely but the author's copyright cannot be removed, meaning the image can be distributed but not adjusted" This means that it is not compatible with commons licensing. Deadstar11:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What appears to have happened is the copyright holder went onto the English Wikipedia and added restrictions to the image, which was originally marked as PD. Not free enough for Commons. -Nard14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The license is not free. "Location credit" is wanted, and the uploader thinks that anyone who uses the picture on his web page will thereby create a "derivative work" (i. e. the website) that has to be free itself then. That's contradicting everything we believe in. --AndreasPraefcke07:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the text dealing with derivative works to be more clear, so hopefully that addresses your concern. However, unlike an encyclopedia which is a "collective work", someone using the image on a typical website would create a derivative work. The exact nature would depend on the specific instances where it was used, but this is the whole point of copyleft: most copying creates a derivative work requiring the entire work to be released under the copyleft license. This is the whole point of copyleft licensing. To not be a derivative work, the image and the website must be totally independent. It is difficult to imagine how it would be used that way in most situations. One example is a website selling image downloads under different licenses: this would not be a derivative work since the images are independent. An example of a derivative work would be a blog that uses this image to illustrate the topic under discussion. My blurb just clarifies the legal definition because most people misunderstand copyleft and derivative works. I'm warning them that I will not tolerate license violations because copyleft is just that important. -- Ram-Man17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "Location credit" is fine as an attribution request; I don't see any problem with that. The license states that any derivative works must also be licensed under the GFDL, which is what that license also says. The interpretation that a web site is a derivative work of the photo is dubious, except maybe a web site made up mostly of the author's photographs, but I don't read that as being part of the actual license (anything more than derivative works he would have no rights or control over anyways). I'll go for Keep. Carl Lindberg07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Permission to use this image is dependent on giving location credit to Chanticleer Garden." Clearly a requirement, not a request, for what seems to me to be an invariant section. Attribution can only be to the author, not anybody else. William Avery10:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is for the author only in cases where the author has sole copyright control over the work. That does not apply in this case. -- Ram-Man22:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"gives readers the same rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies may also be sold commercially, but if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100) then the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient." [ en:GNU Free Documentation License ]
Keep Except for the location credit, ram-man is only making explicit what the license already says. When he says whole website, that's just an example. Open source != public domain, that's why we give uploaders both options. And a credit is a credit. If we can demand one for the author, then why not for the site? Regards, Ben Aveling21:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Because the author is the copyright holder and has a legal right to be identified, and the text of the GFDL uses the word authors. The owners of the garden are not authors of the photograph, though the GFDL allows for there to be an invariant section in the document which could be used to identify them. However Commons doesn't allow GFDL documents with invariant sections. Any kind of requirement for a credit to people or institutions with no author's rights must be by invariant sections, which we don't allow. William Avery17:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a company were to hire a photographer to take a picture but contractually retained the copyright, we would attribute the company (the copyright holder) not the author. Although we might do both out of respect for the photographer, there is no legal requirement. The term "author" and "authors" only applies when the creator holds the copyright. In this case the institution has been assigned limited author's rights and thus must be attributed as any copyright holder would be. If someone copied this image without attributing them, they would have full legal right to seek a remedy under copyright law for the violation without seeking permission from me, the author. -- Ram-Man17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to clarify the GFDL. The GFDL specifically mentions invariant sections which are those sections "...whose titles are designated, as being those of Invariant Sections...". There are no invariant sections in this license, because invariants must be explicitly stated. If anything, this would be an "Acknowledgment" section, which is not disallowed by Wikimedia. The specific text is "GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts, and with no Back-Cover Texts.". An acknowledgment section is not considered an invariant section, but a separate part of the license. Please re-read the text. This is considered to be part of attribution and is allowed by Wikimedia. -- Ram-Man18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep{{subst:vd}} This location credit is fishy and unclear. It looks like and additional condition and I am not sure what it even means. We must not allow people to add arbitrary requirements additional to the license or allow even some things the licenses themselves allow. My guess is he had to agree to credit this place to take photographs, but the only reasonable stances we can take on such requirements is to either ignore them as they are not copyright obligations (even if it may result in the photographer getting in hot water, this seems to be the general policy) or to not accept images that are encumbered. Kotepho07:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an organization says ¨no pictures¨ and a photographer takes them anyway, it doesn´t affect copyright. The photographer bears the legal tort. However, this case is different because a legal contract was signed assigning partial copyright to both parties. We cannot ignore the contractual copyright holder in this case. -- Ram-Man
If they are a copyright holder make sure you have their permission to release this photographs under the GFDL and list them in the copyright notice (e.g. Copyright 2006 Ram-man and Chanticleer Gardens). Anyone that then redistributes them under the GFDL must retain the copyright notice. Making a requirement for a "location credit" does not show their copyright interest in these images, is entirely ambigious in what is actually required of someone else redistrubiting the image, and is an additional condition outside the GFDL. Kotepho02:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've redone the licensing. Please review it to see if it is acceptable. I think it is more clear now what is required. -- Ram-Man17:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page changed since I setup that link. Maybe I should link to an older version that was more applicable. For now it will have to do until I can find a better link somewhere. -- Ram-Man11:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentKeep I see, nominate one for deletion when I´m not around. While I have a quick minute. Except for the text of the license referring to location credit, the rest of the notice is going to change to match that of the rest of my images, that is, the stuff about derivative works. As for location credit, permission to distribute is only provided if Chanticleer as an organization is credited, as you would credit an author. Since they have the legal right to control this image´s distribution (by contract), they have the partial right to control copying. It is attribution, pure and simple, nothing more. I do not have full control over the copyright, it is shared. I cannot legally publish these images without attribution. While they are not the author, they have copyright control and as a result have a right to be credited. If this is not clear, I´ll redo the license description. -- Ram-Man
I think the terms are ok and the image can be kept. If someone does not agree, he is free to file a new deletion request at any time. --ALE! ¿…?07:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is old photo of Pt. Vishwanath Rao Ringe . A notable Hindustani classical vocalist.There is no copyright violation here .Its an old family owned photo .
Strictly speaking, there is a copyright violation if the one that took this photo didn't release it into public domain himself/herself. Since it's not you (you removed "self-made") then you have to prove us that the author (even if it's a relative) grants you the right to publish this photo on Commons, with an appropriate license that allows publication, derivative works and commercial use. — Xavier, 12:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if it is photograph from his close family (ie he is an heir to this photo) then we can take his word for it, but I would like to see a higher resolution scan. Madmax3222:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
the image has an unknown / fair use status on the English wiki (en:Image:Lord Peel arrives.jpg). The Peel commission was in 1936, so unless the photographer died right after taking the photograph, it does not qualify for PD+70. There is no mention where photo came from. --Deadstar12:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture was taken in the British Mandate of Palestine. Israeli law, and preceding British law which applied there at the time, stated that copyrights to photographs expire 50 years from the creation of the negative of the photo and it's been 50 years and there's no problem with the URAA as 1936 +50 =1986 which is less than 1996 which is the cutoff date for the URAA. It's possible though, that the retroactive British 70 PMA law may come into effect here or that the photographer had a non-Israel and non-British nationality and that we should go by his country's laws (probably 70 PMA laws). Yonatantalk16:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is mistagged then, at the very least. The identity of the copyright holder also seems to be missing. -Nard23:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete On the one hand, I would like to keep the discussion going longer, since I believe the policy applied here does not fit frontal photographic reproductions of documents or paintings. How so? The destinction between 2-D and 3-D originals seems to me a working tool to sort out situations where there is only a simple reproduction from situations where the photograph is a unique piece of art, which is distinct from the work taken by another photographer at another time, from a different angle in different lighting situations. This is definitly true for any picture of a sculpture, a cave-painting or other distinct three dimensional objects. It is, in my opinion, not true for a frontal photographic reproduction of a document with attached seals or even a painting with an elaborate frame. Any picture, by any photographer taken from the same frontal position will resemble the pictures taken by other photographers from the same frontal position, so that there will be no unique artistic value added. The Wikipedia 3-D policy is not helpful in this case.
On the other hand, brighter minds than I might have discussed this matter in the past and have come to different conclusions. I have therefore uploaded different versions, without the seals and request deletion to avoid possible legal action.
Now these pictures, without the seals, scanned from a book, comply with our policies. Still we are talking about the same original photograph. Does anybody see any logic in this? --Wuselig16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please delete. Including this I have three similar images up for discussion. The discussions are not realy leading anywhere. I have uploaded versions without seals. There is the 3-D rule and I am not going to argue that the seals in this particular image are just a little less 3-D than the other. It is either yes or no, but not perhaps a little. So good riddance--Wuselig
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
It’s strictly spoken a reproduction of a three-dimensional work. Someone stated some time ago, that reproductions like that not fall under Bridgeman vs. Corel but the spirit of Bridgeman vs. Corel. I won’t come to a decision here. --Polarlys01:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the seal, i.e. the piece of wax, or the sealing ring the work of art? Stricly speaking the piece of wax is comparable to the paper on which something is printed. So to speak is a printed letter also three dimensional as the ink stands above the paper. In this sense the seals depicted are already reproductions of a work of art similar to a woodcut. On the other hand there is attached to a seal a certain uniqueness, like a signature which is a reason why seals are used in the first place. And again on the other hand, is the reproduction of a signature of a person dead for more than 70 years copyrighted? Just some arguments, but the decission has to be made by the legal experts. --Wuselig07:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No the image was scanned from a book. Does it make a difference in evaluation if we try to figure out how much added artistict value was put in by the photographer, because it is probably his copyright we are talking about? In the German discussion they talk about "Schöpfungshöhe" --Wuselig07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the one hand, I would like to keep the discussion going longer, since I believe the policy applied here does not fit frontal photographic reproductions of documents or paintings. How so? The destinction between 2-D and 3-D originals seems to me a working tool to sort out situations where there is only a simple reproduction from situations where the photograph is a unique piece of art, which is distinct from the work taken by another photographer at another time, from a different angle in different lighting situations. This is definitly true for any picture of a sculpture, a cave-painting or other distinct three dimensional objects. It is, in my opinion, not true for a frontal photographic reproduction of a document with attached seals or even a painting with an elaborate frame. Any picture, by any photographer taken from the same frontal position will resemble the pictures taken by other photographers from the same frontal position, so that there will be no unique artistic value added. The Wikipedia 3-D policy is not helpful in this case.
On the other hand, brighter minds than I might have discussed this matter in the past and have come to different conclusions. I have therefore uploaded different versions, without the seals and request deletion to avoid possible legal action.
Now these pictures, without the seals, scanned from a book, comply with our policies. Still we are talking about the same original photograph. Does anybody see any logic in this? --Wuselig16:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please delete. Including this I have three similar images up for discussion. The discussions are not realy leading anywhere. I have uploaded versions without seals. There is the 3-D rule and that is it. So good riddance--Wuselig
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
A folded paper is also 3D... ;-) Keep because, in my opinion, there is no artistical added-value (ie. just for archival purpose). — Xavier, 02:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the one hand, I would like to keep the discussion going longer, since I believe the policy applied here does not fit frontal photographic reproductions of documents or paintings. How so? The destinction between 2-D and 3-D originals seems to me a working tool to sort out situations where there is only a simple reproduction from situations where the photograph is a unique piece of art, which is distinct from the work taken by another photographer at another time, from a different angle in different lighting situations. This is definitly true for any picture of a sculpture, a cave-painting or other distinct three dimensional objects. It is, in my opinion, not true for a frontal photographic reproduction of a document with attached seals or even a painting with an elaborate frame. Any picture, by any photographer taken from the same frontal position will resemble the pictures taken by other photographers from the same frontal position, so that there will be no unique artistic value added. The Wikipedia 3-D policy is not helpful in this case.
