Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2007/07

Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2004	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2005	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2006	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2007	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2008	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2009	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2010	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2011	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2012	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2013	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2014	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2015	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2016	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2017	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2018	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2019	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2020	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2021	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2022	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2023	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12
2024	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12

Archive July 2007

July 1

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dartelaar.jpg

It's an image of myself that is outdated and only very few users use their own image in their userpage. Hey, this IP_number is mine, I forgot to login before the deletion request. As far as I am aware of it is/was only used on my own user page on the nl.wikipedia.org. --Dartelaar [schrijf me!] 17:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Siebrand 06:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RataBlanca2.jpg

No source Thanos 20:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The uploader is a habitual copyright violator. Please use {{copyvio}} for obvious copyright violations and {{nsd}} for other images missing source information. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Inauguración_Copa_América_2007.jpg

Again, my Spanish is a little rusty, but it doesn't look like the author explicitly approved copyrighted free use by anyone for any purpose. The source is still labelled "all rights reserved". —LX (talk, contribs) 19:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem is that a "normal person" who doesn't know about licenses doesn't explicitly answer with "Yes. I agree that my pictures will be used for any purpose and for anyone." In the first message, I explain him about that and he accepted. Besides, Flickr doesn't allow to licence "Copyrighted but permission to free use", it's a CC licence or "All the rights reserved". And the author has the right to don't licence as CC if he doesn't want. --B1mbo 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you should write back and explain that they need to explicitly grant permission. If they haven't understood that they need to explicitly state a license, we can't assume that this was their intention or that they have understood the consequences of their response. If they did in fact intend for anyone to be able to use the image for any purpose, including commercial purposes, it should not be that hard to get them to reply with a statement to this effect. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. I hope he could answer very soon. --B1mbo 20:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have his answer: Ok, bueno espero que esta vez si funcione, Si autorizo el uso de mis fotografias para cualquier proposito y por cualquier persona, tambien puedes utiliar otras imagenes con las mismas condiciones que la anterior. (I hope this time it works. I authorize the use of my photos for any purpose and by anybody, you could also use other images with the same conditions of the first one) --B1mbo 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Please forward that to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org according to the instructions at Commons:OTRS. I'll close the deletion request and change the {{delete}} tag to {{otrs pending}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:P4040007.JPG

An unfocused version of Image:P4040008.JPG by the same author Lokal _Profil 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gedaechtniskirche_Lesepult_Gernot_Stumpf.jpg

v、、m；l 24.87.83.61 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think you've provided a proper reason. (Speedy Keep if this is a pure vandalism.) --Moonian 07:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the problem? --Immanuel Giel 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no valid reason for deletion. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Malvernia.pdf

Out of project scope. Text article with Commons images. Siebrand 12:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mandelbrot_island.jpg

I can find no verification that the copyright holder has released this image under the GNU Free Documentation License (see the sources at [1] and [2]). Iamunknown 23:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless uploader can provide more evidence that the image isn't copyrighted. CLA 02:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speedy keep. The image description page clearly states that it was uploaded by the author himself (it's licensed under a "Self license"), and looking at the uploader's name on his user page makes this absolutely clear. -- Arvind 18:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I forgot to look at Prokofiev's user page. I am now convinced. --Iamunknown 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete Image:Mandelbrot_island.jpg

I am the uploader and the creator of this image. see history of the image [3], my profile [4] and my site [5] and [6]). This image has been created by myself using Ultrafractal, Terraformer and Terragen. I permit the usage of this image under the Gnu License (note that my site doesn't mention it is copyrighted). It is used in several wikipedias. Prokofiev 10:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Sorry about the mix up. --Iamunknown 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Sorry about the mix up. All of the facts correlate, and I am convinced that the uploader is, in fact, the copyright holder. --Iamunknown 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Somerville to Category:Somerville, Massachusetts

Rename to follow similar municipalities in Category:Cities in Massachusetts. 64.30.66.208 23:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. CLA 02:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Cat ^chi? 21:05, 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.

Flag of Lewis

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. MRM 16:44, 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'?MRM 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support as creator of the second listed image, and as the one who deleted the article on English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 02:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, hoax. Thanks but no thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 20:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) MRM 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Derry.Shield.png

Almost exact copy of non-free image en:Image:Derry arms 2003.png--Garion96 15:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DUH! It's the same crest. Except this is my own rendition, and that other one is someone elses. They are not the same, as can be seen with anyone who has eyes and a braincell or two. Zoney 21:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the same crest. --Florent.pecassou 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, that is why I requested deletion. Garion96 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axed; copyrighted logo (and therefore fair-use). (→O - R L Y?) 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:299044324_2dcb1e3392.jpg

La license has been changed in flickr. Now is nd and nc. -- Axxgreazz (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I believe it has nothing to do with Flickr anymore once it has been uploaded to Commons. See Template:Flickr-change-of-license. --Moonian 08:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have posted this comment on the image at Flickr and sent the photographer FlickrMail in the hope that he will revert the licensing change. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep who cares? The photographer cannot revoke the license grant. -Nard 14:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get him to change his mind about his 5,545 current and all future public photos, many of which are excellent and only a few dozen of which are presently on ~~Flickr~~Commons, and I took the first two logical steps along that path. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the current image and those like it. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrights are non-revocable; kept. (→O - R L Y?) 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Terretory_given_away_after_Brest-Litovsk.jpg

Identical with Image:Armisticebrestlitovsk.jpg Christian Ganzer 22:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Almost identical. And both are used. --ALE! ¿…? 12:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

All files under Category:Triangle Factory fire

not necessary in PD, there is no statement insist that is in PD. In fact, use rama's formula: 1911 + 90(assume the photo taker dead when he was 100 years old and took this when he was 10) + 70 = 2071, then this photo may be in PD until 2071. Chanueting 11:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Chanueting 11:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have to state that I am not going to request the deletion of this category. Chanueting 11:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More information (or comment about the lack of information) here: http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/3rdYr3080/trianglewebsite/1a.html. It's a pity there's no firm evidence of publication in 1911, or at least before 1923. William Avery 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, at least, have to Delete those with the link marked with "Source" (in http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/pinsky/triangle.htm ) that links to http://newdeal.feri.org , because those photos (this one, for example) are marked with "Permission is not required to copy or print this image for personal or educational use such as school projects, classroom distribution, etc." and request for permission is required if they are used for other uses. --Moonian 05:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Sad. Samulili 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Marcador_cierre_Teletón_2006.jpg

My Spanish is a little rusty, but that looks like a Wikipedia-only permission. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My english is a lot rustier too, but i think it roughly translates as: "Author rights, permision granted by the author for reproduction on Wikimedia Commons, granting use for any purpose". —the preceding unsigned comment is by 200.72.224.21 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just like in the case of the photo of Copa América. When you ask to a normal person if they want to release the images and you explain to them all about the policies (commercial use, derivative, etc.) they say just "ok". I know I should have say to them about an explictly use... but if you say all the stuff and the answer is "ok", it's because they agree with what you're saying. It's different if you say "could we use your image for Wikipedia" and you don't say anything about commercial use, for example. In any case, I send another mail to the author asking for an explictly answer. --B1mbo 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or it's because they haven't understood and they think that they are only giving permission to Wikimedia (which is all they're actually doing). Unfortunately, we can't just make up licenses based on what we wish the author intended. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that would be Wikimedia-only. There's no mention that anyone can use it for any purpose. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rue Saint-Paul edit.jpg

Only an experience, original version available here Image:Rue Saint-Paul.jpg. 17:36, 4 March 2007 User:Alvesgaspar

Thank you for the warning. Please proceed with the deletion process, I've no use for this picture. - Alvesgaspar 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per uploader approval. --MichaelMaggs 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Screenshot frau.jpg

Image:Frau.jpg is to be deleted... --Markus Schweiss 05:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Delete Picture will not be used for anything. Deadstar 15:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 22:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wedekind-Haus_im_Bau_070629_.jpg

wrong name. right name: Image:Wedekind-Haus im Bau 070629.jpg Saippuakauppias 01:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Cla68 02:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply just Delete this one. --Moonian 05:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 10:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:StandHuileAix.JPG

Blurry out of focus photograph. Siebrand 07:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (image is used), --ALE! ¿…? 12:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mirador_de_la_code.jpg

Own image from Flickr from account with exactly one image. Also the dimensions of the image add to my suspicion: 227*292 isn't that large for own work. Very fishy. Siebrand 09:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

La imagen fue creada por compañeros míos junto con mi ayuda; en el ayuntamiento de Mieza donde trabajamos, esta foto fue elegida una de las más representativas de Castilla y León, no creo que deba borrarse--Sandrahx 20:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC) (copied from User talk:Siebrand by NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 21:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Rough English translation of Sandrahx's comment, provided by PatriciaR: "the image was made by friends of mine with my help; in the town of Mieza, where we work, this photo was elected as one of the most representatives of the region of Castilla y Leon, I don't think it should be deleted". NielsF talk/overleg/discussion/discussione 21:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image from http://www.dipsanet.es/turismo/naturaleza/arribes_e.htm --Prevert^(talk) 21:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I like fish but this one stinks copyvio. -- Cat ^chi? 07:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ANA_espinosa_biografia.pdf

Text biography with one image of which the license status is not clear. In this form, out of project scope. Siebrand 07:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ANA_espinosa_biografia.pdf

Out of project scope. Text PDF with one image (CV style?). Siebrand 06:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand on 6 August 2007 "Per previous DR" Rocket000 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Butxy´s_life.gif

Appears to be out of project scope. Non-notable text page scan, possibly still copyrighted? Siebrand 09:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image description in Spanish says it's the person's own work, and examining it, it's not a page scan but rather text converted to graphics. It also doesn't appear to be from anything anyone would bother to publish commercially. It's not used on any of the wikis though. -Nard 22:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:DSC 0048.JPG

I'm the creator. That was a mistake. Sorry KoS 09:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly named file available at Image:Orgue St Germain en Laye.JPG. Deadstar 12:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author wants its delation. Mistake. --Florent.pecassou 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Please use {{bad name}} next time. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:33, 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.

Image:Atomium vue générale.jpg

No photo of atomium allowed. 30 June 2007 User:Kilom691

Delete per nom Deadstar 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must be a joke. Million photos of Atomium are taken and thousands are available in the web. Even the European Central Bank use a derivate see Image:€2 commemorative coin Belgium 2006.jpg. - —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.145.19.106 (talk • contribs)

Deleted: copyrighted artwork, no freedom of panorama in Belgium. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Atomium gros plan.jpg

No photo of Atomium allowed. , 30 June 2007 User:Kilom691

Delete per nom Deadstar 12:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: no FOP in Belgium. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:BEA 2007 084 John Ringo.jpg

This is my personal photo and I would like it removed). 2 July 2007 User:LadyGothiq

Same for Image:JOHN Ringo.jpg and Image:BEA07 JOHN Ringo-07.jpg. Deadstar 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal photo. --Florent.pecassou 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Image:BEA 2007 084 John Ringo.jpg as per nom and Image:JOHN Ringo.jpg as a dupe of the third one. Kept Image:BEA07 JOHN Ringo-07.jpg, which does not represent the user. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ringelnatter.jpg

Part of Image:Natrix natrix 0671.jpg. There are more informations in the new version. -- User:Soebe 19:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion fix Deadstar 13:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rraf-logo.svg

Falsche Version. 4 December 2006 User:Necr0manzer

Deleted by ALE!: uploader request

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SNCF 031-130.png

This is a screenshot of a copyrighted computer game or video game, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the company that developed the game. User:Captain Scarlet 19:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if i gererate the image with my SolidWorks, it is copyrighted by SolidWorks Corporation? And if it is shown via my Microsoft Operating System it is copyrighted by Microsoft? And if it is processed via my Eizo digital flat screen, it copyrighted by Eizo? Wrong, this is work, and it is shown with a tool, thats all. -- Stahlkocher 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're mising the point. If you create an image, say a Jpeg from Photoshoshop, the image is yours. If you take a screenshot in a game, simulator or in a software, then it isn't. Captain Scarlet 17:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now i understand your misunderstanding: The user did create the data for displaying the image. Therefor it is his modell, data and his work. There is no doubt. The graphicengine displaying the work must not been considered. Hope this clears the case. Happy Christmas! -- Stahlkocher 14:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not sure of it... It smells of 3D. Merry Christmas to you too. Captain Scarlet 15:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We send 3D models round the world every day. Work is not limited to 2D. The engine did now raise own rights. Data may be transformed. Happy new year to you and your family. -- Stahlkocher 15:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixed an old request. Notes above from Image talk page. I cannot see that this discussion has been put through the usual deletion process, and as the subpage was not created, I am assuming it wasn't. Please feel free to speedy close if this is old. Thank you.

Same arguments also for:

Image:SNCF 242A1m.png (coupled to this one)
Image:PO 141TA.png (which was mentioned on the log 28 June)

Deadstar 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep if the uploader asserts he modelled it himself, we should allow the image unless we have proof it came from a copyrighted program. -Nard 22:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitly not a screenshot in a copyrighted computer game but a visualization of a personal model dedicated to a computer game : it is different because the visualization is my own in an personal environment and not in the game.--Pantoine 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand here. Will ask the uploader in French. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uploader seems to have fairly good notions of the copyright problem, and I see no reason to doubt his word. And if we accept that the uploader is the author of the model, no problem remains. Rama 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rogerio.jpg

doesn't seem to be original image. 19:58, 22 January 2007 User:Zanimum

Also no license. Deadstar 14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per no license. (→O - R L Y?) 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ribeirasacra.jpg

Deleted copyvio --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 19:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ritalin photo.jpg

Sorry. I was a newbie when I uploaded it and made a mistake. Licence status is unknown. 21 May 2006 User:Octavio L

Delete The image has an unclear copyright status but the method described at Missing legal information can not be used. --Digon3 ^talk 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Speedy] deleted per user request. (→O - R L Y?) 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Roma-parco decimamalafede03.jpg

uploader request. 17 May 2006 User:Mac9

Deleted per uploader request. (→O - R L Y?) 20:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RudbeckiaFulgida.jpg

It was only a temporary upload. There are enough (better) pictures of this flower available. -- Fice 12:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My statement hasn't changed: I have uploaded this (my) photo only provisionally. It may be deleted. -- Fice 10:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are very good reasons to keep this image - and no reasons for deletion! It shows the leafs of this plant better than the other images available. So I'd like to encourage you not only to remove the deletion-flagg but also to put the image in the gallery of Rudbeckia fulgida! /Taxelson 22:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, let's keep it. But in a few days the 2007 Rudbeckias will blooming and then I'll try to make a better photo. If that will be successful I'm going to replace the image by another one (showing blooms and leaves, promised!). -- Fice 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put the image in the gallery and removed the deletion request. Taxelson 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept; no real reason for deletion. (→O - R L Y?) 21:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SDK API Review Flow-MaHu-20061107.jpg

Author request , wrong WIKIPEDIA DB used 16 November 2006 User:Mahu

Deleted; author request. (→O - R L Y?) 21:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SMDFplan.gif

a new version of this file has been uplaoded - Image:SMDFplan36.gif. User:Sailko, 15 May 2006

Possibly just {{superseded}}? Deadstar 15:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, please yes delete, i forgot to mark for deletion. --Sailko 15:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; author request. (→O - R L Y?) 22:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:San Sebastian Escudo.jpg

Copyright status unclear (fixed deletion request)--Deadstar 15:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio template put on picture saying: Folleto informativo del Ayuntamiento de San Sebastián - 15:36, 15 April 2007 User:Dodo
Remove of template saying: Nueva versión de la imagen subida, que cumple plenamente con las condiciones de commons y la licencia ShareAlike 2.5) 16:19, 15 April 2007 User:Generalpoteito
Copyvio back on giving same reason as above with in the comment: el diseño del logo pertenece al ayuntamiento de San Sebastián. 17:05, 15 April 2007 User:Alhen
Copyvio replaced with {{delete}}, saying: Sustitución de la plantilla de borrado. 15:37, 16 April 2007 User:Generalpoteito.
I think we can use this image as we use the images of the other shields of other Spanish cities. This version has been made by me. I know that the original version has copyright (his owner is the town hall of San Sebastian), but this one is not an original version. Generalpoteito 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCopyvio. Altough this version was made from scratch, the design itself belongs to San Sebastían City Hall. Alhen .::··¨ 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the web page of the City Hall of San Sebastian, there is information about the licence and use of the materials of that webpage. One of these materials is the shield that appears in this image. Here you have the webpage of the copyright and licence information: [7]. It's in Spanish. In English the translation will be: "The owner of the information of this webpage is de City Hall of San Sebastián. The materials of this web page can be used WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION by the users [...] When you use this materials [...] you have to explain where are they from: Ayuntamiento de Donostia - San Sebastián and the web page www.donostia.org". Well, we can use this material. Or I can upload the shield that appears in the webpage. Generalpoteito 11:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axed; copyvio, copyright status (commercial use and derivative works) unclear. (→O - R L Y?) 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Oscillographe LC.JPG

Exists already at Image:Oscillographe LC.png, and the PNG quality is better --Xzapro4 16:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RLC entretenu.JPG

Author request : PNG version already exists in a better quality --Xzapro4 20:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RLC entretenu équivalent.JPG

PNG version already exists in a better quality (author request) --Xzapro4 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Johnny_Marr.jpg

Speedy Keep. See Template:Flickr-change-of-license. --Moonian 05:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I uploaded this. I also found it on flickr when searching for creative commons licenses that allow for redistribution and modification, and at the time I uploaded it, it was under a different license than it is now. -- malo (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (free licenses can not be revoked) --ALE! ¿…? 07:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rick Mercer cc.jpg

Replaced with Image:Rick mercer on location with troops.jpg. 2 December 2006 (edit) (undo) User:Zanimum

CommentOther version has slightly different crop. Other than that, it's a dupe. Deadstar 13:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (near duplicate, not used) --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Samsett-bolungarvik-bolafjall2.jpg

(this was a mistake) 8 October 2006 User:Salvor

Delete Stitching of images not right Deadstar 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dantsu Flame 20061229P1.jpg

ファイル名間違い 01:25, 30 June 2007 User:Goki

Which means "wrong file name". I presume this horse isn't called "Dantsu Flame"? Lupo 10:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real description. --Florent.pecassou 17:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless a duplicate with the correct file name is uploaded. This file had a description and a valid license. --ALE! ¿…? 15:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This horse's name is Sea Cariotto. See Image:Sea Cariotto 20061229P1.jpg. --Goki 08:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{rename image}} in theses cases! --ALE! ¿…? 08:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged with {{rename|Sea Cariotto 20061229P2.jpg}} --ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Radio Euskadi feria 1.JPG

up date error. Error de subida. 26 June 2007 User:Txo

Delete Mistake. --Florent.pecassou 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 13:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images of Anton Julius Winblad II and others

outside the project scope, specifically "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted" --Polarlys 21:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and all subpages. --Polarlys 21:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So private collections are not of interest, and commercial collections are not legally available. Whats left? All the images are properly labeled and categorized, what difference does it make if it from a private collection? Please provide a link to the specific rule you are citing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Project scope. --Polarlys 21:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again your just saying "its in the bible somewhere, go look it up". The only thing I find is "Commons:Project scope: Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. "I don't believe any of the photos are "private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such."

Delete These images are unusable for Commons because these individuals are non-notable. If I uploaded 50 pictures of my neighbor Bob nobody would want to start an article on him on another project. -Nard 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well documented lifes of non notable ancient people may be useful as a good example, i.e.: articles about aging, death certificate, clothes circa 1900, family life in the USA and so. All images should be properly categorized (they aren't categorized), and maybe user subpages are not the best place to keep biografies (this biografies are useful for giving context to photos).--Pere prlpz 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s Wikimedia Commons, uploading whole family biographies is pure abuse. We are no free web storage. Of course there is always the possibility to add a dubious context: upload some of your family photos, the pyramids of Giza in the background, your family in the foreground and proclaim a use to illustrate an article on holiday culture of American families. --Polarlys 14:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to you if these photos were easy repoductible present day family photos, or if we had other similar biographies.--Pere prlpz 14:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of this family were already deleted some weeks ago: Mom on sofa; mom and dad; mom, dad and dog, … this is a whole family album and there are millions of similar biographies. --Polarlys 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the photos were: "private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such." They all represent a slice of life in the 1960s that can be used to illustrate clothing, and other time dependent lifestyle articles.

Also note that Selma Louise Norton was deleted based on a single vote isn't there a de minimus required for deletion? Consensus is not a single vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is no voting. --Polarlys 19:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment who took these photos? Who is the copyright owner? If you assert it is you, why do you assert this? Did you inherit the photos in a will? Do you have the negatives? -Nard 19:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I am the copyright inheritor, yes. As you well know, a negative is not required to claim a copyright, although I do have the original slides or negatives. How does any uploader prove ownership of any photo? How does Corbis claim copyright on its historical collection, and the Library of Congress and New York Public Library also claim the same image? Who is the copyright holder of my high school photo? Me, who paid for it? The company that was hired by the school, or the man who composed the image? Whenever you want something deleted, just bring up the smoke and mirrors of this argument and demand proof of copyright, and since no legal document exists like a patent, you delete. How does the owner of any of the featured photos prove they are the copyright owner? If they are professional photographers their employer may also make a claim if they were on company time, or using company equipment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes people admit they are not the actual heir. I wasn't trying to get smoke and mirrors, merely asking for a reasonable assertion of copyright. Your assertion seems reasonable. -Nard 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should allow hosting media content we have not yet thought of a purpose for. This is valid and well documented content. We need much more it that type :) Cheers! Siebrand 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted. Wikimedia Commons is not a web host for e.g. private party photos, self-created artwork without educational purpose and such. There are plenty of other projects in the Internet you can use for such a purpose, like Flickr and others. However, uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example, a Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, a meta article, a user page). More details on personality rights can be found at Commons:Licensing.” There are enough wikis and websites for private genealogy! --Polarlys 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted those which are outside the project scope, specifically "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted". Samulili 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RmB.PNG

erróneo. sustituido por el correcto. 5 September 2006 User:Capra

Comment Other file user refers to very likely Image:RmdB.PNG. Not a duplicate - the other file has cities marked on it, this is the blank map. Deadstar 13:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

All images from user 倶楽部オータム

All images from user 倶楽部オータム are suspected copyvios. No metadata, some are thumbnails. --PatríciaR ^msg 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific and give some examples. If you don't in the next two days, I will close this request as a keep. --ALE! ¿…? 08:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of this deletion request, this user had uploaded the following pictures:

Naturally, I don't extend the request for all pictures uploaded after these, at least not without a careful evaluation. PatríciaR ^msg 12:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image:木苺9cc7.jpg, Image:ピンクパンサー2228.jpg and Image:ナスタチウムのサラダ.JPG (any proof of copyright violation and Assume good faith), but Delete useless thumbnails. --Dezidor 12:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having analysed part of the user's most recent uploads and per Dezidor's comments, I withdraw the deletion request for the non-thumbnail pictures. However, I'd like to call your attention for the following: this user has been perpetually blocked for sockpuppetry on ja.wikipedia (as far as Babel fish can help me ;)). It would be good if someone from ja.wiki could look into this and tell us if the sockpuppetry had anything to do with copyvio issues, to establish (or not) a confidance basis here. PatríciaR ^msg 13:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, time to close!

/ Fred J 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Reflexion totale interne.svg

I created this by mistake , it's not rendering properly. So, it's unneeded. 8 August 2006, User:Drini

Deleted by Drini: '

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chris Cornell c.jpg

Obvious copyvio, not the first time that the original en.wiki uploader made a fraudulent claim of ownership. ˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 22:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LogoHTNGmini.png

duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:LogoHTNG.png --Sat'Rain 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:LogoHTNG.png

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SibeliusMonument.jpg

as per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Finland. 25 June 2007 User:Dilaudid

The monument is IMO a work of art, and this law says that it does not extend to works of art. -- Cecil 12:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article 25a of the Finnish copyright law permits panorama freedom for buildings, both exteriors and interiors. This, however, does not extend to works of art (other than architecture) which are located in public places. They cannot be commercially published when they constitute the central element of the picture.

I think it means that freedom of panorama does not extend to works of art. :-( So, sadly, {{delete}}. Ben Aveling 18:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ups, just noticed. permits is the opposite of prohibits. Somehow my brain translated that part wrong. So yes, it has to be deleted. -- Cecil 08:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info Artist en:Eila Hiltunen died in 2003. --Ju Ta 09:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 13:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SibeliusMonumentDetail.jpg

as per Commons:Freedom of panorama#Finland. 25 June 2007 User:Dilaudid

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Silverado.Squatters.Henly.jpg

no longer needed, replaced by Image:Silverado.Squatters.William.Henly.jpg, accidentally uploaded! -- User:Stbalbach 04:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far better version available at file mentioned. Deadstar 12:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ProfRossa.JPG

This image is copyrihted. 30 January 2007, User:Warko2006

Deleted. Please use {{speedydelete}} next time. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Logo copei.GIF

No GFDL -- 2 July 2007 user:Humberto, Mex. (Talk | contribs) (87 bytes) (delete :), sorry if im wrong

Delete Is not a free image. Logo of political group of Venezuela. Axxgreazz (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Blatantly false licensing tag ({{GFDL-OpenGeoDB}}). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Santaelenadeu.gif

Niederlande. User:85.0.85.82 (Nominating image for deletion)

Comment I don't understand this deletion request --"reason=Netherlands"? Deadstar 08:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is no reason, only that it is actually not used in a article. that is because one user in de.wikipedia think that this diagram is not important for the article where it was used before. --BotBln 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No reason provided for the deletion request. Orphanhood is not a reason for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sciano Federico 02.jpg

is a screenshot of a TV program, can't be released with cc-by-sa-2.5. 22 May 2007 User:81.208.106.70

Delete Unclear copyright status. --Digon3 ^talk 17:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, {{screenshot}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sello de Fernán González.jpg

copyright correos España. 9 March 2007 User:Truor

Deleted by ALE!: copyvio per Commons:Stamps/Public domain

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Silzer Wappen.JPG

Image:Silzer Wappen.png. 2 May 2006 User:Rp.

Deleted by ALE!: ununsed duplicate

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Simongallup002.jpg

The source is "Released on The Cure web site". 17 May 2006 User:Anna (no verificable origin)

Deleted by ALE!: possible copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Shilinmark.JPG

Logo and No source no Licenese. 8 May 2007 User:Alexsh

Deleted per Commons:Deletion_guidelines#Missing_legal_information since no license information was added for over a week. Please use {{nld}} to tag images missing licensing information. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rees_Stephens.jpg

There is no evidence that the copyright holder approved the CC-by-sa license. The uploader falsely claims to be the copyright holder whilst providing evidence to the contrary. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail transmis : Sujet : Re: some photos about South Africa 1906 Date : 03/07/2007 09:39:46 Paris, Madrid De : dai@rugbyrelics.com A : Ddfreedl@aol.com CC : dale@rugbyrelics.com Envoyé via Internet (afficher l'en-tête)

Hi - you can use a maximum of 3 images from my website, I would be grateful if you could add a link to my 1906 Springboks page !

Original Message -----

From: Ddfreedl@aol.com To: world-rugby-museum@rugbyrelics.com Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:05 AM Subject: some photos about South Africa 1906

Hello

I am Didier from St Sulpice sur Tarn (81 Tarn - France) and i am contributing on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Dd and specially about rugby union; i want to put your images, bouquins like this one http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rugby_ST.F-ST.T_27022007-4.JPG or that one http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1906_Springboks.jpg

via Wikipedia.Commons

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rugby_ST.F-ST.T_27022007-4.JPG http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:1906_Springboks.jpg in Wikipedia.fr

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Page d'acceuil/Main Page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Welcome Bienvenue/Welcome explications

Wikimedia Commons is a media repository that is created and maintained not by paid-for artists, but by volunteers. Its name "Wikimedia Commons" is derived from that of the umbrella project "Wikimedia " managing all Wikimedia projects and from the plural noun "commons" as its contents are shared by different language versions and different kinds of Wikimedia projects. Thus it provides a central repository for freely licensed photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text, video clips, and media of all sorts that are useful for any Wikimedia project.

Wikimedia Commons uses the same wiki-technology as Wikipedia and thus everyone can edit it easily and without advanced technical skills directly in the web browser. Unlike media files uploaded on other projects, files uploaded to Wikimedia Commons can be embedded on pages of all Wikimedia projects without the need to separately upload them there.

Launched on September 7, 2004, Wikimedia Commons hit the 1,000,000 uploaded media file milestone on 30 November, 2006 and currently contains 1,575,320 files and 62,606 collections (numbers in English notation). More background information about the Wikimedia Commons project itself can be found in the General disclaimer, at the Wikipedia page about Wikimedia Commons and its page in Meta-wiki.

Unlike traditional media repositories Wikimedia Commons is free. Everyone is allowed to copy, use and modify any files here freely as long the source and the authors are credited and as long as users release their copies/improvements under the same freedom to others. The Wikimedia Commons database itself and the texts in it are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. The license conditions of each individual media file can be found on their description pages. More information on usage conditions...

You can create your account like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_by_Fabienkhan

If you need some help http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Fabienkhan

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_un_fichier

Aide: importer un fichier

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aide:Importer_sur_Commons_un_fichier_dont_je_suis_l%27auteur

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload

Like

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Final_top_14_2007-3.jpg " This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License In short: you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute its author(s) or licensor(s). "

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fabienkhan is able to help you

Et il a un compte sur www.flickr.com : www.flickr.com/photos/7862936@N08/

We are looking images about rugby union

Look at my work :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89quipe_d%27Angleterre_de_rugby_%C3%A0_XV

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89quipe_d%27Australie_de_rugby_%C3%A0_XV

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89quipe_d%27Afrique_du_Sud_de_rugby_%C3%A0_XV#Le_d.C3.A9but_de_la_l.C3.A9gende_de_l.27Afrique_du_Sud

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89quipe_du_Pays_de_Galles_de_rugby_%C3%A0_XV

I create 100 or more south african players, welsh players, english players...

and i will like to have some photos about South Africa 1906

I hope you understand my need... I would like to know :

- those images are in the public domain - The rights : no rights ? - the author : death of the author ?

in order tu put those images in Wikipedia Commons

with your work clearly mentioned...

I will post on a regular basis pics from your own collection, as well as nice stuff spotted on the web.

I want to publish you or you can do it yourself

please drop me a mail...

All your comments are welcome... Sincerly yours,

Didier http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Dd

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Dd —the preceding unsigned comment is by Ddfree (talk • contribs) 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You can use" is not the same as "I hereby license images such-and-such under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license." This also applies to Image:GARETH EDWARDS.jpg (which, however, does not have the false authorship claims). —LX (talk, contribs) 20:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also applies to Image:1971-GS.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok You can delete them please

Thanks Ddfree 10:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by request of uploader and per Commons:Deletion guidelines#Missing_legal_information because no evidence was provided within one week to show that the author approved any specific free license. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Anpanman-inflatable.JPG

derivative work --Lyzzy 20:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture should not be deleted. The copyright owners of Anpanman have not cleared any official image for use on websites. Pictures of Anpanman-products (or self-painted images) are the only type of picture that can be added to wikipedia. The image here is therefore as good as it gets. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 194.121.90.163 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted characters are equally copyrighted whether they are represented as flat pictures, figurines, or baloons. Images of non-free copyrighted objects must not be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. The same applies to "fan-art." Please see Commons:Licensing#Derivative_works. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative of a non-free, copyrighted cartoon character. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Retract resistor check valve application .png

Replaced by Image:Retract resistor check valve application.png -- RainerBi 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion fix Deadstar 08:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as a {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 22:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Jaguar XK8

no content --MB-one 19:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Thyra_von_Danemark.jpg

Images in hermitagemuseum.org are not PD. Von Seeckt 06:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The painter, Lauritz Tuxen, died 1927. The painting itself was done in 1885. I would say the painting is {{PD-old}}. AFAIK, Russian copyright law has always considered only creative works to be eligible to copyright. (The Hermitage is located in St. Petersburg, Russia.) That has been a constant since Tsarist times, throughout the Soviet copyright legislation, and also in the modern Copyright law of the Russian Federation. I don't know for sure, but I would think that this means that a simple photographic reproduction would not be eligible to copyright in Russia, and hence {{PD-Art}} applies to the image. Lupo 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the conditions of use of the Hermitage Museum do place restrictions on their images, though. (Although they do not claim copyright...) Lupo 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Authors or copyright holders shouldn't place restrictions according to Ru-Law (Article 9, point 1), the image is copyrighted as default. They can place restrictions manifestly, but they shouldn't. Alex Spade 16:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The status of PD-art in Russia is unclear (there aren't any judicial precedents). But until the wikimedia/wikipedia servers will haven't appeared in Russia, this image is PD-art accordind to article 5 of Russian copyright law - Russian law is defend the copyrights in other country if such defend is possible in in accordance with law of respective country only. Alex Spade 11:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that reasoning works. The photo was surely taken by a Russian and first published/disclosed in Russia on the web site of the Hermitage, so it would appear to be covered by Russian copyright law, §5.1(1) and §5.1(2)[8]. Paragraphs §5.3 and §5.4 apply only to foreign (i.e., non-Russian) works, but I think this photo is a Russian work. Lupo 11:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat in other words.

This copyright work may be (or may be not) defended at Russia, but not in USA. The US-law and Germany/Austria/Switzerland-law are above Rus-law on respective territories.
For another example...

In Germany all logos are trivial works and uncopyrighted, but not in US. Therefore for de-wiki we must upload such images to de-wiki, not to commons (because, they have got own servers).
In Russia all flags and coats are uncopyrigted, but not in US. Therefore we can upload only Russian flags and coats to commons and cann't upload others as free images to ru-wiki because we haven't own servers.
In some countries the machine works: tomograms, separate sattelite images (until integration), shots from static and automatic (but not automatized) camera are uncopyrighted (they are not creative labour), but not in US. Alex Spade 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, we're not trying to circumvent some countries' laws by capitalizing on the server location. COM:L clearly says that works hosted here as PD must be PD in the source country and in the U.S. The source country in this case (of the photo, not the painting) is Russia. I personally think it's reasonable to consider PD-Art applicable in Russia, but it'd be better if we had some basis for this beyond my personal belief. Are you sure there were no "threshold of originality"/"faithful reproduction" cases in Russia (or maybe the Soviet Union)? Does Gavrilov in his commentary on the 1993 law say anything about this? Lupo 12:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. We are trying. If we want to follow the condition both source country and the US totally and precisely - the next step must be disscussion about deletion of some of Non-Russian photos of Russian PD-2D-image (image is PD, but its photo isn't). Alex Spade 08:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If it's a non-Russian photo, it was neither taken by a Russian nor first published in Russia. But we'd have to consider whether the Russian 2D painting would also be PD in the other country. Isn't that fun? (*Not*.) Lupo 08:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You hadn't undertoond me. In Russian Law copyright is being accrued by creating (making), not publishing - see Article 9.1 and 6.1. And it is being accrued regardless of nationality - see Article 5.1.1.

I will try to explain my conception on example.

American have been photographing the Image:Claude Monet 009.jpg at w:Pushkin Museum. This painting is PD. Its photo is PD in American, but it is copyrighted as default in Russia - because it was made in Russia and it is unimportant where it had been or will be published - and the photographer must permit the free use and etc. Alex Spade 12:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Yes, copyright is vested in the author upon the creation of the photo. But: $5.1(1): a work is subject to Russian law only if published in Russia or existing there in objective form, or if the work was made by a Russian (§5.1(2)). Otherwise, it's a foreign work and copyrighted in Russia according to international treaties (§5.1(3)). According to the Berne Convention, the country of origin is the country of first publication, or, if unpublished, defined by the nationality of the photographer. So, when the American tourist takes the photo, it is subject to Russian law as an unpublished work (Author is American, it's unpublished, and exists in objective form within Russia—§5.1(1).) If the American tourist then publishes his photo in Russia, it becomes a Russian work and Russia is the source country. If he leaves Russia without having published the image, §5.1(1) doesn't apply anymore (the photo doesn't exist in Russia in objective form), only §5.1(3) applies. If he then publishes the photo elsewhere, that country is the source country. If he doesn't publish it at all, the country of origin is the U.S. In the latter two cases, Russian law doesn't enter into consideration, since we look only at the source country of the photo and the U.S., and the painting is PD anyway. Lupo 12:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this our talk pages, ok :-)? It's becoming off-topic. We both agree to keep the image, and the basic question for this image here is actually whether PD-Art is applicable. Lupo 12:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. (→O - R L Y?) 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Charles_Napoleon.jpg

Sorry. I did mistaken identity. Von Seeckt 06:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Renesansa-skladatelji.JPG

updated and corrected licence, replaced with .PNG: Image:Renesansa-skladatelji.PNG. This image is to delete, after changing links. User:Ziga 22:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and because I have changed all the remaining links, now that CheckUsage is working again. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. (→O - R L Y?) 18:46, 29 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.

Image:Provincias Unidas de Sud América -1816.png

duplicated image with Image:Provincias Unidas de Sud América -1816 (provincias).png --Roblespepe 06:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other image doesn't seem to exist? Deadstar 15:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted for missing license information. --ALE! ¿…? 15:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closed --ALE! ¿…? 12:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Slovakia Liptov 800px.gif

obsolete - replaced with Image:Slovakia_Liptov.jpg and not used on any wikiproject. 4 June 2006 User:PM

kept, replacing image not found --ALE! ¿…? 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RepublicFleet1.jpg

Derivative work. 17 May 2007 User:Raffaello9

Deleted. Samulili 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SantaClaraCountyFlag.gif

Santa Clara County is not a state 14 June 2007 User:68.100.255.31

Comment I assume this refers to the fact that the license on it states "This image is a U.S. state, federal district, or insular area flag. Such flags are in the public domain." Deadstar 08:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting claim. I notice that there is no source for this rather bold statement, neither here nor at Template talk:PD-US-flag. Lupo 10:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sculeni jud Iasi.png

The commune has changed name and the old map showing this is outdated. The same file exist now here: Image:Victoria jud Iasi.png and its name stands for the correct name of the new commune, although the images are identical. Any use of this file must be corrected. 23 June 2007 User:Radufan

Renamed to Image:Image-Victoria jud Iasi, old.png. Althought the information is not current anymore, the image can still be used for historic purposes. Samulili 08:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Shinkoro02 1920.jpg

redundant to Image:Shinkoro03s2240.jpg. It is a wish from a contributor. 22 October 2006, User:663highland

Keep I prefer this one over the other version. If anything, I vote to delete the other one. Deadstar 11:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. I agree with Deadstar. Samulili 08:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Smartklein2.JPG

can be deleted. 8 August 2006 User:Michiel1972

Delete Don't see the point in keeping. Original text on the image refers to maps, not a picture of a car. Deadstar 12:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Pretty unusable. Samulili 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SimplexPolish 2.png

Ugly Version --User:Philipendula 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File doesn't open for me. Deadstar 12:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File has been substituted by Image:SimplexProblem 3.jpg --Philipendula 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't work. Replaced. Samulili 07:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SimplxProblem 1.jpg

Ugly Version --User:Philipendula 20:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File has been substituted by Image:SimplexProblem 3.jpg --Philipendula 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Replaced with a superior one. Samulili 07:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Slovakia Hont 800px.jpg

obsolete - replaced with Image:Slovakia_Hont.jpg and not used on any wikiproject. 4 June 2006 User:PM

Deleted. Smaller duplicate. Samulili 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Slovakia Komarno 800px.jpg

obsolete - replaced with Image:Slovakia_Komarno.jpg and not used on any wikiproject. 4 June 2006 User:PM

Keep - This "obsolete" picture is of higher quality than Image:Slovakia_Komarno.jpg. If one looks closely at both pictures, specifically the thin lines and the text, JPEG compression artifacts can be seen in Image:Slovakia_Komarno.jpg. They show up as blurry lines and text. Therefore this image should be kept and, rather, Image:Slovakia_Komarno.jpg should be deleted.

Deleted. One can read the text better in the bigger one and the bigger is preferred by projects. Samulili 12:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Popeneedle.jpg

Unfree image of unfree, recent artwork. Seidenstud 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete image is on display in California, no FOP in USA. http://www.mjt.org/exhibits/hagop/pope.html -Nard 23:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 12:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Butterfly.flowers.jpg

Unfree image of unfree, recent artwork. Seidenstud 13:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 12:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Praha, Střížkov, stavba metra II.JPG

too gray. 8 August 2006 User:Aktron (From user's talkpage:) Yes, this image should be deleted. I have uploaded some better of the construction site, so this one is not nescessary :-) --User:Aktron 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. It is quite gray but usable. And other images of the metro station aren't from the same angle (even about). Samulili 12:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Premio torrijos.png

No NPOV. 06:20, 29 October 2006 User:Arturus

Deleted. Personal "barnstars" are ok but then they should be used by projects. Samulili 12:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Psi original.svg

Image:Psi.gif needs exporting to svg format. 17 February 2007 User:Niki K

Kept. Good SVG. Samulili 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:QichunCountyMap2.jpg

This map copyright by map publishing house , not by Chinese Government--Shizhao 15:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. With the information given, it does not seem plausible that this image may be used freely. Samulili 12:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Red flag waving transparent rev.png

author. file did not upload properly. 23 October 2006 User:The Ministry of Truth

Comment "author" probably means it's the author requesting, and I don't see a properly uploaded version of this file by this user. Deadstar 15:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Seems to work ok, although of low quality. Samulili 12:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fajka_budowa.png

Based on Image:Pipe2.jpg which was deleted for being in category Sxc-warning; no permission Lokal _Profil 15:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader has now replaced the image with a new version so this Deletion requests is no longer relevant (except if someone wants to delete the unfree "02:25, 8 May 2007"-version of the file./Lokal _Profil 16:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept new, deleted old. Samulili 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Apolloniuscircle.gif

Probably copyright violation, taken from http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ApolloniusCircle.html --Fvlamoen 20:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Ineligible for copyright, based on mathematical formulas with only black and white colouring. Samulili 12:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Reichswappen Deutsches Reich 1871.jpg

Redundant: See: de:Liste der Wappen deutscher Länder. 21:46, 23 April 2006 User:N3MO

"redundant" is a bad reason for deletion. Can you specify a little bit more, why this image should be deleted? --ALE! ¿…? 08:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Reichsadler 1888-1918.jpg

Correct and better Versions of the German Reichsadler 1888-1918 are available which make this file obsolete. --David Liuzzo 01:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Zadar (grb).gif

No source, obvious copyright violation - source: FOTW (uploaded from hr:wiki)–Suradnik13 16:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:MylaporeKapaleeshwararTemple.jpg

the summary says that a certain G V Balasubramanya snapped the photograph. But there is no evidence to suggest that the photographer has released the rights to his work --Sarvagnya 17:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been sourced to Flickr. It would be helpful if you could contact uploaders about doubts such as these before making deletion requests. --Ranveig 09:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From Flickr, has passed Flickr review. No reason at all to delete -- Arvind 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Prinsipp armering.jpg

A failure in the text, i am going to replace it, if that is ok? 19:21, 14 May 2007 User:AnneHu

Delete other image is Image:Prinsipp armering2.jpg Deadstar 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 4

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Titanic grand staircase.gif

There is no proper source nor evidence that this was created by the US government. RockMFR 22:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by JeremyA: source given as en.wikipedia--however image was deleted on en for lacking a source

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Telenorte.jpg

Baja Calidad de Imagen, no se sabe el copyright y viola la politica de licencias. 28 June 2007 User:200.28.209.142

Deleted by Siebrand: cv

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Schmitt (Eifel).png

Was used in de:Schmitt (Eifel). Replaced by a template. Not needed any more. --TM 20:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Notschrei: deprecated, unused

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chicago_sears_Tower_blurred_@_dusk.jpg

Out of focus. Of limited use for Wikimedia projects and therefore outwith the Commons:Project scope. JeremyA 22:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away. IvoShandor 13:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has a low image quality/resolution and is out of focus. --Digon3 ^talk 14:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted —JeremyA 15:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Soapykins2.jpg

useless picture. 18 October 2006 User:Pitert

Delete Also no license or source information. Deadstar 08:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no license --ALE! ¿…? 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Lucky-luke-3-gr.jpg

No freedom of panorama for art in Belgium (see Freedom_of_panorama#Belgium) Michiel1972 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Smit.Cercopithecus L'Hoesti 1.jpg

cause Image:Smit.Cercopithecus L'Hoesti.jpg 16 April 2006 User:Kelson

Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Smit.Cercopithecus L'Hoesti.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Soapykins.jpg

useless picture. 18 October 2006 User:Pitert

Delete Also no license or source information. Deadstar 08:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: out of scope

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Oklahoma State Highway 68.svg

Shield for a highway that doesn't exist. (68 is not currently assigned to a highway in Oklahoma.) —Scott5114 ↗ 12:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: no such highway

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Nagasaki

Image:Vue de Nagasaki1.jpg Image:Vue de Nagasaki depuis Glove Garden.jpg

The two images have User:GrahamHill (probably Graham Hill) as the licensor but Thomas Courtonne as the author. In addition, the images are scanned. So there is either a problem with license or permission or both and these problems should be fixed. Samulili 08:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no permission --Polarlys 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SolarCell-EquivalentCircuit2.PNG

bad diode symbol, new file at Image:SolarCell-EquivalentCircuit3.PNG. 16 April 2006 User:S-kei

deleted per nom. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 23:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Longuyan

The correct spelling is Longuyon. Longuyan does not exist (proper sub-category Longuyon created).

deleted, --Polarlys 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bertrand Meyer.jpg

This edit tells us that Bertrand Meyer does not want his image on the wiki. ("Removed picture. This is a gross violation of privacy and I do NOT want my picture published. Please delete the image itself -- don't know how to do this.") Deadstar 09:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Meyer hold a speech on the public, free entry event Wikipedia Day 2006. He is a person of public interest and therefore has an entry on Wikipedia. Given those two facts I see no reason why this photograph would be illegal or against our own rules. There are many other photos with Mr. Meyer on this event Category:Wikipedia Day 2006 --Ikiwaner 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, person of public interest. --Kjetil r 18:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, I agree to Ikiwaners argumentation. Nevertheless “Bertrand Meyer and Wikipedia ” is a sad story about the shady sides of our project. --Polarlys 16:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I wrote a nice letter to Mr. Meyer and proposed to replace this image by a better one. I got no reply for the last four days. --Ikiwaner 18:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep being appalled by the lack of respect for privacy in this medium. I would never dream of putting up the picture of someone who doesn't want it. Bertrand Meyer

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:St Jordi's cake.png

Very big image, there a jpg version (Image:St Jordi's cake.jpg) 24 April 2007, User:Pedroserafin

Delete The file is redundant through a better image but with a different (better) file format. Nominater is also the uploader. --Digon3 ^talk 17:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Leichter_Kreuzer_Miguel_de_Cervantes_in_El_Ferrol_-_1943.jpg

Image is allgedly created in 1943 by the uploader. That would make him at least about 75 years old (64+11 when he created the image) *and* able to fill out all image requirements in a first upload. I'm having a hard time accepting that. Siebrand 10:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he is an heir to this photo, but that will have to be proven. I doubt his name is really 'karl doenitz'. Madmax32 12:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image from http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/seekrieg/43-05.htm , furthermore after 'Image deletion warning' on Commons (10:46, 4 July 2007) a user called Karl A. Dönitz (created 16:26, 5 July 2007) upload the same image (16:29, 5 July 2007) in the English Wikimedia with the name en:Image:El_Miguel_de_Cervantes_en_Ferrol_1943.jpg to circumvent deletion request here. --Prevert^(talk) 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sundiata+Tellem+C-Span.jpg

blatant copyvio. 18 April 2006 User:Jkelly

Looks like TV screenshot. Deadstar 11:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Super yuki 2005 open.JPG

obvious 28 April 2006 User:Geofrog

Delete Blurry picture of what (according to the text) is a supermarket. Out of scope as will not be used. Deadstar 11:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Swedish Measuring Spoon Set.png

Replaced by another version. 12 April 2006 User:Maggu

Delete The image is redundant through a better file format and has low image quality and resolution. User nominating is also the uploader. --Digon3 ^talk 17:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SwoopBike1.jpg

Derivative work. 17 May 2007 User:Raffaello9

User nominating is also uploader. Deadstar 11:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SwoopBike2.jpg

Derivative work. 17 May 2007 User:Raffaello9

User nominating is also uploader. Deadstar 11:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Xbox 360 white background.jpg

The image Image:Xbox 360 white background 2.jpg is better. ~ bayo or talk 12:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(Old incomplete deletion request) --ALE! ¿…? 11:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

marked as duplicate for project wide replacement --Polarlys 16:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Technosphere1.jpg

I meant to upload this to Wikipedia, not the commons. Woops! 12 June 2006 User:Rkitko

No license on the file. Deadstar 14:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely delete. Sorry, I had forgotten about this. No license because it would have to be fair use and I had uploaded it to Commons by accident before I really knew what I was doing. Thanks for fixing the deletion request! Cheers, --Rkitko 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, fair use--Polarlys 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Template-Information.png

This uploading was an error and is now replaced by Image:Info.png. Please delete it. 29 April 2006 User:Roger McLassus

deleted, --Polarlys 16:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Terceira Perimetral-Porto Alegre.jpg

Copyrighted image mistakenly uploaded. 16 January 2007 User:Rhcastilhos

Have left message with user requesting where it is from. Deadstar 14:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Soireerallye.jpg

Useless image. Out of project scope. Siebrand 14:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Uvsq2.gif

Tiny little image. Useless. Siebrand 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has a low image quality/resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Uvsq4.jpg

Tiny little image. Useless. Siebrand 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has a low image quality/resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Uvsq.jpg

Tiny little image. Useless. Siebrand 15:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has a low image quality/resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mysterious_axman.gif

Claims a PD-old type license without any dating. Siebrand 15:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is 1919 US sheet music. I am adding that information to the image page. Keep. -- Infrogmation 02:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --Polarlys 16:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Thatsgold.JPG

Extremely small image. Requested a larger version and more info. Siebrand 15:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Depeche_Mode_-_Touring_The_Angel_-_Praga_-_23.01.06_-_054_-_RD.jpg

not clear what the license and/or source are (→zel zany - framed) 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strange, source are very cleare ==> http://www.dmpoznan.terramail.pl/ and licence is to choice by user 'couse author said: GFDL or CC-BY-2.0 - it's hard to understand??? Joymaster (81.190.7.243 20:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

deleted, no permission --Polarlys 16:30, 12 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.

Image:Escudo_de_Tabasco.jpeg

FOTW copyright license is non-commersial Lokal _Profil 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mariah Teleton Mexico.jpg

The image has an unclear copyright status - the link provided ([9]) suggests that Univision Online is the copyright holder - and the uploader, L&D (talk • contribs), has previously uploaded images with inaccurate copyright information on the English Wikipedia ([10]) --Extraordinary Machine 20:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cool_Globe_Chicago_Skyline.JPG

This photo is derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. Such sculptures are not covered by freedom of panorama laws in the US JeremyA 22:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain more about this to a novice user. If the artwork is mounted in public, and part of a public exhibition, then how can photographs taken of it be not be free use. Does the local newspaper have to receive permission to publish a photo? This photo was taken to illustrate the cool globes page on Wikipedia. How could an article about cool globes ever be illustrated by a photo with this restriction? Would this restriction still be in place if more than one globe was in a photo?--I'm nonpartisan 03:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many countries, including the US, copyright law covers artworks in public space. You can take pictures, but you cannot publish them. Please read Commons:Freedom of panorama to know more. You might consider using your pictures as Fair Use and upload them on the English-speaking Wikipedia, which allows Fair Use. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a little of what Jastrow said. Publication of a photo like this to illustrate a news story would be considered fair use under US copyright law. Likewise the English Wikipedia (and some others) allow the publication of unlicensed copyrighted content under the fair use provisions. However, the images on the commons must be either free from copyright or freely licensed by the copyright holder. In the case of a photograph like this there is more than one copyright holder to consider. You, as the photographer, have agreed to freely license your photograph. But the owner of the copyright of the globe has not agreed to freely licence reproductions of his/her artwork.

Most countries have a provision in copyright law that allows publication of photographs taken in public spaces that include, for example, buildings whose design is copyrighted; and in some countries these laws extend to artworks that are permanently installed in public spaces. However, in the US artworks are not included in these 'freedom of panorama' laws and so artworks that are publicly exhibited are treated exactly the same as those that are privately exhibited.

To see an example of how a Wikipedia article on a sculpture can be illustrate using 'fair use' images see the article w:Spindle (sculpture) that I started working on a few days ago. I have included in this article a photograph that I took, but which I have published under a claim of fair use (click on the image to see the fair use claim). —JeremyA 18:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, as per JeremyA--Polarlys 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Takamatsuzuka tomb mural.gif

.gif image duplicate of Image:Takamatsuzuka tomb mural.jpg. 5 May 2007 User:MChew

Deleted. JPG is better in this case. Samulili 10:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Starkbierfest Nockherberg Munich 2006ArM.jpg.jpg

Fehler im Bildtitel. 28 June 2006 User:ArtMechanic

Red cross has been saved over image. Deadstar 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (badly named)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Soldaten rote armee.jpg

(no reason given) 26 April 2006 User:217.88.144.83

Deletion request was put on in April last year without mention of reason, after that license etc. was added (perhaps that was the issue). The deletion request was never taken off the image. Can an admin check licensing etc. and decide. Thanks. Deadstar 08:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept; no real reason for deletion, licensing is legit. (→O - R L Y?) 21:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Terraconensis SPQR.png

please see the new Image:Tarraconensis SPQR.png. 19 June 2007 User:ThomasPusch

Matt314 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Terraconensis SPQR.png" (fixed version at Image:Tarraconensis SPQR.png)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Haliaeetus_leucocephalus_landing_on_nest.jpg

When I went to add it to the Haliaeetus leucocephalus page, I discovered another copy of the image already there. Somehow I missed it the first time I checked! MeegsC 18:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Haliaeetus leucocephalus2.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SouthIsland rrMap.svg

Obsolete. Temporarily replaced by File:SouthIsland rrMap wip.svg, will eventually be replaced by a final version, with this filename (which is why it's important to remove this image). 5 November 2006 User:Manu3d

I can not see a use for this image, but the announced image that should replace this one, was never uploaded. What do we do with this then? --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Out of project scope. --Siebrand 13:38, 4 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.

Image:Stava2.jpg

This image is public domain in Italy, but in other countries it might be considered differently. Please verify if italian public domain is compliant with your country's law before using it. However, this image cannot be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. (22 May 2007 User:84.222.78.152)

No source for image (besides en: wiki) Deadstar 10:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unsourced. --Siebrand 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stickstoffumwandlung im Aqu.svg

It's not longer used by me, or any article. It has been replaced through a better one. User:Metoc

Kept. Please use duplicate or superseded, as we now do not know which image you are referring to. --Siebrand 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Scilla bifolia R0015596.JPG

wrong identification. Near identical to Image:Scilla siehei R0015598.JPG. Please delete Image:Scilla bifolia R0015596.JPG. 1 April 2006 User:TeunSpaans

tagged with {{rename image|Scilla siehei R0015596.JPG}}

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:TGFBPathwaystep1.svg

(no reason given) 26 June 2006 User:GAThrawn22

File doesn't open for me. Deadstar 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. File does work, just isn't rendered. Maybe someone could correct it. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tabernacolo Orcagna.JPG

a new version of this file has been uploaded (Image:Tabernacolo Orcagna2.JPG) 12 May 2006 User:Sailko

Other file is brightened version of this one. Deadstar 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has been replaced by a better version. --Digon3 ^talk 14:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. dupe of Image:Tabernacolo Orcagna2.JPG --Siebrand 13:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still pending --Sailko 21:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. abf /talk to me/ 07:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Taisanji08s2048.jpg

It is a wish from a contributor. Redundant, Image:Taisanji08s3200.jpg. 8 November 2006 User:663highland

Keep Same building, different day? Deadstar 14:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 13:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:TartanClanMacAulay.png

This image was based on Image:TartanClanMacAulay.gif, which has been deleted for copyright reasons, see here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asta#Image_Tagging_Image:TartanClanMacAulay.gif, so i think this image should be deleted just in case. 23 June 2007 User:Celtus

kept, this image is only based on the deleted image. It is presumingly a totaly own work. --ALE! ¿…? 09:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Teatrodominguinhos2.jpg

I uploaded this image, I don't want to use this anymore and incomplete information. 22 June 2007 User:St0rM347

no reason for deletin --ALE! ¿…? 10:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Telemann-Seal.jpg

I had uploaded this image at a time when I didn't know that taking a picture of a three-dimensional work creates a copyright. I don't have the permission from the copyright owner, so this is a copyright violation. --User:Phrood 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Termosiphon.png

Replaced By Image:Thermosiphon.png -- RainerBi 18:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 5

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Shoreditch_roundel_6-6-06.jpg

gyg 82.16.7.63 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, what does 'gyg' mean? BillyH 14:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept No valid criteria (or any criteria for that matter) for deletion was given. -- Cat ^chi? 21:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:The Eiffel tower, Paris, 4 août 2006.JPG

violation of the © User:Gnagnael 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Strange as this may sound night photos of the Eiffel tower is indeed copyrighted as per French copyright and court case on the matter. -- Cat ^chi? 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. No copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Lautrec_the_english_girl_from_the_'star'_at_le_havre_1899.jpg

Lower-quality version of Image:Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec 053.jpg grendel|khan 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted /duplicate/ please use speedy delete for duplicate. Petrusbarbygere 23:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Carfireterro.jpg

it is an ITN screenshot deleted from english wikipedia for failing fair use requirements Madmax32 10:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Polarlys (9 July 2007 18:51). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Timbre type.jpg

It's ugly !--Pseudomoi 21:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugly is a bit POV, I just doubt if it's useful. Deadstar 08:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete it isn't use. --

Pseudomoi (to chat on WP) 08:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not relevant for deletion. --FSHL 11:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (out of scope), --ALE! ¿…? 22:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Torre Europa2.pav.jpg

está horizontal. 11 September 2006 User:Pavlemadrid commons

Delete Rotated image is Image:Torre Europa2..pav.jpg Deadstar 09:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Series of an ejaculating penis.JPG

Widerlich und in keiner Weise lehrreich. 84.57.110.158 18:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC) --84.57.110.158 18:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not relevant for deletion. --FSHL 10:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete this—the preceding unsigned comment is by 71.55.201.169 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 July 2007 (CET)
Keep - No reason to delete. Image is in right category and there are no better ones yet. Mathy38 09:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --ALE! ¿…? 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Img 0917.jpg

I forgot to change the filename. Reuploaded the file as Image:Taunus-Grosser_Feldberg.jpg. --Warden 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrong file name. Please use {{badname}} for images uploaded by you that have a bad file name for next time. --Digon3 ^talk 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:WayneLA2007.jpg

Derivative work. I don't believe the statue itself is CC licensed. William Avery 07:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming it was taken at the Staples Center in Downtown Los Angeles, then for the USA for artworks, even if it is permanently installed in public places, any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork. --Digon3 ^talk 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a {{derivative}} work. --|EPO| ^da: 14:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Times new roman.png

obsolete: Image:Times New Roman sample.svg. 30 April 2006 User:Atanamir

I believe requests like yours are suspended, see Commons talk:Deletion requests/Superseded. Please tag the image {{SupersededSVG}}. --Digon3 ^talk 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above; closing. --|EPO| ^da: 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Morison.svg

that was not, what i expected Drahreg01 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corrupted svg, deletion requested by the uploader. --Digon3 ^talk 14:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:John Prichard.jpg

wrong name; duplicate –Kaihsu Tai 22:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please use {{duplicate|Image:NEW FILE NAME}} --ALE! ¿…? 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - but please use correct template next time. --|EPO| ^da: 14:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Image-Barbara Jeppe00.jpg

The license tag asserts GFDL but the work is attributed to someone else. There's no evidence that the creator has licensed this work. Butseriouslyfolks 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely GFDL. Wooyi 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:HorseBot.png

This is not a federal work but a state work and therefore not pd-US. Speedy delete, I am the uploader and it was my a mistaken understanding of the US work-of-govt clause. --Shyamal 10:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Polarlys: no federal work

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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:Castro Pretorio - teatro d Opera facciata piacentini 1010030.JPG

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --G.dallorto 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course and unluckily. --Lucas 20:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: as per [11]. Yann (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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:La Sapienza - rettorato 2083-4-5st.JPG

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". Ditto for the statue by Arturo Martini. --G.dallorto 18:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course and unluckily. --Lucas 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 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.

Image:Museo Nazionale Reggio Calabria.jpg

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --User:G.dallorto 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: as per [12]. Yann (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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:Reggio calabria piazza indipendenza e museo nazionale della magna grecia.jpg

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --User:G.dallorto 21:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course and unluckily. --Lucas 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted: as per [13]. Yann (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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:Roma teatro opera.jpg

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --G.dallorto 18:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course and unluckily. --Lucas 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 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.

Image:Roma-Università la sapienza01.jpg

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --G.dallorto 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course and unluckily. --Lucas 21:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 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.

Image:Q10 - stazione Ostiense cavalli marini 1000528p.JPG

Delete 1957 work, may not still be in the PD (at least 70 years from creation). No FOP in Italy --User:G.dallorto 21:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:11, 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.

Image:Borgo - monumento a santa Caterina di Francesco Messina 1876.JPG

Messina died in 1995. No FOP in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 21:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:12, 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.

Image:Roma - Palazzo Civiltà Lavoro01.JPG

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --User:G.dallorto 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:31, 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.

Image:Roma - Palazzo Civiltà Lavoro02.JPG

The monument is after a plan by Marcello Piacentini. Since Piacentini died in 1960, his works will not be in the public domain until 2030. Italy has no "freedom of Panorama". --User:G.dallorto 21:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : no FOP in Italy. Many content of Category:Italian architects not in the Public Domain yet should be deleted as well. Petrusbarbygere 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Milano - Piazza Cadorna images

Merged requests:

Nominated by G.dallorto:

Nominated by 87.0.123.15:

Image:IMG 7503 - MI - Stazione Cadorna FN - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto 31-Mar-2007.jpg kept The architecture is not the main subject of the image. --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:IMG 6470 - Milano - Stazione Nord Cadorna - Foto Giovanni Dall'Orto - 3-March-2007.jpg kept The architecture is not the main subject of the image.

Comments

Images nominated by G.dallorto

Gae Aulenti is a living architect, and FOP does not apply to Italy. --User:G.dallorto 13:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of many of the pictures, and I changed the request into copyviol today (more appropriate, given the case). --User:G.dallorto 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images nominated by 87.0.123.15

Gae Aulenti is a living architect, and FOP does not apply to Italy. --87.0.123.15 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I agree the Cadorna station should go, after Ms Aulenti revamped it, and although I self-nominated scores of pix of mine for deletion, I doubt this particular pic represents a detail that could pass the "threshold of originality" test. This is just an arrival hall, not build by Ms. Aulenti. Of course it's just a piece of my mind. --User:G.dallorto 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be sincere, I'm not really sure about that... But you could be right indeed (BTW, the IP was mine). --Lucas 19:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

done (the "IP" images were kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Triangle Factory fire 002.jpg

not really in PD. 1 July 2007 User:Chanueting

but out of copyright in the US due to age (March 15, 1911)-- Chris 73 15:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there's no firm evidence of who the original copyright holder was, or that this picture has ever been formally published with the copyright holder's consent. William Avery 10:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely published before 1923, looks like stock photography/news agency photos. Madmax32 03:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I've mentioned in Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Triangle Factory fire, the images under that category with the link marked with "Source" (in http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/m_r/pinsky/triangle.htm ) are actually from http://newdeal.feri.org/ , and are free to use non-commercially only (request for permission is required for any commercial uses. See here for the file Image:Triangle Factory fire 002.jpg.). So, no, the image isn't in PD. --Moonian 15:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they don't own the copyright on that image, they say it is from the FDR library, which is a public domain library, besides it was taken in 1911 by a stock photo agency (Brown Brothers founded in 1904 and still exists) and since it was published before 1923 it is public domain. Madmax32 00:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, we need a firm source to prove that this is a PD image (to be put in the image description page), no matter it really is PD or not. But, unfortunately, I'm unable to find the image out from the Library or the Brown Brothers websites. --Moonian 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Samulili: Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Triangle Factory fire

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Test arabe2.png

Copie d'écran d'un mot arabe erroné. 16 February 2006 by User:Ske. user:66.131.194.120 noted "incorrect render of the arabic text" on 15 April 2006.

Fixed deletion request Deadstar 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's test--OsamaK 21:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, the image is in use --ALE! ¿…? 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Test arabe4.png

15 April 2006 User:66.131.194.120 incorrect render of the arabic text

Fixed deletion request Deadstar 07:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's test--OsamaK 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, the image is in use --ALE! ¿…? 14:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:The german language since 1945.PNG

This file classifies Dutch as part of the German language, eventhough it is older than German and has had a standard form for nearly 400 years.It also givesn a false view of the German speakers in eastern Europe making them seem more numerous and dominant that they ever were in reality. 8 August 2006 User:Rex Germanus

Karte wurde durch eine andere ersetzt. Map was replaced by another. Postmann Michael 03:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed deletion request. Deadstar 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that the map has nonexistant sources. It says it bases itself on a NATIONAL census in the German Empire, yet shows vast amounts of areas oudside Germany. This map cannot be accounted for. Delete.Rex 08:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tokyo mizube cruising line01 1024.jpg

It is a wish from a contributor. Quality of image is inferior. Redundant---Image:Sumida river03s3200.jpg -- 24 April 2007 User:663highland

Comment The other image is not a duplicate. Deadstar 08:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The other image is not a duplicate and therefore not valid reason for deletion. --Digon3 ^talk 14:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Low quality is no reason for deletion, also the image is not a duplicate. --GeorgHH 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tokyo mizube cruising line02 1920.jpg

It is a wish from a contributor. Quality of image is inferior. Redundant---Image:Sumida river03s3200.jpg. 24 April 2007 User:663highland

Keep The other image is not a duplicate at all and therefore not valid reason for deletion.

Kept: Low quality is no reason for deletion, also the image is not a duplicate. --GeorgHH 19:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tony Stewart IndyCar.jpg

Uploaded the wrong file, wanted a cropped version that has now since been uploaded. (Image:Tony Stewart IndyCar Crop.jpg). 3 July 2007 User:The359

Delete The file is redundant through a better but not identical one. --Digon3 ^talk 17:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, also to remove the people's faces from the photo. Royalbroil 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:A coruna torre de hercules sunset.jpg

this version is tilted. I have fixed it, the better version became "quality image". See Image:A coruna torre de hercules sunset edit.jpg --Alessio Damato 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image is redundant through a better but not identical one. --Digon3 ^talk 14:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (no need to delete the original) --ALE! ¿…? 09:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Torre Espacio7.jpg

el fichero ya existe con un nombre distinto. 12 September 2006 User:Pavlemadrid commons

Comment I can't find a duplicate image. User does not speak English, perhaps someone can leave a comment in Spanish requesting the name of the other file? Thanks. Deadstar 09:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Español: Traducción del comentario anterior de Deadstar: No encuentro la imagen duplicada (la otra versión de la misma imagen)

--Pere prlpz 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, I can not find the duplicate --ALE! ¿…? 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tågetöverbält.jpg

24 August 2006 User:Frederico erase this picture! It does allredy exist but a much better one! 24 August 2006 User:EugeneZelenko delete: uploader request

Fix request Deadstar 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the other image's filename? --ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, but tagged with {{superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Torre Espacio7.jpg

el fichero ya existe con un nombre distinto. 12 September 2006 User:Pavlemadrid commons

Comment I can't find a duplicate image. User does not speak English, perhaps someone can leave a comment in Spanish requesting the name of the other file? Thanks. Deadstar 09:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Español: Traducción del comentario anterior de Deadstar: No encuentro la imagen duplicada (la otra versión de la misma imagen)

--Pere prlpz 13:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, I can not find the duplicate --ALE! ¿…? 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tågetöverbält.jpg

24 August 2006 User:Frederico erase this picture! It does allredy exist but a much better one! 24 August 2006 User:EugeneZelenko delete: uploader request

Fix request Deadstar 12:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the other image's filename? --ALE! ¿…? 09:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, but tagged with {{superseded}} --ALE! ¿…? 13:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images uploaded by Bonjour Quebec (talk • contribs)

The user above has uploaded several pictures taken from www.bonjourquebec.com under a {{GFDL}} license. As far as I could check the source has not released its pictures under the informed license (http://www.bonjourquebec.com/qc-fr/creditsphotos.html). Dantadd✉ 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Permission has been logged under the OTRS system. The user has permission to upload these photos under whatever license she wishes. Although she has uploaded the pictures under the GFDL, I advised her that Creative Commons was better for pictures, so she will be changing the license.--Shanel 21:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The OTRS ticket number is 2007071710012519. --Gribeco 02:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be solved --ALE! ¿…? 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Transylvania.png

Map is missleading. The area is stretched over the region of Banat which is not part of Transylvania. Either correct it or delete it. (From the talkpage: This is a false map as it includes the Banat region, which is quite a distinct region. This is part of the Cluj current of thought, which, for political goals, insists that Transylvania includes Banat as well. This current of thought is not recognised as such, especially in Banat, where there is opposition and rage at the continous bias. The regions are both distinct and have had quite a distinct history. There is no scientific ground on which one can allege that Banat is part of Transylvania. To source this statement, it is enough to read the articles about the two. --User:Radufan 14:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed request Deadstar 12:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep map is widely used, plus this is disputed whether it is or not, comments on w:Talk:Transylvania --Astrokey44 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image kept, no copyright issue --ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 23 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.

Image:Poitou-Esel Sam.jpg

reason: photo is not needed any more --Holger (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, no reason for deletion. --Martin H. (talk) 12:59, 28 September 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.

File:Poitou-Esel Sam.jpg

(copyright law, I saw the photo outside Wikipedia /Wikimedia without my permission) --Holger (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. An image released under a free licence can be used by anyone as long as they comply with the terms of the licence. If someone hasn't then it is an issue for the photographer to take up with that individual/organisation. Adambro (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tomir2.jpg

ATENCIÓ: en realitat és el Puig Roig! It is a wrong image. I've uploaded it by error. 07:05, 21 April 2006 User:Paucabot

Comment Image was uploaded on 19th April, and put up for deletion on the same day. On 20 April 2006 User:Socay loaded another picture over the original one (2048×1536 (768,217 bytes) (El Tomir. Escorca. Mallorca.)) - the final edit to the deletion request was on the 21st, but it might actually refer to the previous image. Deadstar 08:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Neither image versions had any copyright information since July in any case. -- Infrogmation 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tommaso Villa iii.jpg

No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). 15 May 2007 User:G.dallorto

(Fixed request. Deadstar 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deleted / Fred J 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tommaso Villa iii.jpg

No reason (author, date of publication) given for its being in the PD. Camera.it does not publish under free lincense, nor gave the requested authorisation do use its images in Wikipedia (please see for this: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni_non_ottenute#Camera.it ). 15 May 2007 User:G.dallorto

(Fixed request. Deadstar 08:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deleted / Fred J 21:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 6

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Am I Not A Man and a Brother

This category is badly named and is not used. I just created it and noticed the error in the naming. --84.20.17.84 10:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Jastrow: renamed Category:Am I Not a Man and a Brother

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wappen VG-Kirchen.jpg

see: Image:Wappen_vgkirchen.gif 12 May 2006 User:Rp.

kept, no reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 15:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vielfliegerkarten.Selektion.JPG

Image:Vielfliegerkarten.Selektion-whiteout.JPG is not a duplicate but similar. This picture needs to be deleted because numbers are displayed which may lead to some misuse. Mattes 05:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wartbergturm.jpg

Copyrightvermerk auf dem Bild!!! --User:kandschwar 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wiki-de-testing.png

I don't need it anymore. Thanks.4 September 2006 User:Baumanns

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wiki-es.png

Unused. 24 October 2006 User:Esnou

Keep Not being used in any project is not a valid reason for deletion. --Digon3 ^talk 17:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:WikiProjektShqip.png

error when testing. 6 November 2006 User:Shqiptari

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wikinewsspecialreport.PNG

Requested by user. 18 April 2007 User:Thunderhead

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Written range english horn.jpg

JPG is not suitable for this picture, correct version at Image:Written range english horn.png. 7 June 2006 User:PeteCS

Use {{SupersededPNG}} for next time. --Digon3 ^talk 17:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wst-logo-klein.gif

upload of .gif instead of .png file. 2 May 2006 User:Wst.wiki

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Zeitprofil.png

this image has never been used and is no longer needed. please delete. thank you. —User:Markus Mueller 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as requested

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vanessa cardui - Unterseite.jpg

There is a better one now here: Image:Vanessa cardui Eupatorium.jpg 30 July 2006 User:Hsuepfle

Keep Beautiful shot, not a duplicate, see no reason to delete. Deadstar 10:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Deadstar --FSHL 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --ALE! ¿…? 21:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ventspils.gif

We don't know, why these images should be PD. -- Breeze 11:54, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Source for supporting PD claim was not specified. --EugeneZelenko 15:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 21:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari koenmae HaShutsujo

このギャラリーを作成した者ですが、タイトルミスがあった為、本人依頼として即時削除をお願いします。special rapid(会話/talk/対話項/履歴/history/ja/en/zh) 10:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment　ここの「{{bad name}} －不適切なファイル名」の部分をお読みになり、ご自身で即時削除依頼を出せばいいかと思います。--KENPEI 12:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{commnet}}{{db}}と入力した結果template:deleteが出てくるモンでコモンズには即時削除が無いのと思い、ここへ依頼しました。ご指摘ありがとうございました。テンプレートを貼り替えて置きます。special rapid(会話/talk/対話項/履歴/history/ja/en/zh) 05:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Herbythyme: content was: '{{speedydelete|Page has wrong name. Correct name at Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari koenmae Hashutsujo. Deadstar 09:13, 11 July 20...'

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vanhankaupunginlahti.jpg

Sorry I uploaded the wrong picture. Delete this one, please. 1 July 2006 User:Oulal

Delete User uploaded picture by mistake. --Digon3 ^talk 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: per uploader request

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:David von Michelangelo1.jpg

Work of a notorious vandal on the Polish wikipedia. It uses an outlawed Nazi symbol and equates the Nazis with Polish Police. Al-Bargit 20:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not on nazi symbol grounds as Poland's banning of the image is not relevant to Commons but on COM:SCOPE grounds. -Nard 02:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Outside of scope. —Benn Newman 21:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wwwwwwww.jpg

Looks like a case of license laundrying using Flickr. The photo looks suspiciously from some website. PatríciaR ^msg 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its a photograph of a rock band, and very low resolution, and bad filename. Pretty sure its license laundrying. --Digon3 ^talk 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Darna.jpg

Picture has very low quality, probably not useful to any Wikimedia project or other educational purpose. --Samulili 08:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has a low image quality/resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no use. Wooyi 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Odd-nordstoga.jpg

Derivative work. See the photo here --Kjetil r 09:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides being a derivative of a photo with an unclear copyright status, it also has a low image quality and resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 20:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sea22.jpg

PD-ineligible claimed, but that's clearly inapplicable. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Arif_solak_HanabatCaravanserai.jpg

not clear what the source was originally, licensing also seems unclear (→zel zany - framed) 02:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Pls take a minute and observe the picture page in wiki EN at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arif_solak_HanabatCaravanserai.jpg

I'll appreciate it if you guide me about this as I see nothing wrong with original licensing. Cheers, Ori

Sending the permission to OTRS would make the matter more clear. Samulili 12:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, please provide a written permission to OTRS --Polarlys 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:US flag 50 stars.svg

Use Image:Flag of the United States.svg. 26 April 2006, User:Jacobolus

Delete Redundant and wrong name. Please use {{badname}} for next time. --Digon3 ^talk 14:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ucen.jpg

False license. 10 September 2006, User:190.46.49.142

Comment Uploader claims copyrighted-free use, image is from University of Chile website [14]. Deadstar 08:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 00:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Univeristy of oklahoma campus.JPG

Newer version (rotated) at Image:OU_Main_Campus_SEC.JPG4 June 2006 User:Ottergoose

Delete The file/page is redundant through a better but not identical one. --Digon3 ^talk 14:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant Vanheu 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Unkeler Wappen.jpg

Same Image in a higher resolution is available here: Image:Wappen Unkel.png --Deadstar 09:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be suspended, see here Commons talk:Deletion requests/Superseded. --Digon3 ^talk 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:VSRolle.jpg

I uploaded much better versions of this file: Image:Vicke Schorler Rolle Blatt 5.jpg and Image:Vicke Schorler Rolle Blatt 6.jpg. 19 August 2006 User:N3MO

deleted, --Polarlys 00:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vatnedalsdammen2.jpg

(no reason given) 28 September 2006 User:Flums

Image doesn't open for me. Deadstar 10:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Deadstar - Image is broken. Half of the picture is simply missing. --FSHL 17:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Venezia overview.jpg

Please delete, wrong image uploaded. 6 December 2006 User:Bogean

Delete Correct image probably Image:Venetian overview.jpg. Deadstar 10:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wicksell2.jpg

No author ame given, hence no reason for PD-old. 1 February 2007 User:AndreasPraefcke

Comment Johan Wicksell (the subject of this painting) lived from 1851 to 1926. Deadstar 13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone fluent in Swedish should ask at the University of Lund. Maybe they know who painted it. Lupo 08:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: COM:ART says that {{PD-Art}} does not apply in Sweden because "simple photographs" are granted a reduced copyright... Hence the photo would not be PD in its country of origin, even if the painting were PD. Lupo 07:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, 1. we don’t know the author, 2. COM:ART. --Polarlys 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Game photos 009.jpg

Although the content on http://www.freshhiphopnews.com is licensed under cc-by-2.0, it seems highly unlikely the photo was taken by someone from the site. --Spellcast 13:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless actual image url is provided. -Nard 02:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wikilogo11.jpg

not a WM project 17 January 2007 User:TownCrier

deleted, --Polarlys 00:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wscb hafen 0.jpg

just a marina of a small club, which has been deleted in de:WP, no further use expected --User:Uwe Gille 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has a low image quality/resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Roma-Smcosm_interno.jpg

Based on sv:Bild:Smcosm.jpg which was deleted due to lack of permission. Lokal _Profil 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mariposa California.jpg

Duplicate picture, see Mariposa street Ca.jpg req by Mrrxx 22:00, 05 July 2007 (UTC) --Samulili 08:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate file. Please use {{Duplicate}} for images that are exactly the same for next time. --Digon3 ^talk 14:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Make way for ducklings statue.jpg

Derivitaive work, FU tagged on enwiki. I've contacted the sculptor however, so perhaps we'll have a happy ending. Tag so I don't forget. 28 March 2007 User:Gmaxwell

Fixed request - I left a message for Gmaxwell on his talkpage on 11 June. Deadstar 14:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb and Keep. I know the US doesn't have freedom of panorama, but according to [15] it may be effectively PD. Furthermore the US government installed a replica in Moscow [16]. Also this is a park scene and it isn't a close up of just the ducks. Apparently the fair use justification was added to en.wiki to resolve a copyright dispute. This is often done on en.wiki as a compromise in disputed cases, whether or not it's actually needed. -Nard 02:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speculations about the PD nature of the statue is, with the information given, only speculation. Without hard evidence, the image should be deleted. Samulili 10:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted because the PD nature is speculative. (→O - R L Y?) 18:52, 29 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.

Image:Make_way_for_ducklings_statue.jpg

Previously deleted because there is no FOP in the USA. Then re-uploaded. I ask that you wait a few days to close this so the local version on en.wiki is undeleted. -Nard 03:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

undeleted at en.wiki. Delete away here. -Nard 00:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CIMG0566.JPG

Doublon Pregup 12:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digon3 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:CIMG0566.JPG" (incorrectly named duplicate of Image:Statue Frontenac Chateau Quebec.JPG)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:USS Shaw explosion.jpg

The existence of Image:USS SHAW exploding Pearl Harbor Nara 80-G-16871 2.png, the same image stored in .png. 7 December 2006 User:Brandmeister

Deleted. Exact duplicate. Samulili 08:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:WMD-radiation.svg

no more used, another svg symbol is available. 14 March 2007 User:Karelj

Keep It is acually used in several pages in the french wikipedia. --Digon3 ^talk 00:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Used and no known duplicates. Samulili 08:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Xinan China.png

small mistake --Immanuel Giel 13:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC). ARGUMENTS own work --Immanuel Giel 13:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment the image is used --ALE! ¿…? 15:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Could not locate mistake. Samulili 08:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:DrSmith.jpg

DVD screenshot, unclear permission GeorgHH 20:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Zajezdnia PKT.jpg

better version of picture already downoladed (Image:Zajezdnia PKT2.jpg). 14 May 2007 User:M-karpov

How is (Image:Zajezdnia PKT2.jpg) better? It has a lot smaller resolution. Keep for now and please use {{Superseded}} next time. --Digon3 ^talk 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Zamek w Mosznej.jpg

Chcę usunąć ten plik. Po za tym jest już wystarczająco zdjęć Moszna. 4 March 2007 User:LUCPOL

Comment Translation: I want to delete this file. There is enought photos of Moszna. Herr Kriss 16:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, no valid reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Zydrunas sawickas.jpg

I doubt this picture has been licensed under Creative Commons. 24 May 2007 User:Bender235

Comment looks like a crappy amateur photo to me. -Nard 02:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Świerklaniec - Dom Kawalera.jpg

Chcę usunąć ten plik. Po za tym już jest fotka Image:Palac_Kawalera_Swierklaniec.JPG. 4 March 2007 User:LUCPOL

My guess is this means this image is just a low-res duplicate of another image. -Nard 02:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nope, it means "I want to delete this file. There is already photo Image:Palac_Kawalera_Swierklaniec.JPG". Herr Kriss 16:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, no valid reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Flag_of_Chechnya.svg

it is not chechen flag 213.184.200.100 22:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

И каков-же есть флаг Чечни? Или Управление делами Президента и Правительства Чеченской Республики не знает флага своей республики [17]? - Urmas 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is flag of Chechen Republic.

А каков флаг Чечни? - Urmas 08:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here(Смотрите здесь):http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru-ce.html#prez

Указанные изображения ([18], [19]) одинаковые. Считаю, что Deletion requests надо убрать, посколько нельзя доказать, что это не флаг Чечни. - Urmas 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested translation for this. / Fred J 21:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After getting reply, I have uploaded the file with a new name: Image:Flag of Chechen Republic since 2004.svg, and will have it replaced by this on all Wikipedias, after which I will Delete it. / Fred J 08:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged with {{bad name}} and CommonsDelinker is running. --ALE! ¿…? 12:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:0.879696035645619.jpg

I think that copyright violation of the sentence.

日本語: 文章の著作権を侵害すると思われます。

--KENPEI 12:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does Japan has FOP? Wooyi 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't incidental inclusion, so freedom of panorama doesn't come into it. Japan does however exempt artistic works in public places from most copyright protection (art. 46). It also exempts a wide range of government texts from copyright (art. 13), and this plaque was written by the "Tokyo Prefectural Education Committee". Physchim62 22:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment英語を書くのは苦手なので日本語で書きます（Physchim62さんは、日本語がわかるようですので）。日本の著作権法　第46条では、美術の著作物でその原作品については利用が広く認められている（写真などを撮って自由に公開してもよい）。しかし、この説明板の「文章」は美術の著作物ではないので、第46条は適用されない。また、著作権法　第13条では、「国若しくは地方公共団体の機関、独立行政法人が発する告示、訓令、通達その他これらに類するものは、権利の対象とならない」としている。しかし、説明板の「文章」は「告示、訓令、通達その他これらに類するもの」とは言えず、第13条は適用されない。Physchim62 さんの法律解釈は正しくないです。--KENPEI 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I requested translation for this. / Fred J 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a long way to go for Japenese-English translation software but Google Translate translates his comment as...