On the other hand, brighter minds than I might have discussed this matter in the past and have come to different conclusions. I have therefore uploaded different versions, without the seals and request deletion to avoid possible legal action.
Now these pictures, without the seals, scanned from a book, comply with our policies. Still we are talking about the same original photograph. Does anybody see any logic in this? --Wuselig16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please delete. Including this I have three similar images up for discussion. The discussions are not realy leading anywhere. I have uploaded versions without seals. There is the 3-D rule and that is it. So good riddance--Wuselig
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
possible copyvio. My polish is non-existent, perhaps someone can translate: this is what is in the page history (but was deleted when {{delete}} was added):
"Zdjęcie ze strony Urzędu Miasta w Katowicach, [webmaster@um.katowice.pl]. Została uzyskana zgoda na publikację tego zdjęcia i innych zdjęć Katowic z lotu ptaka." I found http://www.um.katowice.pl/pl/galeria/index.php , the first gallery seems to have pictures from the same series. The site is copyrighted. Deadstar14:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I understand it the first sentence describes the picture (something like this picture shows a part of the town Katowice). The second sentence tells something like that he/she has gotten an agreement to publish this picture and all other aerial pics of the town. But the proof for this claim is missing. -- Cecil14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept (for now). The image has been re-tagged with Template:UM-Katowice. It may be a problem-template, but it wouldn't make sense to just delete this one image and leave almost 100 others. The legality of the template must be discussed by itself. / FredJ21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep sajed.ir is operated by the Iranian government. The GFDL statement is correct according to discussions on en.wiki. Madmax3207:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Madmax. I share Francis Tyers’ objections. The site is somehow „government related“, no further information on author and first date of publication are provided. The galleries cover the last 30, 40 years of Iranian history. I don’t think that all the photographers – surely not just Iranian ones – gave their permission or the site owners care about that. To me, the licensing remains unclear. --Polarlys11:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC) (BTW: Am I allowed to use the files for propaganda against Iran? Just a joke …)[reply]
some of their photos have the photographers name waterstamped on the image, but it could be that employees of the Iranian government cannot claim copyright (sort of like US government employees) on official works. I don't know why they put a GFDL license on the material, because that is going a step further than just simple permission, which is unusual. someone with more knowledge of Iranian laws needs to research this and perhaps contact them to clarify this. Madmax3212:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Selma Louise Norton is outside the project scope, specifically "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted". The exception for a small quantity of photos for your user page obviously doesn't apply here. Also nominating all subpages. -Nard17:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a private image collection with no interest for Commons, Wikipedia or any other sister project. --|EPO|da:17:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
What? No. The art matters a great deal as it is the primary subject of the photograph. You can't just take pictures of whatever you want and make it free. Kotepho06:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The photographer does not get to license this photograph under CC-BY-SA. It's too close to being a faithful representation of a two-dimensional work of art that is still under copyright. —Angr20:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter - there has to be some way to represent Paul Keating. Anyway, I've moved this to WP as fair use so you can delete it. JROBBO00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Suspected Copyright violation, unable to determine original source of image on original site, original site contains numerous non-owned images. Photographer not specified. I suspect the site owner was not the original copyright holder and therefore not able to release this image. Cary Bassdemandez14:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that I faked the message? Whenever I look for an image, I always ask for permission first.[113] But either way, I could care less as I've already found a better image to replace it on the main page.--CyberGhostface17:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corbis has several very similar shots by professional photographer Stephane Cardinale from People Avenue. (Go to pro.corbis.com and search for "lavigne".) The OTRS permission would need to state clearly who the photographer was and would have to make plausible that that photographer did indeed release this image under a free license. Normally, fan sites don't own the copyright on the images they display. Possibly one could also try to contact Mr. Cardinale on the wild guess that it was indeed one of his pictures. But absent any such confirmation: DeleteLupo11:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there are some similar photos on corbis but clearly not the same one, so not conclusive proof, also the date on the images you mention is January 24, 2006, whereas this one is june 27 2006 and at a different event (both in Paris though interestingly) Madmax3212:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the link you've given, the autumn show in Paris was in July... I didn't claim Cardinale was the photographer, I just pointed out that possibility. There were other photographers present. I wonder if the date given for the image is correct. It would be rather unusual to wear the same dress at two different fashion shows. (At least I think so. I'm not an expert on haute couture. I thought they were also a place for the audience to show off?) And I can only find mentions of her having visited the spring-summer show in January 2006. No mention of her visiting a show in June. Maybe someone else can find one? Lupo12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
good point about the date, and the dress but I'm not sure if you can tell that it's the same (apart from the color) if it is a copyvio, how did the webmaster obtain a high resolution image and why did they watermark it? Madmax3221:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fansite webmasters are notoriously confused about copyright, hosting all images they can possibly get. For example, the site happily hosts high resolution versions of WireImage photos in their Chanel Haute Couture Show 2006 gallery. People are also often confused on "use" vs Commons:Licensing when giving permissions. This image has been on the alavigne site at least since the end of February 2006, judging by the archive.org page and the comment dates of its description page in Google's cache. Its original name PET06012412.jpg (still works!) puts it together with another image from the same set, PET06012413.jpg, which isn't so studio quality. So, could still be a legit photo from a fan with a good camera. --Para09:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she's wearing the same dress as in other professional shots is enough evidence of a violation to me. -Nard13:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am strongly under the impression that this photograph was taken in professional studio conditions (lightning, background, cosmetics, ...); the implications are straightforward. Rama06:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to rain on the paranoia parade, but Image:Avrilgfdl.JPG was a personal photo taken by the photographer on flickr, and he released his image for use here once I sent him a message explaining the GFDL policies. If you were to check out the flickr link, you would see that he makes reference to taking it himself in addition with several other photos on his album.--CyberGhostface17:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Richie: Dupe of Image:UNK GND+EQP+SRF.svg
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Not certain if this qualifies as a derivative work of copyrighted material. I am at a 50/50 stance towards deletion/keep. Catchi?07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that in the scope of the whole picture, it's not a derivative work as the copyrighted materials are not the focus of the picture (or at least each one of them alone isn't). Yonatantalk12:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coca cola generally appreciates derivative works that increase attention to their products, case in example, the coca cola kid (1985) made without permission from coca cola. Madmax3220:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I copied it to my local project after it has been deleted for the second time. That means I gave up. You can delete it if you want, but I still don't see a valid reason. --Filip (§) 08:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Why. You can see the lights, the frame and the wall. It is in a public place. It would be derivative only if the picture alone would be on the photo, but since it is not so no. If you say so, any buidling designed by Le Corbusier and any statuea in any country is derivativw work if the author died less than 70 years ago. --Edgar Allan Poe16:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep The image page says this was commissioned for a book by Frederik Winkel Horn, who died in 1898. Copyright in works for hire are generally held by the person paying for them. -Nard17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Danish law is stricter than U.S. law as the copyright law doesn't mention commissioned works, except that the rules for commissioned portrait images are even tougher than for ordinary images. English version of the law The copyright belongs to the original artist. Valentinian(talk)01:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Work made for hire" is a rather U.S.-specific concept. Many other countries do not know it. The copyright term is 70 years p.m.a. Lupo09:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this apply to works published in 1898? The copyright undoubtedly is Moe's who died in '45 and not Winkel Horn's, but I wonder if the 70 years pma applies to published works that are this old... --Akigka15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this image usable on the English Wikipedia under U.S law (if so it should be moved there) and if someone were to take a picture of the actual book this appeared in would the copyright be decided under Louis Moe or Frederik Horn? -Nard16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting angle. The book in question is just Horn's reprint of a 13th century medieval chronicle. :) In any case, Frederik Winkel Horn lived 1845-1898 so he is not the problem. Valentinian(talk)12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the image would be ok on the en-WP as PD-US. Having been lawfully published before 1923, it's PD in the U.S. (Even if we apply the stricter 1909 cut-off year it's still PD in the U.S.) But it isn't PD in 70years p.m.a. countries. Lupo18:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image was uploaded by a problem user on the English Wikipedia, who uploaded dozens of images claiming to be the creator, but all turned out to be copyright violations. I strongly suspect this is too. --Quadell(talk)16:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep I applied an auto color balance filter and sharpen filter to the image, it is much easier to see. -Nard17:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the sleigh is actually that big black device below the most visible sign? It's still a bad quality, as it doesn't show the whole sleigh, or single it out. — Jeff G.(talk|contribs)01:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't really want to have it deleted, but I found the speedy deletion proposal. This image with exactly this name is used within some templateds that rely on the naming convention Coats of arms of <Country>.svg. If a country is not listed in the template, None is assumed in order toplace of a specific country. Hope this will help to convince you not to delete the file. Thank you. --Hedorfer16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edit comment when applying the speedy delete tag was "Useless ? / Unreadable". That is definitely not a speedy delete reason, and from the above comment, it's obviously useful and readable. Keep. Carl Lindberg03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image is useful for many projects. There is no reason at all for deletion that I can see. -- Arvind10:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion proposal has been attached fourty-three (43) days ago. Only four (4) users besides me expressed an opinion, but 100% say that the image should be kept. Can we now remove the deletion template? Who can decide? Must it be an administrator? Thanks. --Hedorfer15:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep. If the image was really out of scope, it would not be used in fr:Menotte à couilles. This is better than nothing and I would agree to delete it for quality reasons if there was higher quality pictures or drawings. — Xavier, 02:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Commons is not a host place like "Imageshack.us" or others websites of this kind. The files must be of good quality, and nobody ordered to put a picture on a article when it is not necessary . --SpeedDemon7418:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
„Reproduction is authorised“ - what about derivative works, commercial use? press license. See Commons:Licensing --Polarlys19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are just allowed to reproduce them ("La reproduction est libre de droits"), derivative works and commercial use not explicitly permitted. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FrenchMinistryOfForeignAffairs for such a „license“: «toute utilisation commerciale de nos photographies est strictement interdite».
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Horrible, no doubt about it. My concern is that it seems more like a caricature but it is not tagged as such (nor used as such in fr:Menotte à couilles). Out of scope, maybe, but this image is currently used to illustrate an article. — Xavier, 03:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki Commons is not a host place like "Imageshack.us" or others websites of this kind. The files must be of good quality, and nobody ordered to put a picture on a article when it is not necessary . --SpeedDemon7418:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
How about provided that the name of the author and the title of the work are mentioned and the other rights enjoyed by the copyright owner by virtue of this Law are not infringed upon? --EugeneZelenko14:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tianjan Metro General Corp" is in the image itself. The company is not making money directly off the map -- it's for informational purposes and really probably goes more into industrial design rather the copyrightable artistic work -- so I can't imagine what other rights would be infringed. Carl Lindberg01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Source says "this one can be given away freely", but it says nothing about "unrestricted redistribution, commercial use, and modification". —Angr16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sent an email to the contact on the website requesting clarification. The reply I got was from a different email address and turned out to be not the copyright holder mentioned on the page, but the subject of the photo en:Lois McMaster Bujold, claiming she informally controlled the rights to the image. She told me I was free to use the photo "for any appropriate purpose" but then when I asked her to confirm by cc'ing to permissions-en@wikimedia.org that the license on the image was acceptable for her she sent the message to wikimedia, but she said she wasn't giving permission for derivative works (message should be somewhere in OTRS). I emailed her back, telling her she could pick the more restrictive GFDL and explaining how the GFDL would stifle anything but serious re-use of the image (people could in theory photoshop her in malicious ways but compliance with the GFDL is out of bounds of most childish pranksters) and haven't received a response. -Nard07:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Approximately when was the e-mail sent to OTRS? Any information you can provide to help us find the e-mail would be greatly appreciated. MECU≈talk02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ticket #2007062610001221. There are two problems here: 1) A license was never stated by the owner, just vague terms we can't accept. And 2) The "modifications" bit. We can't guarantee all modifications will be to their liking. I explained this in a reply. Lastly, this is Commons, not Wikimedia. MECU≈talk12:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I asked if the current tagging on the image was acceptable. I figured if the answer was yes there wouldn't be a problem. Perhaps I should have started off with the GFDL, but you know you learn from your mistakes. -Nard19:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
this low quality image is for sure no work of the United States Federal Government, it was just used to illustrate the short biography on the summit’s website --Polarlys17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that's possible, not all the images on that website are works of the US gov, their front page has an AP photo for example. But this image doesn't have a separate by line or copyright notice. Madmax3221:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image has circulated a lot on the web, both on wiki and on fotw. The BBC journalist has probably retrieved the file from either wiki or fotw. Note that there has been discussion as well on fotw regarding the correctness of the flag. --Soman19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point. If it is asserted, which discussions both at en wiki and fotw point towards, that the flag is incorrect then why keep it? Wiki projects are not mirrors of fotw. --Soman12:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very reluctantly rename to Monatio flag.svg. Unfortunately the problem is that this is NOT the Khmer Rouge flag. It is an incorrectly version of a flag used by a short lived group of Khmer nationalists called the Monatio. By early '75 Phnom Penh was almost the last area of the country not already under control of the KR. In the last hours before the KR arrived in the city several desperate schemes were tried and generally went astray. One of these schemes was an attempted pre-surrender coup by a group of opportunists who perhaps thought that they could grab/hang onto some power and authority by taking over the town just before the KR arrived and then handing over with a smile to Pol Pot's boys. This group raced around parts of the center of town on a few trucks waving something similar to this flag as they went. This flag is visible in a short youtube clip, probably culled from BBC archives. This group were photographed and even briefly filmed by some journalists [118]- causing some confusion that persists to this day (on the internet at least). In the film the bottom diagonal of the flag appears to be blue not black. Some sources have this group led by Lon Non the president's brother, others say it was a group of students. François Ponchaud in his eyewitness account identifies them as the Monatio or Movement Nationale. Once the KR arrived in the part of town where the Monatio were hangin' they apparently took them away and executed the lot - so much for political opportunism. In 1998 the BBC used a similar flag to decorate an article about the surrender of Khieu Samphan and Nuon Chea[119]. Finally a year or so ago a UK record label released a CD called Songs Of The Khmer Rouge[120] and printed on the CD itself was the damn flag above.[121] This damn CD and their poorly sourced flag has created all sorts of confusion - though generally only among web denizens. The actual DK/KR flag, that flew over border posts, army barracks and even outside the UN for a dozen plus years is the red and yellow specimen here. Interestingly, the King Father Norodom Sihanouk produced a film about the '75 mix up and the Monatio which was shown here in Phnom Penh in December last year. The correct flag is so widely recognized (outside the internet) that it seems silly to have to discuss it, it's like arguing about the UN flag. However, for doubters the DK constitution says:
Article 16. The design and significance of the Kampuchean national flag are as follows: The background is red, with a yellow three-towered temple in the middle. The red background symbolises the revolutionary movement, the resolute and valiant struggle of the Kampuchean people for the liberation, defence, and construction of their country. The yellow temple symbolises the national traditions of the Kampuchean people, who are defending and building the country to make it ever more prosperous.[122]
The problem with this file is the name - which is just incorrect - and the lack of an explanation. In the last few months I've had to revert this flag and explain across several articles. This incorrect info from En wikipedia is also mirrored across several other wikipedias and other sites - deleting this damn flag would prevent further drive-by flag switches. When I manage to get some decent sources for a Monatio article, I can upload another copy with a blue lower diagonal for that article. Cheers, Paxse06:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So basically one has to remove the image from all wikis first, before it can be deleted here? The problem is that the term 'flag of the Khmer Rouge' is somewhat ambigous, it could refer to CPK flag or the DK flag, and so I cannot really just substitute the image for another. There are some languages were I could do the editing, but far from all. --Soman18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I would like to say is, that we do not delete superseded images any more. If yome Wikipedia chooses to use a "wrong image", it is allowed to do that. We on Commons do usually not decide, what is correct. So if you think that the image should be replaced on all Wiki projects than do that. I will keep the image for now. --ALE! ¿…?08:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyright violation. This picture shows a sculpture of Bruce Naumann. It is not public domain.--09:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep ffs it's a hole in the ground. There's no way artistic expression covers that. Freedom of panorama doesn't necessarily apply as the work is not permanently installed (See [123]). -Nard20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep ffs it's a hole in the ground. There's no way artistic expression covers that. Freedom of panorama doesn't necessarily apply as the work is not permanently installed (See [124]). -Nard20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, is this a permanent hole on the ground? I can't imagine that someone would dig a "temporary" hole on the ground like that and then fill it up later. Wooyi22:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heee funny joke. The link I gave clearly states the work had been moved. What was done with the hole under the slabs of concrete when it was moved isn't said. But as I've mentioned, it resembles any number of concrete drainage ditches, public squares, and pools that slope down towards the middle. You know, other "square depressions". I've uploaded Image:blue drain.jpg and Image:the ducks are gone.jpg as examples. This can't be eligible for copyright. Anyway the image appears to have been taken in Germany where there is freedom of panorama (but where the standard for creativity is also ridiculously low, so YMMV) -Nard23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Lack of copyright information, information given is conflicting (at EN.WP it was GFDL, TR.WP it is public domain); low quality, as to appear that it is the not the work of the uploader (and, as such, is possibly a copyvio). Iamunknown06:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Hi, I am the one who uploaded this image, I am presently trying to start a series of encyclopedic articles on the french wikipedia about video cameras. See first project in the works here in the french WPUtilisateur:Capbat/infobox I am presently learning the ways to make an Infobox for video cameras in french as part of my learning process in wikipedia. I have dowloaded this image from Canon Inc web site. This image is used in advertisement at Canon but also all over in specialized magazine, newspaper and in other web sites. Due to the general usage of the image, it is probaly of unrestricted usage. I have written to Canon asking them for permission but this process is very long. Should I use another copywrith permission? [[User:Capbat|Capbat]] 14:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore I see that the following image: Sony dv handycam.jpg is used in commons. Aren't we taling about the same thing. Should I just change my type of copywrith permission? [[User:Capbat|Capbat]] 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Everything is copyrighted. Why should it be under a free license, because it was a „Postwurfsendung“? Regards, --Polarlys12:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
So explain. Country X takes the pic in theri country, and then blackmails or tries to sell the pic of their own president, which they can take any time, back to Syria. I do no think that tha is reasonalbe ? --Edgar Allan Poe14:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was created in Syria and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired according to the Syrian law. This work meets one of the following conditions:
It is a photographic work and ten years have elapsed since the end of the year in which it was created.
It is a broadcast program, or movie and fifty years have elapsed since the end of the year in which it was created.
It is another type of work and fifty years have elapsed since the end of the year in which the author died.
To uploader: Please provide where the image was first published and who created it.
Where does it say, on the template that the image has to ge a governmemt one. It only has to be created in SYRIA (not neccesary government), more than 10 years ago. --Edgar Allan Poe15:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The country-data website is a copy of the Library of Congress 'Country Studies Series', and that was from 1987, so that photograph was probably obtained from the Syrian embassy back then. The same photo is on the library of congress website goto http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/ and select syria under 'political dynamics' Madmax3221:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jeff G. ou know the cource, and now know the year (1987), so please clasr this. It is a government image, so it according to the template it can stay. Let us just cear this : "if the pic can stay or cannot" --Edgar Allan Poe10:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The best argument I saw in this discussion was "Nobody would sell the embassy the pis of their own president. That would be insane." Seriously, the Syrian government would not buy a picture of their own president. -Nard20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was very nice and well done :) But in the end all we really need is the loc crediting the Syrian government and the fact the image is past the PD date. -Nard19:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I kind of wonder if this Syria PD template is correct, Syria is party to the Berne Convention, can they really only have 10 years since publication for all photographic works? This website only mentions 50 years since publication [126] --Madmax3210:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Regardless, it is likely {{PD-US}} because it was published before 1923. I realize we have no specific proof of publication, but considering it was taken in 1904 it is almost certainly PD. Calliopejen21:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep any derivative use is de minimis. It's a picture of a tv in a room and the tv isn't being used to show anything recognizable...which would be required to make it derivative. -Nard20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
uhh he died in 1856 so how is it not PD unless the photographer was playing with a camera as a baby and accidentally took a photo and lived to a very old age. anyway UK government photos are PD if it was a photograph taken before 1st January 1957 Madmax3211:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image is wrong. Italy is marked as if gay marriage were allows in certain areas, but since Italy is not a federal state, and marriage issues are sole competence of the national government, and no form of civil unione is allowed in Italy, this is a nonsense. Please either correct the image or delete it. --User:G.dallorto 16:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto16:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for calling my attention on the other wrong image. I put a request on it too. They are both wrong. FSHL, the image can be also corrected, rather than just deleted. (On the other hand, a wrong image, is relevant for ddeletion indeed). Only, I don't know how to do it. What about the author? He sure knows how to do it. Martin, could you please kindly do it yourself? Here is a correct image: Image:Samesex_Map_Europe.png --User:G.dallorto20:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, why you don't simply correct it? Wouldn't be more logical rather than saying "oppose, even if it wrong"? Furthermore, what is an encyclopedia doing wioth WRONG documents? --User:G.dallorto12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I uploaded this, as FBI fugitive photo, but it was deleted before when it was uploaded by someone else, I would like to see a clarification of whether it is suitable for commons. Wooyi15:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well it's no work of the US government that is for sure. They use this image free of copyright because of 'U.S. sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA, 50 U.S.C. Chapter 35). As such, it is believed that the corresponding U.S. copyright is "blocked property"' (quoting from english wikipedia) Technically that doesn't make it public domain, because saudi arabia is a party to the berne convention since 2004, I don't know what ramifications that has on bin laden images.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep The permission says you can use, modify and publish for business or non-profit use, then says you can't create a competing clip art collection. Copyright restrictions on compiling data are void under U.S. law (See [129]). -Nard21:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, the license is unfree even without the restriction on compiling the data as direct redistribution of the files is also prohibited. -Nard00:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
On this image, a woman, behind a poster showing Aung San Suu Kyi behind a portrait of her father.
en:Image:AungSanSuuKyi-1001.jpg was uploaded, firston WP-EN, on January 11, 2007 and then on Commons on June 20, 2007. Turkish Press article, using AFP article and image, was published on June 4, 2006.
The question is: the image are not the same, but is someone (the person who has uploaded the image on WP-EN) allowed to photograph a poster from Aung San Suu Kyi, from an unknown author, and then say it is his own work? AFP doesn't have this problem, because they used someone in front of the poster, and there is some original work.
I could also use any image from agencies, photograph any of their images without any original work and then say it's my own work.