"English writing is so afraid of being written in Japanese (Physchim62 said, you know, it is the Japanese so). Japan's copyright law Chapter 46, the art of copyrighted material for use in Hara Sono work is widely respected (such as photographs taken it is free to publish). However, the description of the board, "writing" is a copyrighted work of art because the 46th row do not apply. Also, the copyright law Article 13, "the country's institutions or local governments, an independent administrative institution to issue a proclamation, instruction, these other similar notice of the rights and be subject to," he said. However, the description of the board, "writing" is a "proclamation, instruction, these other similar notice," and is言EZU the 13th row do not apply. Physchim62's interpretation of the law is incorrect. -- KENPEI 04:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)"

Japanese laws seem pretty lenient, but I'm not clear on the reasons why this may be a copyvio. Rocket000 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Giggy\^Talk 09:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Asimov portraits

This is a photo from the LOC's New York World-Telegram & Sun collection; the first version is here, while the source link on the second is broken. The catalog record states "No information on creator or on reproduction rights found with the image, 1995"; the image is not known to be in the public domain. (Also, PD-USGov would be the wrong tag even if we had a valid license for it.) grendel|khan 14:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Library of Congress is the repository of records for US copyrights. If they can't find "information on creator or on reproduction rights", I assume there was no renewal of copyright. I suggest keeping with a retagging as {{PD-US-no notice}} -- Infrogmation 17:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That tag is almost certainly not valid for this use; the World-Telegram & Sun collection consists of newspaper photographs; newspapers tend to have copyright notices on their mastheads. Unless you can find the issues where these were originally published, note that they belonged to the newspaper, and show that the newspaper didn't publish a copyright notice in that issue, the tag isn't valid. grendel|khan 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the pictures. They are so old... The copyright protection cannot last more than halfcentury. It is part of history of our planet. We should not delete the history. Domitori 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is based on a mistaken assumption. Certainly some copyrights last more than half a century. (Some photographers even live longer than that....) Such are the laws. Please read up at Commons:Licensing. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright does not work like that; it's irrelevant how much we want to keep the image. It only matters whether or not the image violates the rules. These may be unfortunate rules, but we still have to follow them. grendel|khan 14:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep from the LOC site: "Photographs taken by New York World-Telegram & Sun staff photographers are in the public domain and may be used without restriction. " http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/coll/130_nyw.html#perm Bogdan (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 7

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gobbi Callas Barbiere.jpg

Image is incorrectly licensed as free. There is very serious doubt that the author has been deceased for 70 years. 70 years ago would have been 1937, and Ms. Callas would have been 13 years old. She certainly appears older. And that's assuming the author dropped dead right after taking the photograph. 70 years is severely questionable.--64.178.96.168 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. This was one of my early uploads - I will delete it. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 03:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Lumijaguaari: incorrect licensing info - picture is not old enough

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:StEXStatueBellecourL.jpg

no freedom of panorama in France. According to [20] it was created on year 2000. One needs the authorisation of the sculptor to publish such a photography.--Mathieu 14:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ggb reflection in a soap bubble.JPG

Not used in any projectMbz1 18:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --Polarlys 18:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ggb in soap bubble 3.JPG

Not used in any project Mbz1 18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like it. Madmax32 09:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as do I. Not valid reason for deletion. --Digon3 ^talk 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --Polarlys 18:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ggb)in soap bubble 2.JPG

not used in any project --Mbz1 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 20:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I like it Madmax32 01:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --Polarlys 18:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ggb in soap bubble 1.jpg

Not used in any project --Mbz1 19:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 20:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --Polarlys 18:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Webdanel.jpg

Uploading error [21]. Description does not belong to this image by Paleofreak. --Javier ME 21:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 07:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mistake, delete requested by uploader on Commons:Café. Replace by Image:Webdanel2.png. --Prevert^(talk) 20:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Loco085: a petición del autor

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Merrylands (Sydney, NSW)

Obsolete, superceded category. --JROBBO 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Flag-ja.png

there also exist more flags with better sizes (SVG instead of PNG), ... --Bangin @de @ku ¤ ρø$τ 20:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 22:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small and not used + no lack of SVG --Ntrno 12:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mikhail_Kalashnikov.jpg

Image is using obsolete PD tag and there is no reason whatsoever for it being PD given. The author can't be dead for over 70 years. Can't be {{PD-Russia}} either, Kalashnikov is too old on this picture to be taken before January 1st, 1954. Gestumblindi 21:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no source, no author --Polarlys 01:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:GFDL-AerialPhoto-MlitJp

Unused superseded license --Lokal _Profil 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As not used no reason to keep it. --|EPO| ^da: 14:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Su-37-Draft.svg

if you ask me, copy of this: Su-37_01.jpg, just vectorised and therefore little less details, i can not see a free licence for original source. --D.W. 11:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant and bad quality. Surely a better vector can be made.--Digon3 ^talk 16:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is not a derivative work. In case of doubt it's simply inspired. I don't deny that the suchoj image was to a certain extent the starting point for my work, but that's all. Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is absolutely different from Su-37_01.jpg. The fundamental difference between a lossless scalable vector image and a bitmap graphic is IMHO relevant to this relationship. Because totally zero of Su-37_01.jpg is part of my work, it can’t be an edited version of that bitmap graphic. And if it's not an edited version, it’s therefore no copyright violation - that's simply elementary. Threshold of originality is given. --FSHL 16:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is different from the other image, then

Keep. --Digon3 ^talk 17:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Digon3 - Redundant? I can't find another 3-view of the Su-37, so how could it be redundant? If you want to add a so-called »better vector« instead of my SVGs to Commons than feel free to do this. --FSHL 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Su-37_01.jpg was a commons file and Image:Su-37-Draft.svg was a low quality copy, sorry about that. --Digon3 ^talk 17:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then I couldnt understand why the quality is so bad: blurry lines. If you "zoom in" to the svg, it looks bad, you couldnt even seperate the lines. This could be made a lot better. when you say, that the original file was just the starting point, why you didn´t do it better, this way i couldnt see any improvement to a bitmap. So when delivering drawings, start with a bitmap and then do it better, using all advantages of vector graphic! LOL, the totally zero of your work isn´t Su-37_01.jpg? You just opened the file with inkscape and use a tool to vectorise, that´s it! So there is no real work of your own to produce a image. If you follow such a strange argument you would be able to use any pic from the internet, just vectorising and then its free for all (like you do so often, see your galerie)! Unbelievable.. --D.W. 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to D.W. - So-called quality judgements are as well known always relative and therefore not really relevant for deletion. The reason why the lines are »blurry« (I definitively prefer sketchy) is finally very easy: it was merely my will. More about that context you can read here. I’ll surely not specify my exacting procedures to you but Photoshop of course also participates at this process. But if you can make it better than feel also free to do this and contribute them to Commons. --FSHL 19:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...maybe they wouldnt be better, but they wouldnt breach any copyright.--D.W. 20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to D.W. - Fact is that at the moment you’re just the only one that supposes that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg represents a copyright violation. That’s only possible because you simply compare apples and oranges - and that’s really unbelievable... --FSHL 21:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay..., we both can say, that a side, front or top view of a plane could look different, depending on the author (each of them will add a lot detail or just the prominant lines). So now i ask you how it could be possible that there are so many similarities in your blurry svg (lol, you say you want it that way, lächerlich) and a jpg-file. If we could ask the original author, he would say its a copy, whatever type of file it is, thats the point.--D.W. 21:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to D.W. - The reason is finally incredible trivial and IMHO simply elementary: both illustrate the same airplane. --FSHL 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

suching drawings are a kind of art, and therefore it´s not that easy..--D.W. 21:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to D.W. - Probably that’s the reason why you can’t make them but fortunately that doesn’t have to apply to me. Isn’t? I’d find it very strange if 2 3-view schematics of the same aircraft wouldn’t be similar... BTW: The reason why you can’t »seperate (sic!) the lines« is just as trivially: I simply use for all my vector graphics principally vector surfaces instead of lines. --FSHL 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

um ausreden nicht verlegen..when i open the your svg and the original file, they even match perfectly on inkscape-workspace.. and i think a could also make svgs like you (inkscape-tool does a great job)

So thats the way you work (in my opinion): take a picture (no matter where its from, you dont care), in photoshop you remove some detail, which look strange after vectorising and then you take this clear derivate (it is still not a new work from you) and then you just need to do a little work in inkscape. If you ask me, this method could not produce any media for commons. The worst are your works, using photos to create weird svgs (nobody would normally do so, so maybe you should reconsider this approach of delivering material to commons, you are theonly one). In the end, sorry for my bad english, read you tomorrow ;) D.W. 00:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you can't prove it is a copyright violation, vectorizing a bitmap requires some skill and I think this is made by the author Madmax32 00:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to D.W. - You call my replies »excuses« (German: »Ausreden«), I just call them the truth and there’s simply no doubt about that. You call my SVGs »weird«, I just call them an artist's impression and concerning to this we could surely endlessly discuss - de gustibus non est disputandum... --FSHL 02:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bad vectorising (it does NOT require uber skills to do this kind of work) + copyright problems (yes it is SAME imag, just moved views randomly) --Ntrno 11:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ntrno - Well, if you think that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg »is SAME imag (sic!)« i.e. identical than Su-37_01.jpg than you can surely proof this circumstance by facts. Can you? If it’s identical than it’s absolutely clear that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg represents a copyright violation. But you can’t because they’re ad oculos not identically. If it’s not identical but rather similar than you’ve to proof that Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is a derivative work of Su-37_01.jpg in order to design a case of copyright violation. The reasons why it can’t be de facto and de jure a derivative work is simply the fundamental different nature of lossless scalable vector images and bitmap graphics. Comparing vector images and a bitmap graphics is IMHO simply comparing apples and oranges. They’re both fruits but that’s all... --FSHL 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to D.W. - The plain fact that you think that you must request for assistance doesn’t really speak for you. --FSHL 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that I could found other users with bad experiences with you is a fact against you... and it is the same image, open both files with inkscape shows that they totally congruent in all lines, there are only some details deleted in your image (because vectorise the pic with them looks strange). THATS a proof, just a derivative (and so falling under the same licence like the original file--->not free for commons) image could do so. Its no matter if a file is svg or bitmap in this situation. this kind of reasoning would open the floodgates for even more copyright violations. No you are the only user, producing a lot of them. So stop this NOW!--D.W. 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to D.W. - Congruence is simply impossible and the reason for this is just as trivially: Image:Su-37-Draft.svg has a base size of 800 × 889 pixels, Su-37_01.jpg of 784 × 433 pixels. So they can be only congruent if you make them congruent by scaling and that’s by definition not a geometric congruence as rather similarity. I never negated that they aren’t similar because they’re the same aircraft. They must be similar otherwise they don’t illustrate the same airplane. Finally that’s just a proof that you didn’t understand the treated subject but nothing more. Furthermore I regard it as considerable supercilious that you really want to prescribe me what I might do. --FSHL 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL Can you produce any reasons why this work should be kept rather than nitpicking the many arguments against you? Just because the format is different does not mean that the work is not clearly derivative. The two works are clearly closely related. Even you cannot refute this. The fact that the other one (i.e. the jpg) came first rather implies that you used it to make the SVG. Just because the pixels do not line up does not mean that the work is not derivative. Would you say that if I increase the hex colour value by one unit for each pixel then the work is not derivate, just because no pixels are the same? no, it is still derivative. It is not about the pixels, it is about the work as a whole. If you would like to clear yourself, present proof that you have never, at any point in the making of this image, used a copyrighted work. And becfore you say it, you DO have to present proof to do so. If I may quote you from a similar argument on your talk page, I could upload then but I'll not. I've my justified reasons for limiting the publication that I'll not explain in public – sorry!. To me this strongly suggests that you are breaching copyright. Now you are accused, you may want to defend yourself with hard proof, if you have it. We are not trying to prescribe what you are doing for the fun of it, we are trying to make Commons a useful, fair, and legal repository of valuable media. You are bringing down the repuatation of the project with your works, which as far as I am concerned are copyvios, poor quality, and useless, making them also out of Commons Scope.Inductiveload 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Dude, I don't know where you come from but in Old Europe, particularly in Germany, it's (still) not necessary to prove one’s innocence... --FSHL 11:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - Well no. You can choose to not provide evidence that you are producing legitimate works, but that will not help to show that they are legitimate. If you commit a crime and exercise your right to silence, are you saying that you are therefore above the law? Just the fact that you refuse, out of hand, to present any evidence that this is your work suggests that you are hiding something. If it is legitimate, why are you being so difficult? Inductiveload 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Because it’s just my way and I don’t have any desire to change it? You’re BTW the first that doubts that I’m the author of Image:Su-37-Draft.svg. And to accuse someone of a crime can be punished – so please, choose your words carefully... --FSHL 11:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This image should be deleted because it is bad vectorised and it seems like if there does exist some copyright problems. --Bangin @de @ku ¤ ρø$τ 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Bangin - Show me just one damn single pixel that’s equal in both images. You can’t? Of course not because vector images simply don’t have any damn pixel. So how could there be a damn copyright problem? And if IYO really »seems like if there does exist some copyright problems« why can’t you specify it precisely? Only facts count. Furthermore is »bad vectorised (sic!)« definitively not a valid reason for deletion. If you want to argue with bad quality, then you’ve to give appropriate explanations why this particular image is IYO inferior compared to other ones. --FSHL 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For example, if you vectorise en:Image:PepsiLogo.jpg and change couple pixels (vector lines) and modify color gamut it WILL be copyright violation on commons. Su-37 case is same. Maybe it is acceptable on some other site under fair use or other license, but not Commons surely --Ntrno 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ntrno - Pepsi logo is protected by trademark and not by copyright. Similarity is sufficiently for a trademark violation. Your comparison is flawed. Please think before you post, dude. --FSHL 20:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear derivative work and is not apparently useful for any project that I can think of due to massive lack of detail and burryness (except maybe a tutorial how to attempt to evade copyright using Inkscape's auto-trace feature) Inductiveload 22:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is AFAIK still in use on 13 pages in 11 projects and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not out of scope. »Burryness« is really not a valid reason for deletion and even you know that. »Massive lack of detail« is a comparison, however to what? There’s simply no other 3-view of the Su-37 at Commons. All further arguments were IMHO weakened already because in this special case there’s just no »damn pixel« anymore. There’s absolutely nothing! Nada! Nichts! Rien! Niente! Niets! Ничего! 何も! There’re only vectors. And you can’t BTW prove beyond doubt anyone of your other allegations thus I don’t need to deal with it. I principally don't count the chickens before they’re hatched. Fact is: I share my images but surely not my know-how. Furthermore I don’t have to justify why I don’t want to publish other images... --FSHL 06:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - Blurryness is a reason for deletion. It makes it bad quality. If I upload an out-of-focus photograph, is that OK, just because I call it "art"? You cannot expect to turn a JPG/PNG/GIF, etc. into an SVG and get round derivative works rules, which exist for a reason. Just because the image is defined as a set of vectors, rather than pixels does not make it above the rules. You clearly can use Inkscape (especially since you claim that you didn't even use auto-tracing to make it), so whay don't you contribute good work? Inductiveload 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - I've got fortunately the autonomy to make my work just like I want it. But If you want to contribute a so-called »good work« instead of Image:Su-37-Draft.svg to Commons than feel free to do this. I don’t have made the rules in Commons however I obey them strictly. If you can’t prove any rule/copyright violation against me, then may be because there’s simply no one. Did you ever think about that? And if »Burryness« really makes it bad quality, compared to what? To your ideal of quality? And if: Do I’ve to obey it? --FSHL 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vectorised version even comes with the small inaccuracies of the original file, see the different spaces between the engines and fuselage or the vertival element in the illustration in the middle turning to the left slighly. One question remains: What about all the other files by this user? Where is the human brain (Image:Brain-Mapping.svg) traced from? Or Image:Jian-6.svg, Image:MiG-31B.svg? Compare Image:Yak-141-Draft.svg with http://www.yak.ru/FIRM/HISTMOD/yak-141.php --Polarlys 00:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Polarlys - I’ve used Su-37_01.jpg at the pre-production as study object in order to analyse its proportions, so the small inaccuracies of the original file could maybe as a result of this slipped in – that’s really probable and I can’t exclude that however I can’t confirm it... --FSHL 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So your files are traced from non-vectorised images generally? --Polarlys 10:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Polarlys - I share as already mentioned solely my images to Commons and definitively not my know-how therefore I’ll not specify my working procedures to anyone – there’s just no discussion about this condition. But I’ve created Image:Su-37-Draft.svg totally independently of Su-37_01.jpg. The only community between Su-37_01.jpg and Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is the fact that it’s the same airplane... --FSHL 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - Yeah, and I'm polar bear. Stop playing your "pre-production" theory game, we all understand that you've created this and 90% of your images using vectorize option in Inkscape. --Ntrno 14:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ntrno - I don’t know if you’re a polar bear but if you say so I’d believe it immediately – that would in fact explain a lot... --FSHL 04:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a three side drawing of the Su-37, it allways will look like the Su-37, whatever you do. And how much labor you ever spend to create such drawings, they will allways look like a Su-37.

This means, all such drawing will have a lack of originality, which makes them not copyrightable at all. I can redraw it by which measure ever, and nobody could ever claim a "copyright infringement" on it.

If any copyrights exist, then the one of the engineers who created the aircraft. But if this is the truth, you will have to accept that everything artificial will be copyrighted somehow and every image showing an artificial thing will be a derivate work. Images showing a car, airplane, mixer, handy, hoover, valves... -- Stahlkocher 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: The image at www.suchoj.com is not the original one. You can find drawings in the original data sheets. They were forwarded to the press by Sukhoi. The homepage mentioned here is a privat one and must not be confused with www.sukhoi.org, the manufacturers homepage.

Kept. Not a derivative work. Data cannot be copyrighted and the measures of the aircraft (via a mechanical drawing) is not a copyright violation. -- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chris cornell 1.jpg

already uploaded --Alonr 20:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please tag as {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 21:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siebrand (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Chris cornell 1.jpg" (Dupe of Image:Chris Cornell 2007 2.jpg)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LaHabanaMalecon.jpg

This image was previously uploaded under Image:La Habana Malecon.jpg and tagged with {{cc-by-sa}}. However, it did not attribute the author as required by the license, and no other source information (as required by Commons:Licensing to verify the license) was provided. The uploader was notified of this, and I deleted the image after nine days, two more than required by COM:DG. For this, I received wikimail from the uploader threatening to "go to Wikipedia administration to explain to abuse of power". The image has now been re-uploaded outside of process without an undeletion request at COM:UR. This time, it's tagged as a work of the US Government. The incomplete source information, however, credits NuevoHerald, which I believe is a newspaper not connected in any way to the US federal government. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above, and suspicious licenses. --Digon3 ^talk 16:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete, this image dont have copyright, was used by diferent newspaper in cuba and in United states. the inexist relation betwen Cuba and United Stated have the posibility of used diferent sources of pictures, because all pictures about cuba are considered in USA information for the american governement, and avalable for the publucation in USA territori, sorry about my english.--Juanca1492 00:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do indeed want to argue that the image is not protected by copyright for some reason, you need to provide a clear argument with references to applicable statute and/or case law. In any case, you must not claim that it is a work of the US Federal Government if you know that this is false. Making fraudulent statements of authorship is a criminal offense, regardless of whether or not the work is protected by copyright. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ramiroguerra.jpg

Previously uploaded as Image:RamiroGuerra.jpg and tagged {{PD-old}}, which clearly does not apply. Because of this, and because no source information was provided for over a week after being requested, I deleted it. For this, the uploader sent wikimail threatening to "go to Wikipedia administration to explain to abuse of power". It has now been re-uploaded and tagged {{GFDL}}. However, there is no evidence that "El Habanero" (which I believe is a newspaper) authorised these licensing terms. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete, This picture have copyright was taked about 60' years, and is liberated about all copyright in cuba and in USA.--Juanca1492 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do indeed want to argue that the image is not protected by copyright for some reason, you need to provide a clear argument with references to applicable statute and/or case law. In any case, you must not claim that it is licensed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License if you know that this is false. Making fraudulent licensing statements is a criminal offense, regardless of whether or not the work is protected by copyright. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Galle-les_coprin.jpg

Previously deleted for missing source information. The original uploader has re-uploaded the image with vague and (looking at his other uploads, presumably fraudulent) authorship claims whilst noting that he is actually not providing any source information. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, This picture come from the ofice os tourism of Nancyville, and font have copyright, this picture was taked for the tourism oficce for do the publicity to Nany city, france.

i,m sorry about the missing of imformation about the pictures. --Juanca1492 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your position within the Office of Tourism of Nancy, since you claim to be the copyright holder of the image? —LX (talk, contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One can put information later. I have put the location. Romary 10:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We still need an appropriate and truthful license and a verifiable source to confirm that the legitimate copyright holder approved that license. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the licence is not clear (and after looking again at the picture, I believe it is not clear), forget my vote. Romary 07:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lupo 20:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:000 0105.jpg

Unused, no apparent value. --Conscious 05:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I don't think you can delete on the basis of no apparent value. Redundant/bad quality and badname, maybe. --Digon3 ^talk 16:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant/bad quality and poor file name. --Digon3 ^talk 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:000 0146.jpg

Unused, no apparent value. --Conscious 05:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I don't think you can delete on the basis of no apparent value. Redundant/bad quality and badname, maybe. --Digon3 ^talk 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant/bad quality and poor file name. --Digon3 ^talk 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 12:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Soap bubble ggb.jpg

The picture was altered in photo shop and does not look as a soap bubble. No reason to keep it.Mbz1 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you have another picture with the correct file name? --Digon3 ^talk 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have many pictures. The thing is I'm not interested in displaying them on Wikipedia--Mbz1 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  - I meant do you have a exact copy of this picture with the correct file name so you can tag it as {badname}}?
    - But what should be the correct name? That picture is a picture of Golden Gate Bridge reflection in a soap bubble, but I cut and pasted the bubble to a black background in photo shop, which made a picture confusing for some. To me it is still Golden Gate Bridge reflection in a soap bubble, but I know what I took a picture of, while some other people cannot believe it was a bubble in the first place. That's why I'm not sure the picture should be shared with the World. I'd better leave it to myself only--14:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Comment See en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soap bubble ggb.jpg... Lupo 07:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would rename it Image:Bubble Reflection of Golden Gate Bridge or something like that.It may not be a soap bubble, but it is a Bubble. --Digon3 ^talk 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - But it is a soap bubble.--Mbz1 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Keep as interesting image. Deletion can't be based on the fact that one person queried whether it was a real photo. --MichaelMaggs 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:(Bird Dream Sequence -4(72.003).jpg

Not used anywhere. Description says it's a photo (but it's not) and nothing more, so have no idea what this image is good for. --Conscious 04:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it not used anywhere is not a reason for deletion. It needs a better description though. --Digon3 talk 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Apparently "self-created artwork without educational purpose". Samulili 11:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kirin_Beer's_Original_Brew.JPG

sorry, this is a duplicate of Image:A can of Kirin Beer's Original Brew.JPG 08pb80 15:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{Duplicate}} for files that are exactly the same. --Digon3 ^talk 16:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 11:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:First Boeing E-3 Sentry rollout.jpg

Request on behalf of User:Arcturus: No free license. Copied from US Air Force website but creator is Boeing. So no governmental work, not PD. --Polarlys 16:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Information presented on Air Force Link is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested." applies here, even if Boeing is the creator. -- 80.145.42.209 06:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USAF claims this in general for its website. This does not necessarily apply to every single picture presented there. That's why it is bylined with "Courtesy photo" and "Author: Courtesy of Boeing". Therefore not automatically PD. --80.137.8.244 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Boeing work, not federal government. Samulili 11:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Malcolmxmartinlutherking.jpg

Incomplete source information. No evidence of who the author is or that they placed the image into the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the picture on the english wikipedia and uploded it to commons in order to use it in a danish article. But I never used it. It's ok with me to delete it. - Apw 11:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my concern is not with the source information that you provided so much as the fact that the image as uploaded to Wikipedia lacks an original source. Clearly, it was not taken by a Californian high school student. The school site in turn cites a German university site (also clearly not the original source) with an address that doesn't work anymore. In all likelihood, it was taken by a press photographer and still protected by copyright. We'll delete it shortly unless we get information indicating that it's actually free. Thanks for understanding. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image was published (amongst other places) in the book Malcolm X: the great photographs by Thulani Davis (1993, ISBN 1556703171). I agree that it is most likely a still copyrighted press photo. It was taken on March 26, 1964.[22] Lupo 07:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 11:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Linde-verfahren.png

I uploaded the .svg-version. Image is not used any more. Mkossick 12:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request process for superseded images such as yours has been temporarily suspended. Please see in the discussion at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Superseded. --Digon3 ^talk 16:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 13:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bosia jud Iasi.png

Old map + wrong name. The new map with the correct name is here --B w raven 07:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are not exactly the same. Please upload an exact copy of Image:Bosia jud Iasi.png and then use {{Duplicate}}. --Digon3 ^talk 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The administrative teritories in the Iasi county have changed a lot. This map is out of date. If you're interested and know Romanian I can give you a link to the laws by which some 5-6 new communes were founded in 2004, Image:Costesti_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Ciohorani_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Bals_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Ion_Neculce_jud_Iasi.png,Image:Draguseni_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Fantanele_jud_Iasi.png, and some others. As you can see if you take a look at these maps and compare them to the one I'm asking to delete, these communes do not appear on that map. I edited the map so it would be up to date and updated all the maps in that category. This one is no good. --B w raven 05:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is a map of Iasi County as it was, it is an historical map, not an obsolete map. Maybe it requires a new summary and a new category.--Pere prlpz 13:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maps that once were correct are quite valuable from a historical perspective. Please change the description and recategorise to Category:Maps of the history of Romania. Cheers! Siebrand 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mihail Kogalniceanu jud Iasi.png

Old map + wrong name. The new map with the correct name is here --B w raven 07:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are not exactly the same. Please upload an exact copy of Image:Mihail Kogalniceanu jud Iasi.png and then use {{Duplicate}}. --Digon3 ^talk 16:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The administrative teritories in the Iasi county have changed a lot. This map is out of date. If you're interested and know Romanian I can give you a link to the laws by which some 5-6 new communes were founded in 2004, Image:Costesti_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Ciohorani_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Bals_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Ion_Neculce_jud_Iasi.png,Image:Draguseni_jud_Iasi.png, Image:Fantanele_jud_Iasi.png, and some others. As you can see if you take a look at these maps and compare them to the one I'm asking to delete, these communes do not appear on that map. I edited the map so it would be up to date and updated all the maps in that category. This one is no good. --B w raven 05:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As user:Pere prlpzIf this is a map of Iasi County as it was, it is an historical map, not an obsolete map. Maybe it requires a new summary and a new category. It shows how the County was, just not its current state. --Digon3 ^talk 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maps that once were correct are quite valuable from a historical perspective. Please change the description and recategorise to Category:Maps of the history of Romania. Cheers! Siebrand 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Klimadiagramm-deutsch-Madang-Papua-Neuguinea.png

Diagram based on the database of GeoKlima which it was created with; data in this database probably old and outdated (based for a lot of data sets on Müller's "Handbuch ausgewählter Klimastationen der Erde" which used a lot of data for the 1931-to-1960 period of time, but does not tell exactly which data is based on which source and period), at least can't be determined to a certain period of time. Meanwhile new diagrams are added (Image:Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-Madang-PapuaNeuguinea-1961-1990.png and two older periods of time for comparison reasons), replacing this diagram (except in Hedwig's own upload gallery). As Hedwig and I worked together on this climate diagram project (till his sudden disappearance in April), I think he would have no arguments against a deletion. -- JörgM 17:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The diagram don't state what is the period of time for the used data. It is unlikely that the picture can be better sourced. So, it has no usefulness for any Wikipedia project. --Juiced lemon 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nom. (No usage in Wikimedia projects.) -- 18:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Klima tianjin.png

Diagram based on the database of GeoKlima which it was created with; data in this database probably old and outdated (based for a lot of data sets on Müller's "Handbuch ausgewählter Klimastationen der Erde" which used a lot of data for the 1931-to-1960 period of time, but does not tell exactly which data is based on which source and period), sorry, that's really wrong for this diagram at least can't be determined to a certain period of time. Meanwhile a new diagram is added (Image:Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-Tianjin-China-1961-1990.png), replacing this diagram. --JörgM 17:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Fred J 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Klima shenzhen.jpg

Diagram based on the database of GeoKlima which it was created with; data in this database probably old and outdated (based for a lot of data sets on Müller's "Handbuch ausgewählter Klimastationen der Erde" which used a lot of data for the 1931-to-1960 period of time, but does not tell exactly which data is based on which source and period), sorry, that's really wrong for this diagram at least can't be determined to a certain period of time. Meanwhile a new diagram is added (Image:Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-Shenzhen-China-1961-1990.png), replacing this diagram. --JörgM 17:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image has been replaced by a better but different image with a better file format, making this redundant. --Digon3 ^talk 13:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Difference between the both diagrams (especially the difference in precipitation) has been discussed on German Wikipedia (now archived in de:Benutzer Diskussion:Hedwig in Washington/Klimadiagramme/Archiv2#Klimadiagramm für Shenzhen). I really don't know where the difference of about 400 mm is from - perhaps from Hongkong Observatory where they give their own data for that of Shenzhen? It's a real mystery ... User Hph (the original creator) has not answered yet on his German discussion page, but has just been once working under his name during the last two years there, so probably there will be no answer. I saved this diagram - so, if there will be an evaluation of its data, it will be possible to give it back to commons, of course in better resolution. Same applies to the Tianjin diagram. -- JörgM 22:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images of Canadian coins less than 50 years old

The Canadian coins would be copyrighted for 50 years since their dates. The Royal Canadian Mint copyrights all coin images. To be deleted are:--Jusjih 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the date of Image:Maple Leaf 1'20 Unze.JPG, so I am unsure if it should also be deleted.--Jusjih 15:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or TransWiki. Some or all of images are fair use on the English Wikipedia and necessary for articles on Canadian coinage. Before deleting, copy any in-use images to the English Wikipedia. Davidwr2 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the standard practice on Commons of allowing such images as mostly pd-ineligible. I admit their actual copyright status is debateable however. -Nard 23:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the complaintant is whining about the photograph of a physical object, not a copy of the object itself. I fail to see how copyright applies.) —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.203.227 (talk • contribs)

It's called a derivative work. -Nard 07:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/09/0146237. Siebrand 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know. What about U.S., international, and possibly even Canadian copyright laws not supporting this corporation's claims to copyright? The Royal Canadian Mint produces a lot more than Canadian coins, including some for the U.S. which are PD. So it's definitely not all their coins (or maybe they just meant in Canada?) Regarding the interesting article (and this ), copyright claims of obviously PD (ineligible) material (e.g. the words "one cent") are not given any legal power, however, the claims on images may have legal power. Does anyone know the status? Did the city of Toronto end up paying? I can't see that being legally enforced. If it is, delete. Rocket000 07:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it's worth, Don Wanagas, the Toronto Director of Communications, states in the National Post article (linked above) that "The penny is public domain". Rocket000 07:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Canadian Mint FAQ:

Do I need to obtain permission to reproduce coin images? Yes. Please refer to the Mint’s Intellectual Property Policy for more information.

No consensus - Please restart the discussion if you wish. Giggy\^Talk 09:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting --|EPO| ^da: 19:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Restored two since they are own photos and the copyright on the coins have expired. File:Canada 25 cents.JPG is an unfree photo from the Canadian mint, and File:Coincan.jpg is a 2004 penny. Abzeronow (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 8

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Burgernet.JPG

copy of Image:Burgernet.jpg --Spongo 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (please use {{duplicate}} next time), --ALE! ¿…? 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sabba_Ştefănescu_.jpg

superseded by Image:Sabba Ştefănescu 480x640.jpg, with higher resolution Victor Blacus 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 12:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Liviu_Constantinescu_.png

superseded by Image:LiviuConstantinescu 600x900.jpg, with higher resolution Victor Blacus 10:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 12:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sabba_S._Ştefănescu_.jpg

superseded by Image:Sabba S. Ştefănescu 480x640.jpg, with higher resolution Victor Blacus 10:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 11:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pohls_Wheel.svg

Duplicate of Image:Pohl Wheel.svg. 87.78.218.107 13:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK for a speedy deletion, it was a duplicate upload from me. -- Dr. Schorsch 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per uploader request. Was also tagged as {{badname}}. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:P1010439.JPG

Image name uncorrect. New file uploaded : Image:DisneyMagic Marseille.jpg. please delete this one. --Gdgourou 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please tag this requests with {{Bad name}} Platonides 15:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Euphorbia_franckiana.JPG

Misidentified - filename incorrect Carl M. Anglesea 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for deletion. Please tag {{rename|NewName.ext}} or if you have already uploaded the image again as {{duplicate|NewName.ext}}. Cheers! Siebrand 10:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected image has been uploaded: Image:Euphorbia_lactea_fa_cristata.JPG

kept. Will be deleted as duplicate when replaced. Siebrand 10:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Paupalaisbeaumont.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:The_Little_Mermaid_3.jpg

Edvard Eriksen, who created the sculpture which is the primary subject of this image, died in 1959. Denmark does not have freedom of panorama for statues. See Talk:The_Little_Mermaid. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 07:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Paik5.jpg

As far as I know, this sculpture is modern and was exhibited in San Jose Museum of Art (no panorama freedom for sculptures, not permament display). EugeneZelenko 17:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: scupltor Nam June Paik died in 2006. --Ju Ta 09:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 06:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Timbpt2.jpg

French post stamps are not in the public domain. --Yann 11:00, 5 July 2007, as rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Stamps/Public_domain#France --ALE! ¿…? 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If French stamps pictures cannot be kept here, then I agree with the deltion. olivier 06:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)"[23][reply]

Delete per all of the above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Carlos Maza.sxw

Non viewable. Orphan. What is an sxw file anyway --87.194.116.29 01:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sxw is an OpenOffice.org 1.x format for text and is a supported file type by the Commons. --Digon3 ^talk 16:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Contained a personal attack on a teacher. Outside Commons:Project scope and defamatory. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CHT.jpg

This is not the uploader's own work, therefore should not be released into the public domain. Keithorz 03:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Fraudulent authorship claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Copenhagen_statue_hc_andersen_city_sq.jpg

Google results for "Henry Lükow-Nielsen" suggest that the statue was unveiled in 1961, making it unlikely that the original work is in the public domain. Denmark does not have freedom of panorama for statues. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Yoshiki piano.jpg

Professional/close up photograph of a celebrity, that was added to w:Yoshiki (musician) rather conveniently under a free license, after a copyrighted image had been removed earlier. Given these circumstances and that the new file was uploaded by a new account, I suspect a copyright violation. Free images of the subject, taken during a public appearance are available and were previously used in the Wikipedia article (see Yoshiki). - Cyrus XIII 00:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The uploader's silence suggests that they're not willing to stand by their claims of authorship. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tresgrandes Acho.jpg

the picture was taken 61 years ago, the licence says, the author is more than 70 years death. I'm not a genius in Mathematics, but... --Marcus Cyron 13:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Inappropriate use of {{PD-Art}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:EdvardBenes port.jpg

not necessary in PD --Chanueting 01:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 07:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anonymous PD Madmax32 03:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no reason for public domain given, similar pictures (series?) can be found on the web. This image was scanned from a newspaper (?), without a clear copyright notice it’s neither public domain generally nor an anonymous work. Following this rationale, nearly every print product around me now was an anonymous work, including title pages of magazines and advertising brochures. --Polarlys 00:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Powiat chelmski.jpg

I see nothing on http://www.powiat.chelm.pl/ (source) that indicates this logo may be freely redistributed. License CC-by-SA may be wrong. --— Xavier, 12:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Negri176.jpg

Image is copyrighted, notice is at the bottom of http://silent-movies.com/ -N 15:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) ---Nard 15:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May be PD-US, appears to be from the 20's. -Nard 15:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on who the photographer was. It seems she worked in Poland and Germany before she moved to the US. So - depending on the nationality of the author - the image might still be copyrighted. --88.134.44.255 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no source --Polarlys 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ake_green.jpg

license is unclear with restriction (http://www.lifesite.net/aboutlifesite/legal.html) Oxam Hartog 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : permission is restrictive and probably don't allow commercial use. And is it text or tex and pic concerned. Is the website really owner of pic? Oxam Hartog 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a church website and that looks like the pastor. Pretty sure they own the pic. The only restriction I see is attribution, which is fine, but the license doesn't clearly spell out commercial use and derivative works. -Nard 01:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look att Google, the image is used on several websites without any copyright notices. To me it seems to be free, but I'm not completely sure. /Leos vän 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, insufficient licensing. --Polarlys 00:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:J-10-Draft.svg

vectorised from this file, found here [24] --D.W. 20:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also take a look here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Su-37-Draft.svg, same problem--D.W. 20:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Chengdu J-10 3-view.gif is just a derivative work of this one. But Image:J-10-Draft.svg is not a derivative work. In case of doubt it's simply inspired. I don't deny that J-10_line_sketch.jpg was to a certain extent the starting point for my work, but that's all. Image:J-10-Draft.svg is absolutely different from J-10_line_sketch.jpg. The fundamental difference between a lossless scalable vector image and a bitmap graphic is IMHO relevant to this relationship. Because totally zero of J-10_line_sketch.jpg is part of my work, it can’t be an edited version of that bitmap graphic. And if it's not an edited version, it’s therefore no copyright violation - that's simply elementary. Threshold of originality is given. --FSHL 20:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above (Su-37) --Ntrno 10:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ntrno - You simply assume bad faith... --FSHL 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Not a derivative work. Data cannot be copyrighted and the measures of the aircraft (via a mechanical drawing) is not a copyright violation. -- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:PKW mit Hänger Zusatzzeichen 1048-11.svg

(Misspelled name & wrong image uploaded - the image is not used) --Purodha Blissenbach 12:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the superseeding file is not identical --ALE! ¿…? 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the superseeded files was an accidentally wrong upload. --Purodha Blissenbach 22:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Soap bubble ggb.jpg

The picture was altered in photo shop and does not look as a soap bubble. No reason to keep it.Mbz1 18:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you have another picture with the correct file name? --Digon3 ^talk 17:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have many pictures. The thing is I'm not interested in displaying them on Wikipedia--Mbz1 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
  - I meant do you have a exact copy of this picture with the correct file name so you can tag it as {badname}}?
    - But what should be the correct name? That picture is a picture of Golden Gate Bridge reflection in a soap bubble, but I cut and pasted the bubble to a black background in photo shop, which made a picture confusing for some. To me it is still Golden Gate Bridge reflection in a soap bubble, but I know what I took a picture of, while some other people cannot believe it was a bubble in the first place. That's why I'm not sure the picture should be shared with the World. I'd better leave it to myself only--14:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
Comment See en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Soap bubble ggb.jpg... Lupo 07:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would rename it Image:Bubble Reflection of Golden Gate Bridge or something like that.It may not be a soap bubble, but it is a Bubble. --Digon3 ^talk 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - - But it is a soap bubble.--Mbz1 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]

Keep as interesting image. Deletion can't be based on the fact that one person queried whether it was a real photo. --MichaelMaggs 17:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LiviuConstantinescu_600x900.jpg

uploaded under wrong name (sorry!), identical with Image:Liviu Constantinescu 600x900.jpg which replaces it 217.232.154.247 21:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion request was made by me (it is not signed because I had already logged out and forgotten it -- sorry) and I stand by it.

-- Victor Blacus 16:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a duplicate image. Please use {{duplicate|Image:example.jpg}} for exact duplicates next time. --Digon3 ^talk 16:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged with {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stagnes.jpg

Deleted. Samulili 11:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Borås_Stad.jpeg

We received a notice on the Swedish Village Pump from Joy Charly Görsch saying that Image:Borås_Stad.jpeg is was not created by Anton Djurberg (who has a number of notices of problematic image licensing on his user talk page to which he has not responded), but by Görsch, who also provides a link to http://www.goersch.se/horred.html from whence the image appears to be taken. In the deleted image description at Swedish Wikipedia, Djurberg did not actually attribute the photo to himself but to "Krister Fors", without any further information as to who that might be or that he approved the GFDL license.

Görsch requests correction of the authorship information but does not explicitly approve the licensing terms. Thus, the problem here is twofold. First, we must answer who we reasonably believe to be the legitimate copyright holder of the image: Görsch, Djurberg or the elusive Fors? Personally, I'm inclined to believe it's Görsch. Secondly, we must obtain a clear licensing statement from the legitimate copyright holder, whomever that may be. The purpose of the discussion here is primarily to establish consensus with respect to the first point.

—LX (talk, contribs) 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation appears reasonable and I have no reason to doubt Mr Görsch. Please endeavor to obtain a OTRS permission for the image. -Nard 22:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I've changed the authorship information to what we seem to agree is the more credible version and, after having received informal GFDL approval, requested formal permission to be filed in OTRS. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Permission has been given. Samulili 11:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sheqel_symbols.svg

A more correct version exists at Image:Sheqel signs.svg bdesham ★ 21:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image kept, but you might want to add your comments of the description or talk page of the image --ALE! ¿…? 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images uploaded by Marcelo Mota Valério (talk • contribs)

The user above has uploaded several pictures that, IMHO, are out of the project scope. The pictures are used to illustrate his personal page in pt.wiki and here, in a style "à la MySpace/Orkut". Dantadd✉ 13:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Na verdade, eu nunca tive a intenção te tornar isso um Orkut... eu apenas pensei em fazer uma maneira de deixar meu Usuário da Wikipédia algo mais parecido comigo... E também, todas as imagens que eu coloco são de minha própria autoria e eu disponibilizo todas sem requerer nenhum direito autorial, assim ampliando o acervo de imagens da Wikipédia. Obrigado...—the preceding unsigned comment is by Marcelo Mota Valério (talk • contribs) 18:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images are used on the uploader's user page. I urge the uploader to limit the private images to a number of five. However, these images can stay for the moment. --ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 9

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Florian Michalik Popart.jpg

No more needed and wrong title. Thanx, 21:07, 5 July 2007 User:Eselsmann

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, we accept a user’s wish to delete photos showing his person. --Polarlys 18:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Perpignanlogedemer.jpg

L'auteur de cette photographie demande sa suppresion rapide (personnes identifiables). Image de surcroit inutilisé.
The author want to delate speedly his photo according to the French law because persons wouldn't like to appear on it. Furthermore, unused image.--Florent.pecassou 17:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image supprimée.

Deleted by Korrigan (20:45, 9 July 2007). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Strawinski-Brunnen_Paris-1.jpg

No FOP in France, De Saint-Phalle/Tinguely not dead for over 70 years NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Sculptors died in: fr:Niki de Saint Phalle 2002 and fr:Jean Tinguely 1991. --Ju Ta 10:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Strawinski-Brunnen_Paris-2.jpg

No FOP in France, De Saint-Phalle/Tinguely not dead for over 70 years NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 21:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Sculptors died in: fr:Niki de Saint Phalle 2002 and fr:Jean Tinguely 1991. --Ju Ta 10:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, as well as most of category:Fontaine Stravinsky. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ServantSaber at svWiki.jpg

Unused picture of myself. --Saya 23:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Zoos of England

superseded by Category:Zoos of United Kingdom --Jack · talk · 02:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Florent.pecassou 17:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not relevant for deletion. England != United Kingdom --FSHL 07:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE! (empty category)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Poule_nègre_soie_perdrix.JPG

Uploader has defaced the image beyond usability. Siebrand 08:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The quality of files should be as high as possible and should only contain the relevant content." COM:PS

Delete Samulili 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal advertising --Florent.pecassou 17:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Trio_de_negres_soie_fauves.JPG

Uploader has defaced the image beyond usability. Siebrand 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The quality of files should be as high as possible and should only contain the relevant content." COM:PS

Delete Samulili 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal advertising --Florent.pecassou 18:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FUQING.JPG

Why This map is GFDL? --Shizhao 03:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely isn't GFDL-self...

Delete Samulili 10:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Idem --Florent.pecassou 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE! at 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) giving the reason google earth screenshot. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cadillac DeVille Cabrio 1.JPG

New Picture here: Image:Cadillac_DeVille_260PS_1969_2.jpg. 3 July 2007 User:ChiemseeMan

Keep Not a relevant reason for deletion. Deadstar 09:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Deadstar - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The new Picture i upload is better, you can deleted the old. --ChiemseeMan 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --ALE! ¿…? 21:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Friedrich_Paulus.jpg

I doubt that this could be GFDL or PD Leipnizkeks 18:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 21:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Taipeibridge1927.jpg

copyvio, author is 李石樵, 1995 die --Shizhao 00:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Samulili 10:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 16:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.png

Reasons for deletion request because it is not a free image and not real coat of arms this is. Uploaded from site http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/images/y/yu)1922.gif copyright violation. Snake bgd 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 15:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Goettingen 21 2.jpg

Requested by one of the depicted persons. .:. User:Sarazyn 12:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dschwen: on request by a depicted person

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Storm2.jpg

wrong name Tewfik 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please upload the same image with a better name and tag this one {{bad name}} and use it for future files have you uploaded with incorrect names, and are unused. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 16:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I wasn't clear. I did reupload it at the time to Image:AILStorm02.jpg, which is the image currently on use at En WP. Cheers, Tewfik 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bad name. Please use {{bad name}} for next time. --Digon3 ^talk 12:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NITK.jpg

deleted in Chinese wikipedia: copyvio --Shizhao 03:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Image:NKFUST DOOR1.jpg, Image:NITK1.jpg--Shizhao 03:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CNwik.png

I uploaded this from en: wiki ages ago, but it says "considered public domain" (so that's not a certainty) and I don't know who created it, where exactly it came from. There are a lot more coats of arms of Ireland so perhaps it is a question of having the image created from scratch and replace the current one? Deadstar 07:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Index.pdf

PDF article contaning text and images. As is: out of project scope. Siebrand 08:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Miheso $ Mazerere.jpg

The image isn't within the project scope because the individuals don't seem to be anyone important enough to have an article ("Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." "Private image collections and the like are generally not wanted.") and the image isn't used on anyone's user page. --Samulili 08:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator.--Svetovid 09:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Habits.gif

owner, per my IRC discussion it probably should not had been uploaded. 17 March 2007 User:Pflatau

deleted, just for educational, non-profit purposes --Polarlys 00:05, 17 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.

Image:Habit broadplate.jpg

owner, per my IRC discussion it probably should net be uploaded. The file came from COMET site http://meted.ucar.edu/norlat/snow/micro_ice/1.1.crystal_growth.htm

There is follwing desciption on http://meted.ucar.edu/legal.htm

The user is granted the right, without any fee or cost, to access, link to and use, publish, distribute, disseminate, transfer, or in any manner alter, modify, revise, crop, copy (an unlimited number of times), edit, digitize, and authorize such uses for third parties for any non-profit training, research, or educational purpose whatsoever and not for any direct or indirect commercial purpose or advantage.

The source of this material is the Cooperative Program for Operational Meteorology, Education, and Training (COMET®) Website at http://meted.ucar.edu/ of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) pursuant to a Cooperative Agreement with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ©1997-2005 University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. All Rights Reserved."

I also contacted COMET and they indicated that use for educational purposes is OK as descibed above. Revision as of 01:25, 8 June 2006. User:Pflatau

This request was hanging around in the incomplete deletion requests. As it states it cannot be used for commercial purposes, I don't think it's for Commons.

Image:Aceofspadesfl.jpg

Although a license can't generelly be revoked, it's worth noticing that this image is a derivative work.

Delete Samulili 10:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bagaslaviskis.jpg

there is a better one. 6 July 2007 User:Juliux

Comment Very likely to be Image:Bagaslaviskis1.jpg which is a near duplicate. Deadstar 09:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a duplicate Bagaslaviskis1.jpg --Juliux 05:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not an exact duplicate (and I think Image:Bagaslaviskis.jpg is the better of the two). --Digon3 ^talk 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, different perspectives --Polarlys 00:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Comarcas de Granada.png

inservible 7 July 2007 User:Satesclop

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no source, no author --Polarlys 00:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Flag of Japan (bordered) 2.svg

There does already exist two versions of the bordered flag of Japan, Image:Flag of Japan (bordered).svg and Image:Flag of Japan (bordered) 3.svg --Bangin @de @ku ¤ ρø$τ 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, unused duplicate --Polarlys 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:!!!!高輪海岸の石垣石0306.JPG

I think that this photograph is copyright violation of the sentence.

日本語: この写真は文章の著作権侵害と思われる。

--KENPEI 13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Img379 94-01.jpg

I think that this photograph is copyright violation of the sentence.See,also,Commons:Deletion requests/奥崎謙三 photographs.

日本語: 文章の著作権を侵害していると思われます。Commons:Deletion requests/奥崎謙三 photographsも参照。

--KENPEI 14:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mugshot 50-Cent-a.jpg

I question whether this is really U.S. public domain. If it's determined not to be, it should be uploaded under fair use on Wikipedia. --Spellcast 15:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-US-mugshot}}is currently a redirect to {{Copyvio}} following this deletion request. Seems mugshots are not PD. --88.134.44.255 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:BejiCaidEssebsi.jpg

not sure that this photo was taken before 1982 !!! --Moumou82 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A possible copyright violation, as the main page of the source website says:

© 1995-2007 B. Schemmel. Data from this site may be queried and copied on a not-for-profit basis only if the source is accurately credited. All rights are reserved for profit-seeking purposes. This site is designed for purposes of sharing information freely and intended to be a resource for academics and other private users. Unless otherwise specified, the services of this site are for personal and non-commercial use. You may not copy, transmit, transfer, distribute, reproduce, modify, license, display, perform, publish, create derivative works from, or sell any information, software, products, or services derived from this site. Without the advance express written permission of Rulers.org, you may not send, or cause to be sent, any automated queries of any sort to the Rulers.org site, or use the site in any commercial manner.

Moonian 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SMS Message.jpg

this screenshot for mobile OS --OsamaK 18:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 21:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought this counted as a derivative work of the software? --|EPO| ^da: 08:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to |EPO| - This is still an image and definitively not a copy of the software... --FSHL 11:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of that. But if I take a photograph of something copyrighted it will most likely be considered a derivative work and thus not allowed on Commons. --|EPO| ^da: 11:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to |EPO| - I just can see a standard text, standard icons and a standard cellular – surely nothing of that’s protected... --FSHL 12:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is standard it is not the same as it is not protected. The text and icons generated on the display are a result of a protected software. --|EPO| ^da: 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to |EPO| - Nobody denies that the software isn’t protected - the question is whether the rest is protected... --FSHL 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more of a PD ineligible. Wouldn't it be better for us to create a "fake" cellphone text msg in SVG format? -- Cat ^chi? 09:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted derivative work difficulty and no author (photographer) explicitly stated. @White Cat: I think that’s a nice idea. --Polarlys 00:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Usr_wikifairy.png

No evidence, in the form of an e-mail transcript, OTRS link, or notice at the source, ir provided to back up the claim that this image is, "copyrighted, however the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rightsl." Iamunknown 19:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no permission--Polarlys 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image of Tokyo Watcher

I think that these photographs are copyright violation of the sentence.

日本語: これらの写真は文章の著作権を侵害すると思われます。

--KENPEI 14:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Freedom of panorama in Japan is for non-commercial uses only; except for images of buildings. Lupo 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, as per Lupo. --Polarlys 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NoGod.JPG

according to me it's simply useless--87.6.8.99 00:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"[F]iles 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. -- -- However, uploading images of yourself and others in small quantity is allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project (for example, a Wikipedia article, a Wikinews report, a meta article, a user page)." (from COM:PS, emphasis added) Although not a photo of anyone, this is a "self-created artwork" mentioned in the same paragraph of the policy. Hence,

Keep. Samulili 08:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical example of a useless/polarising {{attackimage}}.

Delete Siebrand 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose to deleting if this kind of images are forbidden on user pages of most projects (or in many of the biggest). But I was influenced to vote for keeping because the image is used a lot. Samulili 09:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia/Wikimedia is not censored, especially if there is nothing polarising here, Siebrand.--Svetovid 09:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Noreligion.jpg

DeleteOther images can be used to avoid gods' hurting representations : image:Noreligion.jpg, Image:No god.PNG--Florent.pecassou 18:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Florent.pecassou - That’s Gods problem and not ours. --FSHL 21:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. And don't forget that blasphemy is a victimless crime.--Svetovid 13:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image is used and therefore kept (of course!) --ALE! ¿…? 10:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NoGod.JPG

As per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:No Israel.svg O sama K 13:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep attacks noone (only god himself, but i do not think he cares) ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 13:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for deletion. Rama 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Idem. Grasyop ^✉ 15:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Personally, I'd say we keep them all, including the No Israel image, assuming it was just a crossed-out image of Israel. Either that or delete them all. I just cannot see an adequate standard to differentiate between what, to me, appears to be similar subject & usage among Anti logos. I'd think they could all be handy on Wikinews, which tends to have more use of clip-art-ish images such as these. On another note, I am not particularly fond of OsamaK's apparent disregard for WP:POINT. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is under discussion at the Village pump. We should close this DR and take the discussion there. This sums up well what I think about the matter. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. ^{__ ABF __} ϑ 13:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Live_Earth.svg

This is a commercial logo and there is no indication that it could be in commons. Svetovid 09:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not registered as trademark at WIPO -- 80.145.35.83 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know what trademark and copyright are.--Svetovid 13:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I incline myself to

Keep this image on the grounds of the templates {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-textlogo}}, and {{trademarked}} --ALE! ¿…? 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. {{PD-ineligible}} does not apply, because it does not consist entirely of information. {{PD-textlogo}} does not apply because the logotype is not simply text in a general typeface. It is a circle with a colour gradient (the official logotype actually features a skyscape within the circle), a morse code, and a typeface. The relative arrangement and size of these elements and the sizing and colouring of the circle as a whole meet the minimum standards of originality required for copyright protection. ({{Trademarked}} is not a licensing tag.) I previously deleted Image:Live Earth Logo.png, which is used under fair use provisions at en:Image:Live Earth Logo.png. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Axed; copyrighted. (→O - R L Y?) 09:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Maps with non-latin filenames

In this series, there are problems in filenames which contain non-latin characters. So I am going to clear these files from here and reupload at Japanese local Wikipedia server. Of course I don't prevent you to copy them and upload here in other name. --User:Lincun 14:48, 25 September 2006

Comment This is a deletion fix - the deletion template is embedded in this template put on about 150 files. Deadstar 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

can not see any reason for a deletion request --ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mcdonalds_oslo_2.jpg

If I'm correct FOP for anything other than buildings in Norway is only allowed if for non-commercial use, so that would make this picture not allowed on commons NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 23:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well this is not incidental inclusion, so freedom of panorama doesn't come into it. For the record, Norwegian law allows commercial use of panoramas where the copyrighted work is not "clearly the main motif" (art. 24). This is a picture of the McDonald's "twin arches" trademark: it could have been taken in Oslo or in Hounslow for all that can been seen apart from from the main motif. Physchim62 23:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images uploaded by Marcos Vinícius Mota Soares (talk • contribs)

The user above has uploaded several pictures that, IMHO, are out of the project scope. One of the pictures shows two girls and I'm not sure about their given consent. 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Estas fotos que o Usuário:Marcos Vinícius Mota Soares colocou tem o selo de Copyrigth necessário, então provavelmente ele tem a aprovação dessas duas garotas para colocar a foto... Eu,Marcos Vinícius Mota Soares estou dentro de todos os direitos e normas jurídicas legais,com fotos com selo de Copyrigth e autorização por escrito. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 201.58.80.206 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

three deleted, one kept (was in use on a user page) --ALE! ¿…? 08:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ISK 10 note.jpg

Ég hafði samband við Seðlabanka Íslands og íslenskir peningar falla undir sanngjarna notkun. 29 May 2007 User:Steinninninn

deletion fix Deadstar 10:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Isl Krone.JPG for the discussion. Lupo 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept; details at linked request. -- Infrogmation 01:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 10

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Erik Creugers (himself).JPG

NO PERMISSION given for transfer from dutch Wikipedia to Commons --Erik Creugers 04:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. The image has a free license and all relevant information has been retained. Please STOP your vendictive actions and vandalism. Siebrand 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Siebrand - Not relevant for deletion. --FSHL 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a personality rights template, maybe that will keep him happy. Madmax32 08:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, no such permission is needed --Polarlys 18:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Erik_Creugers_(himself).JPG

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 13:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-manifesto

We don't assume copyright, we only accept content which is clearly free. Basically the same as Template:PD-LOC -- Prince Kassad 08:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contradictory and unused Madmax32 09:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 19:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Церковь Архангела Михаила в Тропарёве4.jpg

Bad quality — it's too dark. And there's enough better images of this church --- Vow 04:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, no reason for deletion --ALE! ¿…? 15:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chalmers.jpg

we need permission from the photographer, not from the portrayed person --rtc 15:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, I transfered the image from de.wikipedia.org some time ago using a bot without checking the permission. The argumentation above is valid. --Polarlys 16:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wikipedia.pdf

Out of project scope: text description of a website called BigUpsets.com William Avery 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. /odder 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You say this is deleted?? Why is it still here?? WayneRay 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Really deleted this time. 22:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete You say this is deleted?? Why is it still here?? WayneRay 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Image:Wikipedia.pdf

Outside project scope, source cited is a webpage, making it a potential copyvio too. -Nard 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Julo 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wikipedia.pdf

Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FFmap-ka-_.gif

Sorry, where is image?! OsamaK 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, useless 1x1 pixel image. This debate is larger than the file :P -- Cat ^chi? 19:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept/restored. It appears yje image is a placeholder on a template in wikibooks: Wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist/Map sklanjati

Indeed it is. Thanks for restoring the file while I was not watching. --Daniel Bunčić (de wiki · talk · contrib.) 08:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Washington dc 7th st.png

Also:

Deleted as copyvios from Microsoft Streets and Trips. Just listing for the record. ~MDD 46 96 00:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to check:

Image:2007 Audi A8.jpg - On US government website, but is it a US government work?
Image:Windows XP Save-as dialog box small.png - Windows GUI
Image:Windows XP Save-as dialog box.png - Windows GUI

~MDD 46 96 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Mdd4696: Copyvio of Microsoft Streets and Trips

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hepatopsida

not a current taxon and not a valid name --EncycloPetey 10:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Het1.jpg

inappropriate; distasteful 66.191.161.74 03:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, biology is really distasteful … --Polarlys 18:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, --ALE! ¿…? 21:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Het1.jpg

pornographic with no use 70.178.187.98 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a modern photo of explicit actual sexual activity. I think it might be seen as porn under US law. If that's the case, then we need legal documentation to show that the participants are not under age. That doesn't mean that such pictures wouldn't be useful if we could get the documents. --Simonxag 13:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing with the US law concern. Also, don't think that the utility of the image is really there. Currently it is only linked to from userspace on the English wikipedia, for instance. Darkspots 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously mature sex organs. It might be useful to show the people the difference between this couple and an under age couple, but this might cause problems with US law. So the younger generation has just to believe this, sorry kids. Mutter Erde 09:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pornographic? Why? Because of Nudity? Or an erection? No. Marcus Cyron 21:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not pornographic; just normal sexual actions --91.128.173.49 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I hate it, coz i am gay. --91.128.173.49 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gnan garra 12:42, 25 May 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.

Image:Het1.jpg

Picture is apparently out of project scope (no serious chance to use it in an article) and not in use. Ra'ike T C 09:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should first close correctly the second deletion request before you start a third one.
btw.: commons is not only a repository for interwikis. Example: Nearly nobody on wikipedia would need 10 MB pics and bigger. They are stored for print media.(Source). Mutter Erde (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I closed it. I was thinking there was going to be some response so I left it open, but now we have this page. As a biased and involved party, I support deletion on the grounds that I can not honestly see this being used on any Wikimedia project (in their mainspaces, at least). Rocket000(talk) 10:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary to me. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Herbythyme (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Marcela (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the description is changed, it should be deleted, as "heterosexual sex" is an obviously false description. Fossa_?! 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, could be useful. Herby & Cirt: The Wikimedia Commons has many pictures that aren't necessary to me, but I nevertheless do not want to delete them. --Kjetil_r 14:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kjetil r --Isderion (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course, this picture can be interesting for both biology and sexuality. Ajor933 (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as per Kjetil r, Isderion, Ajor933, etc. Third DR.

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cancellara_compiegne.jpg

I believe the Flickr user's authorship assertion is false and that they do not have the right to license this image. Most of the user's uploads are family photos taken with a low-end Olympus point and shoot camera. Mixed in with it is this photo with a DOF of which the Olympus is most likely incapable and several other photos clearly lifted from news sources. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're right. I think this is not made by de Flickr-user, but he only copied the work... Afhaalchinees 22:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Thanks for understanding; sorry your work was in vain. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dillon Montana 1942 LOC 1a35017.jpg

This is a duplicate image, see Image:Russell Lee street corner Dillon Montana.jpg --Mrrxx 20:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are slightly different, but Image:Russell Lee street corner Dillon Montana.jpg is a much better quality image, making Image:Dillon Montana 1942 LOC 1a35017.jpg redundant. --Digon3 ^talk 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No objection from me as uploader. Balcer 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Russell Lee street corner Dillon Montana.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:G8 2006 leaders.jpg

the g8russia.ru license isn't free enough. it is to republish only, no mention of derivative works or commercial use ---Nard 22:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Image:Tony Blair with Romano Prodi at G8.jpg
Image:G8brown.jpg.
This issue has been brought up many times before and always has closed delete. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:G8 2006 leaders 2.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:G8 2006 leaders 3.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:José Manuel Durão Barroso G8.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Tony Blair with Romano Prodi at G8, cropped to Blair.jpg -Nard 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete encore? - Dantadd✉ 12:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, didn't we already delete this? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No proof of permission for commercial use or modification. Images have now been deleted. --|EPO| ^da: 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:永.jpeg

Was a test ... 30 June 2007 User:TommyBee

deleted, --Polarlys 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:2007gaia.mp3.ogg

it's smallest file in commons and it's not playing and "This file may contain malicious code, by executing it your system may be compromised." OsamaK 21:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems it's deleted by User:White Cat already. --Moonian 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vthapsus sheet.JPG

Violates the copyright apparently held by The Linnean Society of London. The original is a scientific plant specimen, not a two-dimensional work of art, so age of the original does not apply. The photograph may be copyrighted since it is not a reproduction. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/research-curation/projects/linnaean-typification/detail.dsml?ID=925400

Unfortunately, Image:Vthapsus_sheet.JPG isn't public domain, as it isn't "a faithful photographic reproduction of an original two-dimensional work of art" - it is a derived work, with copyright dating from the date the photo was taken, and belonging to the NHM photographer. Sorry, but it'll have to be deleted! - MPF 01:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC) copied from User talk:Circeus. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don,t think because this is a dried plant, rather than a drawing, it suddenly fails the 2-d criterion. The copyright notice does not, by any mean creates copyright for material in the public domain. Circeus 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:MPF, except it would appear that the image copyright holder may be The Linnean Society of London. "Image reproduced by kind permission of The Linnean Society of London."[25] According to Commons:Licensing, "[R]eproductions are usually not eligible to copyright: The creator of a scan of a picture owns no copyright to the resulting digital image, the scan needs no license. The only license important in that case is the one of the original picture." In this case, I don't think a photographic image can be considered a reproduction of a dried plant. Hence, the image may be copyrighted and permission for use must be obtained from the copyright holder. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the 2-D v 3-D distinction is that a 2D photograph of a 3D work of art necessitates a decision on what angle to view and photograph the artwork from, and is therefore necessarily not a slavish reproduction.

This is a pressed sheet. It may not be strictly two-dimensional, but then again nor are the works of Claude Monet when you see them up close - thick wads of paint are slapped on, creating differences in paint profile of up to half an inch. In both cases, however, these works of art are effectively 2-D because they are intended to be treated as flat objects, and viewed from straight in front; thus there is no decision to be made on what angle to photograph from, and this is simply a slavish reproduction of a public domain creative work. Hesperian 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested elsewhere that this image is subject to a copyright claim by the owners of the webiste from which it was taken. This is true, but those qualified to judge of this situation will know that spurious copyright claims are a dime a dozen. It is an undisputed fact that the sheet itself has long since passed into the public domain, and I don't think anybody would argue that the photograph is not a slavish reproduction. Therefore the issue hinges on whether or not the sheet qualifies as a 2D work. If so, then this is in the public domain per Corel v. Bridgeman, irrespective of spurious claims to the contrary.

As I stated above, this sheet is intended to be treated as a flat object viewed from straight in front. To photograph it from any other angle would be ludicrous. It may not be perfectly flat but its profile is no less flat than a typical impressionist painting. Therefore I argue that the sheet itself is a 2D work, so this photograph is in the public domain.

Hesperian 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hesperian's interpretation. There is no reason this shouldn't be treated as a 2 dimensional. Like he said, herbarium sheets are generally flatter than impressionist paintings. Furthermore it's quite clear that such a photograph is not eligible for copyright. If I were to go in and take a photo at the Linnean Society, my photo would be indistinguishable. If the photo perhaps captured the background at a particular angle, then it would no longer be two dimensional and would be copyrightable, but that is not the case. It's in the public domain Djlayton4 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion above was copied from Image:Vthapsus sheet.JPG Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that 2-dimensional works of art don't have to be absolutely flat. Many impressionist artists used to slap on great wads of paint, creating thickness profiles that varied by up to half an inch, but no-one would argue that these are not 2-D works. I think a 2-D work is a work that is intended to be treated as a flat object and viewed from directly in front, irrespective of whether or not it is perfectly flat. In the case of the V. thapsus sheet, it would be ludicrous to photograph it from any other angle, so I think it qualifies as a 2-D art. --Hesperian 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to intrude on this discussion but I have to agree with MPF on this one. The website that the image was taken from has a clear statement of copyright; see their terms of use where it states clearly and explicitly:

NHM or its licensors or contributors own the copyright and all other intellectual property rights in the material on the Site. You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, adapt or otherwise use any material on the Site other than for your own personal non-commercial use.

That seems pretty clear to me. Moreoever, under the image itself is the statement "Image reproduced by kind permission of The Linnean Society of London", suggesting that it came from a third party who probably owns the copyright and was used with permission. If there is any question of copyright violation, and in lieu of explicit permission, an image should not be uploaded to Wikipedia.

I have to question what this image provides to the article in the first place; it's not essential to any information provided, but if it were, it could be listed under "external links". MrDarwin 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright claims are a dime a dozen. Virtually every library in Australia claims copyright over images that everyone knows to be in the public domain. I emailed my state library over this, and they admitted that the images I was querying were in the public domain, but declined to stop falsely copyright tagging them. And this is not by any stretch of the imagination a problem unique to Australia. Hesperian 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion above was copied from en:User talk:MPF Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend is not a work of art at all, within the spirit of copyright law. It is a solid object, a scientific museum specimen; the photo is comparable to e.g. a photo of a rock in a geological museum - one could not claim that a photo of a rock is in the public domain merely because the rock is 50 million years old, or was collected 250 years ago. Not even if it was a flat rock. With something like this, the copyright dates from the time of photographing and belongs to the photographer, not the collector of the object photographed. - MPF 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to be relying heavily on a single U.S. court decision that may or may not be applicable here. Is the herbarium specimen itself in the public domain? Probably. Would a court consider this herbarium specimen to be a "two-dimensional work of art"? Maybe, maybe not. How about the photograph taken of that specimen? Maybe, maybe not (did any creativity go into producing the image, e.g., were any special techniques or equipment used to photograph it, color correction or balancing, or other kinds of mage manipulation?). Can the decision be extended in any way to this case? Maybe, maybe not. Does this court ruling have any standing outside the U.S.A.? Maybe, maybe not. The problem is that copyright is being asserted for this image and therefore the onus is on those who claim the material is in the public domain to prove it, and prove it very clearly, otherwise they open Wikipedia to copyright violation charges (and possibly lawsuits). I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is a great big gray area where one should tread very carefully. Legality aside, it's also a matter of common courtesy to ask to use such images, rather than simply taking them and using them without permission. (BTW I think that "fair use" may apply here, but that's a separate issue and I'm not any more familiar with international law than I am with U.S. law.) Finally, why not just link to the photograph in the list of references, rather than uploading it to Wikipedia? I'm still wondering why it's so critical to the article in the first place. 160.111.86.128 17:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't a work of art and it isn't a reproduction thereof. It is a photograph, apparently recent, and the photographer or his/her assignee holds the copyright. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My reading of en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is that it isn't settled law in the US. The law is unsettled in the UK also. That said, Bridgeman v. Corel applies to copies of original paintings, and does not apply here. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as Walter. - MPF 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Hesperian's interpretation, not to mention that it would never become an issue. Djlayton4 22:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete either a) it's art, in which case we don't know who produced it and when, and it's not strictly 2d, or b) it's not art and the copyright falls on the photographer. -Nard 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It was produced by Carolus Linnaeus in the late 1700s. Hesperian 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has nothing to do with rocks. Only creative input is copyrightable, and there is no creative input in the properties of a rock or plant. The creative input in the original sheet lies in the way in which the plant is arranged upon the sheet of paper. This would have been done with great care and skill, and I believe it would be sufficient to establish copyrightability. This is, however, irrelevant, because any copyright on the original sheet, if it ever existed, has long since passed into the public domain. I think most participants here agree with that, and so you should; if you can't comprehend the trivially obvious fact that there is no copyright in something created in the 1700s (as opposed to a recent photograph of it), you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.
I haven't heard anyone argue that the photograph is not a slavish copy. Even if we grant MPF and Walter's positions that the sheet is simply a specimen lacking any creative input (which I don't) there is still no creative input in the photograph. The framing of the photograph is predetermined by the extent of the sheet; the angle of the photograph was necessarily straight in front, because of the essential 2D nature of the work; lighting is necessarily from directly behind the camera, and applied as evenly as possible. So where is the creative input of the photographer? There is none, it is a slavish copy.
I also haven't heard any attempt to repudiate my observation that this is just as much as 2D work as the average impressionist painting, because it is no less flat than an impressionist painting, and it is intended to be treated as a flat object and viewed only from directly in front.
As far as I can see, this is a pretty straightforward case. Hesperian 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing that the herbarium sheet itself is subject to copyright (but see below); the discussion is entirely about the photograph of that herbarium sheet. Do you know for a fact that there was no creative process involved in producing that photograph? If so, how do you know that? Most importantly, do you think a court of law, in any country in the world, would agree with you, and would also agree that the herbarium sheet is a "2-dimensional work of art" for the purposes of applying previous American legal decisions about reproducing images of works of art whose copyrights have expired? Would you be willing to bet your own money on it? If you answered "yes" to these questions, I want to talk to you about investing in the stock market because you're apparently omniscient. But if you answered "no" or "I'm not sure", then uploading and using this image is a very unwise thing to do. The people who are claiming that this image is in the public domain may well be right, but it's not at all clear to me from the evidence I've seen and I think people are being dangerously cavalier with copyright protections and possible violations. 70.108.32.202 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hesperian's analysis. With respect to Bridgeman being an American court case, it's not the legal precedent as such that matters, but the elements of law underlying the decision. Copyright law is sufficiently internationally standardised that the relevant elements here, namely that copyright protection presupposes some original, creative work capable of being copyrighted, exist in every jurisdiction. Such work was present in Linnaeus' creation, but is not present in the process of creating copies of his creation. I'm not sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that every court would agree, but I am sure beyond reasonable doubt, which is what Commons effectively operates on every day. (If we had to be omnisciently certain of the status of every work, we couldn't trust anyone's authorship claims for fear that maybe, just maybe, they're lying.) —LX (talk, contribs) 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My analysis is similar to Hesperian's, so the (c) notice has no meaning: you can't copyright something in the public domain, and I utterly fail to see how "artistic expression" can be argued in this case, from either Linnaeus or the NHM.Circeus 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone who has ever worked with herbarium specimens knows that they can be examined at many magnifications and angles, so the implication that the straight-on photo is the only possible one is incorrect. On the other hand, the same could be said of an impressionist painting. An angled view of the brushwork of a public domain painting requires creative judgment of the photographer, as the same would of a herbarium specimen. Nevertheless, this is the one view of the specimen that is rote, and requires no judgment.--Curtis Clark 18:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#UK, this is probably copyrightable in the UK. I have never seen a dried specimen myself, so I don't know about whether or not this is 3D. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, someone has to do it. I already worked with dried specimen and you can’t consider such shets as two-dimensional. The plant still has a three-dimensional structure and older paper is often wavy. The photography has to be lit carefully to avoid disturbing little shadows on the one hand and to provide a good quality and enough details regarding the dried specimen on the other hand. Maybe you also have to re-adjust parts of the plant or to fix them separately. Pure mechanical copying is impossible for a herbarium. Regarding to the low level of originality in Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#UK, the character of the work and the clear copyright note: deleted --Polarlys 22:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hepatophyta

This is not a valid taxon name. The name has been corrected everywhere but Commons and Wikispecies. For confirmation, see Stotler & Stotler's article "Morphology and classification of the Marchantiophyta", pp.21-70 in "Bryophye Biology" (Cambridge University Press, 2000). The valid names are Marchantiophyta or alternately Hepaticophyta. The name "Hepatophyta" is a common error. (The category is empty, and duplicates Category:Marchantiophyta.) --EncycloPetey 10:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Pristigaster 22:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 07:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Image (mathematics).svg

I made a better one -- 21 June 2007 Cronholm144

Could you please provide a link to the better image? --Digon3 ^talk 16:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Samulili 07:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Burning-cross2.jpg

Likely copyvio; source specifies 1921-1930 only. grendel|khan 20:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the source is being shifty on purpose because they know they can't copyright US images before 1923. (See their TOS, they copyright everything on the site). Searches aren't cached, so follow this sequence. Go to the image then click call number search, then enter the call number "X-21542" and hit Search. Go to the bottom, click "Cross burning Colorado Denver 1920-1930." You then see "Ku Klux Klan members and a burning cross", image "X-21542" plainly dated as 1921. -Nard 22:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's weird; why wouldn't the date, if known, be on the actual record itself? grendel|khan 15:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - At a guess so they don't get people like us going "heh heh heh, I'm not buying that, it's PD"? -Nard 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it looks more like a software limitation, than a sudden admission of an exact date. i.e., the "Call number browse" summary can probably only list a single number, rather than the given range of years. --Davepape 04:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. See N. —the preceding unsigned comment is by KAMiKAZOW (talk • contribs)

Kept. Samulili 07:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gv_19471029_24_04.ogg

The recording, and possibly all other similar recordings[26], are most probably copyright protected. The copyrightholder is the one that recorded the speech. The file has the license tag {{PD-Speech}} which was supposed to be deleted (1), but the deletion was reverted without discussion, and I have also seen files carrying {{PD-India}} - a creator has not been mentioned. User:Yann appears to have restored many previously deleted files. The source claims: Our archival material is protected by international copyright law, and exclusively for personal, non-commercial use. Unauthorized copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring, and rental of the material is strictly prohibited. Siebrand 13:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading or false. The copyright holder is not the "one that recorded the speech". No such provision exists in any copyright law as I know, and certainly not in India. The speaker may have the copyright of a speech if it was written down before, but that was not what Gandhi used to do. In addition, all sound recordings are public domain 60 years after publication in India, and therefore in all countries which have a "shorter rule" provision. The source (The Gandhiserve Foundation) is notorious for claiming dubious copyright, and certainly doesn't hold the copyright of these files. So I believe that the previous deletions were done without proper procedure, for a dubious reason (file description pages not edited for some time), and the uploader (me) was not informed. Yann 13:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all speeches need to be written down. Berne Convention, article 2: "(2) It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form." I don't what the situation is in India. The term of protection is 60 years p.m.a., in this case until 2008-12-31, if the work is copyrightable. Samulili 17:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I does it really matter what the Indian copyright law says? This speech is clearly in a material fixed form. Samulili 17:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Indian copyright law is pretty relevant. Sound recordings and cinematographic films are public domain 60 years after the date of publication (not 60 years pma and not from the following Jan 1). If the date of this speech is considered the publication date, it would be PD at the end of October this year, though technically not right now. Doesn't seem worth deleting for the sake of three months. Carl Lindberg 05:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the speech will probably be public as you say. We do not (yet) know when the audio recordings were first published. Siebrand 08:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Indian copyright law matters, but it doesn't matter whether it requires works to be fixed because in this case the work is fixed.

Furthermore, even if the rights of the audio recording would have been expired, copyright to the speech hasn't. Samulili 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The speech may possibly be copyrighted separately in text form (provided Gandhi wrote it down), meaning we very well may not be allowed to transcribe it and post the text, but this recording is a separate copyright and is not a derivative work of the textual speech. It is a "performance" and those copyrights expire 60 years after publication in India. The only question is when it was published (well, that and also that it may not be considered PD inside the United States). Carl Lindberg 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claim again that the speech has to be in text form but you have not shown any proof for that claim. Like I pointed out earlier, whether such fixed form is required is up to the national law. The default, however, is that it is not required.

Rome convention also states that: "Protection granted under this Convention shall leave intact and shall in no way affect the protection of copyright in literary and artistic works. Consequently, no provision of this Convention may be interpreted as prejudicing such protection." So even if the rights of producers of phonograms have expired, that does not affect the rights of the copyright holder. Samulili 08:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, Gandhi didn't write down his speeches, and as Carl Lindberg said, the copyright would expire October 2007 if it existed. Yann 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relevance of Gandhi not writing down his speeches? Is it required? Nothing of that sort has been shown to be true. And the date of expiration is 1 January 2009 as Gandhi died 30 January 1948. Samulili 10:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be copyrighted, something must be in fixed or tangible form... to be a literary work, it needs to be written. It is possible that if *anyone* writes down the speech, Gandhi would still own copyright on it (not sure about that). The literary copyright lasts until 2009 as you say. However the sound recording is completely separate... the term for recordings is 60 years from publication, not 60 years pma, so that would expire at a different time (and whatever literary copyright is separately held has no bearing on this). If Gandhi had previously written it down, his literary copyright would let him disallow a recording to be made (but if allowed, the term of the recording is still 60 years from then). The performance copyright would have some bearing on the use of the recording, but in India the performer's rights expire after 25 years, so Gandhi would not have any ownership in this recording after 1972 (unless he was also the one to make the recording). Anyone may use or make copies of the recording itself after 60 years, although someone else making the same speech would violate the literary copyright. The situation is similar with old musical recordings in the UK/EU... the songs from 50 years ago are starting to become public domain there. If another artist covers the song they still owe royalties to the song composer (since those rights do not expire), but the actual original recording is public domain. Carl Lindberg 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To be copyrighted, something must be in fixed or tangible form... to be a literary work, it needs to be written." That simply is not true and I have already quoted the Berne Convention: "It shall, however, be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to prescribe that works in general or any specified categories of works shall not be protected unless they have been fixed in some material form." I'll quote some more: "The expression "literary and artistic works" shall include every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression, such as books, pamphlets and other writings; lectures, addresses, sermons and other works of the same nature" etc. Samulili 15:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but I was reading the Indian copyright law in particular. It is fairly specific about sound recordings; the literary copyright owner can prevent the recording, but if permitted the copyright is 60 years from publication. The performance rights can restrict usage of the recording for 25 years, and the literary rights can prevent transfers to another medium (such as text), but the sound recording itself is PD after 60 years. A sound recording is distinct from a literary work. Carl Lindberg 16:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the rights of the producer of phonograms. I have quoted earlier the Rome Convention: "Protection granted under this Convention shall leave intact and shall in no way affect the protection of copyright in literary and artistic works. Consequently, no provision of this Convention may be interpreted as prejudicing such protection."

It would seem from this that we may not use the recording freely while Gandhi's (his heirs) copyright is still valid. I tried to find outside evidence for this, and after some searching, I did. A piece of news by BBC. Regarding publications by Elvis and Beatles, they write: "While copyright in the sound recording itself may be due to expire, copyright in the original work belonging to the songwriter lasts for the length of their lives plus 70 [60 in India] years. For each sale of a Beatles recording, the owner of the copyright in the original work will continue to receive payment until this expires many years from now. What will disappear is the right of individual record companies to maintain a monopoly on release of certain recordings. And this is what worries them."[27] Samulili 17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's quite correct, unless maybe Indian and British law have drifted a bit. The sound recording copyright (in India) allows the user to "To make any other sound recording embodying it", "To sell or give on hire, or offer for sale or hire, any copy of the sound recording", and "to communicate the sound recording to the public". The literary copyright allows them to (among other things) "make a cinematograph film or sound recording in respect of the work" and "to perform the work in public". The sound recording copyrights are expiring, so anyone should be able to do those functions, so unless the UK is different it would seem anyone can copy and sell the recordings with no royalties. On the other hand, radio stations playing the songs count as a "performance", so the royalties coming from that have always just gone to the composer, and that will continue even when the sound recordings are PD. It may be that latter part that the article you cite was referring to. So, while the copyright on the recording will expire and I think commons can host it, there are certain uses that would not be OK until Gandhi's literary copyright expires in 2009. Carl Lindberg 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should have reverted me and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Speech this, especially since you are involved in the matter. Assuming items are in the public domain is not valid. You assume copyrighted until you have a license otherwise, especially if you read the court case presented in that COM:DR as well. If you want to change it mark it "no license" and then wait the 7 days and notify all the uploaders (other than yourself), I'd be fine with that, but using your admin tools as a party in a dispute wasn't cool. MECU≈talk 13:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that, I need to be notified. That was not the case. Yann 14:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. However, the uniliteral restoration of PD-Speech should need to be discussion (but not here).

/ Fred J 21:57, 11 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.

Image:Hezbollahlogo.jpg

Copyright violation, same case as in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. Freely licencing a photographic reproduction of a copyrighted logo does not remove the copyright protection of that logo. --Sandstein 22:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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:Hezbollahlogo.jpg 2

Insufficient source, probable copyvio. This image is from a fridge magnet, not a flag. Hezbollah deserves copyright protection for their logo. This image is also of poor quality (it includes a reflection of the flash or other light source). — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and ~~tag as pd-ineligible~~. This issue was already hashed out in the previous deletion. The magnet is but a slavish transform, no new copyright. -Nard 00:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the liberty of restoring the vandalized license tag on the image. -Nard 00:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with previous Hezbollah logo images. Sorry, I don't understand how 86 kB SVG file Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg was declared as trivial work. Where is objective requirements for triviality? --EugeneZelenko 14:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The result of the discussion was to keep, are you going to delete the US flag too, because it has been changed less than 70 years ago... Madmax32 21:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... and I still need someone to explain to me how there is "no original authorship" in this rather elaborate drawing with respect to Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. Comparisons with national flags are flawed. Countries can legislate against perceived offensive or disrespectful uses of their flags, so that a national flag may be free for copyright and licensing purposes (which we are concerned with), but protected by other means (the responsibility of anyone using works from Commons). Hezbollah, not being a country, has no line of defense in this matter beyond copyright, and I very much doubt Hezbollah would consent to the creation of derivative works which they would perceive as desecrating their symbols. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure, it's never been established who the authors of this flag are so, and it is apparently a derivative work of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps flag, besides as pointed out in the previous deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg there are many flags which could also be considered to be not PD ineligible but are kept regardless, such as the flag of the UN or NATO for example, I don't foresee hezbollah having much success in stopping abusive use of their flag considering they are a scheduled terrorist group in the US. Madmax32 09:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a flag. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's used as a flag by Hezbollah and their supporters. Madmax32 11:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is de facto used as a national flag in Hezbollah controlled southern Lebanon. Bertilvidet 19:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and delete the SVG also. There is plenty of original authorship in this logo. The integration of the graphical elements into the Arabic text, at the very least, constitutes a work of art eligible for copyright. Sandstein 05:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{PD-ineligible}} Bertilvidet 07:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Also, this is a lower-resolution, poorer-quality, single-color-process version of the non-field portion of Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 02:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're straddling the fence. You can't claim this photo is illegal, and the flag is too, and then say it should be deleted because it's lower quality than the flag. -Nard 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never did "claim this photo is illegal, and the flag is too", nor did I express an opinion at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg. There are four items we are dealing with here:

The actual logo of Hezbollah, in green and red on a bright yellow field, probably copyrighted in Lebanon, 1982-1985.
The version of the logo above on the flag of Hezbollah (with a wider yellow field), presented at Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg.
A fridge magnet containing a dark-green-only on mustard-yellow bastardization of the logo which Bertilvidet found and photographed at an undisclosed location and ~~date/~~time.
The resulting photograph Image:Hezbollahlogo.jpg.

I have multiple reasons for wanting this image Image:Hezbollahlogo.jpg deleted:

Insufficient source, probable copyvio at the time I made the request (I had not yet read Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg)
Poor quality and lower resolution of the photograph (it includes a reflection of the flash or other light source, and is incompletely focused) - it is not a slavish transformation of the fridge magnet.
Poor quality of the fridge magnet image (it includes less detail than Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg, and is missing the red color) - it is not a slavish transformation of the actual logo.
We already have Image:Flag of Hezbollah.svg, why do we need any other representation of the actual logo of Hezbollah? "There should be only one copy of an image" per {{Duplicate}}.

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to discuss comments such as "bastardization" I must say that interpreting {{Duplicate}} as a policy prohibiting the same symbol being depicted in various settings is a novelty that radically will change the nature of Commons. We even have a Category:Flags_of_the_United_States, with different flags as well as the Flag of the United States depicted in various settings. I find it useful, and would not suggest to delete all but one photo of the same symbol. For exact date and time of the photo caption please see the relevant page (08:56, 9 August 2006). Bertilvidet 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the photo taken, in what country and timezone (thus producing the UTC time)? Did you take it? If not, who did? Whose fridge magnet is or was it? Where did they get it? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the need for all these details. But if it is relevant I will answer: 1) The photo was taken in my kitchen in Istanbul (Turkey). I took the photo with my own camera. I own the fridge magnet, that I bought as a souvenir in Beirut February 2006. Bertilvidet 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Infrogmation 01:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 11

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Lepidodendrales

Created accidentally --EncycloPetey 04:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done

Julo 07:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:TukandWalter.JPG

I was just testing how to upload a file. 10 July 2007 User:Jmfelli

I've added a {{speedydelete}} tag. --rimshot^talk 13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Passat.jpg

subida 2 veces.8 November 2006 User:Pavlemadrid commons

Comment Deletion fix. User likely refers to Image:Passatsm.jpg, which has the license plate blanked & is smaller than the original image. Deadstar 10:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 21:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ot scheme.png

(no reason given) 27 April 2007 - User:Patrick4685

Delete The description states "schematic image of the core of optimality theory" which it clearly is not. I suspect error upload. Delete as I think the current image (text) will not be used. Deadstar 10:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NormChi.png

Exists already as jpg --User:Philipendula 10:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File doesn't open for me Deadstar 10:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The file opens at full resolution, but the preview generation has failed. Both jpeg and png are the wrong formats to use for information like this (jpeg more so than png). The most appropriate file type for this type of information is svg. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Norm Chi.png

Exists already as jpg --User:Philipendula 10:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment file doesn't open for me. Deadstar 10:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The file opens at full resolution, but the preview generation has failed. Both jpeg and png are the wrong formats to use for information like this (jpeg more so than png). The most appropriate file type for this type of information is svg. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 21:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:748940750_6e3b3eeacd_b.jpg

possibly unfree flickr image, license is cc-by-nd-2.0 (→O - v d e) 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Flickr images under licenses prohibiting derivative works must not be uploaded to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:The_Scream.jpg

No evidence of US publication prior to 1923. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_1#PD-US William Avery 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, delete the picture and I'm sorry. I thought that use on en:Wiki will be enough for Commons, that both projects are much alike. And you're right, I didn't see last sentence in the info text regarding "not using in Commons". It is sad, though. That rule. --Modra 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dodo: Copyvio, protected by copyright until 2015

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Matisse_TheDessert.png

"Matisse's work is still in copyright, but this painting may have been published in the US prior to 1923". No evidence that it was so published. William Avery 20:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Copyrighted (Matisse died in 1954); {{PD-US}} not applicable since not a U.S. work. BTW, the Hermitage Museum is in St. Petersburg, Russia, not in the UK as stated on the image page. Lupo 06:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:069212resized.jpg and Image:069212.jpg

In the deletion request on zh wiki in 10th July, we have deleted the article of this person with the guideline: Autobiography. It is sure that we would not use this image anymore. Also, this image have no source information. The same image is tagged with fairuse:zh:Image:069212.jpg(This image is deleted on zh wiki too. However, somebody who want to keep it transfer it over here.) Chanueting 00:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted--Shizhao 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SatiebyValadon.jpg

Seems to be obvious case to me. The painter who created this painting died in 1938, so her works remain copyrighted untill 2009 (she was French, so life+70 years rule applies) Kneiphof 21:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. {{copyvio}}. Inappropriate use of {{PD-art}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Just so circles

The gallery has a strange name, almost no content and the contrent that excists is not representative, and there are (slightly) better galleries covering the theme in circle and plain circles Finn Rindahl 12:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Note, however, that Circle, as it is now is barely useful. Plain circles was created due to this discussion. --rimshot^talk 12:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Iodinated_Tyrosine-Derivatives.png

Changed into speedy deletion!

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LA.gif

There already is an official logo sent. This isn't the one. I uploaded this by mistake. --Hachiko (talk • contribs) at 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) as rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader added "{{flickrreview}}" without info on a source at Flickr. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 17:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per uploader's request, and also because it appears to be a copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wikipedia.pdf

Out of project scope: text description of a website called BigUpsets.com William Avery 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. /odder 19:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You say this is deleted?? Why is it still here?? WayneRay 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Really deleted this time. 22:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Delete You say this is deleted?? Why is it still here?? WayneRay 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Image:Wikipedia.pdf

Outside project scope, source cited is a webpage, making it a potential copyvio too. -Nard 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted Julo 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wikipedia.pdf

Fuera del Commons:Alcance del proyecto. Text file Out of Commons Scope --WayneRay 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 22:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Henri_matisse1.jpg

Though this picture was painted in 1904 there is no evidence for US publication prior to 1923. Matisse died only in 1954. William Avery 20:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still in copyright, along with Image:104 0435 Tanets wiki.jpg --Astrokey44 10:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Joseph_Conrad.jpg

File not properly sourced, but at http://204.185.19.89/aela/literature/conrad_pictures.htm it says it is a picture of him aged 66. That seems credible to me and would put it in 1923 or 1924. That's too late to be treated as PD without better evidence of authorship or copyright ownership. William Avery 21:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Boricuaeddie 03:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image is widely used. Logologist 06:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per nom. Samulili 12:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Eselspinguin.jpg

Filename gives incorrect information (wrong animal) --Pbuergler 18:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have another picture with the correct filename? That way you can tag this one {{Bad name}} if you are the uploader of the images. --Digon3 ^talk 00:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Cecil: Dupe of Image:Brillenpinguin Zoo Basel.JPG

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:European Court of Justice logo.svg

The copyright does not belong to the uploader, so the PD-self tag is incorrect --ALE! ¿…? 13:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file violates the licensing guidelines. --Digon3 ^talk 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 07:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sildenafil citrate.png

the drawing is wrong, please compare with other sildenafil structure available --Leridant 14:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please provide a link to the image to be compared? Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently I made an inversion between a carbon atom and a nitrogene atom (cf google image of Sildenafil citrate) . -- Pixeltoo 14:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. According to other sources, this image has an error. Samulili 07:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Maps of Carteret County, North Carolina

typo, proper category is "Category:Maps of Carteret County North Carolina" without comma (fixed request --ALE! ¿…? 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Maps of Craven County, North Carolina

typo, proper category is "Category:Maps of Craven County North Carolina" without comma

(fixed request --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: empty category

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags

The licensing restriction "According to german copyright this stamp has to be displayed completely" as translated by Prolineserver in this edit is a "non derivative work" restriction, making any stamp using this tag not free enough for Commons. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Prolineservers translation isn’t adequate and your interpretation is an invalid generalisation. It means that German stamps must be illustrated completely so there is a restriction concerning the PD status but nothing more. --FSHL 11:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Deutsch: Mein Englisch ist nicht so gut, deshalb auf deutsch: Deutsche Briefmarken sind amtliche Werke und somit dürfen diese wenn diese komplett, also mit der Zähnung, abgebildet werden. Bei aktuellen Marken, sollte es nach möglichkeit eine gebrauchte Marke mit Stempel, hilfsweise einem schwarzen Balken, oder dem Worten Muster bzw. Specimen sein.