I transferred the image from WP-EN to Commons on June 20. It seemed to be okay (public domain), but admittedly I didn't do the research that Hégésippe did. I don't have any concerns if it is deleted. If it is a copy-vio, it should be deleted straight away. Thanks, Hégésippe, for checking that out. Jcart153412:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Please open your eys to read. This Image is NOT a cpoyvio. All Wikipedians on this Image allowed me to make this Image. If you can not belive this ask them on your own. Best regards, __ ABF ____07:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, incompatible licensing between CC and GFDL makes this image unusable (free licensing with licensing restrictions makes User:N unhappy as well). -Nard23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to have to get the uploaders of all the source images to retag them to add the GFDL as a multi-license. For strict licensing compliance we can't just take your word for it. -Nard16:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted: incompatible licensing. The Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike and GNU Free Documentation License are mutually incompatible. This image can be undeleted once all authors have agreed to release their images under the terms of the GFDL or CC-BY-SA. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I don't know how I could add a free licence - its my own photo. So I uploaded it again with a new name incl. clicking on the licence. Zonki16:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep come on.. non enyclopedic yet neither is the gallery of penises, fellatio, pornography and ejaculation vids available here. Besides this is probably more encyclopedic than the ones I mentioned. Madmax3200:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of how it could be used to illustrate an encyclopedia article. It isn't a particularly good illustration of its putative subject due to the lighting, angle and highlights. Walter Siegmund(talk)01:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing wrong with this image (well, except the quality somehow reminds me of a screen cap, but that's probably just copyright paranoia). -Nard20:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
So, if the uploader made a small mistake specifying the copyright then why don't you contact him to have him correct himself? This is a beautiful picture and I vote for keep: Roman Czyborra22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, was uploaded by troll banned from ru: long ago. On Russian Wikipedia, he often uploaded images under false license claims. MaxSem13:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Dear Polarlys. They are NOT copyvios from web, they are own work, taken by Handy. And even if they are bad quality they are relevant nd I think so they can stay. (I´m going to rework them when I have more time) __ ABF ____07:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Polarlys: bad quality, on uploader’s request
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Please ask your friend, to send an explicit permission to use this files under the mentioned license to OTRS. --Polarlys02:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A license is a contract that must be able to stand up in court as well as possible. As you already indicate that a verbal permission is impossible to check, your vote to keep appears to be peculiar. Siebrand11:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's very easy to change the template from {{PD-self}} to {{PD-author}} – and it should not be a reason for deletion – and we're currently working on getting the permission on the paper/e-mail this time. odder18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason to delete: the author is mentioned, the licence is given, the uploader is trustworthy (known within the Polish community by his real name/place of work). // tsca[re]21:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has to provide a suitable permission, user, admin, bureaucrat. Obviously the user is not familiar with Commons (whenever he is sysop), it even resulted in the upload of several hundred private party pictures. --Polarlys23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted for now. No written permission was sent to OTRS. When in the future this permission was to be sent, please ask an admin with OTRS rights to restore the images. --ALE! ¿…?09:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Joymaster's mistake that he hasn't uploaded is as his own work - then nobody would ask for ridicolous prove that 'he is not a camel' ... --WarX13:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading these files as „own work“ would be a lie (obviously Mr. Andrachiewicz is the author). OTRS permission is always required. ––Polarlys14:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure ... especially if in eg. Polish law only written, paper statement is acceptable for license agreement. Second thing is that e-mail means completely nothing - there is no way to ensure that it's really authors address. And third thing is that if getting photos from someone is hard, asking him to send some e-mails to prove this is ultra-hard or even impossible (espacially when you get images by drinking vodka with someone). --WarX15:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
All images says: Source own work, author my friend but are tagged as self made PD.
Can't found any permission information by his friend. GeorgHH17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's very easy to change the template from {{PD-self}} to {{PD-author}} – and it should not be a reason for deletion – and we're currently working on getting the permission on the paper/e-mail this time. odder18:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted for now. No written permission was sent to OTRS. When in the future this permission was to be sent, please ask an admin with OTRS rights to restore the images. --ALE! ¿…?09:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Have any questions? Wriote to admin of 3elt site and ask why I write that this picture are GFDL? It;s is very difficult for you? Joymaster23:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC) PS. Don't forget write to him, why you're q? :)[reply]
No, you are the uploader, you have to give all information which allow other users to verify the licence status. An administrator schould know about this... --GeorgHH08:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these files are copyvios, we should reconsider the user’s status here („Administrator access is granted to known and trusted members of the community who are familiar with the policies of the Commons“). I also had to delete several hundred party pictures by this user some weeks ago (COM:SCOPE). What about pictures like Image:Depeche Mode - Touring The Angel - Praga - 23.01.06 - 058 - RD.jpg? „Source: own work“, Author: a name and a link without GFDL --Polarlys20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression that this own work text is forced there automatically by the software unless you're careful (which becomes harder to deal with when uploading a large number of files)? It's also tempting to leave it as it is if one's not very fluent in English. Of course it's no excuse, the information must be correct; however I wouldn't consider it the indication of intentional misleading. // tsca[re]22:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A license is a contract that must be able to stand up in court as well as possible. As you already indicate that a verbal permission is impossible to check, your vote to keep appears to be peculiar. Siebrand11:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The permission is mentioned here per the rules of Polish wikipidia (trusted users do not have to show the email itself) "pod warunkiem każdorazowego podania źródła" means "as long as each time the source of the data is given",
The proof here is Joymaster's writen claim (on the mentioned pl wikipedia page) that he has recived permission to use these images, if any potential problems arise we can claim that it was Joymaster who mislead us. Mieciu K214:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting policy. However, this is not the Polish language Wikipedia. Here even trusted users have to show a permission; it even has to be archived in OTRS. Please help in in acheiving this, or the above mentioned media have to be deleted. Cheers! Siebrand14:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted for now. No written permission was sent to OTRS. When in the future this permission was to be sent, please ask an admin with OTRS rights to restore the images. --ALE! ¿…?11:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by WJBscribe: uploader request - wrong file uploaded
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Ayn Rand died in 1982 and I seriously doubt that a owner of a web site for clip art owns the license to this photo. Thuresson10:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
(translation) Violating privacy of the object of the photograph by the photographer himself. For detailed discussion see the avobe link. --Calvero10:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I've translated the nominator's comment, I didn't understand what he's saying. Note that the man in the photograph, the photograhper, and the uploader are the same. --Calvero10:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as above. In addition, Commons is not Japanese Wikipedia. Don't even try to delete images that does not fall under Commons' Deletion Policy by bringing that of Japanese Wikipedia. Yassie22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Artist died in 1991, sculpture not covered by freedom of panorama (like some of his other sculptures here on Commons) --Polarlys02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep It's another angle of some photos already in the photo series. It could have some uses. I find it strange the uploader would nominate this for deletion though. -Nard23:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image appears unused in any of the wikis. Doubting the consent of a crowd of people who are obviously looking at the camera is a little far-fetched however. -Nard17:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There are two painters with the name Weenix (father and son). Jan Baptist Weenix (1621-1660) has the Category:Jan Baptist Weenix, his son Jan Weenix the Category:Jan Weenix. There is no painter Jan Baptist Weenix with the lifedates (1640-1719). The category is empty. --Rlbberlin 17:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC) --Rlbberlin17:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This upload here is an attempt to bypass an ongoing deletion discussion at the English Wikipedia (see w:en:Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_23). The discussion there is that the image has no potential use as an encyclopaedia article, since doing so contravenes the basic project policy relating to living persons. There is no sibling project that has a use for such an image. No Wikimedia project has any business embarrassing and distressing this person in the future as xe grows up by employing a naked picture of xem taken without xyr consent when xe was a child. (There are also plenty of pictures of the event in question that include only consenting adults and do not run the same risk of future distress and embarrassment.) As such it should be deleted in accordance with Commons' deletion policy for being "not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project". Uncle G22:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I can understand the deletion request (kind of hard with the made up pronouns in it) this request is founded on 2 grounds:
1) bypass ongoing deletion discussion. False. As I have noted on the image's talk page, it has survived two prior deletion attempts and is expected to survive this one. This is an OTRS confirmed image, there's no reason for it not to reside on Commons.
2) Of no use in any project. False. It was in use in Wikipedia for over a year before Uncle G decided to remove it on moralistic grounds (en:Talk:Nackt_Radtour). It is a picture from a nude bike race in Germany, where local law does not prohibit public nudity in any way. I can't see why, for example, the German Wikipedia might not want to use this picture if they decide to start an article on the naked bike race, since it takes place in Germany. -Nard22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image is potentially illegal according to Florida law since it allows a great deal of interpretation on what is or is not child porn, to quote; "actual lewd exhibition of the genitals" [130] clearly this photo does that, and since it isn't defined more specifically you can't say this doesn't violate Florida law in good faith, I recommend delete unless actual legal advice is offered and not just laymans POV. I agree that this is a violation of personality rights, but we won't find out until the young child grows up and takes legal action. Madmax3223:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Lewd" means in a sexually appealing way. Images of naked kids are not per se illegal, because they are not pornographic unless they are obscene or sexually appealing. A guy holding his kid in a country where such public nudity is perfectly legal does not pass that test. If it did, the people walking behind them in clothing would not casually be passing by as if it were nothing. -Nard00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imho your definition of lewd is merely a point of view, even though I think arguing over definitions is pointless, lewd can be defined as sexual or just obscene, such as nudity (reading from a dictionary or by it's popular use). Besides just how exactly would you define which image is sexual or not? The Florida law does not go into the detail that you are using to define what would be lewd or not, it just says 'lewd exhibition of genitals'. to me walking naked down the street would be a lewd exhibition of genitals, it doesn't say masturbation or any sexual act. And that photo was taken in Germany not Florida so your observation about peoples reactions is besides the point and would not prove anything (people walk by people getting mugged too in real life) Madmax3201:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of points:
(1) There is no sibling project that has a use for such an image - Commons does not limit itself to content strictly on terms of utility in relation to other Wikimedia projects. Media may not necessarily be encyclopedic, yet those are not deleted.
(2) Legal grounds for removal - I have yet to see anything other than a bare citation of law that suggests this image is illegal under Florida state law; I am not convinced. If someone is aware of an interpretation of the law—whether as established in case law or as elaborated by a legal scholar—please bring it forth. Simply stating the law is, IMO, insufficient to say that the image should be deleted. Further, if there is a serious legal issue, the image will simply be deleted.
Keep No valid reason for deletion has been presented. Also, I spoke personally with the owner of the image who knows the people involved and everything was cleared and also cleared through Wikipedia licensing process. Dandelion101:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some other arguments:
Images depicting families participating in social nudity events help _illustrate visually_ arguments that casual nudity is embraced by many cultures across the globe and they reinforce arguments that non-sexualized nudity is harmelss and even beneficial for children. See articles at the bottom of the Nudity and children page. This isn't some kind of imaginary concept, people advocate and live a body-positive lifestyle that also includes incorporating family-friendly social nudity into their everyday lives. Images like this make these discussions far less abstract. Arguing that these kinds of images are immoral or irresponsible are being put foward by people who believe that social nudity in the family is inappropriate. Public displays of this lifestyle are a very visual and tangible validation of this that some people just are not willing to accept. That is why these topics deserve a space on wikipedia. The law is different in different parts of the world and these issues are being played out in different events. It is true... a picture is worth a thousand words. Just pick up a National Geographic magazine for crying out loud and expand your mind.