--kandschwar 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English: German stamps are an official work and thus these may be illustrated if they are completely therefore with perforation. With current stamps it should be as far as possible a used postage stamp, alternatively with a black bar or the words sample and/or specimen on it.

P.S.: I don’t know if my translation is really adequate, his sentence structure is a little bit complex and I know entirely nothing about philately... --FSHL 17:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This requirement that the image be of a stamp that is used (canceled) or be defaced with a black bar or the words sample and/or specimen on it (an anti-counterfeiting measure) also makes any stamp tagged with this template not free enough for Commons. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that the restriction is meant to ensure that the stamps are displayed completely, that the restriction prohibits the "crop" type of derivative work as a subcategory of the "condensation" type of derivative work, and that any restriction of any "condensation" type derivative work for a particular image or class of images means that that particular image or class of images is incompatible with hosting here on Wikimedia Commons, according to the US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101. Please see Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Licensing#Derivative works for more details. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - This restriction prohibits IMHO absolutely nothing - it declare that if somebody doesn’t fulfilled this restriction the stamps simply lose then their PD status... --FSHL 17:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So derivative works are prohibited in other words? -Nard 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Nard - Definitively not! If you don’t fulfil this restriction then you may not publish the stamps as PD because you just hadn’t any right to used them as PD. This restriction becomes effectively just before US Copyright Act of 1976, Section 101 works whereby there aren’t de facto and de jure any conflicting. But if you fulfil this restriction then you may do whatever you want. --FSHL 07:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because even with the restriction I'm free to rotate and seperate Image:Briefmarke Internationales Jahr der Senioren.jpg. Furthermore these stamps allow to display a person or object when there's no free image available: w:de:Heinz Rühmann. (In this case one usually wants to show the complete stamp, because the use on an official stamp is some kind of appreciation for the person/object.) --32X 17:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as 32X. --Kolossos 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Jodo 00:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, it seems to me that only Jeff is really against keeping the template and the images --ALE! ¿…? 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

Discussions

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags (kept 14:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC))
Commons:Deletion requests/File:German stamp- Marlene Dietrich crop.PNG (deleted 20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps and all it tags 2 (kept 22:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-German stamps (initiated 19:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC))

Notifications

Template talk:PD-German stamps (notified 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC) and 23:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC))
Commons talk:Stamps/Public domain (notified 02:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC) and 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Parana Municipio Francisco Beltrao.svg

The file was diferent from what I see before, it can be erased because i'm not gonna use it, and i'll make another one. User:Squibb 16:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could not find the new file user refers to. Deadstar 10:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new file is Image:Francisco Beltrao Localizacao.svg --ALE! ¿…? 14:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NOMG07TowlieRedRidingHood.jpg

Photo of Mardi Gras costumers in New Orleans, one of whom is in a home made costume of a "South Park" character. This was tagged as a speedy delete as a derivative work. I would like a second opinion; if there is agreement that this is a copyright violation for reason of derivative work I will speedy delete it. -- Infrogmation 15:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are no objections nor further discussion, I will close this as a keep. -- Infrogmation 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Farah.jpg

I'm not sure about its image. Its lack of source info on en.wiki has been questioned. Ultimately its free status seems to turn on whether it is an official photo of the Empress. If so, as it is more than 30 years since publication/presentation the image is free under PD-Iran. The image looks like an official photo to me but we don't have any more precise sourcing. So can we keep this image? WjBscribe 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to WjBscribe - Looks like an official photo to me too... --FSHL 11:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (according to de:Farah Diba the image was taken in 1972 and is therefore PD-Iran) --ALE! ¿…? 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mapa Cortes de Baza.PNG and Image:Mapa Comarca de Baza.PNG

trasladado. 31 May 2007 User:83.59.112.221

Comment These are two in a series of maps requested for deletion by User:Granadin, but without a reason given. I have taken the deletion request off the other ones as there was no reason given, and notified Granadin about this, leaving him free to renominate them.(Image:Mapa Freila.PNG, Image:Mapa Cullar.PNG, Image:Mapa Cuevas del Campo.PNG, Image:Mapa Caniles.PNG and Image:Mapa Benamaurel.PNG). These are the only ones that have some type of reason on it (given by IP number, not original nominator (unless they're the same)). "Trasladado" which according to my dictionary means "displace, relocate, transfer, transplant, transpose" etc. Leaving it here to be resolved. Deadstar 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. »Trasladado« meant in general transferred. --FSHL 16:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trasladado means renamed. But as it doesn't give where it has been reupladed or why the current name is wrong, Keep. Platonides 17:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 12

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pasen 2007 045.JPG

image is non-free and used by a vandal on the en-wiki. 12 July 2007 User:217.121.98.69

Delete out of scope Deadstar 13:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from en:wiki:

You can perhaps understand how shocked I was to see myself on the internet; Image:Pasen 2007 045.JPG, is a picture my grandson took from me weeks ago! I don't now how it came on the internet, but what I do know, is that I want it to be removed as quickly as possible. Such things cannot be tolerated! It is a complete violation of personal information I don't want to be within the public domain. I am a amature-sailor and won some sailboat-races, so it is quite possible I am on the internet, but I never gave permition for this to happen. Can you give me the name and some information on the user who uploaded this? Is it used more often? Were else can it be seen? I wanna know! I want it removed completely! -The Bold Guy- 12:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That picture is not on Wikipedia, but on the Creative Commons, which is a site that holds images for several websites including Wikipedia. The image was upload by someone going by the name H.O - WikiCommonsAccount". It is being used in the following locations: Project talk:Facebook(On this Wikipedia), Simple:User:J. B. A. Evháh, Simple:User:J. B. A. Evháh/J.B.A. Evháh(last two are on the "Simple" Wikipedia).

The uploader of the image claims it is "self-made", I am not sure where the commons goes to challenge copyright. Until(1 == 2) 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I also don't know, actually. I'm just new here, and I was stunned, seeing myself here, without me ever given permition to anyone using the image. -The Bold Guy- 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have found the tag that commons uses for copyvios. Go to the image page(commons:Image:Pasen_2007_045.JPG) and add "{{copyvio}}" to the page, then go to the images talk page(Commons:Image talk:Pasen_2007_045.JPG) and explain things. I am sure a commons admin will take care of it in a short while. Until(1 == 2) 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's likely a complicated legal question. Your grandson took the picture so he owns the copyright and might ordinarily be entitled to grant it over your objection or anyone else's. However, he may be a minor, and I don't know how that affects grants. Further, you potentially have a right of privacy not to have your face on the Internet in that way, but once the cat's out of the bag you might lose it so act fast! My guess is that you can probably forget all the legal complexities and just figure out how Wikimedia Commons handles these things. There's probably a layer of super-administrator just like Wikipedia, or someone on staff, who can just make an executive decision to delete the image if you ask nicely and have a valid claim. Wikidemo 14:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the -The Bold Guy- in the original post is saying the picture was taken from him, as in the actual paper/file was transferred in possession. To me, it looks like the picture was self-taken. See the lower left corner, the shirt sleeve is close and out of focus. Also, the subject's shoulders are raised, suggesting he is holding something (i.e. the camera). If that is the case, you definitely have a valid copyvio complaint. BigNate37(T) 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, reason to delete is "request of person depicted". Deadstar 18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal/compromised account upload. Majorly (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:069212.jpg

no use anymore. 12 July 2007 User:Chanueting

Delete Out of scope Deadstar 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deadstar, I have put it together with Image:069212resized.jpg, see the request on July 11 (at the top). Admins, please close this request, thank you very much. Chanueting 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted--Shizhao 03:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:05072007625.jpg

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused). Siebrand 07:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:19062007503.jpg

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused). Siebrand 07:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stitches_the_cat.jpg

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused and better Cats available). Siebrand 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Manfred_(1)1.jpg

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused). Siebrand 07:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Manfred_(2).jpg

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused). Siebrand 07:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:K2.jpg

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused). Siebrand 07:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cinta_copy.png

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused). Siebrand 07:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kelly_Porras.jpg

Out of project scope. No relevance to any Wikimedia project (unused). Siebrand 07:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Us-civil.svg

This image is an unreferenced image and is most likely based off a recent commercial product. There is no indication that this image is the one involved in the hoax presented in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_civil_flag. This flag was created by Flagseek.com and is an item sold under the pretenses as being the "U.S. Sovereign Flag" It was created in 2004 - more than 200 years after the article says it was! The commercial site is found here: http://www.uscivilflags.org/products.html This is immediately obvious since there were not 50 states in 1799 when the "civil flag" was purportedly created. After gaining a better understanding of what Wikimedia is and is not, I realize this request it without merit and withdraw my recommendation of deletion. --Jgassens 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You have presented no valid reason for the deletion of a Commons image. The flag should be kept because:
a) the image is not copyrighted

b) the image is currently being used in more than one article, so it clearly has a use

c) Flagseek.com may sell the flag, but you have provided no evidence that they created it

d) The argument that it isn't a real flag of the United States is completely irrelevant to whether it should be kept

e) Your 50-stars argument doesn't even hold, since obviously the "civil flag" would gain stars just like the "military flag"--obviously it is a representation of what the civil flag with stars for today's number of states would look like. Lexicon 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY It is upon you, the creator of the image, to prove its validity. Not the readers of this encyclopedia. You have failed at that in every regard.

a) So what? I can take a picture of an orange and call it the national flag of the US so long as it isn't copyrighted??

b) This erroneous image is being propagated which gives it all the more imperative that it be removed.

c) Read the uscivilflags.org website, which shows they created it in 2004. Like I said, this burden is on you, the creator, to show it is a valid non-commercial source. Not the readers of the articles you produce.

d) So can I create a flag of my own design and put it in the article? Would that be valid? NO. That argument is garbage.

e) I suppose this argument is valid if you consider that there is no reason to have a relevant image for the article, as you've stated above.

I also question your ability to vote to keep your own image.

It's not a vote, but even if it was, yes, the uploader gets a say
This is not an encyclopedia, it's a repository of media
YES, you can take a picture of an orange and call it a flag, as long as it has SOME use, it has a place on Wikimedia Commons. This is not Wikipedia. Honestly, I don't care if the article on Wikipedia goes, but images that have even a shred of usefulness (and this image has at least a shred) should be available on Commons. Lexicon 20:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the uploader had a say when he/she uploaded it. And this isn't flickr, it's not a place for images with only a "shred" of use. If you want it in the Wikipedia article, then upload it to wikipedia and stop claiming it has amnesty on Wikimedia servers. But as it is used right now, it is a misleading, uncredited and unreferenced image which describes nothing more than a commercial product and it should be deleted from this server for that exact reason. If you aren't concerned about the article, then remove the image from the article and upload it to Wikipedia where, I'm perfectly confident, someone will stick it back in and it will get deleted via deletion requests there. Jgassens 21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Lexicon - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 21:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lexicon 24.11.217.243 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Bryan (talk to me) 11:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ANDRES_JIMENEZ_GARCIA.pdf

Out of project scope. Text PDF contaning one image that was also uploaded seperately by the same user. Siebrand 07:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Nadirnet.pdf

Out of project scope. PDF containing text only. Siebrand 07:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

Delete Samulili 15:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --ALE! ¿…? 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kwiki2.gif

A mistake! I didn't want to upload the disc image -- 8 July 2007 KnightMove

Comment You can always overwrite the image by clicking the "Upload a new version of this file" in the File history section of the image page and then selecting the image you want to upload. That way you don't have to delete it and write a new summery for it. --Digon3 ^talk 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Marijaserifovic.JPG

No Licence-photo was taken 10 minutes ago- taken from internet. 12 May 2007 User:80.144.111.205

Comment I had a quick browse around but couldn't find it elsewhere Deadstar 14:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably same photo that was deleted from en:, see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_March_22#Image:Marija_serifovic.jpg. Thuresson 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Karte Gemeinde Mitloedi.png

Durch Mitlödi.png ersetzt. 20 July 2006 User:Tschubby

Comment Presumable Image:Karte Gemeinde Mitlödi.png, which is a near duplicate (a few extra places marked). Deadstar 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the extra places marked in Image:Karte Gemeinde Mitloedi.png are not actually there or there are map errors, I think it is the better of the two (it has more places and the writing is sharper). --Digon3 ^talk 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, it’s the user’s work and I am sure there are administrative reasons (see the places) for this request. --Polarlys 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fico d'India - prickly pear.jpg

Low quality and resolution. ----Digon3 ^talk 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, really bad quality. --Polarlys 23:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Janis_Ian.jpg

Unclear license (Creative Commons, but permission notes use on Wikipedia (only?)), uploader didn't use OTRS permission system Rkitko 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CC-by 2.0 ,which this is under, gives attribution as the only condition, and is acceptable to the Commons. Permission notes do not say "use on Wikipedia only" and I don't think it matters anyway, since it is under the CC-by 2.0. --Digon3 ^talk 12:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right, but on the second point; if the uploader didn't use the permissions OTRS system, we can't verify that the copyright holder did indeed give permission. --Rkitko 15:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no permission. --Polarlys 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Coucher du soleil à Agnam Goly.jpg

This picture was taken by Edith Lettner and was uploaded by Adama who didn't know yet rules about copyrights. I've sent a mail to E. Lettner but no answers... --Patricia.fidi 22:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Grand Baobab de Agnam Goly.jpg

This picture was taken by Edith Lettner and was uploaded by Adama who didn't know yet rules about copyrights. I've sent a mail to E. Lettner but no answers... --Patricia.fidi 23:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cheptel de Agnam Goly.jpg

This picture was taken by Edith Lettner and was uploaded by Adama who didn't know yet rules about copyrights. I've sent a mail to E. Lettner but no answers... --Patricia.fidi 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Indoor ice hockey venues in Slovakia

please delete, since its a double cat to the one mentioned there --Xgeorg 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category with no content and has no significant history and has a almost identical catagory Category:Ice hockey venues in Slovakia. --Digon3 ^talk 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --GeorgHH 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sport in Slovakia

doubled to Category:Sports in Slovakia and bad naming (plural) --Xgeorg 12:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty catagory, and next time tag misspelled categories with {{bad name|correct category name}}. --Digon3 ^talk 13:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, see Category:Sports in Slovakia. --GeorgHH 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Lund in Sweden.png

this image is used only in one article per LANG.wikipedia and due to its localized nature it can hardly be used somewhere else;
there is a template en:Template:Location map|Sweden that can do easier and better for all swedish locations.

--84.141.81.74 09:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That kind of templates have serious accessibility issues and if something should be deleted, it's those templates. Samulili 15:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Serious accessibility issues? My box is from 2003 and I use FreeBSD and Firefox... I dont know if there can be a more weird installment... --84.141.81.74 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the map has several features that the template doesn't have. One can compare the image with the one on the article en:Lund. Keep / Fred J 16:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The red dot is nearly the same... Of course that CIA World Fact Book map could be used in the template, too, but who knows the coordinates? But surely the red dot in the image makes it unusable for the template, so that we would need a fresh copy from the CIA (do they say coordinates maybe?)... --84.141.81.74 16:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I can see here (over an encrypted http link) [28] some marks, that look like longitude/latitude numbers... So we could use that image in the template with automatic red-dot-setting, if the projection was orthogonal (we need something like w:en:Mercator projection so near at a pole, I would guess...)... --84.141.81.74 16:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. There are more projects than Wikipedia and InstantCommons in the future. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LocationGothenburg.PNG

this image is used only in one article per LANG.wikipedia and düe to its localized nature it can hardly be used somewhere else;
there is a template en:Template:Location map|Sweden that can do easier and better for all swedish locations.

--84.141.81.74 10:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That kind of templates have serious accessibility issues and if something should be deleted, it's those templates. Samulili 15:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Serious accessibility issues? My box is from 2003 and I use FreeBSD and Firefox... I dont know if there can be a more weird installment... --84.141.81.74 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what accessibility is about: Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, checkpoint 6.1: "Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets. For example, when an HTML document is rendered without associated style sheets, it must still be possible to read the document. [Priority 1]" Anyway, we can't decide to delete the templates and I'm not seriously suggesting that we discuss that here. But we can and we should keep the images. Samulili 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. There are more projects than Wikipedia and InstantCommons in the future. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Trastevere - sant'Onofrio 00673.JPG

I think a printed description of the church is, as a norm, copyrighted by the writer and/or the printer. I ask the uploader whether in this case the text has entered the PD (which I doubt, but is not impossbile, should the writer having been dead for at least 70 years). --User:G.dallorto 10:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work. --Siebrand 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Coup_pied.png

un manque de sécuriter question de mon pseudo de connection au ftp Rem73 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No reason for deletion. --Siebrand 13:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Orchid Botanica Logo.jpg

We get a lot of logos with GFDL-self or PD-self when that in fact isn't case. This could be one of those images, but in this case I would be ready to the take the uploader's word. However, I have another concern: if this image is a logo for Tan Tock Seng Hospital I would imagine that they have ordered the exclusive rights for image. In that case the author would be forbidden by his contract to release the image to public domain. All in all, more information seems to be necessary. Samulili 14:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes i agree with your concern over the hospital having rights over the logo. However, the logo is an unofficial design of the garden and can be used. i have checked this out already. In fact, the design is an innovation of balinese-style art which is extremely common and is used in many illustrations. All in all, I will respect your decisions and if you deem it necessary for the logo to be scrapped, then please do so (though I feel that the logo's existence is appropriate.) Jarrod

Thank you for you reply. It seems to me that we can

Keep the image. Samulili 08:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per above discussion. --Siebrand 13:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:S&H_stamps_and_book.jpg

Possible coypvio? This image does not differ from the original (the S&H Green Stamps sheet) for it to qualify as an original work. Night Ranger 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work. --Siebrand 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Map_of_Australia_and_New_Zealand.png

This is a derivative of Image:AustraliaNZ-blank.png, which is {{GFDL}}-licensed. The derivative has been licensed as {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Derivative works of GFDL-licensed works must not be published under any other license than GFDL without explicit permission from the author. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about just changing the license to GFDL? --ARTE 23:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the uploader (who holds the copyright to the modifications and therefore is the only one who can issue a license for those modifications) would do that, we could keep the image. If the uploader doesn't want to do that, he or she has no legal right to publish the image. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see --ARTE 08:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since I fail to see why these two map images qualify for a protection under copyright laws. There's not much creativity nor art skills required to reduce a map of the continent to a grey area. In my opinion both map images qualify for Template:PD-ineligible. --32X 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Just changed the license... --Siebrand 13:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Isl Krone.JPG

Ég hafði samband við Seðlabanka Íslands og íslenskir peningar falla undir sanngjarna notkun --Steinninninn 29 May 2007)

I guess that Steinninninn is saying that he had a discussion with the Bank of Iceland and that Icelandic bank notes are protected by copyright. Samulili 15:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... Is "sanngjarna notkun" the Icelandic equivalent of "fair use?" If so, Steinninninn says that Icelandic money falls under fair use. --Kjetil r 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what he said: "I contacted the Central Bank of Iceland and Icelandic money falls under fair use" Haukurth 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haukur is right. Icelandic money is fair use, but maybe someone want's to contact them again to confirm. The email I sent wasn't very specific http://www.sedlabanki.is/ --Steinninn 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has some information: [29] Haukurth 21:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I interprete these statements by the Central Bank of Iceland to mean that banknotes are not copyrighted. Otherwise they would have just said so. Of course the Central bank is the only institution authorized to issue real banknotes. But that's got nothing to with copyright. Their mention of "derogatory reproductions" is a reference to the moral rights of the artists (right to the integrity of the work); it's in no way special. Such restrictions exist for other works, too. Just make sure that the images do not show the banknotes at their true sizes. Lupo 08:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As no additional discussion since the above 2 months ago, I am closing this as a keep per above. -- Infrogmation 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Infrogmation 01:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Evstafiev Mikhail

please provide an explicit permission (OTRS) to use the files from the website under the given license. “Note that User:Evstafiev has contributed further images under the same licence” isn’t a permission to visit his homepage and use all the files here – it’s an assumption. I’d be glad to remove this request as soon as possible. (I also contacted User:Evstafiev)--Polarlys 15:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template is used on about 40 files. Deadstar 07:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention a Featured Picture! --Digon3 ^talk 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed the creator of the template today. So wait 7 days before the eventual deletion of the template. --ALE! ¿…? 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should contact User:Evstafiev, it'd be far more efficient. Rama 14:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at all his images. I have actually strong doubts that the uploader is the author of all these photos. --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ale, no need for concern in this case. I am a professional photographer and I have wrote and edited many wiki stories both in Russian and English for the last several years. I have also contributed some of my photos to wiki. I will update the licence shortly. If you have any further questions, you might want to email me, as I do not visit commons that often. Evstafiev 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, explicitly releases under usable free licenses. -- Infrogmation 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 13

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:JaimeMink.jpg

Personal picture, not newsworthy and don't want pics of my young kids on internet anymore... Pkmink 11:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, but only because it was not used. Please realise that legally you had given a free license to the image. Siebrand 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will be more careful in the future. Pkmink 13:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:JaimeMink13mnd.jpg

Personal picture, I don't want pics of my young children on internet anymore.... Pkmink 11:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, but only because it was not used. Please realise that legally you had given a free license to the image. Siebrand 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Spice_Girls_Reunion_In_London.jpg

unlikely GFDL candidate - appears to be a professional publicity shot Jimmy Joe 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and uploader should be sanctioned for edit warring and violating copyright on multiple wikis. -Nard 20:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uploaded by the same user on English wikipedia with fair use rationale, then uploaded here rather than contesting deletion there. William Avery 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sugababes in Glasgow at a concert backstage.jpg. -Nard 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio, user blocked for a week. --Polarlys 21:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sugababes in Glasgow at a concert backstage.jpg

Identical to[30] which has a fair use rationale and was uploaded there by User:Stealthusa who has copyright problems here and on en.wikipedia. Apparently transwikied by someone who didn't know any better. ---Nard 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Roberto_sepulveda.jpg

other is better Drcsepulveda 01:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused...is that you? The article you wrote on es.wikipedia claims you were mayor of a town of 500,000 people... -Nard 02:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment image is either a copyvio or user has uploaded a picture of himself...the Spanish language article claims that he is a medical surgeon, former town councilman and mayor of Maipu, Chile (pop 468,000) and current Chilean congressman and good friends with a presidential candidate. If this image is not a copyvio I oppose deleting it, as freely licensed pictures of politicians can be hard to come by. -Nard 18:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not because of the reason above... but as copyvio. The image says "Source: [31]"... the main newspaper of Chile. --B1mbo 20:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, after a request for speedy deletion deleted as a copyvio --Polarlys 00:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Korolev monumentb.jpg

How can there be a GFDL permission if the author is unknown? The website that the image was been taken from displays copyright notices.--Konstable 14:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Madmax32 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Bryan: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Orgosolo07.jpg

dual copyright violation. Flickr image is available only under a non-free license, and it is a picture of a potentially copyrighted mural. Italy has no freedom of panorama ---Nard 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Italian copyright law does not contain any exception for pictures from public places. --Digon3 ^talk 12:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sevilla2005July 063.jpg

Personal Picture without relation to Sevilla) --Christof01 07:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sevilla2005July 123.jpg

Personal Picture without relation to Sevilla --Christof01 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sevilla2005July 107.jpg

Personal Picture without relation to Sevilla --Christof01 07:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:TTRRcase.jpg

Likely not created by uploader. Also, incorporates a copyrighted logo (x2). --Wordbuilder 03:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:TTRRdust.jpg

Copyright violation. Found in a Google Images search and on this page. --Wordbuilder 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Larry wall.jpg

The uploader makes an error, copyrighted work (Deletion tag was set by User:Kelson in Aug. 2006, it seems he forgot to do the rest. The previous tag was {{PD-because}} with the reason "Comes from en: with no author".) --32X 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can an image of a person in the midst of publicity be copyrighted? O.K., it could be though. But Larry Wall is a protagonist for open source, I do not think that this image is copyrighted, thousands of copies of are on the internet. Just image-google "Larry Wall" for instance. --Paunaro 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he is a protagonist for open source doesn't mean he is in favour for copyright infrigement. If PD can't be proved, this photography has to go to digital nirvana. --32X 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that User:Kelson was the uploader, too. If that does qualify for speedy deletion, an admin should do it after having a look at the version history. --32X 13:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even Jimbo Wales has "All Rights Reserved" pictures on Flickr... -Nard 17:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no source, no author, no permission. --Polarlys 23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Lokomotives of Romania

Creation of the Category was result of an error in typing.Category:Locomotives of Romania already existed before --Parahound 13:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Locomotives of the Czech Republic

category:Locomotives of Czech Republic already exists --Parahound 13:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty catagory, and next time mark misspelled catagorys {{bad name|correct category name}}. --Digon3 ^talk 13:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Edith_stein.jpg

insufficient license Leipnizkeks 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Corbis gives the date of this image as 1967, even though this woman died at Auschwitz (no link, sorry, go to www.corbis.com and search for Edith Stein) indicating that they copied an earlier photo. Photo archives such as Corbis routinely attempt to archive older PD works and then claim copyright over them. Since there's no reason to believe Corbis actually holds the copyright, the only other alternative is this is PD (although the sourcing needs help) If some more sourcing cannot be found it should be deleted. -Nard 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyfraud aside, it has no proper source. William Avery 21:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no proper source. --Polarlys 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Comarca de Alhama flag.png

Invented and false flag Note: request originally placed by Scudero: [32]. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 20:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete image is unused in any of the projects and is of low quality. -Nard 20:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Flickr review status nom) 01:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Pictures from The Cebu Photo Gallery

Namely: Image:Magellans Cross.jpg Image:Colon Street Marker.jpg Image:Fort San Pedro.jpg Image:Krzyz Magellana 1.jpg Image:Basilica Santo Nino.jpg Image:Lapulapu1.jpg Image:Mactan guitar.jpg Image:Inambacan Falls.jpg Image:Talisay City Hall.jpg Image:St Joseph Church in Mandaue.jpg Image:Fatima Sanctuary in Mandaue.jpg

Terms of source website are not an unambiguous release or licence allowing commercial use and derivative works, merely "All photos here are provided to the general public royalty free" --William Avery 20:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Georgescarpentier.jpg

No evidence for GFDL or PD. Published 22/02/1930 --William Avery 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the terms:

8. You may use material, information or data provided by this site for your own personal use. You may not use any such material, information or data in connection for your external business purposes.

So

Delete. --Moonian 14:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Karlsruhe h99643.jpg

without the date of Arthur Renard’s death we can’t assume that this image is in the public domain, giving away a print "during a port visit" is no transfer of copyright --Polarlys 21:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep image was apparently donated to the US government. Arthur Renard is cited in other photographs over a 40 year span on history.navy.mil[33]. Think about it. He donated images to the US Navy for over 40 years. (See for instance[34]. "This print was received by the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence on 7 May 1908.") To argue that this may be under some mystical copyright is nothing but paranoia of the worst sort. -Nard 21:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renard was obviously a professional German photographer located in Kiel for over 40 years. You can find images he sold to newspapers (http://www.zlb.de/projekte/millennium/special/weltgeschehen/flotte.htm) or a participation in a book (http://cgi.ebay.de/Deutschland-zur-See-Kriegsschiffe-Kaiser-Flotte_W0QQitemZ320135364967QQcmdZViewItem). Someone donated the print of this picture to the US Navy. Your view of “donation” (regarding those 40 years) shouldn’t be confused “we got these photos for intelligence purposes and our sons put them in the public domain”. Copyright term is 70 years after the author’s death, that’s not mystical in any way. --Polarlys 21:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So when did Arhur renard die? I didn't see that in the links you posted. Madmax32 01:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was the motivation of this request (“without the date of Arthur Renard’s death we can’t assume that this image is in the public domain”). --Polarlys 01:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had access to that information Madmax32 02:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Nard - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Arthur Renard from Kiel [35] lived further than 1928 and seems to have been a German citizen. He is the creator of the picture and the only one able to donate it to someone. This isn't the first German battle ship picture with such copyright problems ... --Flominator 12:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your links and only saw 4 photographs from 1900 with no mention of 1928 or biographical information for Arthur Renard Madmax32 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

look there is still a family Renard photograph businesss in kiel [36] Madmax32 16:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which makes this deletion request even more pressing: they sell old pictures of ships of the German Navy, so if the pictures we declare as PD here are not really PD, Wikimedia could get in real trouble, I guess --schlendrian •λ• 18:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone could send an email to the adress on the webpage linked by Madmax32 above and just ask for the death date of Arthur Renard. If he is dead for more than 70 years the images can be kept, otherwise they probably have to be deleted. --88.134.44.255 21:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Polarlys 21:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to get a release for photos by Arthur Renard (or perhaps just the ones on history.navy.mil) if they're still in copyright under the life+70 rule? I trust you speak German? -Nard 23:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mail was sent and I believe it’s a bad idea to go like a bull at a gate (“we use photos but we don’t know if they are still protected by copyright law, would you permit it anyway?”) The answer was “No”, they have an archive and they sell prints of their anchestor’s photos. Let’s wait and see, in some days we’ll know. Regards, --Polarlys 00:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the date of death is not knows we can not assume the the author ist dead for 70 years, esspially if he took this photo in the 1930ies. No prove is given that the author really "donated" the image. If he did, the uploader has to check and be able to prove it prior to the upload. --schlendrian •λ• 12:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, Renard died in 1934 (killed in an accident) – so we can use it. The claim of the U.S. Naval Historical Center (they got the print in 2004 and released it as public domain) was never valid. I am grateful for the work of a local librarian, she contacted another archive and used old newspapers. We usually use Google and then we release an image as an “anonymous work” …--Polarlys 16:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work (of both of you) --Flominator 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Francoise_Sagan.jpg

No proper license; copyright holder not listed, thus "release into the public domain" invalid Omerzu 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I very strongly doute this image is in the public domain. Romary 10:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Wollongong

Replaced by new Category: Wollongong, New South Wales --Grogan deYobbo 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (only contained on image) --ALE! ¿…? 07:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Barefoot

Deletion request withdrawn, in light of the fact that proper entrants are now categorized in this category. ~~This is supposed to be a category of pictures depicting barefootness, but ironically, the only entrant is a picture of feet with shoes. The category, thus, is not useful and should be deleted.~~ --Wooyi 17:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It was not very difficult to put other pictures in this category. Is the plural "Barefeet" exist in English? (I cannot find in my dictionnary) If yes, the category should probably named "Barefeet". The category is usefull because there are several article about barefoot (i.e. en:Barefoot, fr:Pieds nus). I have had a link to this category in these articles. Romary 11:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot is an adjective or an adverb, not a noun. It is like "shod" or "clothed", not like "shoes" or "clothes". So no, there is no word "barefeet". If you want, you can say that someone has bare feet, but it is enough to say that they are barefoot. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting pictures in the category, I didn't know there are this many pictures that fit in there. Deletion request withdrawn. Wooyi 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin please close this one, I have withdrawn the request. Wooyi 19:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. --GeorgHH 18:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sergey Korolev July 1954.jpg

While taken from a NASA website, like many images there this image is in fact copyrighted (and the rights for it are available for purchase from elsewhere [37]). It is not eligible under any other free licenses.--Konstable 13:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NASA website attributes this image to en:Asif Azam Siddiqi, born 1966. The image is from July 1954. It is probably originally from the Soviet government. According to {{PD-Russia}} only Soviet works from before January 1, 1954 are PD. So so close. -Nard 18:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That should be "...are PD in Russia". For the U.S., the critical date in January 1, 1946. Lupo 09:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is surely PD, I've seen it in a lot of Soviet (our) books. It's obvious that NASA's claim just means that Mr. Siddiqi used this image for his book and NASA employee scanned it. --Yuriybrisk 18:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, or did I misunderstanded the discussion above? --Yuriybrisk 18:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually no idea why Siddiqi is listed there, but this image does not fit under {{PD-Russia}} as the date is January 1st, 1954 (half a year earlier) for within Russia and 1946 for within USA.--Konstable 09:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Either a) NASA site has the right information of source & author in which case this image isn't PD-NASAr b) a proper source with right information is missing. Samulili 11:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sede vacante.png

No copyright tag and provably a copyright-violation/"Fairuse" --68.39.174.238 12:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant copy from en:Image:Ombrellino-keys.jpg which is clearly marked "Fair Use". This image has no copyright tag, only {{insignian}}. Also, would like to nominate Image:Pavillon pontifical.png as a bad redundancy of Image:Ombrellino-keys.svg. 68.39.174.238 12:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of flags, images of money, coats of arms, and insignia are marked as fair use on the English Wikipedia where Commons either rules them pd-ineligible or simply ducks the copyright on them (I'm not saying that's the correct thing to do, just pointing out I've observed that's the case). I think we should make an independent ruling on the copyright status of what appears to be the Vatican's seal. I'm neutral on the issue, although apparently the basic design has existed since the 1200's. (See en:Papal_coat_of_arms.) -Nard 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the design itself is copyrighted, only that this particular image of it was scanned from a book published in 1996. I can't tell if it is in itself older then that, but the suspicious is that it isn't. On top of all that, we now have an SVG of this coatofarms/insignia/whatever which is entirely clear of any copyright concerns. 68.39.174.238 11:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to {{subst:nld}}. Samulili 11:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Squared circle grate.jpg

Found this one while clearing out Flickr images needing manual review. Current license is unfree, but it is assumed FlickrLickr found the license reliably when it was uploaded. However, I am dubious of any encyclopedic use for this. ---Nard 02:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (noncommercial) --ALE! ¿…? 14:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Auenstein, Germany

Empty category for a village below municipality level --Rosenzweig 08:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category has no content. --Digon3 ^talk 12:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, empty category. --Mormegil 16:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NSQNP.jpg

Derivative work (Simpsons characters). Uploader removed derivative tag. William Avery 23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you decide to delete it, I'll upload a cropped version of it without the characters... --No se que nick poner ^{Visit me/Visítame} 23:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 00:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wappen Munster.png

Neue Datei Image:Munster, Lower Saxony coa.png Flor!an 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

„The text below is generated by a template which has been proposed for deletion. Please see its entry on Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Vector-Images.com for comments and reasoning. This is a flag or coat of arms image from the Vector-Images.com website and is copyrighted. (…)“ --Polarlys 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, see statement of Polarlys. --Notschrei 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Symbol of Solidarnosc.png

Probably copyvio: The claim that this user _created_ the logo of Solidarnosc is hardly believable; note the changes of license including logo, PD, GFDL, NSD, and finally PD-self. --Mormegil 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Milorad Jankovic.jpg

Clearly scanned from a halftone source. While the site we found it on may have CC licensed text, this image is not their authorship. With having knowledge of the author, we can not assume this has been freely licensed. --Gmaxwell 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Oskar_Braaten-1.jpg

It has come to my attention that copyright laws for public art is propably different in Norway than in my home country, Sweden. Since this photo is taken in Norway, I can propably not claim copyright. Dcastor 01:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The Norwegian Copyright in Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works Act, in section 24, 2 says that works of art and photographic works may be depicted when they are permanently located in or near a public place or a publicly accessible passage through some place. --Digon3 ^talk 12:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COM:FOP#Norway suggests this image couldn't be used commercially, though, which would be incompatible with COM:L. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Norwegian FOP is non-commercial. --Kjetil r 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You are right, this image couldn't be used commercially and therefore incompatible with the Commons. --Digon3 ^talk 21:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Iphp.jpg

distribution upon conditions are`nt agree with free GFDL license --Margoz 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No evidence that the legitimate copyright holder approved the GNU Free Documentation License. Indeed, the prohibition of redistribution is incompatible with GFDL and Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Nehru_family.jpg

This probably was published after 1947 since it is a family snapshot, most likely in the 1960s or later, therefore the PD claim is invalid Madmax32 00:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This picture could not have been taken later than 1931. Motilal Nehru died in 1931, and he is clearly alive and well in this picture.

I would say "assume good faith". If you don't have any proof that the picture was published "in the 1960s or later", how can you say so? I remind you that the proof of copyright violation is on the accusation. Yann 10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange claims. Madmax32 is a very "active" user, but does not respond? I really doubt the photo was shot after Motilal Nerhu died, so the deletion tag should be removed now. Additionally, Jawaharlal Nehru died in 1964, so the photo can't be a snapshot of th "1960s or later". We've already lost another Motilal Nerhu picture that way... --Liberal Freemason (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep Yann 18:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:La almudena.jpg

Delete As above, also, the Creative Commons 3.0 license which this is under has not yet been confirmed to be compliant to the Commons licensing policy. --Digon3 ^talk 12:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment user name matches source url domain name, suggesting author permission. This should be more explicitly stated and the license should be changed to one we can use. -Nard 13:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. As N, I believe that the uploader is the copyright holder. Cc-by-sa-3.0 is ok nowadays. Samulili 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Diego_capusotto.jpg

No evidence for GFDL William Avery 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The owner of the material authorized me to use it on wikipedia. --Ale Flashero 19:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to use it on my private homepage? --Polarlys 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide evidence that they approved the terms of the GNU Free Documentation license specifically, since that is the license you have stated on the image. Do note that only the legitimate copyright holder may choose that license and that making fraudulent licensing statements when you're not the copyright holder is a criminal offense. Authorisation "to use it on Wikipedia" is not sufficient, not least because this isn't Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:MooreKucinich.jpg

Flickr url says all rights reserved. Uploader claims on Village Pump that OTRS permission for GFDL is present. Listing for deletion so the image will not be forgotten about if the OTRS permission is not present. ---Nard 13:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The OTRS permission was emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org by author. Bbsrock 22:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could someone with an account check this, please? --ALE! ¿…? 12:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. OTRS 2007071110016517 has not been closed succesfully as no clear release statement has been made. --Siebrand 13:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 15

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gidonkremer.jpg

No evidence that the copyright holder of this image allows anyone to use it for any purpose, as claimed. --Abu badali 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio. --Polarlys 08:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:-1994-04-16 1830-News630-01-2007-07-10 19-00-36.jpg

Have Copyright In TVB --Billytanghh 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, tv screenshot --Polarlys 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sarkozy_G-8.JPG

Press license only ([38]: "Eine darüber hinausgehende Nutzung für kommerzielle Zwecke, insbesondere für Werbezwecke, ist nicht zulässig.") --Phrood 13:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: fake licence

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sarkozy18.06.JPG

the French government probably doesn't own the copyright for this image, see also Commons:Licensing#Images_from_public_sites Phrood 13:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: fake licence

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:NiverCarolPirenopolis_031.jpg

Wrong filename; I am re-uploading it with a more appropriate filename. Luis Dantas 23:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dantadd: incorrectly named, duplicate Image:Pigeon in Brasilia 02.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:000 0468.jpg

Unencyclopedic personal pic. Commons is not a hosting website. --Renata3 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really unuseful image. --Radouch 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vladimir_putin_02.jpg

kremlin.ru template previously deleted, does not allow commercial and/or derivative works. No GNU license on source website Madmax32 09:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "kremlin.ru template previously deleted"? The Kremlin website still allows the use of this photo. Voevoda 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken we had a specific template for Kremlin.ru images and it was deleted Madmax32 11:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes it was deleted by Mikkalai http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Kremlin.ru&action=edit Madmax32 11:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites for details. --EugeneZelenko 15:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gafftopsail catfish.jpg

(duplicate of Image:Bagre marinus (line art).jpg) --Dryke 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For next time use {{duplicate}}. --Digon3 ^talk 17:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pimke 08:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. (Furthermore, the source link pointed to the wrong image.) —LX (talk, contribs) 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Spherical mirror2.svg

This is no better than a png, the resultant text style is not what I designed due the the media wiki rendering, delete away. I am the author BTW. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: unused, contains errors, deletion requested by the uploader // tsca [re] 22:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Limp_bizkit_group.jpg

it more likely looks like a promo pic, i doubt that the named flickr-user has the rights for it Leipnizkeks 14:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low resolution; likely copyvio. (→O - R L Y?) 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fred_durst.jpg

non-commercial Leipnizkeks 14:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LosAngelesGalaxyLogo.gif

There already is an official logo sent. This isn't the one. I uploaded this by mistake. --Hachiko (talk • contribs) at 22:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC) as rescued by Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per uploader's request, and also because it appears to be a copyright violation. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fünfzig Fabeln für Kinder (Hey).djvu

djvu corrupt. 21 September 2006. User:Rabe Socke

it works fine for me. What do you mean? --Polarlys 23:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The file does not seem to be corrupt, what's wrong? Wooyi 04:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, works fine --ALE! ¿…? 11:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Hafen-3.ogg

Has been for testing only. 23:10, 10 July 2007 User:Davidmoerike

deleted as requested by the uploader. // tsca [re] 22:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Hagiasophia1.jpg

(no reason given) 10 July 2007 User:Ahmetan

Left a message with nominator to give a reason. The picture does have a watermark on it for (what looks like) http://www.karalahana.com - Deadstar 17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted anyway because of low resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 18:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when has low resolution been a reason for deletion? A larger image may be more useful, but that doesn't negate the use of smaller images (quite sufficient for a website for instance) --Tony Wills 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, no reason for deletion given (resolution/quality is no reason) --ALE! ¿…? 11:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:POL Dalachów map.svg

Not used - deletion requested by autor. 09:29, 15 July 2007 User:ZPraszczyk

no reason for deletion (you can not revoke a free license) --ALE! ¿…? 11:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Rotštejn

redundant, all media are and can be placed in the article Rotštejn --Radouch 16:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty catagory. --Digon3 ^talk 17:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Changing my vote, see below --Digon3 ^talk 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment That's only because the person who submitted this deletion request has removed the category from images that were under it before submitting the request. --Moonian 12:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is true. I removed images from the category because they were already placed in the article Rotštejn. I think there is no need to have both the category and the article for this topic; I may be wrong of course. --Radouch 14:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and put the pictures back in the catagory If I remember correctly, they can be put in both the gallery and the catagory. --Digon3 ^talk 14:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I cannot see any advantage of this solution (to have the same pictures in a category and in a gallery) in this case. Is there any reason for it? We can delete the gallery and put pictures back in the category but keep both only increases mess at the Commons. --Radouch 15:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply A huge discussion is going on here and a vote somewere about this. I say keep for now and wait for a decision. --Digon3 ^talk 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I did not notice those discussions. I still believe it is nonsense to place the same images in both a gallery and an article with the same name and I still belive it is extremely unuseful for any potential users. Well, if commonists believe it is a good idea I resign the case. And I resign my effort to make some housecleaning here :-) (I stress again: I am not in favour of categories nor in favour of articles: I just believe to have the same images in both is nonsense.) --Radouch 06:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and revert the removal of the images from the category. --Kjetil r 01:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and revert the removal of the images from the category. Let's wait until a common consensus has been reached. --Moonian 05:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, keep and restore the removal of category tagging from the images, which was clearly not supported by consensus. All images should be categorised. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Reverted uncategorizing: There is no reason to remove categories if an image is also in a gallery. --GeorgHH 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Jom kippur war.jpg

Tagged as GFDL, but description implies "used with permission". --Abu badali 14:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, {{npd}} (no evidence that the legitimate copyright holder authorised the publication of the work under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License). —LX (talk, contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts should be made to contact the person who originally tagged this as permission. Raul654 14:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Free license missing. Samulili 11:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fileprova.ogg

(no sound) 14 July 2007 User:82.51.94.224

Comment Description says that this is a test ogg file (and it is only 4kb) --Digon3 ^talk 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Schneider wappen.jpg

double from Image:Schneider.jpg --LutzBruno 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Please use {{bad name}} for files you uploaded with incorrect names, and are unused, for next time. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 01:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also {{duplicate}} works as well. Wooyi 00:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done --ALE! ¿…? 14:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images by Joymaster IV

Incomplete source, permission or license by Joymaster. Undeleted at request of User:Odder to give uploader more to to get a permission through OTRS. Siebrand 18:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (no author and/or source) --ALE! ¿…? 14:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-UY-Presidency

„public use“ unequal „public domain“. --Polarlys 00:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Spanish but, at least, the website in question has a © sign on it ("© 2005-2007 SEPREDI - Presidencia de la República Oriental del Uruguay"). So, Delete unless somewhere indicatss that the materials in the site are "copyrighted but free for any use". --Moonian 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also, the person giving the permission is the webmaster, not the copyright owner. --Dodo 16:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, the Uruguayan president and his office owns the copyright of the website, just like that we can use all the White House pictures because White House releases all of pictures taken by them into PD. Wooyi 19:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good at english either, but I hope you can understand me. As I added in the Permission in spanish "Gustavo Antúnez es el Subdirector de SEPREDI, (Secretaría de Prensa y Difusión del Uruguay). Dicha Secretaría es un órgano del estado uruguayo y sus miembros (incluído el Sr. Antúnez) son elegidos por el Poder Ejecutivo en ejercicio.".

In english it would be: Gustavo Antúnez is the VP of SEPREDI (Press and Diffusion Secretary of Uruguay). That Secretary is part of the Goverment of Uruguay and the members (of SEPREDI), are chosen by the President of Uruguay himself. That's why (with all the due respect) I think the argument of Dodo it's not valid at all. I think Mr. Antunez is the right person to autorized this permission, as he actually did. Besides, as Wooyi said, the Uruguayan president and his office owns the copyright of the website.

I hope you can think over this deletion request once again, because is a real injustice if you delete this permission attched with effort and concerned of making the things legally.

For all these reasons:

Keep. --Uynet 23:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure if the reason behind this deletion request is the following, but: the template says the images from the website are "for public use", but it doesn't specify whether such images could be for commercial uses; also, "for public use" MAY mean "the public can access the materials freely" only (i.e. not a website with restricted access). You may wish to ask the Secretary to clarify this point. --Moonian 04:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Public use" can even refer to a "fair use"-like permission. Take a look also to Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-AR-Presidency. --Dodo 11:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it can be proved that "public use" equals "public domain". --Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 09:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC) PD: furthermore, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that a member of the government can dispose of the property of the Republic (such as, for example, the pictures of a government web site) and transfer its ownership to the public domain. An act passed by the Parliament is possibly required.[reply]

Comment Ok, I had just email Antunez (who is the responsable to the diffusion of the photos and other stuff in the web page), and ask him for these items that you guys requested. When he email me again I'll put his answer in the Template:PD-UY-Presidency link. And there will no need of delete this permission, I hope!. --Uynet 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's wait until we've got a response from him then. --Moonian 13:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Wait for a response before deleting. grendel|khan 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any response? Siebrand 18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any news? Dantadd✉ 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still no sign of news. Closing as delete. -- Infrogmation 01:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Infrogmation 01:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please then also delete all images using this template? Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 13:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Infrogmation 01:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 16

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:1297262811.jpg

This is a screenshot of the TV show and not a GFDL image. Sue Anne 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please tag wit {{screenshot}} next time. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: cv

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wrath_by_kahlen.jpg

This is a screenshot from the TV show and not a GFDL image. Sue Anne 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please tag wit {{screenshot}} next time. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: fair use

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Marko_Perkovic_Thompson.jpg

copyrighted image 198.140.63.34 18:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio. [39]

Deleted. Copyright violation. Derivative of a non-free album cover. Fraudulent authorship claims and licensing. Please use {{copyvio}} for obvious cases. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:IPhone-docked.jpg

It seems unlikely to me that Apple Inc. would not claim copyright over the screenshot shown in this photograph. JeremyA 00:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I doubt that this would ever practically be an issue, it appears to my brief researching leads me to believe that, yes, techically Apple would be the owner of the image displayed on the screen. As such, and since it *would* fall under fair use, I concur with the suggestion for deletion, and will upload the image to Wikipedia directly. Frijole 03:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted--image is now on Wikipedia with a fair use claim --JeremyA 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by JeremyA: moved to Wikipedia by uploader for fair use--photograph contains a screenshot that is copyright to Apple Inc.

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:P8200287.jpg

bad file name ShinePhantom 07:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The correctly named image is image:Ingelberg street, Fedorovka, Smarskaya oblast, Russia.jpg. Please tag future badnames with {{badname}} for next time. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 18:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. (Image was orphaned.) Please use {{badname}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:14, 22 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.

Image:Wheel life 01.jpg

Keep- unless the author is complaining

Derivative work. Owning the physical painting doesn't mean you own the copyright. --William Avery 18:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete and wonder about: This image was selected as a picture of the day for February 2, 2005. --Polarlys 18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the owner can't release a photo of its painting, who can? (note that there're not two identical paintings). IANAL but when you buy the work that right would be given too: it's sold, not licensed. And the original comcept of hte wheel life is public domain. Platonides 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If the owner can't release a photo of its painting, who can?" - The author can, see also Commons:Derivative works. And this isn't about "the concept of the wheel of life" but a work of fine arts of which User:Henryart probably isn't the author. --Melanom 12:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the author did one copy and sold to Henryart. So he's allowing him to publish it in his office or his dining room. Publishing in wikipedia is not such different here. Platonides 11:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed very much different, as the material on Commons is explicitly supposed to be used by anyone for any purpose, including commercial ones. I doubt this is what the original author intended and I doubt he suceeded these rights to the person he sold his work to. --Melanom 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author couldn't use it commercially if it's the only copy (he can create more similar works). Platonides 13:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Platonides--Anupamsr 23:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copyvio. Unless the original painting turns out to be public domain, but that would require adequate source information (who is the painter?) to determine. —An gr 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept and even the details of this painting were designed by Buddhist community and therefore are pub domain. -- Al Q 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the owner of the original painting. It may be that there are some juridical rights of the painter. But all people who know the history of the "wheel of life" know, that this painting was given from buddha himself (what would buddha say if we would ask him to let it stay in WIKIPEDIA?) to the mankind to recognize the meaning of life an the consequences of decisions, feelings and works. From this point of view this picture should be a gift to all people. In the last years I had a lot of requests from authors and movie-makers to us this pictures for their publications and I never wanted to get money for this. I only requested one example of the product, in which it was used. In this way many people had the chance to think about the meaning of their life from another point of view. I accept the higher rights of the painter of this picture, who lives somewhere in Bhutan. But the painting is without signature and I dont know who made it, I just bought it in the year 2000 in the BHUTAN-PAVILLON at the WORLD EXPO in Hannover/ Germany. If there is somebody who can prove, that he has painted this picture and dont want to stay it further in WIKIPEDIA I immediatley agree to delete it. Please excuse my bad English. henryart 16:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After reading what the owner of the painting wrote I can't see any reason, why it should be deleted. --Raven2 06:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been closed kept by me, but was contested. I can see why and reopened the case. Siebrand 07:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a painting, not a print or similar. So it would be possible for the author to sell the physical copy and keep the copyright, but it would be unusual. I am satisfied that the owner of the physical copy also owns the copyright, so no issue. Ben Aveling 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really a blatantly obvious case if you know the first thing about copyright. The transfer of the material rights to the physical representation of the work has absolutely no impact on the immaterial rights to the work, such as the author's copyright. Copyright is the right to control the creation and distribution of copies (hence "copyright") of a work of art. Copyright explicitly distinguishes between displaying a work and distributing it.[40] Hence, owning a copy (regardless of how many issues of the work are in circulation) is not the same as holding the copyright. This is a very fundamental concept to the whole idea of copyright. And yes, copyright infringement is a valid reason for deletion. I don't know what would possess anyone to claim otherwise, unless, of course, they're just copying and pasting a standard "vote" to every deletion discussion, or what's meant to be a discussion. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a print. The uploader does not own a copy of the original, which as you rightly point out would not give them the right to further distribute copies and would justify deletion. In this case, the uploader owns the original painting, which by default gives them ownership of the copyright. It's possible to separate the two, but very uncommon and there is no reason to believe that it has happened in this case. The only residual right that the artist has is the moral right to assert that they are the artist. When I create something for my employer, they own the copyright, not me. This is no different. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to LX - I was by accident an artist painter long time ago and know thus copyright at first hand... --FSHL 21:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where this fixation with it not being a print comes in. Again, copyright is not concerned with material objects but with immaterial works. Works created for an employer are works for hire, which involves a contract for work. The default assumption if no such contract is present is that there is no transfer of copyrights. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to LX - An artist painter works always for hire – that’s just the definition of a professional artist, everything else is simply a hobby... --FSHL 08:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're confusing "for profit" with "work for hire". Work for hire is a well-defined legal concept that applies to works created by an employee for an employer (artists who sell their works to the general public are not employed by their customers; they're usually self-employed) or created under a written contract which specifically mentions the words "work for hire".[41] —LX (talk, contribs) 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LX is spot on. It's not a work made for hire (at least not made for hire for the current owner of the physical object). Unless the purchase contract also contained a clause on a transfer of copyrights to the owner of the physical object, the copyrights remain with the artist. And I'd like to see a source for it to be "very uncommon" to have copyrights separated from physical ownership, as Ben Aveling claimed above. AFAIK, it's exactly the other way 'round. Lupo 06:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lupo - Just look at Christie’s or somewhere else... --FSHL 08:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What's that supposed to mean? I buy a Picasso, and I get the copyright on it? Most certainly not. Lupo 10:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lupo - Definitively not! But you’ve got the right to make photography’s of your Picasso and if you want, to share them as cc-by-sa-2.0... --FSHL 13:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Derivative works. If I wanted to publish a copy (such as a photograph), I would have to respect Picasso's copyright. Lupo 14:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lupo - Definitively not in Austria! See: Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Kunst und über verwandte Schutzrechte, §16, 3 --FSHL 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the "first sale doctrine". This Verbreitungsrecht is about the rights on a particular Werkstück, i.e., copy of the work. Once a copy has been sold, the new owner is free to re-sell or exhibit or hide away that copy. But he's not free to produce new copies, that'd be the Vervielfältigungsrecht, which in Austrian law is covered by §15. The right to produce copies is what is important here. Lupo 08:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lupo - See: Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht an Werken der Literatur und der Kunst und über verwandte Schutzrechte, §41a --FSHL 08:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the copyright is not transfered when one buys a work. The photo is thus a derivative work and has to be deleted. --Kjetil r 01:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Siebrand 08:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Maccabiah17.JPG

i uploaded better picדרדס 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also no source specified. Deadstar 07:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other picture is here and still no source. --Digon3 ^talk 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i took this pictures. דרדס 07:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both images have sources now and will be deleted. Though please use {{duplicate}} next time. --|EPO| ^da: 10:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sibelius_monument_pipes_7235.jpg

Derived work. Ben Aveling 09:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finland has no panorama freedom for works of art (other than architecture) which are located in public places. --Digon3 ^talk 16:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is a monument a work of architecture? If it is, then

Keep. Wooyi 04:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A monument could be a work of architecture. I believe the distinction would lie in the utilitarian aspects of the work and the presence of things such as walls and a roof. However, this is clearly a sculpture, and Eila Hiltunen is usually described as a sculptor, not an architect, so I'd say no. As far as I know, she was not licensed to practise architecture.

Delete. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, as per LX --Polarlys 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sibelius_monument_7236.jpg

Also Image:Sibelius_monument_7222.jpg Derived works but being used (Fair use) on 4 wikis. Is there any easy way to trans-wiki both to all 4? Ben Aveling 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once the trans-wiki thing as been figured out. Finland has no panorama freedom for works of art (other than architecture) which are located in public places. --Digon3 ^talk 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's moments like this I wish we had another server, like commons, except that it would accept fair-user images for use on other wikis. So there would be no express right to reuse of its images but it would make this sort of trans-wiki copying unnecessary. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair use provisions apply to specific uses of images. The concept cannot be invoked to justify collecting and distributing images in a media database. So the idea of a database of fair-use content is a contradiction in terms. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes and no. I'm not talking about collecting and distributing. The images would be only for use on the various wikipedia, just as fair use images currently are. Perhaps I should have qualified myself when I said "like commons". I meant alike in the sense that all wikipedia can pick-up images from it, not in the sense that it's a public repository. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vinci-boardgame.jpg

Derivative of presumably copyrighted gameboard and artwork --Infrogmation 09:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes it is a gameboard. But there are hundreds of gameboard pictures in Wiki Commons. These pictures all are not permitted? --FrankiDe

Delete, that's right; other photos where the main subject is a copyrighted, non-free work should also be nominated for deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem with the cover artwork and changed the picture, now you can't see the cover only the game board and the material. --FrankiDe 15:48, 16 July 2007

deleted, also such a game board is copyrighted. --Polarlys 18:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sibelius_monument_pipes_7228.jpg

Derived work. Please delete and undelete in about 70 years. Ben Aveling 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finland has no panorama freedom for works of art (other than architecture) which are located in public places. --Digon3 ^talk 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a huge monument like this is an architectural work. See here, monuments are often referred as architecture. Wooyi 00:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A monument could be a work of architecture. I believe the distinction would lie in the utilitarian aspects of the work and the presence of things such as walls and a roof. For example, a mausuleum might be a work of architecture. However, this is clearly a sculpture, and Eila Hiltunen is usually described as a sculptor, not an architect. As far as I know, she was not licensed to practise architecture. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, as per LX --Polarlys 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sibelius_monument_pipes_7227.jpg

Derived work. Please delete now and undelete again in about 70 years. Ben Aveling 09:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Finland has no panorama freedom for works of art (other than architecture) which are located in public places. --Digon3 ^talk 16:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Merkelbeek bord.JPG

This image was uploaded by myself, but I uploaded a better file with a better extension here: Image:Merkelbeek bord.jpg --Tibor 15:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and please use {{Badname}} for next time. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted as (near) duplicate --ALE! ¿…? 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Luna programe

This category is misspelled and should be merged into the existing Category:Luna programme. Thanks, Jvhertum 16:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:NielsF

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kirka.jpg

Photo grabbed from site with copyrighted content Ekko 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Need the link to the site with copyrighted content to make sure it is a copyvio, but Delete for small resolution/poor image quality. --Digon3 ^talk 14:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kulturnett.no does not use GFDL. --Kjetil r 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Immigrationceremonycanada.jpg

uploader admits it was under 'non commercial' CC license Madmax32 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, {{copyvio}} because of unauthorised licensing change. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:UkrainianPeacekeepers.jpg

Ukrainian military photographs are copyrighted not GNU Madmax32 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sea Beach Line 1.gif

copyright violation of http://www.thejoekorner.com/brochures/seabch1.gif AKA http://thejoekorner.quuxuum.org/brochures/seabch1.gif - not old enough yet, and Locke Cole reverted my copyvio tag. On what basis does the PD tag apply? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published in 1915 (before 1923 per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Published_works). Note that without a copyright notice, and I saw none such on the three pages, it would be public domain even published as late as 1977. What am I missing? Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, but change the tag to {{PD-US}}. Lupo 20:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - {{PD-US}} does appear to apply in this case, I've implemented it and improved the image. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it may have been mistagged, but needlessly deleting images that are clearly PD somewhere seems to be against the goals of this project. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, but removed Jeff's custom templates and the CC license and replaced it by {{PD-US}}. Jeff, you don't get a copyright on a PD image just because you've fiddled with brightness and contrast. Lupo 07:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd rather have the unretouched unthumbnailable versions? I hold the copyright on my improvements to this image's quality - it took a lot of work to get them just right. I've reverted your closing of this deletion request, as you're not an Administrator here, and only Administrators here may close deletion requests here. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're American, aren't you? And the work is American, too. In the U.S., your efforts do not give rise to copyright. "Sweat of the brow" has been explicitly rejected as a reason for granting copyright, see Bridgeman v. Corel. Hence your labeling these PD-US works as CC-something is not correct. It's the same as some museums claiming copyright over PD works: copyfraud. Lupo 21:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These were not slavish reproductions, they were derivative works, and my work was not performed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the only place where the decision in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is legally binding. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is utter nonsense. Also see Feist v. Rural, a Supreme Court decision which confirmed this part of Bridgeman, explicitly rejecting difficulty of labor or expense as a consideration in copyrightability. Also see en:WP:PD#Derived works and restorations of works in the public domain, mentioning Hearn v. Meyer, in which an illustrator attempted unsuccessfully to claim copyright on his painstakingly restored versions of original Wizard of Oz illustrations. The illustrations were in the public domain, and the court found that the act of rendering them with bolder and more vibrant colors was not an original contribution sufficient to remove the restored works from the public domain.

Furthermore, how do you know that the images at the external source site had not already been post-processed there? If so, and if you're line of reasoning held, the images at the external source already would be copyrighted, and we'd have to delete these uploads as copyvios. Hence either you claim copyright, but then the images must be deleted as copyvios, or they're re-labelled as {{PD-US}} and they may stay. If you insist on labelling these images as CC-something, they must be deleted as copyfraud. (BTW, I don't think I got any copyright on Image:Vietnam child soldier.jpg, which took me several hours of painstaking work to restore from the badly deteriorated original.) Lupo 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The original image Image:Sea_Beach_Line_1.gif, as originally uploaded by SPUI, pretty clearly is not under copyright in the US, since it comes from 1915. I understand it could use some improving. I also understand that Jeff G improved it, and argues that is a derivative work since the improvement is substantial enough to make it not just rote improvement, but actual artistic work.

Now, if the original image is free, why the deletion request? If Jeff incorrectly licensed his derivation, then what we need to delete is the derivation, but not the original. That's a reversion, not a deletion. And if Jeff incorrectly licensed his derivation, why was it uploaded here? We only allow things to be uploaded here that have free licenses... Seems to me we either need Jeff to relicense his improvements in a Commons compatible way, or we need to undo the improvements, saying thank you for the contribution but since it's not licensed in a Commons compatible way, we have to go back to what we had before which was Free.

I'm all about giving Jeff credit for the improvements he did... those, it seems to me, could well be licensed under CC-By-SA or something similar, which forces credit to be given. But aren't those, if they are significant enough to be newly licensable, not revisions, but actually a new, different image? Shouldn't we have both images, the original, and the improved version, under separate names, with separate licenses? Why would we want to lose PDness on the original just because a derivative work was created? ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Jeff nominated them, they were tagged with the obsolete plain {{PD}} tag. Jeff can get credit for his work by simply mentioning it on the image page. But he cannot impose attribution or other usage requirements on the improved versions: they're still PD-US. Lupo 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PNG versions with similar improvements and licensed as {{PD-US}} now exist as Image:Sea Beach Line 1.png, Image:Sea Beach Line 2.png, and Image:Sea Beach Line 3.png, obsoleting these GIF versions with their incorrect licensing. Therefore, I change my opinion to ~~[[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] '''Delete'''~~ for the three GIFs. PD works dual licensed as GFDL and CC-BY-SA are copyfraud. Lupo 09:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of harmony, I am contributing my improvements to the Public Domain. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lupo 12:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to clean up my opinion: as {{PD-US}} work,

Keep of course. Lupo 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 15:07, 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.

derived work of 'various' GFDL or CC-By-SA images without attribution Gmaxwell 21:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Two PD images and one GFDL+CC-BY-SA. Composition image can be licensed both GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Keep. A.J. 13:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)~~ It seems that copyleft rule allows to license it only on {{Cc-by-sa-2.0-fr}} an CeCILL. CeCILL is compatibile with GPL, but I cannot find any reference about GFDL compatibility. A.J. 13:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well two images are in th PD, the other has another free license. However, there is still the problem of the "wizard" --ALE! ¿…? 12:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, if the copyright issue can be resolved with a simple edit to the image description page, there is no reason to bring it here. -- Cat ^chi? 16:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't close this until the actual copyright problems are resolved. I'm relisting it because it clearly needs more attention. It's not at all clear to me how its problems can be resolved via a 'simple edit to the image description page', if thats actually the case someone should do it. And I'll be glad to support keeping this. --Gmaxwell 14:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The work is a collage containing (in addition to some works in the public domain) several copyrighted works with various different licenses. Several of the licenses involved require that derivative works be licensed as a whole under precisely the same terms as the original work, with no additional terms. Since the licensing terms vary between the copyrighted constituent images, it is not possible to apply a license to the resulting work which doesn't violate the licenses of at least one of the constituent images. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

Image:Teacher writing on a Blackboard.jpg is cc-by-2.0. It's made someone in Flickr.
Image:EPFL-p1010398.jpg is cc-by-sa-2.0-fr and it's made by User:Rama (a very active user)
Image:Sopa de letras 0.svg is cc-by-sa-2.5 and made by User:Tintazul (a relatively active user).
Other images are in the public domain.

Assumptions:

I assume that you can make a derivative of cc-by-2.0 and release it with a cc-by-sa license.
I assume that cc-by-sa-2.0-fr and cc-by-sa-2.5 are compatible licenses.

Hence I think that there are no problems. If I'm mistaken, someone should ask Rama and Tintazul to relicense their work with another license. Samulili 06:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All images this cc-by-2.0 images is derivative of are either also Creative Commons licenced or PD. (Note, an earlier version had a GFDL image, but that was removed from the new version uploaded in July). Looks OK; closing as kept. -- Infrogmation 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Infrogmation 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 17

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:-1994-06-05 1830-News630-ID-2007-07-10 18-53-59.jpg

copyvio --Billytanghh 06:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please use {{screenshot}} for next time. Fair Use and poor file name. --Digon3 ^talk 14:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Newport4News.jpg

Copyvio 86.136.125.221 19:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Adambro. Please use {{copyvio}} for obvious cases. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Van_persie_feyenoord.jpg

I messed up with the license of this image, it's "no derivatives", which is incompatible with commons, and should therefore be deleted. JACOPLANE • 2007-07-17 20:29

Deleted. {{nonderivative}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Scialone.jpg

offensiva

Delete Out of scope Deadstar 07:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (out of scope)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Guatemalacityskyline.jpg

copyright violation, image is from http://www.larc1.com/guatemala/index.html and is copyright. LaNicoya 02:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio and poor resolution. Website has "Copyright© 2003-2007, All rights reserved". --Digon3 ^talk 14:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Hiranuma_cabibet_photo_op.jpg

request from the uploader. reason: typo. WTCA 05:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does he have another photo with the correct file name? That way this can be tagged with {{badname}} by the uploader. --Digon3 ^talk 14:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correctly named file is Image:Hiranuma_cabinet_photo_op.jpg William Avery 16:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Heterosexual.gif

Too POV to be used in any project. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not used in any projects, but if the designed by God comment was cropped off this could be useful in other projects. --Digon3 ^talk 14:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, COM:SCOPE --Polarlys 23:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:271_Indianapolis.jpg

There is now a much better image (better angle, brighter) - Indianapolis Scottish Rite Cathedral.jpg Barsov 16:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated for deletion the image, which I had uploaded myself. I originally used it in Czech Wiki article on Freemasonry but upon discovering the better image (image:Indianapolis Scottish Rite Cathedral.jpg), I have changed the picture at the Czech Wiki for the new one. The old one is thus, as far as I know, used only on my userpage on Czech Wiki and I intend to delete that link, too.
Keep It is ok to have more than one image of the same subject on the Commons. I also think that the image for deletion is as good as or better than the other one. --Digon3 ^talk 16:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Digon3 - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:WashingtonDCMasonicTemple.jpg

There is now a much better image (better angle, brighter) - Image:WashDCMasonic2007.jpg Barsov 16:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated for deletion the image, which I had uploaded myself. I originally used it in Czech Wiki article on Freemasonry but upon discovering the better image (WashDCMasonic2007.jpg), I have changed the picture at the Czech Wiki for the new one. The old one is thus, as far as I know, used only on my userpage on Czech Wiki and I intend to delete that link, too.

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 05:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Crosiavalley.jpg

Likely to be a scan from a postcard --Cruccone 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 18

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Holy Trinity Church, Fulnek

This category was replaced by a more precise named one --PAD 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC) This category was replaced by a more precise named one, by Category:Most Holy Trinity Church, Fulnek.[reply]

'Deleted by Herbythyme: content was: '{{speedy|This category was replaced by a more precise named one}}

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mottabanner.jpg

out of project scope, it was used only on polish Wikipedia to advertise website -- Herr Kriss 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete out of project scope --Szczepan talk  23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Arkan.jpg

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. This is not a same picutre it is only a cut from the picture, there isn't another picture that show Arkan as comander of JSO.Snake bgd 15:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a derivate work of a picture which is not in public domain, so it can't itself be in public domain. Cropping the image doesn't make it original work. Please provide proof that it is public domain otherwise it is a copyright violation. --Branislav Jovanovic 08:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 23:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Oerstedpark grinder.jpg

Better image at Image:Ørstedsparken - The Grinder.jpg --Thue 21:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a good reason for deletion, but the image has no source, so

Delete

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:OEmrang-IMG_0615.JPG

sorry, double upload Mbdortmund 00:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the duplicate image. Thanks. --Digon3 ^talk 16:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by duplicated (Image:Oemrang-IMG 0615.JPG)--Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 16:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ZhongguoRenminYinhang.jpg

Chinese currency is protected by copyright Madmax32 03:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Acdclineup1994-now.jpg

This is a copyrighted image, found inside an CD album of the band (see description), so I find it hard to believe that this user has been given permission to release it under all rights. --Moeron 03:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May also be the exact same as already deleted Image:-Ac-dclineup1994-.jpg, though I can't be sure since I am not an admin. Moeron 03:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, {{npd}}. Not the same as Image:-Ac-dclineup1994-.jpg, though. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uploader also uploaded Image:Malcolmyoung.jpg which too seems to come from an album booklet. --88.134.44.255 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Bryan. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tedheath.jpg

the licence is wrong, it is not pre-1957, but from the 80's, so it is not public domain for the stated reason Longbow4u 09:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cal_Poly_Pomona_Eagleview.png

copyvio [42] user has a history of uploading copyvios on en-wp PS2pcGAMER 09:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio and low resolution. --Digon3 ^talk 16:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:20, 24 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.

Image:Riyo Mori.jpg

The source given has no explanation on the copyright issues --孔明居士 08:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ––Suradnik13 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah ... so that we must use the ugly picture Hillgentleman | 書 ---2007年07月02號 (星期Mon), 14:59:05 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. PageantUpdater 11:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Copyrighted free use provided that|unprocessed" sounds rather like a no-derivatives license. --Davepape 02:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pink_Floyd_-_Concerto_Estádio_Alvalade_Lisboa_Portugal.jpg

Disputed image. Image description page has the following comment: This photo is obviously form the 1987/88 world tour (one can see this by the type of lights used, and the musicans on stage). This casts doubt on the statement of the uploader that he took the image in 1994. Exactly the same image is available here [43] , but there is no infomation on the photographer or the copyright status on this site. --Vesta 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Siebrand 13:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the uploader to explain the contradicions in November 2006. The only response was that he deleted my question im March 2007. [44] He provided no imformation on how he could have made a image from the 1988/89 stage setup in 1994.... Note that the image author claims that the image was taken at the Estádio Alvalade in Lisboa, Portugal. The only Pink Floyd concerts in Portugal took place there on 2004 July 22 and 23. --Vesta 13:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio from pinkfloydonline.com --Polarlys 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pjberrio.PNG

Disputed image. Probably because the license is GFDL and there is no author or date of creation. Siebrand 13:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 05:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no author, no date of creation, no reason for GFDL --Polarlys 23:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Aichi_Ichinomiya_City.png

Images with disputed copyright status because of a map which cannot be copied to Commons according to ja.wp. All related images have been taged with {{User:LERK/Japan-map}}. See all maps that are alike in Category:Images_with_disputed_copyright_status. About 40 pcs. Siebrand 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Championstuska.jpg

The source (http://www.boblayton.com/) says All original properties and designs are trademarked and copyright 2007 by Bob Layton. Images on this site may not be reproduced in whole or in part without express written permission.

Perhaps the uploader is the same person who the creator of the image, or perhaps the image it's a copyvio. The uploader must read Commons:OTRS --Lmbuga ^{gl, pt, es: contacta comigo} 13:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio. Deadstar 12:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ChristianLangner.jpg

Not used anywhere 84.61.123.199 15:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Please see the Commons:Deletion_guidelines. I think it is potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. --Digon3 ^talk 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Digon3 - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 05:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, out of scope (unimportant person) --ALE! ¿…? 08:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Schmerz002.jpg

Reproduction of copyrighted work of art. No Panoramafreiheit applicable as the installation is only temporary. --Taxman(de) 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted, --Polarlys 23:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Johanniskirche Imst.jpg

First upload can be deleted immediately. I forgot to rotate the image before uploading. Tubantia 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. Replace it by the new one. --FSHL 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept. Tubantia uploaded new version. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:AnoushehAnsari.jpg

I think that this is not NASA image, but a Roscosmos image used by NASA on its web site. Could anyone confirm .? 83.204.245.16 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please read the Note part under the Summary section. P.S. a subpage should be created specially for this image instead of adding the request under another image's request. --Moonian 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per Moonian. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 12:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Alex in seersucker.JPG

The title of the image is wrong. Its too late to edit, so I would like the image deleted, then will re-upload and change the image name to one more appropriate/professional. --User:209.70.84.131 Request fixed by --Digon3 ^talk 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please upload the image with the correct name first and then tag this and {{badname}} if you are the uploader of both of the images or {{duplicate}} if you are not. --Digon3 ^talk 21:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by Majorly (requested (incorrect name))

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mottabanner.jpg

out of project scope, it was used only on polish Wikipedia to advertise website -- Herr Kriss 23:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete out of project scope --Szczepan talk  23:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:787rollout.jpg

Copyright violation: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1233653/M/ --66.171.171.132 00:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look closely. I don't think the two images are exactly the same. The people in the pictures are different. The position of the wires are different. --Yasobara 03:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And the spotlights in the background are different too. Maybe the photographers were just taking the pictures at more or less the same position. --Moonian 05:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this is a copyright violation, not of the Airliners.net image but this from the same photographer on Flickr. I am very disappointed that this is the case because it is a great image and I'd moved it from Wikipedia to illustrate an article on the English Wikinews. I intend to contact the photographer as to what he would like us to do and so I ask that this DR is not closed until I have had chance to contact him. Adambro 10:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the actual photographer is Mb.matt (see here). I'll post on that page and ask him to change the ownership data in the Commons. It's quite a tragedy for someone other than the photographer to take credit for such a nice picture. Sanjayhari 20:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I've contacted him via his Flickr account and am waiting to hear back as to how he wished to proceed. Adambro 10:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment asking is a good idea, since there are a bunch of pictures similar to each other. Wooyi 04:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly not the same picture. -- Stahlkocher 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Admin.JPG

There are other image files with the same name. I've uploaded a copy of this image with a new name. Ritesh.tripathy 05:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{badname}} if you have uploaded a file under a bad name. --Digon3 ^talk 16:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Goettingen StPaulus West.jpg

Reasons for deletion request: The building on this photo was built in 1928/29, so probably the architect has not died before 1937, so it is not pd. It's not allowed by the freedom of panorama in Germany either because of the point of view. Dehio 16:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic value. And the photo is watermarked. It should be possible to get better pictures of the building. Wischmob 14:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing suggests that the actual photographer postion is not accecable by public; Panorama holds. Date stamp is not really a valid reasone to delete the image. --Tarawneh 18:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the photographer position is really about 7m above the street level. I thought this could be seen on the photo (and I also know it by being the photogprapher myself). Taken from a position accessable by public, the photo would show great perspective distortion. --Dehio 21:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The architect - Adam Weinhag - (source: [45]) died in 1937 (Source: [46]). --ALE! ¿…? 12:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. As per above discussion. --Siebrand 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 19

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vlc 086c skins2 cedric.png

The movie showed is licensed as CC-NC-ND, which of course doesnt meet the license requirements. --HardDisk 15:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: incompatible licence

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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:Avio tam editado.ogg

These videos were taken by a surveillance camera, for copyright purposes considered an employee of Infraero. The applicable licensing is that of Infraero, not Agência Brasil. There are no indications that Infraero licenses its products under a GFDL-compatible license, and Agência Brasil can't change Infraero's license by broadcasting the video itself. The second image, listed below, is under even more tenuous licensing. --BanyanTree 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Image:TAMPouso.ogg - BanyanTree 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should probably be a separate discussion, as this one, indeed has a murkier copyright status. I have an OTRS request in progress to Infraero and I'm awaiting reply.

Keep Copyright protects only works of human creativity, so the clip itself is {{PD-ineligible}}. But not the logo. William Avery 12:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel a lot more comfortable with this line of argument if Commons agreed to use {{PD-CCTV}}, which even w:Template:PD-CCTV words to state that it might not really be PD. Note also the dubiousness expressed in the deletion discussion for that template. - BanyanTree 12:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I don't know about Brazil, but in some jurisdictions (e.g. the UK) films (moving images) are exempt from any originality requirements of labour, skill and judgement. William Avery 21:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a vote to delete? :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (But it's not actually a vote of course.) William Avery 22:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: I uploaded the file) I do agree with William's point, and I must also emphasize that this video has already seen wide distribution in the media. It is doubtful that Infraero would try to assert copyright in any way shape or form (what copyright applies to a press conference and its exhibits?) It seems logical that at the very least that standard should be taken into account. As far as Agência Brasil, which is my main choice for rationale is concerned, they would be equally liable as Wikicommons for copyright infringement by redistributing the video and not clearly stating an exception for their Creative Commons licensing. If we're okay with using all other Agência Brasil content then this should be no different. To complicate the issue, when I see the video again, it's obvious that this is someone filming a computer screen showing the accident. Other news sources have edited the software overlay out (Estadao), others have not (Agência Brasil, Rede Globo). So what is the copyright in this case: of the video itself, or of the filming of the video? If someone films a press conference where an image has been shown, what happens to the copyright of the image? That's the question here. My conclusion is that whatever the answer is, Radiobrás/Agência Brasil has already gone through this discussion and answered it by releasing the video under their Creative Commons license, without opening an exception, and they would have first-hand information on any potential limitations or copyright assertions Infraero would make.--Dalillama 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question however is, what kind of license policy is valide for Infraero as a part of the Ministery of Defence as part of the Brazilian government. I didn't find any copyright notice on their website. --213.155.231.26 18:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's the appropriate rationale--Infraero is a public company, but a company nonetheless. Its akin to saying Petrobras or Eletrobras' copyright policy is the same as the Ministry of Energy. They're separate entities. The Presidency in fact has a different copyright policy on their website than Agência Brasil, a subordinate agency.--Dalillama 18:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how it was recorded by Agencia Brasil, Infraero's copyright still applies. If it were a creative work, then perhaps Agencia Brasil and Infraero would both on copyright of some elements of the video. But in this case, they were clearly simply attempting you accurately reproduce the video from the press conference so it's unlikely. In any case, it's irrelevant since Agencia Brasil is CC. What is relevant is that Infraero's copyright still applies whatever the case. Think of a similar example when someone cams a movie from the theater/cinema. It doesn't mean the original copyright owner's rights somehow disappear. It's a derivative work. Also it's fallacy IMHO to assume Infraero definitely won't assert copyright because they released it to the press. There are a lot of videos, photos etc which are released to the press by various organisations, people etc but they remain copyrighted and are not released under free licenses. The Litvinenko image is a good example. Although widely distributed, we don't even have it as fair use because the photographer complained. While that was a commercial photograph and this is not, it still goes to show that just because something is all over the place doesn't mean the copyright somehow disappears or that the copyright owner is not interested in protecting their rights in limiting the distribution. In this particular instance, I doubt we will receive a complaint from Infraero, but they this doesn't mean they are willing to release it under a free license. Nil Einne 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both until OTRS permission is approved. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm trying to get in touch with Infraero's press people for a release, but needless to say it's been a bit chaotic there right now. I'd suggest we keep it until I can get an answer from the right person given the importance of the subject matter and its recency, but I'd have no problems moving it to Wikipedia and using it as Fair Use in the meantime.--Dalillama 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's clear that this video was released under Public Domain. It was streamed all over the country (and even world) by such a huge list of press agencies, and it's clear that a Goverment Dept. cannot make any profit on it. It would be unfair and ilegal. And, I think that, as it WAS relesead to the press legally (and this is different of "..something is all over the place..", wich means copyvio), and by PRESS I mean COMMERCIAL USE, it can be used here as well. Thanks. Sambr 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I remarked above, it's quite incorrect to assume that a photo or video released to the press must be in the public domain. There are many, many photos and videos released to the press (for free) but which are not released under 'free' licenses. Publicity photos are a very good example. The copyright owner may require the photo/video only be used within by the press within the proper context or may not allow derivatives or may reserve the right to withdraw the license at any time or any other number of restrictions which are NOT compatible with free licenses. Media organisations simply need to make sure their use is legitimate according to their local laws at the time of publication. We need to make sure everything on the commons is under a 'free' license which requires a number of conditions the press does not need to consider. For those who are still confused I suggest they check out Commons:Licensing to learn what our licensing requirements are and specifically what a free license is. Editors might also want to check out Wikipedia:Public domain and Wikipedia:Copyright since there appears to be a lot of confusion about what the public domain is and what copyright means. P.S. There appears to be some confusion about what I meant when I said all over the place. The Litvenenko photo was in fact all over the place and used completely LEGALLY by many media organisations. I'm NOT referring to copyvios. A lot of media is licensed and shown by press organisations all the time. I don't believe press organisations licensed this material in particular, my point was that it's a fallacy to assume if the press are using it then we can too. In fact the press have the lawyers and experts and money necessary to ensure they can legally use many things for their purposes. P.P.S. Whether or not it would be fair or legal for a government department to make money from this video is irrelevant. Making a profit is only one component of owning the copyright Nil Einne 10:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - until and unless OTRS permission is obtained or it's otherwise made clear that this material is definitely released under a free license (and I'm not referring to incorrect assumptions here) Nil Einne 10:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. If authorization via OTRS is given the file can be undeleted. Dantadd✉ 13:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chris_Tomlin.jpg

Licensing of images under the source Flickr account cannot be trusted. Uploads to this Flickr account also include an album cover: See http://www.flickr.com/photos/9972240@N08/766937521/ supposedly under CC-BY-SA William Avery 07:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt it is his own photo of this musician. Most likely a copyvio and I will now delete as such. --|EPO| ^da: 20:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Hermann-Welsch.jpg

it is wrong, my mistake. 18 July 2007 User:Seeteufel

Deleted. howcheng {chat}

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bactris gasipaes.jpg

The file's identification is wrong. I want to delete the file because it was incorrectly uplodaded. I still didn't identify the plant on the photo, the name is wrong. I would like to upload it again with the correct name, when I find it. How can I proceed? Thanks, Sigried 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete User's request. The photo is of no use if there is no / wrong identification. Deadstar 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Kath_Kirche_Eisenach-nyks.JPG

images was uploaded by me; similar, but better version is here: Image:Kath Kirche Eisenach-nyks3.JPG. Nyks 20:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. howcheng {chat} 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Guaiacolsulfonate.png

~~wrong image --03:22, 19 July 2007 Rifleman 82~~ Correct image uploaded. Is it possible to delete the old version to prevent it from infecting other wikis? --Rifleman 82 15:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fixed --ALE! ¿…? 14:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:AB_Beslan_Mother.jpg

Description page states, "Courtesy of Aaron Bird. All rights reserved." Who is Aaron Bird? And "All rights reserved" is not {{LGPL}}. Is there an OTRS ticket to confirm this? howcheng {chat} 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent to photographer inquiring about possible change of license. Thanks for finding it for me. howcheng {chat} 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tag with no permission, no proof of release, and anyway, the uploader himself added 'all rights reserved'- which contradicts a GFDL license Madmax32 16:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I just secured a release from the photographer, which will be sent to OTRS soon once I have confirmation on the exact licensing terms. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as photographer has agreed to licensing terms and such information has been forwarded to OTRS. howcheng {chat} 16:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Utilisateur_Xavier_Nicholas.jpg

useless : It was for my personnal presentation but I don't think we should use the server's space for that kind of use. Xavier Nicholas 04:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, uploader’s wish--Polarlys 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stellarkart.jpg

Licensing of images under the source Flickr account cannot be trusted. Uploads to this Flickr account also include an album cover: See http://www.flickr.com/photos/9972240@N08/766937521/ William Avery 07:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:1914_Postcard-Alligator_Bait_01.jpg

This is not the place for this postcard. This is a discussion about alligators not racism. 206.74.124.99 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not because it is disgustingly racist (Commons is not censored), but because it has insufficient source. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Keep - I put the real source on the actual image description page. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's important to remember historical racism so that we don't repeat it. That's why I uploaded this image. I found it on an online museum of the history of race relations in America, but now I can't find the source. I'm admin here, and a Wikimedian since 2004, and I can give my word that this came from a site that listed the postcard as being published in the U.S. in 1914. I'm not sure if my assertion is good enough, though. Aha! Source found. [47] at [48]. Therefore Keep. Quadell (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good proof of the prevalence of racism in history the United States. Madmax32 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 06:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Keep now that properly licensed. FloNight 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, see historical context. --Polarlys 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Billboard Milano.jpg

I am not sure about the copyright status of an advertisement, which is surely copyrighted. I suspect this is a copyviol. Please note: there is no freedom of panorama in Italy. --User:G.dallorto 20:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) --User:G.dallorto 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no fop in Italy, delete. Wooyi 03:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the photo is not entirely fixed on the ad, and it shows a whole scene. You don't need freedom of panorama to take a picture of a place where ads are present. If that were true you couldn't take pictures of most of the civilized world. Plus, if it's used to show outdoor advertising in general and not the ad itself, it's not necessarily a copyvio. In fact it is, the sole place it's being used is w:Billboard (advertising). -Nard 12:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think best solution will be to just blank advertisement (it covers big part of image) and keep resulting image. --EugeneZelenko 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this could be a solution, the image would become a perfectly acceptable image of Corso Vittorio Emanuele in Milan. However, contrary to what uses "N" says, it is perfectly possible to take a picture of Corso Vittorio Emanuele without that billboard, which is in the pic just because the author wanted it to be there as a main subject (see title of the image). Billboards may be kept when there is no other way to portray a place, i.e. when their presence is "incidental", which in our case is not true: moving 5 meters left would have sufficed... --User:G.dallorto 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (the subject of the photo is clearly the billboard. That is why it is used in the en.wikipedia article billboard.) --ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tatum_narrowweb_200x456.jpg

Uploader insists this is own work, but it is a bit for bit copy of a file found in the Sydney Morning Herald at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/13/1097607276886.html and uploaded with the same filename as appears there. William Avery 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would also add Image:Colegio santa teresinha 1940.jpg, a copyvio of http://santateresinha.net/resultado/escola/institucional/1940.jpg from :CST: Colégio Santa Teresinha :: nossa escola além de ABC tem WWW. The uploader removed speedy tags via the following edits: 1 and 2. Methinks the uploader doth protest too much. :) — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do. I insist, these pictures are mine. About Colégio Santa Teresinha: This picture is mine. Why don't u keep in touch with the webmaster from www.colegiosantateresinha.net and ask about it? If u want call to Colégio Santa Teresinha. Do anything u want but do not delet my pic.Crespus2006 01:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that you created this photograph yourself with your own camera? Do you work for the Sydney Morning Herald, have they purchased the rights to use the image without crediting you, or are they infringing on your copyright? Please clarify. For now, I'm rather disinclined to believe your claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 21:17, 25 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.

Image:Thailand Coup 2006 announce.jpg

This picture is obviuously a screenshot from Thai TV, thus very unlikely in accordance with any license in use on Commons --Lipothymia 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below.

Image:Thailand_Coup_2006_announce.jpg

Incorrect licensing tag, presumably copyrighted. The uploader seems to have misinterpreted COPYRIGHT ACT B.E. 2537 (1994) and have used it as a defense to upload a screenshot from a Thai television news program. Anrie 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not from a news program. It was sent from a room at Army TV channel. All TV and radio channels in the Thailand were ordered to take this live signal and broadcast. The person in the picture was the coup spokesman announcing coup taking over the government. It was either the first announcement (short message) or the second one (longer message) I can't remember. It was captured from live broadcast, not any replay. It's not a news program reporting coup news. -- Lerdsuwa 14:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the government ordered all television stations to report the coup in progress, then not only is it "news of the day" (literally) but also "an official report" of the coup, plus how can it pass the threshold of originality? What creative intent went into the filming if it was rote and done under dictatorial control? -Nard 12:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This information should then be added to the rationale of PD, to avoid further confusions. Anrie 15:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nard is a bit mistaken. The rationale for PD here is actually a lot simpler. The key here is that there was only one camera by the coup (not several cameras each operated by separate TV stations). The signal from this camera was sent to the air (Army TV channel). All other TV/radio stations (with army forces in equipment room, tanks outside station) received this signal and rebroadcast on their own TV/radio frequency channel. All TV/radio broadcast this simultaneously. And actually the rebroadcast was not just the message, TV/radio had to relay all broadcast from Army channel all night until the next day morning when the coup issue the order to allow TV/radio to operate freely (again using video like the one we are debating here). -- Lerdsuwa 12:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Lerdsuwa explains, the whole program was set and broadcast by the Council, i.e. the army, as a report. If the whole broadcast is considered as a governmental report, therefore in public domain, a capture of it must be. To my sense, it qualifies, but I'm not that certain. --CW32 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that makes 3 editors (including me) believing this image reasonably falls under the Thai copyright exemption. -Nard 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 08:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new discussion (→O - R L Y?) 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tostal quarter stamp.gif

Uploaded under PD license (Irish govt. image expiry = 50 years) but unsure of US 70-year rule. Best off deleting it and leaving it on en.wp --Alison ☺ 18:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should probably make a {{PD-IrishGov}} template; according to Irish law this is PD. If not, I guess use PD-because. PD-Old is not correct though. I don't think there is a US issue either; the copyright owner in this case has effectively released it into the public domain. Carl Lindberg 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept and relicensed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Queen_Maria_of_Yugoslavia.jpg

Invalid license; no source (uploader removed a previous nsd tag) Davepape 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a same picture in Serbian wikipedia [49] Snake bgd 15:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I added info from sr:Слика:Kraljica marija.jpg and w:Maria of Romania. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It still needs a valid license. It currently claims PD-US, even though there's no indication it's a US work (and 1923 is not "prior to January 1, 1923"). --Davepape 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn’t exist any more and as such didn’t has any copyright protection according the Yugoslavia law... --FSHL 06:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think that reasoning is correct. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was member of the Berne Convention since 1930.[50] Note that article 35 of the Berne Convention states that if a country leaves the BC, the works that were internationally copyrighted until then remain copyrighted in other BC countries. This might concern works from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. No opinion on the image itself, except that it certainly cannot be tagged PD-US, which is applicable to U.S. works only. Lupo 11:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Lupo - Your BC objection isn’t relevant – Image:Queen_Maria_of_Yugoslavia.jpg is dated on 1923... --FSHL 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: when a country joins the Berne Convention, all existing works that are still copyrighted in that country become copyrighted in the other signatory countries of the Berne Convention. So, unless the Kingdom of Yugoslavia had a copyright term on photographs inferior to 7 years from creation, my BC reasoning is relevant. Lupo 21:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every country has a "successor in interest" e.g. it's rights, privileges and obligations pass on on someone/something else. Kingdom of Yugoslavia didn't leave the convention, and there is a succession line from that country, by socialist Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro to currently Serbia, so this image is not in public domain simply because the country it originated in is no more. That argument is moth. Valid licensing info is still needed. By the way, the original site claims "All rights protected by law" in Serbian bellow the image. --Branislav Jovanovic 08:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Branislav Jovanovic - May be it’s not PD »simply because the country it originated in is no more« – but possibly just because the image was made 84 years ago? --FSHL 11:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, this is no indication for the death of the artist more than 70 years ago. It’s even more possible that the artist died not more than 70 years ago. Grüße, --Polarlys 12:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Polarlys - I give you at least just partial right – it’s in fact no adequate reason but there’re as well sufficient reasons that speaks for it... --FSHL 14:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader dated this image as 1922, then 1923, but from where did he get that info? On the original page, only date is "(C) 1997"; So if the uploader could please provide info as to the time this picture was taken, that can be verified? Otherwise having this image on Commons constitutes copyright violation and this discussion is pointless. --Branislav Jovanovic 06:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No applicable license or verifiable original source information within a week of uploader being notified. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no applicable license or verifiable original source information within nine weeks of uploader being notified. No proof that the photographer died within 14 years of taking the photo (that is, more than 70 years ago). — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It has not been established that the image has fallen in Public Domain. Samulili 17:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:HV

User category, presumably for works by User:Niladmirari. These are all files user has uploaded, and as the "gallery" feature would do the same, I propose deletion of this category. If not deleted, a higher cat needs to be added. Deadstar 10:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) --Deadstar 10:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest putting it in the cat Category:User galleries — H92 (t · c · no) 12:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would then be better to change the name to Category:Files by User:Niladmirari in line with other user categories & to prevent unclarity in the future. Deadstar 07:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename and categorizing as user gallery --rimshot^talk 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved, recategorized. Samulili 17:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Erazem.JPG

see Image:Erazem1.JPG. 16 July 2007 User:Janeznovak

Comment besides the duplication, did you actually paint the picture? Wooyi 03:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this should be {{PD-Art}} if the artist died sufficiently long ago --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not PD-self and not enough data for PD-Art. Samulili 17:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Offenbach_jaques_grave_montmartre_paris_01.jpg

nnnnnnxsjbvubhut 90.196.237.48 15:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the IP user hasn't provided any proper reason for the request, has the image violated what is mentioned in Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#France? --Moonian 02:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How new/old is that gravestone? 68.39.174.238 01:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (Offenbach died in 1880 so it can be assumed that the copyright on the tombstone expired) --ALE! ¿…? 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Files by Liftarn

The name of this category is non-standard - a better name would be Category:Files by User:Liftarn — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is it possible to move a category? Wooyi 03:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not per se. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, where is the category standard written down? I cannot remember a policy on naming of user categories? -- Bryan (talk to me) 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was operating under the assumption that the following edits (in chrono order, the first from pfctdayelise) had good bases and had become defacto standards: 1 2. See also this edit. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as the aim of this request is not the deletion of Liftarms images, I close this request for the lack of reason and consensus --ALE! ¿…? 07:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 20

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:COTUCA-unicamp.jpg

The en.wiki user made a wrong assumption: works of São Paulo state government are not in PD. Dantadd✉ 01:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by 555: against policy: {{delete|reason=The en.wiki user made a wrong assumption: works of São Paulo state government are not in PD.}}

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Willem van Oldenbarneveldt 1634 anoymousem.jpg

badname --Jan Arkesteijn 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Zirland: Dupe of Image:Willem van Oldenbarneveldt 1634 Anonymous.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ssangyong_label.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  23:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete logo. Wooyi 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favoure an delete Image:Ssangyong Kyron black h.jpg and image:Ssangyong Kyron black vl.jpg with the same reason. They are also showing derivate works. But you must not stop with it! Please also delete ALL images in Category:SSangyong vehicles, because most of them derivates a copyrighted work. But you should not stop with it! Please also delete all images at Category:Vehicles by brand, because most them also displays a derivate work. Just look here Image:ZweiRadMuseumNSU BMW Paris Dakar.JPG, BMW logo, Playboy logo, elf logo, acerbis logo and brembo logo!!! Hu. You must clean up very well!!!

And believe it or not, all planes in Category:Lufthansa did also show a derivate work. I can stand it. I think it is now totally clear what to do.... -- Stahlkocher 07:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is big difference, cause on photos which you gave link logo is not main part of image. Herr Kriss 11:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting.

Since i may crop GFDL imgages there now must be a treshold to a certain point in which the logo became main part. Can you quantify the treshold? 1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? And is a tiny logo not a logo? Should we cut them out? Yes, i think this will help: Cut out all logos. They may be copyright infringements. Go ahead, be a brave heart.

Look here, what a prominent logo and therefore a ugly derivate work! Image:Lufthansa - Avro RJ85 (D-AVRB).jpg. -- Stahlkocher 15:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if i'll SVGize this logo then it will be derivative work on free license. Magic - from (C) logo i can make logo on free licnese. Herr Kriss 18:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you are talking about, i did not understand your position. Just please answer: Can you quantify the treshold? 1%? 5%? 10%? 20%? And if i shrink the the image and copy it into another one, will the copyright vanish? I tell you, you have cut out every logo to come to a clean commons. Shurely. No doubt. -- Stahlkocher 19:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version which better fulfills the needs of illustrating an encyclopedia project. You will see, now everything is fine. Really a big step forward!!!! -- Stahlkocher 19:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Szczepan1990: not needed - ReinDeel33t

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Guy Lafleur action1.jpg

The license says it's CC, but the source is the Associated Press. Wafulz 18:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AP copyrighted. Wooyi 04:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Larousse.JPG

not in the public domain --Frédéric 09:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC) This is an edition of 1953.[reply]

2007 -1953 = 54 ans ! 54 years ! In France

deleted, --Polarlys 10:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Larousse2.JPG

not in the public domain --Frédéric 09:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an edition of 1953.

2007 -1953 = 54 ans ! 54 years ! In France

deleted, --Polarlys 10:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Hk1960.jpg

Publishing in 1960, No more than 50, not PD --Shizhao 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 11:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Toquinho.jpg

This picture was not taken by the Flickr user, it's a press image [51]. Dantadd✉ 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I originally uploaded it, but we can err on the side of caution on this one.--Dalillama 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 11:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Santiagofernandez.jpg

looking at the upload and copyvios history of this user I assume that it is not his own work ALE! ¿…? 08:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio--Polarlys 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bandera_adolfo_gonzalez_chaves.jpg

looking at the history of copyvios of this user, I do not think it is his own work ALE! ¿…? 08:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely own work. Wooyi 04:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above Pimke 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:126389-3002-f5000.jpg

Delete only template {{Copyrighted free use}} without link to permission or OTRS permission ticket Pimke 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Episode4.jpg

It looks like a copyrighted computer game screenshot to me. Meno25 16:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Canadien vs CSKA 1975.gif

PD-self is incorrect licensing. These images on the Library and Archives website are typically copyrighted by the Canadian Communist Party or a similar organization and are explicitly not public domain. --Wafulz 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Erebus_360_L257atc-B652R1.jpg

Image is a hoax 65.121.28.16 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't even remember uploading this image, but you can clearly seen on the image page I've linked back to the NASA site it comes from, so unless NASA are pulling hoaxes .... -- JamesHoadley 17:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like above Pimke 08:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JamesHoadley. This nomination seems to be made in bad faith. --Mperry 05:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why should it be a hoax? --ALE! ¿…? 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this and some other images because I originally mistook the distorted parts of the rover for attempts by someone to draw in goofy sci-fi-looking cities.

kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pancam_Sol1_Postcard_part_th361.jpg

The image is a hoax 63.226.32.16 23:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on the description page there is a link to this picture on the official site of NASA Pimke 08:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why should it be a hoax? --ALE! ¿…? 10:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Micanopy Hist Dist Bldg03.jpg, Image:Micanopy Hist Dist Bldg03b.jpg and Image:Micanopy Hist Dist Bldg03c.jpg

I uploaded the original picture not the way I wanted, I have "erased" the original picture in preparation for deletion. 20:27, 15 July 2007 User:Ebyabe

deleted by User:Florent Pécassou --ALE! ¿…? 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LocationEl Temple.png

mapa erroneo, inservible, y causante de confusiones. 18 July 2007 User:Satesclop (¡Esta comarca no existe! Fue un error. Por favor, bórrenlo.)

Deletion fix Deadstar 07:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per above and COM:AN/V. --Siebrand 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LocationPoniente Granadino.png

mapa inservible 11 July 2007 User:Satesclop

Deletion fix. Deadstar 07:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per above and COM:AN/V. --Siebrand 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LocationAltiplano Granadino.png

(Deletion fix Deadstar 08:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Erroneous map. Please, delete this. 16 June 2007 User:Granadin

Could you explain what is wrong? --ALE! ¿…? 11:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look here for more background maybe --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per above and COM:AN/V. --Siebrand 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Canal garden04s3872.jpg

there is no proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license. --Jnn 13:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

?? I don't quite understand. Do you mean you don't believe the uploader is the photographer, or you don't believe the photographer has permission of the sculptor? Can someone provide a translation of your discussion in Japanese on his talk page about this image ? --Tony Wills 11:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Per Freedom_of_Panorama#Japan: no FoP --Siebrand 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rachel_Larrat_Unlimited_Class_Carrera_Panamericana.jpg

Claimed self-made but watermarked with a website without a license. Jusjih 16:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was emailed this link to investigate. I am Bret Haller and it is ok for this picture that I took to be on WikiMedia. I can be reached through (my first name) @ theunlimitedclass.com If you bother to look at our site, you will see we have a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 License."

http://theunlimitedclass.smugmug.com/La%20Carrera%20Panamericana%202006

Thanks!

Deleted. Not a free license. --Siebrand 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mercedes-Benz Coupé-Baureihe 140.jpg

This is a promotional photo from DaimlerChrysler. There is a permission given as a quote, but not via OTRS. The permission is given "for wikipedia" only, whenever "Dr. Josef Ernst" accepts the GFDL. A user removes the permission template, but we need a written permission by the copyright holder via OTRS. Always, independent from the uploader. Maybe there are more images from this source available on Commons. --Polarlys 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Image:Patent-Motorwagen Nr.1 Benz 1.jpg --Btr 06:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Inhalte+der+DaimlerChrysler+Medienseiten&go=Seite

Delete unless the permission is forwarded to the OTRS Madmax32 14:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very good and useful images! --217.224.85.173 19:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t matter. --Polarlys 20:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep License is valid, not only for wikipedia, and officially given. --MB-one 13:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be read by someone who speaks better German than I do: https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=935082&ArticleID=1157314&QueueID=36 Samulili 17:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have OTRS acces. So please post the german text here, and I will translate. --MB-one 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't think I can post the text here because messages to OTRS are confidential. Also there is a lot of text. You could ask users User:Notafish or User:Raymond (who speak German and have access to OTRS) to have a look at it and say what they think of the permission. Samulili 08:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The authorization is clearly documented in OTRS, ticket 2007061510013685 : „Dazu erkennen wir die Bedingungen nach GNU-FDL an. Bitte geben Sie DaimlerChrysler als Quellenangabe an.“ - “We accept the terms of GNU FDL. Please mention DaimlerChrysler as source”. The authorization cames directly from DaimlerChrysler AG, Stuttgart and not restricted to Wikipedia. Raymond ^Disc. 11:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per OTRS 2007061510013685. --Siebrand 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RPG-29_USGov.JPG

No evidence provided that this is a work of the United States Federal Government William Avery 22:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original wikipedia uploader I'll explain why I think it's US PD. The image comes from ORDATA a US Defence Department publication also [52] You can see the entry for the RPG-29 here [53] or through the better ORDATA Mines interface here: [54]. The images in the database appear to come from a variety of sources - the diagrams appear to come from US government technical manuals example: [55]. Where there is overlap with commercial publications like Jane's (Mines and Mine Clearance) Jane's either uses different pictures or cleaned up versions of the images (example: TQ-Mi mine here: [56] compare with p.499 Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance 2005-2006) with no name in the image credit - implying that they don't have to give an image credit, because it's the work of the US Government. I have never found an overlap where Jane's did credit the author of the image used in ORDATA. As a final point if you go to the frontpage of ORDATA here [57] - have a look at who the mailto Webmaster link goes to: ordata at@at eodpoe2.navsea.navy.mil i.e. these guys http://www.navsea.navy.mil/ Megapixie 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Per above. --Siebrand 14:15, 4 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.

Image:2006mai_saffig_023.jpg

Image displays a non-permanent map and advertising in a permanently installed holder, where the maps is the main subject of the photograph. The image was taken in Germany and the uploader claims that he can free the image and be sole copyright holder. I think this is a too free perception of FoP. Siebrand 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German law makes no distinction between 2d works and 3d works, merely saying "works" in the relevant section of law. Also, the permanence is for the expected lifetime of the object in question, and while I do not know the details of this map, it is my general experience that these things that get posted get left for years, until they are replaced as unserviceable and thrown away. Surely this is permanent for the expected lifetime of the work? -Nard 11:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So based on that photograph, I can create a new map and sell that as a competing supplier, and not get sued in any way as I can claim FoP and permanently installed? (just to be sure as that would be hard to understand for me) Siebrand 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The map is installed permanently (see Schricker, Urheberrecht and the German WP article on Panoramafreiheit). Examples for works are according the relevant legal literature (commentaries to the UrhG): sculpures, poems.

The unwritten condition for FOP is that the work is installed legally (e.g. purchased or copied with consent of the creator). One cannot put a copy of a protected sculpture in his garden and claim FOP.

German FOP allows no derivate works (this is accepted in the German WP) thus one cannot create a new map based on the photo --Historiograf 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think you are stretching the boundaries of FoP too wide. Your description is Ortsplan Saffig and it is the main subject of your image. If the image would have had a broader frame, it would have been allowed in my view. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Siebrand (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the map is clearly not permanently installed. It is visibly mounted in a frame and behind glass of the type facilitating replacement of the item displayed, and it contains advertisements which are obviously prone to become outdated and which are thus intended to be replaced. Secondly, Commons only accepts content which anyone may use, modify, and redistribute for free or for profit. If German FOP does not permit modification of the work, it should not be invoked when uploading to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nobody has addressed my concern. We have pictures of ice sculptures. They are permanent for the life of the work. If the map and ads change, then the work has gone past the expected lifetime and is replaced. The person who puts the work in the case knows the expected lifetime and it is permanent for that lifetime, yes? -Nard 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't consider ice sculptures to be permanent. I find "for the expected lifetime of the work" to be a very creative definition of "permanent," but if that's the law in Germany, so be it. I still don't think that maps and advertisements that are replaced frequently, not because of the natural decay of their physical material, but because of the limited-time value of its contents, is permanent even under this definition. By that reasoning, tabloid news bills are effectively in the public domain too. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I see, thank you. I will defer the questions of German law to someone who knows about it (see the link below posted by Historiograf) but I agree, if the work is replaced frequently it is not "permanent". If no clear consensus on the meaning of the phrase in this case can be reached the image should probably be deleted. -Nard 23:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ice sculptures are permanent considering their natural lifetime.--Wiggum 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as LX; I do not consider this a permanent installation. The advertising are likely to change, and so is the map. / Fred J 22:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As photographer I can assure that the map is a permanent installation. Read the German decision Grassofa or ask Lupo --Historiograf 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true (and I emphatically doubt that it is), German FOP is not free in the sense required by Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Freedom_of_panorama_and_.22permanent.22 —the preceding unsigned comment is by Historiograf (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Keep FOP applies, "permanent" does not mean "eternal".--Wiggum 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not permanently installed, copyright notice visible --Astrokey44 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a permanent installation, in German towns these maps surrounded by advertising are built up once, AFAIK there is no exchange of content. keep, whenever I don’t like the photo. --Polarlys 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what about German FOP not allowing commercial uses? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany it is usally to install such maps permanently in such a way. With permanently I mean the lifetime of the map. So keep it. If you delete this image, it makes it more difficult for me to make pictures under FOP for commons. Also if I find this image not so very usefull. Kolossos 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Histo/Wiggum etc: If you are right, how can this image be considered under "panorama"? I would accept a photo of the box if it includes its surroundings. But this is little more than a 2D object and alternate depiction of it aren't possible. Compare with a photo of a building with a McDonald's logo -- you cannot cut out the McDonald's logo and upload it here separately under FOP. IMO it is the same thing here. I agree with Siebrand in thinking that you can't reuse this map for a commercial purpose, so because the photo mainly shows the map I think it should be deleted. / Fred J 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have zero knowledge of German law why do you confuse something? It is not appropriate to cut the logo out because here is logo-phobia-land (confusing trademark rights and copyright) but I think it could be seen as legal at a German court. If the non-commercial use of a part of the picture is a problem ALL FOP pictures from Germany have to be deleted. Freedom of panorama is no official German legal term. Read the German copyright act: the freedom refers to all works (permanently installed poems, murals, permanently installed 2-D-maps and so on) --Historiograf 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because here many do not want to understand, what's panoramafreiheit i have save the File at .DE --Marcela 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did not understand whats "freedom of panaroma" is. They probably did also not understand what "work" is. So, to sum it up:

This map is copyrighted.
The copyright owner(s) is(are) not named
The copyright owner(s) did not agree use the image under GFDL or similar licences
All the works are permanently installed in public
Therefor the image may be published in germany and other countries in which freedom of panorama applies to such images. In other countries the image may be used under fair-use or similar clauses.
The image may not be altered

The conclusion of all this is, that the image is a "No Derivative Work" und must be deleted, according to the rules on commons.

Exactly like this Image:EuropeanParliament.jpg, this Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg, Image:Musiktheater im Revier.jpg, like his Image:Euston Tower 2004.jpg, like this Image:Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas .jpg and a few 100000 more.

This leaves us with two choices. To delete all images to which only freedom of panorame applies, which means it is more important not to keep images the no "No Derivative Work" restrictions than to illustrate wikipedia, or to accept "No Derivative Work" at all. And nothing inbetween.

Hm, who uploaded the images in Category:Nebra disk? Please compare with [58]. This is without doubt a so called "copyright infringement". This also applies to all derivative work of the object in question with at least non-commercial restrictions. However, probably the artist may contribute to the OTRS.....

To close the comment: For none of images wikipedia will be sued.

-- Stahlkocher 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you formally and personally accept liability? Because I think we are not debating legal chances of getting sued here. Siebrand 09:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My questions of German law seem to be answered. FoP apparently applies. -Nard 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Freedom of panorama in Germany applies here. -- Cecil 21:10, 6 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.

Image:2006mai_saffig_023.jpg

Image displays a non-permanent map and advertising in a permanently installed holder, where the maps is the main subject of the photograph. The image was taken in Germany and the uploader claims that he can free the image and be sole copyright holder. I think this is a too free perception of FoP. Siebrand 06:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German law makes no distinction between 2d works and 3d works, merely saying "works" in the relevant section of law. Also, the permanence is for the expected lifetime of the object in question, and while I do not know the details of this map, it is my general experience that these things that get posted get left for years, until they are replaced as unserviceable and thrown away. Surely this is permanent for the expected lifetime of the work? -Nard 11:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So based on that photograph, I can create a new map and sell that as a competing supplier, and not get sued in any way as I can claim FoP and permanently installed? (just to be sure as that would be hard to understand for me) Siebrand 12:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The map is installed permanently (see Schricker, Urheberrecht and the German WP article on Panoramafreiheit). Examples for works are according the relevant legal literature (commentaries to the UrhG): sculpures, poems.

The unwritten condition for FOP is that the work is installed legally (e.g. purchased or copied with consent of the creator). One cannot put a copy of a protected sculpture in his garden and claim FOP.

German FOP allows no derivate works (this is accepted in the German WP) thus one cannot create a new map based on the photo --Historiograf 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think you are stretching the boundaries of FoP too wide. Your description is Ortsplan Saffig and it is the main subject of your image. If the image would have had a broader frame, it would have been allowed in my view. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Siebrand (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, the map is clearly not permanently installed. It is visibly mounted in a frame and behind glass of the type facilitating replacement of the item displayed, and it contains advertisements which are obviously prone to become outdated and which are thus intended to be replaced. Secondly, Commons only accepts content which anyone may use, modify, and redistribute for free or for profit. If German FOP does not permit modification of the work, it should not be invoked when uploading to Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Nobody has addressed my concern. We have pictures of ice sculptures. They are permanent for the life of the work. If the map and ads change, then the work has gone past the expected lifetime and is replaced. The person who puts the work in the case knows the expected lifetime and it is permanent for that lifetime, yes? -Nard 00:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't consider ice sculptures to be permanent. I find "for the expected lifetime of the work" to be a very creative definition of "permanent," but if that's the law in Germany, so be it. I still don't think that maps and advertisements that are replaced frequently, not because of the natural decay of their physical material, but because of the limited-time value of its contents, is permanent even under this definition. By that reasoning, tabloid news bills are effectively in the public domain too. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I see, thank you. I will defer the questions of German law to someone who knows about it (see the link below posted by Historiograf) but I agree, if the work is replaced frequently it is not "permanent". If no clear consensus on the meaning of the phrase in this case can be reached the image should probably be deleted. -Nard 23:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ice sculptures are permanent considering their natural lifetime.--Wiggum 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as LX; I do not consider this a permanent installation. The advertising are likely to change, and so is the map. / Fred J 22:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As photographer I can assure that the map is a permanent installation. Read the German decision Grassofa or ask Lupo --Historiograf 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were true (and I emphatically doubt that it is), German FOP is not free in the sense required by Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 23:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Freedom_of_panorama_and_.22permanent.22 —the preceding unsigned comment is by Historiograf (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC) Keep FOP applies, "permanent" does not mean "eternal".--Wiggum 10:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not permanently installed, copyright notice visible --Astrokey44 15:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a permanent installation, in German towns these maps surrounded by advertising are built up once, AFAIK there is no exchange of content. keep, whenever I don’t like the photo. --Polarlys 17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what about German FOP not allowing commercial uses? —LX (talk, contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany it is usally to install such maps permanently in such a way. With permanently I mean the lifetime of the map. So keep it. If you delete this image, it makes it more difficult for me to make pictures under FOP for commons. Also if I find this image not so very usefull. Kolossos 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Histo/Wiggum etc: If you are right, how can this image be considered under "panorama"? I would accept a photo of the box if it includes its surroundings. But this is little more than a 2D object and alternate depiction of it aren't possible. Compare with a photo of a building with a McDonald's logo -- you cannot cut out the McDonald's logo and upload it here separately under FOP. IMO it is the same thing here. I agree with Siebrand in thinking that you can't reuse this map for a commercial purpose, so because the photo mainly shows the map I think it should be deleted. / Fred J 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have zero knowledge of German law why do you confuse something? It is not appropriate to cut the logo out because here is logo-phobia-land (confusing trademark rights and copyright) but I think it could be seen as legal at a German court. If the non-commercial use of a part of the picture is a problem ALL FOP pictures from Germany have to be deleted. Freedom of panorama is no official German legal term. Read the German copyright act: the freedom refers to all works (permanently installed poems, murals, permanently installed 2-D-maps and so on) --Historiograf 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because here many do not want to understand, what's panoramafreiheit i have save the File at .DE --Marcela 11:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did not understand whats "freedom of panaroma" is. They probably did also not understand what "work" is. So, to sum it up:

This map is copyrighted.
The copyright owner(s) is(are) not named
The copyright owner(s) did not agree use the image under GFDL or similar licences
All the works are permanently installed in public
Therefor the image may be published in germany and other countries in which freedom of panorama applies to such images. In other countries the image may be used under fair-use or similar clauses.
The image may not be altered

The conclusion of all this is, that the image is a "No Derivative Work" und must be deleted, according to the rules on commons.

Exactly like this Image:EuropeanParliament.jpg, this Image:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg, Image:Musiktheater im Revier.jpg, like his Image:Euston Tower 2004.jpg, like this Image:Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas .jpg and a few 100000 more.

This leaves us with two choices. To delete all images to which only freedom of panorame applies, which means it is more important not to keep images the no "No Derivative Work" restrictions than to illustrate wikipedia, or to accept "No Derivative Work" at all. And nothing inbetween.

Hm, who uploaded the images in Category:Nebra disk? Please compare with [59]. This is without doubt a so called "copyright infringement". This also applies to all derivative work of the object in question with at least non-commercial restrictions. However, probably the artist may contribute to the OTRS.....

To close the comment: For none of images wikipedia will be sued.

-- Stahlkocher 17:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will you formally and personally accept liability? Because I think we are not debating legal chances of getting sued here. Siebrand 09:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My questions of German law seem to be answered. FoP apparently applies. -Nard 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Freedom of panorama in Germany applies here. -- Cecil 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LocationMarquesado.png

mapa inservible. 11 July 2007 User:Satesclop

Deletion fix Deadstar 07:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:03, 23 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 debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Leb flag1.PNG

Does not match with the actual flag of Lebanon. We have on Commons a picture that corresponds to the lebanese flag (Image:Flag of Lebanon.svg ). My opinion is founded on the flag as it appears on the CIA factbook and on the page of Lebanon on the UN site: the cedar tree is obvioussly different. --Bradipus 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the "oppose" vote herbelow, I have made some further research and I found that the Lebanese Constitution does describe the flag.

Article 5 - The Lebanese flag is made of red, white and red horizontal stripes, with the cedar in green in the centre of the white stripe. The size of the white stripe is equal to the size of the two red stripes together. The cedar is in the middle, its apex touching the red upper stripe and its base touching the lower red stripe. The size of the cedar shall be equal to one third of the size of the white stripe.

See this website for a picture of the flag and interesting information from various sources on the lebanese flag.

In other words, the image proposed for deletion does not correspond to the official lebanese flag as the cedar is not green and it doesn' touch any of the red stripes. It is just an imaginary flag that does not correspond to anything. Bradipus 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Image:Leb flag.PNG is the same image and has now also been included in this DR. Siebrand 18:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image:Leb flag.PNG The cedar of the Lebanese flag had never been deffinit by the lebanese parlement, however, in any case this flag is out of conformity! this flag is conform! Barzillaity 10:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barzillaity, I honestly did not know you were the person who had been so...hum, rude on WP:fr. In any case, please understand the deletion request here has nothing to do with that little problem and I fully accept your apologies. So let us stick to the matter and talk about the lebanese flag. You have created this pic. This pic is very different from the flag we can find on the CIA factbook or the UN page of Lebanon. So although you tell us the flag you drawed is conform, it doesn't seem to match with any official flag we can find. If what you say is correct, can you help us then sorting this out? Bradipus 20:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From Bradipus above "The size of the cedar shall be equal to one third of the size of the white stripe" - interestingly none of the flags conform to this, whatever it might mean (1/3 the area?, 1/3 the hieght?, 1/3 the width? ??). But anyway, the Barzillaity flag is clearly one of the unofficial variants of the flag commonly accepted by the population (however 'wrong' it might be), and can be kept as a useful illustration of such variants as long as the image description states this. --Tony Wills 12:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact translation is: "The height of the white stripe is equal to twice the height of each of the red stripes. In the center of the white stripe there is a green cedar whose width is equal to a third [of the width] of the white stripe and whose apex and base touch each of the red stripes."

The flag proposed for deletion does not match ANY of the prescriptions:

the white stripe's height is 1.78 the height of any of the red stripe, not 2,
the cedar is not green,
the cedar's width is equal to ~27% of the width of the white stripe, not a third,
the cedar touches none of the red stripes.

Stating that this flag "is clearly one of the unofficial variants of the flag commonly accepted by the population" is a totally unsourced statement. I have provided the official links and the information that demonstrate that the sole correct flag is Image:Flag of Lebanon.svg

(in any case, that flag DOES match the constitutional prescriptions). Bradipus 11:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure why you are arguing, I'm not disputing that the other one is the official one. My "unsourced statement" is from your reference "Even if the official version of the flag has red-white-red stripes in 1:2:1 proportions and a green cedar touching the red stripes, other combinations are fairly often used. The main variations are of three kinds: the stripes in 1:1:1 proportions, the colouring of the cedar (green-brown or green-black) and its size (smaller or even bigger than the white stripe)."[60]. Wikimedia is not just a repository for flags of nations, it is a source of information - this unofficial flag is a good (by your references account) example of the unofficial "main variations". Why is there a problem? Just describe it appropriately. No justification for deletion. --Tony Wills 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am arguing? Well, hum, I created this RfD so it is quite natural I give arguments, isn't it? I mean, do you mean each RfD is suppose to finish when somebody says "I like the pic"? This is supposed to be a discussion about the deletion of the picture, so I do not see the problem.

Let me clarify once again: this is just not the lebanese flag, period. It is not a variation, it is just the drawing of a guy, except if you can source that it is indeed a variation that is used. Getting back to the page we both refer to, although they show small variations for special occasions (such as a vertical flag), they say very clearly: "To summarize, all Lebanese flags that depict the cedar tree green and brown are incorrect. All flags in which the cedar tree does not touch the white are incorrect. They are not variants. They are simply wrong. "

Wikimedia is indeed not just a repository for flags of nations, but should be a source of information and Commons should hold data that can be used in a wikimedia project. This is just a drawing made by some guy that does not hold any usable information. Some projects (three I think) had been using it because they thought it was the Lebanese flag. I left them a message to draw their attention on the fact that it was no official flag, and you can check by yourself that no wikimedia project uses this false flag any more.

So it is a false flag, it does not give any valid information, and it can only create mistakes on projects.

Now, if you think this picture can be used someday on an article about "False Lebanese Flags", although this possibility seems pretty remote, we could rename the picture into "False Leb flag" and change the description to say very clearly it is not a valid flag. Bradipus 14:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we can agree :-). Indeed an article describing the 'mistaken' versions would seem essential. Erasing the flag because it is not the real one doesn't erase it from existance or from history, do a google search for 'lebanese flag' and you will find similar 'variations' all over the place (about 1 in 20 flags) and given the nature of the internet you'll never erase them all - So the obvious thing to do is have a copy of one, and an explaination of why these 'variations' are incorrect and marvelous stories like "Before that summer, the Ministry of Tourism printed the flag on letter-sized paper (but in the correct 2:3 proportions) with a brown and green cedar for local distribution, mostly to schools, especially around independence day (November 22nd)." (is there any wonder that a significant number of people recognise the 'variant'?). The file name could be changed, but I don't think that is as essential as having the description with a correct explaination (in multiple languages) - after all the filename is only in one language and actually has less significance. Wiki*edia are about information, find out from User:Barzillaity why he thinks his version is correct, his views are probably held by others, if they are founded on misinformation, that is something that can be addressed :-). An online link to the current Lebanese constituion with the flag description on such a page would be good. --Tony Wills 11:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept per above. -- Infrogmation 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

The image was subsequently deleted in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Leb flag1.PNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Icons mean person with strange head

They are not potentially usable by any current or future Wikimedia project. --Dreamrail Arrus 11:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. Or are you clairvoyant? --FSHL 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"User blocked for mental problems" maybe? It's not wantonly illegitimate or useless or prone to misuse. 68.39.174.238 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

images kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 21

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:JackSparrow.jpg

I don't think the original poster from Flickr is the creator of this photo, like for 90 percent of the photos from Flickr. D-slay 16:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not - so a {{copyvio}} --|EPO| ^da: 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:JackSparrow.jpg

User has many copyvios -Nard 05:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete now tagged as {{copyvio}}. Re-upload of a previously deleted picture; please protect it against being re-uploaded. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was only uploaded twice... SALTing it may be a bit much. Rocket000 00:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Rocket000 00:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Monotube.gif

Come from a site with copyright 201.37.133.23 17:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So a {{copyvio}} --|EPO| ^da: 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:BMW_Isetta_Logo.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a {{derivative}} work. Please use that template. --|EPO| ^da: 20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Euro-Banknotenbündel.JPG

Possibly a nonderivative work as per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro banknote. Listing for discussion as this photograph is not a work of ECB, but includes works of ECB. How shall this one be treated? --|EPO| ^da: 15:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Zirland: In category Against policy; no license

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Trelock_Schild_Münster.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rolinck_Schild.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

Undeleted because COM:FOP#Germany. --Ju Ta 20:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Glas_Logo.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wiesmann_GT_Logo.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Veritas_Nürburgring_Logo.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tornax_Motorcycle_Detail.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Heinkel_Roller_Detail.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dürkopp_Diana_1955_Detail.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Norton_Motorcycle_Detail.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kienzle_Logo.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rama: copyvio

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:-1989-05-25 1830-News630-01-2007-07-10 19-13-05.jpg

FAIRUSE --Billytanghh 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TV screenshot. --Moonian 06:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Paris_Opera_-Main_Hall.JPG

This image was originally tagged at en.WP as free and user-created, but the uploader since modified the image description page to indicate that it is non-free and from http://www.andreas-praefcke.de/carthalia/france/f_paris_opera_auditorium.htm; hence, it should be deleted here at Commons. Iamunknown 23:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete commons doesn't accept non-free media Pimke 08:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 01:12, 27 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.

Image:Coat Of Arms Bernkastel Kues.jpg

wrong colours, should be replaced by Image:Wappen stadt bks.png GeorgHH 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter hiraldically? --ALE! ¿…? 21:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:09, 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.

Image:Coat Of Arms Bernkastel Kues.jpg

the arms were replaced by another image --Rp. 18:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see: Image:Wappen stadt bks.png

Keep this is no reason for deletion and this was why this image was kept before. --ALE! ¿…? 20:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE the arms are not used anywhere, why using when the coloures were wrong ? 91.9.233.127 11:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldisch gesehen sind die Farben identisch. Heraldically the colors are identical. --ALE! ¿…? 09:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why use the yellow image when the golden image is available ?? the yellow one was made by a wikipedia-user, the golden one was taken from the official homepage of the municipality of Bernkastel-Kues --Rp. 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, duplicate --Polarlys 01:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Putin Gorbachev.jpg

This photo is most probably a spoof! I mean that Putin and Gorbachyov not likely to be in so close relationship as pictured. This could harm the image of both persons pictured (in some eyes) -- See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/personality_rights and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights ...

In addition, I don't think that the similar image of e.g. Bush and Blair would be in commons for more than a minute. --Yuriybrisk 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, this also can be widened to the other Putin-connected issues, for example Dobby - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images2/DobbyPutin1.jpg. I don't think that the image can be hosted on Wikipedia even for informational purposes. --Yuriybrisk 19:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Pro-Putin, but it's simply a hint to dishonour a person(s) mentioned. --Yuriybrisk 19:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's properly tagged so what is the problem? // Liftarn

The problem is that this is not a photo, but a hoax. If it is suitable for Moscow News newspaper doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. --Yuriybrisk 20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see a copyright problem here. --ALE! ¿…? 09:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, that's not a copyright problem... --Yuriybrisk 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, the licensing template (Mosnews) was deleted, so we can close this discussion. --Polarlys 11:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Microsoft_Sign_on_German_campus.jpg

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  10:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me this looks like the word "microsoft". And? -- Stahlkocher 16:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... it is logo of microsoft --Szczepan talk  18:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like 50px|. Its a word, trademarked, but thats all. Did you now that ICE (exactly like it is written here) according your definition, will be a copyright infringement? -- Stahlkocher 19:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it won't, DB uses different font and colours ;p Maly LOLek 12:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no colour shown at the very first trademark file, but the image is right now not accessible.

Keep, I made , it's even better :P. Yarl ^{Talk • PL} 15:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This even more derivate. It is so much derivate, i can`t believe it. However, it is a simply copy. Yes we should keep ist. :-P -- Stahlkocher 18:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this. Logos appearing in photos are not generally a problem, unless the photo is of nothing but the logo. It contains a trademark certainly, and the photo should note that (some usages of the photo could be problematic), and it does. Germany has freedom of panorama in any event. Commons policy is to not allow pure logos to be uploaded though, so Yarl's image should be deleted. Carl Lindberg 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The copyrighted work is the primary subject of the image because the image has no other use than to showcase the copyrighted work. Germany's FOP is noncommercial only, which is not sufficient for Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: Germany's FOP is noncommercial only. As interesting as wrong. -- Stahlkocher 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LX, you made my day with this edit: [61]. Since now the Germon-FOP became suddenly "non-commercial". Well, thats wrong. It actually is "non-derivatve". Also not sufficient for commons. Like this Image:Petter Solberg 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg image. And you obviously have no allowance to use it for commercials. To make it worse, FOP it is not a question of taking the image, but of publishing it. In germany (and probably is most countries, who cares). A small difference, you know? Just have a look at Category:Buildings, so much copyrigted work, over and over, no sources, no copyright-owner....

I wish you the very best and that you may trace down any so called "copyright-infringement"! -- Stahlkocher 15:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of copying your comment here, since it is presumably about the discussion taking place here. Let's keep this discussion in one place and other discussions elsewhere.

You're right, I did mean to say non-derivative (not that I find that mistake worth "laughing out loud" about), and as you say, that is also not sufficient for Commons. The difference between images of otherwise copyrighted objects which may be depicted under freedom of panorama provisions on the one hand and images of non-copyrighted individuals on the other is that the former are still protected (albeit to a limited extent) by copyright, whereas the latter has to do with personality rights. Images of well-known people may still be redistributed in modified form or used in commercial contexts (so long as there is no implication of endorsement, defamation, or other violation of personal rights involved). An image covered by non-derivative freedom of panorama apparently forbids any modification, so this is a much more severe constraint.

The purpose of Commons:Licensing is to ensure that anyone has the right from a copyright legislation point of view to use the contents on Commons for any purpose, commercial or noncommercial, in original or modified form. Naturally, those uses may be restricted by other laws, but our job is to ensure that they are unencumbered by copyright restrictions, and I don't believe this image is. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows far more than the logo -- it shows the entrance to Microsoft's campus. I was mainly talking about if the photo was zoomed so that it didn't even show the outline of the structure it is on, then it may be a problem. You're incorrect about Germany's FOP -- it does allow commercial use. In any event, Microsoft's logo almost certainly is not copyrightable on its own -- it is a tiny modification away from being a pure text logo. Carl Lindberg 14:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This file is unencumbered by copyright restrictions, it’s permanently installed in the public, so FOP applies, and the photographer put it in the public domain. Keep it with trademark template. --Polarlys 16:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - COM:FOP#Germany says "the right to modify the works and to produce derivative works requires the permission of the original copyright holder." In other words, "not free enough for Commons". However, the respect which various posters to this discussion have earned caused me to look further. The unofficial English translation of the German Copyright Law (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG) Article 59(1), as last amended on 8 May 1998 says "English: It shall be permissible to reproduce, by painting, drawing, photography or cinematography, works which are permanently located on public ways, streets or places and to distribute and publicly communicate such copies. For works of architecture, this provision shall be applicable only to the external appearance." I interpret "painting, drawing" as implying allowance of derivative works, and I interpret "distribute and publicly communicate" as implying allowance of commercial use. Also, The original German text of the copyright law, Article 59(1) says "Deutsch: Zulässig ist, Werke, die sich bleibend an öffentlichen Wegen, Straßen oder Plätzen befinden, mit Mitteln der Malerei oder Graphik, durch Lichtbild oder durch Film zu vervielfältigen, zu verbreiten und öffentlich wiederzugeben. 2Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht.", which translates per AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation as "English: Is permissible, works, lasting at public ways, roads or places to be to spread and publicly show with means of the painting or graphics to multiply by photo or by film. 2Bei buildings extend these powers only to the outside opinion." I am afraid that the sources are more correct than COM:FOP#Germany. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (FOP) --ALE! ¿…? 07:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:MHV Adler Diplomat 3GS Wood-Gazifier 1938 01.jpg

Because of unclear juristical status and on demand of the owner (Deutsches Museum München) I ask to remove this photo from Wikipedia --MartinHansV 08:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC) --Digon3 ^talk 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You took a picture of a car in a museum. The car doesn't have any special artwork on it (that I can see) that would make it copyrighted. It doesn't appear to have any modifications that aren't functional in nature. Functional modifications are not copyrightable, whereas non-functional ones may be if they show creative intent. I see no copyright violation. -Nard 00:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing in that image that can be copyrighted, not even a logo or badge Madmax32 02:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The museum prohibits photography for the purpose of publication. Thus, publishing images taken in the museum could be a breach of contract if this is a condition of entry, and the photographer could therefore be seen as having trespassed. So it's not a copyright issue, and I don't see that anyone has claimed that it is. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this photo does not obstruct any copyrights, but Deutsches Museum München only allows photos for private use without the right of publishing them. Publishing will only be allowed against extra charge (to be fixed per single case) and publishing under GNU licence is not allowed at all. So, the GNU licence linked with this photo is unlawful and, therefore, obsolete. Without this GNU licence but this photo cannot be published in WIKIPEDIA COMMONS. Therefore, I ask to remove it. Later on, it will be replaced by something else, which, for sure, does not obstruct any owner rights. --MartinHansV 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is still a "private" image and not used commercially within the wikipedia project. As with everything this image is in public domain but may probably not be used commercially due to other laws or contracts. The contributor therefor did not allow a commercial use but simply did not forbid it. Probably i should to talk to Mr Weidemann directly. Or even better to Prof. Dr. Heckl... -- Stahlkocher 17:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of the image on Commons does constitute publication, and the photographer did attempt to "grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose" (including commercial purposes). If it were true that the photographer "simply did not forbid" commercial use, then we would definitely have to delete the image, because Commons only accepts works which can be used for commercial purposes, and if the copyright holder has not explicitly allowed it, such use is prohibited by copyright legislation. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This case is not a copyright problem. The image is undoubtfull in the public domain. But even if a copyright owner allows everyone everything with a image, it still may have restrictions. Like this one Image:Petter Solberg 2006 Rally Australia Dwellingup.jpg. -- Stahlkocher 18:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. If this image distributed with a PD "license" the author may get into trouble. The author does not want to take that risk. As a responsible corporate citizen, Commons must take reasonable measures to protect its contributors. Samulili 12:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fruitandveg.png

The source images indicated in the summary appear to be copyrighted. --CrazyLegsKC 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it even possible for something as trivial to be copyrighted anywhere? I'd assume it lacks originality. Anyways, it should be easily replacable. 139.18.147.59 07:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The original images are copyrighted. Samulili 17:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Flag of Svalbard (local).JPG

This is most likely a copyright infringement. Someone owns this design as it isn't an official Norwegian symbol. Moreover it is also a misleading image as it is not the flag of Svalbard in any official or unofficial capacity. It has never existed off paper and is taking on a new life as a fantasy flag through wikipedia and commons. A previous version has already been deleted: (Image:Svalbard Flag.svg) --Inge 11:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Inge 11:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete. Nobody needs it. --Kuemmjen 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Not PD-self (see earlier deletion request) and sort of unreal. Samulili 18:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Perth_airport_entry_signage.JPG

self request, uploaded wrong photo Thewinchester 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. Replace it by the new one. --FSHL 08:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (image unused) --ALE! ¿…? 08:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Barra Ondina Beach of Salvador.jpg

Better but not indentical image exists at Image:Y - Barra Ondina Beach of Salvador.png ----Digon3 ^talk 15:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. We should keep both. Image:Y - Barra Ondina Beach of Salvador.png may be better for many purposes, but not necessarily all. Carl Lindberg 15:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:22, 4 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.

Image:Siameses_aureolados.jpg

Unauthorised derivatives of the copyrighted Mickey Mouse character. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Critico_arcaico.jpg

Possibly an unauthorised derivative of the copyrighted Bart Simpson character. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ROK Navy Jack.svg

SVG file contains embedded JPEG with no vector data. Replacement at Image:Naval Jack of South Korea.svg --Himasaram 02:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chacmool.jpg

Copyright violation. Image of an unauthorised sculpture of the Mickey Mouse character. The Mickey Mouse character is still protected by copyright, and the artist is clearly not authorised to license works incorporating the character. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ospina’s images are works of artistic expression protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution under the concept Freedom of speech. Ospina's use of Mickey Mouse and Bart Simpson images is clearly relevant to his work. The Ospina images are parodies; parodies are non-commercial uses which are not actionable. Ospina used only so much as was necessary to make his parodic use of Mickey Mouse and Bart Simpson readily identifiable. Parody is a form of noncommercial expression if it does more than propose a commercial transaction. Ospina's artistic and parodic work is considered noncommercial speech and, therefore, not subject to a trademark dilution claim. See: http://www.nadinospina.com/ Kapelusz

Ospina lives and works primarily in Colombia, which is not subject to the United States Constitution, so that argument is irrelevant. The relevance of the images has not been challenged, so that argument is also irrelevant.

Parodies (if this is to be considered as such) are only protected under the fair use doctrine, and fair use is not permitted on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LX I don’t have any interest to defend the Ospina's work I only like to create an information space about Colombian art. I deleted the image Chacmool.jpg to the Ospina's page and replaced it for other with the artist permission.Please delete Chacmool. Kapelusz

Delete Derivative. --Dodo 22:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Yatsuhashi-makie-raden-suzuribako.jpg

It appears unlikely that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ferrari_z00.JPG

derivative of copyrighted work -- --Szczepan talk  10:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is copyrighted: The red background or the word Ferrari? Ant if i write down Ferrari, is this a derivate of work? Is Ferrari work at all? -- Stahlkocher 16:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The stylised representation of the name Ferrari with the extended top of the F connected to each of the other letters is a copyrightable work. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a trademark, not a copyright. Image has trademark notification template on it already. Photos of auto makers name marques have been kept with trademark template. -- Infrogmation 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping. Visible trademarks currently allowed on Commons -- Infrogmation 18:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Chiesa parrocchiale doors

Image:Chiesa parrocchiale SS Pietro e Paolo di Castelleone di Suasa, Italia - Porta in bronzo, navata sinistra.JPG and Image:Chiesa parrocchiale SS Pietro e Paolo di Castelleone di Suasa, Italia - Porta in bronzo, navata centrale.JPG were both marked as copyvios by User:G.dallorto. When I asked him why he thought that, he said [63] said they were built after a 1997 earthquake, making them still under copyright. Italian isn't a language I speak, but I looked at the article and it seems to be saying the church was rebuilt after a 1997 earthquake. Even if the doors were reproduced with brand new productions, they would be a copy of something made hundreds of years earlier, with no new material there'd be no new copyright. -Nard 21:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A translation may help. The entry says: "Dopo il terremoto del 1997 è stata restaurata e si sono dotati i tre ingressi alle rispettive navate con tre portoni in bronzo raffiguranti i santi titolari della parrocchia." Translation - "After the 1997 earthquake the church was restored and the three entrances of the three naves were given (literally, "gifted") three bronze doors representing the patron saints of the parish". I think it is pretty clear.

Apart for this, a mere glance at the style shows these reliefs are very recent, I don't know who can be duped into believing they are ancient. Anyone understanding a minimum about art and art history can see at first glance these are very recent reliefs.

Furthermore, as a general rule, it is the uploader who must declare openly the works are "derivate" and therefore in the PD, not us who must assume they are, and therefore the usual rules do not apply in this case. So if these particulare reliefs are an exception, the uploader, or anyone knowing it better, should take care to explain why, it is not me who must "demonstrate" they are NOT derivare works. This is nonsensical. --User:G.dallorto 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 01:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 22

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Renée_Zellweger.jpg

To upload it to Wikipedia Javier Donoso 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. It's an obvious copyvio taken from a web forum. --Dodo 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PD-USGov-NARA-German

It's the return of {{PD-USGov-NARA}}! And yes, it "may or may not be in the public domain" despite having a "PD-" start to it. Suggest doing the same with this one as it's clearly no "PD" tag. 68.39.174.238 01:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (unused template, the PD-USGov-NARA template is good enough) --ALE! ¿…? 12:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Felipe_Calderon_foto_oficial.jpg

Uploaded a year after since april 2006, copvio according to license template Madmax32 07:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I believe the license is correct, if not, I understand and accept the deletion. Battroid 06:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image can be download from this site [64].

--HMosh 01:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:33, 30 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.

Image:TourT1 Défense 15012007.jpg

Reasons for deletion request Tognopop 16:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC) It's because the photo is horizontal, after upload i have rewarded that it can be vertical so i have add a new one as Tour_T1_Défense_15012007.jpg[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (unrotated image)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:TIBE2007Opening-07.jpg

Replaced with Image:TIBE2007Opening TCSu.jpg complete. Rico Shen ^contact... 12:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image kept (no reason for deletion) --ALE! ¿…? 12:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:The Map of Guandu Nature Park.png

Modified by copyrighted satellite image (Digial Globe image in Google Maps?) --Littlebtc 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: as per discussion on Commons:Deletion requests (Gogle Earth copyvio)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Nigel tomm.jpg

Book cover, uploader did not prove he/she holds copyright. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources. DragonFire1024 12:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No comment on the disputed authorship claims for over a week. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Edmund Dulac Cinderella1.jpg

Author died in 1953; copyrighted 87.174.117.144 09:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Abzeronow (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Edmund Dulac Cinderella2.jpg

Author died in 1953; copyrighted 87.174.117.144 09:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restored Abzeronow (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Edmund Dulac Cinderella3.jpg

Author died in 1953; copyrighted 87.174.117.144 09:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

restored. Abzeronow (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Renée_Zellweger.jpg

To upload it to Wikipedia Javier Donoso 15:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. It's an obvious copyvio taken from a web forum. --Dodo 15:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bergkerk_Deventer.jpg

Picture already exists with same name on dutch site Ressing 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikimedia Commons, the central file repository. Delete it on your home wiki. --Polarlys 18:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Polarlys - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 10:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the same picture... Ciell 19:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image on the Dutch wikipedia has been moved to commons under the name Image:Bergkerk Deventer02.jpg. Kameraad Pjotr 18:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Robert Campin - L' Annonciation - 1425.jpg

It is clear to me that this image and Image:Robert Campin 010.jpg are photos of the same work of art, and that Image:Robert Campin 010.jpg is better because is 1600×812 pixels vs. the 1045×534 pixels of this image, although it is not as colorful. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it is clear that they are images of the same picture, but that doesn't make them duplicates. We get rid of exact duplcates, and resized versions of the same image (not different sized images of the same object). I don't believe there is any requirement on commons to only have one image of any particular object. In this case the two have very different lighting and saturation qualities and are certainly not exact duplicates. --Tony Wills 21:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if we were into deleting different images of the same object, it would be a very subjective decision as to which to keep. It is certainly not clear which is the 'better' image, the smaller one looks sharper and is more attractive, but the other image is not only larger, it also includes more of the picture frame. --Tony Wills 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to delete. --AndreasPraefcke 07:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Tony Wills - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 10:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, because of the differences in colour. But all in all it was fine to have one optimal reproduction of works of art instead of three different versions with individual advantages (more frame) and disadvantages (lower resolution) --Polarlys 19:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Campbell of Argyll or Campbell of Lochawe tartan.png

I created and uploaded this image and i now realized it is incorrect. this file should be deleted because someone may use it, not realizing its not a accurate depiction of the tartan. Celtus 10:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Editor at Large: User-requested deletion of incorrect image, proper version is Image:Campbell tartan (Vestiarium Scoticum) (Stewart - 'The Setts').png

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Blason de Louvres.svg

I uploaded this file by error, it is not in use anymore. Please delete it. --Peter17 14:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no possibility to delete this file because you uploaded it with a valid licence. And once the licence is given even the author has no possibillity to request it for deletion. Pimke 09:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason for deletion. The image has a valid license. --ALE! ¿…? 12:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Playstation.jpg

Reasons for deletion request Smolldora 04:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)　Because you do not need to use it for Userbox.[reply]

kept (image is used) --ALE! ¿…? 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tuncay001.jpg

No evidence of cc-by-3.0 licensing. Anyway, this license is not accepted. --201.53.23.207 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:US90A.png

superseded by Image:Alternate plate.svg and Image:US 90.svg (→O - R L Y?) 02:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how is being superceded not a valid reason? master son^{T - C} 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment See here Commons talk:Deletion requests/Superseded - the deletion process for superseded images has been suspended. Deadstar 14:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But this hasn't been marked as superseded, hasn't it? This is for clearing out unnecessary files, which this DR clearly is. (→O - R L Y?) 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason given for deletion is "superseded by Image" etc.? In my eyes, that means it's marked as superseded. Deadstar 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can be created using the vector images stated above. The alternate plate in this PNG is also the wrong size. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SVG is better than PNG. -- JA10 ^{T · C} 22:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TMF master son^{T - C} 22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Calling the practice of speedy deletion based on conversion to SVG into question might well be reasonable, but I don't think any of the general concerns, such as traceability to an original work, are an issue here. Not that deleting it saves any disk space, but it does make it easier to find the best quality images. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TMF. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 06:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inaccurate, SVGs available to replace. —Scott5114 ↗ 22:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kosevo4lo9.jpg

No evidence that the copyright holder approved the GNU Free Documentation License. Commons:Licensing requires works to be licensed to allow anyone to use them for any purpose, not just educational purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:11, 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.

Image:Toronto Skyline Photo.jpg

This image is a FAKE - The moon has been added to the image - the moon does not go north of the city. The moon has been added.

Oppose The picture is an accurate picture of the skyline and presently the most accurate depiction of Toronto's skyline available on the commons. Inclusion of the moon does not detract from the main focus of the picture. "Artistic" addition of the moon does not automatically render the picture unsuitable for inclusion in the commons. Ccscott 10:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is no evidence the photograph is faked, turning your camera a few degrees can change where the moon appears in a photo very easily - this is most likely a simple case of good framing by the photographer. Sherurcij 17:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changed from {support} — I'm changing my mind based next comment. My original comment:

It seems clear to me that this photo was altered. The original deletion request makes an indisputable point. There is no camera angle that puts the CN Tower and the Rogers Centre in the frame as they are that could also include the moon as shown—just check this map against all of the possible moon azimuths—for example, try Form B / moon / April 13 2007 / 79 deg 25' W / 43 deg 40' N / 5 hours W of Greenwich. The moon never crosses 90 degrees azimuth from the viewpoint on the ground in Toronto. (I chose April 13 2007, but you're free to spot-check as many days as you like that show approximately 1/4 illumination of the moon for 2007 or any other year. Here: go nuts.)

Furthermore, if we compare this photo to other photos I believe are legitimate one two, we can see that the angular size of the moon is far smaller in this photo than it ought to be. It's true that by moving closer to the buildings and using a wider lens, one could make the moon appear smaller in relation to the buildings...but this would also have the effect of changing the relationship of the buildings to one another significantly. If you compare the perspective in the two trusted photos against this one, you'll see the buildings in all three photos indicate roughly the same parallax, indicating a similar vantage point and focal length was used. Therefore, we'd expect the ratio of the moon's diameter to building sizes would roughly be the same, but the moon is clearly much smaller in this photo by about a factor of 1/2.

So what if the photographer took some artistic license and added the moon? The Wikimedia family strives for accuracy above all else. Having said that, clearly some post-processing is allowed (adjusting levels, colors, etc), so where to draw the line? I'm unwilling to disallow any photo on the basis of post-processing alone—even if a moon was added—provided that the alterations made to the photo are disclosed. There were no such disclosures in this case, leading the viewer to believe that it is a faithful depiction of the scene, as would have been witnessed by a contemporaneous, disinterested bystander when the photo was taken.

That we have to guess at the date—because no EXIF data was included—and the generally low image quality of this photograph indicates a potentially much larger problem than the addition of the moon. I suspect this photo is in violation of the actual owner's copyright. I recommend it be removed immediately unless and until the poster can produce the original, unaltered, out-of-camera image at full resolution and complete with EXIF data. (Just for the record, it is not my intention to cast any sort of dispersion on the original poster of this image. I fully well recognize that it could be that person's work and not a violation of any copyright. I am merely saying that the standard of meeting copyright on the Wikimedia family of projects aims to avoid even the appearance of violation. This most certainly does not meet that high standard.) Srose 06:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comment immediately below, I'm now more familiar with the Wikimedia Commons norms. Thus, I'm changing my vote to keep this image. My only question is: would it be appropriate for anyone but the original poster to make note of the alteration to this image, or would it be fine for me to add it? Srose 07:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First assume good faith! Plastering 'fake' on someone's work isn't very civil ;-). If it turns out that the image has been altered for whatever reason, all that is needed is a note mentioning the nature of the alteration. The template {{tl:RetouchedPicture}} is useful for this, eg {{RetouchedPicture|Cresent moon added to sky for effect|editor=???}}. The addition of the moon cresent is obviously un-neccesary but hardly detracts from the usefulness of the image.
On the second point, do we have some sort of 'assume good faith until accused' system? If the uploader gives a valid license we should not demand they prove ownership etc on mere suspicion, there needs to be reasonable evidence that there is high likelyhood of copyright violation (ie we have evidence of someone else claiming copyright (eg image found elsewhere with copyright notice) or it is extremely unlikely they were the author (eg pictures from outer space)). Please do not drive people away from commons with attacks on their integrity. --Tony Wills 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Tony Wills - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 10:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Tony Wills - Changed my mind based on your note--see my (changed) vote above for details. Srose 07:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Samulili 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mapa_Europa_despres_Tractat_Westfalia_1648.jpg

original was copied from [65] with minor text changes,derivative work --Astrokey44 14:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cubs-Carlos Zambrano2.jpg

Copybio ... This file is not licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License but under the unfree copyrights. --UCinternational 13:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image page states the uploader obtained permission from the author directly. That permission should be forwarded to OTRS though. Carl Lindberg 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No permission in OTRS. Changed to {{subst:npd}} Samulili 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bandera_de_Huécija.jpg

I don't believe the uploader is entitled to claim authorship over a Spanish municipal flag. Presumably, either it is in the public domain (and if so, this needs to be demonstrated and any fraudulent copyright claims must be removed), or the copyright is held by the municipality. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 05:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Flag of Culebra (Puerto Rico).png

The image description page claims that this image has been licensed under the GFDL, but the history of the image on en gives no evidence that the image was ever released under this license. The flag had been tagged as being in the public domain as a "U.S. state, federal district, or insular area flag"; it is true that Puerto Rico is an insular area of the United States, but (as far as I can tell) the various municipalities of Puerto Rico, such as Culebra, are not insular areas themselves. Similarly, the flags of U.S. states are in the public domain, but flags of U.S. counties and cities are not necessarily. In any case, the licensing situation of this image is unclear; Eeee drew the flag but did not specify a license when he uploaded it. Possibly his intent was to release it into the public domain (as the image on en was tagged at the time), but there is no evidence that he meant to release it under the GFDL. —Bkell (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and change licensing to PD to match licensing on en.wiki -Nard 22:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it was a mistake. It's public domain by user Eeee. I'm gonna fix the license --OliverZena 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image was released to the public domain by the author. The license has now been fixed, so there's no reason to delete it. --Boricuaeddie 02:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Boricuaeddie - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 10:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 10:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:47488349 337088baca.jpg

Where on Flickr can this file be found? --ALE! ¿…? 12:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (possible copyvio) --ALE! ¿…? 08:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Qaboos.jpg

The Library of Congress does not have the authority to "place in the public domain" materials owned by a foreign government. --Pharos 22:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more proof of PD status is provided Madmax32 15:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This must be one of my very early uploads, when I was believing all the "free license" tags and statements on the English Wikipedia. Also I don't remember whether the original image page on en-Wiki would have specified any more detail about the source (perhaps an en-Admin could check?). Hence, I am fine with deletion unless someone can reliably find the source (a rudimentary Google search didn't help me in that respect). -- Arcimboldo 13:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (possible copyvio, no source) --ALE! ¿…? 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cytaux.jpg

Copyvio from listed source here (click on cytauxzoon in left column), which is part of the website of the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, which is clearly not PD-GOV as the template on this image suggests. See this page for copyright notice. --Joelmills 16:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cancelos de Baixo.JPG

The image appears to be copied from Google Maps, and the author (User:77bcr77) is known on the french-speaking wikipedia for multiple copyvios. He here alleges to be the author of the photograph...GillesC 22:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the version from Google maps (which should have been speedied earlier). A new image of the same name has been uploaded since; if this is a problem as well, please make a new listing. -- Infrogmation 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chickasaw turnpike.svg, Image:Fort Bend Parkway Toll Road.svg

These are too complicated to be ineligible for copyright, and thus the copyright lies with the toll road authority. I have saved them locally and will upload them on en.wikipedia as fair use on the article about the toll road. I am not nominating Image:Everett Turnpike.svg, Image:Spaulding Turnpike.svg, or Image:Pennsylvania Turnpike logo.svg, since those are probably simple enough to be ineligible. --NE2 19:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete to make room for upload on Wikipedia. (→O - R L Y?) 20:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast please... Question... so this is not covered under the MUTCD as discussed at User:O/SHS ?? Also what is up with this image vs. w:Image:Fort_Bend_Parkway_Toll_Road_shield.svg? Is that the fair use version of the file? ++Lar: t/c 10:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Toll road shields are not "State Route Sign M1-5", nor are mentioned in the state MUTCD at all. (There are exceptions, such as Image:Everett Turnpike.svg, which is New Hampshire's M1-6b.) They are typically designed by the semiprivate authority responsible for operating the road. --NE2 15:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clearing that up. Delete ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When was the sign first created? Anything not asserting copyright and first published before the w:Copyright Law of 1976 went into effect (January 1, 1978) is ineligible. A number of signs have been remarked as such because of this clarification. ++68.10.101.122 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. I've since learned the road itself was built in 1991. The sign could not have existed before that time and thus falls under current copyright laws. Since the shield is not a direct work of the US government and has not had its copyright released by the w:Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (who holds jurisdiction over this road), the shield must be copyrighted. And copyrighted images are not allowed in the Commons. Therefore, I vote Delete. --68.10.101.122 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per above. -- Infrogmation 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Melisandre_of_Asshai.jpg

The source site states that the images are "freely redistributable." This is not the same as permission for anyone to use it for any purpose in original or modified form. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that "freely" implies without any limitation. Otherwise it could say "without charge", or add "without modifying it". I tried to contact the author several months ago, more than once, but the mail is not checked, or she ignores it.

The only obligation it mentions is linking to her web page and a notice of the copyright. Similar to a cc-by-2.0?. But, experts, speak :) ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- es- en)} 08:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had several examples where "used freely" actually turned out to mean "used in unmodified form for noncommercial or informational purposes" (in other words, fair use publicity works). In this case, it's not even "used" but "redistributed", which does not clearly imply the right to modify the work. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I am going to try again to contact the author to try to clarify the terms, and obtain a better permission ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- es- en)} 08:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any results? This deletion request has been inactive since July. If nothing else delvelops or there are no other suggestions, how about putting a "no permission" template on the image to request OTSR? -- Infrogmation 19:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nothing new. It seems the contact section of the web is abandoned. The author doesnt answer my messages. ---- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- es- en)} 10:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts and your reply. Oh well. -- Infrogmation 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Infrogmation 13:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Communauté d'Agglomération de La Rochelle.jpg

unacceptable license, requires notification for any purposes outside Wikipedia -- Prince Kassad 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, insufficently free license. -- Infrogmation 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Helsinki_Metro_Station_Announcement.ogg

A work derived from the metro announcement, which has an unknown license. Mysid 18:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why in earth should this file be deleted? It is recorded by me on board a train. A sample of sounds in a public space.--Aatox 23:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Aatox - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 10:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as convenient as it may be to copy and paste the same comment without actually providing any arguments, it isn't very helpful. Copyright infringement is a valid reason for deletion. Audio recordings are subject to copyright to some degree in most jurisdictions. A radio playing music in a public place does not cause the music to fall into the public domain. The question, then, is if a recording consisting of nine spoken words in Swedish and probably about as many in Finnish (there's no announcement chime) is a copyrightable work. I would lean towards no, but I'm not sure. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to LX - IMHO there’s just no copyright infringement here and therefore it’s an invalid reason for deletion... --FSHL 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as keep; does not seem to be violating any copyright. If new information to the contrary surfaces, renominate. -- Infrogmation 01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept -- Infrogmation 01:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 23

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:IMG 3748.jpg

a copy of this file exists with a proper name image:Mount Diklo, Tusheti.jpg --22 July 2007 User:Alsandro

Delete Other is duplicate file. Deadstar 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Herøy

All photos moved to Category:Herøy, Møre og Romsdal, which is the correct name --21 July 2007 User:Blue Elf

deleted, --Polarlys 11:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sykkulven

The correct name is Sykkylven --21 July 2007 User:Blue Elf

deleted, --Polarlys 11:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Die Windsbraut.jpg

Painter died in 1980, no PD-art Fransvannes 10:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, Oskar Kokoschka died in 1980. --Polarlys 11:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Churces in Norway

Please delete Category:Churces in Norway. I made it by a mistake. Erik Fløan 09:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typo Deadstar 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 11:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Torvikbukt-Nesset.jpg

Delete - same image is uploaded with other name. Image:Torvikbukt-Gjemnes.jpg is the new image.

It is not from Nesset, but from Gjemnes. --Halvard 07:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rüdiger Wölk: Dupe of Image:Torvikbukt-Gjemnes.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gedenktafel_ida_siekmann.jpg

I made a mistake... Katzenmeier 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What’s wrong? --Polarlys 11:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another misplaced {{badname}} request, file is identical to Image:Gedenktafel_Ida_Siekmann.jpg --Tony Wills 10:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Zirland: Dupe of Image:Gedenktafel Ida Siekmann.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Custom swingline.jpg

Watermark indicates copyright. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The watermark is the same name as the uploader. On the other hand, this is that user's only contribution. May have just named the account after the watermark's name. Carl Lindberg 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google suggests the image is from here, I have emailed him asking whether he uploaded it and released it to PD despite the copyright watermark. --Tony Wills 11:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has replied and admits he forgot about the watermark and will probably upload a new version without the watermak --Tony Wills 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info:I have forwarded a copy of his email to the otrs system --Tony Wills 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep self-made image, watermark is easy to remove. -Nard 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept and tagged with {{watermark}} --ALE! ¿…? 12:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Argument.svg

arrows missing Nicostella 08:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. In the case of doubt simply add it... --FSHL 10:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a version of Image:Argument_of_a_complex_number.svg but with errors (the missing arrow heads), basically a useless version. --Tony Wills 12:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Yamaha R6

Category redirect - not sure if it's helpful. Page was blanked before I reinstated redirect. Initial (incomplete deletion) request on 20 July 2007 by User:RichN (no reason given) Deadstar 11:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Malcolmyoung.jpg

As was mentioned on the deletion request for Image:Acdclineup1994-now.jpg (which was a scan from a CD-booklet): The uploader also uploaded Image:Malcolmyoung.jpg which too seems to come from an album booklet. --88.134.44.255 06:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC). Created seperate request as the Acdclineup one was closed. Deadstar 12:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Naval_Ensign_of_Ecuador.svg

rebutty 88.3.71.221 12:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ¿What does "rebutty mean? --Huhsunqu ^[@] 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

explain the slang please --Andersmusician $ 02:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows 'rebutty' turns up on some Hungarian language pages, but I haven't found a translation. --Tony Wills 09:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SimplexProblem 1.png

Other Image exists --User:Philipendula 20:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The file was substistuted by Image:SimplexProblem_3.jpg. --User:Philipendula 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion fix. File doesn't open for me. Deadstar 13:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stemma Cairate.gif

This coat of arms is not a GNU file but a fair use. It was my mistake --Adelchi 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FDD with Cables Detail WB.JPG

very bad quality --19 July 2007 User:Klaus Eifert

Delete Bad quality, small size, I don't think it can be used in any context so that would make it out of scope. Deadstar 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The deletion request is from the uploader and is a crop of his original image Image:FDD_with_Cables.JPG so nothing is lost with this deletion. --Tony Wills 09:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Gardel Piazzolla.jpg

I would like to have this removed, since I uploaded the picture but I'm not sure if this is a movie caption or an actual photograph. Thank you and sorry for the incoveniences. 20 July 2007 User:Mushii

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please note:

PD-AR-Photo was never applicable as the movie was shot in the USA
PD-AR-Movie was never applicable as the movie was shot in the USA, but even if it had been shot in Argentina it would not have been in the PD until the year 2032 (50 years after the last death of director, writer, and producer)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Buzdovan.JPG

Image:Buzdovan1.JPG ist beser. --User:Janeznovak 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment File mentioned doesn't seem to exist. Perhaps user means Image:Buzdovan2.JPG. Neither is great. Deadstar 15:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (non of the two is superior) --ALE! ¿…? 12:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:London_2007_floods_manipulated.jpg

Image made from two images, http://www.flickr.com/photos/shimgray/872450216/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/shimgray/872368508/, both of which are released under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial licence. Adambro 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Russell_at_USF.jpg

Not a work of the U.S. government. LOC source page indicates, "Rights status not evaluated." howcheng {chat} 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted per nomination --ALE! ¿…? 12:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:1.jpg

Because of probable copyright violation. The web page [66] use this image and the license is unclear--201.245.242.143 18:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The exact link is [67] --201.245.242.143 18:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the web page Universidad Nacional de Colombia - Sede Bogotá uses this image and about 7 others in a rotating display of images of the campus of the National University of Colombia at Bogotá. There is no clear indication that the copyright on that web site is compatible with Commons. Also, given the checkered history of w:Image:1.jpg, I recommend salting. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Castellano-Español.png

unencyclopedic, probably original research, no source of original data used is given. --Yonderboy 09:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. Try this. Everyone that’s able to master the Spanish language would be able to confirm that to you... --FSHL 11:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why not valid? English Wikipedia is not a source, and the given map tries to "show" the prevalence of the term "castellano" over "español" (or vice versa) to refer to the Spanish language in the given countries... without any source. As such, I thinks it's "unencyclopedic". --Dodo 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC) PS. I'm a Spanish native speaking editor.[reply]

Comment to Dodo - Because the terms »uncyclopedic« and »no source of original data used is given« aren’t an element of deletion guideline? And 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 --FSHL 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the map has not adqueate references, no claim of inaccurace has been made. The information depicted in the map has not been questioned. --Davius 15:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not true, Davius. The map has been questioned, because it suggests an alleged homogeneity and probably is mistaken (is legal or statistic data? We don't know). BTW, FSHL, to know if it's accurate, it's not enough read this: it would be necessary that we make an original research. Yonderboy 19:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (no copyright issue) --ALE! ¿…? 12:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Martiros Saryan

Saryan died in 1972, all his images are copyrighted Alex Bakharev 09:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Paintings might be copied to the wiki that allow fair use art Alex Bakharev 09:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Decorations by User:Andros64

The following files are obviously not the uploader’s work (“Author: Andros64”) but copyvios:

Image:Order_Zasługi_RP.jpg from http://www.polska-ukraina.pl/order.jpg

The GFDL and cc-by-sa licenses are invalid and the reproduction of these three dimensional works is also not covered by {{PD-Polishsymbol}}. --Polarlys 11:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The uploaded removed the request for deletion. --Polarlys 12:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :are you sure that I have no legal possibility to put this photos for ex on www.polska-ukraina.pl :)) Andros64 15:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on klub.chip.pl as well? And on any other page we could find using google? --Polarlys 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you use to use Google immediataly , but in this case I had had just a possibility to touch and present these orders myself :) Thank you for speedy investigation & clever reaction.With best wishes :) Andros64 22:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, you just arranged the decorations in the same way, uploaded them to two different websites, made cropped versions and saved them again with lousy compression artefacts. All right. --Polarlys 22:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for your private detailed investigations, but it is no possibility in fact to delete any of these grafics, of even remark its for deletion. Best regards Andros64 09:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any arguments? Since when is it allowed to upload copyrighted works you found on the web? --Polarlys 09:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should prove that illegible photo of Polish orders is copyrighted. By the way, I'm the owner of www.polska-ukraina.pl Your attitude towards illegible photos may be remarked as admin abuse and vandalism. Don't blackmail m e please. Best regards:

Andros64 11:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your violent accusations are weak, there is no vandalism and no admin abuse. klub.chip.pl is your website as well? --Polarlys 11:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- No arguments no reasons to react

Andros64 11:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are reproductions of three dimensional objects not copyrighted (and why did you put them under restrictive licenses nevertheless?). --Polarlys 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind to suggest me a way to correct this case ( a proper licence in your opinion) , not just to propose deleting ? Andros64 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all in all our media repository is in my interest: If you took one of these photos, please upload a high quality version to assure you are the author and add a license of your choice (as you did before) for your reproduction and {{PD-Polishsymbol}} (for the subject’s design). The files from klub.chip.pl are not your work, so we have to delete them. --Polarlys 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; copyvios. (→O - R L Y?) 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Rorschach1.jpg

Current copyright by Hogrefe and Huber Publishers is still in effect, regardless of when Rorschach died. -- Ward3001 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My english is poor so sorry for it. Please, you can explain me how it can be possible?

Please read w:Public_domain#Expiration first and, please, tell us how this at least 90 years old image can be copyrighted. --DracoRoboter 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the image you see was not created by Rorschach. See lengthy discussion at [68]. 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. Ward3001 23:13, 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 [69], 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®" [70], 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. --g 02:19, 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. Ward3001 02:56, 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 by 87.2.181.205 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Please send the response of your mail to OTRS, thank you. --DracoRoboter 14:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons Blot behind, the 50s' one in black above (badly aligned, I did that in hurry).

Visual Rorschach Test is a trademark, but is expired.
The word RORSCHACH is a trademark, and is live. A trademark is live for computer test, too, and another registration is expired.
- 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.

Unfortunately, we don't give a damn about shrinks' Ethical Code, so condolences to them, too. --Jollyroger 20:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the source for the 1997 copyright expiration is ....????? Ward3001 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is 1992, actually

1922 (Mr. R's death) + 70 = 1992

Again, read this.

how can you discuss copyright if you don't even understand its basic (i.e. "it expires after some times")? --Jollyroger 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why aren't the images all over the internet?

actually, they are. In institutions' and official websites, too. --Jollyroger 20:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 by 147.162.146.133 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat with me: we don't care about "clinical relevance".

Then repeat: only copyright matters, and it is OVER. --Jollyroger 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 by 87.4.184.24 (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. --Jollyroger 20:37, 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. --g 01:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've had enough. Now I'm contacting Hogrefe and Huber. Ward3001 03:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complaint regarding this image has been received at OTRS. Please hold deletion discussion until it has been resolved.Swatjester 23:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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 guy 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not opened. No new arguments presented. Samulili 21:17, 3 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.

This is just an opinion I would ask you to consider. No legal threats for sure ... --88.134.110.25 11:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sorry, but I can see no way to censor anything by any point of view. --g 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Riga swedish gate brewer street.jpg

Image has imprinted copyright stamp. --—the preceding unsigned comment was added by Philaweb (talk • contribs)

Hard to verify. The "author" E. J. Bahrs is actually a publishing company. --ALE! ¿…? 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 16 July 2007|Unknown as of 16 July 2007]]; no permission

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:George carlin headshot.jpg

No evidence that the copyright holder released the image for any purpose --Abu badali 02:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bcg_summer2005_1024x768.jpg

deleted, --Polarlys 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Frauweiler4.jpg

Image was blanked by uploader. As it stands, it's a white square, which is not needed. Perhaps the original image can be restored? --Deadstar 07:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Deadstar - Yeah! Thy this. --FSHL 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Therefore I suggest restoring and keeping it... --FSHL 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the original image is probably a copyvio or an image used without permission --ALE! ¿…? 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 09:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ehu_logo.svg

Redrawing a copyrighted image does not transfer the copyright to the person creating the reproduction. The original copyright holder is the only one who can place an image into the public domain. Fair use is not permitted on Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. Original wasn't deleted from en: Platonides 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Platonides: Redrawing a copyrighted image does not transfer the copyright to the person creating the reproduction. The original copyright holder is the only one who can place an image into the public domain. Fair use is not permitted

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Hardenburg.jpg

not yet finished User:Immanuel Giel

kept --ALE! ¿…? 14:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Inkblot.svg

This image is under copyright protection, please see the title of this page, replace the picture with:Image:Rorschach like Inkblot.svg and delete it! If you want, I can replace the links on wp-s. --Dorgan 18:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Dorgan 08:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note that the psychologists trying to remove this picture are not doing so because of some pride or some kind of "superiority complex". Furthermore they are not doing it for the protection of the publishers copyrights either. Their ethical code, (and in some cases their oath) binds them to do so. According to this code they have to preserve the validity and the reliability of the tools they are using, including psychometrical tests like the Rorschach. With the presentation of the inkblots, the usability of the test is in question. The test is only valid if the participant responds spontaneously, so it doesn't matter whether the presented image is only a reproduction, outline, reduced in quality etc. Previous exposure still affects the results of the test - causing unprdictable outcome. I am not going to waste my time arguing about copyright nor censorship. I am talking about common sense. The Rorschach Test is a widely used diagnostic tool, which provides psychological data, just like the MRI provides neurological details and like sonography, which is commonly used during pregnancy. Consider: Would you agree to keep any content if it would make the results of the MRI or the Ultrasound Diagnostics unreliable? A "professional" encyclopedia would never allow such a thing. I suggest using a substitute demo image, like Image:Rorschach like Inkblot.svg which is not part of the Rorschach test set, but looks similar. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other images to choose from. G ambrus 00:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not censored, we can't delete something just because doing so would help your career Madmax32 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Now what I would like to ask is: who is "we". In this manner I could have written in my previous post: "we can't assist to the ruination of a widely used diagnostic tool." But I didn't because I am aware that doing so is arrogance at least.

It is still not censorship, it is still about common sense and good faith. For the psychologists, putting the images online is considered a vandalism.

And what is this about my career? *lol* To my sadness nobody gives me credit points for voting in a poll. But if you see someone who does, please inform me... G ambrus 08:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In responce to your NRI/ultrsound thing I supose yes on the basis that it would result in people produceing a more robust system.Geni 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. And you wouldn't inform the developers about the security leaks first and AFTER they fixed them you publish the content, would you? Until then, who cares about the demage it causes. G ambrus 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well wikipedia started in 2001 so they would have had over 70 years to fix them problem. That would appear to be a reasonable length of time. In any case . Any system that has a flaw that can't be fixed after 70 years would appear to be flawed. The image is in the public domain copyright wise. Trademark isn't really a problem and any posible patent would also have expired. Legaly we can host the images.Geni 00:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"wikipedia started in 2001 so they would have had over 70 years to fix them problem" You have a point there. But before the Internet started, there was no real danger of publication of the images for wide pubicity. It has been decades of hard work by a wide community of professionals to develope this test, and work goes on even today. Would you please wait until psychologist come up with something to replace this tool. G ambrus 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no reason to belive they would do so (we know locksmiths didn't neither did the people behind 56 bit encryption). The internet has been around since the 60s. The World Wide Web for over a decade. Any serious attempts to fix the problem should have produced some results by now if the issue is solveable. Security through obscurity isn't effective in the medium term.Geni 02:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe true. But notice, that we are talking about an encyclopedia here. Encyclopedias are meant to spread knowledge, not to interfere with it. That's why I keep saying that these pictures are unencyclopedic. (That's all for today, I need some sleep-it's 04.46 here in Hungary)G ambrus 02:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The appearence of the pictures is knowledge.Geni 10:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is no legal basis behind the claim that something created by someone who died in 1922 has any copyright, people can claim attempt to claim copyright for providing services or digitizing a photograph or drawing, but those claims are not legally tested nor have any legal basis and can be ignored. Madmax32 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note under Bridgeman vs. Corel under US law it affirmed that you cannot claim copyright just for scanning and digitizing a public domain image, only the author owned the copyright, not anyone 100 years later claiming copyright for dubious reasons Madmax32 08:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Madmax32 - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: I really don't care about the copyright stuff. Seriously, I am not an expert in law. But on the Rorschach discussion page on the French Wikipedia I've found this letter from the Publisher:

De :   Trudi Finger <trudi.finger[at]hogrefe[dot]ch>
À: 	info-fr[at]wikipedia[dot]org
Copie : 	Helge Malmgren <Helge.Malmgren[at]filosofi.gu.se>, andronik[at]u-paris10.fr, pierre leroux <japl[at]sympatico.ca>
Sujet: 	Test de Rorschach
Créé: 	06.03.2006 14:01:03
Dear Sirs,

We have been informed by a large number of concerned psychologists that
you are showing the ten plates of the Rorschach Test in WIKIPEDIA on the
web, published in an article  /Test de Rorschach/.

Please take note of the fact that the Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe AG, is
the copyright owner and holder of the worldwide trademark Rorschach. The
publication of the Test cards has been done without our permission nor
any information. By no means we can tolerate such an infringement. We
ask you to eliminate the test plates from your Enyclopédia  within the
next five working days and confirm to us that you comply with this
request. You may not be aware of the fact that the Rorschach Test is of
high scientific value. It is of great damage to the test if the stimulus
material is exposed in such a way. It is of disadvantage to the
psychologists and psychiatrists as well as to their clients.

We are looking forward to a positive response by you and thank you in
advance for your cooperation.

Best regards,

Trudi Finger
-------

Trudi Finger
Verlag Hans Huber,  Hogrefe AG
3000 Bern 9 / Switzerland
E-mail: trudi.finger[at]hogrefe[dot]ch
http/www.verlag-hanshuber.com

The French Wiki has since removed the original picture, and has substituted it with a similar inkblot. So did the Norwegian and the Hungarian. G ambrus 08:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt they can make legal threats without any basis in an attempt to safeguard their business, and they wouldn't be the first people to do so. Trademark and copyright are two different things also, they may own a trademark on the name 'Rorschach' but not on the original drawing which was a work of the deceased author. Madmax32 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOK then, it seems that law and copyright is the only language you understand.

Let's just say somone posts a source code of a computer virus tomorrow on wikipedia. (Google:127.000.000+ hits) Relevant? Yes. Copyrighted? No! Keep it! Who cares about the costs and trouble it causes. We are not censored.

I am full of ideas. Blueprints for weapons of mass destruction (strictly 70+ years after inventors death)? Tips for a successful suicide (public domain)? Congratulations. Keep it comin'.

I still don't think that the test is public domain, but even if it is, I don't care. In my opinion such content is not suitable for Commons, and to prevent further abuse, maybe a new directive is needed. G ambrus 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No your comparison is not valid, it's still debated whether psychology is a real medical science, especially things like the Rorschach test, in fact it seems like that they are only worried that it might be exposed as a scam, hence the reason for keeping it out the public eye, it reminds me of those magicians that got angry when someone went on TV and exposed how the most common magic tricks they perform are staged. BTW atomic bomb designs are available, just not useful since access to the materials to create one wouldn't be possible for most. Madmax32 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, at there is a link to the sourcecode that has been there since March and nobody has objected, and from there is a link containing, via another link about the virus, the source code which was published online and nobody has caused a fuss. -81.179.73.182 16:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed links in previous post of 81.179.73.182: en:CIH virus; en:Bliss (virus)

Notice that no source code is avaiable on the WIKIPEDIA page. These images are. We are talking about Wikipedia and Commons.G ambrus 20:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I wouldn't object to it assuming its relevant, correctly licensed and encyclopaedic (eg. can it placed into a page without it dominating) much like nobody has objected to links to source code. If your argument is supposed to be that I'd be against virus source code being posted, then you're very much mistaken. -81.178.108.106 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it's still debated whether psychology is a real medical science" would you please give a source for that. Psychology uses scientific methods, has scientific communities, its activities are defined by the law. There are various debates around the Rorschach test. But even today, researchers work (with scientific methods) to improve it (see Google Scholar hits). Usage of Rorschach test is being taught at universities - with its limitations. In the hands of a trained professional, it is a very useful tool. So excuse me, but it is not for you to judge whether it is scam or not.

BTW who said anything about an atomic bomb? (BTW is there a blueprint here in Commons?) A good-old plastic bomb will do. And what about the computer virus?