Nackt Radtour is a public event, just like World Naked Bike Ride and all other clothing-optional bike rides. We have children participate in our Seattle ride too and those pictures are also live currently on the internet. We have large people, skinny people, democrats, republicans, asian, white, latino, you name it. The more diverse a ride looks the more it will attract a diverse set of potential riders. These photos in Germany were uploaded so participants and outsiders could have some idea of what the ride is like. The fact that participants of all ages and families participate adds a sense of safety for those who might be deciding if they want to participate or not. If families did not participate then these events it would be harder to classify as family-friendly events. It really scares me that some here are trying to argue that these images are lewd or sexy or exploitative.
Re: permissions. I would add that a film named "Radtour-Classics 2001: Nackt-Radtour in und um Karlsruhe am 14. 6. 2001" from this ride was also cleared by filmmaker to screen at the Naked Freedom Film Festival taking place in Seattle in 2004 at the Seattle Art Museum and 911 Media Arts Center and persons depicted in the image were all present in that as well. It was removed at the last minute due to a German -> English translation dispute and because an early trailer screening suggested that a 45 minute film on the subject was just boring. http://www.bodyfreedom.org/nfff/lineup.html . The ad for the festival itself featured persons of all ages, including children. See http://www.bodyfreedom.org/media_projects/NFFFstranger3C.jpg
People of all ages participate in these events all over the world. Diversity in age, sex and ethnicity is represented in popular events such as these. Family-friendly events involve participants of all ages. Dandelion104:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given personality rights issues. Images on Commons must comply with personality rights laws of countries such as French and Germany (see fr:Droit à l'image or de:Recht am eigenen Bild if your unfamiliar with these) - we need the consent of the people in the image. Projects that do not need to comply with the such laws (e.g. en.wiki) may choose whether or not to keep a local copy, but it does not appear suitable for Commons. WjBscribe21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They consented to the photo being taken, they also have to waive their rights in terms of distribution. We really should have an OTRS email from the subjects agreeing to the image being released under the GFDL. WjBscribe22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively new to Commons so this hardline resistance to pictures of people on Commons baffles me. Please point me at the appropriate policy pages. Where exactly is the line drawn? Is it famous people versus non famous? -Nard23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons:Licensing#Country-specific laws. Commons policy is that images have to be legally usable across projects. That means they have to comply with the governing law of the major projects. So the problem isn't Commons policy as such, its the privacy laws of several European countries - but yeah its a public/private distinction. As well as the photographer, private people keep rights to control the use and distribution of photos of them. It is standard practice on Commons to delete images that violate personality laws - this obviously doesn't affect en.wiki which can host such images (as Florida law does not recognise personality rights). WjBscribe00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the German article (using Babelfish) and apparently the law exempts "Pictures of meetings, elevators and similar procedures, in which the explained persons participated". Apparently consent to appear in a group photo counts as consent of publication. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -Nard00:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong as such - but that only part of it. The group exemption as I understand it is for when there are many people and individuals aren't very distinct i.e. crowd shots where there are loads of people. I don't think it applies just because several people are in the photo - it just covers situations where there are so many people that its impractical for rights to be retained. For example in this photo, I don't think we'd need all 8 people's consent - just the guy in the foreground and the child's legal guardian (and possibly the man with the moustache and sunglasses). The nudity isn't the problem IMO, just the fact that these are idenitifiable private people. WjBscribe02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the adults (particularly the one holding the child) may be identifiable. The child herself really is not identifiable. For one thing, most of her face is covered by her hand and her bangs; for another, she is today six years older than she was when that picture was taken. Children's appearance changes a lot in six years. That said, the fact that this image has already been published on the Internet before it was uploaded to Wikipedia strongly suggests that the subjects have agreed to publication. —Angr09:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about the child, I concede that - but we do still have the problem with at least the last man holding her. WjBscribe12:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um dude, I've read about your issues, and while I respect them, your private issues about being "hurt" don't apply to non abusive pictures such as this one. -Nard21:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hornetman16 left me a message on my talk page asking me not to insult him. I am referring to his comments on the English Wikipedia about how abusive child porn pictures have apparently ruined his life and how he's calling the cops and the press on Wikipedia (see w:en:Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_23). I can't see how I've insulted him by trying to explain I respect his pain but that has nothing to do with naked people in general. -Nard23:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hornetman your arguments here are bordering on the disruptive. There is nothing wrong with nudity - its a perfectly innocent scene. There is in my opinion a problem (as I state above) with personality rights, but the fact that some of the people are nude seems pretty irrelevant to me. WjBscribe02:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WJBScribe's comment re. "personality rights" of certain European countries. It's a legal issue, IMO. Regards accusations of "Ewwww!! Icky kid pr0n!!!, etc, etc", I don't buy that for a second. I have a daughter of similar age, as it happens and when I look at the picture in question, I see nothing sexual about it in the slightest. Not a bit. Major hint here: Nudity does not equate to sex. QED - Alison☺04:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the proof they're not raping her (time to get back on topic) I just want this photo deleted cause it this web site (including Wikipedia) unfit for eye's under 18. Just think what kind of message your sending to other kids that girls age. This is the message:
It's okay to take naked photo of your self and post them on the internet.
That's not the message you want to send 3 and 4 year olds. If that heppens their parent could end up in jail for being caught in posseson of Child Porn and that would screw the kids life up cause then they would be sent to foster homes. Now, answer me a question. Do you really want to do that to a kids life?-- Hornetman16 05:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, your ... ummm ... worldview is a little twisted. They is no child rape here. There is nudity. When I look at that picture, I see a bunch of nude cyclists getting ready for a bike run, dad is holding up his daughter like ya do, and she's sucking her thumb and nestling into his shoulder as little kids do. Big whoop. "Just think what kind of message your sending to other kids that girls age" - let me tell you what message I see there; the message that there's nothing inherently wrong with nudity - how about that message? Nothing. You're being phenomenally prudish to the point of being a little warped in your outlook here. There is no rape here. Rape is a big nasty word, let me tell you, and your blithe throwing around of it just pressed one of my buttons here. Anyone who's ever been raped in real-life would be mightily angry with you right now for equating a pic of a bunch of happy, nude cyclists with rape. "Rape" is not your toy-analogy here, and I'm not impressed in the slightest with your trivialising of it (yes, that's right). So drop it already - Alison☺05:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I brought it up is cause I've had 6 Girlfriends that have been raped in their lives and I know how much it hurt them. My mom was also raped by her Grandfather when she was a kid and she crys everytime she talks about it. And you forgot the rest of the message anyway!- Hornetman16 05:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should know better. Seriously. You don't know just how much it hurts until it happens to you. Your comparison is sickening. This is my final comment on this deletion. I've made my opinion known so job done - Alison☺06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Hornetman16 - I’m Roman Catholic and I can’t agree to your fundamentalist attitude. Your rape argument is furthermore IMHO absolute irrelevant for this image - rather pray for assigning of your sins or your relatives... --FSHL18:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the discussion about religion appears to be over, Delete per WJBscribe. This image is not pornographic - it is not a sexualized image that focuses on the child. However, privacy and other legal issues do come into play here with regards to other people in the image. --Coredesat07:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If I get this right, the only 'valid' reason given so far is Florida law. If I have understood it right, then that depiction would also have to be 'lewd'. While mores obviously change, and interpretations of the laws even more, this image does not contain 'lewdness', i.e. sexual intent or showing off. It also think it does not break German law in such a respect - I grew up with legal sex help books (some given to us in school!) which had much more explicit images (of young teenagers, not kids, accepted, but still much younger than what nowadays raises cries of hue). Ingolfson10:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless an instance can be given of Florida law holding a similarly asexual image to be lewd. As for personality rights, this was a public event. --Simonxag00:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. No consensus to delete. Furthermore, the personality rights issue appears to be absent. Just take a look at the source site (lots of nudists, even at the Love Parade 2006 in Berlin). As far as the license is concerned: there's a release filed at OTRS. Lupo14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The BIPM bureau do not allow modifications to their material, "Reproduction is authorised, except where otherwise stated, if the source is acknowledged and if the information reproduced is not subject to any distortion, addition or mutilation". Thuresson10:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
not necessary in PD, there is no statement insist that is in PD. In fact, use rama's formula: 1933(I assume that it is taken in 1933) + 90(assume the photo taker dead when he was 100 years old and took this when he was 10) + 70 = 2093, then this photo may be in PD until 2093. Chanueting02:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with your estimate that this image would be from 1933; it clearly is much earlier than that. There are several pictures of Paul Ehrenfest from the 1920s, and on those pictures he looks older than on this one. My estimate is that Ehrenfest is in his 30's on this picture, which would date the picture to the 1910s; perhaps it was was taken in 1912, the year he arrived in Leiden. That puts it well before 1923, and hence early enough for {{PD-US}}. JdH14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Niels Bohr Albert Einstein by Ehrenfest.jpg was taken by Ehrenfest according to the description (and title), and he died in 1933. It is PD-Old. Keep that one for sure. The others... that is harder. This looks like a faculty photo, but it's hard to be sure. It's from a donated collection at the Smithsonian Institute; it sounds like the collector obtained prints from various sources, and the identity of the true original author is probably long lost. May qualifiy as {{Anonymous-EU}}, but that is borderline. Carl Lindberg03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure (like 90% sure) that Image:Ehrenfeststudents.jpg was taken in the backyard of Ehrenfest's private home at the Witte Rozenstraat 57, in Leiden. The setting is a private one; Ehrenfest is known to have socialized a lot with his students. Ehrenfest was also an avid photographer, so most likely he asked one of the bystanders to take the picture, using his own camera. Who that bystander was is anybody's guess; perhaps his wife w:Tatyana Afanasyeva, but we simply don't know. KeepJdH10:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
not necessary in PD, there is no statement insist that is in PD. In fact, use rama's formula: 1933(I assume that it is taken in 1933) + 90(assume the photo taker dead when he was 100 years old and took this when he was 10) + 70 = 2093, then this photo may be in PD until 2093. Chanueting02:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with your estimate that this image would be from 1933; it clearly is much earlier than that. There are several pictures of Paul Ehrenfest from the 1920s, and on those pictures he looks older than on this one. My estimate is that Ehrenfest is in his 30's on this picture, which would date the picture to the 1910s; perhaps it was was taken in 1912, the year he arrived in Leiden. That puts it well before 1923, and hence early enough for {{PD-US}}. JdH14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Niels Bohr Albert Einstein by Ehrenfest.jpg was taken by Ehrenfest according to the description (and title), and he died in 1933. It is PD-Old. Keep that one for sure. The others... that is harder. This looks like a faculty photo, but it's hard to be sure. It's from a donated collection at the Smithsonian Institute; it sounds like the collector obtained prints from various sources, and the identity of the true original author is probably long lost. May qualifiy as {{Anonymous-EU}}, but that is borderline. Carl Lindberg03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure (like 90% sure) that Image:Ehrenfeststudents.jpg was taken in the backyard of Ehrenfest's private home at the Witte Rozenstraat 57, in Leiden. The setting is a private one; Ehrenfest is known to have socialized a lot with his students. Ehrenfest was also an avid photographer, so most likely he asked one of the bystanders to take the picture, using his own camera. Who that bystander was is anybody's guess; perhaps his wife w:Tatyana Afanasyeva, but we simply don't know. KeepJdH10:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Deleted by Drini: copyvio (wrongly tagged as selfmade) (dvd screenshot)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
A picture of a picture is considered a derivative work unless it is significantly different from the original (like a picture of a building with the portrait in the window). This image is not sufficiently different from the original portrait to make it unique and therefore is a copyvio. The person who took this picture can't release it under GFDL. Night Ranger21:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion request appears to be an end-run around the deletion request of PD-Sweden. However, I do note the name of the photographer and year of production are not indicated in the image description. Without that information this photo cannot be maintained. -Nard21:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the debate about the tag has anything to do with this deletion request. There are a number of problems with this image:
As you mentioned, it lacks a date and indication of the photographer
It looks like a studio portrait, so (a) with some research, it is possible that the photographer could be determined, and (b) I would be rather surprised if Swedish law considered studio photographs "simple photos" as opposed to "photographic works". In most other countries, studio portraits typically are works, AFAIK. If this is a work, {{PD-Sweden-photo}} is not applicable: the man shown is certainly older than 45 (unless he aged early :-) He was born in 1899), thus the image is post-1944.