There are a number of psychologist here on wikipedia from students to PhD, and we are editing here in our free time because we belive in wikipedia. We are here to share our knowledge, to provide professional information to make articles more reliable. I don't think that we are asking too much when we ask the community (that we are a part of) to replace these images with ones perfecly suitable for demonstrational purposes. G ambrus 09:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my personal opinion and shared by many others, I don't need to post google results, but I mean it's always been debated whether mental illness is in fact a real illness and read this about the Rorschach test These days most reputable psychologists feel the Rorschach is unreliable at best and dagerously misleading at worst. A few psychologists still believe in it as a valid diagnostic tool, however, despite the availability of more modern, sophisticated personality tests[72] the site also confirms the copyright claims are without basis Madmax32 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that you are not answering to my questions? I have asked a handful of them. Still waiting for a citation for clinical psychology is not a science. Would you agree to keep any content if it would make the results of the MRI or the Ultrasound Diagnostics unreliable? Would you keep a post including the source code of a computer virus?

"These days most reputable psychologists feel the Rorschach is unreliable at best and dagerously misleading at worst." this doesn't mean that it is allright to put it online. Some other reputable psychologist think that with proper training it is a useful tool. Let the community of psychologist decide what to do with it.

"it reminds me of those magicians that got angry when someone went on TV and exposed how the most common magic tricks" I disagree. According to the Code, psychologist are encouraged to share their knowledge. Those who hold aloof are not good psychologists. That's why we are here. You can put all the critics into the Rorschach article, nobody will say a word. And if you think that a psychologist uses inapropriate techniques, you are free to take legal actions - simply sue him/her. I have my own concerns about the Rorschach test. I've had two semesters of Rorschach and perhaps I was one who disliked it the most. I would never use it (not even with more training - two semesters are not enough to learn it). But by no means is it ethical to make a tool unuseable because some think it is wrong - not without discussion and consensus of the community. And it is not up to Wikipedia to decide. G ambrus 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"it's always been debated whether mental illness is in fact a real illness" Who debates that mental illness is real illness? Just ask people suffering from agoraphobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder or autophagia and so forth. Please cite your sources. So ...

...for anyone who thinks that by keeping the images is his/her personal crusade to reveal the fraud of the psychologist, (like "someone went on TV and exposed how the most common magic tricks they perform are staged") keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook nor is it a forum for unregulated free speech. Wikipedia considers itself an encyclopedia. Please note that (not only) because this image "is of great damage to the test if the stimulus material is exposed in such a way" it is considered unencyclopedic, and no peer reviwed encyclopedia would allow itself to show it. And in Wikipedia, unencyclopedic images are to be deleted, see Deletion_policy/Reasons for deletion. G ambrus 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis isn't merely a lawyer problem. This is a psychometric problem, too. We know the fact, that the pictures and the picture-interpretations stay in our rememberence. We can demonstrate the long-term priming effect in many experiment because of this (see Schacter 1987). And thanks for this effect, we can remember to the pictureinterpretations, too. Just think to the well known Jesus-figure, or see in the Perception book the 4.21 figure (Sekuler, Blake 1994) etc.! This pictures are same from the view, that when somebody see them enough time, he or she will interpret them, and will establish an attitud. This is the problem! The fact, that the psychology students can participate in a Rorschach-test just before they haven't learnt about the test yet, isn't an accident! It is very important for the psychologists, that the validity of the test won't decrease. We are making bigger problem, when the picture stay on the page, than it is deleted!!! fektom 17:26, 24 July, 2007

User has no other contributions except this deletion request Madmax32 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've right, but just look at the hungarian wikipedia. I take my part from the edition. So, I'm not an alien here. I think on the basis of this, that when you're concerned in the efficiency of your work, you just sit on the chair, and don't make anything. Have I right? fektom 16:34, 25 July 2007 (CEST)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppets comments by meat puppets and sock puppets can be ignored, due to lack of credibilityMadmax32 05:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then see edits by this user. Furtheromore it seems to me that he has added "some new information" to the topic...G ambrus 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First: Follow the link, that G_ambrus wrote, then make a conclusion on the basis of rules of the formal logic. Second: Think again about your arguments, which you wrote for the keeping the picture. Third: Before you tell us, that the psychology is not scientific, please read some interesting books from sciencephilosophy, and look for an another place to debate about this. When you want to open a new topic about the Rorschach validity, please read more scientific articles in this topic and cite those, too. Fourth: you can't handle in an irrelevant level this deletion request problem. You have to see, that we wrote some serious arguments, why problem to us if the picture stays here. We suggested a way of the debate. When you can't participate please realize, that there are more important professional arguments, than the legal problem. Fifth: Finally, please write me, why hurt to you, if the picture isn't here. fektom 15:38, 26 July 2007 (CEST)

Delete I agree with G ambrus. It's common sense not to show exact copies of those pictures, and anyway they ask us to remove them. There exists a similar picture (like Image:Rorschach like Inkblot.svg) which is suitable for demonstration in articles and anyone can create similar pictures if more needed. Misibacsi 07:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of recruiting going on the hungarian wikipedia or is there another reason you are suddenly appearing here to dispute these particular images? Madmax32 12:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[73] Hungarian Wikiproject:Psychology News section. Translation: A voting takes place at Commons about the deletion of the 1st plate of the Rorschach test. If you can, please take part. Link G ambrus 2007. július 24., 11:09 (CEST)G ambrus 14:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that being disruptive, there is no need to recruit people to spam deletion requests unless they are going to add some new information and I don't see how Rorschach concerns just the Hungarian wikipedia Madmax32 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses. "there is no need to recruit people to spam deletion requests" I did not write "Please vote for deletion", I've simlpy asked them to participate, if they can. I can't find any reason why I can't inform those who are interested in psychology about a voting in a topic in the scope of psychology.

And one more thing. If you are such an expert in law. Please prove that Misibacsi is here because of that post. It seems that he is active in Commons anyway. I am not that sure. G ambrus 09:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: 'Madmax32'! For the nth time. Please do answer my questions.G ambrus 09:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the image is not eligible for copyright anymore does not constitute a valid reason to use it in encyclopedia articles. I believe that the use of a similar image does in no way compromise the quality of the corresponding articles, while the use of the actual Rorschach image harms readers in a way they absolutely do not expect (i.e., the test becomes potentially unusable for them). Thus my recommendation is a clear Delete KissL 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have linked to this discussion from the talk page of en:Rorschach inkblot test. KissL 14:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm on en-Wikipedia, but as this isn't really a vote it shouldn't matter anyway. It's worth mentioning Rorschach like Inkblot.svg is terrible, isn't very symmetrical at all and is outright misleading. There is two issues as stake:
- Censorship. Wikipedia is not censored, and that's all needs to be said regarded any "ethics". For the record, Wikipedia is an international organisation, and I'm not a clinical psychologist nor in the US, so the ethical stance of some random US body doesn't apply to me at all, and are unlikely to apply to any admin either.
- Copyright and legality. Block outlines of the Rorschach inkblot tests have been published in multiple forms including in the book "Big Secrets" by William Poundstone, strongly suggesting they're legal. The original inkblots should be in the public domain according to US copyright law, since they were published in Psychodiagnostics in 1921 and Rorschach died in 1922[74] - check the prints on eBay with a 1921 copyright date[75] and compare and contrast with the current outline.

-81.179.73.182 16:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship: Deleting unencyclopedical content is not censorship. Presenting such content with malicious reasons could be vandalism, MPOV, etc. These images are unencyclopedic by definition. Please read my previous posts about that.

Copyright: But since it seems that common sense and good faith doesn't say much to some. I've got news for you. I have a scan form the top of the box containing the plates. I've contacted Hans Huber blahblah AG for a permission to upload it here. The following text can be seen in it: © Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe, AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994. If any of you think that thay are telling a lies, please sue them. Until then, it is copyvio to show these images. And for the record: recreations of copyrighted content are speedily deleted, too. G ambrus 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely encyclopaedic - are you saying a pic of the thing the article talks about unencylopaedic? In fact, I'm slightly surprised you're not trying to delete the articles based on the same ideas, since doesn't reading about the tests make them invalid as well? Where's the limit supposed to be? Also, I didn't call them liars, you're putting words in my mouth and setting up a straw man which I'd appreciate if you didn't do. I'm saying the plates existed in 1921, as shown by my link, and the outline could easily derivative work of a plate from 1921, as shown by my link, irrespective of the changes, and hence the newer copyright, on the content made in 1948 and 1994, doesn't apply. -81.179.73.182 22:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've cited before, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook nor is it a forum for unregulated free speech. Wikipedia considers itself an encyclopedia.

Please note that (not only) because this image "is of great damage to the test if the stimulus material is exposed in such a way"(see e-mail from the publisher shown above) it is considered unencyclopedic, and no peer reviwed encyclopedia would allow itself to show it. And in Wikipedia, unencyclopedic images are to be deleted, see Deletion_policy/Reasons for deletion. (ftom G ambrus 01:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

putting words in my mouth Please take a look at the e-mail from the publisher above. See the post by Madmax32 13:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC). I am not puting any words to anybody's mouth. I respect your opinion, as anyone else's. I am trying my best to answer all your(plural) questions.

I'm slightly surprised you're not trying to delete the articles based on the same ideas, since doesn't reading about the tests make them invalid as well? It is definitely not up to Wikipedia to decide what makes a test invalid or not.

Question: A question: do you debate that showing the picture is a threat to the test?G ambrus 23:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the page is messy, so I'm not sure who I'm replying to. You can use doublespeak all you like, but it's encyclopaedic as it's showing exactly what the article describes - I doubt you can reasonably argue against that. Please tell me which Wikipedia policy the "is of great damage to the test if the stimulus material is exposed in such a way" falls under - I think you'll find it falls into "Wikipedia is not censored" and that's it. Any issue should be solely one of copyright, and copyright alone - Wikipedia is not here to enforce any psychologists opinions on what does or doesn't make a test invalid, no more than it is censored because of good taste. Is it a threat to the test? No idea, but I don't think it's relevant. Whatsmore, even if it isn't encylopaedic in the individual Wikipedias, I don't understand how it precludes in any way its existance on Wikimedia Commons, whose existence isn't just as a repository of Wikipedia files but one of free images in its own right. -81.178.108.106 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is not a copyright violation (assuming it is indeed one of the original pictures published by Rorschach, which no one seems to have doubted so far). The fact that a recent edition of the test bears the note "© Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe, AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994" has already been brought up in a discussion of the same topic on the English Wikipedia last month (which kept the image in the article). To copy what I wrote over there:

You can't renew a copyright which has expired by the 70 year p.m.a. rule, so the 1994 copyright must refer to a new edition instead and covers only modifications or additions introduced with that edition (see also en:Wikipedia:Public domain and en:Swiss copyright law). If you don't believe this, go to this web page where you can search the records of the en:United States Copyright Office for all copyright renewals submitted since 1978, enter "Hans Huber" as claimant, and select all relevant entries on the next page ("HANS HUBER BERN, VERLAG"; "HANS HUBER PUBLISHERS, INC", "HANS HUBER, VERLAG"). You will find only records for two other books (Endemic areas of tropical infections, 2nd ed. / Dieter Stuerchler, The Life and work of Josef Breuer : physiology and psychoanalysis / Albrecht Hirschmueller). Neither does searching for "Hogrefe" or "Rorschach" turn up such an entry. Note that copyrighting a new edition - in contrast to a copyright renewal - didn't need to appear in those records in 1994, since en:copyright registration stopped being compulsory in 1989 (and doesn't imply legal benefits for a work published in Switzerland, outside the U.S.).

(In contrast, the "(c) 1948" is very likely to refer to a renewal of the 1921 copyright, since renewals had to be done in the 28th year starting from the original publication to prevent expiration [76].)

I agree with G ambrus that there should be no tolerance for copyright violations on Commons (I have myself spent a lot of times naming images with dubious licence claims for deletion). But Hogrefe would not be the first well-known company/institution which aggressively claims copyrights that it does not have. Jimbo Wales has spoken out clearly against such practices in the case of museums and galleries (specifally naming the British National Portrait Gallery, who wanted to have Image:Shakespeare.jpg removed).

Regards, High on a tree 01:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia should only accept copyright complaints in writing sent by snail mail, just as the DMCA requires, and it also means complainers without merit can be held liable (that's how youtube operates). Unsigned post by Madmax32 at 06:09, 27 July 2007 (CET)

Comment hi, i made the .svg version of this picture. i don't really care if it is kept or not, as other inkblots will achieve the same goal for wiki, IMO. but i'm a bit disturbed that some psychologists in this thread are so on edge. guys, you're psychologists! you should know how to talk to people, so that you motivate them, not harm them. and you should know how to keep your calm. just a thought. maybe spend some weeks on wikipedia, you'll see how things are being done here ;) fwiw: i see two pigs with bat-ears sucking the brains out of a frog. --Sarefo 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This debate is useless. This image should be NOT deleted! You can find the reason on the old debate summary: here!!! Thanks. --DrugoNOT 20:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep author died 1922. So copyright expired early 90s. There is also the issue of Lack of originality under swiss law that means the claim of copyright is to a degree at least questionable. The image is useful and wikimedia projects are not censored for the benifit of psychologists.Geni 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this is public domain, and I believe it is, it should be kept. This is useful in articles and entirely within the scope of the project. I see no reason to censor it because some people believe it will hurt them professionally. - cohesion 22:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it isn't just our professionally's question. We (psychologists) think to the people, who were sick, or will be sick, too. If they can meet with this picture (or the other ones), the possibility that we can define the emotional characteristics of the patient is degraded. --fektom 19:55, 30 July 2007 (CEST)

Keep. There is absolutely no reason to delete the image. The supposed effect on readers of the Rorschach-test articles might be a reason to remove it from the wikipedia articles, but that has nothing to do with Commons. Commons is not a high-profile site - anyone who is persistent enough to find the image here would find it anyway. (A simple Google search does the trick.) So there is no harm done in having it.
It is up to the Wikipedia communties to decide whether they want to show the image, leave it out, show it after a warning, or in a pulldown box, or on a separate page, or whatever. Trying to circumvent those decisions by deleting here is both somewhat dishonest and totally pointless, because any wikipedia can - if they decide so - upload the image locally and still show it. --Tgr 23:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here [77] is said that before 1992 in Switzerland the duration of copyright was 50 years after the death of the author (1922+50=1972), in many nations the duration is 70 years after the death of the author (1922+70=1992). In both case the copyright expired years ago. Maybe the Verlag Hans Huber made some derivate work that now are still copyrighted, but the original one are in PD, and if they are in PD there is no reason to delete it to put a fake. Maybe we can put in Rorschach inkblot test a litte explanation about the fact that some psychologists think that look at the pictures can invalidate further test, but also for this there isn't any reason to delete the picture. --Yoggysot 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly the original works are in the public domain. Megapixie 08:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is no copyright issue here. Commons does not follow the APA's code, and it should not. Anyone who finds the images here is also able to find them elsewhere quite easily. In short: there is no basis for deletion. --rimshot^talk 16:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; commons is a media repository, and this is a useful piece of media. The use of these images on the various wp-s is a matter for them to deal with. Jayvdb 08:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No consensus to delete. High on a tree and Yoggysot seem to have covered the copyright angle. If the publisher and alleged copyright owner disagrees, he's invited to send a formal DMCA complaint to the designated agent of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lupo 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rorschach inkblot test.gif

Info:Copyright: Since it seems that common sense and good faith doesn't say much to some. I've got news for you. I have a scan form the top of the box containing the plates. I've contacted Hans Huber blahblah AG for a permission to upload it here. The following text can be seen in it: © Verlag Hans Huber, Hogrefe, AG, Bern, Switzerland, 1921, 1948, 1994. If any of you think that thay are telling a lies, please sue them. Until then, it is copyvio to show these images. And for the record: recreations of copyrighted content are speedily deleted, too.

G ambrus 21:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)G ambrus 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image is under copyright protection, please see the title of this page, replace the picture with:Image:Rorschach like Inkblot.svg and delete it! If you want, I can replace the links on wp-s. Dorgan 18:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also the discussion of Inkblot.svg.

Delete I disagree that the image is still copyrighted, but regardless of whether it is copyrighted or not, it should be deleted. The use of the exact image has no added value in encyclopedia articles vs. the "Rorschach-like inkblot" (the purpose of the image is just to illustrate the kind of image contained in the test). By avoiding the use of the exact image, there will be no more concerns about compromising the usability of the test (and we'll possibly avoid lengthy legal conversations too). KissL 14:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See my comments here.G ambrus 19:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author, Hermann Rorschach died in 1922, thus the pic is the free domain. Can't see why derivatives should be better than the original. --Lipothymia 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because showing the original is unencyclopedic. Please do read my posts at the discussion of Inkblot.svg

Delete -- Dorgan 08:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This debate is useless. This image should be NOT deleted! You can find the reason on the old debate summary: here!!! Thanks.--DrugoNOT 20:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD due to death of author more than 70 years ago. Can't sue because it is hard to say what law is being broken if any.Geni 01:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The images themselves are no longer under copyright protection. Considering that the test has serious validity issues, it is arguably not even unethical according to the APA guidelines. J. Ash Bowie 01:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here [78] is said that before 1992 in Switzerland the duration of copyright was 50 years after the death of the author (1922+50=1972), in many nations the duration is 70 years after the death of the author (1922+70=1992). In both case the copyright expired years ago. Maybe the Verlag Hans Huber made some derivate work that now are still copyrighted, but the original one are in PD, and if they are in PD there is no reason to delete it to put a fake. Maybe we can put in Rorschach inkblot test a litte explanation about the fact that some psychologists think that look at the pictures can invalidate further test, but also for this there isn't any reason to delete the picture. --Yoggysot 03:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Media is clearly in the public domain. Any other argument is merely FUD. Megapixie 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same reasons as in the discussion of Inkblot.svg. --rimshot^talk 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No consensus to delete. High on a tree and Yoggysot seem to have covered the copyright angle at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Inkblot.svg. If the publisher and alleged copyright owner disagrees, he's invited to send a formal DMCA complaint to the designated agent of the Wikimedia Foundation. Lupo 14:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Wfm x51 extraterrestrial highway.jpg

This sign carries a clear copyright from the state of Nevada. It is not a uniform traffic sign (it appears to be a special one), so the usual rules making such signs public domain in the United States do not apply. ---Nard 22:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Interesting sign but unfortunately it is copyrighted. FloNight 22:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know there's no freedom of panorama in the U.S. and I can see the (C) sign. But what exactly on that sign makes it not ineligible for copyright? --32X 07:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes saying that it is copyrighted is enough to stop us from using it in this circumstance I think. I see no reason not to honor the copyright status of this unusual sign. FloNight 10:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uniform traffic signs that are pd-ineligible in the US include stop signs, speed signs, route designator signs, and the like. The little white outline of the state of Nevada that says "NEVADA 315" in the lower right hand corner of the sign is such a uniform traffic sign. The rest of the sign is a decoration made for tourist reasons. -Nard 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are gay. Get the fuck out, it's a traffic sign no matter what, get your lawyer apes on it. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.217.44.41 (talk • contribs)
Delete. I say delete, unless someone can obtain express permission for use from the state of Nevada. Not sure how to go about that though. Would be cool to keep it on here if possible though. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.224.60.169 (talk • contribs)
This has nothing to do with Area 51.

Deleted -- Infrogmation 19:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 24

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Panorama.jpg

Tiny image of a town, no correspondence to the description. --Cnyborg 11:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Gino il Pio has over-written another image (with a rather generic name), all that is needed is a reversion to the earlier image, and deletion of the new one, with a note to User:Gino il Pio suggesting he/she find a larger image and another name. --Tony Wills 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought that at first, and tried to revert, but I can't find any other version in the history. No matter how many times I clear the cache, the same image pops up. Cnyborg 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted the revision in question as a copyright violation. Gino il Pio stated the source as "www-comune.marino.rm.it".[79] www.comune.marino.rm.it has the following notice at the bottom: "Copyright © 2007 - Comune di Marino. Tutti i diritti riservati." He also fraudulently claimed that he was the author of the image. {{Do not overwrite}} would apply apart from the "I hope you will upload your fine image with another name" and "thank you" bits. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Robert_Surcouf.JPG

bad name : i changed the name Robert_Surcouf.JPG by Robert_Surcouf.jpg Galagorn 07:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is "duplicate" not a valid reason? Dupe is Image:Robert Surcouf.jpg. Deadstar 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Deadstar - Because Galagorn just produced this duplicate instead to simply take care that the name was changed? --FSHL 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was mistaken with the name of the image and I did not know how to rename it. If there is a solution to rename an image thank you of me the statement. That will enable me not to remake the same error. Ps:Excuse me for my approximate English. Galagorn.
I don't think there is as yet a rename option. But you can add {{badname|rightname.ext}} to the bad version and it will probably get deleted without discussion :-) --Tony Wills 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, another misplaced badname request -> duplicate of Image:Robert Surcouf.jpg --Tony Wills 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is User:Nicostella the same as User:Galagorn, both similar styles and redirects to French wikipedia. --Tony Wills 13:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. I am not Nicostella. Cordially Galagorn.

I just wondered at the 3 co-incidences, my mistake :-) --Tony Wills 08:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted badname. --Digon3 ^talk 17:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Albania123.png

Not very usefull image, just advertising website. Tomia 20:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement Pimke 19:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 21:19, 25 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.

Category:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow

i replace it with Category:Splinter Cell. 23 July 2007 User:Bayo

its only a category management, if any body can do a speedlydeletion, i will be nice. Thanks. ~ bayo or talk 09:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 19:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sacachispas_escudo.jpg

Copyright violation; see http://www.sacachispas.com/ CBM 17:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fair use Pimke 19:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, {{copyvio}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_The_Song_of_the_Nightingale_(1895).reduced.png

Large file cannot be displayed and jpg version available DoSiDo 03:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. I can only confirm that an error takes place while creating thumbnail due to invalid parameters – but I’ve got no problems displaying the full resolution image... --FSHL 11:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept of course --ALE! ¿…? 07:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_(1825-1905)_-_The_Broken_Pitcher_(1891).png

Large file cannot be displayed and jpg version available. DoSiDo 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. I can only confirm that an error takes place while creating thumbnail due to invalid parameters – but I’ve got no problems displaying the full resolution image... --FSHL 11:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 07:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Complex.svg

bad name : i changed the name Nicostella 07:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ~~:* Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 11:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)~~ --FSHL 16:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think he was trying to say it is an exact duplicate of Image:Argument_of_a_complex_number.svg (he should have used the badname template). --Tony Wills 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Actor from Israël

correct category at Category:Actors from Israel --Deadstar 09:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the category-redirect on it. Deadstar 10:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pablo_sebastian_aniceto.jpg

IMHO this is image is outside the project scope of Commons ALE! ¿…? 10:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. This image is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not out of scope. --FSHL 11:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is ultimately only used on one page [80] with a caption, roughly translated, of "Outstanding student Pablo Sebastián Aniceto, withdrew of this institution with average 9.85, upper of the history of the Polytechnical one" - which appears to be a vanity edit. If the image was used on their user page I would of course say leave it, but in this case I would agree to delete it and clean up the es: page. Perhaps a Spanish editor would like to check it out (perhaps Pablo is a notable person?).--Tony Wills 12:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Tony Wills - I really can’t exclude that pure vanity plays here a significant role – however if it’s true then I’ve no problem thereby... --FSHL 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way: Even if it was true, it would still not be very important. Because this guy is clearly unknown/unimportant. --ALE! ¿…? 08:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, COM:SCOPE --Polarlys 12:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Hindu idols

delete category, "idol" is a pejorative term. 15 July 2007 User:Rosarino

deleted (Because it was an empty category) --ALE! ¿…? 07:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:WhiteHouseCSA1.jpg

No source. Tanarus 13:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Messe-75.JPG

The same picture as Image:Nepali-Couple.JPG --Seeteufel 13:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag this image with {{duplicate|Image:Nepali-Couple.JPG}} template Pimke 17:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stemma_marino.gif

Suspected copyfraud. The authorship claims are probably not true. The image is found on at least one other website.[81] —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a similar one here Pimke 09:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Sport flags

superseded by Category:Athletic flags --Himasaram 23:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Presidencia, Template:FAB, Template:EB

The alleged source for {{Presidencia}} says Photographs of official events are available through this site and can be used, free of charge, as long as the source is acknowledged. I don't known any reason to automatically take it as a cc-by-2.5-brazil release.
Same situation for {{EB}}: Copyright © - Centro de Comunicação Social do Exército - Todos os Direitos Reservados. is assumed as cc-by-2.5-brazil
Again, but for {{FAB}}: Todos os direitos reservados

I think if this is only a missassumption and no one have a clear authorization according to our policies (= mentioning derivative and commercial usage) to foward to us there is no reason to keep these copyright tags. Lugusto • ※ 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no permission for the use of their images pretending so is violating their copyrights. Template and images will now be deleted. --|EPO| ^da: 18:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I need to add a small comment: As Creative Commons licenses contains some licensing terms works can only be released under these licenses if copyright owner either chooses or accept exactly this license. Therefore {{cc-by}} can never be the same as e.g. {{Attribution}}.

Explicit permission for unrestricted copying, modification and commercial use are as always required. --|EPO| ^da: 19:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page : http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Organiza%C3%A7%C3%B5es_que_permitem_publicar_as_suas_imagens Assures that the EB tag is valid and there was an agreement with the Brazilian Army! . I am a wikipedia beginner, please check the appropriate person , but it seems that the EB tag and corresponding images was deleted in error!!! Shouldn't you have contacted someone on the portuguese/brazilian wikipedia to check it before such a harsh action ? User:lgtrapp

This is true, but based on the old version of the Brazilian Army website. The current one claim full copyrights. Lugusto • ※ 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Image6-1.jpg

(La targeta postal que es troba en l'arxiu d'Alcoi, està editada per la llibreria Llorens, este negoci, encara que segregat, es troba encara en funcionament i edita sovint fotografies antigues alcoianes. En l'arxiu d'Alcoi desconeixen si el copyright pertany a l'autor (desconegut) o a la llibreria. Per eixe motiu , a mon pesar, demane que s'elimine. Rafa Rufino.) --RafaRufino 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. An image of 1903 is in any case PD... --FSHL 11:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any case. I just deleted images by „Joaquim Mir“ (1873–1940), there are other artists like James Ensor or František Kaván (just to mention some impressionists) who were active around 1900 but died after 1936. Ensor for example in 1949. See also http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm --Polarlys 19:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Zirland: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 21 July 2007|Unknown as of 21 July 2007]]; no license

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Viewphoto.jpg44.jpg

Image of bad quality. Image is not used or categorized. In present state no one is able to find it. --Jan Arkesteijn 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sansinbestia_logo3.gif

The logo comes from http://www.sansinbestia.com.ar/ and therefore the license is probably worng. However, I wonder if the logo could qualify as {{PD-textlogo}}. ALE! ¿…? 10:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to:

--ALE! ¿…? 10:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no objection, I will delete the images now. --ALE! ¿…? 08:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 12:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 25

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ledzeppelinsuperband.jpg

Promotional Picture, possible Copyright Vio Dr. Shaggeman 11:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearyly copyvio. Wooyi 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 21:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Milesdavis3.jpg

Possible Copyright Vio: I am pretty sure I saw this pic before on a CD cover Dr. Shaggeman 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is [82] Pimke 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found. It is on the cover of the CD I had on my desk (right behind the laptop): Miles Davis: The Very Best (Blue Note) Photographer, Francis Wolff.Dr. Shaggeman 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Copy of a fair use image on English Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Assyrian_people.jpg

Four combined images. The last image, the boxer, is not GFDL. as per the source Tarawneh 18:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about fair use then? I'm pretty sure, if we contact Nineveh.com or Zinda Magazine (from which the image originated from), they won't have any problem with giving us permission. I mean, after all, it's just an ordinary image taken by some photographer, it's not exactly ripped off from Times Magazine. — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:12 25 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Well, commons does not allow fair-use. If you can get a GFDL or PD, for the image than that would be great. Keep in mind, images from Zinda are copyrighted just as the images from the times. --Tarawneh 00:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Fraudulently relicensing works without the explicit permission of the legitimate copyright holder, whether that be Time Magazine, you or me, is copyright infringement. Also, Commons:Licensing#Material_under_the_fair_use_clause_is_not_allowed_on_the_Commons. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Lilium candidum.JPG

The image does not show Lilium candidum but plant from the genus Narcissus! But the sign is very missleading. There are lots of pictures from Narcissus plants Ixitixel 12:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 16:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the uploader, I would not mind deleting a misleading image, provided that: 1) proof is presented that the sign is misleading and 2) a refactored image is uploaded (with the misleading sign replaced, and original plant identified).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - Please use now {{badname}} in order to prevent further difficulties... --FSHL 08:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 10:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:MEinziger.jpg

duplicate file; see Image:Mike_Einziger_of_Incubus_live_2004.jpg. JD {æ} 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can/should speedy delete it, since there is nothing really to discuss. Moeron 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Zirland: In category Other speedy deletions; not edited for 4 days

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FV-DP.pdf

Propaganda and vandalism --Andres rojas22 00:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, out of scope --ALE! ¿…? 09:49, 1 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 debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Anti_Japan.svg

Divisive and inflammatory Wooyi 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 16:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FSHL . --Tarawneh 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anti_Japan.svg

Unused in any artcile or page outside Wikimedia Commons. It's reminding us in Anti-Israel flag. O sama K 08:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly racist/ethnic discrimination and unencyclopedic; delete speedy. Also, it does not document anything, as it is user-created. --Túrelio (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this image were somehow noteworthy in that it was a symbol used by a movement or organization in protest, sure, we should keep it. This image seems to be an expression of personal political opinion, and Commons is not the place to for such expression. Brynn (talk!) 02:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, What do you think about Image:Anti-UN.svg, I think it's not used by a movement or organization in protest? Will you vote for deletion if that requested? I'll do.--O sama K 09:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like we should have kept the anti-Israel flag. Commons should not be censored (within the bounds of the law). If you don't like it. Don't look at it. Megapixie (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't care. We most have a single, very clear, and agreed law for anti-logos. We can't keep this image and delete anti-Israel.--O sama K 07:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All countries are have good things and bad things. Some people anti Japanese because of some reasons. (the most famous culture is Japanese culture, Cuteness in Japanese culture, Japanese cartoons (anime, manga, moe), porn movies/cartoons/games/anime, yakusa, etc.) You can made anti Thailand logo if you want. --This user loves Krittaya. (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millions anti Israel as well, Can I do the same with it? :)--O sama K 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. From COM:PS: "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack [are out of scope]. Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept." This appears to be an original uploader-created artwork not a pre-existing design, and hence does not fall within the ambit of the second sentence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sebsequently restored. See Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Image:Anti Japan.svg. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Châteaudun (Château, Hôtel-Dieu, Église de la Madeleine).jpg

The image is licensed with CC-BY-NC-SA on http://www.flickr.com/photos/75455070@N00/284997598/, not with CC-BY-SA. --Sir Gawain 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, it qualifies for speedy deletion, there is no reason to discuss this deletion request Pimke 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bandera de Lares.JPG

Double image. There's already the same jpg image Image:Lares Revolutionary Flag (original).jpg --OliverZena 06:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using {{duplicate|Image:the-one-to-keep.jpg}} would get the job done faster :-). A binary comparison of the files shows they are identical --Tony Wills 09:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would have been easier just to contact me. I've now requested its speedy deletion. There is no need for this discussion. --Boricuaeddie 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged as a {{duplicate}} --ALE! ¿…? 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:1001_Ночь.jpg

to many Oase 11:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 16:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment It seems that the uploader, Oase, would like this image to be removed for some reason, and anyways, the image is marked with no source+no license, and I don't think the uploader would like to add them if he/she wants the image to be deleted.

no license --ALE! ¿…? 09:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Olympus E-500

empty --MB-one 12:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 16:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not valid reason for deletion ? I thought empty categories have to be deleted. Pimke 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, empty cat --ALE! ¿…? 09:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bonhamjohn.jpg

Most likely false GFDL claim EugeneZelenko 14:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what a 'false GFDL claim' is- but I know the image is a real one: I visited the gravesite yesterday.

deleted, “This file is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.” is definitely wrong for the photo of a cemetery. --Polarlys 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Gramophone Company

Empty for two months — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this category as a destination for the redirection of Category:Gramophones (ambiguous name). I have just categorized Category:HMV, one of its famous record labels, in this category. So, it is not empty at the moment. It'd not be difficult to find public domain media files for this category, so I think it is best to keep it. --Juiced lemon 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept and {{move|Category:Gramophone Companies}} added --ALE! ¿…? 10:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Picsingles.jpg

Commons does not allow fair use. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may not be "fair use" per se but the exception letting you take pictures of utilitarian objects. This work is so low resolution it couldn't be used for copyright infringement (ie making a fake record label duplicationg one of the ones in the photo). Since it can't be used for infringement I don't know if you could view it as an infringement. -Nard 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, as per Jeff. @N: Your arguments remind me of the fair use rationales on en.wikipedia.org ;-) --Polarlys 12:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tautas padome first session 1918.jpg

Image has imprinted copyright message. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Philaweb (talk • contribs) 09:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 16 July 2007|Unknown as of 16 July 2007]]; no permission

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Riga alexander gate.jpg

Image has imprinted copyright stamp. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Philaweb (talk • contribs) 09:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 16 July 2007|Unknown as of 16 July 2007]]; no permission

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Quran Recitations

All taken from [83] without proof of permission. The other parts were already deleted as copyvio ([84]) ~~Also, for many of the files the description pages were already deleted (?) so I obviously can't enter the deletion template on these.~~ It's a MediaWiki bug that makes the description pages appear missing even though they're there. -- Prince Kassad 19:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just emailed the website. should have an answer soon. --Tarawneh 00:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

files were deleted by User:Tarawneh --ALE! ¿…? 07:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:814_4.jpg

Image has a watermark, so is probably a copyvio JACOPLANE • 2007-07-25 22:17

Comment The uploader username is the same as the watermark. Same user also uploaded Image:814 6.jpg and Image:P. Barrera.jpg. Hard to say if the uploader really does own the rights, or just someone who created an account of the same name. Carl Lindberg 16:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

all deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pia09344.jpg

Is the picture copyrighted by Lockheed Martin? Look at the Credit --Uwe W. 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page itself says the image was produced by JPL (with no one else listed). The text appears to ask for credit for everyone involved in the overall project though. Hm. Maybe Lockheed Martin provided some input data used to render the image, but it seems as though it was authored by JPL. I'll go for

Keep. Carl Lindberg 15:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for same reasons as Carl Lindberg. --Bricktop 12:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Apparently image has been made by JPL (US govt). Samulili 07:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Postmeilensäule_3.jpg

unused image, no description, not categorized, non descriptive filename Jan Arkesteijn 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reasons for deletion. --FSHL 16:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it because in its present state it is just noise in the database. Nobody will be able te find a picture which is not used, not categorized, has no description, has a filename which does not describe the picture. And even the picture does not explain itself. What are we looking at? Jan Arkesteijn 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a graph pertaining to edits of Wikipedia articles. It may well be useful. Obviously categorization and descriptions would be a big help (can we ask the uploader?), but just being noise in the database doesn't harm anything, and is not a reason for deletion. We would only delete if the image is not useful for any wikimedia project, and I don't think that's the case. Deleting may be harmful for some future potential use.

Keep Carl Lindberg 16:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Wild guess, I placed it in the category "German Wikipedia". If that is wrong and no one knows where to put it, then let's reconsider deleting it. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Samulili (talk • contribs)

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Scarlet_pimpernal_macro.JPG

Bad quality, not useful, not used on any projects Ksd5 00:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. en : Is there an other picture of this flower ? if not Keep. fr : Y-a t'il une autre image de cette fleur ? si non, on garde. VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The latin name is Anagallis arvensis. William Avery 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because the image is unused, and it is at the uploader's request. William Avery 07:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Petrorhagia_saxifraga2.jpg

very low quality Chrumps 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used on lt wiki, so it appears to be useful enough.

Keep Carl Lindberg 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is used nowhere! --ALE! ¿…? 10:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was used on this article at the time I made my comment, but I guess the deletion request got someone to change it (probably for the better). As blurry as it is, it still shows aspects our other two photos in its category do not, so I see no reason to delete it. Carl Lindberg 04:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Spanish municipal flags

User:80.245.0.33 claimed the image to be copyrighted. Any Spanish users, please comment. --Jusjih 15:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to gain more consensus, as there has not been a single comment in five months. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:13, 12 December 2007 (GMT)

They are mainly basque flags, used at eu:wiki. Possibly they haven't notized. I am placing a request there.-- Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 ^{(Talk: here- es- en)} 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was my fault, as I was a beginner I thought (wrongly) all municipal coat of arms and flags were of public domain, as they had public use. When I realised of my fault, the real author contacted me and said that there was no problem as he was attributted and his webpage linked (I have the email in Basque if anyone wants to see it). I have been waiting for theese flag being deleted to upload them again, this time correctly. I hope I have explained myself properly--Janfri 20:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why don't you just correct the image descriptions?? And please forward that e-mail to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (with an English translation, please—I doubt we have many people who can understand Basque), and mention that it applies to all these images. Lupo 10:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have put a CC-BY license, to fulfil the requests shown in the permission. --Janfri 12:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Lupo 11:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 26

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Funahashi-makie-suzuribako.jpg

It seems unlikely that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. —LX (talk, contribs) 00:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It might be a misunderstanding. The uploader might be talking about the Object in the picture creator. --Tarawneh 00:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, VIGNERON * ^discut. 09:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cruise.PNG

Out of scope. Someone's idea of "funny". Plus no info about either where the painting or the photo of Tom Cruise came from (they might be copyrighted in themselves). --Deadstar 11:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Humour is of course a matter of personal taste, but the image would probably fit into some sort of 'black humour' category. But presumably it is some sort of derivative work so the original works need to be cited as part of the license. --Tony Wills 12:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete joke, no usage in other projects Pimke 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work. --Tarawneh 00:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Australis--Eiszeit--RS02.jpg

derivative of Microsoft ENCARTA Weltatlas 2001 as noted in description, a bunch of similar australian exploration maps were deleted some time ago from commons, somehow this one was missed --Astrokey44 12:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. The 'background map' has been taken from the Microsoft ENCARTA Weltatlas 2001. --Tarawneh 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Australis--Eiszeit+Schelfe--RS01.jpg

derivative of Microsoft ENCARTA Weltatlas 2001 as noted in description --Astrokey44 12:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It was a derivative work . --Tarawneh 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Scientist_stub.jpg

This is a small version of the Yousef Karsh photo of Einstein which as we all know is still copyrighted. howcheng {chat} 16:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do? -Nard 16:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "We" meaning the royal we = me. :) howcheng {chat} 18:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha. So why are the library and archives of Canada wrong? -Nard 19:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You like authorities, don’t you? Please see: Image_talk:Albert_Einstein.jpg --Polarlys 01:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Fotogafer de:Yousuf Karsh died in 2002. --Ju Ta 12:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 01:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Aegina_map.jpg

Photo of a copyrighted map of Aegina (some kind of water-park ad) . I am not sure about the copyrights in Aegina Tarawneh 02:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete derivative --Astrokey44 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. as per above. --Tarawneh 18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Af.gif

Looking at the contribution history and the nature of the work, the uploader is probably not the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<soapbox>I know there is a lot of work involved, but I really, really dislike the process of nominating peoples uploads for deletion without any evidence about the file in particular and without discussion with the uploader at least. It is a bit like we accept peoples licenses until anyone has an incling of doubt, then we demand they provide 'proof', an 'innocent until accused' sort of philosophy. A natural justice approach says look at each case independantly, not biased by history. Consider the users history when deciding what action to take when it has been determined that it is yet another cv.</soapbox>.

So what I am asking is for some evidence about each particular nomination, rather than just suspision (there are enough deletion nominations as it is, without lots of 'make work' extras :-) (I have no info about this particular image, but suspect it will fall into a similar category to the two following nom.s) --Tony Wills 12:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it is probably not the uploaders work, in addition it has no description of what it is Madmax32 15:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Comment This is the shield of the Columbian Air Force. This image looks very close to the header image used on that site, but it is not quite the same. There is a heraldic description here, and more info here. Carl Lindberg 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info: Again not Jaume Ollé's version, so I have uploaded his version here Image:Columbian_airforce_crest.gif --Tony Wills 05:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dantadd: copyvio, problematic user

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ejc-col.gif

Looking at the contribution history and the nature of the work, the uploader is probably not the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The old Columbian Army crest, by Jaume Ollé [85]. See discussion for Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Colnavy.gif. --Tony Wills 12:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, not exactly the same image, I have uploaded Jaume Ollé's version Image:Columbian_army_crest.gif which is a higher resolution anyway. --Tony Wills 05:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dantadd: copyvio, problematic user

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Colnavy.gif

Looking at the contribution history and the nature of the work, the uploader is probably not the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You are apparently right, it appears it was created by Jaume Ollé [86] and modified by Eugene Ipavec [87]. But it gets more interesting because of this w:es:Wikipedia:Autorizaciones/Banderas de Jaume Ollé, which appears to be a GFDL release (in Spanish) by Jaume Ollé of his flag images and is cited by other wikimedia pages (eg here). So if the originals are GFDL, then derivatives are too, therefore this one is. Jaume can apparently be contacted at jollec@terra.es or jolle@ctv.es if there is any more doubt about this particular image. I am happy to add all this to the image page, assuming this deletion request is now going to be closed with a keep. --Tony Wills 11:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS It is the flag of the Columbian Navy. --Tony Wills 11:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that this is a creative interpretation of a definition of the elements which make up the flag and that such interpretations are permissible. If so, the artist is free to license his interpretation under a license such as GFDL or to release it into the public domain. We must respect that choice and not make the terms of distribution any more or less liberal, and we must attribute the artist. I'll be delighted to close the request if these things can be clarified on the image description page. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the uploader just blanked the notice of this deletion request from the image, insists that he is the sole copyright holder of the work, and that it is "Free/GNU" (whatever that's supposed to mean in conjunction with the PD-self tag) and replaced all the warnings and messages from his user talk page with a hostile "go away" message. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that is a clear acknowledgement that even though he hasn't bothered to enter this discussion, he has at least seen the deletion notices ;-). I have corrected the attribution, unless he is using an alias, it clearly isn't his original work, but can now be kept anyway. --Tony Wills 05:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So the flag was a collaboration between Jaume Ollé and Eugene Ipavec? Do we have permission from Eugene Ipavec as well? —LX (talk, contribs) 10:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my references above, original created 2001, flags released under GFDL in 2004, Eugenes mods dated 2005 -> modification of GFDL image must be released under GFDL ==> Eugenes image GFDL? --Tony Wills 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining the license for modified works is required to comply with GFDL, but it's not implicit upon release of modified works; unlicensed derivatives are simply copyright violations and/or license breaches. (The CC-licenses are a bit more ambiguous on this point, but I can't find a way to read section 4 of the GFDL that would make the licensing automatic.) —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dantadd: copyvio, problematic user

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Medallacol.jpg

Looking at the contribution history and the nature of the work, the uploader is probably not the copyright holder. —LX (talk, contribs) 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Dantadd: copyvio, problematic user

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Another shot.jpg

Way too blurry. Can't see anything - could be any window --|EPO| ^da: 14:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep image is in use[88]. -Nard 16:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. Wondering why people put such stuff up.. Might have some sentimental value though you can't see what it is really. But I suppose as it is used it is within the project scope.

I was browsing through Flickr images and saw this one. Will see if there comes any further opnions here before I close. --|EPO| ^da: 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (Ok, this one used on a User page. But this can not be an argument for allowing to upload out-of-scope-images to Commons.) --ALE! ¿…? 07:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RECO0049.JPG

I think picture does not respect the acceptance criteria. Romary 19:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dalla_Terra_alla_Luna_-_075_immagine.jpg

Wrong title i'm going to sobstitute it right now -- iPork → writeme 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another misplaced {{badname}} request, he has re-uploaded it as Image:Dalla Terra alla Luna - 081 immagine.jpg --Tony Wills 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Azerbaijani People.jpg

some image sources are external links, in one case a photobucket image which no longer exists. No proof of free licensing ---Nard 16:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Ali Khamenei link is also a 404. EVula // talk // 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Grabado de La Mota.jpg

There's no reason why this image should be PD. --Sir Gawain 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble reading the signature on the picture, which may help. The castle is from the 16th century, so it might be PD-art. I can read "José del" but the last name is obscured. There's a slightly clearer version of the file at [89]. -Nard 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it "José del"? I thought it could be "del 1852" or "del 1952" giving us a year... Samulili 07:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering the castle has been around since the 1400s, it's well within reason to believe that this image is indeed in the public domain. EVula // talk // 04:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Juan Evangelista Venegas.JPG

Images from the government of Puerto Rico are not free. Author uploaded several images at en with similar issues. --64.178.96.168 20:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image is not by the government of Puerto Rico. It is free because it was created before 1923. --Boricuaeddie 23:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oops. There seems to have been a mistake by the original uploader. Please delete. --Boricuaeddie 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source link provided just goes to the main site, and not speaking Spanish, I can't easily navigate to it to even verify that the Puerto Rico government published this image. EVula // talk // 04:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

Note to our visitors This is a discussion, not a vote. Comments like "Keep, good image" are irrelevant and will not help things. If you'd like to help, please come up with research that assists us in determining if the image is either public domain or not. Also, digg article summary aside, this is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 04:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entire video as Image:Shakinghands high.OGG. -Nard 13:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as {{PD-Iraq}} but I don't think it qualifies because it hinges on the "5 years for non-artistic works" clause. This seems to be another version of the Lichtbild vs Lichtbildwerk issue (as described at Template talk:PD-Germany and Template talk:PD-Italy), so it all really depends on what the interpretation of "artistic" works is in Iraq. howcheng {chat} 22:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as uploader (obviously) and please explain how this qualifies as an artistic work. Many European countries also recognize "simple works" and protect them for less time (generally 50 years instead of 70). Iraq's 5 year clause is extreme, I admit, but that doesn't make it any less valid. {{PD-Denmark50}} was just kept at TfD. -Nard 22:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In most jurisdictions that recognize a difference between "simple" and "artistic" photographs, anything that requires the slightest bit of human creativity is "artistic". As User:Lupo says at Template talk:PD-Germany: "In Austria, it suffices for instance that another photographer would have shot a different image, and even images from webcams can be copyrighted, and in Germany, the situation is exactly the same." Maybe you're right and maybe it's different for Iraq, but without proof, we need to err on the side of caution. howcheng {chat} 23:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Austria and Germany do seem to be extreme cases, however, with discussion such at PD-Finland50Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Finland50 indicating the standard is much lower than Germany's. I'm looking for a translation of the old Iraqi copyright law. -Nard 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for the effort and I eagerly await the results of your research. What this boils down to is, does this image qualify as an "artistic" work or not in Iraq? If yes, it's still copyrighted. If no, then it's PD. howcheng {chat} 21:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 2004 the Coalition Provisional Authority modified the 1971 copyright law[90] and made copyright 50 years pma. As far as I can tell this order is still law, although it may be modified by the Iraqi government as it regains independence. The modification is not retroactive (see paragraph 27) and does not apply to this image. The PD tag needs updating though. -Nard 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I updated the tag. I welcome criticism of it. I am still looking for an English translation of the old law. -Nard 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, found one. The relevant clause is "However, with respect to photographic and cinematic works which are limited to the mechanical transmission of scenery, such rights shall expire with the elapse of five years as from the date of first publication of the work."[91] In the hustle and bustle of the meeting between Misters Hussein and Rumsfeld there doesn't seem to have been much creative choice. The cameraman was simply there. -Nard 23:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally disagree. If this were a stationary camera with no cameraman (such as a security camera), then this statement would apply. There were creative choices to be made -- what angle to shoot from in order to catch them both, where to set up the lighting, how to move the camera in order to keep them both in view, etc. These are not "mechanical" in any way. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. American officials,as in lots of other cases is Iraq :P , act as if Coalition modifications are offical, yet The Coalition Authority modification was never approved by the Iraqi parliament. The current enforced law is still the 1971 law and it states that the protection is valid for 5 years only. The Video itself was made back in 1983. It was PD in 1988. Until something new is decided in Iraq, we should maintain the 5 years protection period, and our tags should reflect the enforced law.--Tarawneh 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it entered the public domain 5 years after the end of the year it was made (counting from January 1, 1984, so it entered the public domain January 1, 1989). The new law would only make works made after January 1, 1999 copyrighted in any case. Feel free to revert my modifications to {{PD-Iraq}} if you believe the new law is not in force. -Nard 00:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Tarawneh --Madmax32 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Tarawneh - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 12:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This image, and the video it comes from, are not "the mechanical transmission of scenery", and therefore are not subject to "such rights shall expire with the elapse of five years as from the date of first publication of the work." To the contrary, both have people in them, acting on behalf of their respective governments in a photo op staged for the press, and the camera operator appears to have been responsible for moving the camera around and much of the lighting. I recommend deleting both. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article 21 of the Iraqi law:

The protection provided for in this law shall not include works published without the name of the author or its pseudonym. However, if the author or his heirs reveal his identity, the period of protection shall start on the date of such disclosure.

The work was clearly done by a government employee, but nothing more can be known.--Tarawneh 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the situation is unclear but I recommend keep until the US signs a copyright treaty with Iraq, "mechanical transmission of scenery" would definitely apply to CCTV cameras for example, I think this clip would also apply due its nature but that is debatable Madmax32 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure if this conversation is still going on, but as discussions seem to move slowly on commons... I wrote the original PD-Iraq tag (and others) following a TfD on the PD-Arab template that resulted in a consensus to replace it with country specific tags. I am not a lawyer, not an Arabic speaker, and ceratainly not an Iraqi lawyer. I based the template on an automated ([translate.google.com google]) translation of the Iraqi statute, one not-very-good English translation, and paralel translations of several other Arabic countries' statutes that shared wording. With the caveats stated above, my reading is that the statement which are limited to the mechanical transmission of scenery is meant to be descriptive, not restrictive. That is, my reading is that all photographs of events that were not created by the photographer (some Arabic countries use the term "journalistic photograph") are considered not artistic and therefore fall under the 5 year exception. I believe the law was worded to distinguish videos such as this one, from truly artistic works such as The Sound of Music. --Selket 05:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Incedently I find it amazing that Bremer was able to unilaterally alter the Iraqi copyright laws to match the rediculously over-restrictive American ones when the power was still out in many parts of Bagdad. Oh wait, the power is still out in many parts of Bagdad. --Selket 05:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't this a screencap from a video shot for and broadcast by an Iraqi TV Station? 74.70.206.55 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By default, video shot (for broadcast or not) is copyrighted. See en:Berne Convention. We're simply trying to determine if the image is "free", that is, if it can be held on Commons, as we assert that Commons products are free, rather than simply requiring that local projects (English Wikipedia for instance) would have to host it locally with some sort of "fair use" claim. It being a screencap is completely irrelevant to the discussion. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image itself has been linked from Digg, in case you see a high amount of activity here. -- ReyBrujo 23:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also led to repeated attempts to remove the deletion tag from the image -- could a Commons admin lock that page and monitor the discussion here? JDoorjam 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reddit as well... --Interiot 01:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The majority of these "keep" votes seem to be ridiculously biased, and based on absurd arguments that could be applied just as easily to a copyrighted tv show (i.e.: broadcast on Iraqi TV, historical, relevent to current affairs, and not a problem if you aren't ordered to take it down). I also doubt that this could fall under any reasonable definition of "mechanical transmission of scenery", as neither were the means mechanical, nor was "scenery" the target. Despite all this, as Tarawneh works without any author claiming ownership still fall into public domain under Iraqi law, so the image/video are appropriate.68.126.150.240
- Addendum to my previous comment, I meant to say "as Tarawneh pointed out, content published without any claim of ownership isn't protected by Iraqi law."68.126.150.240
Comment It appears N is voting to keep the image. However, the shirt another editor wears should have no bearing on what you think should be done with the image. To all of the people from digg: assuming the commons works like wikipedia, what happens to the image depends on the consensus.This is not a democracy, so a simple yes or no will not help. 72.46.10.212 00:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many things on Commons are decided through consensus, but if the image's copyright or licensing status is incompatible with Commons' policies, we cannot keep it despite its historical value. ~MDD 46 96 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't appear to be violating copyright, so I don't see why it should be deleted. It is important, relevant, and violates no copyright. Obrysii 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show the actual, currently enforced copyright laws that prove this. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting arguments. Although Iraq does have copyright laws on the books in order to comply with their obligations under the relevant copyright conventions, there hasn't been a prosecution for copyright violation in Iraq for over 20 years. Whether this image is protected by copyright in Iraq or not is irrelevant since wiki doesn't have a physical presence in Iraq. Additionally, since there is no known claim on this work by its author, it should be kept until such time that a source comes forward and makes a claim to the work. Until then, it should remain in the public domain for all to enjoy. Brian1975
- We're trying to do what's morally and legally right and responsible, not what we can get away with. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This looks like an opinion to delete, is it? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments available at Image_talk:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg. ~Kylu (u|t) 07:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no copyvio issues here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:25 27 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Keep I see no copyvio issues here too. Rakela 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as kept. -- Infrogmation 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Triangolo del fuoco.svg

I, the author of this picture allow to delete this file because I create a copy in JPEG format (the SVG does't work unfortunately). The Image:Triangolo_del_fuoco.jpg is the JPEG version. --Nicolaesse 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not a SVG expert, but if you open the file it works. However, the thumbnail does not. --ALE! ¿…? 07:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 27

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Diamond_bitch.jpg

Fair use is not allowed on commons, and it certailny doesn't look "PD-ineligible" Magnus Manske 14:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, album cover of polish band, copy violation Herr Kriss 14:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tito.jpg

PD-old for someone who was born in 1953? Sure... Magnus Manske 13:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, notorious uploader of copyvios --Polarlys 19:01, 27 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.

Image:Albert_Forster.jpg

Description states that it was taken 1939, so not PD-old Magnus Manske 14:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fm2005cover.jpg

Game cover Magnus Manske 18:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted / Fred J 19:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Apbessa.jpg

Delete no doubt Pimke 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Infrogmation: Obvious copyright violation with false licence

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Boeing_747_LCF_N740BA.jpg

Bad file name Yasobara 05:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC) ~~:* Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - I am the author of this picture. I uploaded a new file "Boeing 747 LCF N780BA-1.jpg" with the same picture. The registration number was wrong with the first upload. Please delete this image.--Yasobara 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Yasobara - Next time please use for this purpose just {{badname}}... --FSHL 08:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 10:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Herb1.svg

I sent it two times, sorry. See:Image:POL Bytom-Miechowice COA.svg Pojdulos 08:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in future you should use the {{badname|Image:Bettername.jpg}} template Pimke 09:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Digon3: incorrectly named duplicate of Image:POL Bytom-Miechowice COA.svg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pack_logo.gif

copyrighted logo Michiel1972 18:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{copyvio}} next time unless you would like a discussion about the deletion of the image. --|EPO| ^da: 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Boeing_747-4J6LCF_N747BC.jpg

This image is exactly the same as Boeing 747 LCF N747BC.jpg. Yasobara 03:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They’re from the same sources but aren’t identical just very similar... --FSHL 12:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe they are the same. They are of the same file size. Tell me what is different. If they are not the same, there is no reason to keep very similar pictures.--Yasobara 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They are in fact the exact same, byte for byte (though the thumbnails on the image pages themselves look a bit different for some reason). In the future, you can use {{duplicate}} to mark them. While this one was uploaded earlier, it is not used on wikis, while the other one is (and has a better description). So, it seems reasonable to delete this one. Carl Lindberg 04:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Shizhao: Dupe of Image:Boeing 747 LCF N747BC.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Boeing_747_LCF_N740BA-2.jpg

Wrong file name Yasobara 05:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC) ~~:* Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 12:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete - I am the author of this picture. I uploaded a new file "Boeing 747 LCF N780BA-2.jpg" with the same picture. The registration number was wrong with the first upload. Please delete this image.--Yasobara 01:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Yasobara - Next time please use for this purpose just {{badname}}... --FSHL 08:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Shizhao: Dupe of Image:Boeing 747 LCF N780BA-2.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.

Image:Marshal Tito.jpg

wrong licence, commercial use is not allowed Mazbln 21:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Source states:

Diese Grafik/Fotografie kann kostenlos herunter- geladen werden und ist für eine Veröffentlichung (ausgenommen Verwendung im kommerziellen Bereich) freigegeben. Als Urheberrechtsvermerk ist "Foto: Bundesheer" deutlich erkennbar anzubringen. Die Urheberrechte des BMLV sind durch die Freigabe nicht betroffen. Bilddaten: 91 kB bei 800 x 843 px. Austrian Armed Forces (2005) Directorate of Press and Public Information/MoD Publication of this picture except for commercial advertisement permitted. Credit as "Austrian Armed Forces Photograph" Is there no possibility to leave it on Commons? Special Austrian Military License? --Minestrone 22:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a non-commercial-only license ("The poto may be downloaded free of charge and is cleared for publication (except for commercial uses).") Lupo 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meets requirement for speedy deletion, as commercial use is excluded at source page. --Franz Xaver 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Marshal_Tito.jpg

Uploaded 5 min ago as "PD-old", now suddenly under a new name with "GFDL" - all bogus, apparently Magnus Manske 13:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, notorious uploader of copyvios --Polarlys 19:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ola_Skinnarmo.jpg

Publicity image, "free for publication." No explicit permission to create derivative works. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no doubt, this image should be speedydeleted Pimke 08:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no free license--Polarlys 12:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:North-Sentinel-Island.jpg

ESA image Phrood 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, ESA images aren’t released under any free license. --Polarlys 12:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Keba at logo.gif

The reason "because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship" seems invalid to me. The logo clearly has elements of design: italic, two colours, non standard typeface, etc. As an illustration, I assume this is sufficient to make it an original design. --Teun Spaans 09:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is clearly an original design. --rimshot^talk 14:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree Teun Spaans. Deadstar 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very obviously an original design. I would think this would be speediable. EVula // talk // 04:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dalla_Terra_alla_Luna_-_097t.jpg

Image doesn't work. Please delete so I can upload a new one. -- iPork → writeme 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. It works very well for me and if you don’t like it just replaced it by a better one... --FSHL 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks ok, I see he uploaded the same image 3 times, presumably there was some display problem, purging the page cache will probably help if he still can not see it. Delete Can the 2 identical previous uploads be deleted from the images history (how do you request that?) ? --Tony Wills 11:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image kept and old revisions deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Coursepic.jpg

Book cover, not free to use. Possibly the image is not "eliglible for copyright" but I think the design is distinguishable enough. Also, the image looks like taken from a website. Fred J 20:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very similar to this image from Amazon.com. --Moonian 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See above. This is a copyrighted book cover. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 08:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:BenKwellerACL2006.jpg

This photo depicts Ben Kweller, a celebrity who has not permitted its use for commercial purposes. As the photo has been used for commercial purposes, outside the Wiki environment, a model release would normally be required. As Kweller has not provided a model release, this image is not fully appropriate for placement in Commons. SteveHopson 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's a personality rights issue rather than copyright, someone can restrict how you use their image commercially to endorse a product or certain view, but I'm not sure if they can restrict all commercial use of their personality Madmax32 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Madmax32 - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed; there is no copyright issue. The image should be tagged with {{personality rights}} but that is all. Anyone using this photo for promotional purposes would need to get permission from the person pictured, but Wikimedia's usage would not be an issue. Carl Lindberg 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously I'm new to this. Also obvious, I should not have uploaded this image because converting it to commercial use is so easy and is so obnoxious. This file is already being used to sell ringtones and to hawk scalped tickets - both uses that the subject will likely be opposed to. So, I have a question and an observation. 1) Is there no procedure for the original uploader to delete a photo? 2) The arguments above seem circular: Commons:Project scope tells us that all content must be free, commercial use must be allowed, and media files which are available only under non-commercial licenses must be allowed. However, under the "personality rights" issue, this work is no longer available for commercial use. SteveHopson 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Same comment posted under the other 2 active deletion requests that I have made.)[reply]
- :-) Yes, this whole thing can get confusing to be sure, especially the phrase "commercial use". As the photographer, you own the copyright, which is what Commons is most concerned about as it has by far the most restrictions associated with it. However, other rights may come into play -- if the photo contains a trademark, you (or anyone else) cannot use the photo in a way which would imply a connection to or endorsement from the trademark owner, and similarly for a person, you can't use it in a way to violate their personality rights. However, those rights exist outside of copyright -- others own them, not the photographer. Commons will not accept images with a non-commercial restriction as part of the copyright license itself (an important distinction) -- this would make it incompatible with the GFDL, and so when used on Wikipedia it would technically be a copyright violation even though it is a non-commercial use, because it would violate the license of the article text (because its copyright says the text can't be mixed with non-commercial content, unless under a fair-use exception). However, other restrictions -- even commercial restrictions -- that exist outside of copyright are not as big an issue. In those cases, Wikimedia just needs to make sure that its use does not violate those other laws, which they generally do not. As a service, we do try to let users know about other potential issues for use outside Wikimedia projects (such as {{trademarked}}, {{personality rights}}, {{insignia}}, etc.) but in the end it is each person's responsibility to use the images lawfully, not yours and not Wikimedia's.
- In this case, you have no control over what others do -- if they are violating the law, they are at risk, not you. All you are doing is releasing some of your copyrights, which has no impact on others' rights, just yours. If other users are violating Mr. Kweller's personality rights, which they may be, then it is up to Mr. Kweller to do something. If they are not crediting you as the photographer, or are not indicating that the photo is under a cc-by-sa license, then they are violating your copyright and so you may be able to do something about that. As for the image here, you licensed it under cc-by-sa, which is not revocable. We normally do not allow authors to pull those back, as it is too damaging to Wikimedia to do so (especially once the images are used in articles, as this one is... great photo btw). If someone else is so disrespectful of others' rights as to use your images in that fashion, they would probably have no compunction about grabbing fully copyright-protected images off of your regular website. However, any misuse by third parties does not change the copyright status, and does not change Commons' ability to host the image. Hope this helps but it can take a long while to get even a basic understanding of the issues. Carl Lindberg 00:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LyleLovett.jpg

This photo depicts Lyle Lovett, a celebrity who has not permitted its use for commercial purposes. As the photo has been used for commercial purposes, outside the Wiki environment, a model release would normally be required. As Lovett has not provided a model release, this image is not fully appropriate for placement in Commons. SteveHopson 21:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added a "personality rights" notice to the image page. If the licence by the creator and uploader of the image is correct, it seems a valid image for Commons. -- Infrogmation 23:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Infrogmation - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously I'm new to this. Also obvious, I should not have uploaded this image because converting it to commercial use is so easy and so obnoxious. This file is already being used to sell ringtones and to hawk scalped tickets - both uses that the subject will likely be opposed to. So, I have a question and an observation. 1) Is there no procedure for the original uploader to delete a photo? 2) The arguments above seem circular: Commons:Project scope tells us that all content must be free, commercial use must be allowed, and media files which are available only under non-commercial licenses must be allowed. However, under the "personality rights" issue, this work is no longer available for commercial use. SteveHopson 20:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Same comment posted under the other 2 active deletion requests that I have made.)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:JackWhitebySteveHopson.jpg

This photo depicts Jack White, a celebrity who has not permitted its use for commercial purposes. As the photo has been used for commercial purposes, outside the Wiki environment, a model release would normally be required. As White has not provided a model release, this image is not fully appropriate for placement in Commons. SteveHopson 21:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, White may retain personality rights, but that does not mean that this original image is not correctly free licenced. -- Infrogmation 23:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Infrogmation - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously I'm new to this. Also obvious, I should not have uploaded this image because converting it to commercial use is so easy and is so obnoxious. This file is already being used to sell ringtones and to hawk scalped tickets - both uses that the subject will likely be opposed to. So, I have a question and an observation. 1) Is there no procedure for the original uploader to delete a photo? 2) The arguments above seem circular: Commons:Project scope tells us that all content must be free, commercial use must be allowed, and media files which are available only under non-commercial licenses must be allowed. However, under the "personality rights" issue, this work is no longer available for commercial use. SteveHopson 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC) (Same comment posted under the other 2 active deletion requests that I have made.)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Escudo_Xelajú.jpg

It seems unlikely that the uploader is the legitimate copyright holder of this coat of arms. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO this picture has been copied from a website, I found a similar one Pimke 08:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The direct source is probably this page (image timestamp is Oct 2004 there). I also found a larger version here. Seems like the image is a scan of a printed or painted coat of arms. It is a duplicate of Image:Escudo Los Altos de Guatemala Quetzaltenango.jpg as well. Carl Lindberg 14:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Richard-Virenque-TdF2004_1.jpg

It is a duplicate of Image:Richard-Virenque-TdF2004.jpg Morten LJ 08:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in future you should use the {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template Pimke 09:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks, I'll remember this in the future. This commons thing is a bit confusing to a newcommer like me :-). --Morten LJ 11:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added the template and delted references to the image on all wikis. --Morten LJ 17:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Richard-Virenque-TdF2004.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mucha window in St Vitus.JPG

Not covered by freedom of panorama, artist died in 1939, see also Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2006/03#Works_of_art_of_Alfons_Mucha. --Polarlys 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Image:Witraz.jpg. --Polarlys 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ Image:PraqueStVitusWindowNorth.jpg Alex Spade 11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how can a stained glass window not be considered permanently installed? FOP seems like it does indeed apply. -Nard 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interieur and we had this all before (Marc Chagall). --Polarlys 22:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czech law does not specify the work has to be outdoors to be covered. It says "any public place". I consider a church open to the public to be a public place. -Nard 22:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Czech law gives examples for public places (“on a square, in a street, in a park, on a public route or in any other public place”), no interieur (“in a church, a museum or a city hall”) is mentioned. “Public” is a matter of your interpreation here. --Polarlys 10:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mix public places and open-air place (outdoor). There are enough closed (no-public, only for personal, only for family) parks, streets and other open-air place in Czech Rep. Public place is the place where people can gathering and meeting freely, without special permission (for example, entrance fee), and public places are not only streets and parks, but also public transport (waiting rooms of public airports and railway stations, but not passenger compartments, landing strips and metro stations). Don't unit a church and a museum - first is commonly public place (no entrance fee), second is not.

Agree to Nard - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as default. And may be delete if it will be proved, that there is entrance fee to St. Vitus Cathedral. Alex Spade 11:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent from the request: There is such a fee, without paying you are just allowed to do a few steps in the entrance area. I have been there several times, but some years ago. I just found http://www.abcprague.com/2007/02/19/no-entrance-fee-at-st-vitus-cathedral-again-soon. Since 5th April 2007 there is no entrance fee to St Vitus Cathedral. But I am still sceptical regarding the defenition of „public place“ in the law (why do they just give outdoor places as examples?), could anyone translate the original text or look into a comment of it? --Polarlys 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (no FOP applicable) --ALE! ¿…? 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I've asked for consultation on cs:wiki. Let's giva chance our Czech counterparts to take part in discussion about interpretation of Czech copyright law. Radomil talk 12:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion ist at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Image:Mucha_window_in_St_Vitus.JPG. So i close this request now. --ALE! ¿…? 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Note: Restored 1 January 2010 after Mucha's works fell into the public domain.

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Images in Category:Juan Manuel Guiral

Painter born in 1970, all the images of his paintings are copyrighted. Licensing "self" incorrect as user is (likely) not the painter. They all also lack source. The article on es: wiki on this painter has been nominated for deletion. Images are:

--Deadstar 14:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 10:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Regnum_unforetelling.jpg

Not created by uploaded as claimed, in which case it wouldn't be such a crappy resolution... Magnus Manske 20:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Another delete it because I am suspicious request? Resolution isn't a criteria. Please provide some reasonable evidence that there is a problem. --Tony Wills 12:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly Speedy This is an album cover from the band Regnum Umbra Ignis (one, two, and he's out!). There is no evidence that it is, in fact, in the public domain, and there's every reason to think otherwise. Note also that the uploader has a history of uploading copyright violations. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sounds like evidence :-) --Tony Wills 07:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 15:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ames room.JPG

Bad JPEG compression. SVG version available: Image:Ames room.svg Alex valavanis 07:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 12:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though this has been my upolad: Since this old version isn't used any longer in any wikipedia it should be deleted. --Zinnmann 22:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tag it with {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template. Now there is a SVG version of the same picture and there is no reason to keep it longer. Pimke 08:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it definitely OK to use the {{duplicate}} tag? I thought that was only for exact copies. The two images are slightly different here, as they are in different formats and the people have been replaced with circles. - Alex valavanis 08:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Yes {{duplicate}} is for exact duplicates. --Tony Wills 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two images are different representations of the same thing, they have different aesthetic qualities, one has sketches of people, one has coloured blobs - the choice of which one is 'better' is a matter of taste and application. Commons has no objection to multiple representations of the same thing (unless they are exact duplicates). Not being currently in use is not sufficient deletion criteria either. In this case I don't even think a {{SupersededSVG}} is appropriate as the SVG image is not just a vectorized version of the bitmap. --Tony Wills 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: See also discussion Commons_talk:Deletion_requests/Superseded --Tony Wills 11:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CIMG0586.JPG

Unuseful penis photo. there are already many photos in penis Fred J 19:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it has no source information, I have no objection to a speedy delete. -- Infrogmation 23:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above Pimke 08:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy delete as per "no more damned cock pictures, please". Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Siebrand 17:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Alexander wurz.jpg

This picture is a fake. The head and the body are from different photos. --AngMoKio 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown that both of the two original images used in this obvious photoshop are free licenced. -- Infrogmation 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another Flickr account with doubtfully licenced images. William Avery 00:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an absolutely fake picture.--KaragouniS 09:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Max mosley.jpg

Photo is most likely a fake. Head and body from different photos. --AngMoKio 21:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless both images used in this obvious photoshop can be demonstrated to be free licenced. No point in keeping unless this can be shown to be a notable or valuable example of a photoshopped image even if so. -- Infrogmation 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pic is not made from two images rather its background has been changedUosgd 15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that it looks like the background has been changed. I have requested clarification from Mr.Hamid, and a better image from the admins of Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. It looks like the source is Mr.Hamid's photo DSC02196, which is licensed as "All Rights Reserved" which is no free license, and Mr.Hamid reversed the image, changed the background, and changed the color of Mr. Mosley's tie. I think we can use this image, as Mr.Hamid modified it, according to his licensing. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~If the image has been created from a copyrighted (All Rights Reserved) photo it is a derivative work and as such is also copyrighted. The CC-By-SA licence is invalid.~~ An edited picture is hardly the best thing to use on a factual article either. Alexj2002 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my last comment, the licence would be valid if Mr. Hamid had also created the original. However that also looks fake so unless we can find the original source of the photo, delete. Alexj2002 23:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What looks fake about DSC02196, other than the black square under his right armpit? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the background got changed. --AngMoKio 07:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosely appears to have been cut out with the result he is slightly cut off in places (see his hair), and both the foreground and background appear to be in focus which would not be possible with the apparent distances they are apart. Alexj2002 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the face shot is accurate, and it is the best that we have for a free license image of this person. -- GURoadrunner of the F1 WikiProject / English Wikipedia —The preceding incompletely signed comment was added by 71.226.60.137 (talk • contribs) at 11:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but please be more accurate in your signature (case does make a difference), and please list your membership in that WikiProject on its page. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Davnel03 11:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC) - member of WP:F1.[reply]
Delete - Unless the original photograph can be produced and be shown to be under a suitable licence, in which case delete and use the original. William Avery 11:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 14:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Incanto_02-rs.jpg

I do not think this is self-made Fred J 20:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is kinda interesting. I don't speak Spanish, but it seems "Incanto" is a singing duo group of a Valeria Mangano and Pablo Oscar Balestri, who I assume are the ones pictured. The username Incanto.vyp seems to be directly related to them (vyp = "Valeria y Pablo" maybe?). It looks as though that username has done some promotion for the group and its album on es wiki, and this image was part of that. A Google search does turn up this page, which has obviously the same image at higher resolution, but it is a tighter crop than the image uploaded here. Furthermore, the commons image still has pretty full EXIF information, whereas the one on the website does not, indicating the uploader is the photographer or at least obtained the photo directly from the photographer. The image doesn't show up anywhere else that I can see. It seems quite possible that the upload did in fact come from the group, or someone close to them. Carl Lindberg 13:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carl, i'm Valeria from Incanto sorry for my english, i do post this image myself, i didnt think that was a way to promote ourself because the only way that people search for Incanto is because wants to know more about it and not because wikipedia is promoting us. I thought that if someone wants to know a little bit about us, wikipedia its always a good option. If im wrong about it please let me know and i wont post anything else. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Incanto.vyp (talk • contribs)

Don't worry about your English -- it's far better than my Spanish :-) I'll see if I can explain. There are two issues -- one, editing your own article on the Spanish Wikipedia, and two, uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons (which helps all the Wikipedias, and Wikinews, and others). I am not familiar with the policies on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I'll try to link to those. Normally a music group with a released album is enough reason to have an article (see es:Wikipedia:Artículos sin relevancia aparente), so that should be OK. However, you need to be very careful when editing an article directly about yourself (see es:Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral and especially es:Wikipedia:Páginas de autopromoción). Do not be surprised to see your edits trimmed down or heavily edited. However, those are all issues for the Spanish Wikipedia, and are not a direct concern here on Commons. Here, we are only worrying about the images themselves.

Since your images do appear to be of a notable subject, we would definitely like to have any free images you want to upload. The images must be licensed appropriately by the copyright owner (see Commons:Sobre las licencias). When you uploaded this image, you marked it as being in the public domain (see es:Dominio público), which means that anyone can use it with no restrictions at all. This is perfectly fine as a license. However, in normal circumstances the copyright owner of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, not the person who is pictured. You indicated that you are the copyright owner of this photograph, which seems somewhat odd because you are in it, and so were probably not the photographer :-) This is why it got listed here -- it did not appear to be self-made, and often these types of photographs are just taken from a website without permission. This case seems to be a little different, as you obviously have access to the original image. However, we do not know the details of the copyright status. Does the original photographer own the copyright, or do you completely own them? If the original photographer does own some or all of the rights, does he/she also give permission, and does he/she want credit? I honestly don't know what the situation is with photographs like these. If you do own the full rights to the image, then it is perfectly fine and we should keep it as-is. If the original photographer still owns some of the rights, we would need his/her permission as well, either to release it to the public domain, or one of the other acceptable licenses. Note that people outside of Wikipedia will be able to use the image as well. Hope this helps, and thanks for replying. Carl Lindberg 01:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you so much for explain all this to me!. =o) When we hired this photographer we made it with the conditions that we can have all the rights about all the pictures. But i think that i should give him some credits equally. How do i prove that uploading these images on wikipedia commons i dont make a copyright violations. Thank you so much for replying and being so kind. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Incanto.vyp (talk • contribs)

I think your word is enough ;-) Sometimes with third parties we also like emailed permission so it can be archived, but since you aren't a third party I don't think that's needed here (someone correct me if I'm wrong). But, the copyright ownership information does need to go on the image page. In the Author section, you can add the photographer's name, and also mention that all rights are owned by you (or Incanto, whatever the agreement was). You can put in the information in Spanish for accuracy's sake I think; we can translate later if need be. (On the image page, use the "edit" tab at the top to edit the existing text.) If you could put in a description of the image, that would help too ;-) Also put the same information into Image:Incanto_01-rs.jpg. As for this deletion request, we should

Keep these photos. Carl Lindberg 06:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To summarize, the uploader (Incanto.vyp) is a member of the music group pictured, which owns all rights to the photographs per contract with the photographer. They have chosen to release these lower-resolution versions to the public domain, so there is no problem. Not self-made, but it is self-owned, so the PD-self tag is correct. The descriptions on both photos uploaded have been updated to indicate this. Carl Lindberg 14:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Samulili 08:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Repeated nomination

doubtful claim of self-authorship -Nard 17:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've been through this before (see previous deletion request). It is not self authored, but the uploader has full copyright ownership. Carl Lindberg 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. No new arguments that would change the previous result. --Mormegil 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:124690670_43a5156644_m.jpg

Current licence on Flickr is Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0, but Commons uploader used GFDL licence tag, so I don't think there can be any benefit of the doubt about the Flickr license having been changed. William Avery 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bam EVDOPCMCIA.jpg

uploader listed http://pdphoto.org/PictureHome.php as the license of this picture, but searching for Bam does not turn up this photo. I assume that this image got removed there because it is a copyrighted advertisement? On http://www.iusacell.com.mx/ i see no PD statement. I therefore listed it for deletion. --Teun Spaans 04:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Im very sorry, I copied the license code from another device image and I guess the license on it was directed to http://pdphoto.org/PictureHome.php as you say. The image I got it from searching on Google: (http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=es&q=BAM+Iusacell&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda+de+im%C3%A1genes)

I was unable to pick one kind of copyright license. Can you help me please? - 27 July 2007

I would be willing to help you if I could. The source seems to be http://articulo.mercadolibre.com.mx/MLM-15348838--tarjeta-bam-de-iusacell-di-no-a-la-disfuncion-conectil-_JM. That holds a clear copyright notice. Unless we can find the photographer and can pursuade him to release the photo into the public domain, or can get such a statement from the company, this imgae will have to go. Teun Spaans 09:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I myself have taken a photo of it, uploading.

I think that if you take a photo yourself, and upload that, it would be ok. :-) Teun Spaans 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image is copyrighted. Deadstar 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 08:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ths_coleman_hawkins.png

No valid proof for "life of the author plus 70" Dr. Shaggeman 15:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one might be PD as it appears to have been published in the US before 1923 Madmax32 15:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what the tag is saying ;-) Tag says PD_old, which is clearly wrong. Dr. Shaggeman 15:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a 1921 (pre 1923) schoolbook. Would changing the license tag to PD_US (or whatever) solve the issue? --Alien life form 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, but I am not an expert on US laws. Dr. Shaggeman 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with PD-US tag. William Avery 00:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to William Avery - Not relevant for deletion. --FSHL 08:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Topeka High School year book” is obviously no proper source. --Polarlys 10:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you doubting w:Topeka High School had a yearbook in 1921, or that this picture comes from it? William Avery 14:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It tells us nothing about the author, which is important for usage outside of the US, if it would be a 70+ PD it could be used in many more projects. Therefore the source is rather poor. I would not doubt that it was done 1921 as w:Coleman Hawkins was born in 1904, so he was 17 that year which is reasonable. However, with that source it would be possible to use this image in 2021, if we would know the author and his day of death we could maybe use it already. Dr. Shaggeman 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to US law, anything published before 1923 is public domain, and if the date is correct I would agree it's PD because yearbooks are published the date it was taken, the photographer most likely did the work for the school in question Madmax32 20:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not completely right. It is PD in the US but not e.g. in Germany. So it is just PD-US if it was a PD 70+ than it would be PD also in Germany (and several other countries). So it is important to know the author and when he died. And besides that it would be better to know at least the name even from a scientific point of view. Dr. Shaggeman 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lupo said the pre 1923 US images are PD because the German copyright law back then was a copyright term for photographs of 10 years since the publication until 1940 when it was changed to 25 years since publication Madmax32 05:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that? I don't remember having done so... If I did, I hope it is some old comment. I don't think today it's correct. Germany has had a bilateral copyright treaty with the U.S. since 1893, by which works of each nation are copyrighted in the other by the other's laws regardless of their copyright status in the source country. This treaty is still in effect, and means that Germany doe not apply the "rule of the shorter term" to U.S. works. I don't know what German legislation says or would say about pre-1923 U.S. works. However, our criterion is "PD in the source country and PD in the U.S." The source country is the U.S. in this case. The image fits {{PD-US}} (pre-1923), and that's good enough.

Keep But if someone can find out who took that photo and when he died, that'd of course be even better. Lupo 22:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Samulili 08:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:MarcWallenberg-jr.jpg

According to http://www.wallenberg.org/arkiv/5_3_6.htm from where the image appears to be taken, Wallenberg was born in 1924. According to the license tag, the photograph was taken no later than 1943. Wallenberg does not appear to be a teenager in this image. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there can be some demostration that his image is somehow free licenced. -- Infrogmation 23:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no doubt Pimke 08:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure. The license tag says that Swedish photographic pictures (such as press photos, as opposed to photographic artistic works) are PD if created before the end of 1968. This person died in 1971, so that situation does seem quite possible. Carl Lindberg 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Fotografiskt bild, not fotografisk verk. Samulili 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Luciele_di_Camargo.jpg

the flickr uploader at http://www.flickr.com/photos/savaman/74086808/ does not appear to be the copyright holder Fred J 19:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only considered the license, {{Cc-by-2.0}}. I uploaded thinking it was good! I'll pay attention!--Melancholyblues 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Jackson_Antunes.jpg

As above: From http://www.flickr.com/photos/savaman/7448937/ but the uploader does not appear to be the copyright owner Fred J 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I'll considered the image was under share alike license, I uploaded thinking it was good! I'll pay attention! --Melancholyblues 22:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:VICTOR_WAGNER.jpg

As above, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/savaman/131972205/ Fred J 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I considered only share alike license! I'll pay attention! --Melancholyblues 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 15:11, 23 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.

(Old request reopened today)

Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png

Info Logo with ® Linksys, a division of Cisco. This logo comes from a software which is GPL licenced, but the licence of the logo is unclear. Yann 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the time I downloaded it, the GPL Licensing center at http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ stated that the file was provided under the GPL. I left detailed instructions on how the image was extracted from one of their gzipped tarballs. Later on, the wording on the GPL code center was probably changed to state that the files are "under one or more open source licenses" to allow for source code that is under other open licenses like the MPL license. Jesse Viviano 17:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created a newer proof because the old notice at the top of the Linksys GPL code center has been changed. It is below:
Converted from a GPL'd GIF image. To get the original GIF image, go to http://www.linksys.com/download/. This will redirect you to a dynamically generated URL, which will change every time you access any page on Linksys's website and therefore should not be copied here because it might not work the next time. Type in "WRT54GL" in the search field. Select Version 1.0 in the combo box under "Locate Version Number". You will notice that the current firmware revision is 4.30.9. Follow the hyperlink that states "Click here to view GPL Code". This is the proof that the file for the 4.30.9 firmware is under the GPL. Then look for WRT54GL under product name. Download WRT54GL_v4.30.9_US.tgz, which is a 179 MB file. Gunzip it into a 705 MB tarball. Untar the resulting tarball. It will generate a directory named WRT54GL_4_30_9_1101_US, which might be found in the directory WRT54GL_v4.30.9_US or not depending on what program you used to untar the tarball. Go to WRT54GL_4_30_9_1101_US/release/src/router/www/cisco_wrt54g_m/image, and the logo will be contained in the file UI_Linksys.gif.