The source site has apparently released the image under a "non-commercial only" license. (Though I don't see any such mention there. But my Swedish is basically non-existent. I'm guessing the text says "Here you can download high-resolution images of some members of the Wallenberg family, who held leading positions at the Enskilda Bank of Stockholm. You can also find short biographies of the respective persons, free to use.")
Hence: even ignoring the debate around the tag, we would need (a) sourced evidence that studio photos were "simple photographs", (b) a date (even 1969 might be a close call: I'm not too good at judging ages, but he might be in his early 70s), (c) a photographer, and (d) this "non-commercial" business would need to be cleared. Unless we get these: DeleteLupo22:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo, your proficiency in Swedish is amazing. Wallenberg was born in 1899 and he is pretty old on the photo so it is very possible that this is a photo from the 1970s anyway. Thuresson22:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic:It's a short text, and I had a lot of context. (I mean, it's about clear what you can do at that web page.) "ladda"→"laden"(de)/"load"(en), "högupplösta"→"hochauflösend"(de), "ledande"→"leading"(en), "finns"→"findest Du"(de)/"finnste"(de slang), "fria"→"free"(en), "användning"→"Anwendung"(de). Just some basic knowledge of other Germanic languages and educated guesswork. I lucked out. On a longer or more complicated text, I'd be hopelessly lost. And I certainly don't understand spoken Swedish. About the only sentence I know is "Ja talar inte Svenska", and I'm not even sure that is correct (but I guess it gets the point across :-). Lupo22:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Attribution seems a really odd license for a school crest. Especially since the description doesn't specify who should be attributed. Rat at WikiFur04:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Po wyslaniu do niego listu z zapytaniem o zdjecie na potrzeby Wikipedii, Larry odeslal te z adnotacja ze mozna je uzywac na licencji GPL ;-). -- lukaszb aka pio
After sending e-mail to him with question about photo for usage on Wikipedia, Larry has send this photo with adnotation that it can be used on GPL (from file description on pl.wiki)
What if, what if not? This doesn't help us even one step further. Get proper permission from the photographer, as we require on all pictures. --rtc09:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the template: "This image is missing permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to a webpage with an explicit permission. If you obtained such a permission via email, please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and reference it at upload". --Kjetil r20:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Because there is no solid proof that permission has been given by the AUTHOR, I've added a {{subst:npd}} tag to the image page. I feel that this course of action is prudent because even though the photo has been said by the person portrayed in the photo that it is available under the GPL, this information really needs to come from the author directly. Matt.T.91113:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Insufficient source. Template:PD-USGov-NIH indicates that the National Institutes for Health "frequently uses commercial images which are not public domain"; since the source is no longer available (and only a direct URL was ever given), the copyright status of this image cannot be verified. Iamunknown02:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was over 2 years ago, and at the time it WAS PD therefore should not be affected. This is used extensively by Wikinews and if this image was indeed a problem, it would have been dealt with when it was uploaded, or should have been. The user who uploaded it did so in good faith and is trusted. DragonFire102400:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, once something is released as pd, you can't take it back. It is forever pd. The question here is, can we verify if it was ever PD, and if we can't, should we trust the word of the original uploader. (I think anyways. if i'm wrong, please correct me). Bawolff06:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note: I examined every link in the site index that included "/NR/" (part of the URL given on the image description page) and multiple Google searches, but found no image of a trophy or award anywhere. I will e-mail the National Institutes of Health (at the e-mail address specified in their footer), and I suggest others do so as well. Also, I don't appreciate astroturfing. Thanks, --Iamunknown01:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats more of a note to myself then anything else. Honestly no one reads that, and its not likely to get a flood of annoying wikinewsies to come hunt you down for deleting our beloved trophy (although once it actually gets deleted that may happen...we're slightly touch with the trophy pict ). If my intent was to flood this dr, I would of posted it in n:WN:ALERT, n:template:wn news, and the topics for irc discussion (in which case there would be about twenty people here right now all yelling). The entire point of n:WN:CT is to list images you guys are about to delete, since the commonsticker bot does not list stuff on non main namespace pages, I feel the manual listing is definitly appropriate. Bawolff06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea about the policy on images that the source went away, but I've gathered from some places that generally, if it looks like the source worked at some point, then its okay unless proven otherwise (I have no idea if that is correct commons policy or not, just based on conversations i've over heard). If that is the case I think this image should be okay, as the source was there at one point, and although even experienced users make mistakes, it wasn't just uploaded by someone who created the account to solely upload the image. As well, if you compare it to some other images, it is much more likely to be okay then they are (yes I know, saying its okay because it is not as bad as something else, isn't exactly logical, but I still think it is useful to consider). Bawolff22:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also: If the result of this debate is Keep, I'd like to request Image:Wikinewscontestwinner.PNG is undeleted (its derivitave of this image). I know this is the wrong time to ask, but I'm going to be unable to edit for quite a while coming up, so I want to make sure the image isn't forgotten about (hope its okay I mention that here). Bawolff04:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an expired source is not reason to delete. If the image is used as much as claimed, someone would have noticed by now it was a copyvio. -Nard22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats probably a good step, but no one (to my knowledge) has been discussing it on the english language wikipedia. Bawolff04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, so why did you say, "I am asking this question as a result of discussions on the English-language Wikipedia. It is currently claimed that this image is in the public domain and, as such, that it may be freely by anyone for any purpose."? Bawolff01:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that this title has been used for vandalism (by uploading an offensive image after the previous deletion). If you delete this one, please either orphan it properly or replace it with deletedimage.jpg or similar. If you don't delete it, you should also bring back Image:Trophy.png which was derived from it. Kappa03:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, I am the original uploader. The original web page seems to have disappered when the NIH re-configured its newsrelease site with an RSS feed. The original photo looked something like this: http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/Exhibits/details.cfm?id=11 or this: http://www.drum.army.mil/sites/postnews/blizzard/blizzard_archives/hnews.asp?id=3&issuedate=12-1-2005 , a PR-snapshot by a government employee. I cropped out the background and touched up reflections of people and added a drop shadow to cover the jagged lines left by my alterations. Not my best work by any means. I double checked before using it because It was intended for use as a Barnstar-type award for Wikinews, and as one of the lead admin there at the time, I didn't want to use an image where the copyright is at dispute. -- Davodd05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Davodd. I plan on re-looking through the site index, because I would like this to have a source, but I think you have convinced me, or at least allayed my fear that the image was not free. (I originally thought it might be from a non-free stock source, but the description your provide, along with the similar examples, certainly seems plausible.) I will report back in a day or two. --Iamunknown20:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PD can't be taken into copyright with very few exceptions (or it would be free for copyright commandeering. This page is broken, but because the user is a credible one I'd like to lean to keep it. If we want to make sure, email NIH and ask. Wooyi01:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An update: I have not had the chance to look through the site index again, I have received a response from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) (you may review it at User:Iamunknown/Letter to NIH), and I am now going to withdraw this request for deletion. I should have contacted the uploader, Davodd, first, and I apologize for my lapse in judgement. I normally advocate deletion unless I can see real proof that an image is truly PD/CC/whatever copyright status; Davodd's comment above, however, is enough to convince me that the image from which the trophy originated is, in all likelihood, in the public domain.
I am sorry for any trouble I have caused the Wikinews project and the editors who have commented here. I should have investigated the copyright status of this image further prior to filing this deletion request. --Iamunknown06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete Image in low quality, unsharp (even at 548 × 411 pixels). This flowers are not identified, but if they were, there is no doubt that we have numerous images of a far better quality. Rama11:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Delete This is a copyrighted artistic work like any other. The author has not died more than 70 years ago, so delete it. — Xavier, 00:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep. Sorry, I don't get it. What is the copyrighted material you are refering to, the statue of JP II or the photo ? In the former case, freedom of panorama is allowed in Poland. In the latter case, I've no reason to doubt that User:Karolchelm is named Karol Nycz in real life (and that he lives in Chem). — Xavier, 01:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep freedom of panorama, as this image doesn't compete commercially with the original (the only restriction under Poland's law) and it wouldn't unless we built another statue. -Nard22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Yes, please delete all versions of it. Sorry, my delete request skills are lacking. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. --Mactographer00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, original picture has been marked for deletion. Please, could you provide us a link to those "university copyright restrictions for commercial use" ? — Xavier, 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link. Which reads as follows with emphasis added:
The content on this site is copyright protected; therefore, as copyright holders, the authors and/or UNCW possess the exclusive rights to copy, capture, use, display, perform, and prepare derivative works based upon the subject content. Use, capture, or republication of original content on this site for non-profit educational pursuits and scholarship is generally permitted without requesting permission from UNCW for the contemplated educational or scholarship use. Conversely, the copying, capture, republication, display, or use of content from this site for commercial or non-scholarship purposes without the express written permission of UNCW or the author(s) is expressly prohibited. Permissions for the use of content may be directed to the Director of Marketing and Issues Management at hurtm@uncw.edu, or (910) 962-3861.
I emailed the photographer who also happens to be the photography coordinator for the university, a Mr. James Moncrief, about the commercial aspects of someone downloading his photo from the Wikipedia site and he replied:
Thanks for following up Dave.
It appears Wikipedia does indeed offer unlimited use of any photo posted on their site, irregardless of attribution of copyright notification. That said, as a state institution, we cannot allow for the opportunity of possible “commercial-use” of any state-produced products. Specifically, if someone wanted to download the photo and sell a printed copy, as their own.
You should probably remove the image...
As I said, thanks for following up on this matter.
Best wishes,
Jamie Moncrief
Coordinator of Photographic Services
UNCW Marketing and Communications
University of North Carolina Wilmington
601 South College Road
Wilmington, NC 28403-5993
Photo Dept. 910/962-3601
Switchboard 910/962-3861 - Fax 910/962-3847
moncriefj-at-uncw-dot-edu
Sadly, without his permission for commercial usage, it appears to me that we have to take down this photo and all versions of it.