Jesse Viviano 20:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not copyrighted. --Rtc 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some creativity was used to create this logo, so it is copyrighted. However, Linksys licensed it under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 21:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not enough creativity for copyright protection for something that is applied art. Applied art can be protected by copyright only under rare circumstances. That is so because these things can already be protected by design law and it costs money to register them, so a copyright protection would make it possible to circumvent this fee. Please also read w:Wikipedia:Public Domain#Fonts --Rtc 00:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Dodo 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it truly was included in GPL software, then it is free: for discussion of trademarks that have been licensed in GPL software, see [92], [93], [94]. It is still subject to the usual trademark protection however. en:user:Nadav1 70.21.22.27 09:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's under the GPL. PatríciaR ^msg 13:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 12:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Old discussion ends here and the new discussion follows:)

Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png

The Linksys Logo is copyright by Linksys® and Cisco Systems Inc.®; it never released under the GPL. It can be inferred from the usage of "®" in the logo (which explicitly means that it is a registered trademark) that it is not GPL. The GPL software code it is found with does not necessarily change the logo's status to be free as well. No written proof from Linksys has ever been given which says the logo itself is GPL. (And if this logo is GPL, all Linksys logos are GPL, since they differ in color only; this has never been confirmed by Linksys, who only say their content is copyright.) An SVG version of this logo (with more suitable colors) is also available on Wikipedia with an appropriate fare use rational. You can't just claim a registered trademark is GPL simply because the company's software is. Althepal 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(R) does not mean that is coparighted, that is (c) sign but that it is registered trademark. However, we treat copyright here not trademark issues. That is why we have {{Trademarked}}. --ALE! ¿…? 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linksys owns the copyright to all their material. Logos and other works do not require the © symbol to be copyright, yet Linksys does mention copyright on their website and with their software. The logo itself, however, does contain ®, which means it is a registered trademark. I don't buy the claim that GPL code makes the logo of the company as GPL. Althepal 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I personally tried contacting Linksys to get a statement one way or the other at both pr@linksys.com (email address didn't work) and at linksys-opensource@linksys.com (no reply) without success. Someone who wants to make this claim should certainly call them or email them before making the assertion. I'm confused as to why it is almost a given at the Commons that the Linksys logo is GPL. Althepal 22:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you GPL an item, you still own the copyright on it. You just gave permission to others to use it freely under the GPL's terms. Jesse Viviano 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true, it doesn't apply.: I quoted below where Linksys says that all content on their website, including their trademarks are copyright and may not be used without explicit written permission from Linksys. Althepal 05:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The SVG version of the logo is subtly different to the real Linksys logo on their boxes. Also, it has no source. Third, SVGs are not allowed for fair use images on the English Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 22:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently updated the SVG version; I got it from brandsoftheword.com (soucred), and it is no longer different from the actual logo. Fair use svgs are allowed on Wikipedia, as is noted on the image's page.. Althepal 04:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to ALE! - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 08:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Fair use is not allowed on the Commons, and there is no proof that this is GPL, not even an effort by anyone (except myself) to get a written statement from Linksys. Just because someone CLAIMS that it is GPL with some illogic and irrelivent "proof", therefore that is accepted and NO ONE is allowed to change that claim. Yeah, right. If no one can make a real argument or bring a real source that says the Linksys logo is GPL (aside from some of the the company's software happening to be GPL), how on Earth is that accepted as default? Althepal 04:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I already proved that this was released under the GPL. Therefore, this image is freely licensed under the GPL. Jesse Viviano 22:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are more reasons that this can be considered GPL. The GPL is an all-or-nothing deal. You can only distribute something under the GPL if it is comprised entirely of GPL-compatiable parts. Since the firmware is built with GPL components from both the Linux kernel and the GNU operating system, everything must be licensed under the GPL. Also, the firmware's source code package includes the images so that one can build the firmware with the included Makefile and have everything turn out right. Jesse Viviano 01:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't buy it. An example of something which is not all or nothing is Wikipedia; it is GPL, yet includes non-GPL images. Firmware which is GPL can be packaged with logos under a different license. Get a written statement from Linksys if you're so sure, but don't make claims about the logo of a company being free. Althepal 07:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, Wikipedia distributes its text under the GFDL, not the GPL. Interestingly, the only reasoning for allowing non-GPL images in Wikipedia at w:Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Copyleft licenses that I could find could be called suspect. The reasoning is that only the pointer is GFDL'd, and that the image is called up by the MediaWiki software when interpreting the code. Can someone please clarify why this is allowed? Jesse Viviano 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, sorry about the confusion on this point. Althepal 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is another proof. Please see this old page from the Internet Wayback Machine. It states this: "The files available on this page have been provided under the GNU General Public License (GPL)." I could have finished this business if I had thought about the Wayback Machine a long time ago. Since I extracted the image from the file WRT54GL-US_v4.30.7.tgz which is on this page, this proof is valid. Jesse Viviano 14:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone has to ask Cisco. Because they are the owner of Linksys and will also let the trademark Linksys die soon (see: [95] in German) --ALE! ¿…? 15:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (800) 546-5797 (Option 3) is their number. You can call, and I'll take your word for it. But if Linksys says that their logo is GPL, that would by default make all derivatives of that logo (including color differences) GPL as well. But I doubt that it is GPL; it is found on products you buy in the store, for example. Althepal 18:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - On Cisco's website, they say, "The trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this Web Site are the property of Cisco or other third parties. Users are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of Cisco or such third party which may own the Mark." and "Linksys" is on their list. Since this means that the Linksys logo cannot be used without written permission from Cisco, that doesn't fit in with the GPL. This is sufficient proof, and it is improper to claim otherwise.'
I think I found my proof. From the Linksys Terms and Conditions:

"The trademarks, logos and service marks ("Marks") displayed on this Web Site are the property of Linksys or other third parties. Users are not permitted to use these Marks without the prior written consent of Linksys or such third party which may own the Mark. "Linksys" is a registered trademark of Cisco Systems, Inc. Please see the complete list of Linksys Trademarks." The Linksys logo is on their web page. I don't think that means it is GPL. Althepal 18:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- And I think the following also means their stuff is protected and copyright: "Linksys hereby authorizes you to copy materials published by Linksys on this Web Site solely for non-commercial use within your organization (or if you are a Linksys Partner, your customer's organization) in support of Linksys products. No other use of the information is authorized. In consideration of this authorization, you agree that any copy of these materials which you make shall retain all copyright and other proprietary notices in the same form and manner as on the original. Except as specified above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any patent, trademark or copyright of Linksys or any third party. ALL CONTENTS ON THIS SITE ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED HEREIN, NO PORTION OF THE INFORMATION ON THIS WEB SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM, OR BY ANY MEANS, WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM LINKSYS. VISITORS OR USERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO MODIFY, DISTRIBUTE, PUBLISH, TRANSMIT OR CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND ON THIS SITE FOR ANY PUBLIC OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES."
  - I rest my case, and think that these quotes from their Terms and Conditions are sufficient to do away with the notion that their logo is GPL, at least until you ask Linksys. (Why do you try making arguments when you could just call or email them and wait? I have again emailed Cisco directly; perhaps I will try a Live Chat at different hours.) Althepal 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get ready! I finally got an email from Linksys saying that I would get an answer within 24 hrs. Althepal 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still waiting for my answer... Anyone else try contacting them? Althepal 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This logo has one of the most convoluted arguments for being GPL I've seen yet! Style points for that :) , but I'm not sure I am convinced that LinkSys intended their logo to be GPL, even if one could argue strictly that it came out that way. We need to do the right thing, whenever possible, and absent some statement from LinkSys that this is their intent, deletion seems potentially prudent. But I'm seeing a more general problem here, what ARE we to do about logos? Category:Company logos has quite a few. Some of which the uploader asserted are just standard typefaces and thus ineligible. I think a more general discussion is in order. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I checked out all the company logos found on the commons, I was VERY surprised at how many copyright logos were claimed as being not copyrightable. Almost none of them were entirely in standard font, and they all had trademarked company names written as their recognizable logo. It's a bit shocking to know that a company could work on a logo and then get someone on the Commons to just claim that it is not copyrightable. I'm all for discussion on the topic, but I don't know where that would be held. Althepal 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned this issue on Commons talk:Licensing which may be a more general place. So far not too much discussion but that hopefully will change. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to get through to Linksys technical support on the phone (the guys in India). I asked the guy if the Linksys logo is free to use under the GPL license, and he didn't know what that meant. After explaining that GPL stands for General Public License, he seemed to think that it was under the license (but he wasn't specific that he understood how it was released or if he knew the difference between one license type and another). However, I really doubt if he understood what he was talking about, especially since he had no idea what GPL was at first. He told me that this isn't his area of knowledge and that I should contact Customer Support (which directed me to tech support). So I emailed Cisco support again. Hopefully I'll get an answer from a knowledgeable and qualified person, but the answer from tech support does make me think. (Nevertheless, Linksys has specifically said that all content on their site is protected and copyright, and inferring GPL status from firmware is very twisted.) Althepal 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is not copyrightable in the first place (in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable even if custom). The company wouldn't care about that anyways; it is trademarked which limits almost all usage. It can be used on the company page itself though, which is enough reason for Commons to host it. There are vast differences between copyright and trademark law and it appears to me they are getting very much confused here. Carl Lindberg 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not simple typeface; it is modified text. Either way, that doesn't make it GPL. Althepal 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very simple typeface, simpler even than most standard typefaces. Second, in the U.S., typefaces are not copyrightable at all (even custom ones). You need to have ornamentation separate from the shape of the letter itself (say something like this) to qualify. As for the GPL... harder, but maybe. Linksys shipped a version of Linux, so they had to license any changes under the GPL as a derivative work. If the logo was part of that work (like say shown in a startup screen maybe), then it very well may be GPL. If they released a package saying all files in the package were licensed under the GPL, and the image file was in there, then maybe (note though that it would be just that specific image file contained in the package, not any logo of theirs you can find anywhere). I'm sure that could be argued either way. I doubt Linksys would care anyways since again it's the trademark which is more important, which is not affected. But in any event, I don't think this is eligible for copyright. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if the logo is GPL or non-copyrightable, the SVG should be moved to the commons and there is no need for the PNG. Althepal 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This I can agree with ;-) For the GPL argument, you may need to make the SVG using the GPL'ed bitmap as a source; you probably can't just use any version you can find. There is also the argument that the source text of an SVG/EPS/PDF file is copyrightable even if the corresponding bitmap image is not. Carl Lindberg 03:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyright icon/logo and I re-draw it, that is still copyright. If there is a GPL icon/logo and I re-draw it, it is GPL. If the logo's status is GPL, all derivative works (everything that looks like it, i.e. the SVG version) is also GPL, regardless of the source. Since it would theoretically be easy to simply vectorized the PNG and modify the colors, the source doesn't change the status--It's all from Linksys. BTW: Still no reply from Linksys or Cisco. Althepal 18:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily... an author could conceivably release a low-resolution image under the GFDL, while retaining full copyright on the original high-resolution image. There is nothing wrong with that, and the GFDL license does not mean that the high-resolution version can be used under the same license. Logos are a bit harder to define, since all versions are supposed to look the same, but in reality only the bitmap released under the GPL'ed license is free, not any version you get from their website (unless it's the same exact image), as the GPL'ed version is a derivative of those, not the other way around. You are correct about making a derivative work of the GPL'ed image though; that should be fine. Carl Lindberg 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I don't think their logo is GPL. There is such a thing as a limited GPL license (which might make it so some files contained aren't GPL), and Linksys has never said that their logo is GPL. I think that until someone can actually get a written statement from Cisco, the default should be that it is a copyright trademark. And again, if this does turn out to be GPL, so is the SVG. Either way, there is no reason to have this instead of the SVG. Althepal 20:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listen: I have proof that software licensed under a free license (in this such as LGPL) can have a non-free logo bundled, a proof which makes the "proof" for this logo being free meaningless. Here it is: OpenOffice.org is free under the LGPL, but the logo (which is found in the software) isn't free. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoArt--OOo_logo_license See? A logo contained in LGPL software isn't free. THERE's REAL PROOF. I rest my case that there is no reason to call this Linksys logo free and thus this should be deleted from the commons. Althepal 06:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the documentation in the package lists it as not being licensed, then yes, that is different. Note that the GPL is a bit more stringent than the LGPL; if the logo is part of the actual kernel software it may not be so easy to disassociate it. However, the point is moot -- this logo is {{PD-ineligible}} in the first place (typefaces are not copyrightable in the U.S.), so there is nothing to copyright. It's trademarked obviously, but that is a separate concept (with utterly separate laws, restrictions, and legal history) from copyright. Carl Lindberg 20:20, 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.

Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png

See Commons:Deletion requests/Image:GPLLinksysLogo.png for previous debates over this image

No, I do not think this is under the GPL. The GPL requires that the GPL's copyright notice be placed inside EVERY file used in a GPL licenced program that is covered by the licence (for all I know). This image does not contain any notice, and thus should not be assumed to be under the GPL. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The license is {{PD-textlogo}}, not GPL. The issue is moot (see the previous deletion requests). And as far as I know, no, the GPL does not have to be placed in every file -- if there is a license for an entire package, without any exceptions listed, that would cover it. Placing in every file is recommended but that is not always possible. But as I said, this is a moot point for this image, as it cannot be copyrighted in the first place. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a hard one. It's either GPL or PD-textlogo... but it's borderline PD-textlogo. J.smith (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's anywhere near the borderline ;-) -- this is text-only. One horizontal line doesn't change much, I don't think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Kanonkas_(talk) 14:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Thehawk.jpg

No valid proof for "life of the author plus 70" Dr. Shaggeman 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's from the 1939, so it might be PD in the US if the copyright wasn't renewed or it wasn't published with a copyright notice Madmax32 15:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no proof for that too. Dr. Shaggeman 15:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I guess someone would need to check whether it was renewed in the copyright office to prove that, the poster seems trivial except the logo of the nightclub Madmax32 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly's Stable went belly up before 1960 (actually, before 1950, methinks). The logo (which was likely never copyrighted to begin with) and mention of the club and Hawkins' name are the only interesting part of the picture. How does one go about to prove that no copyright exist any more on such a thing?--Alien life form 16:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it might not be easy. But as we explain to people on the OTRS every day it has to somehow be proven. Lets say image is ~ 70 years old. Than we have to believe that the author did the image and died the next day. So we cannot believe in PD-old. Sure the image has a rather pure threshold of originality, however, as far as I know that does not play a role on Commons. Dr. Shaggeman 16:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/training/Hirtle_Public_Domain.htm Madmax32 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this is indeed a poster, it was published in the United States without any notice of copyright before 1960, and is hence public domain by US law. -- Infrogmation 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as Kept per above. Changing tag to "PD-US". -- Infrogmation 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Yemetz_1931.jpg

PD-Ukraine license tag used on a photograph signed "Bloom, Chicago". This looks like a US work to me. William Avery 21:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment who is the subject and is it really taken in chicago? Wooyi 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is w:Vasyl Yemetz, who spent considerable time in the US. The picture is captioned "Vasyl Yemetz 1931 Chicago." in the english wikipedia article. William Avery 07:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bloom was a fairly well known photograph studio in Chicago in the era. -- Infrogmation 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, not a PD-Ukrane work as claimed -- Infrogmation 02:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mido-Suji Monument.jpg

I think that this photograph is copyright violation of the sentence.

日本語: この写真は文章の著作権侵害と思われる。

--KENPEI 19:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you. Deleted. / Fred J 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dotonbori-Signboard2.jpg

I think that this photograph is copyright violation of the sentence.

日本語: この写真は文章の著作権侵害と思われる。

--KENPEI 19:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you. Deleted. / Fred J 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kazeno-Haruka5.jpg

I think that this file is NHK(Japan Broadcasting Corporation)'s copyright violation of the sentence,photography and illustration.

日本語: このファイルはNHK（日本放送協会）の文章、写真、イラストの著作権侵害と思われる。

--KENPEI 20:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you. Deleted. / Fred J 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

YORO CIDER

Copyright violation of label picture.

日本語: ラベルの絵の著作権侵害

--KENPEI 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you. Deleted. / Fred J 22:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 28

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Andrés de Santa Maria

Artist died in 1945, therefore the works are copyrighted both under the European 70 years and the Colombian 80 years pma rule. This applies to:

--Phrood 10:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, the copyright hasn't expired yet Pimke 08:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 12:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Huygens_Landing_Site.jpg

ESA image, see http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&keyword=huygens&single=y&start=47 Phrood 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 12:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:YggdrasillUniverseSoul.PNG

Image:YggdrasillUniverseSoul.PNG → Image:Yggdrasil axis mundi 1.PNG --Kalki 16:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until the last day or two this image was used over 60 times on 6 projects, and its duplicate used nowhere. I pointed this out recently on the talk pages of this and a recently uploaded duplicate, and all of its uses were removed in favor of the newer image without any discussion as to why, and a speedy delete tag placed on this. I reverted some of the replacements at wikiquote, and have now posted delete tags on the two duplicates to prompt discussion on which is preferable and not simply defer to what seems to be one person's attempt to delete this in favor or the newer duplicate. ~ Kalki 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My objections to the deletion of this have been reduced, now that I see that the same user uploaded both images, but I was simply reacting to what was sudden, unexplained and undiscussed activity that I perceived to be occuring, after I had attempted to discuss the matter several times in recent days on the talk pages of the images, and of the uploader of the latest image, which I only now have become aware was the uploader of the original as well. ~ Kalki 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Yggdrasil axis mundi 1.PNG

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bosem.jpg

Another version of Image:Rittergut-Bosemb-1902.jpg --Seeteufel 10:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, no valid reason for deletion, the images are not identical --ALE! ¿…? 12:52, 21 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.

Template:Money-EU

Non-free images, they restrict derivatives. ~~helix84 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, limitations for use that exist for some other reason than copyright, aren't considered unfree in Commons. The rationale for this limitation seems to be anti-counterfeiting, not copyright. Samulili 08:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. The passage »as long as reproductions in advertising or illustrations cannot be mistaken for genuine banknotes« didn’t restrict derivatives – only forgery... --FSHL 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above. —Nightstallion (?) 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are no valid reasons for this deletion. --Mess 14:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As FHSL, Nightstallion and Mess. There is no valid reason to nominate this template for deletion. And, for the record, all this copyright paranoia (as opposed to genuine licencing adherence) is a very bad thing for the Wikimedia projects. — OwenBlacker 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Samulili 16:44, 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.

Template:Money-EU

This template is under discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2. Please make comments there. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also File:1000DM.JPG should be restored if the outcome is positive (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:1000DM.JPG). –Krinkle^talk 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussion. Template was deleted previously. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 19:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Money-EU

This template has already been deleted following a regular (and long) deletion request. Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Eusebius says, this had a long, arduous, and thorough discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2. The appropriate place for any further discussion is Commons:Undeletion requests. I tagged User talk:79.52.212.245 with {{Dont recreate}}. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 11:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Money-EU

Previously deleted. Eusebius (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "template:Money-EU" was deleted after a deletion discussion started about the "template:Euro coin common face" (Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2). However, each template is about a different subject, a different copyright owner and a different set of copyright conditions:
A) "Template:Euro coin common face" dealt with the designs owned by the European Community. Which means the designs of the common faces of the euro coins. The official reproduction conditions for those are there. On Commons, there were some 20 images that could possibly have used this template, mostly grouped there. (Most of those images should have been deleted as per the deletion decision, but many of them are still waiting).
B) "Template:Money-EU" deals with the designs owned by the European Central Bank. Which means, in fact, the designs of the euro paper banknotes (despite some confusing wording that unfortunately afflicted this template at some point). The official reproduction conditions for those are there and there. On Commons, there are some 70 images correctly tagged with this template, mostly grouped there. (In addition, some users incorrectly placed this template on other images that have nothing to do with it, but that doesn't count.)
I don't know if mixing the two subjects and deleting this template along with the other left an entirely clear situation. Pehaps it might be preferable for this template to get its own decision? So we can get out of this infernal cycle of recreation - deletion - recreation...
-- Asclepias (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To better explain what I believe would need clarification: In the deletion debate "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Euro coin common face 2", the opinion of some participants, and possibly the decision, was apparently based in good part on the analysis of the text of the Eu. Commission's conditions regulating the reproduction of the Eu. Community's designs for the common faces of the coins, and in particular on a perceived problem with the "faithful likeness" clause, which is found in that text. However (unless I missed it), there is no such clause in the text of the Eu. Central Bank's conditions regulating the reproduction of its designs for the banknotes. And the participants didn't seem to examine much the Bank's texts. In the end, the motives for the deletion of the "template:Euro coin common face" (relative to the Comission's conditions regulating the designs of the coins) are explicitely enunciated. But the motives for the deletion of the "template:Money-EU" (relative to the Bank's conditions regulating the designs of the banknotes) do not appear as explicitely. My hope is that this deletion request can be closed with a clear statement to the effect that, based on the examination of the Bank's conditions about the designs of the banknotes (in the documents linked above), those conditions are considered ["free" or "not free"] enough for Commons.
-- Asclepias (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. - please check the usage, which seems to not have been done at previous deletions. All inclusions must be checked. If the usage is invalid, the inclusion must be deleted. If after removal no valid license template remains, file must be nominated for deletion. If valid inclusions remain, there is no reason to delete the template. At previous deletions, no delink took place, which caused recreation time after time - feel free to renominate after taking mentioned steps - Jcb (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:Money-EU

(i) it clearly says the notes are ECB copyright. (ii) it says the notes may be reproduced subject to certain restrictions (see COM:EURO; for example having SPECIMEN across the image). (iii) most if not all of the images using the template fail to meet the restrictions, and therefore are a breach of the copyright. In addition, it's not clear that the restrictions are compatible with COM:L requirements. Unless this can be cleared up, all files using it should be deleted, and then the template should be converted to a speedy-delete template (like {{Fair use}}). Rd232 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose converting into a speedy-tag without making the uploaders aware of the problem. That is deceitful. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(i) that's a process issue, not a reason to oppose conversion. And I meant conversion after existing files using it have been deleted, BTW, so speedy process would apply to new uploads (doing it for old ones may be confusing). I've clarified that above. (ii) this is not a case where more information from uploaders is likely to be helpful, so informing them isn't really achieving anything - there's nothing they can do about it. Sure, we can notify them if that's what people want, but I'm not really seeing the point. Rd232 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If 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:Edy Cards.JPG

Copyright violation of card picture. --KENPEI 15:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uploader is not the copyright holder unless they created the artwork for the cards; false licence. -- Infrogmation 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Davepape 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mary Kiffmeyer.jpg

press photo doesn't mean free license. 88.134.44.81 20:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no OTRS ticket or link to permission Pimke 07:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Davepape 15:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg

disputed copyvio - copyrighted content: the May 1977 issue of Interface Age magazine — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation for a image of a vinil disk? and under only publicity? No text, no composition, and the idea is not exclusive of the media? Who are the violation? If yes, please also delete ALL IMAGES of Mercedes, VW, Ford.. vehicles.. are also desing under Copyright. --museo8bits 21:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[96][reply]

Deletion of Image:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg

Jeff, te pediría que reconsideraras tu estimación de borrado rápido de la imagen. Ten en cuenta que sólo se vé el vinilo (que NO es un diseño patentado de la publicación; en España Micro Hobby también publicó un número así), no una portada o un artículo. Lo que hay debajo es un anuncio, para más detalle una lista de precios. No es la portada o el contenido de un artículo. Es más, el único método de "violar el copyright" sería mediante un ordenador con CPU 6800 y poder leer los microsurcos de la fotografía. Si persistes en ello, por favor se conseucnte y solicta el borrado de toda imagen de un vehículo Mercedes, Ford, VW, Prosche... a fin de cuentas son también diseños protegidos por copyright. ¿No están aceptadas las imágenes de chips Motorola pese a contener una marca registrada? --museo8bits 22:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[97][reply]

Español: La imagen y su página de la descripción fueron suprimidas por Polarlys. Sugiero que usted discuta esta materia con Polarlys. Wikipedia inglés permite uso legítimo vía su Política de Doctrina de Excepción (PDE) w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Apesadumbradas, Wikipedia Español y Commons no permiten el uso legítimo (no tienen ningunas Políticas de Doctrina de Excepción (PDEs)) por w:es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo, w:es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar políticas y reglas de uso de imágenes, w:es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo, w:es:Fair use, y Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy/Es.

English: The image and its description page were deleted by Polarlys. I suggest that you discuss this matter with Polarlys. English Wikipedia allows fair use via its Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) w:en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Sorry, Spanish Wikipedia and Commons do not allow fair use (they have no Exemption Doctrine Policies (EDPs)) per w:es:Wikipedia:Uso legítimo, w:es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2006/Cambiar políticas y reglas de uso de imágenes, w:es:Wikipedia:Sobre el uso legítimo, w:es:Fair use, and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy.

— Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[98][reply]

You were the one who added the copyvio tag, so you cannot just pass the blame to Polarlys. Why did you think the incidental use of a portion of a magazine page was a copyright violation? The image shows how a record could be bound into a printed magazine. The magazine was arranged to limit the exposure of the contents.

When valid images are deleted it causes extra work for others and if not detected it harms the Commons and Wikipedia. -- Swtpc6800 15:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[99][reply]

The entire contents of that magazine was copyrighted 1977, including the text on the ad, the text on the face of the FloppyRom, and the artistic work of embedding computer code on a plastic gramophone-type disc in a magazine, making it ineligible for the Public Domain under the US implementation of the Berne Convention for at least 50 years, or until 2027. Therefore, any publication of a photo of it before 2027 is a violation of its copyright. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[100][reply]

With equal criteria, please also delete next list of images. I never compred as a centred image of Microsoft or AMD logos at Campus or Offices are a example of "part of the country" and this not. Not more double criteria. And please, not more mutilation of images. Is not more productive do contact with the editor for request permision? And if the editor of magazine not found a copyright violation? Also Fort, VW, Volvo, Seat... vehicles desing are under copyright. Equal for toast, computers, radio, MP3 players... --museo8bits 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Microsoft_sign_closeup.jpg
Image:Microsoft_Sign_on_German_campus.jpg
Image:AMD-Frankfurt.png
Image:Volvo logo.svg
Image:Advertentie 'Mijn Kamp'.jpg
Image:Omslag Storm, 11 april 1941.jpg
Image:Eppo.jpg

This is not about logos. Samulili 08:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the image. I think I understand the basis of the request to delete. But this is a photograph of a product that was around prior to when many Wikipedians were born, and as such is a useful historical photograph. The photograph has been given over to the public domain by the photographer. The fact that the product in the photograph is copyrighted does not render it unable to be depicted in a photograph of this kind, which merely shows the form of the disk and the general look of the magazine. Because there is no useful copyrighted content displayed in the photograph, there is no reasonable possibility that it might interfere with or take commercial advantage of the copyright holder's commercial opportunities. ... Kenosis 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FloppyRom_Magazine.jpg not a copyright violation

You deleted Image:FloppyRom_Magazine.jpg as a copyright violation. The picture showed a special type of vinyl record in a magazine. The textual content of the magazine could not be read and the audio content of the record could not be heard. This image showed the mechanical properties of publishing a record in a magazine.

http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/BASIC_2/Uiterwyk.htm

I you really feel the image can not go on the commons could you copy the image text to my Wikipedia talk page.

Swtpc6800 on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.94.38.34 (talk • contribs) at 15:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[101][reply]

Done. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Image talk:FloppyRom Magazine.jpg? --fryed-peach 04:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[102][reply]

I restored the image, someone else shall decide it. --Polarlys 11:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[103][reply]

I have an updated version of the picture with the magazine text blurred. (Should I upload it?) The main purpose of the picture is to show how a record could be bound into a magazine. -- Swtpc6800 21:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please upload it. Preferably in higher resolution. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not a copyright violation because it is a photo of a utilitarian object (a magazine insert and a record) and it's not really useful to create derivative works of the magazine text shown. Since this image is useless to use to violate the magazine copyright, it cannot be viewed as a copyright violation. -Nard 01:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Nard - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel at unease with your conclusion. "Since this image is useless to use to violate the magazine copyright" combined with "it's not really useful to create derivative works of the magazine text" seems odd in the context of copyright. One must remember that even reproduction of a work or a part thereof is not allowed without permission. Samulili 09:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your overly strict interpretation of the copyright law is wrong. See Mike Godwin's comments below. -- Swtpc6800 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please crop vynil record. Everything else is derivative work. --EugeneZelenko 14:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine shows how computer programs used to arrive in magazines on vinyl records. Cropping the record wouldn't convey the full information. -Nard 15:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is true, but so is what EugeneZelenko wrote. Samulili 15:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should someone remove the copyrighted books from this bookcase? Image:Bookcase.jpg You can read the titles and see some images. -- Swtpc6800 16:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded new version of image with blurred text. -- Swtpc6800 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of blurring text is to make it illegible. The larger text you blurred is still legible. So is some of the text on the record. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any text on the record that could be copyrightable. Short sequences of words, like "The Floppy Rom" are ineligible for copyright. --91.65.124.74 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about the text in the ads? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, read my previous contributions. Incidental use of copyrighted text is not a violation if you cannot use them to create a new version of the copyrighted work. This picture is NOT SUITABLE TO USE TO VIOLATE THE COPYRIGHT therefore it is not a violation. -Nard 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The advertisement is in the four red sections on the two pages. Less than 20% of the ad is readable. The fuzzy visible text is a very generic declarative statement. I doubt anyone could obtain a copyright on this sentence.

"Courses in computer operation and programming to help you get more from your system, whether you're an expert or novice." -- Swtpc6800 15:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer said this.

"In general, a photograph that happens to include all or part of a copyrighted image or a trademark does not raise significant intellectual property issues. Occasionally, copyright or trademark holders attempt to assert claims regarding such photographs -- these are best responded to on a case-by-case basis. It is, in my view, a bad idea to be pro-actively policing photographs that happen to include a copyrighted work or a trademark, absent some evidence of an actual claim or dispute. [104]

It sounds like the Floppy ROM photo is not a copyright violation. -- Swtpc6800 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mike Godwin. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs|Administrator nom) 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept , per Mike and N (incidental use). Accordingly, the original unblurred image should also be OK (but it shouldn't matter since it is incidental). / Fred J 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kennedy_space_center.jpg

Uploaded in June 2006 by Chewie (talk • contribs) with a CC-by-2.0 tag and permission listed as "Declared at flickr page". In September 2006, Frumpy (talk • contribs) changed the {{information}} tag to {{Flickr}} tag and noted him-/herself as the reviewer (however, Frumpy is not an administrator or an approved reviewer as far as I can see). In November 2006, NilfaBot (talk • contribs) added {{flickrreview}} to the image, and in December 2006, FlickreviewR (talk • contribs) found that it was tagged with a noncommercial license (as is currently the case with most or all Flickr uploads by Richard Giles). The Flickr user seems to have subsequently hidden the image from public view. It's currently used on twelve projects, which doesn't seem like something we can continue to do any longer under such unclear circumstances. Problem-free alternatives include Image:Vehicle-Assembly-Building-July-6-2005.jpg (featured) and Image:Aerial View of Launch Complex 39.jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:Para/Flickr/Licensing_differences/Incompatible the image was originally tagged as cc-by-2.0 on Flickr, but was later changed to Cc-by-nc-2.0. If this Flickr-user really is the copyright holder, it could be possible to use this image on commons as you can't retract a cc license (but IMHO that's not a nice way to treat photographers). --88.134.44.81 14:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, here's what happened: i changed the {{information}}- to the {{Flickr}} template, but at that point of time, the {{flickrreview}} template didn't exist or i simply didn't know that it existed, so i looked at the flickr page of the image and saw that cc-by-2.0 was correct. i noted me as the reviewer, because i also didn't know, that there were some kind of certified reviewer for flickr images such as admins. i am able to tell you, that when i "reviewed" the picture, the license was cc-by-2.0 (as noted above by 88.134.44.81), but i think this won't help us. --Frumpy 20:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, looking at the history of Commons:Flickr images/reviewers, it looks like it's a more recent invention than your review of the image, so I'm not accusing you of any wrongdoing. I'm now convinced that the image was published under a CC-by-2.0 license, and as 88.134 mentions, that license is irrevocable. According to Commons:Flickr images, images verified as freely available should be considered free even if the license on Flickr subsequently changes. That said, we have some really good alternative images, so in this case, I don't think we'd suffer a loss by deleting the image as a courtesy to the photographer, if that's what he wants. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr image is now marked as privet, and I've uploaded two pictures of the building - Image:Kennedy Space Center - closeup.jpg and Image:Kennedy Space Center - the building.jpg Yuval Y § Chat § 13:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted; license uncertain, and free licenced alternatives availible. -- Infrogmation 01:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:School iruca.jpg

Copyright violation of card picture. --KENPEI 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work; no evidence presented that card depicted is free licenced. -- Infrogmation 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Yggdrasil axis mundi 1.PNG

Duplicate image --Kalki 15:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until a day or two ago this image was unused, and the previous identical one was used over 60 times on 6 projects which I brought up on the talk pages.. Without any discussion of the matter these were all recently replaced with the newer image. I have no real objections to the new name, but I do have objections to how this occured, and think the older upload should remain the one used and not the newer duplicate. ~ Kalki 16:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My objections to the use of this have been reduced, now that I see that the same user uploaded both duplicated images, but I was simply reacting to what was sudden, unexplained and undiscussed activity that I perceived to be occuring, after I had attempted to discuss the matter several times in recent days on the talk pages of the images, and of the uploader of this latest image, which I only now have become aware was the uploader of the original as well. ~ Kalki 16:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept No evident problem. If there is a continued duplication problem please list the duplicate image by name on the images. -- Infrogmation 02:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Portopia81-rokkocable-ticket-right.JPG

This is a Rail ticket in Japan. Copyright violation of ticket picture. --KENPEI 15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work; no evidence offered that artwork depicted is free licenced. -- Infrogmation 02:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Portopia81-rokkocable-ticket-back.JPG

This is a rail ticket in Japan. Copyright violation of ticket picture. --KENPEI 16:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. -- Infrogmation 02:23, 10 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.

Image:Electronic lock yl88 operation.ogg

Enwiki says it is useless[105]. Content which isn't useful for a project doesn't belong on commons. --Gmaxwell 19:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. Kelly Martin 23:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EnWiki is being stupid, and we shouldn't respond with deletion tantrums every time they are. Otherwise all of Wikipedia would be deleted. Mak (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the video add to the article?

Kept -- Infrogmation 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Edmund Dulac (and its content)

French citizen Edmund Dulac died in 1953. --Polarlys 11:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree works of Dulac should be assumed to still have copyright unless there is evidence otherwise. However Dulac was doing work for hire internationally from the early 1900s on, so some examples of his early work may have fallen into the public domain. For example if he were commissioned to do illustrations for publications printed in the USA before 1923 (such as his illustrations commissioned by William Randoph Hearst for the American Weekly from before that date), those IMO can be accurately tagged as PD-US. I therefore suggest deleting Dulac items without specific information on date and place of first publication, but keep in mind the possibility that some may be usable when examining the rest. -- Infrogmation 14:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked about 15 images, but didn’t find one with accurate source information. “Work for hire” is AFAIK only known in the US. Most of the images shown here were done as illustrations for books published in the UK or France. If there are works who were published in US newspapers, we have to check if the work for hire concept fits here. All in all, he seemed to be a freelancer. --Polarlys 15:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found one picture on Commons with PD-US: Image:Edmund_Dulac_-_Princess_and_pea.jpg. I checked the source but there is no information if the picture was created in the USA. Pimke 07:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say delete all paintings and keep the category. --ALE! ¿…? 12:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edmund Dulac is a famous illustrator, and a category is needed to classify media related to this subject. Request the deletion of a category grounds to its content is a nonsense: if a media file is copyrighted, deal with this file. --Juiced lemon 10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's delete the files. Andd keep the cat. (See my comment) --ALE! ¿…? 08:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete any image where we don't have positive proof that the image was created on U.S. soil (did he even visit the U.S. at all?) Keep the category and add a comment to it stating that his works are still under copyright in their country of origin and most other nations on the planet. Valentinian ^{T / C} 08:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have deleted the majority of the images, all those tagged with a "PD-Old" claim, as this is shown to be a false licence per above. I have not deleted the images claimed to be "PD-US" as that is a seperate issue; this action on my part is not a ruling one way or another on the legitimacy of the claims on these remaining images. -- Infrogmation 02:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that the rest be moved to en-WP as {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and then deleted here, too. {{PD-US}} is not applicable as the images come from a British book. See [106]. They may well be PD in the U.S., but they aren't in their country of origin. Lupo 17:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and moved to en-wp -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 29

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:IMG_1242.JPG

File naming miss. (I'm sorry, I am English understands only a few.) --Harukaze 13:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

download this picture one more time under the new name and then tag the old image with {{badname|Image:Bettername.jpg}} template Pimke 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thankyou. --Harukaze 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Rüdiger Wölk: Dupe of Image:Tokyubus-toqbox.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Fred_wembley.jpg

Looks like a photo of TV. IMO it's not own work. -- Herr Kriss 19:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and on the screen you can see the flash of the camera :) Pimke 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, obvious copyvio --Polarlys 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sign of the Deathly Hallows.svg

Copyright violation. The file is a fictional element from a copyrighted work. Anyone may certainly use this symbol as long as no relation with Harry Potter (but it may not even be an implied one), but any use that makes such a connection is prohibited by copyright, except in cases of fair use. So, for example, you may not print the symbol on a T-Shirt and sell it to Harry Potter fans. --rtc 16:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I believe the symbol is not original/complex enough to be covered by copyright. This was certainly the consensus at the image's undeletion request. --bdesham ★ 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies to the symbol as such, but not to the symbol as a fictional element from the Harry Potter work. originality/complexity applies only to applied art, and the symbol as a fictional element is literary, not applied art. A paragraph from Harry Potter wouldn't have sufficient originality by itself either, it is still restricted by the copyright on the work as a whole. In the same way as a quotation of such a paragraph, you must resort to fair use if you want to use the symbol in this context. --rtc 17:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to bdesham - A {{copyvio}} is only given if there is at all a copyright protection – which is explicitly doubted by {{PD-ineligible}}... --FSHL 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simple geometric shapes do not have copyright protection. -Nard 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ignore my arguments? I do not claim that the geometric shapes are copyrighted, but that the ficitional element from the Harry Potter universe that it represents is. Is a Harry Potter book lacking copyright just because the shapes of the letters lack copyright protection? --rtc 23:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like us to change the name to "Bisected equilateral triangle with superimposed circle touching at 3 equidistant points"? The name doesn't matter. Either way this shape has no copyright. THIS IS A FREE IMAGE. J.K Rowling is free to use it for any purpose, including creating derivative works, commercial use etc etc (sound familiar?) Guess what? Commons is also free to use this free image for any purpose. In this case we wish to use this free image to comment on J.K. Rowling's use of it. -Nard 00:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, the name doesn't matter. What matters is what the picture is used for and in which context. In all contexts where it refers to Harry Potter (regardless of how this is done and whether it's done explicitly or implicitly), it is restricted by copyright. For example, I may not print it to a T-Shirt and sell it to Harry Potter fans. (So Commons is clearly not "also free to use this free image for any purpose".) And I may use it within an ecyclopedia article only under fair use. As I already mentioned, your argumentation is like claiming that Harry Potter in its entirety is not copyrighted, based only on the fact that the shapes of the letters of the typeface used to print the book are ineligible for copyright. What is copyrighted is the creative content, not its actual visual representation. --rtc 01:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. J.K. Rowling's commercial use of a free image DOES NOT GIVE IT COPYRIGHT. -Nard 01:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim the opposite. I claimed that the fictional element it represents is copyrighted, not the image. --rtc 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we're talking about the image, not the fictional element. If the name of the image were changed, would you have a problem at all? (I'm not going to change the name, I'm merely trying to illustrate my point...) --bdesham ★ 14:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image represents this fictional element, and any use that can reasonably be made of it is for this purpose. I'd have a problem with it even if the name was changed, because it would still be used in the same context as it was before. Why don't you use the picture in your local wikipedia according to fair use? --rtc 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's currently proposed for deletion, and I don't want to have to change all of the relevant articles twice. --bdesham ★ 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gridge 00:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC). No voting. --Polarlys 00:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - it's too simple to be copyrighted, and so {{PD-ineligible}} applies. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I claimed that the fictional element represented by the drawing is coyprighted, not the drawing itself. --rtc 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And a plain circle is a symbol of something somewhere... Samulili 10:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I claimed that the fictional element represented by the drawing is coyprighted, not the drawing itself. --rtc 10:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons hosts the drawing, the fictional element is stored inside viewers' heads. (Which, while possibly copyrighted, may be stored in one's head because making copies of works is allowed for personal use (unless effective technological measures are used to restrict or prevent certain acts which are not authorised by the rightholder).) Samulili 10:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~It´s rtc. He always does things which the rest of the world can´t understand... Keep Chaddy 11:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)~~ No voting, no personal attacks please.--Polarlys 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Keep No valid reason provided for deletion. --Moonian 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“No valid reason given why the reason provided for deletion is invalid.” --Polarlys 12:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the users above who voted Keep have already said what I would like to say. --Moonian 02:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it's only couple of geometrical symbols. If any author describes in his book "two lines crossed in their midle" will be all crosses copyrighted since this moment? JAn Dudík 20:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually works of fine arts are protected even if the indivuality of the respective work ist very low in such a manner that an identical recreation is not an infringement. You can sell postcards with that symbol (not an infringement), but if you sell postcards with the Harry Potter symbol it is an infringement. It's the same with suprematistic artworks or works of conceptual art like the black square of Malevich - they are copyrighted and nobody can sell a postcard with a work of a suprematistic artist. But people might be able to sell postcards with own works which are identical to the suprematistic work.--Wiggum 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way you argue, everybody who dresses up as a HP-character, wears specs or red hair or long cloaks, wears a symbol like any of the two above would have to pay royalties to Ms Rowling. That is ridiculus. --Wuselig 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the issue. If you were to sell costumes consisting of all of those things and put "Harry Potter" on the outfit, then yup, you'd owe her some money. All media on commons needs to be free for any use, including commercial uses. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "[...] wears a symbol like any of the two above [...]" Try reading my statement again.--Wiggum 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rename, restore: It's not PD-inelegible if the file name is "Sign of the Deathly Hallows". If it's "Bisected equilateral triangle with embedded circle", then it's most certainly fine. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without description and integration in other projects? --Polarlys 20:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Describe it as "A bisected equilateral triangle with embedded circle. This geometric form was described as the "Sign of the Deathly Hallows" in the last Harry Potter book, etc...." And sure, put it on the Harry Potter gallery. But if we're keeping it because it's nothing but a geometric shape, it's better to just call it what it is (a geometric shape), rather than calling it the Sign of the Deathly Hallows(™). The reason it's inelegible for copyright is because it might well be used by anyone else for any other reason. The reason it's problematic is because we're calling it "Sign of the Deathly Hallows". And just like the costumes, you could print this on a T-shirt and sell it if you like, but it you call it "Sign of the Deathly Hallows", you're infringing on Ms. Rowling's copyright. It's a subtle difference, but subtleties make a difference sometimes. --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 21:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (if you want to rename it use {{rename}}) --ALE! ¿…? 08:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bechet.gif

Neither date and place of publication nor original photographer is given. 82.46.22.43 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this could easily be still under copyright, Sidney Bechet died in 1959. -Nard 21:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, maybe the photographer was 40 years old in 1959, now he would be 88 years old Pimke 06:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In dubio pro reo – without hard facts no condemnation... --FSHL 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of public domain doesn't hold up to the facts. EVula // talk // 05:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to EVula - And I can’t recognize the alleged facts yet... --FSHL 14:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an unknown author, we can't verify the authors date of birth, meaning that we can't verify that it has indeed fallen into the public domain. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to EVula - And in dubio pro reo expresses the judicial principle that in case of doubt the decision must be in favour of the accused – in that anyone is innocent until there’s proof to the contrary... --FSHL 20:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FSHL the problem is not just no evidence it's PD, but no evidence at all. We don't know when it was published or where. Even if we assume it was an anonymous work protected for (let's say) 70 years or whatever (under some of the retroactive copyright extensions in the US an anonymous unpublished work is protected for 120 years) that means it could still easily be under copyright because we have no idea how old Sidney Bechet was when the picture was taken. Anything after 1937 is still copyrighted under the 70 years after publication rule. -Nard 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Nard - On this picture he isn’t older than 30 i.e. clearly before 1937... --FSHL 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal observations like "he doesn't look a certain age" and similar arguments are both highly subjective and completely irrelevant when attempting to establish a date (what looks like an obvious case of "under 30" to one person could be an obvious case of "over 30" to another; for example, I'd have no trouble believing that he was 33). Ultimately, this is a moot point, as we've determined the proper authorship details below.EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons != US court of law. Sorry, but just because something holds up in one doesn't mean it holds up in the other. Besides, it's not like we're going to give someone jail time over a mis-labeled image. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks to me like a mug shot, probably from his arrest in France in the 1920s. -- Infrogmation 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identified: This is indeed cropped from half a mugshot, but UK, not French. Reproduced following page 112 in the book "Sidney Bechet The Wizard of Jazz" by John Chilton with visible date on image of "6-9-22" and caption "Bechet at the time of his arrest in London, September 1922 (by permission of the Public Record Office, London: document HO45/24778)". Keep or delete should be determined according to the copyright status per this information. -- Infrogmation 00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you obtain the whole photo? Did you actually go to the library and get the real life book to get this information? -Nard 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yep, its in an actual book, made out of dead tree and everything :-) I suppose I could scan, but as I have a fair pile of stuff that's not been published at all or was published over 80 years ago by my scannner I want to get to, it wouldn't be a high priority, so if anyone else cares to do so first, go ahead. BTW, what is the proper tagging for this situation? -- Infrogmation 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have applied {{PD-UKGov}} and updated the source info. Thank you. -Nard 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep expired Crown Copyright. Nice job. -Nard 00:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent find, Infrogmation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:RalphGlomp.JPG

cd artwork can only be "fair use" IMHO. therefore this is not compatible with commons. JD {æ} 21:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Image:Dolchamar.JPG

cd artwork can only be "fair use" IMHO. therefore this is not compatible with commons. JD {æ} 21:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Yvart.JPG

cd artwork as GFDL? JD {æ} 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kajtielplu.JPG

why is cd artwork GFDL? JD {æ} 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Solotronik.JPG

one more: cd artwork as GFDL? JD {æ} 21:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Vinilkomso2.JPG

cd artwork isn't GFDL, IMHO. JD {æ} 21:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Christer_Fuglesang_2006_EMU.jpg

Because after I reduced it got pixel problems, I'll upload the same image again under correct proportions Delemon ^Msg! 05:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just upload it over the old image. --ALE! ¿…? 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~deleted~~ --ALE! ¿…? 14:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) obviously kept by ALE! --Ju Ta 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29)

Requesting additional review. Although I have closed the two above cases as a "keep" I am now undecided as per recent comments in the aftermath of the closure.

There seems to be evidence of tracing. I am uncertain if "tracing" violates copyrights in the spesific case of mechanic drawings since the images will need to be drawn in an identical manner or else it wont be a mechanical drawing.

If a copyvio is case perhaps free alternatives can be drawn relatively easily.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images are probably vectorization of US military work copied by other sites. I would imagine very few people to have access to intel on Su-37 to come up with a mechanical drawing. -- Cat ^chi? 10:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1) Tracing is a derivative work and thus a copyvio - otherwise we could just put photographs through a magic "make it free" filter in photoshop. Equally if I sat down and re-typed the contents of the latest Harry Potter book - perhaps omitting a chapter here and there - it would equally be a copyvio. For my reasoning that these images are tracings see my comments here also - who are we kidding with Image:Jian-6.svg ?

2) If they are based on a public domain work (unlikely) then the burden of proof is on the uploader to prove that the works are free - we cannot give the benefit of the doubt - for example publications like "Jane's All the World's Aircraft" have hundreds of illustrations by professional illustrators that are most definately not public domain.

Delete along with the rest of [107]/[108] Megapixie 11:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. A {{copyvio}} is only given if there is at all a copyright protection – which is explicitly doubted by {{PD-ineligible}}... --FSHL 13:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that they are ineligable for copyright does not make them so. Can you cite a single piece of US case law that would indicate that three view drawings lack the originality to be protected by copyright law ? According to US Copyright office they would be covered by the protection of copyright law. Megapixie 14:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - As I already wrote here that’s just a logical conclusion of the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Su-37-Draft.svg... --FSHL 14:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stahlkocher said here: If you do a three side drawing of the Su-37, it allways will look like the Su-37, whatever you do. And how much labor you ever spend to create such drawings, they will allways look like a Su-37.

This means, all such drawing will have a lack of originality, which makes them not copyrightable at all. I can redraw it by which measure ever, and nobody could ever claim a "copyright infringement" on it.

If any copyrights exist, then the one of the engineers who created the aircraft. But if this is the truth, you will have to accept that everything artificial will be copyrighted somehow and every image showing an artificial thing will be a derivate work. Images showing a car, airplane, mixer, handy, hoover, valves... -- Stahlkocher 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To be clear. An SU-37 is not sculpture, because it is utilitarian in design (i.e. it's not intended to be art) and therefore not covered by copyright law. Therefore we can create free images of it. A toy model or sculpture of an SU-37 or a drawing of one - IS protected by copyright law, because it's a creative expression in the same way that someones face isn't protected by copyright law (personality rights no withstanding), but a photograph or scuplture of it is. If it helps then re-read everything I've written replacing SU-37 with "lightbulb". Megapixie 14:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i want to change my position ( I´ve started two of the deletion requests). With Stahlkochers argument and the fact that FSHL already changed the licence on the images lead me to that conclusion. Very simple line drawings like these (aircrafts, ships, tanks, whatever comes to your mind) need to be free, if they are SVGs or jpg or whatever ( all linedrawings are made from the original construction, just this is copyrighted)--D.W. 13:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't just assume lack of originality, these images may be made by their designers for all we know. Additionally I don't really think they fit the description consists entirely of information that is common property either, they are certainly complex enough not to be. - Dammit 13:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Dammit - If you really think that »these images may be made by their designers« then you can surely prove in any case this statement? In the case of Image:Su-37-Draft.svg it’s definitively certain that this isn’t. --FSHL 13:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain who DID create the image ? (i.e. where you got it ?) Megapixie 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - Of course – I did create my SVGs! But if you want to know whence I did get the raw material for e.g. Image:Yak-141-Draft.svg than just look here, here and here. None of them is an official work of Yakowlew... --FSHL 14:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. I simply don't believe you. The SVGs are clearly the result of the automated tracing of another image. Are you saying:

A) Based on those images you drew by HAND a three view drawing of the aircraft. Scanned the image. Performed an automatic trace in inkskape ?

B) You blended the images in photoshop and then automatically traced the resulting image in inkscape ?

C) Based on those images you drew the image in photoshop and automatically traced the image in inkspace ?

D) You drew the image in inkspace. Exported it as a JPG. Automatically traced it in inkspace and uploaded the result here ? (why?)

E) (Which I believe to be the truth) You downloaded / scanned from a book all of the above images. Perhaps edited them in photoshop (removed some details maybe) saved the image. Then automatically traced the image in inkspace ?

Simple question. Which is it ? Megapixie 14:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - My working procedures doesn’t concern here. Topic of this discussion is: Is it copyvio? My answer to this is just NO. And don’t dare to edit my statements again! --FSHL 14:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. When exactly did I edit your statement ? Megapixie 15:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the threshold of creativity has been shown, none of those links look similar enough to be considered a direct derivative work, what I suggest is that it be shown if the original designs of the aircraft are copyrighted, because otherwise none of these people can claim copyright, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp is relevant here Madmax32 14:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeman has nothing to do with it. Show me a court case where an three view drawing of an aircraft (or something like it: train, car) is held to be ineligable for copyright ? The issue is that this user is scanning copyright drawings and passing them off as his own. This is copyright violation. Megapixie 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who made the original diagram for the aircraft? Probably a Soviet engineer, these other guys just copied the work to begin with, you may as well delete most of the flags and other derivative works from here if we go by your reasoning. That's like if I do a tracing of a public domain image, no creativity required, hence no copyright, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp, yes it is relevant here, we are not talking about a photographic work. Madmax32 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or quite possibly, it was a skilled draftsman who looked at tens of photographs of the object and used both creativity and skill to produce a three view drawing of the object. A draftsman perhaps employed by a company like Janes who would be upset to the point of legal recourse that his images were being passed off as someone elses. The point is that we don't know. FSHL is very evasive about the source of the drawings and how he produced the SVGs (see above). He clearly admits to automatically tracing them from somewhere. My argument is that HE has to prove they are free of copyright by pointing at case-law or law that suggests that. He hasn't so far. Bridgeman clearly only applies to works that are outside copyright. These drawings easily meet the low threshold of originality for copyright protection and thus Bridgeman means nothing here. Megapixie 15:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - Read my lips: I never admit anything about my working procedures... --FSHL 15:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which is exactly the problem. You upload very detailed drawings at the rate of about one a day, yet you don't explain where they are from. I'm almost tempted to tag them {{nsd}} Megapixie 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - You really want a source from something that’s common property? Don’t be ridiculous... --FSHL 12:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So who is the unidentified 'skilled draftsman'? I don't buy the argument that you can claim copyright for tracing photographs or original diagrams, there is not enough creativity required, besides out of the 3 links posted above for the Yak-141, it could be argued that they all copied each other just like you are claiming for these drawings, whether you vectorized something or drew it by hand is irrelevant, it's still a derivative work Madmax32 15:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to buy the argument that producing a drawing from photographs is enough to merit copyright. The American court system has to buy it - and as far as I am aware they do. Can you show differently ? Megapixie 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First it will have to be proven who is the artist whose copyright is being violated, so far no one has presented any such information in any of these deletion requests. Madmax32 14:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. The drawings themselves are very high quality. The tracings are absolute crap. Why on earth would someone do a fantastic drawing, and then turn it into sludge. Unless they were scanning someone elses copyright drawings and making a few changes and then tracing them to svg through an automatic tool. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck. It's a duck. And by duck I mean copyvio. Megapixie 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - That’s an invalid generalisation! If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck it’s obviously not in any case a duck – it could be also a mantrap... --FSHL 15:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not artistic work at all. Therefore only the presentation may by copyrighted, but not the naked drawing. It is not essential in which way the copy (it is allways a copy, even if you redraw it by hand) is made. In this way the original folder with the sets of drawing for the plane mayby copyrighted, but not the information in it (compare: [109]). You will not became copyright holder by reverse ingeneering the plane. Nor you will become one, if you build a scale modell of it. -- Stahlkocher 15:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the drawing is the presentation. FSHL is scanning someone else's drawing and passing it off as his own. Is that not clear in the above ? Megapixie 15:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - Nothing is clear except perhaps into your head. You’ve no prove to none of your aspersions... --FSHL 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, megapixie, you think something will change if one redraws a drawing by HAND as you mentioned above? This is romantic... -- Stahlkocher 15:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's so hard about this ? I can show you multiple three way views of the same aircraft that are clearly different (choice of line, detail) see [110] [111] [112] [113] . Can you show me the case law that would suggest these drawings are free of copyright ? Do you disagree that the dozens of images that FSHL has uploaded appear to be tracings of copyright images (possibly from an book source). Why does he keep avoiding the question about how he produces the images ? Commons has to respect REAL WORLD COPYRIGHT LAW which protects images such as these. These are clearly copyvios of an off-web source. Megapixie 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - I share solely my images to Commons and definitively not my know-how therefore I’ll not specify my working procedures to anyone – there’s just no discussion about this condition and this circumstance is absolutely irrelevant for this deletion request... --FSHL 15:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tracing or any automated non creative function on a copyrighted work just creates a derivative of the copyrighted work. This derivate cannot be relicensed. The source of all images needs to be documented. It is not acceptable to have "secret sources" of images. The mechanism of creation should be as transparent as possible. All evidence seems to point to these being derivatives. If they aren't there is no reason to obscure how they were created. We should err on the side of caution. - cohesion 23:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to cohesion - You’re right if the raw material is »copyrightable at all« but this fact is explicitly doubted by {{PD-ineligible}} – and the circumstance that I didn’t document my sources isn’t a valid reason for deletion... --FSHL 11:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) arbitrary section break - 30 July 2007

Keep Comparing these to other mechanical drawings, including the sources FSHL says he used, they simply don't look sufficiently identical to be traces. Each source is slightly different, and the images here don't match any of them. I can't even see that they match exactly in part. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Delete Megapixie convinced me in at least one case, which is good enough for me. The kicker that was lines omitted in the version from the web, presumably due to loss of resolution in making the GIF, were also omitted from FSHL's SVGs. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - That’s just a secondary theatre of war and not really relevant for this discussion. It’s a matter of principle: Can 3-views be protected by copyright? As Stahlkocher correctly determined they all suffers on »a lack of originality« – i.e. threshold of originality isn’t given! But if threshold of originality isn’t given than how can they be protected by copyright? --FSHL 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Proof of the straightforward nature of these copyvios of web content see:
Image:M-4-Draft.svg identical to http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/bomber/m4/m4_schem_01.gif

Image:Su-7BMK-Draft.svg identical to http://www.suchoj.com/ab1953/Su-7B/riss/Su-7BKL_02.jpg

Image:MiG-31-Draft.svg is a combination of http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/mig31_2_3v.jpg and http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/3vues/mig31_1_3v.jpg (reversed with underwing store deleted)

Image:Jian-6.svg from a slightly less cropped version of http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j6_03.asp

The rest are simply off web copyvios (i.e. scans from books) Megapixie 07:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - None of them, even suchoj.com not, is the original copyright holder – so it’s finally just a proof that »it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship« thus {{PD-ineligible}} and therefore there is no copyright violation... Q.E.D. --FSHL 11:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: And except Image:MiG-31-Draft.svg you got none of my sources for the raw material – close, but no cigar! --FSHL 12:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) arbitrary section break - 31 July 2007

Comment I hate to say this, but you're full of it, and I've just proved this to my satisfaction. I took http://www.suchoj.com/ab1953/Su-7B/riss/Su-7BKL_02.jpg, cropped out everything but the bottom right image, set the background to transparent, and saved it as a GIF. Then I downloaded Image:Su-7BMK-Draft.svg, opened it with Inkscape, and imported the GIF. It was a matter of scaling and rotation by a degree or so to get the corresponding images to line up perfectly. For your drawing to be line-by-line identical, right down to the ground shadows by the wheels, merely by coincidence strains credibility. Having some trouble with my webserver atm, but I'll put up some screenshots as soon as I can to prove it, but anyone can duplicate what I did. As for your PD-ineligible argument above, it's nonsense. I've seen no two of these drawings that are identical for a given aircraft on the web; they're obviously of independent origin and possibly made from photographs. In other words, they all involve original authorship, and that doesn't change just because the subject is the same. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - So what? You simply prove similarity. I never negated that they aren’t similar because they’re the same aircraft. They must be similar otherwise they don’t illustrate the same airplane. To be identical they’ve to be congruent. But there’s no geometric congruence at all. Finally that’s just a proof that you didn’t understand the treated subject... --FSHL 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you honestly trying to claim that rotating and rescaling someone else's work creates an original drawing? We're not stupid enough to fall for your sophistry. (see [114]) My original keep vote was because your drawings seemed merely similar, in the ordinary dictionary sense, to others I was able to locate. Similarity in the geometric sense is a copy. Scaling and rotation do not produce a new work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - No, I didn’t – I just claim that my 3-views »consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship« thus {{PD-ineligible}} and therefore there’s no copyright violation... --FSHL 12:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting claim. It's wrong, but it's interesting. I explained why elsewhere.

Besides, you did, and then told me I was too stupid to understand what the conversation is about. The insult was counterproductive. If you're trying to convince someone you need to adopt more winning ways. I wasn't really asking anyway; it was a rhetorical question. You claimed the drawings were similar -- in a geometric sense -- and then tried to argue as if you'd shown they were similar in the ordinary sense, which would indeed be only natural if they were independently made drawings of the same thing. But the only difference is one of simple geometric transformations that anyone can do with simple graphics software. In real life that means they're the same. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - May be that in real life someone means that »they're the same« but that’d meant that lossless scalable vector images and bitmap graphics are the same and that’s definitively an erroneous belief.... --FSHL 13:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to copyrightable material, the format is of no consequence whatsoever. Bitmapped graphics and printed material aren't the same either, but only a fool would seriously try to claim that scanning a picture from a magazine and posting it online isn't a copyvio. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - As I already explained there’s no {{copyvio}} for the simple reason that »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems. Scientific or technical works are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03) that means that 3-views are always too simplistic for copyright protection according to U.S. Copyright Office practices therefore a non-copyrightable work (so effectively without threshold of originality) thus {{PD-ineligible}}... --FSHL 11:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I still don't think you can copyright parts of simple line art, so even if someone copied parts of different drawings, the final result is unique enough to set it apart from the original, whether it is traced by hand or by automated process. Besides, this isn't artwork by Picasso, it's a drawing of a design of a unique aircraft so they results will be similar no matter who drew it. Not sure about Image:Jian-6.svg since it may have been traced from a photograph Madmax32 15:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no criterion for deciding whether a work is copyrightable based on artistic merit. Even in drawings like this there's an element of creativity: what features to bring out, what armaments to show, what configuration of the aircraft to depict, which one of several possible conventions to use, etc. They never come out to be identical, unless they're all traced from a common prototype. I was unable to locate any other drawings that were. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes there is a minimum level of creativity required to gain copyright in the US at least, otherwise we wouldn't allow images based on bridgemen vs corel. Besides it doesn't look like any of those URLs actually owns the copyright to the images they host. The basic idea was that you cannot copyright someone else's work, they didn't design those aircraft, the ideas and design of the aircraft belong to the aircraft engineers and their employers if anyone and none of those aircraft are old enough to be public domain otherwise. A simple line art drawing of something someone else designed and you don't own the data or the design used to create it - doesn't seem to be much creativity required and I doubt you could prevent anyone from copying your work in part since it wasn't something you designed yourself anyway. We host flags here that wouldn't be PD because of age, and those were copied whether by hand or traced makes no difference. Madmax32 02:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about creativity? I was talking about artistic merit, in response to your remark that this isn't a Picasso. So what? Lots of art isn't by Picasso. They're not less eligible for copyright because of it. Your mention of Bridgeman isn't a propos. That was about slavish copies, not those that required any creative decision, and sets a bar that isn't very high at all. It essentially says that you don't get a copyright by making the moral equivalent of a photocopy of a PD work. This is in no way like that. It has already been explained here several times what kind of creative work is needed to make drawings like this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) arbitrary section break - 31 July 2007 vd

Delete per all of the above and FSHL's insistence on using copyrighted work as a "starting point" for his derivative work. In fact, I'd like to extend this request to all of FSHL's contributions, given its blatant disregard for copyright in derivative works. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - Bring forward proof that 3-views are copyrighted and I'm right there with you... --FSHL 16:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL Copyright is to be assumed unless proven otherwise. Show me some case law, an article, essay, anything where this kind of complicated technical drawing is found to be free of copyright. Megapixie 22:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - Nothing »is to be assumed unless proven otherwise« – that would be just prejudice, sapere aude is the maxim since the age of Enlightenment... --FSHL 12:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those aircraft are older than 70 years? So how can any of those claim copyright on drawings of potentially copyrighted work? And if we consider typefaces to be PD, I don't see why tracing parts of line art would be more worthy of copyright, but Image:Jian-6.svg might need to be deleted if it was traced from a photographMadmax32 02:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typefaces being Public Domain under US law is fairly unique globally (they are certainly protected in the EU), and is the result of a odd bit of late 1970s case law. A later case determined that while the expression of type faces (i.e. the actual shape on the page) is not protected, the software description of a font (i.e. a truetype font) is. Basically this means you don't need Microsoft's permission to distribute a document printed in the Arial font - but you do need their permission to redistribute the ttf files themselves. The lack of protection for typefaces is only due to one court case determining them to be utilitarian objects, not due to any simplicity in their layout. Which brings us to three view drawings of aircraft. Let's bring back Harry Potter.

While US copyright law (or case law) doesn't explicitly mention Harry Potter book 7, we can assume that it is copyright because it falls under the broad category of work protected by basic copyright law (i.e. a literary work). Now if we take the three view drawings of aircraft, they would appear to be proected under the broad category of pictoral or graphic work. Typefaces are an exception to this because of specific case law. There is no such case law for three view drawings of aircraft.

As pointed out above by someone else - it's quite possible for three view drawings of aircraft to look very different (choice of line, detail, style...). So it's certainly possible to create independantly from photographs three view drawings of aircraft, that although describing the same thing, look quite different.

To conclude: We assume copyright on pictorial and graphic works - because that's what copyright law says. The law doesn't explicitly mention 3 view drawings of aircraft - but then it doesn't mention Harry Potter 7 either. The original works are copyright. The tracings are derivative works, and thus copyvios as far as commons is concerned. Megapixie 13:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - What’s an original? And how did you know that the images that you find in the web are originals? How did you recognize them? This image e.g. isn’t an original – it’s entirely a scan. How I know it? Just look it with 400% enlargement and you will see pixels on places where nobody will put voluntarily a pixel... --FSHL 13:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - Right... Most probably it's a scan from a book. A copyright book. What's your point ? Megapixie 14:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - That’s finally just irrelevant because {{copyvio}} is only given if there is at all a copyright protection which is explicitly and categorically doubted? --FSHL 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - Which you have stated before. The problem is that it does actually matter where the images came from. And so far you have provided no evidence that three view drawings of aircraft are exempt from copyright. Megapixie 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - That’s frugal: I’m the author of my 3-views, the license is {{PD-ineligible}} and Stahlkocher adduced IMHO good reasons for »a lack of originality«.... --FSHL 15:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - The works you TRACED are protected by copyright per my multiple explaination [115] [116] [117] [118]. No argument you have introduced here address that basic fact. Commons clearly requires uploaders of public domain images to provide a source, which you have failed to do. You have even gone as far as claiming that the works are your "own" [119] [120] which is outright plagiarism. If you only defence is to point to Stahlkocher's statements, then that's a problem because they don't seem to line up with copyright law in the real world. Once again - all of your uploads appear to be copyvios (except perhaps your photograph of yourself) and should be deleted. I'm still waiting for an explaination of Image:Jian-6.svg being traced from the photograph here. Megapixie 16:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - You purport steadily that the 3-views »are protected by copyright« however that’s no proof, I claim the contrary – it’s your word against mine. And BTW: Your aspersions can be punished, so please, choose your words carefully... --FSHL 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop with the threats. The frighten or impress no one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC -That’s no threat – that’s just a fact... --FSHL 11:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the situation is unclear as you admit, I keep looking at these drawings like the ones from FAS.org and some of them are pretty crudely drawn and don't have any authors signature (not that would prove copyright, but it kind of shows that they aren't really artwork) I don't dispute the fact that you can copyright a drawing or artwork of an aircraft, but I mean if it's just some lines that could be made by anyone using CAD software, I guess if these were highly detailed blue prints or architectural designs it would be a clear cut copy vio, I just don't see how you can copyright some generic looking lines and design that you didn't create in the first place, and they aren't a 100% match to what FSHL uploaded. Madmax32

A signature is required for copyrightable artwork? Where do you get such an idea? It's false. Drawings made with CAD software aren't eligible for copyright? What makes you say that? The source website doesn't own the drawings? That just means they're infringing a copyright; it doesn't mean we can.

And at least one of the drawings is a 100% match, within a margin of error accountable for by rounding in the conversion from a bitmapped to a vector format. Watch:

Using MS Photo Editor, I crop one of the views out of http://www.suchoj.com/ab1953/Su-7B/riss/Su-7BKL_02.jpg , set the background to transparent, and save it as a GIF. This is the side view from the bottom of FSHL's drawing, so it's easily comparable.
I open FSHL's uploaded drawing Image:Su-7BMK-Draft.svg in Inkscape
I import the GIF into the vector drawing. It's a bit smaller, so I scale it to the same length. At this point it's pretty obvious they're identical. The main difference is that clearly distinguishable lines from the JPG are blurred in the SVG, but rendering an image out-of-focus hardly makes for original work
Start bumping the GIF toward the vector image. It becomes evident that a small rotation (<~1deg.) is necessary.
Overlay. QED. Rotation by a fraction of a degree is needed to align them perfectly, but indeed they do. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - You forget however something – the Su-7U two-seat trainer is also part of Image:Su-7BMK-Draft.svg but not of Su-7BKL_02.jpg... --FSHL 11:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what? A work composed of portions of more than one copyrighted work is still derivative. That just means it infringes more than one copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - You forget however an additional and decisive argument – it was ultimately ascertained here and here that my 3-views aren’t a derivative work... --FSHL 14:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting an additional but not at all decisive fact; that the the closing admin in both cases is not the boss of me, or anyone else here for that matter, and does not have arbitrary binding authority over all the Commons. This is a legal issue anyway, and this admin has presented no legal qualification that would command universal acceptance of his decision.

Comment to TCC - And you forget however a crucial argument – the principle ne bis in idem respectively double jeopardy applies here... --FSHL 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is flat-out the stupidest attempt at Wiki-lawyering I have ever seen. There is nothing anywhere that prevents any article or media from coming up for deletion more than once. It happens all the time. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why we haven't contacted the Foundation's counsel for some advice here? TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all aircraft designed in at least the past 50 years, the designs are still copyrighted under the Berne Convention. No matter who has violated the copyrights on those designs, the copyrights are still violated. It does not matter where FSHL got the information. That FSHL does not consider its work in creating 3-view diagrams to be eligible for copyright is of no concern, as the underlying works are still copyrighted. Only if FSHL designs his own aircraft can he come here and release images derivative of his designs into the Public Domain. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - Then be consequent and place a deletion request for Category:Aircraft line drawings... --FSHL 13:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to Cat's contention that this information is "measures of the aircraft (via a mechanical drawing)"Commons:Deletion requests/Image:J-10-Draft.svg Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Su-37-Draft.svg, for each aircraft drawn, I would require proof that FSHL actually measured the physical aircraft and then converted those measurements into three drawings that became a 3-view. Absent such proof, it is evident that FSHL reduced copyrighted rasterized reproductions of the copyrighted blueprints or mechanical drawings to three vector form drawings that became a 3-view, while retaining their copyrighted status. It is possible for formerly copyrighted blueprints or mechanical drawings to have lost their copyrights due to expiration (Wilbur Wright died in 1912[121]), so line drawing reproductions of those blueprints or mechanical drawings should be in Category:Aircraft line drawings. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - No 3-view is AFAIK ever created by measuring the physical aircraft – it’s created as a general rule by measuring the existing pictures of a physical aircraft... --FSHL 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how you created them? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - In a sort... --FSHL 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - Why should I? That’s not relevant here for the simple reason that »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems. Scientific or technical works are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03) that means that 3-views are always too simplistic for copyright protection according to U.S. Copyright Office practices therefore a non-copyrightable work thus {{PD-ineligible}} and hence there’s no {{copyvio}}... --FSHL 12:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Wow. It almost looks as if you have a point. And you would, if only we were talking about an idea, process, or system. But we're not. We're talking about drawings of physical objects. If a technical or mechanical drawing of a physical object could not be copyrighted, design drawings (which fall into that class by definition) would automatically be ineligible and there would be no reason for Title 17, Sec 1329 specifically excluding from copyright designs for which a patent was granted. However, such drawings are expressly protected, which is the entire point of Chapter 13. The drawings here, of course, are not original designs even if you really produced them yourself and therefore aren't covered by this chapter anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - A customary 3-view isn’t a design drawings (that requires as well known threshold of originality and those isn’t given here) but a frugal technical work... --FSHL 12:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. All you've done is repeat yourself. ("Frugal technical work" isn't a legal term in the US and is meaningless with regard to copyright.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - You want to deny seriously that customary 3-views are a technical work? And frugal refers irrefutably to without threshold of originality... --FSHL 14:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing irrefutable about anything you've said. Perhaps your inability to understand this is part of why you don't understand why you have anything to prove. There is nothing about a technical drawing that makes it ineligible for copyright per se, so stop waving that around because it's no more meaningful than the "frugal technical work", which is still definition-free. And please don't link to ipmall again; I explain below that it doesn't say anything to help you. In fact, none of the links you've posted are of any help to you, so don't repeat any of them. If you want to win anyone over, you need first to stop doing such annoying things. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - Dude, I don't know where you come from but in Old Europe, particularly in Germany, it's (still) not necessary to prove one’s innocence and your argumentum ad hominem discredits just yourself... --FSHL 05:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an ad hominem, it's an observation. You show no sign of understanding the problem. Either you are unable to understand it, or you're refusing to understand it; either way you have not yet said anything to address it. And saying the same thing over and over again, and linking to the same pages over and over again, no matter what anyone says to you, is annoying. Presumption of innocence isn't the issue, since we have clear evidence of direct copying here. It's therefore up to you to defend yourself. But this discussion didn't have to be about you; you dragged it in that direction. The fact that you perceived this discussion to be about you from the beginning, and not about the images, is part of the problem. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - Show me just one damn single pixel that’s equal in both images. You can’t? Of course not because vector images simply don’t have any damn pixel. So how could there be an evidence of direct copying here? --FSHL 14:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) arbitrary section break - 1 August 2007

Delete blantant copyvio. why are we even bothering to discuss this? Physchim62 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - Because {{copyvio}} is only given if there is at all a copyright protection which is explicitly doubted by {{PD-ineligible}}? --FSHL 12:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just having {{PD-ineligible}} on the image description page doesn't make it true. This template is intended for images that, if anyone were to draw this, it would pretty much come out the same. Things like chemical formulas, common symbols, etc. Megapixie and TCC have pretty much proven that there are a number of different creative choices that have to be made in order to draw these plane images. Ergo, PD-ineligible does not apply and these are copyvios. howcheng {chat} 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this for example http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mig142-line.gif it's so simplistic, can you really stop people making derivative works from it? Madmax32 22:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to howcheng - But if you draw a 3-view of e.g. a Su-37 it’ll always »come out the same« – there’s just no way for a 3-view »to look very different (choice of line, detail, style...)« to a Su-37, at least not enough to stress threshold of originality ergo {{PD-ineligible}} does apply and there’s no {{copyvio}}... --FSHL 12:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Madmax32 - It doesn’t concern here the degree of complexity (the original structural drawings/blue prints explicitly excluded) – it’s a matter of something fundamental... --FSHL 12:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to whoever still cares. Yet more proof that the original TRACED works are copyright. According to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40a.html "Blueprints, architectural drawings, mechanical drawings, diagrams" can be copyrighted (see section "Two-dimensional works") see also [122] for background for house blue prints. Megapixie 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - Nobody doubted that blue prints can be copyrighted – it’s not about blue prints here it’s about customary 3-views... --FSHL 13:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - Might another name for a three view diagram of an aircraft be "diagram" ? Megapixie 13:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - A customary 3-view can maybe sometimes be seen as a diagram (I wouldn’t affirm it) but crucial is that »can be copyrighted« doesn’t implies that they’re copyrighted in any case... --FSHL 13:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have the problem. If you concede that they can be copyrighted, then we must assume that they are copyrighted until proven otherwise. howcheng {chat} 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to howcheng - There’s in fact no problem. I just concede that »blueprints, architectural drawings, mechanical drawings, diagrams« can be copyrighted because U.S. Copyright Office provides it in such a way – but that’s all. A customary 3-view isn’t a blue print, architectural drawing, mechanical drawing or diagram... --FSHL 12:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio. If a blueprint is eligible for copyright, then a three-view drawing certainly is. --Carnildo 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carnildo - That’s an invalid generalisation and a common prejudice – without threshold of originality a customary 3-view is just a non-copyrightable work thus {{PD-ineligible}} and therefore there’s no copyright violation... --FSHL 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To compare a construction blueprint with a easy-to-make 3-view is strange. There is no copyright on a simple view (all views are traced anyway, because there is just one real archetype, the vehicle itself, if a blueprint is copyrighted is uninteresting, because FSHL files are no blueprints) --D.W. 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When creating the 3-view, which edges are you choosing to include? How thick do you choose to make which lines? How do you choose to handle transparent areas? Blueprints made off a physical prototype have zero creativity: take the same part to two draftsmen, and they will give you drawings that differ only in trivial ways like choice of scale. 3-views have far more creativity than that. --Carnildo 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carnildo - Blueprints are normally created before a physical prototype gets real – a customary 3-view however always in retrospect... --FSHL 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh i forgot a

Keep in my first comment above--D.W. 13:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to D.W. - is there any case law to back this up ? Let me answer for you - no there isn't. These drawings are clearly protected by copyright. I'm sure if you hunt around piratebay or doom9 you'll find lots of arguments that uploading rips of DVDs isn't copyright infringement as well - but that doesn't make it so. The US copyright office indicates that "Diagrams" are protected even Maps are protected because they pass the very low threshold of originality under U.S. copyright law. If these drawings are so simple why isn't FSHL producing them himself instead of tracing the work of others ? The simple answer is because they aren't simple works - they require skill and creative judgement beyond that which FSHL posseses. Are there images that aren't protected by copyright? - sure but it's restricted to simple geometric forms like Image:Sign_of_the_Deathly_Hallows.svg which have no element of creativity. To say that the images like Image:Su-35-Draft.svg are not eligable for copyright protection is just stupid. Megapixie 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - And is there any court decision to back your prejudice about 3-views? To answer with promptness: There isn't! But you explicitly suggest that there’s a case law her – thus why don't you simply evince them to us? --FSHL 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) arbitrary section break - 3 August 2007

Comment to closing admin - I'd like to leave this debate open until at least 10 August to give Mike Godwin a chance to comment on this (he's currently at WikiMania). I've contacted him off wiki. Megapixie 15:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I cannot see enough originality to be copyrighted --Historiograf 19:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No copyright violation here. Threshold of originality isn’t given for 3-views. --Owly K 20:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Historiograf and Owly K: could you draw one of these 3-views and get it to look the same? If not, there's enough originality for copyright. Physchim62 23:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - Is that necessary to be able to judge whether something is {{PD-ineligible}}? --FSHL 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's one rough-and-ready test, yes. If you want the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines on what is inelegible for copyright, you will find them here: they cite "chevron stripes, [...] the fleur-de-lys design, [...] a plain, ordinary cross" and "common geometric r. figures or shapes such as the hexagon or the ellipse, a standard symbol such as an arrow or a five-pointed star" as examples of what is ineleigible. We're a long, long way from 3-views. Physchim62 00:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "test" at Feist v. Rural is "To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be." O'Connor, J. 499 U.S. 340 at 345. Physchim62 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - Well, I’m able to draw it even by hand – that’s just a question of someone’s eye-hand coordination... --FSHL 00:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, tracing doesn't count. Tracing is copying, which is copyright violation. Scanning or format-changing fall into the same category of illicit activities. Physchim62 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - And I really meant by hand – just with a pencil on a blank sheet of paper without any further facilities except perhaps a rubber... --FSHL 01:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - Yes, it is possible to draw some of these 3-views and get it to look the same. Of course. Like Stahlkocher said: If you do a three side drawing of the Su-37, it allways will look like the Su-37, whatever you do. And how much labor you ever spend to create such drawings, they will allways look like a Su-37. Displaying the proportions of an aircraft, there is no room for creativity. These 3-views are always showing the same grade of detail with a black canopy, following the same guidelines. If I would make one from scratch, it would look like one of those and like the ones in the common aircraft literature. For that reason, your argumentation (just as the whole discussion, which reached its dead point) is ineligible. --Owly K 04:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In drawing a 3-view, the artist has to make choices as to line widths and as to the amount of detail included: these choices make the difference between a good 3-view and a bad 3-view. See for example this 3-view of the Su-37, which is obviously different (and in my view inferior) to the 3-view under discussion here. There may not be much room for creativity, but there is some and that is enough for copyright protection. Are you seriously suggesting that Image:Su-35Prototyp.Front.jpg qualifies for copyright while these 3-views do not? Physchim62 10:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing apples with oranges with bananas doesn't help here, so I'll ignore it. What I should really suggest: Delete the images, edit detail, line width, position, whatever and upload again. It would not waste so much time like this blahblah. If the pics will be deleted or not, no one really knows the right solution for problems like this, so stay tuned for the next conflict. I'm tired and offline now. -Owly K 12:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - That’s right, »the artist has to make choices as to line widths and as to the amount of detail included: these choices make the difference between a good 3-view and a bad 3-view« but that’s not sufficient for threshold of originality for the simple reason that »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems. Scientific or technical works are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03) that means that 3-views are always too simplistic for copyright protection, hence a non-copyrightable work, thus {{PD-ineligible}} and therefore there’s no {{copyvio}}. And BTW the reason why the 3-view of your so-called Su-37 looks so different is finally very easy: It’s in reality a Su-47 – an experimental Russian weapon system... --FSHL 12:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) arbitrary section break - 4 August 2007

Keep The only reason for copyvio is "possibly copyvio" . The charge of evidence is everytime at the side contested.

There are two ways :

First one :in democratic an liberal countries and jurisdictions and mentality - everything is allowed what is not exactly prohibited in detail, or limited in legal way;

Second one :in authoritharian or totalitarian mentality - what is not exactly allowed ( in detail) by state is prohibited.

In conclusion what does it mean "possible copyvio" . Has any copyright proprietor made any reservation or claim against FSHL drawings ? Is anybody here to put any claims ? I don't think so. Also - there is no reason to delete anybody hard work and contribution in Wiki Commons .

Freedom first, common sense first , restrictions only when it is legally unavoidable. Every restriction and possible delete has to be justify in detail.

The choise is yours.

Best regards for all Wiki community.

Andros64 20:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to continue to promote democracy and liberalism, Wikipedia and related projects like Wikimedia Commons must continue to be provided. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to continue providing Wikipedia and related projects like Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation must continue unimpeded by civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order to continue unimpeded by lawsuits and criminal prosecutions, the Wikimedia Foundation must continue to comply with the copyright laws of all of the jurisdictions in which it operates. The most restrictive of those laws are the US copyright laws that apply at its headquarters in St. Petersburg, Florida. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiMedia Foundation Licensing Policy Resolution of 23 March 2007 continued the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment "to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests is a place where Wikimedia Commons users can go to request deletion of content which should be deleted. One of the valid reasons for deletion is that the content is not "free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'". — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that this content is not "free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works'", but rather is derivative of the copyrighted work of the aircrafts' designers. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 15:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - And I state that it was ultimately ascertained here and here that my 3-views aren’t a derivative work – so the principle ne bis in idem respectively double jeopardy applies here furthermore is my content »free as recognized by the Definition of Free Cultural Works« because it’s {{PD-ineligible}} therefore a non-copyrightable work thus without any legal restrictions... --FSHL 23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a court. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - Why did you hold then an address by counsel? And BTW the principle ne bis in idem respectively double jeopardy are anywhere a valid form of procedural defence – except at totalitarian communities... --FSHL 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What address by counsel? There are any number of ways that a particular file can be a copyright violation. Each can be investigated. New evidence can totally change the situation. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - As I already explained there’s no {{copyvio}} for the simple reason that »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems. Scientific or technical works are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03) that means that 3-views are always too simplistic for copyright protection according to U.S. Copyright Office practices therefore a non-copyrightable work (so effectively without threshold of originality) thus {{PD-ineligible}} hence without any legal restrictions thence »free as recognized by the Definition of Free Cultural Works«... --FSHL 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying this. You're simply wrong. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. This is not an "idea, process, or system". It's a drawing of a physical object. Drawings can be copyrighted, and the bar with respect to originality is very, very low. You have been given specific examples of how there's nothing at all in US Copyright Office practice to bar copyright for a work of this complexity. Lengthening your argument and finding more things to link to isn't very convincing either. Either find a specific example to support your repeated claim --NO DON'T TYPE IT AGAIN. I KNOW WHAT IT SAYS-- or give it up. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - You’re right, »drawings can be copyrighted, and the bar with respect to originality is very, very low« but definitively not zero. And you are again right, a customary 3-view »is not an "idea, process, or system"« but a »technical work« and this »are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03). But there’s no »original copyrightable expression« according to U.S. Copyright Office practices here and also no threshold of originality... --FSHL 14:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you not to repeat yourself again. You've only linked to that page a dozen times or so; another one is more than redundant and proves your claim no better than it did before. 510.03 obviously does not apply here: 510.04 clearly contemplates copyright on technical drawings of existing objects. Please prove your heretofore unsupported assertion that these drawings to not meet the threshold of originality. And don't say "customary 3-view" again either. The form of the drawing is not material to its eligibility for copyright. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - You want to deny seriously that customary 3-views are a technical work? You want to deny seriously that customary 3-views based on a weapon system? You want to deny seriously that weapon systems are a scientific and/or technical work? You want to deny seriously that scientific and/or technical work »are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression«? --FSHL 16:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL -- No, and I said nothing that would even remotely imply any of that. Quite the contrary, in fact. This is again making me wonder about a language barrier. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - But if you don’t want to deny seriously the first 3 given facts then it’s just a logical conclusion to agree that there’s no »original copyrightable expression« according to U.S. Copyright Office practices here – this lets me assume a logical barrier on your side... --FSHL 15:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of arguments

There seem to be so many different arguments at work here I thought I'd sum them up in a table (these should not be counted in any vote tally)

#	Vote	Argument	Reasoning	Counterargument
1.	Keep	Images are PD-ineligable therefore it doesn't matter where they came from	They are precise representations of a real world object and cannot look any other way.	There doesn't seem to be any case law to back this up, threshold of originality is pretty low.
2.	Keep	Let's keep them till someone complains	Nobody is complaining about the images so lets keep them until the copyright holder does complain	Why don't we just start hosting DVD rips ?
3.	Keep	The images are not based on any copyright work	The images are solely the work of FSHL	See above for that seems unlikely.
4.	Keep	Images are probably the work of the US military	Such detailed drawings must be the work of the US military	No sources have been provided for the images, just as likely (or more so) that they are not.
5.	Delete	Any images of an SU-37, etc is a derivative work of the original plane	The images are like drawings of a sculpture, and are derivative works of the original plane design.	The SU-37 is pretty, yes, but it's not a sculpture - it's a utilitarian object.
6.	Delete	The images are copyvios	Images are tracings of copyright drawings, and are thus a derivative work.	FSHL denies this or at least disputes the sources.

The only argument I buy is 6. Megapixie 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - Your so-called summary of arguments is tendentiously and definitively not accurate enough concerning to the given arguments and facts therefore should be ignored – there is no need for it and assumed subliminally that the readers themselves aren’t able (dim-witted/unintelligent?) to follow the discussion... --FSHL 14:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to argument 6 above. I have made this argument before on the image deletion request, and to a lesser extent on FSHL's talk page. I have also in the course of the latter made a tracing of a MiG (compare to FSHL's - different source, but same general style of blurred lines and indistinct details) using the autotrace function in Inkscape.
As far as I can tell, there's little wrong with the summary above. I personally find it useful for summarising the discussion, but of course it is only useful alongside the original discussion. I don't believe that makes me dim-witted. The only major addition I can think to make to it is the phrase "with no supporting evidence" to the counterargument of 6.
Also, I noticed that FSHL even admits taking/deriving his work from another source, at the bottom of this section. Inductiveload 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to ask a couple simple questions to FSHL. Are the sources of your hundreds of aircraft line drawings freely licenced? If no, then we have a copyright problem. If yes, please could you upload them to Commons or even email them to me if you dont wish to post them yourself, so that I (and others) may make a proper SVG trace of them. These would make the drawings even more useful to the articles they illustrate. By a proper trace, I mean one composed of simple lines, which is clearer and neater than the current blurred blobs. After all, we are dealing with "aircraft line drawings". If this is not acceptable, could you possibly provide a reason that you do not wish to share freely licenced material with people who wish to improve it? Please at least answer the first question squarely (a simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient). Thank you. Inductiveload 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - As I already explained there’s no {{copyvio}} for the simple reason that »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems. Scientific or technical works are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03) that means that 3-views as a frugal technical work are always too simplistic for copyright protection according to U.S. Copyright Office practices therefore a non-copyrightable work (so effectively without threshold of originality) thus {{PD-ineligible}} and that applies of course also to my sources – that I don’t release however yet as long as no positive decision in principle is decided and definitively not to someone that places itself against me... --FSHL 11:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a "no"? I'm afraid I can't tell from your answer. Inductiveload 12:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think anyone is going to take it as a "yes". Why would FSHL go on with this ridiculous argument about copyright (in)eligibility if the images were not copied, and from sources that assert copyright. Probable sources for some of the images are given above. Physchim62 13:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - My sources are of course as well »free as recognized by the Definition of Free Cultural Works« for the simple reason that »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems. Scientific or technical works are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03) that means that 3-views as a frugal technical work are always too simplistic for copyright protection according to U.S. Copyright Office practices therefore the sources are also a non-copyrightable work thus self-evident likewise {{PD-ineligible}}... --FSHL 13:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:FSHL - So you do purport your sources are free. Why do you have an objection of sharing a freely licenced source which isn't even produced by you? Of course you have no obligation to share, but why would you choose to not do that unless you have something to hide? Inductiveload 13:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - In order to quote the current U.S. president: »Who isn’t with me, is against me!« And I share with such a person in addition just nothing... --FSHL 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Definition of Free Cultural Works gives this as the first definition: "Availability of source data: Where a final work has been obtained through the compilation or processing of a source file or multiple source files, all underlying source data should be available alongside the work itself under the same conditions. This can be the score of a musical composition, the models used in a 3D scene, the data of a scientific publication, the source code of a computer application, or any other such information." Therefore, if we are to believe your work is free, we need the sources. Inductiveload 13:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - The source data of my 3-views is already free and available under the same condition – for the simple reason that »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems. Scientific or technical works are registrable only if they contain the requisite original copyrightable expression« (510.03) that means that 3-views as a frugal technical work are always too simplistic for copyright protection according to U.S. Copyright Office practices therefore the source data is also a non-copyrightable work thus self-evident likewise {{PD-ineligible}}... --FSHL 13:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL This is the definition of underlying. It means the data your SVGs are based on (so the images you traced), not composed of (the SVG file). Let's see that source data if it is freely licenced. We have heard the same phrase from you 3 times in this comment tree now. No need to say it again. Inductiveload 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - The source data of my 3-views »consists entirely of information that is common property« so it’s already available... --FSHL 14:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL So where is it? The definition specifies "alongside". This could mean upload it to Commons, but I think just a simple link would suffice. Thanks. Inductiveload 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Just anywhere... --FSHL 14:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL I afraid I can't find all these hundreds of "free" drawings you have traced, except for the the MiG-31 which you have already admitted to. Could you be so kind as to point me in the right direction. I'm looking for the (free) source of your drawings, not for any old 3-view, which may be copyright. Inductiveload 14:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Try first this and then alter the given name – 3-views are according to U.S. Copyright Office practices a non-copyrightable work for that reason don’t be afraid... --FSHL 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL – you might get a little but more sympathy had you not uploaded your images, which you admit to having copied, under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, that is a copyright licence which requires reusers to credit you as the author, and in stating that the source was "Vector-based illustration made with Inkscape v0.45.1 by me, myself and I". (see, e.g., [123]) Physchim62 04:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - As I already wrote here that’s just a logical conclusion of the closing of Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Su-37-Draft.svg. And I definitively never »admit to having copied« them – I never denied that e.g. this image was to a certain extent the starting point for Image:Su-37-Draft.svg... --FSHL 14:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a logical principle out of an admin's error? That's novel, but unconvincing. And I find it astonishing that even now you're not acknowledging the blatant copying you did. Vectorizing a bitmapped image doesn't create a new work. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - Stahlkochers arguments were/are plausible and persuasive... --FSHL 05:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stahlkocher's arguments were invalid. He failed to appreciate the difference between the direct copying of someone else's drawing and the creation of a new one based not on another drawing but on the object itself. The fact of the matter is that independently produced 3-views of the same thing, especially something as complex as this, are not going to be identical due to choices made by the draftsman either for aesthetic or practical purposes. If we were talking about very simple objects it would be another matter entirely, as the range of creative choices a draftsman might make in their depiction would be relatively small. But we're not. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - It corresponds far going to these... --FSHL 21:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're being honest that you really believe that link suggests these drawings are PD, perhaps a language barrier is exactly the problem. If that's the case, you're going to have to take the word of those more fluent in English than you are. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - That link suggests that »the like are not protected by copyright« therefore there’s no {{copyvio}} at all...--FSHL 14:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL Well, this certainly does not imply any sources: here. To quote, "by me, myself and I", no mention of the pre-autotraced images you used and licencing under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. Inductiveload 22:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Because that was plain and simple part of the pre-production – long time before I began with the creation of the SVG... --FSHL 04:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL What you actually imply here is that you feel that 3-views are eligible for copyright, the exact opposite of what you have spent your time arguing in this discussion. The closing of the deletion request which you cite has been questioned by the very admin concerned, so you would be unwise in drawing any conclusions, logical or otherwise, from it. Nor have you explained why you were so vehement in your affirmation of authorship when your 3-views are based, I believe entirely, on similar work by others... sorry, I forgot you'll "not specify [your] working procedures to anyone" [124] [125] [126] Allow me to do it for you then: your "working procedures" are (1) to find a bitmap 3-view on the web; (2) to convert it into a vector graphic using standard algorithms; and (3) to publish it as your own original work. A more blatant case of plagiarism is hard to imagine. Physchim62 02:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - I’m still the author of my work and comparing e.g. Image:Su-37-Draft.svg and Su-37_01.jpg everybody can recognize ad oculos that my working procedures can’t be so simple-minded as you describe it... --FSHL 04:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - What if we included another step - "move the views around a bit"? Inductiveload 14:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Comparing e.g. Image:Su-37-Draft.svg and Su-37_01.jpg everybody can recognize ad oculos that the 3 views aren’t only locally arranged differently but also with other details than Su-37_01.jpg in addition with a different base size (800 × 889 pixels in relation to 784 × 433 pixels) et cetera and so on... --FSHL 18:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a new article on the subject: here. My interpretation of this is that the design (i.e. measurements of the aircraft) are not copyright, but the drawing in which they are shown is. Therefore, you could take the measurements from a drawing, perhaps by laying proper paths down by hand (yielding a far superior drawing in the process, see this B-52), but you couldn't copy the drawing by using autotrace. What does everyone else think? Inductiveload 14:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - I haven’t (as already mentioned) copy anything »by using autotrace« and if you admit »that the design (i.e. measurements of the aircraft) are not copyright« then I definitively don’t understand your casting of votes »according to argument 6 above«...--FSHL 18:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. From what I understood at the time of writing that, it thought that the drawing was copyright while the design was not. Since you have clearly derived your work from a non-PD drawing, you have breached copyright. I think even you will agree that you have modified the original drawing to make into your current SVG derivaton. Now, from the correspondence below, it would appear that using a non-PD source to any extent excludes us from freely licencing the image. Also, I find that that I simply do not believe that you placed 12906 (this is the actual value) path points without using an automatic filter. You're going to have to better than that. Inductiveload 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - I didn’t modify an original drawing to make e.g. Image:Su-37-Draft.svg – I’ve used Su-37_01.jpg at the pre-production as study object in order to analyse its proportions. But I’ve created Image:Su-37-Draft.svg totally independently of Su-37_01.jpg. The only community between Su-37_01.jpg and Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is the fact that it’s the same airplane... --FSHL 22:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inductiveload: The method you describe is, I think, something of a gray area, but less dubious than the procedure evidently used here.

And FSHL? How come when I said above that you didn't understand the problem it was an argumentum ad hominem, but when you say it here it's a point in your favor? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - It's not what you say, but how you say it... --FSHL 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since everything sounds classier in French: Tu ne comprends pas les nombreaux problèmes qui sont les sujets des discussions ceux-là. Perhaps a tad fractured since I'm badly out of practice, but there you go. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - C'est le ton qui fait la musique... --FSHL 14:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL -- And just to show I can misconstrue aphorisms in any language:

Let's all hum along! (What, you have trouble humming a fugue?) TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus... --FSHL 15:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL -- Maybe. Where we would differ is which mountain the mouse came from. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC - »"Alas," said the mouse, "the world is growing smaller every day. At the beginning it was so big that I was afraid, I kept running and running, and I was glad when at last I saw walls far away to the right and left, but these long walls have narrowed so quickly that I am in the last chamber already, and there in the corner stands the trap that I must run into," "You only need to change your direction," said the cat, and ate it up.« (Franz Kafka, A Little Fable) --FSHL 16:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to TCC. I know my suggested method isn't cut and dried, and I'm wasn't sure myself, but it's what I made of the article (which I find to be ambigously worded). I was waiting for more correspondence from the US Copyright Office about this. Now I have it. Firstly:
"An original drawing would qualify for copyright protection." This is explicitly in response to a query about 3-views, as opposed to a general drawing, so we seem to have an answer about their copyright status. Secondly,
"If you are using Government created drawings and modifying them in some way it is not a violation of copyright. US Government works are in the public domain. If you are using a source that is not a government work and is under copyright protection you would need permission of the copyright holder to make a derivative work from that original source." This seems to imply that neither of the methods (autotrace and laying down paths using original as a guide) free the image from copyright. It would seem that we need to rely on PD sources only in this area.
These are both quotes from email correspondence with the US Copyright office, (copyinfo@loc.gov). Inductiveload 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - »An original drawing would qualify for copyright protection« meant IMHO that it has to come for this purpose directly from the original drawing office but non of the 3-views on the web is from the original drawing office therefore non of this 3-views has a copyright protection thus they’re non-copyrightable works hence there’s no {{copyvio}}... --FSHL 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. Actually, "original" means that the drawings are not the product of a derivation of another work. Whether or not the images you used are orginals or derivations of originals, they are under the copyright of the first image. Interestingly, this is the definition of "orginal" you use above when claiming that you placed 12906 path nodes by eye without an automatic process running on someone else's work. Did you know that if you placed one every second non-stop, it would take you over 3 and a half hours to do that! Kind of impressive if you did... Not that it makes any difference, but how do you know none of those drawings is not fom the "original drawing office" anyway? Do you have an author and a licence for each one? This is a heavily flawed argument you have and you know it, hence the constantly changing defence you're using. Now, since you have such a fondness for obscure Latin phrases to make or back up your arguments, I shall contribute a Chinese one to supplement mine: 掩耳盗铃 (Covering's one's own ears while stealing a bell), meaning "Ignoring the facts fools only yourself, and no-one else".Inductiveload 23:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - That presupposes however that there was ever this »first image« from the original drawing office... --FSHL 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. So drawings of the Su-37 just spring out of thin air? I was alway of the opinion that a drawing had to be drawn. I didn't mean the first ever image, I meant the first image in each chain of derivations. There could be any number of "first images" depending on how many people have made an original line drawing of an Su-37. It does not have to be drawn by a mystical "drawing office" to be copyright. If I were to go up to an Su-37 and draw a picture, then I own the copyright on that drawing (and any derivations of that drawing, including t-shirts, mouse mats and blurry autotraced SVGs). In the same way, some people, somewhere have copyrights on each of 1, 2, and 3, (the three images you have copied from) because that someone drew it once upon a time. Just because they are hosted on the Internet does not make them PD. It is even possible that the website owners are breaching copyright by displaying these images. That is not something that allows you to do the same here. Your sources are copyright (unless you present a PD licence) by someone other than yourself, and you have breached that copyright in making these images.Inductiveload 14:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - No, 3-view are created by analysing the proportions of the existing pictures of a physical aircraft and that’s exactly what I makes but you are possibly right and I should again demand copyright for it – otherwise is a customary 3-view until the end of time a derivative of a physical weapon system and »copyright protection does not extend to ideas, processes, or systems«... --FSHL 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. Like I said, the design of the aircraft is not copyright, but as soon as you make a drawing with a requisite level of creative input you produce a copyright work. From Section 510.01, "In order to be entitled to registration, architectural and technical drawings must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original graphic or pictorial matter. This would include choosing which features to add, varying line thicknesses, including underwing stores, missiles or neither, having extended or retratced landing gear, fill colour of canopy panels, etc. If you produce a work based on someone's photograph (a copyright work) then your work is a derivative of theirs. What you can do is produce a new 3-view based on the phographs or 3-veiws on Commons, on your own photographs or by going up to an Su-37 with a tape measure, as they are all freely licenced sources (unless you claim copyright to your photos, which would put your copyright on the 3-view, making it a copyvio on Commons). What you cannot do is to produce a 3-view based on someone else's non-PD 3-view and upload it to Commons.
Also, the design of an aircraft is not an "idea, a process or a system" - these are things like methods for making the plane, welding techniques for engine cowling or the concept of aerodynamics which are copyright-exempt (although perhaps not patent-exempt). Possibly section 510.04 applies, where the copyright claimed on the drawing does not extend to the plane, but this would not help you as it still places your sources under copyright of the artist.
I don't quite understand what you mean by "demanding copyright for it". At most, you could request that the artist, whoever that is, releases the image in the public domain or shares by CC, but I doubt the artist (if you can find him/her) would consent to that. Remember that you cannot claim your own copyright on a work and upload it to Commons, as all works must be free use.Inductiveload 16:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - And I’d just denied that a customary 3-view »contain at least a certain minimum amount of original graphic or pictorial matter« at least not enough to stress threshold of originality ergo {{PD-ineligible}} – but if they nevertheless »contain at least a certain minimum amount of original graphic or pictorial matter« then that applies also to my 3-views because analysing the proportions of an existing picture is definitively no {{copyvio}}... --FSHL 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. If a map can be shown to exceed the "threshold of originality", then a 3-view is certainly above it too. A map represents a physical object (the ground) as a series of lines and/or shaded regions. Can you explain (convincingly) why a 3-view, which depicts a physical object (aeroplane) as lines and regions, is any different? Essentially, it is a map of an aeroplane with very similar creative input, and therefore exceeds the threshold of orginality, is copyright, and as such, derivative works are not welcome here.
Also if by "analysing" proportions you end up with a image that is clearly derived from the source, then you have not made a free work. What if I were to "analyse" Bridget Riley's piece entitled Movement in Squares by measuring each square's size and position and thus come up with a nearly identical work? Are you seriously suggesting that by just measuring and transferring dimensions, you can free an image from whatever licence it is under? Furthermore, I still do not accept for a second that you make each of your hundreds of SVGs by "analysing" a copyright original by "measuring its proportions" and transferring its shape to tens of thousands of path nodes without an automatic process. Inductiveload 20:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - As Owly K already mentioned: »Comparing apples with oranges with bananas doesn't help here, so I'll ignore it« – a map ends »by "analysing" proportions« BTW also »with a image that is clearly derived from the source«... --FSHL 15:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL - It's more like clementines and satsumas. Copyright protection extends to maps, but not maps alone. Your images are similar conceptually to maps (graphical scale representation of an uncopyrightable physical object), so logically are subject to similar protection. As you know there is very little legal evidence, precedents or directives either way on this rather specialised problem, so we are going to have to use evidence concerning similar works (such as maps). I'm afraid the rest of your comment is oddly worded but as far as I can tell you are picking me up on the meaning of "source". By that I meant (and I'm sure you know it) the source images (the copyright ones you traced), not the plane itself. The same goes for my mention of "analysing proportions" - a cartographer certainly measures the land's proportions and dimensions in order to make a map, but does not (unless breaching copyright or with permission) measure the proportions of someone else's map. I take it also from your lack of reply that you accept that "analysing proportions" of someone's work can breach their copyright. Inductiveload 21:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Even if we assume that the mentioned original drawing existed and if we further assume that you can submit us the mentioned original drawing, what you didn’t yet, then this would be still no proof that all 3-views are derivatives of this original drawing. You’ll have already to demonstrate this proof individually to each 3-view. I'm afraid that this will never succeed. But without this proof your chain of evidence has then a yawning gap. At present the state of facts looks as follows: There’s only the theoretical anticipation that it could exist an original drawing however in unprovable relation to the existing 3-views. And it has been a long-standing rule on each legal system to ignore unprovable facts. Conclusions by analogy can’t tide over this trivial fact... --FSHL 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I don’t really know, how you come to the conclusion that my lack of reply meant that I »accept that "analysing proportions" of someone's work can breach their copyright« because I wrote just 2 comments further above explicitly: »Analysing the proportions of an existing picture is definitively no {{copyvio}}.« --FSHL 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to FSHL. I never said that all three views are a derivative of your fabled "original drawing" from the "original drawing office" of yore. What I did say was that some 3-views are drawn from original sources (the plane, photos taken by or licenced to the artist, etc) and some may be derivative of these.
Also, I do have your sources for at least one of your "works", because you cited them on the image page. They are, in case you have forgotten, [127], [128] and [129]. You added these after being informed by a third party that they knew where had copied your image from and you could not deny it. Any person with even one eye partly open can see that you have derived from these sources, mostly becuase the image is all but identical (barring a few omissions and the ever-present blurred edges) to the second link you give.
There is also such a thing as "beyond reasonable doubt" in most long-standing legal systems. Nothing can ever be proved perfectly, philosophically speaking, and even if one could, it is not required in order to, in your current legal analogy, secure the conviction. You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this is a court operating under a complete "legal system". It is not: this is an independent website, with it's own terms and conditions, and the onus is on you to show that you are uploading legitimate work. No amount of bleating about your "right" to the full-blown legal systems dating back to CIC (replete with ever obscure Latin and legal term you have dredged up so far) will help. At the end of the day, Wikimedia does what it pleases, and what pleases Wikimedia is to not have servers clogged up with poor quality, copyright material that cause it to break the law.Inductiveload 18:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Read my lips: I never copied my 3-views from anywhere – all further unprovable facts are entirely aspersions... --FSHL 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: And from the philosophical point of view there’s just no proof for nothing – ignoramus et ignorabimus... --FSHL 18:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) arbitrary section break - 13 August 2007

Continuation of the above comment tree from the left margin as the indents are getting very deep.

Comment to FSHL - You claim not to have copied your image. Could you then explain, and this is not a rhetorical question, the following. Taking your image, and overlaying it on a red version of this image yeilds this. As is clearly obvious, the image are so similar your image blocks out most of the red version. In fact, in the front view, there is no red to be seen. This image shows the red version by itself arranged in the same way as yours. Now, in order to make it like this, I merely had to separate the three veiws, scale them by a convenient factor of 1.5 (150%) and rotate one image (the top view) by substantially less than one degree. To me this shows that all you did was remove some details and autotrace/wave your magic PD-licence wand.
I know you will now protest that all Su-37 3-veiws are necessarily identical. Not so. Now consider this image. When overlaying your image on a red version, we get this. You can plainly see that it is substantially different. As before, here is the red version alone. Some differences (more than just your deletions previously) between this image and and the previous source are:
- Vectored engines point dead straight rearwards, rather than slightly down
- Landing gear extended
- The two lines in front of the windscreen are further down the nose
- The wing-tips sport much larger protrusions
- The wings have more prominent protrusions on the bottom
- The engines are much more detailed
- The entire side image is a different aspect ratio
- A radically different choice of lines and panels shown on the wings and fuselage
As you can see, many creative and technical decisions have influenced this image, and the result is a very different end result. As a result of this, I think it is clear that a) not all 3-views are the same; b) the level of creative input qualifies them for copyright protection; c) your 3-view is heavily based on this particular one; d) you have derived this work and violated copyright.
Also, about ignoramus et ignorabimus. That Latin phrase is exactly what I said. If you really want a philosophical debate (I was using it as an illustrative point, not a challenge, and I do not wish to sidetrack this already long-winded debate), then consider that, even for mathematics, Gödel showed that it was not possible to prove something based on a "complex system of finite axioms". So how you expect the real world, in all its as yet unknown depth and complexity, to be provable, I have no idea.
In reply to your earlier postscriptum, just because you state that it is not a copyvio does not necessarily make it so. It is certainly not "definitive", which implies that this case is the very defining point, or epitome, of the lack of copyvio. The fact that this discussion is still going on shows otherwise. You frequently claim things to be "definitive" when in actuality, they are the precise opposite. Perhaps you mean "obviously to myself" Inductiveload 21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - The reason for similarity is (as already too often mentions) finally frugal and IMHO simply elementary for everybody that can add 1 and 1: They all illustrate the same airplane. Here I overlaid your picture with these one by scaling and rotation. And the unbelievable happens: They’re also absolute similar – as expected... JSNM, isn’t it? --FSHL 22:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:FSHL – of course you ignore the fact that it is demonstrably possible to create a different image of the same aircraft, and the idea that you independantly arrived at the exact same criteria for your 3-view as the draftsman at suchoj.com is, quite frankly, laughable. The fact that other sites host copyvios is not a defence for your blatant plagiarism. Physchim62 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - It must be the cat's pyjamas to live in such a simple-structured world – there’s everywhere only {{copyvio}} and you’re always in full possession of the truth... --FSHL 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:FSHL - Congratulations. You have shown that this image is based on this one, or the other way around. You have a colleage in your copying. Or maybe one was released to the author of the other one by the original artist. Or maybe the same artist made both. Either way, one is clearly based on the other, due to the same sequence of choices made in the drawing process, as I described above. However, whichever way around the derivation goes, the image has been added to (by adding much more detail or by adding colour and insignia). This shows that however the image was derived, the deriver had the drive to add something to it, something you have not done. This does not mean that the work is not a derivation or a copyvio, mind, but it shows that some people make an effort to improve the image, rather than automatic filters and a vain hope that no one notices. This is all academic, as if you have derived the work from a non-PD/CC source (as you have done), then you can't put it here, whether or not you make additions. Inductiveload 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Is that evidence by allegation? Or do you’ve proofs that this image is based on this one? And aren’t you the opinion that your chain of reasoning has too many »maybe«? --FSHL 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. I have already shown that it is extremely unlikely that two images of even the same aeroplane will be identical, or even the same shape. There is a list of differences between two drawings of the same aeroplane above in case you missed that. I am not making an accusation against either of the artist of this or this. For all I know it is the same person or they have permission. After all, neither image is published freely, and on independent websites. My chain of reasoning is as follows:
- While a physical aircraft is not eligible for copyright, a drawing, photo or depiction is, assuming requisite creative input.
- A 3-view of an aircraft has requisite creative input. See above for a partial list of creative decisions taken in the drawing of a 3-view, as compared to another 3-view of the same aircraft. Compare this to, for example, a map, where a not-copyrightable object is depicted in a way that is copyrightable (maps are copyright).
- Therefore, a 3-view is eligible for copyright.
- You have admitted basing your work on a 3-view that is not only eligible for, but explicitly covered by, copyright. See below for copyright notices from all three of your given sources for this image.
- This is therefore a derivative work.
- The copyright for this image therefore belongs to the artist of the image you based yours on.
  - Furthermore, overwhelming similarities suggest that there was little more involved in your derivation than deletion of details and autotracing in Inkscape.
- As the copyright belongs to someone else, you cannot release the image into the publin domain under either a PD or CC licence. Nevertheless, you initially uploaded it under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}.
- As stated before, you also cannot claim it is ineligible for copyright, as 1) it is based on a copyright image and 2) it is a 3-view with requisite input to be eligible for copyright.
- Therefore, it is not a freely licenced image and should be deleted from Commons, along with ever other image in your gallery.Inductiveload 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIn case anyone is in doubt that the the cited sources are not PD/CC, I would also like to add that I have located copyright notices as follows:
- This image is hosted on suchoj.com. The notice there states that:
  - "Alle Bilder auf dieser Homepage dürfen nur für den privaten Gebrauch heruntergeladen werden, da wir für viele Bilder nicht das Urheberrecht besitzen."
  - For those who do not speak German, this reads "All pictures on this website may be downloaded only for private use only, as we do not possess copyright for many of the pictures."
- This image is hosted on XFig.org. It is presented as an example of Carlo Kopp's work, and the capabilites of XFig, a piece of graphics software. On the page the image is diplayed, a notice reads:
  - "Artwork Samples (© 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997 Carlo Kopp)"
- This image is hosted on aerospaceweb.org. A dedicated copyright disclaimer states that
  - "The contents of this site copyright © 1997-2007 by Aerospaceweb.org."
This shows that all these images are copyright. If one of these sources plagiarised from the other, that is not our problem, but the fact remains that every source listed has an attached copyright notice. Therefore, a derivative work cannot be hosted on Commons. Inductiveload 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - You must decide yourself: Does have flanker-prc.gif and su37_schem_01.gif now copyright or are they a {{copyvio}}? After all as I claim just {{PD-ineligible}}? --FSHL 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL It is simply untrue that you have "always claimed" that these images are {{PD-ineligible}}. You uploaded them as your own work—"by me, myself and I" to quote your tags—and licensed them under {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}, requiring reuser to credit you as the author. You only changed the tags to {{PD-ineligible}} "heavy-heartedly". I conclude that you are a liar as well as a plagiarist, and I look forward to the day when this project will be free of your pernicious presence. Physchim62 22:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Physchim62 - You are as usual not up to date... --FSHL 22:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL if you're going to play that game, I can simply restore your previous comment...

Comment to Physchim62 - That’s no game, that’s a fact. I had already changed my comment 3 minutes before your reply to my comment – therefore I delete your so-called restore because I’d call it rather falsification... --FSHL 23:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to FSHL. I have had this problem with you too. Please write what you mean and check it is what you mean before you press "Save Page". Also check for spelling and grammar. I have just been handed another edit conflict becuase you changed a spelling mistake after you edited AGAIN. It often takes people more that 3 minutes to write a comment. Perhaps if you took longer you would not have to come back time and again to correct them. There is a "Preview" button for that purpose. Also, don't write anything you will regret later because every edit is stored in the history. Inductiveload 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Sorry for the inconvenience... --FSHL 00:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. There's nothing to decide as I did not give you a choice. All three of those image you cite are already copyright to someone else. You can see the original copyright notices above. If one of these image is a copyvio, then the copyright belongs to the other artist. If they are not, then the copyright belongs to that artist. Either way, they are copyright. You cannot use them or base your work on them and then upload that work here. It does not matter whether or not you "claim" them to be {{PD-ineligible}} because they are not - they are copyright (so are unwelcome here) and the copyright does not belong and is not licenced to you (making you a plagiarist).Inductiveload 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - And how far does it affect at all my 3-views? As I already mentioned on the image page it’s »on the basis of« that means that I’ve used Su-37_01.jpg, flanker-prc.gif and su37_schem_01.gif at the pre-production as study object in order to analyse its proportions. But I’ve created Image:Su-37-Draft.svg totally independently of Su-37_01.jpg, flanker-prc.gif and su37_schem_01.gif. The only community between Su-37_01.jpg, flanker-prc.gif, su37_schem_01.gif and Image:Su-37-Draft.svg is the fact that it’s the same airplane – a circumstance that can be recognize by similarity... --FSHL 22:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. You have made my point exactly. You have based your work on a copyright image. Whether you call it "analysing proportions in pre-production" (cough), or deleting minor details and tracing with automatic algorithms, this is infringement, and as such should not be here (or anywhere else, but that is not my concern). You cannot make the tired old argument that all drawings of an aeroplane look the same, as I have shown conclusively above that this is not the case. Also, I consider it entirely ridiculous that you expect me to think that

You managed to totally independently come up with a drawing with all the same minor details present in one other, third-party drawing but not another. See above for a partial list of the details and evidence to back it up.
You somehow placed 12906 path nodes by hand (for this one picture), and did it in such as way that it is all but indistinguishable from the Inkscape autotrace function result for just tracing your "source from pre-production". If we consider your hundreds of similar (i.e. same method of plagiarism) pictures, you claim to have hand-placed over a million points. At a rate of one a second, with no pauses to eat, sleep, delete a wrongly placed node, change drawing tool or upload the images to Commons where they don't belong, you claim to have spend nearly two solid weeks doing that. I don't think I'm the only one to seriously doubt that. Good luck convincing anyone but yourself with that. Inductiveload 00:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Well, I would you say that KSR International vs. Teleflex is relevant here because a customary 3-view is for a »person having ordinary skill in the art« simply obvious – therefore a non-copyrightable work (so effectively without threshold of originality) thus {{PD-ineligible}} hence without any legal restrictions thence »free as recognized by the Definition of Free Cultural Works«... --FSHL 00:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. Firstly, that document concerns patents which are not the same, by a long shot, as copyright. Secondly, the actual text your refer to says:
- KSR countered that claim 4 was invalid under §103 of the Patent Act,which forbids issuance of a patent [my emphasis] when "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art."
Perhaps you are mistaking art to mean painting, drawing and the like. What the context is here is a craft or dicipline. Also, you may have missed the part where it says:
- “‘“[o]bvious to try” has long been held not to constitute obviousness.’” Id., at 289 (quoting In re Deuel, 51 F. 3d 1552, 1559 (CA Fed. 1995)).

The upshot of all this is that does not matter is something is obvious, it can still be copyright (but perhaps not patented). For example, a person's taking of photo of a bridge from one shore may be obvious, but if you try to pass that off as your work, you are still plagiarising. As another example, my drawing of a USB connector would be eligible for copyright (except that I have released it into the public domain) as I have had creative input in the angle of view, line thicknesses, level of detail, fill colours, whether or not to fill at all, size of image base, etc. If this were in a book, it would without question be accepted copyright material (unless it was stated that it was PD).

"Obvious" does not mean "ineligible". And this brings me back to my previous point - while the concept of a 3-view may be "obvious" and the plane itself cannot be copyright, the particular incarnation of the 3-view (i.e. the drawing) is copyright, due to the creative input used in making it.
Perhaps the Feist v. Rural case is again relevant. It is not what the data you portray (i.e. the telephone listings/dimensions of the plane/USB connector), it is how you present (i.e. the attributes of work in which the data is embedded).Inductiveload 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, you are confusing "obvious" with "easily done". If a 3-view is so very easy, then why do you not draw your own from scratch? I'll tell you why. Because 3-views are actually much harder to draw that you would expect - being able to translate a picture, complete with perspective and what-have-you, or a physical plane into a 2D drawing is a very specialised and advanced talent. Maybe you consider the concept of a 3-view (a line drawing of a plane from the front top and side) to be "obvious", but can you do it? Are you saying anything conceptually obvious, be it a painting made of rectangualar regions, or a book about a teenage wizard is therefore ineligible for copyright? Inductiveload 01:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Well, then you have however a fundamental problem, either you grant my 3-views also the right to copyright that you grant yourself to your image or you likewise agree that my 3-views »consists entirely of information that is common property«... --FSHL 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. Good God. Do I have to spell this out? I made that drawing on the basis of measurements I took, personally, from a real USB connector. At no point did I ever use another image as a staring point. This image was made using 3D modelling software, and is entirely my own work, from the ground up, making eligible (but this right was waived) for copyright belonging to me. You on the other freely acknowledge that you have used a copyright image to base your on. This of course makes it eligible for copyright, but, and here's the kicker, not to you. Your image may contain PD information, but it does not consist of it. In the same way, (and this is the point I was trying to get across to you) my image contains PD data, but presents it in a copyright-eligible way. This is the problem. You have copied not only the data of the planes dimensions (which is fine), but also the style of the presentation of data (which is certainly not). Even the selection the PD data (in your case an example is which panels to show) to show can break copyright, as demonstrated by Feist v. Rural. In this case, it was shown that while telephone listings (data) are not copyright, a collection that they are in is, as there are choices to be made in ordering, sections, etc. Inductiveload 10:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - So a real USB connector doesn’t have copyright protection according to U.S. Copyright Office practices? In order to be honest, I can’t see a difference – both are derivatives. But in my case that’s no problem because my 3-views »consists entirely of information that is common property« and as you agree »the design of the aircraft is not copyright«. Furthermore you must admit that e.g. Image:Su-37-Draft.svg differs substantially from Su-37_01.jpg, flanker-prc.gif and su37_schem_01.gif and not only by blurriness (that can be also understood as autonomous and vigorous style) thus both your image and my 3-views are entitled on copyright or none... --FSHL 13:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. 3 view drawings are entitled to copyright protection - as has been discussed many times. If you had drawn the images yourself without simply tracing the images using the inkspace automatic tracing tool, then we wouldn't be having this long and drawn out discussion. Your uploads consists purely of obvious derivative copies of other peoples work, and are simply copyright violations. No amount of stupid latin quotes and pointing at random unrelated pieces of law will change that simple fact. Megapixie 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - 3-views may at an outside estimate entitled to copyright protection if they’re an original drawing. Otherwise they’re a non-copyrightable work (so effectively without threshold of originality) thus {{PD-ineligible}} hence without any legal restrictions thence »free as recognized by the Definition of Free Cultural Works«... --FSHL 17:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. Have you listened to a word I have said? A real USB connector does not have copyright protection because it is a utilitarian object. However, the drawing does. I have said this time and again. Both my drawing and your drawings are copyright-eligible depictions of copyright-inelegible objects. The difference is, and you have missed this simple point twice now, that I own the copyright for my drawing, and so have the authority to release it under a CC or PD licence. You have no such authority, as the copyright on your images is still owned by the original artist (and before you claim that is you, be aware that it is plain that it is not). You are quite right to say the design of the aircraft is ineleigible for copyright. But, and here is where you break copyright law, the depiction of the aircraft that you have based your work on IS. The number of times I have had to repeat this one concept to you is staggering. Kindly absorb this information now and not require me to say it yet again.

Comment to Inductiveload - Well, I’m still the opinion that KSR International vs. Teleflex is relevant here because the aircraft design that the 3-views represented in each case were almost surely patented and that's explicitly a Supreme Court decision about obviousness in patents – therefore this applies also to the 3-views because for a »person having ordinary skill in the art« the rules of derivation is simply obvious... --FSHL 18:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you get your thesuarus English from, but I would not call deliberately making an image blurry and indistinct "vigorous". Just because you slightly modify an existing style does not change that fact that the image you blurred/traced/both already had a style, and, moreover, a style that was copyright by someone else. That style still lives on in your images, under a layer of blurryness. The lines are the same relative width, engines still point the same way, every detail you include is identical to the counterpart in Su-37_01.jpg, the same winglets are under the wings (and weapons/fuel tanks/sensors/etc, perhaps not this particular aircraft, but many of your other similarly unacceptable uploads), etc. By modifying the style, you make a derivative work and cannot upload it here. Inductiveload 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Look at this and this and you’ll see that my drawings look always a little bit blurry – that’s just my autonomous and vigorous style... --FSHL 18:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Inductiveload - Und da Du schon beliebst, über meinen Sprachduktus zu spotten, was hältst Du davon, diese Diskussion mal nicht in eine Sprache fortzuführen, wo Du zweifellos dein Muttersprachler-Vorteil ausspielen kannst? Mein Argumentationsstrang basiert ja auf die grundsätzliche Feststellung, daß die zugrundeliegende Ausdrucksfreiheit des Rißzeichners durch das jeweilige dargestellte Objekt beschränkt ist. Diese simple Tatsache läßt sich nicht von der Hand weisen. Darauf aufbauend, stellt sich natürlich umgehend die Frage nach der grundsätzlichen Schutzwürdigkeit einer derart eingeschränkten künstlerischen Gestaltung. Vormals war ich der Ansicht, daß dies durchaus durch das deutsche Urheberrecht gedeckt war, im Zweifelsfalle durch die Tateinheit: Kleine Münze. Ließ mich aber davon überzeugen, daß trotzalledem hierfür nicht ausreichende Schöpfungshöhe vorliegt. Die Begründung liegt hierfür auf der Hand. Für jeden halbwegs mit der Materie befaßten Laien stellt eine schlichte Dreiseitenansicht eines sattsam bekannten Flugzeuges kein Ding der Unmöglichkeit dar, sondern ergibt sich durch den Kontext selbst. Dies kann man z.B. an eine MiG-21 durchaus anschaulich vorführen. Ich mag zwar den jeweiligen Untertyp einer MiG-21 nicht ohne weiteres aus dem Steggreif zeichnen können, aber wie eine MiG-21 prinzipiell aussehen muß, könnte ich wahrscheinlich sogar mit geschlossenen Augen zeichnen. Das Wissen um das generelle Aussehen einer MiG-21 kann also unter Laien durchaus als allgemein gegeben voraussetzen. Gehen wir nun weiter und beschäftigen uns mal mit der Su-27. Auch dies kann als allgemein bekannt voraussetzen, den wer eine Su-27 auf den ersten Blick nicht erkennen kann, der hat, um es gelinde auszudrücken, einfach von der Materie keine Ahnung. Wer aber eine Su-27 zu erkennen in der Lage ist, ist auch in der Lage eine Su-37 auf den ersten Blick zu erkennen, erst recht, wen, wie in meine Dreiseitenansicht, explizit die hinteren Schubvektordüsen mal nach oben und mal nach unten dargestellt sind. Damit ist absolut klar, daß es sich hierbei nur um eine Su-37 handeln kann und nicht um eine Su-27 oder Su-35, welche diese spezielle Merkmale einfach nicht besitzen. Nun magst Du natürlich einwenden, daß z.B. meine Darstellung der MiG-MFI durchaus Expertenwissen voraussetzt. Das stimmt, aber nur dahingehend, daß soweit ich weiß nur meine MiG-MFI-Dreiseitenansicht die korrekte asymmetrische Ausgestaltung der hinteren Radarausbuchtungen darstellt, wie es z.B. auch beim Su-47 der Fall ist. Dein Standardvorwurf ist dagegen, ich hätte hierfür andere Dreiseitenansichten verwendet, bzw. zur Rate gezogen. Dies trifft durchaus zu. Aber ich habe keinesfalls irgend etwas hiervon einfach kopiert, sondern sie lediglich als Studienobjekte verwendet, meine Dreiseitenansichten aber völlig unabhängig davon gestaltet. Nun wendest Du ein, ich hätte Fehler, welche sich im übrigen auf mehrere der Studienobjekte befand schlicht übernommen, was als Beweis für das dreiste Kopieren meinerseits zu werten ist. Das ist aber eine unzulässige Verallgemeinerung, das ist nämlich weder ein Beweis, noch wird es durch deine beständige Wiederholung im Stile eines Reichpropagandaministers wahrer. Es stellt sich überhaupt die Frage, wie man hier überhaupt von einer abgeleiteten Arbeit sprechen kann. Ein Vektor ist, war und wird niemals eine Ableitung eines Pixels sein. Das ist schon rein epistemologisch gar nicht möglich, da es sich hierbei schon ontologisch um zwei völlig andersartige Daseinsformen handeln, welcher bereits ontisch kein Vergleich zuläßt. Mal davon abgesehen, daß bereits die U.S. Urnerheberschutzgesetzpraxis bzw. die aktuelle Rechtsprechung bezüglich dem U.S. Patengesetz die Schutzwürdigkeit von Dreiseitenansichten höchst zweifelhaft erscheinen läßt... --FSHL 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FSHL. This is simple. You traced copyright images. You uploaded them commons. You lied about tracing them. You continue to lie about tracing them. No amount of latin or German will change those facts. Megapixie 14:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - That’s mere your unproven point of view and I’ll probably not be able to change your dogma during my lifetime but there are obviously sufficient Wikipedians here that doesn’t share your aspersions – you get BTW why I wrote the passage on German? --FSHL 15:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven ? Explain this:
Your image: Image:Jian-6.svg source: [130] page: [131]
Your image: Image:Jian-7.svg source: [132] (you rotated the image)
Your image: Image:Jian-8-I.svg source: [133] (you erased the 7)

I prefer to think of it as righteous indignation Megapixie 23:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - I don't deny that those images were to a certain extent the starting point for my work, but that's all. Threshold of originality is given and I’ve created my images totally independently of those images – in case of doubt they’re simply inspired. Pleased now? Or did you really think that those images are also the result of automated tracing? Why do I ask? There's none so blind as those who will not see... --FSHL 03:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for fun, let's see how FSHL's image stacks up against this copyright image from suchoj.com when superimposed on top of FSHL's rather than below. I did not do this before as I did not have time to make the background of the source transparent then. As before, the source is red.
- Now, here is the raw source, transformed onto the SVG in question. Firstly, notice that it lines up round the nose and wingtips better than before. This is because for my first comparison, which you can see here, I reflected the plane's top view, rather than rotated it by 180 degrees as done here. Because of this different method, it was also unnecessary for me to have to rotate the image by a fraction of a degree as before. This contributes to the claim that these are simply traced, as FSHL has also included the defects in the original work (i.e slight rotation and asymmetry) in his. Secondly, notice that again we see that it is almost identical except for some deletions.
- Next, I used the eraser tool only in Photoshop to remove minor details from the source image before overlaying it. The result can be seen here. I think everyone will agree that the result is startlingly similar. Please also notice the defect in one of the lines in the right hand tailplane has also been copied into the SVG. This is circled in blue.
I do not think there can still be any doubt in anyone's mind now. FSHL has performed only elementary modifcations to a copyright image and uploaded it under a false tag to Commons. I also do not believe that any of his works are legitimate. Inductiveload 22:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Inductiveload - Well, look at this image and you’ll recognize that your so-called »defect« is here likewise contained and as always mentioned I’ve used them at the pre-production as study object in order to analyse their proportions, so the small inaccuracies of the original files could maybe as a result of this slipped in – that’s really probable and I can’t exclude that however I can’t confirm it... --FSHL 19:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29) - bringing to a close

The opinions currently stand as follows:

Delete:
- Cat
- Megapixie
- Dammit
- cohesion
- TCC
- Jeff G.
- Physchim62
- howcheng
- Carnildo
- Inductiveload
- Polarlys
Keep:
- FSHL
- D.W.
- Madmax32
- Historiograf
- Owly K
- Andros64

This discussion has gone on for 21 days, and the standings have not changed for 14 days. I think it's time to bring this discussion to a close. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Jeff G. - Didn't you forget Stahlkocher? Or did that happen because he is an Admin on Commons? Cat ^chi? (another Admin on Commons) is as he admits »uncertain if "tracing" violates copyrights« and how do you come BTW at all on Polarlys? He didn’t catch the speaker's eye here – your so-called opinions list is therefore IMHO very parsimonious with the truth... --FSHL 19:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go any further [134] Megapixie 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - He didn’t give an opinion here – he gave at best a vote... --FSHL 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t forget the last discussion. I don’t know why Jeff added such a list (this is no voting), but if it’s there, my name is on the „delete“ side. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Su-37-Draft.svg. --Polarlys 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not (and still can not) find a clear opinion (keep or delete, in so many words, bolded) from Stahlkocher. Cat submitted the deletion request, so its opinion is a given (unless struck out). And Polarlys expressed his opinion directly. I added the list to ease the administrative burden for any Administrator who feels like closing this discussion. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this, and will close it this evening. --MichaelMaggs 10:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closure: I am closing this in reply to a request posted here for an uninvolved copyright knowledgeable admin. I have read through in detail all of the 40-odd pages of argument (some 20,000 words), and have to comment that in spite of the heat that this has generated the legal issues are not actually that difficult to resolve. I have taken into account all submissions made, and am closing of the basis of an analysis of the legal issues, and not on the basis of a vote.

Conclusion: All of the images are incorrectly tagged as {{PD-ineligible}}. Although the uploader has declined to disclose his sources, there is strong evidence that the images are infringing copies of earlier copyright drawings, made by others. In the absence of any proper licensing information, including details of public domain or freely-licensed sources, from which these images were derived, they all fall to be deleted.

Rationale: The uploader has argued on a variety of different bases as to why the images should be kept. Most I need not comment on, as they do not advance the discussion, but three are of particular importance, namely:

1. That all 3-views are copyright-ineligible as they are “always too simplistic for copyright protection”. That generic statement is quite simply wrong, as any copyright practitioner would be happy to confirm. It is a fallacy to suggest that a 3-view is simply a non-original version of a utilitarian object (here, a plane) which cannot, in itself, attract copyright. In truth, the creator of such a view does indeed of necessity expend “work, skill and labour” (the Common Law approach) or display “creativity” (the Civil Law approach) in deciding what to show and how to depict it. Of course, not all 3-views will necessarily be complex enough (eg a 3-view of a cube), but here there is plenty of detail here which supports a holding of originality. If that were not so, all 3-views of a given plane would look the same, which is self-evidently not the case.

2. That although some earlier images were “to a certain extent the starting point” for the uploader’s work, they were merely used as “inspiration” and nothing more. That argument is unsustainable given the exceptional similarity – akin to tracing – between at least one image and an earlier one from which it derives. What has been copied is not as alleged an “idea, process or system” but a specific copyright-protected representation.

3. That the images should not be deleted absent any proof that the drawings from which they were taken were themselves original; and neither is there proof that copyright subsisted in them. This would be dealt with very easily in court, and we can apply the same reasoning here. First - is there prima facie evidence that the originals were copyright works? Yes, since the planes are not 70 years old, and any draftsman who created an original 3-drawing (eg by measuring the dimensions of the plane and by using his drafting skills to create the views) will automatically attract copyright. Second – is there prima facie case that the images are copied? Clearly there is. The onus of proof then moves to the copier to show that either of these prima facie conclusions is wrong. The burden on him does then require from the copier full disclosure, which we do not have here. A decision adverse to the copier cannot be avoided either in a court of law or here by deliberately creating a hole in the chain of evidence, and then relying on that same hole effectively to say “well, you can’t prove anything against me”.

Comment: The above points and others have been explained at length to FSHL by a number of users, and especially by Megapixie and Inductiveload, both of whom have an admirably clear understanding of copyright law in this area. It is regrettable that FSHL has persistently and stubbornly rejected the views of those whose copyright knowledge is far in excess of his own in favour of a mixture of bald assertion and misapplied law (even going so far as to confuse the totally separate concepts of originality in copyright law and obviousness in patent law). I have counselled FSHL as to his behaviour, and have warned him not to upload any more incorrectly-tagged pictures. --MichaelMaggs 17:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:205.Ro Pui d'Araguás.JPG

See Image:205.O Pueyo d'Araguás - Plan Cheneral.JPG for a better version. Substituted everywhere. Thanks --Lascorz (I'll read it) 21:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the future use the {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template to tag the old image, then it will be deleted Pimke 21:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case not, because the new image is not "identical" to the old one. --ALE! ¿…? 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the author of that picture and I personally substituted it everywhere it was used. Just tagged the old version, which is the largest in size but was quite dark and didnt do well for the use [135]. Think this one is an absolute unnecessary, weighting in server as its no longer used. If there's anything else lacking for the deletion, please tell me via my talk page. Thank you. --Lascorz (I'll read it)

05:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:205.O Pueyo d'Araguás - Plan Cheneral.JPG

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Coracias_abyssinica_0026.jpg

I cannot tell what exactly is suppose to be on this image. Everything is all basically one color, except for some object near the middle of the bottom edge. Either this needs to be cropped, if the object is relevant, or the image should be completely removed Zzyzx11 19:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 'object' is a bird (Roller) in flight. It is not relevant. Lycaon 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a valid reason for deletion, it's a bird in a (really big) field of blue sky. -Nard 21:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Nard - The trivial fact that Zzyzx11 isn’t able to recognise a bird isn’t really relevant for deletion. --FSHL 13:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image has now been cropped /Lokal _Profil 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. --Davepape 20:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Beslan_school_no_1_victim_photos.jpg

derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Russia (non commercial use allowed only) Madmax32 01:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative of what? Of the individual photos or of the entire display? (or both?) Also do we know who the artist was and whether it was produced by the government or not? -Nard 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

considering that the gallery is the main subject of the picture, I would think that the freedom of panaorama situation would be relevant, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan All these countries' laws only allow this limited form of freedom of panorama: images of architectural works, photographic works, or works of fine art (which includes sculptures and statues) that are permanently located in publicly accessible places may be published only for non-commercial purposes or if the depicted copyrighted base work is not the main subject of the image. Madmax32 01:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Mr Bird was kind enough to agree to freely license any of his Beslan photos, I can always just get something else, but just to argue the point, none of the victim photos depicted in this are actually the primary subject, but instead the entire collection of photos here is. I don't know if that makes any difference, though. howcheng {chat} 22:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by the other deletion requests, the photographs on the gallery and the country of origin are both Russia, so Russian laws are relevant here, and they only allow a limited non commercial & non derivative FOP Madmax32 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Each individual image is included incidentally which does not violate copyright. The collection is not protected because it's below the threshold of originality. Samulili 09:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Stadsnetbrugge.JPG

Looks like scan, no original author nor license. Tomia 14:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, it is a scan, but I changed some things that were irrelevant. It's a scan from a public folder from "De Lijn"... There should be no copyright on it... Wikifalcon 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. No license info from De Lijn. Samulili 09:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Serbia1918.png

On map are Serbia borders which has never been international accepted. Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation is shown like Serbian territory. Part of territory under occupation will be given to Romania, part will stay with Hungary and greatest part will be given to Serbia with peace agreements 1919/20. Simple speaking this map which show borders on 26 november 1918 is false so it must be deleted. More about that on talk page. —Rjecina 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

There are many maps on Wikipedia that show states whose borders were not "international accepted". Therefore, if we delete this map because of that reason, then we would also have to delete maps of Northern Cyprus, Western Bosnia, Independent State of Croatia, Transnistria, etc, etc. Second, results of this voting will not be valid because user Rjecina called other users to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rjecina And the fact that he called here voters for whom he thought that they will vote "delete" making this voting invalid. Third, before voting, you all should read entire discussion about this map here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serbia1918.png There I explained that in the time which is showed on this map (November 25-December 1, 1918) this was not "Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation" because Hungary was not internationally recognized state in this time and occupation of this territory was officially finished on November 25, 1918. PANONIAN 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For users which are against deleting I my ask why Serbia is having special treatment ? Why this question ? Because I do not see on commons or wiki maps where West Bank and Gaza are Israel territory! I think that I will to create this map and more similar maps so we will have interesting situation. -—Rjecina 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

It is you who ask for "special treatment" for this map because you did not proposed for deletion other maps that showing "de facto" borders such are maps of northern Cyprus, Transnistria, etc. Also, Israel is very different case because UN had plan for "two states solution" before creation of Israel and therefore Gaza and West Bank were not recognized as parts of Israel, but territories shown on this map were later recognized as parts of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (the basic problem here is that Serbia ceased to exist as a state on December 1, 1918). PANONIAN 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the nominator has no edits outside this topic and didn't even formulate this delete request properly, he put it on another deletion subpage and didn't add the correct deletion template nor notify any of the three uploaders of previous versions of this image. -Nard 22:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's clearly labelled as the map of Serbia from 1918... it's not "false", it's historical. No valid reason for deletion given. -Nard 07:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Nard - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point is that this is Serbia that "should have been" not "that was". In short this is not a historical map, Serbia never had these borders in reality nor it was recognized by them, Serbia joined with Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegoina to form Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --No.13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:No.13) 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to No.13 - Try this: Wikipedia is not censored --FSHL 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What for? --No.13 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To No.13. Would you also say that historical maps of the Kinfdom of Hungary or Independent State of Croatia are what "should have been" instead "what was"? And if you think that Serbia "never had these borders" just see this source: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif Regarding recognition, Wikipedia have maps of many other countries that were not recognized. If other maps that show "de facto" situations exist, there is no reason that this one does not exist. PANONIAN 16:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Hungary and Indepedent State of Croatia are maps of those entities. The map in question here represents a state that never existed. Using the same rationale we could also present the Serbian map with lands promised to them by the Londom Agreement, agreement which also wasn't achieved since Serbia joined with former Austro-Hungarian lands (State SHS) to form Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --No.13 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see: you claim that Kingdom of Serbia never existed? Are you serious??? Just see how many google hits you have for it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kingdom+of+serbia&btnG=Google+Search And there is also map that show lands promised to Serbia by London agreement: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/LandsForSerbia.PNG/300px-LandsForSerbia.PNG However, the two issues are not related because map "Serbia1918.png" show what was achieved before unification with State of SHS. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously beginning to think you have problems with understanding English. I did not said Kingdom of Serbia never existed, I am saying it never had these borders. Your maps also says and makes clear distinction that these were promised to Serbia, not the actual borders. This is the case with this map also, only in this map we have it presented as these were legal recognized borders which was not the case. --No.13 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Serbia "never had these borders" as you claim, how you explain this source: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif Also, the map "Serbia1918.png" does not show lands "that were promised to Serbia" but lands that officially united with Serbia in 1918 (map of London agreement that you spoke about is something very different). And I do not see that "Serbia1918.png" map claim that these borders were "recognized" - in fact I already agreed that these borders were not internationally recognized, but question is why Wikipedia cannot have maps that show unrecognized "de facto" borders? PANONIAN 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This map is not a historical map and shows borders of supposed Serbia that never was. --No.13 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Note: the above user has no edits outside this topic. -Nard 21:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Just see the link which show these borders before claiming that it "never was": http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif PANONIAN 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note: the above user is having edits on english wikipedia where is that map used. -—Rjecina 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

- - - Note: User Rjecina called this user to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANo.13&diff=147898373&oldid=147897063 PANONIAN 16:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Note: User Rjecina and I are two separate individuals. It is me who decideds what to do and how to do. Needless to say no one can influence me to vote how he wants. Rjecina called me check this out, I did, since I know a bit about history of these parts I joined the discussion and voted. --No.13 14:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I do not claim that user Rjecina and you are not separate individials (did somebody else claimed that you are not?), but point is that by calling you here to vote he disrupted the voting process. That is not allowed by Wiki rules. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry but as far as I understand it is perfectly legal to call out for other people to join in the deletion discussions. The problem would be if he actually suggested me how to vote, which he didn't. --No.13 23:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But callling only users which would vote in certain way is not quite legal - he should call all users that might be interested in question (not only those who would vote "delete" by his opinion) and he should also call author of map here and he did not done such thing (I saw this page checking his user contributions). PANONIAN 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the map is misleading because Serbia never existed as a state shown here. 1918 demarcation lines weren't internationally recognized borders. Vojvodina, Baranya and Banat were occupied by the Serb army but borders were finalized in 1920 Trianon peace treaty along different lines. The map makes no distinction between demarcation lines and borders, occupied territories and recognized Serb territory. The creator refused any cooperation to improve the map which in present form seems Serb nationalist propaganda. 89.133.142.105 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) User: Zello on en.wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zello )[reply]
- It is truth that borders shown on map were not internationally recognized, but Wikipedia have many more maps of de facto borders of other countries (I already showed examples). Regarding occupation, official end of occupation of these territories was on November 25, 1918 when these territories officially united with Serbia which was recognized by the Serbian government. International borders were defined in 1920, but 1920 peace treaty did not changed the status of mentioned territories - their status was officially changed on November 25, 1918 when they united with Serbia, which on December 1, 1918 became part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The fact that Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was internationally recognized in 1919 show that these territories were in 1919 recognized as part of Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which was one year before 1920 peace treaty. Regarding "cooperation" that I refused, you did not proved on corresponding talk pages that this map is wrong. And it is very rude to post your comment now here ignoring all my answers that I gave to you about that on other talk pages. Not to mention that you insult me claiming that my work is "Serb nationalist propaganda" especially if we known the fact that you and several more Hungarian and Croatian users for very long time trying to edit Serbia-related articles with bad faith trying to prove that Serbs have no right to live in their country and that parts of Serbia should belong to Hungary and Croatia - that is also a reason why you want to delete this map: you want to impose your view that Serbs have no history and that because of that they have no right to live in their country. PANONIAN 16:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, and just one more thing about my cooperation. This is how original version of this map looked: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/52/20070708191309!Serbia1918.png But, after user Rjecina said valid suggestion that borders from 1920 should not be showed on map about situation in 1918, I changed the map to this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/5/52/20070716120805!Serbia1918.png However, later "suggestions" about this map were not valid at all and not only that, but it is obvious that these "suggestions" were not given in good faith, thus I do not see a reason to "cooperate" with somebody who think that entire Serbian history should be deleted from Wikipedia. PANONIAN 18:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Note: the above user has no edits outside this topic. -Nard 21:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Note: the above user is having edits on english wikipedia where is that map used. -—Rjecina 22:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
    - Note: User Rjecina called this user to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AZello&diff=147897233&oldid=147472349 PANONIAN 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons that others have suggested -- Rainman 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reasons? PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This map is absolutely not a historical map, this is a falsification. V79benno 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What proof? I can show you proof for opposite: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof for opposite? LOL. This map shows ’918 demarcation lines (you should know that, the black line according to map's legend is "demarcation line, Nov 1918"), not internationally recognized borders! V79benno 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mister V79benno, you have to provide proof for opposite and "LOL" is not quite a proof. Regarding borders, I already said that "internationally recognized borders" did not existed in this time and demarcation lines, thus, were the only borders that existed back then. I also said that Wikipedia have many other maps of states whose borders were not internationally recognized. Just one example: tell me what is difference between borders of Serbia in 1918 showed here and borders of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Mr. PANONIAN, if you really dont want to create a falsification, Hungarian territory under Serbian occupation must be indicated on the map properly, with clearly distinctive coloration. That's the end of story for any apparently normal adult human beeing... V79benno 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But can you at least try to understand the simple fact that Hungary was not internationally recognized state in this time and that no single part of land controled by Serbian army was not recognized as part of Hungary by anybody. I cannot indicate on map something that did not existed - this map is historical, not science fiction. PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False, Mr. PANONIAN, Hungary was per se internationally recognized as part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, as you certainly know it. I wonder why you want to create a never really existed history? Not science fiction? Certainly not. I'ts a joke, a sad joke. Dreaming about Neverland, where the facts doesn't mean anything, where Serbia is greater than the whole universe? :) It's pitiable. V79benno 12:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False? I do not think so. Hungary was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire, but you forgeting the fact that Hungary declared its independence on November 16, 1918, which marked the end of Austro-Hungarian Empire. The independent Hungary was not internationally recognized before 1920, but SHS Kingdom that included Vojvodina was internationally recognized in 1919. Regarding second part of your comment, you have no idea what I dream about, so you have no right to speak about it, I suggest that you read some history book before comming here because your knowledge about history is indeed poor if you did not know that Hungary declared independence on November 16, 1918. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way out for you, Mr. history-falsificator. SHS Kingdom that included Vojvodina was internationally recognized, but the occupied territory shown on this map was not part of this internationally recognized Kingdom, as you certainly know it. You don't have a chance to rewrite history, give up, boy, please, we all will be happier... V79benno 10:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have no proof that I am "history-falsificator", so please refrain from such comments which are kind of personal insult. Second, it is nice that we agree about fact that "SHS Kingdom that included Vojvodina was internationally recognized in 1919" - this fact simply explain everything: all former Habsburg territories that were included into SHS Kingdom had exactly same status within this kingdom, i.e. Vojvodina had exactly same status as Croatia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Slovenia, etc. So, the question is: were all these lands seen as "occupied" by the international community after SHS Kingdom was internationally recognized? The answer would be no, because of simple fact that international community recognized the country, which mean that it also recognized all these lands as part of that country. If international community saw these lands as "occupied" it would never recognized the country and without these lands SHS Kingdom would not exist. PANONIAN 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(First: there's no need for proof that you are a POV-pusher, it's clear as the daylight, my dear, don't play games. Who else on Earth would spend so much time with hardly defending such a ridiculous falsification?! Oh, my God.) Let me quote Speedy Gonzales from below: Map is POV, but in a subtle way, it does not present borders as somebody wishes to be for a (long) time, but as they supposed to be once, and was never realized. Map should change name, or be deleted. Its existence as Serbia1918 is quite misleading (as can be seen from above discussion), as full name could be: state borders od Serbia agreed on one meeting after 1'st world war, and a week later superseeded by actual borders of new state (which are quite different, as not only new lands are added, but some are removed from above picture). And sorry, not a week later, as from 26 Nov to 1 Dec is not 7 days, but 5. As user can not rename the pic, it should be deleted first, and author can then upload it again, but this time with a better name (let's say SupposedSerbia1918_11_26-1918_12_01.png). I wish you to find a better activity than this poor old game... You cannot change the past, but you can learn from it. :) It's never too late. V79benno 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is need to prove that somebody is POV pusher if you claim that and since you obviously does not have such proof then you claim that "there is no need for proof" (Sorry, but there is always need because your word means nothing). Also: I would never spent my free time if I do not defend something that is not falsification. Also, I already said that borders shown on map were realized (or you would claim that these areas were not ruled by Serbia in this time?). Also, these are ceratainly not borders "agreed on one meeting" - the borders are results of at least 4 events: drawing of demarcation line, assembly in Ruma, assembly in Novi Sad and assembly in Podgorica. I also do not see how current name of the image could be wrong when you also agreed that map show situation in five days in 1918. PANONIAN 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What a disgrace, this map is serbian propaganda and big falsification not a historical map. This map need to be deleted, soon as possible. -- Kingstone93 01:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same question: what proof? PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this is the only edit of this user here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kingstone93 PANONIAN 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falsification, not a historical map. Note that this is not the first time that we have false maps of Serbia. --Ante Perkovic 07:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then this Hungarian source is also falsification according to you, right?: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif Where is your proof that these maps are falsification? PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misrepresenting that source. As I see, it say "demarkacios vonol". Demarkation line. But not the recognised border. Kubura 11:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course because there was no any recognized border in this time. By the way check the map again: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif In top left corner you will read this: "Magyarorszag hatara, 1918" (In translation: "Border of Hungary in 1918"). In another words, this map too show that borders of former Hungarian Kingdom did existed in 1918 (before end of Austria-Hungary), but not in 1918-1920 period, in which case the map would have this description: "Magyarorszag hatara, 1918-1920". PANONIAN 17:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know the border situation in 1918 in Serbia, so I won't vote to either keep or delete this map. However, from what I understand from the talk page at the now defunct Borders before and after Yugoslavia, this map includes territory that was occupied by Serbia at the end of WWI, but never officially incorporated/recognized by foreign powers. So, my suggestion is to denote this in the map (similar to how Israel and the occupied territories are mapped). My other suggestion is to include at least some basic borders of neighboring countries, so people can get some context on where it was in relation to other countries. Someone unfamiliar with the Balkans might be confused by this map. We have to remember that not everyone is as geographically keen as we are. Parsecboy 12:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The territory shown on map was officially incorporated into Serbia on November 25, 1918 and was recognized by foreign powers in 1919, but not as part of Serbia - it was recognized as part of the newly formed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Also, we cannot wrotte on map that these territories were occupied because occupation was officially finished on November 25, 1918 and this map show situation from November 26, 1918. PANONIAN 17:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I also completely agree with Parsecboy. This is clear necessity in this case. This is the main problem I have with this map, it doesn't shows actual borders and should be either noted in the map and it's description, or if the author can't agree with that then delete. --No.13 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What actual borders? There were no other borders in this time, so what other borders we can show if such borders did not existed? PANONIAN 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Parsecboy's observations and conclusions above. I have the same problems with the present form of this image, but I don't want to give up hope that someone improves it, therefore I'm Neutral. KissL (see here for the real thing) 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my answers and comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Serbia1918.png I suggest that you all read that discussion before voting. Thank you. PANONIAN 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Everybody not familiar with the history of Central Europe should know that Pécs, Baja and Timisoara weren't recognized as part of Serbia in 1920 when international borders were finalized. Instead these areas became part of Hungary and Romania and their status never changed since then. The borders are recognized by the Serb government. The northern border shown here was never accepted by the international community. 89.133.142.105 User: Zello 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zello, do I have again to repeat that map does not show situation from 1920, but from 1918, and the fact that borders of one state were not recognized by the international community does not mean that we cannot have map showing these borders - do you suggest that we also delete maps of northern Cyprus, Transnistria or Somaliland from Wikipedia because their borders were not recognized by the international community? PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no problem with maps showing de facto situation. I only suggested to use different lines and different coloration for dem. lines/borders occupied/int. recognized territories but this was refused which makes the map misleading. 89.133.139.220 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe this - what occupied and internationally recognized territories you speak about? In the time period shown on map there were no any occupied and internationally recognized territories in that area. PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This map is a clear fabrication, and an attempt at falsification of history. This map is born out of either complete ignorance of historical facts, or the desire to spread extreme propaganda, take your pick. Hamada2 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What proof that map is fabrication? Can you say what exactly you consider wrong on this map, because we cannot discuss about your claims that you neither backed with proofs neither explained what you consider wrong here. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this is the only edit of this user here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamada2 PANONIAN 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the closing admin would ignore the transparent socks, that'd be nice. "Claimed borders of a real country that are unrecognised/were unrecognised" is an encyclopaedic topic. WilyD 16:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For me it will be interesting that WilyD explain who is sock of who ? From my knowledge he maybe speak about himself ??-—Rjecina 21:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I believe that it would be nice that checkuser can show who is sock - I bet that we would gain very interesting results from it. PANONIAN 22:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Rjecina clearly explained, prime exemplar of panserbian propaganda. -- Ivan Štambuk 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Panserbian"??? Would you provide for as any explanation why you think that this is "panserbian propaganda"? PANONIAN 22:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this is the only edit of this user here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.198.150.104 PANONIAN 10:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of user edits in no way invalidates the truthness of a particular statement. This map is intentionally misleading, as it shows Baranya as a part of Serbian kingdom. --iš

The voting process is not valid if numerous sockpuppets and "users" who were called to vote influence this processs. Also, where is your proof that map is misleading? Do you want to say that Baranja was not in this time controled by Serbian army and that representatives of Baranja did not voted for unification with Serbia on November 25, 1918? PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: can we check whether user:Rjecina and user:No.13 are same person? They have very similar edits, both here and on English Wikipedia, and they both started their edits here on "Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Beslan school no 1 victim photos.jpg" and then came to this page. That is very suspicious:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rjecina
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/No.13 PANONIAN 10:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand that person which is not honest is always making questions about honesty of others but this is starting to be too much. This second time in 40 days (first time on wiki) that this user which support chetniks ideology, this PANONIAN question my honesty. Can please somebody block this misleading editor of commons and wiki. Be good PANONIAN and please do not question why I have writen misleading. -- Rjecina 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I do not support chetnik ideology. I clearly wrote on my user page that I support Liberal Democratic Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PANONIAN You constantly spread lies and personal insults against me and harrasing me on Wikipedia and this simply has to stop (this proposal for deletion is also part of your personal crusade against me and my work). I have right to express suspitions about sockpuppetry but you have no right to insult other users and to spread lies about them. PANONIAN 16:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am fighting revert war on Nikola Tesla article because "neutral" users insist that in begining or article be writen how he has been of serbian nationality, but refuse to be writen how he is born in today Croatia. Point of this is that I "play" with everybody who is writing POV articles about Croatia on wiki. You are very popular person because of your misleading articles (example map Serbia02) where you want to create new history where Serbs have been majority until Buda during 1526 - 1683 period. For that you are using "census" data which nobody outside Serbia is having. -- Rjecina 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not see how Nikola Tesla article or your "articles about Croatia" are related to the issue that we speak about. This map is not at all related to Croatia, so tell me why you edit this page then? Also, you have no single proof that any of articles written by me is "misleading" - the facts shown on this map are correct, the data from 1715/1720 censuses that show Serb majority in several cities in present-day Hungary is also correct (it is especially not correct that "nobody outside Serbia is having this data" because this data originates from archives in Buda and Vienna), so the only problem that you have with these facts is your attempt to "prove a point" - you already said that you editing Serbia-related articles as a sort of "revenge" because some Serbian users edit Croatia-related articles. But this what you doing is outrage - I never edited Croatia-related articles in bad faith, so you have no right to vandalize articles that I wrotte in good faith as revenge to other users that did not wrotte such articles. In another words, you harassing wrong person. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fact is, that the Kingdom of Serbia as it is shown in this map, never existed. -- j.budissin^+/- 09:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim that based on what exactly? Do you want to say that these areas were not controled by Serbian army in this time and that they did not proclaimed their unification with Serbia? PANONIAN 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - No. I want to say, that they didn't belong to Serbia. Additionally, that you should stop fighting against the rest of the world. -- j.budissin^+/- 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - They did not belonged to Serbia "de jure" but they did "de facto" in the same way as all parts of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus belong only "de facto" to this state, but not "de jure". So, please tell me what is a difference between these two states? And please refrain from ridiculous comments, the only things that I fight against here are ignorance and bad faith. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Map need to be deleted. Greatserbian propaganda. --Flopy 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this user has edits only here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Flopy - a possible sockpuppet. PANONIAN 16:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He's an active user in the German wikipedia. By the way, you also have only here some edits. -- j.budissin^+/- 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I am author of this work and I was not invited here to influnce the voting process. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the accuracy of the de facto borders in 1918, the caption of the picture is obviously POV: It says "unification" with Banat and Backa, while, clearly, it would be more accurate to say that Timisoara and Pecs were "occupied" at the time. Fossa 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were officially occupied until November 25, but after that date, they were incorporated into country system and had their representatives in the power. For example, Hristifor Svirčević from Timisoara and Lojza Bogdanović from Baja were a deputies in the temporary people's assembly of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. However, the important thing here is that this map is not at all about Timisoara, Baja, Pecs, etc - it is about Vojvodina in general and Timisoara, Baja and Pecs were simply irrelevant in this whole story (if that is a problem, I can simply delete mention of these cities from map). The whole point of the map is not to show that current Romanian and Hungarian lands were Serbian in 1918, but to show that current Serbian lands were Serbian in 1918 (and it is exactly what certain greater Croatian and greater Hungarian individuals are against). PANONIAN 17:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knows, that Vojvodina, Macedonia and Kosovo belonged to Serbia. What do you need the map for? Nothing. -- j.budissin^+/-

This is ridiculous. If you agree that map is correct, why you want to delete it? PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see few facts. From begining you are writing for "Vojvodina assembly" of 25 november 1918 has been legal, honest and that it has not been farse created by occupation forces. If this "assembly" voting has been free and honest can PANONIAN or somebody else explain me and other user how has happen that 75 % (578 out of 757) of "assembly" members have been Serbs in time when Serbs has been only 33.8 % of population. I am really interested to see reasons why has this thing has happen. Rjecina 17:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 25 November assembly was legal because these areas were internationally recognized as parts of SHS Kingdom in 1919 and also by the treaty from 1920 (If international community did not considered this legal, it would not recognized it). And assembly was not created by occupational forces, but by local people from Vojvodina - the proof for this is also the fact that this assembly also formed local provincial government that was never recognized by Serbia. And fact that most members of assembly were Serbs simply reflect the fact that Serbs were most interested into this issue, but there were representatives of other peoples as well. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The demarcation line shown on the map above is based on the Military Convention betwen the Allies and Hungary, signed at Belgrade November 13, 1918. So there was a legal mandate for the occupation. But occupation, even if agreed to, usually does not constitute sovereignty, as has been noted. Compare that to Kosovo and Metohija, which is "occupied" territory under sovereignty of Serbia. They call it "administration" rather than "occupation", especially considering that it is backed by a Security Council Resolution, but in a technical sense that's not much of a difference.
- The point is that Austria-Hungary ceased to exist on November 16, 1918, thus in November 25 1918, Vojvodina was not "de jure" part of any state (It was in 1919 recognized as "de jure" part of SHS Kingdom). However, in November 25, 1918, it "de jure" was "no man's land", but was "de facto" administered and officially annexed by Serbia following the 25 November assembly. So, I do not think that we can compare this with Kosovo which is currently "de jure" under sovereignty of Serbia and Vojvodina that in November 25, 1918 was "de jure" no man's land is very different case. I said many times already that this map show "de facto" borders of Serbia in the same way as we have "de facto" maps of northern Cyprus, Somaliland, etc. PANONIAN 09:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider that Hungary was in turmoil at that time: Mihály Károlyi's government followed by the Hungarian Soviet Republic, followed by Miklós Horthy. Its borders were by no means fixed. On March 20, 1919, the Vyx Note even pushed the demarcation line further (as shown on the map), and it was widely believed at that time that those would become the new borders of Hungary. So the Serbian-dominated Assembly of Vojvodina, consisting of 578 Serbs, 89 Croats, 62 Slovaks, 21 Rusyns, 6 Germans and 1 (!) Magyar, which de facto exercised control over Baranja, seceded within the borders of the military agreement of November 13, and joined Serbia, which in turn invested its statehood in the new Serb-Croat-Slovene state. It was a symbolic act in order to show the allegiance of Vojvodina to the Serbian "liberators". They could have chosen to join the new Serb-Croat-Slovene state as one or more distinct entities, but they have not. So the map shows a situation sanctioned by a Military Treaty, de facto possession of territory, and resolutions of the Vojvodina assembly.

After the Treaty of Trianon, the larger part of Baranja was allotted to Horthy's Hungary, and the Yugoslav army had to withdraw. The Yugoslav-oriented population of Baranja, alongside with exiled supporters of the toppled Soviet Republic of Hungary, chose to form the Serb-Magyar Republic of Baranja on August 14, 1921 (shown on the map as well), which applied for statehood with the League of Nations. The painter Petar Dobrović was elected for president. Although the Republic received a certain degree of support from the Little Entente and the US, French and Italian financial circles feared that it might become a nest of Communism. Consequently, it was crushed by Horthy's troops after 10 days of existence. The Yugoslav part of Baranja was allotted to Croatia in 1945.

As pointed out, the map in its present form is clearly Serbo-Croat-Slovenian POV, but is that reason enough to delete it? At the very least, it is a document of Serbian aspirations at that time, but I agree that it could be improved by showing more detail. --El Cazangero 05:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The map does not show only aspirations, but also "de facto" situation from November 25, 1918, in which time these areas were administered and officially annexed by Serbia. Of course, the aspirations you speak about was the aim that this whole territory became recognized as part of SHS Kingdom by the treaties, which did not happened because treaties assigned some of these areas to Romania and Hungary, but map still reflect correctly "de facto" situation from November 25, 1918. PANONIAN 09:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Note Image:Croatia, Historic Coat of Arms.svg, which is wrong. Someone already put a comment in the description: The traditional Croatian coat of arms has the upper corners beginning with white square. See roof tile design of St. Mark's Cathederal in Zagreb. See also this article. --El Cazangero 07:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets no criteria for deletion; above reasons are not valid criteria for deletion. See Commons:Deletion guidelines. TomTheHand 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Map is POV, but in a subtle way, it does not present borders as somebody wishes to be for a (long) time, but as they supposed to be once, and was never realized. Map should change name, or be deleted. Its existence as Serbia1918 is quite misleading (as can be seen from above discussion), as full name could be: state borders od Serbia agreed on one meeting after 1'st world war, and a week later superseeded by actual borders of new state (which are quite different, as not only new lands are added, but some are removed from above picture). And sorry, not a week later, as from 26 Nov to 1 Dec is not 7 days, but 5. As user can not rename the pic, it should be deleted first, and author can then upload it again, but this time with a better name (let's say SupposedSerbia1918_11_26-1918_12_01.png). SpeedyGonsales 04:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you agree that map show situation in 5 days in 1918 then why you claim that map title is incorrect? PANONIAN 18:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falsification, not a historical map. Why there are no Hungarian and Romanian users here? They'd also say something about this. Kubura 11:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a proof that map is falsification, thank you. PANONIAN 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a false and POV map --Bdanee vita 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Please provide a proof for your claims, thank you. PANONIAN 18:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dear PANONIAN, I appreciate the job you did on maps very much, but this is one misleading and needs thorough revision to be encyclopedic. Occupation of a land does not automatically mean that the land is incorporated into the body of the occupying country. Hungary was also occupied by the Soviet Union but was never shown as part of it. Shadings and inscription should clarify the situation. Thank you. Timur lenk 18:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Hungary was not internationally recognized country in 1918-1920, while during Soviet occupation, it was. Also: yes, generally speaking "occupation of a land does not automatically mean that the land is incorporated into the body of the occupying country", but in this case, we do not have "automatic incorporation" - we have assemblies of local peoples that officially proclaimed unification and after this these lands were no longer regarded as occupied but were indeed incorporated "into the body of the country" (And that was internationally recognized in 1919). PANONIAN 22:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very big falsification, not a historical map. In 1st Dec. 1918 Timisoara was part of the Greater Romanian state. This map is false.--Wallak 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this user is a sockpuppet of user:Bonaparte and has been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wallak PANONIAN 13:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have no idea whether this map is "false" or what have you, and I don't think it's particularly relevant. There's no policy against having "false" maps on Commons, the only criterion is that they be free. There are plenty of encyclopedia articles that can use "false" or propagandistic maps to good effect, often for the purpose of illustrating their falsehood. So if this map turns out to be more representative of Serbian desires than actual historical borders, simply make sure this is clearly stated in the image's description and let the Wikipedias use them as they see fit based on that description. Finally, the large number of near-identical delete votes smacks of some kind of organized campaign at the very least, so the closing admin should take extra care not to be swayed by sheer numbers. Bryan Derksen 08:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only question about this comment is that what will users from UK or USA think if somebody made map in which parts of your state are territory from another state which has never ruled in this provinces (Mexico-Washington DC., France-London) I have given 2 examples of that and 1 is really similar to our situation with this map. In 1216 London has been under France occupation !! Because in this map territory of Croatia, Hungary and Romania is given to Serbia there is many angry users from that countries. User PANONIAN which is creator of this map has refused compromise solution so there is nothing more to talk about that--Rjecina 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The things are quite opposite here: the main part of BBB territory shown on map is in Serbia and map was made with purpose to show that part of the Serbian history - the whole problem here is not that I want to "claim" parts of neighbouring countries by this map, but that Greater Hungarian and Greater Croatian nationalists want to claim part of my country and that is why they want to delete parts of Serbian history that are not suitable for them and then to impose their personal views about history of my country with aim to achieve their political goals (such goals were already achieved in WW2 and results of these goals could be described by 3 words: occupation - partition - genocide). And what "compromise solution" I rejected as you claim? PANONIAN 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Map is great Serbian propaganda, made by a very dangerous Great Serbian Propagandist, Panonian. It shows occupied Croatian Territory as already part of Serbia in 1918, this is falsify of history, this land was stolen from Croatia by Serbs, and this was lawful Croat land in 1918 even if Serbian radicals gained control of the land in an illegal way. Illegal occupation is not the same as lands being lawfully part of one country. 78.3.29.49 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user has only 1 edit here. As for answer: please refrain from personal insults (focus on subject not on other users). Also, the "land stolen from Croatia by Serbs" as you call it was populated by Serb majority for last 600 years and was only recently (in 1882) attached to Croatia-Slavonia Kingdom. Serbs cannot "stole" their own land (no matter which occupier ruled over that land in which part of the history, but land populated by Serbs is Serb land). PANONIAN 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm here because I saw canvassing for this discussion on an autoblocked wp-en user's talk page. Anyway, the whole discussion about how these borders are or are not valid is completely beside the point. If these borders were at one point claimed by a state, a map of them is encyclopedically useful content. Only at the point where the image is actually used in an encyclopedia does it matter what the status of these borders is or was (not that I know or care). Sandstein 10:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were right, if the map's name and legend were correct. Sorry, they are not. A map could be false, if everything on it is true, but the legend and titles and the map's name are incorrect. If I make a map, wich shows the territory of today's USA, and the map's title is "today's Russia", could it be correct? After all, these borders are claimed by a state, and you don't know or care whether it is a rightful claim or not... :) The map and the legend have to be all correct and trustworthy. V79benno 13:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer for PANONIAN's claim (Hungary was indeed an internationally recognized country that time)

Hungary was indeed recognized by the Entente from 13 November 1918 onwards when Prime Minister Mihály Károlyi signed a cease-fire agreement with General Frenchet d'Esprey in Belgrade.
Only the borders of the new country remained an open question from the armistice but the same is true for the SHS Kingdom which similarly lacked recognized borders.
As many people already told you the cease fire lines were no borders, that was put down in the armistice agreement also.
Se the proofs for that statement: [136], passim.
This map (and it's legend) shows (and comments) incorrectly the complicated historical situation, is infected with strong antihungarian POV and proserbian chauvinism, therefore have to be deleted.

Best regards, V79benno 19:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let see: about link that you showed: it divided stamps published in the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary from 1918 to 1920 into "Occupational", "Local" and "Successor State". If we look the table from that article, we would see that stamps published in the territory of present-day Vojvodina were described as "Local", not as "Occupational". Also: we see there that certain territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary were regarded as occupied, but that does not mean that they were de jure recognized as parts of Hungary (as one example, West Bank is de facto regarded as territory occupied by Israel, but it is not de jure recognized as part of any sovereign country). Also, the fact that representatives of Hungary signed cease-fire agreement certainly does not mean that Hungary was internationally recognized - representatives of Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska signed many cease-fire agreements during Yugoslav wars, but were never internationally recognized. And of course, the borders did remained an open question after cease-fire agreement, but my point is that "disputed" territories were not de jure recognized as part of Hungary before peace agreement. In another words, the internationally recognized borders in 1918-1920 did not exist and therefore the cease fire lines were the closest thing to word "border". And what "antihungarian POV and proserbian chauvinism" you speak about? we speak about history of Serbia here, so can it be "antihungarian POV" when map do not speak at all about Hungary? PANONIAN 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Entente recognized the existence of the independent Hungary in the Belgrade Armistice. Of course you are right that they didn't recognize the 1914 borders with this act, this was never their intention. But similarly they didn't recognize the occupation lines as final borders of Serbia. The legal situation was the same for both countries: their existence was recognized but their desired borders were not. This map shows the Serb dream of Greater Serbia. You simply allotted the disputed territory to Serbia not taking into consideration that its status remained unresolved until 1920 when the real borders were only laid out and the Entente divided the disputed territory into three between the aspirant countries. Zello

I can only repeat the words of my honourable predecessor... V79benno 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- There is very big difference between the case when international community recognize a country as independent and sovereign and the case when international community recognize country or government as "side in the conflict". Before 1920, Hungary was not recognized as independent and sovereign, but only as "side in the conflict" (exactly same as Republic of Serbian Krajina and Republika Srpska - or you would say that RSK and RS were recognized as independent and sovereign when they signed ceasefire agreements???). Also: it is correct that international community did not recognized all these lands as part of SHS Kingdom by peace treaties, but it did recognized in 1919 general idea that Banat, Bačka and Baranja are part of SHS Kingdom, no matter that some parts of these regions were assigned to Romania and Hungary by 1919/1920 peace treaties. Also, in 1918/1919 there was de facto regional government of Banat, Bačka and Baranja with seat in Novi Sad, whose president was Jovan Lalošević and that government ruled over entire BBB which was controled by Serbian army. So, again: the map show this de facto situation from November 26, 1918 and has nothing with de jure recognitions from 1919 and 1920. Regarding your "Greater Serbia" accusation, we speak here about history of Vojvodina, which is part of Serbia, so how exactly you accusing me that I want to create Greater Serbia when I speak about history of one province inside Serbia? (Please explain me this because I cannot understand it). Also, as I said, general status of BBB was solved in 1919 - when international community recognized SHS Kingdom in 1919 it also recognized all its provinces as parts of this Kingdom - I will remind you: SHS Kingdom was created in 1918 by unification of Kingdom of Serbia with Kingdom of Montenegro and South Slavic lands that formerly were ruled by Austria-Hungary. Recognition of SHS also mean the recognition of unification of South Slavic lands with the Kingdom of Serbia (without this unification, SHS Kingdom would not exist) - so tell me, if these South Slavic lands were not internationally recognized as parts of SHS Kingdom in 1919, then why international community recognized the Kingdom? And one more thing regarding the "disputed territories" in Banat, Bačka and Baranja: the whole territory of BBB province was not disputed - the disputed areas were only Baranja, north Bačka and Central Banat, but no matter of dispute over them, it is fact that these areas were ruled by BBB de facto government from Novi Sad. PANONIAN 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, when this DR is over, perhaps it would not be bad that map is improved and that I show on it borders of BBB ruled by de facto provincial government from Novi Sad. PANONIAN 13:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary wasn't "side in the conflict" AFTER the armistice which put an and to the armed conflict. As for the Greater Serbian propaganda question I can only answer that showing Pécs, Baja and Timisoara as cities of Serbia when they were only occupied by the Serb army is propaganda. 89.133.139.220 23:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is wrong - Hungary was a side in a conflict from 1918 to 1920 (cease-fire does not mean end of the conflict, but only frozen situation). The conflict was officially over only by trianon treaty. And I also said: this map is not about Pécs, Baja and Timisoara, but about territories that are part of "smaller Serbia" - as soon as this voting is clossed I will delete names of these cities from the map. Satisfied? PANONIAN 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

Now I draw new version of this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Serbia1918.png I included suggestions of other users about different colour used for different territories as well as borders between various territories. I hope there are no more objections to it. PANONIAN 21:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move in right direction but problem will be with words. Like you know on wikipedia in article Creation of Yugoslavia we have come to many interesting documents. First is saying that Montenegro has been called on peace conference of 1919 (de jure Montenegro is independent) and second is saying that from middle november of 1918 BBB are Hungarian territory under allied (Serbian) occupation. There is no need to change anything in map if you are willing to change name in Territory under Serbian control in 1918. Then your map will speak truth and only truth and nobody will have possibility to say anything bad !! Rjecina 17:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to remove city names (Pécs, Baja etc), on the contrary they help to recognize that the northern demarcation line is not the present-day border. I think that this version is a lot better but I still have two objections: 1, in the legend you should indicate that the territory was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and occupied by Serb troops; 2, better to use different kind of lines for the internationally recongized borders and demarcation lines. Zello.

Kept. The map is not based on own research but real document and hence it is within out Projects Scope. Whether the documents have non-NPOV, have bad motives, or whether the image is used in a wrong way, is not an issue that can be resolved in or by Commons. Samulili 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Balladeus.jpg

"agrees to use picture in Wikimedia" is NOT "public domain". JD {æ} 21:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let's see... the author (Wim Vandevelden) "agrees to use picture in Wikimedia". the uploader then releases it "into the public domain". and you're saying that this is not a valid reason for deletion? you must be kidding, aren't you? --JD {æ} 14:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to JD - That’s in case of doubt just a problem between the uploader and the author but definitively not ours... --FSHL 18:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so when the uploader doesn't get any free licence or the given licence doesn't meet the standards here, the uploader may release it under any licence he wants to - we shouldn't or don't have to care? sorry, but that's ridiculous.

the uploader has uploaded an image which clearly isn't free as he claims to. we cannot just accept this and wait for possible legal actions of the author against the uploader. --JD {æ} 20:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfree license given by the photographer, image was then uploaded as PD against the author's explicit permission ("Wikimedia only") obviously. --Überraschungsbilder 20:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As convenient as it may be to copy and paste the same old unsubstantiated comment to every deletion request you come across, {{permission}} is not only a valid reason for deletion, it's a valid reason for speedy deletion. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to LX - Then add in case of doubt simply {{personality rights}} on it... --FSHL 21:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, okay, you don't have any clue about copyrights, do you? btw: no one's talking 'bout personality rights here. --JD {æ} 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to JD - Who becomes insulting has otherwise no arguments... --FSHL 22:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's not bad to have no clue on this subject. but one should definitely accept it and don't try to steal other's time by giving comments without rhyme or reason. --JD {æ} 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to JD - Nobody steals your time – except yourself... --FSHL 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As JD says, {{personality rights}} in no way gives us the right to fraudulently claim that a copyrighted image used with {{permission}} limited to Wikimedia is in the public domain, nor does it give User:Yvesn the right to fraudulently claim to be the copyright holder of a work by Wim Vandevelden. Please read Commons:Licensing. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Agrees to allow use on Wikimedia" is a far cry from placing it into the public domain. I'm pretty sure User:Yvesn just used the wrong PD template at the time -- he obviously wasn't claiming it as his work -- but we still need more clarification, as there is nothing that suggests it was released to the public domain. This was uploaded in 2005, when our procedures probably weren't as clear-cut, but I think we need more clarification. Maybe someone could contact the website again, using something like Commons:Email templates, and get a better answer on what the permission really is. If the author licenses it properly then great, but otherwise we would need to

Delete. Carl Lindberg 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 09:08, 9 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.

Image:Esperantoliteraturo.jpg

artwork of "winnie pooh", for example, can't be published as GFDL. JD {æ} 21:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Derivative work. Samulili 09:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bernard-Challandes.jpg

a mistake, not challandes --Lena.Gujara 04:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the future use {{badname|Image:Bettername.jpg}} template Pimke 08:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
use {{rename image}} and follow the steps --ALE! ¿…? 14:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -- Infrogmation 02:24, 10 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.

Image:Microsoft_wordmark.svg

This is not "text in a general typeface". Note the custom, stylised "os" ligature. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fact. Maybe deleting indentation in "O" will solve the problem? Yarl ^{Talk • PL} 12:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. But everone should know, that Microsoft is stil a trademark. It is not difference between the presentations. -- Stahlkocher 15:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was looking around for info on this earlier. The text is in a standard Helvetica Black Italic font.[137][138] The only change is a triangular slice out of the "o", which is not a copyrightable change. For copyright purposes , I'm pretty sure it is {{PD-ineligible}}. The German wikipedia agrees. I'm less sure about hosting it here though. I thought commons guidelines disallowed pure logos, but it does appear that they may be OK if there is no copyright issue. On the other hand, Microsoft's guidelines ask that logos come from them, and that the registered trademark symbol is included (the German wiki version does have it). If we do keep it, I would replace it with the German wiki version. Carl Lindberg 02:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Germany sets a much higher threshold of originality than the US. With respect to removing the ligature, I'm not sure what purpose it would serve to display something that's not Microsoft's actual logo, but merely a logo modified to avoid copyright issues. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did run across this link, which goes into more detail about U.S. Copyright office practices. Among other things, it says: "it is not possible to copyright a new version of a textile design merely because the colors of red and blue appearing in the design have been replaced by green and yellow, respectively. The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations." Given that and other examples in that document, minor variations of non-copyrightable designs are not copyrightable, and I would think that includes this. As to using a slightly modified logo, I would agree -- the only item useful enough for commons to host would be an accurate logo (and it should contain the registered trademark symbol). Carl Lindberg 06:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept because there is no outstanding copyright issue... I like the idea of adding ® to the logos, but it is not mandatory on Commons yet.