Thank you a lot for these details. Well, this seems to be in contradiction with what Jamie Moncrief wrote you last february: "All of our state-produced images are indeed public domain and can be re-published with appropriate credits.". However he has the right to change his mind and I'm ok to fulfill his wish to see his photos removed from Commons. Last thing I was wondering has been answered by Nard below. I guess we should add Image:Edgerton pid.jpg to this deletion request, right ? — Xavier, 10:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only does this fail the noncom test, a state university is not the federal government (as the current license states). -Nard07:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to confess that I am unable to fully understand all the inter-complexities of these copyright rules and regs. Mr. Moncrief says his images are PD, but the university web site says they are copyrighted and can only be used for non-commercial uses. And likewise, I don't really fully understand all the copyright versions that Wikipedia and Wiki-commons uses. That's why I more or less only upload my own images for use. I suppose the Image:Edgerton pid.jpg should go too. I forgot about that one. --Mactographer16:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask him to send an official statement to permissions-en@wikimedia.org which includes the exact file names on Wikimedia projects of the affected files. The responsible people at OTRS will sort it out. As to the license tag, only US FEDERAL works are PD. This university is under state jurisdiction and is not affected by that rule. -Nard16:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about US copyright law but if he took thoses photographs while working for the UNCW, I would assume that the university owns the copyright and, in february, he had no right to put those pictures in PD unilaterally. Just a guess. — Xavier, 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Mr. Moncrief's main concerns seem to be attribution and commercial uses, how about asking him to release at least the Burns image under the GFDL? That would ensure attribution and make stand-alone commercial use very unlikely because the full text of the GFDL would have to be reproduced, too. Lupo14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The photographer of these photos is not identified, nor is the copyright holder. Ordinarily photos taken at US military property by private citizens are owned by the private individuals themselves, not the military. The only way the government could take possession of the copyright would be by seizure. That has obviously not happened (or these photos would never be seen) and even if it did, 17 USC 105 only excludes actual works of the government from copyright, not works it obtains some other way. No matter how you look at it, without proof these photos were actually taken by someone in the course of their official duties, they must be deleted. -Nard20:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Holland Yakima photo most likely was taken by a private photographer, so I'll move it to en.Wikipedia and put a fair use rationale on it. The FairchildB52Crash photo, however, was taken by a U.S. government employee, because that flight was officially documented by the US Air Force since it was an official event and was to conclude with an official ceremony. I'll change that photo license. Cla6801:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get confirmation now by emailing the website owner from where the photos come from. If he/she can't confirm that they're government/public domain, I'll change them to fair use rationale. Cla6803:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this a still from video footage which was taken by US air force employees or airmen as this website confirms in detail [131] In fact I can confirm that the hollandB-52Yakima is a still from a video footage available on youtube, actually Image:FairchildB52Crash.jpg is not a still from the same footage, but could still be made by a US airforce employee Madmax3203:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that video, the closest frame to FairchildB52Crash2.jpg is this one. You can see that in the video, the angle is somewhat different and the image quality is drastically lower than in FairchildB52Crash2.jpg. —the preceding unsigned comment was added byMalfita (talk • contribs)
Closing; discussion inactive since June. Kept the two said to be by US military photographers; deleted Image:HollandB-52Yakima.jpg. -- Infrogmation18:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The image is wrong and need updating. Italy is marked as if civil unione were allowed in certain areas and in other ones not, whereas Italy is not a federal state, and marriage issues are sole competence of the national government, and no form of civil union is allowed in Italy, therefore this is simply a nonsense. The best solution would be correcting the wrong image rather than deleting it. Could anyone correct it, please? Here is a correct image: Image:Samesex_Map_Europe.png --User:G.dallorto 20:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto20:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I am the upoloader, at that time I could not upload with the same name, so I had to reupolad again after light fixing. I am sorry I never finished the deletion request. I think you can use speedy deletion. Cheers --Sailko16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I? Read up on copyright in the U.S., or provide a source backing your claim! Oh well, I'll give you a whole set of classes of works: any published work published 1923 or later that has a X-years-p.m.a. country as its country of origin of an author who died more than X years ago but on or after January 1, 1996-X. For 70 years p.m.a.-countries, this means authors who died after 1925 but before (currently) 1937. That's the effect of the copyright restorations of the URAA in the U.S. A concrete example is Image:1924WOlympicPoster.jpg. Lupo21:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. PD-US is intended to be used for U.S. works only. (All country-specific tags apply only to works that have that country as their country of origin.) This tag applies to non-U.S. works only. It appears to be intended to cover the second part of the requirement at COM:L, namely that foreign works must also be PD in the U.S. The tag refers to the URAA cut-off year: foreign works that were PD in their source country in 1996 were not eligible for copyright restoration in the U.S. The tag is not to be used on its own, but always in conjunction with some other country-specific tag. Lupo08:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the tag appears to be unused at present, though. But I think it's an excellent idea (comes from en-WS, AFAIK). If we want to take our own policy at COM:L seriously, this tag should be a required component of any country-specific tag (except the US tags, of course). Lupo08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but why this sentence 'and was never published in the US prior to that date', that would not effect the copyright regardless Madmax3216:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the tag is a bit oversimplified. If a work was published in the U.S., properly registered, and, if necessary, the copyright properly renewed, it is copyrighted in the U.S. even if it may have fallen in the public domain in its source country either before or after 1996. The URAA has no bearing on works that were still copyrighted in the U.S. on the URAA date. If the work was published but the U.S. copyright lapsed because it was not renewed, or because the work was published without copyright notice, or due to some other failure to meet the U.S. regulations, then the URAA with its 1996 date applies again. The URAA applies only to foreign published works that were not (or no longer) copyrighted in the U.S. on January 1, 1996. (And for countries who joined the Berne Convention or the WTO etc. after 1996, their adherence date is the URAA date, not January 1, 1996.) So, yes, the tag might need to be rephrased a bit, but that doesn't warrant deletion.
The tag might say something like
This non-U.S. work is in the public domain in the U.S. because
it was in the public domain in its source country as of January 1, 1996, (the URAA date) and
it was not copyrighted (anymore) in the U.S. on that date, and
it was published before March 1, 1989.
Only if all three conditions are true, the copyright on the non-U.S. work was not restored by the URAA. Otherwise, the copyright of the work was restored in the U.S. to its full term as if all formalities had been met (generally 95 years since publication for works published prior to 1978, and 70 years p.m.a. for works published 1978 or later.)
If the non-U.S. work had been copyrighted in the U.S. and that copyright was still valid on the URAA date, it is only in the public domain in the U.S. if that U.S. copyright has expired by now, irrespective of copyright status of the work in its source country. Works published in Berne Convention countries on or after March 1, 1989, were granted U.S. copyright (70 years p.m.a.) automatically as "Berne works".
However, is that still comprehensible? (I hope I got that one right. And it still fails to account for countries for which the URAA date is not January 1, 1996 but some later date.) Maybe the current, simple version of the tag is still better... Lupo18:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need more, not fewer, tags of this sort. Using just country-specific PD-tags, as Lupo points out, has the potential to severely violate commons policies. Images, in addition to having country-specific PD tags, should also be tagged with something that explains why they're PD in the US. How we go about this needs a separate discussion (which I'll start in the next few days once I have the time to put something together, if nobody else has done before then), but tags of this sort are absolutely essential. -- Arvind10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Even if this not widely used nor required by the de facto licensing policy, this template has useful information for those who want to use images from Commons. Furthermore, this template may—or may not—be required at some point in the future. Samulili17:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User deleted the discussion chapter - fact is, that I didn't receive any answer from the copyright holder Bonito so this pic should be deleted as copyvio.--NSX-Racer15:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Exact duplicate of Image:Pamplona coa.gif; delete tag should not be removed until the deletion discussion has concluded. Iliberri incompletely proposed deletion and removed the text content at 18:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC). Deadstar converted the deletion request to a speedy deletion of a duplicate of Image:Pamplona coa.gif against policy at 15:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC). Lcarsdata incompletely reverted the conversion at 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC). — Jeff G.(talk|contribs)20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Though the text and graphic which have been added are probably original, the photo was not created by the author. --AKeen02:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The rule is that a specific source has to be provided, because anyone could claim something like what you've mentioned (even if the image in question is really from the claimed source). You're welcomed to add the source of this image if you know whre it came from. --Moonian14:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let´s wait for Celebrity historian to act or say something, he´s the original uoploader.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The FOP text: La reproducción para uso personal de una obra de arte expuesta en forma permanente en lugares públicos o en la fachada exterior de edificios, ejecutada por medio de un arte que sea distinto al empleado para la elaboración del original, siempre que se indique el nombre del autor, si se conociere, así como el título de la obra, si lo tiene, y el lugar donde se encuentra.
The current law applies from 2006 while that photo was published and freely licensed in 2005, therefore we need to establish the Guatemalan FoP rules from before 2006 and stick to them. Especially what they said about 2D works. ~CybularnySpeak?10:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the reproduction of a work of art on permanent display in a public place, or on the outer wall of a building, such reproduction being done in a medium different from that used for the making of the original, provided that the name of the author, if known, the title of the work, if available, and the place in which it is located are specified (art. 64)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Clearly not vandalism, he's asking some kind of question about a 5% sales tax reimbursement. Probably a VAT rebate. But Delete as it's unused. -Nard14:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This is a modern tracing of a medieval 1364 manuscript illustration. The original illustration can be seen here: Whitrow, Gerald (1989) Time in History, p.106. I copied it from a website, Engines of our Ingenuity, part 1535, Inventing the Clock, and uploaded it before I understood the intricacies of public domain. Although the original manuscript is of course public domain, the tracing may not be. I have contacted the website author but have been unable to find who made the tracing and whether it is copyrighted. Your Wikipedia:Image use policy says, a 2 dimensional reproduction published in the US of 2 dimensional public domain artwork doesn't generate new copyrights, but this may not have been published in the US. So I guess it should be deleted. --Chetvorno03:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a completely faithful reproduction with no creative input I'm not sure it'd be copyrightable anywhere, regardless of the copyright claims of the author. Of course, then we get into the question of whether we should violate the copyright, even if we can :p -Nard07:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
kept (I found that the consensus of the discussion was, that there was no creativity involved in producing this derivative work of the public domain original) --ALE! ¿…?13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Please, kill this image, I shame me for this wrong colors. And its nearly duplicate. See history. --13:52, 22 June 2007 user:Kolossos
Comment Re: History: The image has been put up for deletion before, claiming there was a duplicate, but although there are similar pictures, there is no duplicate. Deadstar14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Make PD-US a template that requests a more specific template. Keep PD-1923, as it applies to works published before 1923, while PD-old applies to works whose authors died more than 70 years ago. We need both tags. SteveSims06:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SteveSims; Wikisource and Wikipedia has this as a standard preferred tag, with PD-US as deprecated. In addition, these tags should definitely not be completely removed otherwise the transwiki-to-commons process becomes more convoluted, and CommonsHelper would need special logic to work around any differences in tags used. Jayvdb02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I believe these images have erroneously been considered to be public domain. If you look at the copyright section of the imf website http://www.imf.org/external/terms.htm - they make it clear that (i) they do not give up copyright and (ii) images can only be used with permission. --Gustav VH22:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A category cannot be deleted for any reason regarding its contents. Concerning the pictures (which ones?), it seems that you don't read carefully the licence tags. --Juiced lemon23:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Juiced lemon, and in any case, a) [135] clearly states, "These photographs are in the public domain. They are free to use for publication purposes", and b) according to the template a grant of permission has been recorded on OTRS anyway. DWaterson00:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we just discuss these images? But it is kind of suspicious that that the copyright statement at imf.org talks about non-commercial use, when the OTRS email says "public domain." I wrote to them twice, but they didn't answer my emails. --Kjetil r00:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A discussion on these images was closed only a few weeks ago (here). Contact was made with clarification on the public domain status. It's been logged into the OTRS system. Unless something has come up in the past few days to merit re-opening, I'd push for a speedy keep. GeeJo01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Template:PD-imf.org. We have OTRS confirmation for this. Please revert the images to which the deletion request was added and request for this DR to be speedy closed. P.s is might be wise to look into edit histories of images next time. Siebrand05:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
If you don't prove that this photo is really usefull and that it can't be replaced by the others much better, why could it be normal to keep this photo here ?! And if it's not for these files, what for is it used, deletion requests ? I am really astonished. Mutatis mutandis09:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you are agueing this image is out of Commons:Project scope and that is why you have nominated it for deletion? Please let me know which of the scope definitions is violated here. Btw, I have also gotten the higher res from the nl.wp deletion log. The resolution is now superior to that of any previously mentioned image. Cheers! Siebrand09:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
watched in high resolution, the photo is blurred, particularly around the head of the violin ;
the only particularity - that I can see - of this violin is this grey dirtiness on its upper bout. In my opinion, it is unpleasant and not very representative of a general information ; the very great majority of violins haven't this problem so I can't see any educationnal purpose even in showing this dirtiness. Mutatis mutandis12:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's a picture of a violin : thanks a lot... Not currently used : is it a consent to the fact that this photo can be useless ? it's within project scope : is Commons a project of making the largest collection of everything without being concerned with doubled blooms and relevance ? We already have good or excellent photos of violins, for example Image:Old violin.jpg, or Image:Violin VL100.jpg : why should we keep a photo that
is not used,
is not usefull, because we have others that are better,
is not a shot of a particular instrument (Stradivari & co),
does not have a good resolution (246 × 507, I'm sorry but it's really quite bad, compared with the two ones I quoted),
The particular angle of this shot is unrepeated by the others and someone may find a use for it. I still don't see why you want this picture deleted. -Nard18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but Image:Old violin.jpg has exactly this type of vertical angle, plus a 451 × 631 resolution, a white background, a good light and the fact that it's a nice eighteenth century Stainer. And I want Commons not to be blocked and crushed by too many files of a same subject, especially if some of them are bad quality ! Please have a look to Category:Violins : it becomes really necessary to support, to improve the relevance of the photos. We can't seriously accept again 50 photos of violins if they don't have any interest that is not already in the photos present here. The photos don't need to be all FP-quality, of course, but there is a minimum of relevance and innovation that, in my opinion, this photo does not reach. And as we already have better files to replace it advantageously... Mutatis mutandis19:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have several pictures of lions, flowers and airplanes because they may be needed for different purposes -- sometimes several pics of the same subject may be required simply for the sake of variation. We're far from drowning in violoins yet. --Ranveig19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, no valid criteria is given for deletion. Image is well within our scope. Beautiful nor usefulness is in the eye of the beholder. -- Catchi?20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No reason to believe this is PD. No source is given, other than to say author "unknown". It's certainly not 70 years old, either, as Maria was only 11 years old at that time. --64.178.96.16800:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I strongly suspect all are copyvio. User has a history of problems with copyvios, images have no metadata and many are small resolution jpegs. They all look like taken from some webpage. --PatríciaRmsg14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, I deleted them all. Some months ago, I marked a lot of these files with „no source since“ templates, but an IP removed them all. I deleted obvious copyvios by this user in the past as well. --Polarlys01:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Ran across this while emptying old NowCommons files on en.wikipedia. While found on a NASA website, photography credit is given to the Giotto probe ("The image at the top of the page is the nucleus of Halley taken by Giotto."). Giotto was designed and controlled by the European Space Agency, and ESA images are available only for Noncommercial purposes. --GeeJo17:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep time on space probes is often rented or lent to other agencies (see for example the disclaimer on the Hubble [136]). If this image is not credited to the ESA then we should not assume it belongs to the ESA. -Nard22:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the above points are valid for most images hosted on NASA websites... "All of the images presented on NSSDC's Photo Gallery are in the public domain", as stated explicitly here. There are no exceptions specified, so unless we're accusing the US government of copyright infringement, we should assume that it has been licensed appropriately by whichever agency owns it. - Alex valavanis00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
The sculpture is not old enough to be in the free, nor is it long enough since the creator died. 10:03, 13 July 2006 User:Mahlum
Delete Freedom of panorama in Norway is non commercial only when the copyrighted sculpture is the main focus of the image (as it appears to be here) See: COM:FOP#Norway. -Nard22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Out of scope for commons (and seeing that the deletion request was copied from en: too, probably on the deletion list there too...). --Deadstar10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I cannot see any encyclopedic use. The original image is here: Image:Tobias_Smollett_c_1770.jpg. --User:AndreasPraefcke 08:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
--Agora195018:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
OK! The original picture is better than my drawing[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Ese mapa ha sido modificado oficialmente. Ya es inservible. Bórrenlo rápido, por favor, Yo no añado la plantilla para borrar una imagen si no es necesario. Gracias. Satesclop 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This map has been modified officially. Already it is useless. Delete it rapidly, please, I do not add the template to erase an image if it is not necessary. Thank you. Satesclop 22:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Keep project scope allows for a limited number of personal photos on your user page, and if you had read the image description this appears to be intentional. -Nard22:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, revisiting this, it may be a problem with the Mediawiki software ignoring the orientation information from exif. Still not a valid reason for deletion. -Nard17:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious copyvio Madmax32 03:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Not relevant for a deletion request. --FSHL 00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Not done per the OTRS ticket. If it needs to be deleted per that discussion, it will be. Yonatan talk 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, strongly oppose. In most of the cases, these are SVG elements in coloured flags made from scratch. If they are similar (as they are supposed to be) to football clubs colours, this doesn't matter. There are a lot of pics or images on Commons created to be similar to ones that are copyrighted or trademarks. Here we have only 600px flags made from scratch using GIMP or Photoshop with some colours and elements imported from cities' or states' coats of arms present on commons released in PD. Kanchelskis 23:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
KeepAbsolutely not relevant for deletion. Keep. --Nolanus ✉ (C | E) 07:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Uh... I'm refraining from a delete vote only due to my ignorance about Furry fandom and as to if this is actually informative about some encyclopedic theme in that sub culture. I see that from image/deletion history that this is a modified version of the original image (as the artist first uploaded it, there were no panties); I guess such modifications should be noted if the image is kept. I also saw in Category:Furry this image: Image:Momochan ardilla color jpg.png which I think should probably go as well if this one is deleted (or maybe even if not). -- Infrogmation 17:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep - The books themselves are blurry, even when the image is viewed at a large size. Smee 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC).
Neutral 
Done, VIGNERON * discut. 09:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete Lupo 20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment Would say the original version with the logo would not qualify for PD-USGov-NASA. But the new version does. Though it would be prettier just to crop the logo out.. --|EPO| 21:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Info The architect de:Roger Saubot died 1999. --JuTa 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
WTF?-Then why is it,in "Deletion requests"?In all cases we don't delete. --Pixel ;-) 01:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Question So the licensing issue is settled now, correct? --tjstrf talk 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Husky (talk to me) 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Support- Fair use acceptable on Wikipedia, not acceptable as a free Wikimedia commons image.--Dalillama 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Strong support for above reasons. The fact the images are here are leading people on other language wikis with a lesser grasp of English to conclude the image exists, so the flag is real. I have seen some say they'd accept it as a fake only if removed from commons. MRM 16:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
--Hégésippe | ±Θ± 10:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
). If my intent was to flood this dr, I would of posted it in n:WN:ALERT, n:template:wn news, and the topics for irc discussion (in which case there would be about twenty people here right now all yelling). The entire point of n:WN:CT is to list images you guys are about to delete, since the commonsticker bot does not list stuff on non main namespace pages, I feel the manual listing is definitly appropriate. Bawolff 06:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Southampton_2007_-_BB.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_motif.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_con_stelle_Gialle.png){kind=link}
_con_croce_Rosso_e_Giallo.png){kind=link}
_con_aquila_di_Francoforte.png){kind=link}
_e_Nero_e_Rosso_(Strisce).png){kind=link}
_e_Rosso_e_Nero_(Strisce).png){kind=link}
_e_Rosso.png){kind=link}
_con_croce_fiorata_Verde.png){kind=link}
_con_scudo_Bianco_e_Rosso.png){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alliance_royale-logo.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[7]](https://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1271/Mptv/1271/818-38.jpg.html?path=gallery&path_key=0050556){kind=link}
![[10]](http://www.gaztesarea.net/musikale/irudiak/asgarth_2.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[16]](http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/DVIC_View/Still_Details.cfm?SDAN=HDSN9902645&JPGPath=/Assets/Still/1999/DoD/HD-SN-99-02645.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](http://www.ewetsuits.com/acatalog/delta-wetsuit-small.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](http://www.ci.slc.ut.us/olympics/slideshow/images/mountedpolice.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Southampton_2007_-_BB.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Southampton_2007_-_BB.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_Southampton_2007_-_BB.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Southampton_2007_-_BB.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Image%3AUS+map-East+Coastedited.png){kind=link}
![[38]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:GC_DNA_base_pair.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[52]](https://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slika:%C4%90urmanec_%28grb%29.gif){kind=link}
_motif.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_motif.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_motif.jpg){kind=link}
_motif.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AHigh_Palace_in_Lviv_01.jpg&diff=6110790&oldid=6097522){kind=link}
_still_01.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[69]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Pabst_Plan_Warsaw_2.jpg?uselang=pl){kind=link}
![[70]](http://images.google.pl/imgres?imgurl=http://powstanie-warszawskie-1944.ac.pl/anowe/plan-pabsta.jpg&imgrefurl=http://powstanie-warszawskie-1944.ac.pl/specjalna_operacja_bojowa_braun.htm&h=855&w=640&sz=62&hl=pl&start=1&um=1&tbnid=2HgFRE43nlYOXM:&tbnh=145&tbnw=109&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dplan%2Bpabsta%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dpl%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
![[74]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:The_Pabst_Plan_Warsaw_1.jpg?uselang=pl){kind=link}
![[81]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AUprising_bank_polski2.jpg){kind=link}
![[82]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arrested_defendants_of_the_Polish_Post_Office_in_Gdansk.jpg){kind=link}
![[84]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Biuro_Szyfr%C3%B3w_%28_Palac_Saski_%29_10.jpg?uselang=pl){kind=link}
![[85]](https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafika:The_Royal_Castle%2C_Warsaw.jpg){kind=link}
![[89]](http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/image_into.asp?id=930&lang=EN&type_id=2&addr=/IMAGE_TYPE/930.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[97]](http://www.ioh.pl/Online/IOH7/jednostki/3.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[100]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nsdap1932.jpg){kind=link}
![[101]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1930-election.jpg){kind=link}
![[103]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f9/20061002171924%21Coat_of_Arms_of_Dushanbe.png){kind=link}
![[107]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Coat_of_Arms_of_Dushanbe.png){kind=link}
![[108]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f9/20061002205607%21Coat_of_Arms_of_Dushanbe.png){kind=link}
_proposal.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[111]](http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.malalaijoya.com/joya_parliament_apr17-06.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.malalaijoya.com/parliament.htm&h=329&w=450&sz=33&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=PR9VbIM68uQarM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3DMalalai%2BJoya%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
![[112]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Chemical_weapon1.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[113]](http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/9387/avrilwikiyy9.png){kind=link}
_-_Friendly.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[133]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Aerial_View_of_Manila_Devastation.jpg){kind=link}
![[134]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USCG_Presidential_Unit_Citation_%28Proposed%29.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_F-401.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_e_Blu_e_Giallo_(Strisce).png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