/ Fred J 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CSK_20_1988_obverse.jpg

Copyvio: copyright owned by Czech national bank and author, A. Brunovský 83.208.98.34 13:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless it can be demonstrated money is copyrighted. Money is a utilitarian object. -Nard 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me?? Of course money is copyrighted, why shouldn't it be? If you want to demonstrate that, you have many options: Take a look at some banknotes and note the © sign, read “Member States should ensure that banknote designs may legally benefit from copyright protection.” in ECB/1998/7 etc. etc. (Or, note Category:Currency license tags, and maybe even some deletion request, or another one etc.) --Mormegil 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bigger problem is that this is not the only problematic image. The whole contents of categories Bills of the Czech Republic and Coins of the Czech Republic, and at least a big part of Category:Bills of Czechoslovakia will need to be deleted. (Possibly also some of the rest of Category:Money of the Czech Republic.) Note that some of the images mention Czech National Bank decree 36/1994, but that is completely mistaken – that decree does not affect copyright status of banknotes and coins, only the use of their reproductions (i.e. an anti-counterfeiting measure as an additional restriction), and the decree explicitly rejects any implications on copyright in its § 5. (The copyrightability of banknotes is explicitly confirmed at the official website of the Czech National Bank.) --Mormegil 22:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ragimiri 14:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not valid banknote of existent Czech National Bank, actually it is obsolete banknote of defunct Czechoslovak State Bank whose banknotes are not valid since 1993.--Bluewind 18:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
…and? What does that have to do with its copyright status? (Hint: nothing at all.) --Mormegil 20:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ... and Banknotes are public documents. According to the Czech Copyright Law [12], §3 a) there is no copyright on official works, such as legal acts, public documents including those in preparation, documents published by the House of Representatives and Senate, state symbols (flags, coats of arms, anthems) of countries and administrative subdivisions, municipal chronicles and any other works whose exclusion from copyright protection is in public interest. The same is enacted also in Decree No. 553/2006 Coll., of 30 November 2006 (Pursuant to Article 22(e) of Czech National Council Act No. 6/1993 Coll., on the Czech National Bank, the Czech National Bank) on the terms and conditions under which it is possible to reproduce banknotes, coins,cheques, securities and payment cards and to produce objects imitating them - see at issuance_of_money decree - and above mentioned CNB Decree No. 36/1994 Coll., on the terms and conditions under which it is possible to reproduce banknotes, coins, cheques, securities and payment cards and to produce objects imitating them, is hereby repealed by this CNB Decree No. 553/2006 Coll. --Bluewind 06:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to cnb.cz, copyright law is fully applicable on banknotes and coins. [139] The mentioned section of Copyright Act is not applicable on coins and banknotes, and the CNB decree is used as an anti-counterfeiting measure, not as a copyright limitation. (Note also the © sign on the banknotes.) --Mormegil 08:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is also similar Decision of the European Central Bank of 20 March 2003 on the denominations, specifications,reproduction, exchange and withdrawal of euro banknotes (ECB/2003/4). Then I propose to postpone deletion of "CSK_20_1988_obverse.jpg" until there is reached unified explanation and interpretation of copyright laws regarding banknotes of all EU states not only of the Czech Republic. There then could be possibly systematic and orderly mass wholesale deletion of all images of banknotes of EU states and possibly of all European states. It is therefore nonlogical to start to set up binding explanation of banknote copyright rules just with this isolated case of obsolete banknote of defunct Czechoslovak State Bank. Of course there could be banknote copyright but there is also "fair use" of copyrighted items in free non-profit encyclopedias when there is stated who is the owner of the copyright, published in reduced size and stated that it is only specimen. That is what are those decrees about - to establish rules of publicization of reproductions or images of banknotes. --Bluewind 09:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is fair use; and it would be an acceptable reason to keep those images on en: Wikipedia. But fair use is definitely not allowed on Commons. See Commons:Licensing. --Mormegil 09:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The banknote design is the property of the issuing bank, not of the designer or engraver. So the owner is the State Bank of Czechoslovakia, who emitted this banknote. Since Czechoslovakia was dissolved on a proportional basis (so neither the Czech Republic, nor Slovakia is the successor of the former state) it cannot be stated that Czechoslovak banknote copyrights are now Czech banknote copyrights. The Czechoslovak State Bank was dissolved and its assets were shared among the new central banks of Czech Rep. and Slovakia. Timur lenk 18:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept; Czechoslovakia is now defunct and the banknote is not valid anymore. Since Czechoslovakia divided into two separate states, the Czech Republic cannot unilaterally inherit something from Czechoslovakia unless Slovakia later merged into the Czech Republic. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (GMT)

But Deleted later by User:Zirland as (Copyright violation: Banknotes are subject to copyright) --Ju Ta 14:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 30

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cherryicecream.jpg

No photographic works by this food blogger are cc licensed, see flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heidiswanson/) and her blog (http://www.101cookbooks.com/) --Peta 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the original source website with the cc licence [140] doesn't work anymore. Mayby you try to contact her ? Pimke 06:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice - this is a copyright violation of http://www.101cookbooks.com/mt-static/images/food/cherryicecream.jpg as displayed by Cherry Ice Cream Recipe - 101 Cookbooks, and every page on that site appears to be "Copyright (c) 2000-2007 Heidi Swanson". Both SlimVirgin and Liftarn should know better. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She released it via e-mail on November 10, 2005. Jeff, please don't tell people they should know better until you have the full facts. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have Sarah's assurance that the image was released under a CC license via e-mail. I don't know how the "Copyright (c) 2000-2007 Heidi Swanson" notice contradicts this, as no one has disputed the fact that Ms. Swanson holds the photograph's copyright. —David Levy 11:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to David Levy and SlimVirgin - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept - OTRS permission received. Link to permission on image description page. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Třemešná nádraží.JPG

wrong picture, the right one is upload with name Image:Třemešná nádraží vlak.JPG --Ladin 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the future use {{badname|Image:Bettername.jpg}} template Pimke 06:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Wrong file uploaded. --Digon3 ^talk 18:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Langesund church, Bamle, Norway.jpg

Wrong location in name, should be Bamble --Kagee 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – use for this purpose just {{badname}}... --FSHL 17:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please download the image a second time (with better name) and tag the image with bad name with {{badname|Image:Bettername.jpg}} template. Then one of the administrators will delete it Pimke 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Digon3: incorrectly named duplicate of Image:Langesund church, Bamble, Norway.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Raphael-Young_man-1.jpg

Photograph B&W (not the painting older than 70 years) loaded from the site of Ministry of Culture and National Heritage of Republic of Poland, of a portrait by Rapahel (Wartime Loses) Louis-garden 08:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PD-Art template properly aplied, please read Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. A.J. 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to A.J. - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 13:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, covered by PD-Art. --Polarlys 12:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Map_of_HI_Highlighting_Hawaii.png

replaced by Image:Map of Hawaii highlighting Hawaii (island).svg --MattWright 08:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I replaced all of the "Map of HI Highlighting [Island].png" with "Map of Hawaii highlighting [Island].svg". I had created the .png's a week or so ago, and instead changed them to .svg, so if someone could whack all of those .png's, as they are no longer needed and can be rendered from the .svg's. They can all be found in Category:Locator_maps_of_Hawaiian_islands. Thanks! --MattWright 08:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. The deletion process for superseded images has been suspended. --FSHL 13:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the original author requests it? --MattWright 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, thank you Matt for providing a better map. I accept your wish as an uploader, and first and foremost, these images weren’t identical, the new version is much better. --Polarlys 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:AntibodyAR.svg

Messed up Arabic in vectors. 26 July 2007 User:Lord Anubis

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 18:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Usually this should not be a case for such a deletion request, as the creator is the uploader and he noted directly after upload that one of his images appears to be broken in relevant parts ... thia is suitable for 'speedy'. Anyway, Lord Anubis already created another version with correctly placed Arabic, see Image:AntibodyAR.png. --Überraschungsbilder 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Überraschungsbilder - And why didn’t he just upload a new version of this file? --FSHL 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are problems with the SVG rendering? --Polarlys 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, uploader’s request, damaged version --Polarlys 12:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guys, sorry for not responding to this sooner, I only check my WP AR talk page, The rendering of the arabic text messed up, so i had to make a PNG which I cannot overwrite over this SVG file (simply becuz its a PNG), and thanks for deleting it. --Lord Anubis 13:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Brega.gif

was deleted from en for having no source. 29 July 2007 User:Freakofnurture

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – in Commons. --FSHL 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was no source given on en.wp, then it has to be deleted here as a possible copyvio too, of course (it looks very much like a promo shot). Note: "en.wp" is not a 'real' "source". Also: This doesn't look as if that user uploads self-made content … --Überraschungsbilder 20:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Überraschungsbilder - In dubio pro reo – without hard facts no condemnation... --FSHL 22:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, obvious copyvio, image can be found under http://www.goranbregovic.co.yu/photos.htm. Uploaders allways have to provide a suitable source, images without source are deleted. --Polarlys 12:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Frida Kahlo (self portrait).jpg

This work is not in the public domain; painted in 1940, she died in 1954. --Peta 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is marked as PD-US on English Wiki (which I changed to fair use pending confirmation of PD status). PD in Mexico is life+75 for old works and life+100 for newer works. Even if it qualified as PD-US it is definitely in copyright in its home country. -Nard 00:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, copyvio --Polarlys 12:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Aphra-behn-190x287.jpg

Higher quality version available at Image:Aphra Behn by Mary Beale.jpg. --Sopoforic 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag this image with {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template and one of the administrators will delete it. Pimke 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Majorly: duplicate or a scaled down version of Image:Aphra Behn by Mary Beale.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Eminemwhite.jpg

This image has an unclear copyright status. It appears to be a professional photo, and has a clipped heading on the top right corner, indicating it may be a scan from a published article or other promotional material. It was uploaded to Flickr with a cc-by-sa-2.0 license, but the license claim is unreliable because the user has uploaded a number of other copyright images to Flickr with erroneous cc-by-sa-2.0 tags and incorrect attribution (e.g. [141], an official EA wallpaper; [142], a DaimlerChrysler promotional image). --Muchness 05:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a magazine scan to me. On the white wall to the right you can see the shape of a bottle, most likely from and ad on the back side of the page. --91.65.124.74 11:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above -- uncertain copyright / Fred J 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious copyvio from a Flickr user with a history of uploading copyrighted pictures under CC. Spellcast 04:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every single one of this Commons uploader's uploads has been under investigation, most have not survived, one survived, and five have deletion requested. In addition, it's been over 8 days with no valid reasoning for keeping or even abstaining, can an Administrator please make a decision here? Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatantly a magazine scan Samorchard 11:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like anybody cares —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.71.11 (talk • contribs) at 11:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some sort of magazine scan, there is still writing and a page number visible at the top Madmax32 03:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:CanonF-1System.jpg

Reasons for deletion request : This is the copy which ignored the copyright from this image of Canon Camera Museum.--103momo 14:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not completed. The picture is something which certainly it has from the CANON camera museum, if “concerning the utilization of the sight” you read with in order to undertake the infringement of copyright, is.　　Machine translation --写真好き少年 05:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio; delete. grendel|khan 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:!cid pic180407 16.jpg

No enciclopedian valor. User:189.1.128.82

fix request Deadstar 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (used on an en user page) --ALE! ¿…? 09:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Castellano-Espanol no legend.png

uncyclopedic, probably original research, no source of original data used is given. 22 July 2007 User:Yonderboy

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. The terms »uncyclopedic« and »no source of original data used is given« aren’t an element of deletion guideline. And 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 --FSHL 18:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Cesare Viazzi (1857-1943) La cavalcata delle Valchirie.jpg

Author died in 1943, no PD-old --Cruccone 20:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not PD-old and therefore is not free. --Digon3 ^talk
Delete as above Pimke 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored 2014. INeverCry 01:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Linus Pauling vor Tafel.jpg

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MM/B/B/M/H/ states that this image is "Reproduced with permission of the Ava Helen and Linus Pauling Papers. Oregon State University Library." --Peta 23:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first paragraph in http://www.nlm.nih.gov/copyright.html is very clear: such images used with permission may be subject to copyright and are not included in the "Government information" that is in public domain. PatríciaR ^msg 16:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Dwighteisenhower.jpg

Too tiny to be useful. grendel|khan 23:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The file has too low image resolution too be useful. --Digon3 ^talk 18:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While very small, Ike is still quite recognizable. It is in use on at least one wiki, so by definition it is useful. In fact, it's used on the whitehouse.gov website, so it useful there as well. Carl Lindberg 03:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Carl Lindberg - Is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively useful... --FSHL 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the painting is indeed free (there's no proof so far, just being hosted on the website of the white house doesn't mean it's in the public domain), why don't we just replace it with a better version of the image, like the one found here? --91.65.124.74 21:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is used in Russian Wiki (see List of Presidents of the United States). So, the reason for deletion is not applicable. It's quite useful. Agree that it is neccessary to add the painter's name, and copyright holder. And it could be replace by better version of the image -- Igor Filippov 5:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

kept --ALE! ¿…? 09:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Lou Gehrig NIH.jpg

Source site credits :ESTATE OF LOU GEHRIG, C/O CMG WORLDWIDE; clearly not a work of the NIH. No date to tell if it is in the PD in the US --Peta 23:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that it's an NIH image. grendel|khan 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Tinfoilhat.jpg

not freely licensed, if you read the whole page the author clearly denies commercial use ---Nard 17:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, {{permission}}. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above, specifically because of "Any commercial use: Not Granted without explicit written permission"[143], although I'll change my mind if SPA Commons User:82.31.111.204 turns out not to be en:User:Tar7arus. There is no Commons User:Tar7arus, but en:User:82.31.111.204 does have contrib history going back to 26 April 2006, however nothing prima facie in common with en:User:Tar7arus - perhaps Herby could check on that? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Herby is not a CU on EN to check this sort of thing. Nor am I. We'd have to convince a CU that this was a needful check because "Checkuser is not for fishing". One unclear identity is probably not enough reason, especially as there is no evidence of any major issue with the contributions. (A licensing mistake is just that, a mistake... AGF and all that)... rather than running CU's why not just ask the user? CU is a hammer but not every problem is a nail. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, my mistake, he's a CU on English Wikibooks, not English Wikipedia. I've asked the user. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is used at en:User:Tar7arus with the caption "Myself in a rather dashing hat". Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the user released it as PD on Wikipedia what it says on the website is irrelevant. // Liftarn
- This may be true, but it's also his personal picture with very little potential for use outside user space (except perhaps for illustrating the tinfoil hat). If he wishes to reserve rights on his personal likeness I think perhaps we should humor him. -Nard 12:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He seems just a boy, does he have the legal authority to license his image? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good point. Yet another reason we should help him keep his likeness private as he requests (ie by deleting). -Nard 10:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
en:wp admins can see this deleted version that clearly shows that the image was released without the current restrictions on the Commons version. It is not legally possible to rescind the license granted, once granted. So if we wanted to stand on legality we could insist that this image be licensed as it originally was, and insist it be kept. But... as per JeffG and N, we don't WANT to do that... or we shouldn't, anyway. I think the RIGHT thing to do is to honor the (implicit) request to delete. So... unless the user changes their mind. (and we have reason to believe he has authority to license it) Delete ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to write it out so that it would be free for WP to use, but not anywhere else. I did not request this to be deleted and Support the use of this Image throughout the wikimedia project. I am the same person as en:User:Tar7arus, and I imagine an IP-address check will confirm that. Failing that, I could take another pictu 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tar7arus... (please consider crosslinking your accounts (placing edits on the user page of each pointing to the other account while logged in) so we know it's you). I understand your desire but that license is not compatible with Commons. You can relicense it (less restrictively) rather than taking a new one, but the picture has to be free to use, not just on WM projects but on downstream ones as well. See Commons:licensing for why. You can require attribution, but restricting to just WM projects is not free enough. I suggest using a dual license, GFDL and CC-BY-SA 2.5, which you can do by adding this template {{self|GFDL|cc-by-2.5|author=[[User:Tar7arus|Tar7arus]])}}. Failing that, we have to delete the image, we have not choice, as it is not licensed properly. We are fine with keeping it if properly licensed, or with deleting it. in fact it might protect your privacy a bit to delete it. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A winner is the General Public! Relicensed! Tar7arus 15:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - thanks for relicensing! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept, image has been relicensed with a suitable license. ++Lar: t/c 19:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Walloon Region

Completely redundant. There already exists the better category:Wallonia. This case is 100% identical to Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Flemish Region --Teeceematiek 11:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby protest formally against the procedure, especially as this cat has already been deleted because it was not useful. While all moderators will agree that one introduces only new cats and structures if there is a minimal consensus, and that the action of Juiced lemon was not a proper way of working, we are obliged again and again to argue the same arguments over and over again just to ensure that the damage is limited. If this cat has been introduced in a wrong way, then it should be deleted till a discussion proves that there is a need for such category. We don't need occupational therapy. --Foroa 18:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 3 regions in Belgium, and 3 matching articles in the English Wikipedia, including Walloon Region. The deletion of Category:Brussels-Capital Region have not been requested, therefore the sentence: This case is 100% identical to Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Flemish Region is a pointless statement. Notice also that there are 2 linguistic communities in the Walloon Region, and only one in the Flemish Region.

The reasons to keep this category:

the statement that “Wallonia” is a better (in particular, clearer) name than “Walloon Region” is unsourced. Wallonia is also an alternative name for the French Community.
assuming that the Commons community would prefer “Wallonia” for “by location” categorization, this category could still be used to classify media files regarding to the government of the region (see Politics of the Walloon Region).
assuming this category remain without contents, it is better to make it a redirect, since users can logically search a Commons page according to the name of the English Wikipedia article Walloon Region. --Juiced lemon 15:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and agree with Foroa !. So much work to do on commons, so much time lost with the actions of a single user. I always thought commons was a "community" project, not a one man show :-( --LimoWreck 18:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Lycaon 20:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Foroa. Sonuwe 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories serve to facilitate and navigate easily towards a number of data structures. If you need to study and understand the whole Belgian political organisation to find your way to a small village, only experts will find their way. Category redirects don't aggregate and should be avoided, so all needed galleries with potential pointers or redirects will be created for the rare experts in Belgian politics (such as Walloon Region). This might be expanded upon or changed if we have categories which belongs to the region at hand. --Foroa 06:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Foroa Deadstar 07:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Arafi 12:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "Wallonia" is very vague and can be undestand at different level. So even is the category is well define category:Flanders I prefer Category:Walloon Region. Romary 14:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Dinsdagskind 10:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, per above discussion. --Siebrand 12:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ubicación_Coloso.jpg

I think this image is no own work. It looks more like a copyrighted image was used and a red box was put on it by the uploader. ALE! ¿…? 22:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with ALE!. It also has no source. --Digon3 ^talk 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not an expert in english language, so forgive my mistakes.

I'm the owner and maker of this image. I have made the map first in autocad for a university project a couple of years ago, and now I have used it to show where the stadium is.

I'm the only and complete owner of the image, and if I have to write something else in the image article fot ir not to be erased, please tell me what to write.

--The Edge 15:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made all the changes that Digon3 told me here.

Hope it's enough to end the deletion request.

--The Edge 03:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking The Edge to provide proof of original authorship by providing the original Autocad file. I just do not buy it, that he is the author. --ALE! ¿…? 07:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you doubted, I hoped you have "goog faith", we call it "buena fe". That means that you can truly believe in me, as I can truly believe in you, to make a bigger and faithful wikipedia. Why would I lie for such a small thing?

I can send you the complete file, please write down the email and it will be on your computer asap.

--The Edge 03:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just hit "E-mail this user" in the toolbox when you are on my user page. Thank you! --ALE! ¿…? 07:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it will be in your mailbox in minutes. --The Edge 03:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston, we have a problem. I can't send attachments! How can I send an attachment to your mail in wikipedia? Send me an email and I will answer to it with the file. Bye. --The Edge 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just send it. Hope it helps to change your mind. Best regards.

--The Edge 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all! I have received the files by The Edge, but they make me even more sure that he is lying. I received two JPGs containing a screenshotof Acrobat Reader showing a map of Rosario and also two PSP files also containing screenshots of Acrobat Reader showing a map of Rosario. I strongly recommend to delete the files!

Delete --ALE! ¿…? 07:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To everybody, of course I have send them in .jpg and .psp, my job is making them in pdf!!! I cant send them in pdf because I live of selling them!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My job is making this maps, and I earn money by selling them!!! If I send it in pdf format to this user, I would be sending him the work of seven months for free!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I explained this carefully to the user Ale in my email, so I dont understand what he has against me that he wont believe me.

Please take this into consideration and end this deleting request now without deleting the image.

The Edge 14:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ALE, would the original PDF file prove he is not lying? @The Edge, I am sure ALE would never use or distrubute the files and would delete them as soon as he made sure they were real. He is trustworthy enough to become an administrator here. Also can you not just send him only part of the PDF file in question? All ALE needs to do is prove you made the maps, and then we can keep this file. --Digon3 ^talk 14:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Digon for your help. I cant by any means send him or anyone the complete pdf file, Im sorry but its my job and I earn money by selling them. I believe what you say about him, but I cant be 100% sure as I dont even know him. If he sends it to at least 1 person my map will be in seconds in lots of mails, I cant take the risk. I believe you would understand me. Moreover, the map obviously contains personal information of myself that I want to keep private.

But I can give you 2 other choices, that Im sure will be enough to change your mind: I can send you, Digon, the same mail I sent Ale for you to make your own judgement, or I can send both of you a jpg cap of all the file. I believe this can be enough to prove my authorship.

Please let me know.

The Edge 14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sending me something wouldn't prove anything as I don't even know what Autocad is. However, you can ask ALE if jpg cap of all the file would prove anything. Also, is it possible you could send just a small part of the PDF file? --Digon3 ^talk 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you send me a screenshot of the map being edited in Autocad? That would proof something. However, sending me a screenshot of the map displayed in Acrobat Reader does not proof anything. Please understand that there are severe doubts about the copyright status of these files. Especially considering the history of uploading copyvios. --ALE! ¿…? 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thats something I could do, good idea, I would send Ale a cap of the map being edited in autocad, no problem.

I will be at my office on Wednesday; I promise to send it that day. Wait for it.

The Edge 03:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ale, I have just sent what you asked me for. Please take a look asap to your email, in order to end the deletion request.

Thanks. Bye. The Edge 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image kept, sufficiently credible --ALE! ¿…? 09:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Swedish_50_Krona.jpg

The Swedish 50 krona bank note was introduced in 1996, it is not public domain. Sveriges Riksbank. Thuresson 10:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thuresson. The copyright is owned by the creator, as I found out when I wrote to the Riksbank two years ago. / Fred J 22:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, Thuresson 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Thuresson: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Swedish 50 Krona.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Doorap.jpg

AP watermark would suggest this image is not a work of a government employee and was instead taken by an Associated Press photographer. Adambro 16:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only do I agree with Adambro above, I'll go further to state that http://prisonplanet.com/ says very plainly at the bottom "Copyright © 2002-2007 Alex Jones All rights reserved." Also, the uploader doesn't appear to check its work. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Davepape 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:John Carew Eccles.jpg

Not created by the NIH, created by the ANU; ANU image has a different angle but they are obviously taken at the same photo shoot. --Peta 23:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is duplicated here Image:John C Eccles.jpg. --Peta 00:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Davepape 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:International brigade memorial.01.JPG

Dupilcate --Koonan the almost civilised 19:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Koonan the almost civilised - Whereof? --FSHL 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Jubilee Gardens, behind where the London Eye is.Koonan the almost civilised 23:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Koonan the almost civilised - I meant the other image not the place... --FSHL 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out I'm meant to comment on a request for deletion of an image I uploaded. This image was tagged for rotation soon after I uploaded it. A rotated and cropped version was subsequently uploaded and this original is now superfulous.Koonan the almost civilised 23:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, if you want deleted, please provide the new file name --ALE! ¿…? 14:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:AlbertSzent-Györgyi Hugginsprostate.jpg and duplicate Image:Hugginsprostate.jpg

Not a work of the NIH; Reproduced with permission of the Marine Biological Laboratory. --Peta 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Davepape 21:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kit body AtleticoAwayKIANEWW.png

KIA logo --OsamaK 09:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Derivative Work Alx 91 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

old revision deleted --ALE! ¿…? 07:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Flemish Region

Redundant, so not useful on commons. Exact duplicate of category:Flanders Teeceematiek 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Exactly the same case: Category:Walloon Region completely redundant introduction of chaos. Duplicate of better and already existing category:Wallonia --Teeceematiek 11:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)~~ see comments below.[reply]

Delete - Not only redundant (see category:Flanders and Atlas of Flanders) but dangerous too: it opens up the door for overlapping and unmanageable category structures and fights. (Example of a question: last year, was Yves Leterme belonging to region or community, Flanders or Wallonia. And within 3 months ?) --Foroa 12:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree 100% with Teeceematiek and Foroa. A category Flemish Region is redundant to category Flanders. Sonuwe 13:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Flemish Region is one of the three official regions of the Kingdom of Belgium, and the category name matches exactly the official name of this political entity. In Commons, “by location” categorization grounds to political divisions, so the scheme for Belgium would be similar to Template:Belgium. I made a request to move the contents of Category:Flanders to Category:Flemish Region (see Commons:Categories for discussion#Category:Flanders). This category is not redundant, unless we'd want to mix up different subjects (this would be precisely the contrary of classification).

Yves Leterme is a politician of Belgium. We can also consider smaller areas, that are administrative subdivisions of Belgium:

Belgium > Regions of Belgium > Provinces of Belgium > Municipalities of Belgium > Districts of Belgium.

So, Yves Leterme could be categorized in Category:Flemish Region. --Juiced lemon 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --LimoWreck 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant -- Arafi 11:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to category:Flanders-- Deadstar 12:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant - Cicero 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant -- Lycaon 18:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "Flander" is very vague and can be undestand at different level. So even is the category category:Flanders is well define category:Flanders I prefer Category:Flemish Region. Romary 14:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we allow this, there should also be a Category:Flemish Community which would be over 90 % the same. This is redundancy at it worst. Dinsdagskind 10:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As a disinterested admin here I am stepping in to remove Category:Walloon Region from this discussion. I fully understand why it is deemed to be connected but it was brought in 24 hours after the discussion started and there is some disagreement as to how valid that is. As I see little point in causing trouble for the sake of it I have removed the tag from the Walloon template (& will not see it replaced unless I am consulted - my likely action will be a block on anyone altering the page for now except under the terms below).

I suggest that

This deletion request runs on the original category only (some voters will not have realised another category was "added") and a new one is created for Walloon or
This request is close as abandoned and a new request for both categories is created

This community can only operate on the basis of collaboration & consensus and I will do all I can to ensure that is the case. Thanks for your attention --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.Both categories are as much related as category:North America is to category:South America. Or you keep both, or you keep none of them; regardless of which specific category was proposed first in the vote. I don't know if you're professionally active, but separating equal concerns is highly inefficient. Anyway, I'll add another discussion page though this is NOT the way to nicely handle multiple equal request. See just below. --Teeceematiek 11:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - however neither is adding an extra item to a deletion vote 24 hours after it has started. Clarification about what you mean as "professionally active" would interest me? You are welcome to take my other suggestion of abandoning this one and starting a combined one. Consensus is required whatever happen and that was made lacking by you adding another item to this vote. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted as the category is now empty --ALE! ¿…? 07:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:L. Ron Hubbard - crop.jpg

The drawing is a copyright violation, because it is a derivative work of a photo. The derivative work was created without permission of the photographer. ([144]) --rtc 13:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. This isn’t a drawing just a photography of the drawing and »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.«¹ --FSHL 14:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only as long as these contracts do not involve copyright! --rtc 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to rtc - That’s in case of doubt just a problem between the uploader and your so-called photographer but definitively not ours... --FSHL 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect. we are distributing copies of the derivative work. It's our responsibility. --rtc 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to rtc - Then add in case of doubt simply {{personality rights}} on it... --FSHL 22:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking about copyright, not about personality rights. --rtc 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Image:L. Ron Hubbard Life & Death.jpg / Fred J 23:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work (a drawing or painting made from a photo most definitely qualifies; see here). If the artist did not have permission from the original photographer, then the painting itself (and photos of it) are a copyright violation. We should not host it here unless we have some evidence of that original permission. I see there is an OTRS ticket with the image; does the permission granted there have any info about this? Carl Lindberg 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Independent creativity. Themes, facts, ideas and such can't be copyrighted. Samulili 09:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturned and deleted per this discussion. Lupo 10:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:L. Ron Hubbard Life & Death.jpg

The drawing is a copyright violation, because it is a derivative work of a photo/screenshot from TV. The derivative work was created without permission of the photographer/cameraman. ([145], [146]) --rtc 13:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. This isn’t a drawing just a photography of 2 drawings and »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.«¹ --FSHL 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only as long as these contracts do not involve copyright! --rtc 17:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to rtc - That’s in case of doubt just a problem between the uploader and your so-called photographer/cameraman but definitively not ours... --FSHL 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect. we are distributing copies of the derivative work. It's our responsibility. --rtc 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to rtc - Then add in case of doubt simply {{personality rights}} on it... --FSHL 22:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking about copyright, not about personality rights. --rtc 22:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns the drawings themselves and who owns the copyrights on the source photos? -Nard 17:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear licensing on the drawings themselves (the image page says "used with permission", no way of telling how free that license is) and drawings may be illegal derivatives. If so they were a copyright violation when created and our use of them is a violation. Or even if the creation of the drawings was legal, we have no way of knowing if the artist had the right to sub-license to us. -Nard 18:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Nard - Come on, the drawings are so bad if they’re an illegal derivatives than simply anything can be a derivative... --FSHL 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll grant you that point. Drawing a picture of an individual from copyrighted photos is not in itself illegal, especially if the portrait shows individual creativity. The individual's likeness is not copyrighted, just the particular photo. You could conceivably argue the drawings are different enough from the source photos. However without a specific license from the author, which we do not have, or OTRS permission, this image is still "by permission only". -Nard 20:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep D'oh I looked and there IS OTRS permission. Ron Hubbard's likeness is not copyrighted, and these paintings do look sufficiently different from the photos that they may not be derivative. -Nard 20:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as you can trace them back to these pictures without any effort, they are clearly derivative works. --rtc 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rtc / Fred J 22:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let’s come to the beginning.

First, the painter Eric Bourdon created a work named ‘L. Ron Hubbard versus The Joker’ [147] and for that he used just the head of Ron Hubbard from this official photo: [148]. See his hand, it’s not even LRH one, and in this case LRH is a little part of a bigger artistic work. AND, as you can see, it’s really much more a caricature than a portrait. I mean, he doesn’t seem awful on it (he’s really even more beautiful), but, anyway, who could say it’s a straight portrait?

Secondly, the artist used this photo: [149] to make this coal-style portrait: [150] which is, one time again, a very personnal view of the photo. (One time again, he seems in a nicer state on the drawing...). By the way, see the discussion at [151], the owner of the photo seems a big mystery for everybody. I’d really like to know who he’s. Anyway, it sounds funny that the cofs feels a huge interest to protect the very sacred copyright of the guy who shot LRH in this state...

Note that this painter seems to commonly use LRH picture in his paintings, but he never uses the photos in a simple way. He always transforms them a lot, caricatures them and includes them in a much bigger and complex work.

From here, a guy took (whith the permission of the caricaturist) a little part of the first painting, corrected it (next to LRH head, a gun has been erased), adds the second painting of the artist, and puts a red line between them to show the contradiction of the personality of LRH. Where is the copyright of the cofs involved here? We’re far far far way from the straight and strict portrait from a copyrighted source. There’s a set of ‘parts of’ various caricatures, set together in a subjective goal of the second artist. The first painting is a caricature featuring LRH more smiling and bright than he’s never been, the second painting comes from a very bad photo of LRH using a very special artistic coal-technique. All you’ve to do is to honestly compare the two photos: they’re evindently not the same, it’s caricature and caricature is legal and doesn’t require any kind of copyright. But it’s not even the matter of two photos, since the work of the second artist is itself a global work.

As said already by Nard, “there IS OTRS permission. Ron Hubbard's likeness is not copyrighted, and these paintings do look sufficiently different from the photos that they may not be derivative.” And by FSHL, “the drawings are so bad if they’re an illegal derivatives than simply anything can be a derivative...”

Thanks for reading me! Redhawk, 12:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"caricature is legal and doesn’t require any kind of copyright" You are confusing personality rights and copyright. Caricature is a matter of personality rights, and it is certainly legal concerning that. Concerning copyrights, what is legal is parody of an existing copyrighted work. This is no parody of the work it was derived from; it is a caricature of LRH. What we are talking about is using a copyrighted photo, that is, the creativity of the photographer involved in choosing the position, lights, expression, time, etc to make the potrait. The drawings clearly derive from these elementary creative elements of the photos. It's irrelevant how much creativity the artist added and how far it is from the photo; it is sufficient that fundamental aspects are based on it. --rtc 15:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't clearly understand the difference you make between caricature and parody: "it's not parody... it is a caricature"? However it's interesting but only in terms of art theories. Anybody can use a photo. The matter is the result, not the origin, because the source can be 'felt' and yet the painting is not what we could call a 'copy'. If it's a copy, copyright matters. If it's inspiration or remake, copyright is not involved. Creativity of a photographer in terms of position, lights and expression is totally beside the point because what the painter specifically did was to change the lights, colors, and expressions of the model to propose his own and very personal way of seeing the model. Since the photographer and the painter certainly don't think the same about the model, and that they have two very different goals in photographing or painting him, all the matter is how to play with lights, colours, little or big distortions, about the same person, to finally represent a so much different picture of him. Fundamental aspects, yes, you've them: he's LRH, he's smiling (not the same smile but yes he's smiling), and the sea is behind him... you really think it's of some kind of importance? You say "It's irrelevant how much creativity the artist added and how far it is from the photo"; I really think it's specifically the really most important question about that , and there's really no other one. See the result... (you surely noticed the matter of the painting 'LRH versus the Joker' was to make LRH face seem much more like The Joker's face, and it's nothing else than an emphasis of a strange likeness the artist worked on since a long time yet (see this one: [152] from 2002] for example - there's all kinds of things about LRH in his paintings by the way, you should see). There's no other question that 'How much you add'. Redhawk, 16:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A caricature refers to satirical humor about person or affair (Bush, for example). A parody refers to a work (Star wars, for example). For the distinction of fair-use-justifying parody and not-fair-use-justifying satire, see [153]: "The Court explained further that while a parody targets and mimics the original work to make its point, a satire uses the work to criticize something else [that is, LRH here], and therefore requires justification for the very act of borrowing." Confusing the two is a widespead fallacy. What matters is not the result, but the origin. It is exactly wrong that "If it's [...] remake, copyright is not involved". w:Parody#Copyright_issues clearly and correctly says: "The Supreme Court of the United States stated that parody 'is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works.'" Does it comment on the photographers/TV cameraman's work? No. It comments on LRH. The painter drew strictly according to the photo, which he used as a direct template, and took many elements from it. How else would I have found the original so easily? If I can't find the original simply by browsing 10 seconds the results of google images for Hubbard, then it's perhaps not a derivative work. But this one clearly is. --rtc 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word 'remake' instead of 're-construction' but anyway this painting 'could' be seen at first as much more commenting on LRH than on the photographer. Were you able to find it? I think you knew it long time before because there's no other LRH photo as often used by the cofs for promotion, marketing, etc. Then this kind of non-orthodox use of this photo is likely to happen. But I continue to think the way you turn, transform, distort, present and re-construct something or someone, (even if it makes you remember the original work) is what defines at best the work of an artist. In giving LRH this megalo-psychopath look, it remains absolutely nothing of the original model in terms of artistic, and respectable as artistic, work. Secondly, if you think of all the official marketing photos of LRH, he's always-always-always so much smiling in a way that can, at last, cause a fair irritation, like if he wasn't human or natural, like if his eternal smiles were 'forced' or frozen for eternity. So this painting could be seen, not only as a straight caricature of LRH (LRH wasn't always smiling, as illustrates the right part of the painting), but above all as a critic of the way he has always been photographied, so as a comment on the work of official scientologist photographers, and not only this one. It's a critic of representation of LRH, rather than of LRH himself, and basically, you can very much agree whith me that the whole painting is clearly a critic of 'representation' of LRH, a critic of the promotional way of representing and photographing him. So it's 'the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works'. Redhawk, 21:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I accidentally came across the Scientology article in my local wikipedia and saw the painting for the first time in my life there. Perhaps this picture is well known in the Scientology scene as you say; but I don't know about that. What I know about is these copyright issues with such paintings, and that they are often derivative works from photos, since I had already propsed for deletion a whole series of such pictures at Commons:Deletion requests/The images of User:André Koehne. Thus I checked it on google images, where I entered L. Ron Hubbard. I browsed over the pictures, clicking 'next' six times, and then found the photo. It was really straight forward. The TV screenshot was even easier, I found it on the source site right next to the caricature derived from it. About your extensive theory of "above all as a critic of the way he has always been photographied" I really must say that this is quite far-fetched and too broad; it would effectively destroy a photographer's right to get money from people using their photos for portray paintings. --rtc 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, rtc, let's say you didn't know anything about the most used image of LRH by Scientology marketing services (I was mistaken by your pseudo). So you don't know how the smiley-image of LRH in this marketing can be sickening at last... ok. For me to say that this painting is a critic of ideal image of LRH really does make sens and really can't be seriously denied. I'm just not sure it's the problem, because it's not even a painting, but a whole "photo-composition" made of "altered elements" of "parts of paintings", paintings about which only the question "is it a parody or caricature" could be asked (and even in this case I think for myself the answer is clearly an intentional parody with a really very different intention than the one of the photographer). Redhawk, 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh like you I came across the Scientology article in the French version of Wikipedia (about LRH) and I understand what you said. The photo-setting was badly featured as 'based upon historical photos'. So I corrected it, and wrote 'excerpts of paintings INSPIRATED of historical photos'. I think it's better now, less ambiguous, much informed and the photo-setting really fits to the article next to it (translation of the US article)...Redhawk

Kept (same as the other one). Independent creativity. Themes, facts, ideas and such can't be copyrighted. Samulili 10:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturned and deleted per this discussion. Lupo 10:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:DSCF0267.JPG

Back in 2004 this picture was welcome, but today I don't see the use for a picture that is only described with the words "Somewhere in New Jersey". Fred J 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With a little cleanup and a better file name, this could possibly be used for Nuclear Power plant or something like that. --Digon3 ^talk 18:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's as useful now as it was in 2004. The "usefulness" bar is pretty low; this image exceeds it by a large margin in my opinion. It is potentially usable by a current or future Wikimedia project I would think. Obviously it would be great if someone would recognize the factory and give a better description (or if we had a better filename), but neither of those are reasons for deletion. Carl Lindberg 03:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a weak Keep because it is not used anywhere and the quality of the image and the description are quite questionable --ALE! ¿…? 09:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly kept. It's possibly our only picture of that building at the moment. Once we get a better one from about the same angle, this image should be put out of its misery. Samulili 11:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:600px SKONTO su sfondo blu.png

I'm the author. I uploaded a new version (Image:600px Pallone su sfondo Rosso e Blu.png) with a different file name, so I need this image to be deleted. The main reason is that this picture is not clear at all at 20px, which is the usual format for football flags on it.wikipedia.org. On it.wiki we decided to delete football flags which are not clear, this is why I replaced it with a less generic football flag (with no written references). --Freddyballo 18:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – in Commons. --FSHL 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not valid? I mean, this image is unuseful because it is no longer needed in our project about football flags on it.wiki. Could you please delete it? --Freddyballo 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Freddyballo - Read this: Commons:Deletion guidelines --FSHL 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but among these strict rules you forgot common sense, which should be always "valid". So, if the author of an image explains his valid reasons for deletion (in this case: the image will not be used, according to our philosophy for the template project on it.wiki), he is bound to fall on deaf ears, isn't he? --Freddyballo 18:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the reasons you put forth as the nominator/uploader, we should also consider whether this is an unauthorised reproduction or derivative of some copyrighted official logotype. The logo used by http://www.skontofc.lv seems to have the ball at a different rotation and uses a slightly heavier font, but this image still uses the elements of a blue and white ball with the name in white type on a slanted blue rectangle underneath, as well as a similar shade of red. While the nominated image is far from identical to the official logo, I think it's safe to say that it would not have been drawn to look the way it does were it not for the official logo. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should also consider that a recent mass deletion request for football flags resulted in all (99,9% or so) the flags being kept. The one we are talking about is one of them and should not be considered a derivative work (as you said it is far from identical to the official logo, that was simply a source of inspiration). However, there are other reasons, which I explained, why it should be deleted. Sorry, but I can't see the point in leaving my deletion request of Image:600px SKONTO su sfondo blu.png unsatisfied. --Freddyballo 08:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 10:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Chem.jpg

There is already a better png file of this. I changed links to that one in all wikipedias. 27 July 2007 User:Alensha

Comment Can you give the name of the other file. Deadstar 15:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept (I can not find the new file) --ALE! ¿…? 09:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Hebridean flags

These flags are hoaxes, see discussion of all Hebridean 'flags' in discussion on Isle of Lewis. Leaving the flags in Wikimedia leads users of non-English wikis to conclude that because they are here, they are real. --MRM
(deletion request help by Überraschungsbilder 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

delete - As above.MRM 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. Did you really expect that just because you can read on WP something of e.g. Harry Potter lead users of non-English WPs to conclude that he’s real? --FSHL 22:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commentSorry, of course I don't want to delete fictional things. That is not a good comparison. No one is using images of HP in any real article to pretend he is real. The website https://www.fotw.info/flags/gb!heb.html#leo discusses these fake flags. Their inclusion in Commons leads various editors, notably in the Catalan Wikipedia, to conclude they are real because they are in Commons. These flags were created as an internet hoax some years ago. In the early days, someone on Wikipedia picked them up and added them to Hebridean articles, the creator of the original internet hoax then referred to Wikipedia as authority for how real they were and Wikipedia referred to them in a loop as the source. In reality, they are all fakes, none of the islands has a flag.

For example, the flag of Barra is simply a standard Scandinavian flag coloured green and white. This design is chosen because of the Viking past of the islands, and because Barra is a predominantly Catholic island, with green and white being the colours of Celtic FC (a traditionally Catholic football team). There has been much discussion about these flags on the Lewis talk page in the English language wikipedia and it is largely felt they do more harm than good.

Were it not for the stubbornness of various other Wikipedia editors in other languages, I would not see a need to bother deleting them from Commons as they could be useful for an article about internet hoaxes or fake flags; however, I have been told that as long as they are on Commons, then editors will continue to reinsert them in their articles as they see their inclusion here as proof of their legitimacy.

They even take the view, if they're fake so what? They'll be included with a note to say they're not really the flag. That, however, is like putting the German flag on an article of France with a note "This is not the French flag, but it's pretty anyway".MRM 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's embarrassing that the legitimacy of these fakes is based on their presence here. Let's not continue to perpetuate a hoax. W. L. Tarbert 07:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Samulili 10:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Created with Inkscape

This category is nothing but advertising.--Notschrei 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since when did the creation of a collection of images created with an open-source, gratis software program become "advertising"? By far less a strain of logic, all mentions of any sort of any kind of commercial venture of any kind must be rigorously exorcised from Wikipedia.

Delete - Really unnecessary. The sense escapes me. Geograv 20:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is no place for advertising, or don't we want to create a serious database? If you want to have detailed information about graphics software, Commons is the wrong place. It's really sufficient that we have pages like Commons:Tutorial for Vectorial graphism.--Notschrei 23:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Notschrei - I don’t have a problem to admit that I use a GPL program... --FSHL 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Inkscape is open source and non-commercial, and the cat is a handy way to categorize SVGs. Not sure what advertising would do for a free product... -Nard 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Advertising has not to be commercial (see en:Advertising#Public service advertising).--Notschrei 19:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As N. --Digon3 ^talk 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We neither sort images by the Camera manufacturer nor do we have categories like Category:Created with CorelDraw, Category:Created with Photoshop, Category:Created with Paintshop Pro, Category:Created with Paint.net, Category:Created with Adobe Fireworks, Category:Created with CinePaint, Category:Created with Graphviz, Category:Created with PhotoLine 32, Category:Created with Adobe Photoshop, Category:Created with Microsoft PhotoDraw, Category:Created with Adobe Illustrator, Category:Created with PicMaster, Category:Created with Batik, Category:Created with OpenOffice.org, Category:Created with Skencil, Category:Created with Xara Xtreme, Category:Created with Karbon14 (and some hundreds more). People may add a note how the create their works (their camera, their lens, the aperture used, …) but there is no need to assemble these works in categories, since it doesn’t represent the abilities of a certain tool, a special format or something comparable. Commons focusses on content but that category hasn’t anything to do with content or maintenance. SVG files can be created by a lot of programs and merely a small part (5 %?) of them is categorized that way. “Open source” and “non-commercial” isn’t generally independent from terms like “advertising”, “marketshare”, “popularity” and “money”, BTW. Delete --Polarlys 19:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Polarlys: "We neither sort images by the Camera manufacturer...." O rly? I'm glad that Category:Photographs by camera doesn't exist, then. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... I seem to recall instances where we have had to edit images to get them to render correctly, as Inkscape SVG is not exactly the same as SVG generated by other programs. Having images created in Inkscape in a category simplifies finding these images in the event there is a mass correction of some sort needed in future. That possibility is low, but non zero, and the harm of having this category seems 0, so keeping the category seems goodness. I would be fine with other categories being set up if there was technical need to know the creating or editing program. Long term that might allow some statistical analysis as well. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another solution would be to keep the category but delete the Inkscape template.--Notschrei 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have no suitable entrance control, thousands of copyvios, hundreds of thousands images aren’t categorized and described properly but we want to go through the (small) part of svg files that is categorized that way, correcting them? ;-) I tried various vector programs in the past, they all had their originalities. I don’t see the “technical need” mentioned above. --Polarlys 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People work on what they are interested in. That there are a lot of other things that need doing doesn't mean this isn't a valid thing to have around, much less rebut that it would be useful the way outlined. I do not see the harm in having these images categorised this way. (nor do I see the harm in the hypothetical Category:Created with Adobe Fireworks, et al.) If something is not harmful, and if it could be useful, and if it's on-mission, why delete it? That said I am not THAT invested in this category. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It’s about the cost-value-ratio. --Polarlys 09:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Polarlys: "We have no suitable entrance control, thousands of copyvios, hundreds of thousands images aren’t categorized and described properly...". And yet, here you are nominating Category:Created with Inkscape for deletion rather than taking care of all those other more important things. Whew, no double-standard there. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 09:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep the template but delete the category. I'm not sure the category is so useful, but it's quite often useful for people to mention what tool/s they use to create a work. That can be useful metadata. I'm not sure it justifies a category though. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with pfctdayelise here. The "what links here" page for the template will give the same information anyway (albeit not presented in a gallery). On the other hand, I don't think there's such a thing as too much categorization, so "weak keep" from me. --bdesham ★ 04:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To those saying "leave template but delete the category": I would take this argument if not for one thing: commons' search sucks. It's much easier to find all such images when they are in a category. Creator software is valid metadata, and there lots of technical reasons to record it, especially for such complex format as SVG. At least this makes much more sense than recording the camera that made a photo. So Keep. Trapolator 01:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metadata - purpose of - objective tagging. Most photo sites DO expect one to state make of camera, model, focal length. This is factual information about the item. If I take a photo with my Olympus, that is an objective fact and suitable for metadata. On the other hand if I say that "my Canon is the best thing ever" that is a subjective opinion and may be classified as advertising. The information (Metadata) about what software package was used to create a resource in graphics, however, goes beyond a mere objective fact. Despite our wish for standards to be exactly that, it is often important to be able to find resources created by "our" specific package - sad but true. One day soon, the package used will be as incidental to successful editing as the brand of camera is to processing a jpg today. Today, however, - here and now - the objective reality (reflected in tag, metadata or arguably category) of the graphics package is key valuable information for information object users. the last writer (suitably rephrased) is expressing the view that the more navigation options to an information object, the easier it is to find (usually). So the decision is:
- If you want a rich collection of metadata, then this category is useful;
- If you use outside-in design principles, then this category is appropriate;
- If you are worried about a proliferation of categories, then this category needs to be aggregated upwards
- If are concerned about the appearance of product names irrespective of commercial status then this category should be aggregated upwards. (With respect to this last item, a complete ban on mentioning products will present a limit on how comprehensive a reference facility can be - I suggest there is a clear difference between objective entries (objective or factual statements) and subjective endorsements).Wraptinweb 07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep this category because it is useful for basic knowlege of svg files, and models that can created by Inkscape. YassineMrabet 11:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, while I have clear the reasons for keeping it, I really don't know why to delete it... --F l a n k e r 20:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it has been argued that this category is a form of advertising... I don't agree, and I feel that this has to do with preconceptions of some kind. To phrase it differently, would Category:Created with MSPaint be considered advertising as well? I don't think so. Also, regardless of the way this discussion turns out (I don't care much), please don't focus on this category per se, but ponder on a global, clear, enforcable policy on categories like this, whether they are about software used or cameras or whatever. Then, if the result to that is "No, we don't want that!" you can speedy this and all related categories which will save a lot of work and debating. Shinobu 15:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - considering I just found this category while looking specifically for SVGs created with Inkscape, it's certainly been useful to me. Knowing that a file has been created with a particular application is very useful. Same for images by camera type, by the way. This nomination appears to be ideologically motivated at the direct expense of actual usefulness - David Gerard 10:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inkscape is a FLOSS application, so anyone can download that without fee that and start to draw SVG instead less flexible PNG or others. Since Inkscape license (GNU GPL) is compatible with both the Wikimedia Foundation philosophy and chosen licenses, so this form of "advertising" is not bad, because offers an instrument to do the work freely. We want more or less SVG files? Anyway, I think that any file under this category must be converted in plain SVG. Not any "made with Inkscape" file is in Inkscape SVG, but this category can be useful for that scope. When SVG will be well-known, and all Inkscape SVG will be converted in plain SVG, you can delete this. Before then, please keep. --Dzag 07:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its Just a bit more Meta Data on a file. I cannot see how it can be advertising. is he .svg extension in the filename advertising for one format over another too? Anyway, Probably the Category:Image editing programs needs a bit of a clean up, but such categories can be useful. It would be interesting, for example, to find out if there is a correlation between the choice of camera and the choice of software etc.. --Inkwina 01:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For me it's useful as I found this page searching for Inkscape gallery. This page is linked by Inkscape Galleries. Dom
Keep Please retain. I found this cat specifically while looking for images created with Inkscape. Dave Cohoe 04:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually, we do have separate program categories like Category:Created with CorelDraw... And I liked being able to find images I know are 100% compatible with Inkscape. --Akoi Meexx 03:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can not see how organizing images into categories that may be helpful in identifying or using them can be bad. --01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a very useful category, see above --Sven 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as SVG is not 100% supported by all applications puportedly "supporting" it, this category is extremely useful and necessary if you are looking for an image you can reuse without hazzle (due to incompatibiliteies between SVG implementations. Zapyon 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Lupo 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Louise_Brooks.jpg

Moving it here from speedy deletion. The deletion reason was: "The image appears on Star Pages/Brooks, Louise-Annex.htm this page and Dr Macro also has a Agreement.htm Visitor Agreement page which says in part "All materials and images on this site are considered to be copyrighted to its rightful owner(s). Title to all such copyrighted materials and images will at all times remain with the rightful owner(s). Except as explicitly provided in this agreement, you may not distribute, transmit, display, reproduce, modify, create derivative works from, or otherwise exploit any of the materials on Doctor Macro’s High Quality Movie Scans. You may display and print a single copy of any photo scan on the website for your personal, noncommercial use, but you may not otherwise reproduce any material appearing on this website without the prior written consent of the owner." Nothing to suggest image is public domain. Rossrs 08:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)", please give your response Fred J 21:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything published before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain. Anything published before January 1, 1964 and not renewed is in the public domain (search the renewal records for books and maps here). Anything published before March 1, 1989 with no copyright notice ("©", "Copyright" or "Copr.") plus the year of publication (may be omitted in some cases) plus the copyright owner (or pseudonym) is in the public domain.

Obviously image is a publicity photograph from 1920's of the actress, shot by (movie-studios?) unknown photographer.

Doctor Macro’s High Quality Movie Scans doesnt seem to own any copyrights to the picture and havent provided any information of images copyright notice ("©", "Copyright" or "Copr.") plus the year of publication (may be omitted in some cases) plus the copyright owner (or pseudonym) and states:

If you are an owner of intellectual property who believes that your work has been improperly posted, copied or distributed through this website in a way that constitutes copyright infringement, or your intellectual property rights have been otherwise violated, please provide Doctor Macro’s High Quality Movie Scans with the following information:

a description of the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed;

a description of where the material that you claim is infringing is located on the website;

your address, telephone number and email address;

an electronic or physical signature of the person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the copyright or other intellectual property interest;

a statement by you that you have a good faith belief that the disputed use is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent or the law;

a statement by you as to whether you wish to have the copyrighted work or other intellectual property that you claim has been infringed to be either immediately removed from the site, or given appropriate copyright credit;

a statement by you, made under penalty of perjury, that the above information in your Notice is accurate and that you are the copyright or intellectual property owner or are authorized to act on the copyright or intellectual property owner's behalf.

And as far as I know, purchacing old photographs from unknown source does not give buyer any copyrights to them

--M62 22:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Macro doesn't claim to own the copyright, but it also indicates that it doesn't necessarily know who, if anyone, does own the copyright. We can't be sure when the image was first published. Brooks made her first film in 1925, so it seems more likely than not that a professional image such as this would not have been created for her prior to 1923 (ie created more than 2 years before she commenced her film career). The point is that we don't know one way or the other and taking an image of unknown origin, and unknown copyright, and then not only assuming but declaring that it's free of copyright, is incorrect. Rossrs 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I have seen these old filmstar -photographs, they dont originally have any copy info. They were intended for handouts, adverticing, for fans, etc. by moviestudio. But obviously its next to impossible to prove without the original photograph.

Anyway, I have my fathers funeral 12 hours from now, so this all feels extremely unimportant to me at this moment. --M62 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer is Eugene Robert Richee ([154]), he's dead in 1972. --Guil2027 11:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IF the image was US work before 1923 OR a later US work with copyright not renewed, image has fallen into public domain. However neither of these criteria has been demonstrated, so I am deleting. -- Infrogmation 02:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, no evidence of public domain status shown. -- Infrogmation 02:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:Www.folketinget.dk

This is not as difficult as this thread suggests. So here is a very basic guide to relevant parts of Danish copyright laws:

1/ Money is not relevant. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is an amateur or professional and it doesn't matter whether the publisher is commercial or non-profit, the rules are the same.

2/ The photographer (and not the copyright holder) has to be credited no matter who owns the copyright to the picture - even if the photographer is dead. The Danish National Union of Journalists regularly send bills to media who has legally published a picture but forgotten to credit the photographer).

3/ When a photographer allows the publication of a picture that includes publication • in one particular media • on one particular occasion All other uses (on multiple platforms, more than one time, in more than one title, by a third person or storing in an archive/retrieval system (including on a computer hard disk)) must be specifically agreed upon between the photographer and the person/organisation to whom he/she hands over all or part of the copyright.

4/ If a picture has been (legally) edited then the editor retains some copyright protection in relation to the edited version of the picture.

5/ Any form of 'intellectual work' including pictures can be quoted - but this is a bit tricky, because it requires that it is not the motif in the original picture that- in itself - is the reason for the quotation, but, typically, that the original publication of the picture or its context has had some consequence which is the rationale for the (visual) quotation. Furthermore, both the visual presentation and the accompanying text must make it clear where the picture is from and why it is quoted. Usually the courts accept that a minor part of a work can be quoted but it depends on both the form and the size of the original work.

6/ The question of distortion or 'derivatives' of a picture has nothing to do with criminal law (quite an exotic suggestion - no, it's purely a matter for civil law). It relates to the old (and almost universal) codex 'droits morale' (moral rights) which is completely separated from copyright. The rights according to 'droits morale' a/ cannot be sold or transferred in any other way by the photographer, and b/ protects the integrity of the photographer by making it illegal to alter or use a photograph in a way that is contrary to the photographers original intentions.

In conclusion: If Folketinget has acquired the right to allow others to publish a picture, then you can publish it (within the limitations, if any, in the agreement between the photographer and Folketinget), as long as you remember to credit the photographer and do not violate his/her moral rights. However, such an agreement does not absolve you, the publisher, from responsibility so you have to be certain that the agreement gives you the right to publication in the way you intent.

Notes: A/ The full (Danish) text of the law is here: https://www.retsinformation.dk/Forms/R0710.aspx?id=12014 B/ I have used the words 'photographer' and 'photograph' extensively (as they are the focus of the discussion here), but it would be more correct to say 'creator' and 'work' as the law applies to all forms of intellectual and artistic works.

(Reopened on July 30th, 2007 by ALE! ¿…?)

Derivative work and commercial use isn't expressly permitted, so it seems that this is a license for publication purposes. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 09:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about actually reading the text? "De billeder vi bruger på ft.dk er enten fotograferet af Folketingets ansatte eller af professionelle fotografer, hvor vi har betalt ekstra for muligheden for at lægge billederne ud til fri benyttelse." = "The pictures we use on ft.dk are either photographed by employees of Parliament or by professional photographers where we [=ft.dk / Parliament] have paied extra money to allow the pictures to be used freely." And you claim that commercial use is not allowed. That is exactly why ft.dk paid off these photographers. Valentinian ^(talk) 10:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is for them to be usable for press purposes. --Rtc 11:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when hasn't newspapers been commercial? Valentinian ^(talk) 11:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Induction is not a valid mode of conclusion. Just because some special commercial use is permitted does not have as a necessary consequence that all commercial use is permitted. It doesn't even make the latter more probable. In fact, it countersupports the conclusion.[Popper and Miller 1983, 1987, 1994 unpublished] --Rtc 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your interpretation, nothing more, nothing less. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I claim that it is true. --Rtc 12:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the case, they wouldn't have used the words "lægge ud". I don't see the reason for this request either. --Pred 17:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valentian, do you claim that “fri benyttelse” implies the right to make derivative works? Kjetil r 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I read it. If you speak in purely monetary terms, one would normally use the word "gratis". Valentinian ^(talk) 18:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it is still ambiguous IMO. I'll send dthem an e-mail later today. Kjetil r 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Valentinian has got a point. Rtc, why are you so hooked on deleting haft the repostery? --Lhademmor 12:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which point do you see in what Valentinian writes? Rtc 13:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now written to Folketinget asking if commercial use is allowed, and if one can make derivative works. It is written in conservative Norwegian, which should be easily understood by Danes. See User:Kjetil r/folketinget. Kjetil r 23:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it says 'any' use it allowed. Why the need to get any more explicit? - Andre Engels 12:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is impolite towards the coypright holder not to demand a unambiguous license. "any use" often means "use of this version in any context", not "use for profit" or "use of a derived version" --Rtc 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is impolite to demand from someone to put it under another license just because you do not like the one they gave - especially if that other license for all practical purposes is the same. - Andre Engels 23:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, such thoughts have to be banished at all means. It is keeping trouble away from the copyright holder to demand from him that he states the terms clearly. Since, in case he doesn't intend the license as broad as you read it, he can well have a lot of drawbacks from that. If he intends it to be as broad, then it should be no problem for him to state that unambiguously and give users of his works the safetry they need. It is honest and not rude to demand licensing terms to be stated clearly; it is in the rights holder's as well as the user's interest (except, perhaps, in the collectionist's who don't care about the actual intentions of the rights holder, but only about satisfying their endless greed for more pictures from other people's sites). --Rtc 08:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking a copyright holder to say that their images are free of copyright issues even for defamatory purposes (which is effectively what this is) is a contradiction in terms. Defamatory actions against individuals are outlawed in the Danish criminal code § 267 [155] so let's assume that a Dane states that an image of a living person may be used completely unrestricted. In that case, I would argue that giving such a permit might in itself be a violation the criminal code's § 136, art. 1 [156] which forbids anyone from encouraging others to commit criminal actions. Distinguishing these two aspects as you demand [157] is simply not a possibility under Scandinavian law, and I would expect that German law also forbids encouraging criminal activities. If not, please inform me of any jurisdiction in which it is not an offence to encourage crime. However, asking somebody: "May we use this image for any purpose including commercial use, modification and derivative works, while naturally understanding that we are also bound by the criminal code", is a request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself. Unless we have this clarification, somebody will have to analyse American law extremely carefully. If libel/defamation and encouraging crime, as I expect, are both criminal offences under U.S. law, won't we then have to delete all images of all living people from the Commons? Provided this is the case, it might be an idea to ask if any such attitude is what this project needs? Valentinian ^(talk) 11:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really have misunderstood what I am saying completely. "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions" is a polite request that a copyright holder can accept or deny without creating legal complications for himself; and I am saying nothing more than that this should be done. You did not see that copyright law and other rights (especially criminal law) are completely independent and that the latter is out of scope of a copyright license. Stating such restrictions anyway in a copyright license can cause you to be prosecuted for a criminal crime and additionally being sued for copyright violation if you commit the crime. We don't want that "additionally"; it's not aceptable for a free license. Prosecution of criminal activity should be a purely public matter, not a private one. I am not saying that a license should encourage criminal behaviour, it should merely abstain from restricting the corresponding use. --Rtc 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard requests people file to copyright holders can indeed very easily give the impression I stated above and copyright law does not exist in a vacuum. Suppose a copyright holder has tried to release an image as CC but somebody questions this and e-mails him: "Do you really mean that we may use your images for all intents and purposes?" The copyright holder can't give a positive reply without compromising himself, however this is what Commons effectively demands. If he replies "I hereby confirm that I release ... .jpg under CC" then he'll be fine. If he answers "sure, do what you want with it" he might put himself in harm's way. Which is why many copyright holders will try to cover their own bases by stating something like; "you can't use my work for anything illegal". But to stay clear of this problem we'd effectively have to send out emails stating something like "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than "yes" since you may incriminate yourself by doing so. The photographer's legal bases would be covered by such a message, but I sincerely doubt that anybody would reply positively to such a mail. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I do not think that a CC license needs ever to be questioned, if it was stated by the author on his web page and there are no other indications that there is something wrong with it (for example, if he sold exclusive licenses and hence may not be legally entitled to license the work anymore)—it is the author's responsibility to read and understand the license he grants, really. Second, it is simply wrong that an answer such as "sure, do what you want with it" is in any way problematic. Whether you are complying with criminal law is completely your issue, not the author's; he cannot exempt you from your duties. It is out of scope of questions about copyright. Third, I do not believe that "Dear Sir. Could you please release FILE.jpg under a free license selected from the list below. If you agree, please don't answer anything else than 'yes' since you may incriminate yourself by doing so." is a correct way at all to do it, but, as I already said, "Could you please replace the unclear licensing terms on your website by a creative commons license that reflects your intentions". This asks the author to clarify the terms and conditions on his web site, not to give you any problematic reply at all. --Rtc 12:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that a photographer could release the user of one of this images from responsibility should this end user choose to break the law by using the image as an instrument to slander the person on it. I'm saying that if the end user that violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it; the photographer can be charged in court if somebody claims that the photographer either knew or should have known all along that the end user of his image was up to no good. The photographer might well get out of such a situation with the skin on his nose, but photographers shouldn't risk having to go through such proceedings, even if the risk is slim. It is not surprising if a photographer might wish to avoid any such hypothetical situation. Valentinian ^(talk) 12:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is clearly wrong, although unfortunately widely believed. The photographer cannot be charged in court if the end user who violated the law had previously asked the photographer for a blanket permission to use the image and got it. Solely the user who violated the law is responsible, because even if the licensor told him that he can use the image for any purpose, it is still he who decides to act uncritically according to that. He is guilty, because he culpably did not know that the permission was refering only to copyright. It is his responsibility to know that. Ignorance is no excuse. Law does not free you from responsibility just because someone else said so. Even if the photographer had told him "I will take responsibility for any criminal offense you are committing", that is contrary to "ordre public" and thus null and void; the photographer cannot be brought to court, but only the one doing the crime. Credulity and good faith in the truth of what someone else says (in contrast to good faith about his intentions) by itself is already half a criminal offense. --Rtc 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Provided the above analysis is correct (which I hope, such a situation will be more clear cut and easier to deal with) this will still not solve Wikimedia's problem at hand, if the sender and receiver of a licensing request are unaware of such legal details. I don't believe an image would become less free by openly writing in the request to a license holder "This request merely concerns the copyright aspect of using your image(s) to which you retain moral rights. Whoever uses the image(s) is legally responsible for his / her own actions doing so." Valentinian ^(talk) 15:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct.--Rtc 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a lot of problems could probably be solved if people include something along these lines when contacting copyright holders. Valentinian ^(talk) 17:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had something like this in my version of the licensing template already for ages. The relevant passage translates roughly to "I permit anyone to use the picture according to the free licence/s X. This permission refers only to copyright. Personality rights, competition law, trademark law and other laws remain unaffected. However, I know that in general, I cannot additionally sue for copyright violation if the work is used in conflict with such or other interests I have [that refers to the licensor's religious, political, ethical or material interests]." --Rtc 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the template, and had the original email conversation. It seemed quite clear to me that there were no restrictions to the use of the images. Thue 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the reply from Høyer below, he is supposed to get back to me with a clarification. If it was quite clear, no clarification would be needed, right? (I have not received further emails from him) Kjetil r 21:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

til:
Kjetil Ree

vedr.:
Brug af billeder

Tak for din mail.
Jeg skal have snakket med et par kollegaer om en præcisering af 
betingelserne for brugen af billeder på ft.dk.
Jeg vender tilbage med et svar om kort tid.

p.v.a.
Folketingets webmaster
Benny Høyer
27. marts 207

I have now received an answer from folketinget:

Tak for din påmindelse.
Jeg har fået aftale følgende formulering emd koppegaer i vores 
kommunikationsafdeling:

"Ophavsretten til tekst og billeder på Folketingets hjemmesider 
tilhører Folketinget. Materialet kan dog frit benyttes og gengives med klar 
kildeangivelse, men må ikke gøres til genstand for selvstændig kommerciel 
udnyttelse eller for direkte forvanskning."

Jeg håber formuleringen dækker de supplerende spørgsmål du havde.

pva.
Folketingets webmaster
Benny Høyer
9. maj 2007

Kjetil r 19:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase is that they do not allow "selvstændig" (stand-alone?) commercial use. Seems like a mass deletion? :( --|EPO| 19:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, based on the above all images should be deleted. But Folketinget cannot have that that intention. Let me just contact them and ask them to reconsider... Thue 10:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They said in reply to my email that they would reconsider, but haven't gotten back to me yet. Still waiting... Thue 20:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, this would be much simpler if we would not allow licenses that do not expressly permit unrestricted commercial reuse and derivative works. I think that this is an invalid license, but am willing to wait until we got confirmation on its validity. --Iamunknown 03:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would have been easier was if legal traditions hadn't developed as differently as they did on the two sides of the Atlantic. In Denmark, every child knows that defamation of others is outlawed, but people mix up which law this is specified in, for one thing, because our country isn't the lawyers' paradise that the U.S. is. In addition, people are afraid that if they give a "you may use it for everything" permission, that they put themselves in harm's way legally should somebody misuse the material. Given a Danish cultural background, it is very difficult interpreting unlimited requests as anything but a "may I break the law with this image?"-request. What people need to do is to add very clearly a clarification of a type that "We naturally recognize that other laws may apply regarding against inappropriate use of your image(s), but this request has nothing to do with this issue, only the copyright status of the image(s)." Or something along those lines. Valentinian ^(talk) 11:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair point (and one I would not have come up with by myself!). That said, many restrictions may apply to the use of an image that are separate from copyright (personality rights, trademarks, laws against fraud). But I was under the impression that the license Www.folketinget.dk puts their images under was restrictive in terms of copyright, based upon the above e-mail conversation; are these images not under copyright restrictions? --Iamunknown 18:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the original photographer(s) give(s) a toss about these images. A previous email from the same person stated that the images were either taken by Folketinget staff or by professional photographers that had been paid off specifically to allow unrestricted use. I've had my own photo taken that way when I stood as a candidate years ago, and I know from one MP that e.g. Venstre paid one photographer a large amount so he couldn't later cite any rights nomatter what Venstre did with his photos of our candidates to parliament. From what I read here, it is obvious that Folketinget made a similar arrangement. The current mail reads directly: (quote) "The copyright to text and images on the webpages of Folketinget belongs to Folketinget. Materials may however be freely used and reprinted given a clear indication of source, but they may not be the objects of stand-alone commercial use or complete corruption [of their content]." (unquote) The one caveat about modification beyond recognition would be a violation of moral rights anyway (and Folketinget is concerned about not accidentally sanctioning something completely bizzare / criminal which would look bad on Parliament). Forgive me for going just a tad over the line: the sender of the email is saying between the lines that he doesn't wish to lose his own job just in case he is talking to a complete crackpot that then does something insane and then cites Folketinget's e-mail as "documentation" that it was legal for the offender to smear all of Parliament. Had I been in his position and not been a Wikipedian (so I knew what the purpose of the request actually was about) I would have replied with something almost identical. Wikipedia's "modification" clause sounds very innocent but it is extremely problematic in a Scandinavian context because people believe that you're asking for permission to break the laws about defamation of others, and that's part of the criminal code. If you were saying that you were asking for permission to correct technical errors, nobody would care. Newspapers do this all the time.

As I see it, the issue needing clarification here is stand-alone commercial exploitation, but the core of the underlying problem is that the average Dane will confuse at least two laws, and that the notion of "public domain" is next to unknown in Scandinavia. For decades, the standard practice has been to pay off the photographer (he is happy, and you'll never hear from him again) and to release the image "to the press" meaning that the press may use it free of charge. This consequently gives a politician some sort of control over which image(s) his local newspaper actually uses of him. These press releases are considered stock footage sent to those that ask for a photo of a given person or object. The normal caveat is that corruption of logos (and sometimes images) may be specifically denied. If a later user of the material is then stupid enough to do something criminal (read: insulting) with the image, he/she would be charged with breaking the criminal code regarding this issue. Denmark doesn't normally use the U.S. practice of suing people for X different violations at the same time. Instead the public prosecutor will charge a person with the offence giving the highest penalty, unless of course the case is very complex e.g. a politician committing a ton of offences against the public - he would be tried with a selection of charges. Valentinian ^(talk) 19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status report? Did Thue contact webmaster again? Do we agree that permission is not complying with Commons policies? --|EPO| 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it the template (and images) should all be deleted. --Broadbeer 21:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten a few replies, and it seems very likely that the images will be available under an acceptable license. I am still talking to them to determine which license that will be, or rather waiting for them to respond to my questions. They are extremely slow :(. But please don't delete the images before I have finished talking to them. Thue 15:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it really seems likely images will be released under an acceptable license I agree we should give it a chance. Even though the images' current copyright status on Commons are somewhat unclear. But if a free license is realistic we should keep it. Just too bad they're that slow. --|EPO| 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not very good to keep them too long, but if we delete them now and they are going to released soon it would be a VERY big work to upload them again (or undo deletion). --Broadbeer 22:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thue, I'm actually impressed that you keep contacting them eventhough the webmaster must be pissed with Wikipedia by now. If you haven't mentioned it already, the Dutch Parliament has allowed the use of a series of photos of its cabinet under GFDL (en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-04/Dutch government), so Folketinget might find that interesting. #2) That Wikipedia recognizes that Danish law still applies against illegal (smearing) use, and that the request merely concerns copyright. This entire Wikilawyering against press images is just counterproductive. Wikipedia rejects a ton of European images that nobody even questions are intended for gratis mass distribution, using a very rigid interpretation of what a free image is. Yet, nobody even questions the use of a ton of U.S. government images that are very likely covered by copyright outside of the U.S. Same deal with the PD-art images; PD is the U.S. and Germany, but no-no for many other Wikipedias. Not to mention how ridiculous it felt when I had to lecture a Danish politician who wanted his press image to be used on his Wikipedia article that he most likely doesn't have the right to release an image he paid for, since Wikipedia's interpretation of U.S. law doesn't care about Danish practice regarding commissioned works. And judging from my inbox, I'll have to reject a similar image tomorrow. Valentinian ^(talk) 23:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the above discussion. --Alien life form 13:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I have the right to pissed, because they originally told me that I could use the images without restrictions. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

update: I finally got a reply today (the long wait has only been because of their slowness). They refuse to waive the "no stand-alone commercial use" clause. I replied with a final plea for them to consider for example a CC attribution-sharealike license, but I have asked that before, so one might consider the issue closed already. However, I sometimes get the idea that they really do not read what I actually write, so there is a small chance that my suggested has not registered up unil now, but by a miracle will now... Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, any updates? --Iamunknown 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do keep it, I request you rename it to something more easily understandable, like "PD-Folketinget", or "CC-Folketinget" or something. The current template name says NOTHING beyond the site that it's taken from — It's not a licence tag! 68.39.174.238 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. —An gr 20:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the license tag, as the permission is NonCommercial and NonDerviative. --Kjetil r 11:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is really non commercial and non derivative then it has to be deleted. Therefore I reopened the deletion request. --ALE! ¿…? 07:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets delete them. / Fred J 08:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being - The matter is still being investigate by User:Thue, he has previously stated that the process is very slow but that he beleives the images will be released under an adequate license. We should await this process before doing any deletion. --Morten LJ 06:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to keep them it would be nice with an update as we haven't seen any since June 17. --Broadbeer 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked him for an update. His reply on my talk page was that he can't get in contact with them right now as they all gone for the summer. He is still optimistic for a free license.

But until a free license has been confirmed we should not accept any more uploads. --|EPO| ^da: 18:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not accept any more uploads? --Morten LJ 09:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that means more deletionwork if we do not get the proper permission. --Broadbeer 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, whether you delete them when they are uploaded, or a month later when we decide to delete everything makes no difference. --Morten LJ 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the real reason is that if we were to follow the "rules" all images shuold be deleted as the current license is not valid on Commons. Therefor if you upload an image an tag it with the license you would be in bad faith (same as tagging a imge with © without permissions to use it freely. --Broadbeer 21:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got a reply. It was a "no" to remove the "no stand-alone commercial redistribution". As such the images would have to be deleted :(. Thue 14:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone care to explain what "Complete corruption" is supposed to mean? 68.39.174.238 23:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was translated from Danish "direkte forvanskning" by User:Valentinian. "Direkte forvanskning" means something like "directly made difficult," but it is hard to translate it correctly into English. Kjetil r 00:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could also mean "immediate distortions". / Fred J 00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, "Forvaskning" refers to changing something beyond all recognition, in particular if one has an evil intent in doing so. Nomatter if people demand this to be permitted copyright-wise, doing so will very likely still be a violation of § 267 in the Danish Criminal Code about trying to destroy the reputation of another person. (quote) § 267. Den, som krænker en andens ære ved fornærmelige ord eller handlinger eller ved at fremsætte eller udbrede sigtelser for et forhold, der er egnet til at nedsætte den fornærmede i medborgeres agtelse, straffes med bøde eller fængsel indtil 4 måneder. (My attempt at a translation: § 267: He who violates the honour of somebody else by means of insulting words or deeds or by creating or spreading accusations about circumstances that can be used to degrade the attacked in the eyes of fellow citizens, shall be punished by a fine or up till four months of imprisonment.) Valentinian ^(talk) 21:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that pictures/portraits of a person is not allowed in a commercial ad without a model release (in most countries). --Bongoman 08:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the license does not allow unrestricted commercial use. If no new arguments for keeping are made, then I will ensure deletion of all images within a very short time. --|EPO| ^da: 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Thue's recent information. Valentinian ^{T / C} 11:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, template is now copyvio, all images with the template will be deleted soon. / Fred J 22:12, 11 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.

Template:Www.folketinget.dk

unused template. -- Common Good (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. - Jcb (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Robert the Bruce3.jpg

The meta date of this picture indicates that the copyright is held, and there is no evidence to the contrary in any of this image's other upload locations. Besides, another version of this image was deleted earlier today. See also en:Image:Robert_the_Bruce3.jpg. Calgacus 18:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This applies to the United States, Canada, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years." This Picture is older than two hundred years. --Alma 11:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it? I tried to find evidence of this, but couldn't find any. And no evidence was provided by the uploader. That's the issue here, since of course we don't want to lose a free image. Regards, Calgacus 15:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page the origin of the image? (their legal stuff page) ~~It would be nice to know what their source for the image is, I don’t expect they drew it up themselves.~~ They state they have it from "Mary Evans Picture Library", couldn't find it though, but their legal page is pretty clear we can’t use it (also not their thumbs)--Van helsing 12:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, no source --ALE! ¿…? 12:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 31

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Ocean_Park_old_and_new_1.jpg

Offensive. 217.44.96.203 00:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it offensive? / Fred J 00:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep no valid reason for deletion has been listed. -Nard 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept . no valid reason for deletion. --Tarawneh 03:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Pernilla Emme.jpg

I added this image by mistake. It is not mine and I have no permission to use it. epibase 19:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User uploaded picture by mistake and has no permission, small resolution, and does not link to anything. --Digon3 ^talk 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speedy-delete as copyright violation. grendel|khan 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 12:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Les Six Tableau.jpg

This picture is painted by French painter Jacques-Emile Blanche who died in 1942. Ergo, it is not in public domain. --Andrei Romanenko 11:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 65 years past after the death of the author. Pimke 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted, --Polarlys 12:46, 1 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.

Image:Tunix.jpg

photo of poster taken without permission of the copyright holder of the poster. --rtc 21:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as old with no decision. Tabercil (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late deleted: as derivative work --Ju Ta 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Lord Voldemort

This gallery page contained multiple copyright violations. I can't see what noninfringing material this could possibly hold. It looks mostly like an invitation to violate copyright laws. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Deleted by Infrogmation: content was: '{{delete|This gallery page contained multiple copyright violations. I can't see what noninfringing material this could possibly hold. It looks mostly ...

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:H. Clinton.jpg

There is no indication this is a work of the US Government. It comes from [158], which would seem to indicate it is copyrighted by this particular institution. Tom (talk - email) 03:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and speedily deleted the image as a copyvio. --Tom (talk - email) 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FZA.JPG

Have again loaded image with another title: reference picture. 31 July 2007 User:Kgd7501

Please tag this picture with {{duplicate|existing image.jpg}} template. Pimke 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tagged as duplicate; please speedy-delete. grendel|khan 21:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:Trein type MR 66.jpg

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FennecFoxWindow.JPG

redundant low res copy of Image:VulpesZerdaWindow.JPG - ∅ (∅), 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy-delete as low-res duplicate. (Tagged with {{duplicate}}.) grendel|khan 21:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Siebrand: Dupe of Image:VulpesZerdaWindow.JPG

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Quentin Tarantino & Robert Rodriguez.jpg

Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. --Peta 00:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Derivative work. Megapixie 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that this is a derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rose McGowan 07-22-06.jpg

Another photo of a broadcast; more obvious in the original on flickr. --Peta 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete derivative work, thus copyvio. Megapixie 09:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm trying to figure out how this qualifies as a broadcast, when it is a real-time projection shown in the same room as the panelists. This isn't taken from TV, or from a previous recording. If this is a live event, what is the difference between taking a picture of the projection from a distance, and taking a picture of the panelists themselves close-up? I don't really care if this is deleted or not, but it seems wrong to claim that it is something other than what it is. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately someone pointed a TV camera at the participants choose a lense, zoom, brightness, contrast, aperture, framing, camera position, etc (i.e. creative choices). This is enough to give the work copyright (most likely as a work for hire by comiccon). A photograph of the projection screen is ultimately no different from a photograph of a screen in a movie theatre. Megapixie 22:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill the image, then. The rationale still makes no real sense to me (I don't see how anyone but the event owner could copyright such material), but better to not have the image than to have questionable content. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 03:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this is a derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Quentin Tarantino & Rosario Dawson.JPG

Photo of a broadcast --Peta 00:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a broadcast but one of those TV monitors they put in the room while the people are speaking so they can be seen in the back of the room. I'm not entirely sure what the copyright is on those. -Nard 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete derivative work, thus copyvio. Megapixie 09:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Megapixie - A derivative work isn’t in any case a copyvio... --FSHL 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatives of copyrighted works are violations of the copyright, unless the licensing says otherwise. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. --FSHL 17:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this is a derivative work. It appears from Tostie's work that day that he attended the conference, but shot the photos of a video screen there from a bad angle, rather than shooting photos of the speakers directly, thus violating the copyright of the cameraperson shooting the video. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 09:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Burt Bacharach 1995.jpg

No indication why this should be "Permission: Copyright public". Source web site says: "All material is copyrighted by the author unless otherwise noted." --High on a tree 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is clear. There is neither a permission on the website nor on OTRS, and it's copyrighted Pimke 07:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Coat of arms of Israel.png

According to this discussion, this symbol is not in public domain, being owned by the Israeli state. That's because the country was established in 1948, and its copyright laws follow the State Copyright (based on the 1911 Crown Copyright, of the British common law). Whether it applies to one case, should be extended to other Israeli civic symbols. Tonyjeff 14:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That discussion is inconclusive; this request should wait until that one is resolved. grendel|khan 21:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to grendel|khan - Time will tell... --FSHL 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closed for the moment --ALE! ¿…? 08:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:FSG Südkreis Match.jpg and Image:FSG Südkreis Match2.jpg

Recht am eigenen Bild -- User:89.56.67.191 15:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion fix Deadstar 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a German speaker, but this appears to say "Right to (my) own picture". At first I was confused because the user should have logged in and requested an author deletion, but on second glance, it appears it could be a demand under personality law. -Nard 17:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to Nard - But it still applies: In dubio pro reo – without hard facts no condemnation... --FSHL 14:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means de:Recht am eigenen Bild. In German law, this is a Personality right that grants every person (except celebrities and other persons of public interest) the right to decide if and in what context an image of this person can be published. We have the template {{Personality rights}}, which suggests that Commons should to be very careful with images of ordinary persons that didn't give permission to use photos of them. --91.65.124.74 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personen auf dem Bild sind mit der Veröffentlichung einverstanden. Und soweit ich weiß, wäre das nicht mal nötig, da Bilder bei öffentlichen Veranstaltungen und im Speziellen Fußballspielen verwendet werden dürfen. Ein Fotograf von der Zeitung fragt auch nicht nach, ob er Bilder von Spielszenen verwenden darf... --StefanW-co 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept and tagged with {{personality rights}} --ALE! ¿…? 08:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kazimierzlutoslaw.png

probably it is not pd-old -- --Szczepan talk  14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep he died in 1924 and he looks a bit young in the picture. It probably is PD old. -N 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If photo was made in 1910 when author had 40 yrs and he died 40 yrs later (1950) then it will be PD in 2020. This is very optimistic, it even can be PD in 2050 or later. Herr Kriss 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above arguments. Herr Kriss 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prawa autorskie wygasły z całą pewnością. Nikt z całą pewnością nie będzie rościł sobie praw do tych zdjęć powszechnie publikowanych we wszystkich książkach o Lutosławskim !! Wiem ale my musimy być bardziej święci od papieża :(. Szumyk 10:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaka masz pewnosc ze te prawa wygasly? I skad wiesz ze nikt nie bedzie sobie roscil praw do tej grafiki? --Szczepan talk  10:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mamy zasady. Za 99% procent zdjec, nawet wspolczesnych, nie bedzie nikt nas sciagal. Mimo to dbamy o prawa autorskie. Nie mozemy umieszczac zdjec bo "nikt z całą pewnością nie będzie rościł sobie praw do tych zdjęć". Herr Kriss 13:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Herr Kriss put it, does not seem as PD-old qualifies here. Wpedzich 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does or it doesn't - but everytime we should rather assume that it doesn't. Just in case. Masur 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we imply that the author died in 1937 and the photo was made ca. 1910-1915, the author must have been 60 when the photo was made. Of course, he could have died the day after the photography was made, but it is also possible that he was 20 then. So, same as Masur - we should rather assume that it isnt't pd-old, if we don't know for sure. Piotrek91 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patrol110 19:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC) With pain in heart but delete it ;( (Arguments like those above)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Kslutoslawski.png

probably it is not pd-old -- --Szczepan talk  14:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep he died in 1924 and he looks a bit young in the picture. It probably is PD old. -Nard 17:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If photo was made in 1910 when author had 40 yrs and he died 40 yrs later (1950) then it will be PD in 2020. This is very optimistic, it even can be PD in 2050 or later. Herr Kriss 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above arguments. Herr Kriss 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, does not seem to fully qualify as PD-old. Wpedzich 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does or it doesn't - but everytime we should rather assume that it doesn't. Just in case. Masur 14:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we imply that the author died in 1937 and the photo was made ca. 1910-1915, the author must have been 60 when the photo was made. Of course, he could have died the day after the photography was made, but it is also possible that he was 20 then. So, same as Masur - we should rather assume that it isnt't pd-old, if we don't know for sure. Piotrek91 14:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patrol110 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC) If we are not sure, we should delete this graphic immediately.[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Yves_Leterme_campagnefoto.jpg

Image file no longer available or unreadable ? Foroa 16:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have repaired this corrupted image. I have no idea why it shrank in size so dramatically though. -Nard 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On my system, this picture does not display, but it does on certain thumbnails. It seems to be identical to the image Image:Yves Leterme campagne foto.jpg with an almost identical name, which is nominated for deletion as well. Personally, I have no opinion, it just doesn't display on my system in 461 × 479 pixels nor at its full 750 × 780 pixel display. The indicated file size (387 KB) versus the IE properties file size (1,3 MB) seems quite different too. --Foroa 17:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The file did not display properly for me either, until I repaired it. Try clearing your browser cache and trying again. It should be visible now. -Nard 17:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But since it's a dupe, I suppose it should be deleted. -Nard 17:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted --ALE! ¿…? 08:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:PNP.logo.gif

Not US logo, so no PD-USGov, website is domain squatter Magnus Manske 19:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Requested licensing information from uploader; delete if not forthcoming. grendel|khan 20:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tagged with nld --ALE! ¿…? 08:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LasCaritas02.JPG

poor quality, no inscriptions to be seen --Till 20:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could stand to be contrast-enhanced and re-captioned, but I see no reason to delete this. grendel|khan 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to grendel|khan - Quality is good enough... --FSHL 14:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:LasCaritas04.JPG

poor quality --Till 20:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could stand to be contrast-enhanced and have the description extended, but it's of decent resolution. grendel|khan 21:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to grendel|khan - Quality is good enough... --FSHL 14:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image kept --ALE! ¿…? 08:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Template:PolishPresidentCopyright

Translation "Using, copying and reusing materials from internet service of Polish President is allowed if their source is indicated." (Template talk:PolishPresidentCopyright) is unclear and does not indicate clearly of derivative work and commeercial use is allowed. Perhaps a polish speaking user can check the original and translate it more accurately. The words "for any purpose" were invented by the template creator and cannot be found on the web site; they are subjective, uncritical interpretation of the copyright statement. Moreover, I advise that Commons should accept only pictures for which the source web site displays a clear CC license tag (or has an equivalent release boilerplate for a standard, non-home-brew license). --Rtc 08:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please note that it says re-using, copying and reproducing[159] - I would interpret "reuse" as including derivative works. But if not then contact the website and ask (in Polish of course). --Lhademmor 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume that re-using means simply that the content that is used on this page may also be used again on other pages—using the unchanged picture in a different context, not the parts of the picture to make a derivative picture. Since "copying" and "reproducing" have the same meaning, I do not see why "re-using" shouldn't mean the same, too. --Rtc 13:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete re-use, copy and reproduce != unrestricted modifications. --EugeneZelenko 16:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete “re-use, copy and reproduce” is not clear enough. We need the explicit right to make derivative works and to use images commercially. Kjetil r 20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ssolbergj 23:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, why do you want to keep? Kjetil r 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mathiasrex 10:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, why do you want to keep? Kjetil r 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with respecting this restriction: This permission does not apply only to those elements the rights to which are reserved, and to graphic design elements, which may not be modified in any way whatsoever. Mathiasrex 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep KridPL 11:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC) it is not voting Julo 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rudi pl 14:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC) it is not voting Julo 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --WarX 11:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I see that deletion trolls are very active this week![reply]
- Why the plural? I only see one
Keep Galileo01 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC) I don't see any reason to delete it.[reply]
- Hello Polish friends, I see that the message of the deletion request of the template reached your wikipedia. Please note that this is not a poll but a discussion. arguments—real arguments—are relevant here; no votes. --Rtc 17:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above arguments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any arguments above that would imply the pictures to be kept. --Rtc 08:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I see them, above and below, and agree with them. And I don't agree with your reasoning.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 04:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are no arguments, these are merely conflicting positions. Fortunately, someone is already testing which one is correct, by sending them an email and asking. Let's see what the reply is. --Rtc 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Provided that we will actually get the reply. I still haven't heard from them. :( --Botev 18:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This permission does not apply only to those elements the rights to which are reserved, and to graphic design elements, which may not be modified in any way whatsoever. means: This permission apply to those elements the rights to which are not reserved, and to no graphic design elements, which may be modified in any way whatsoever. PawełS 08:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That graphic design elements may not be modified does not imply that anything else may be modified. Nowhere it is positively stated that pictures may be used for commercial purposes (postcards, posters) or derivative work (caricature) without paying an additional free to the photographer. Why don't they use a creative commons license? --Rtc 08:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

, (...) , is ~~intrusion~~ (inclusion PawełS 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)), which can be skipped. PawełS 09:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand at all what you are trying to say. --Rtc 09:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

, and to no graphic design elements, is inclusion. which may be modified in any way whatsoever apply to both those elements the rights to which are not reserved, and no graphic design elements. PawełS 10:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement reads to me "which may not be modified in any way whatsoever" (emphasized by me). --Rtc 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason to delete it. LUCPOL 19:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC) it is not voting Julo 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adamt13:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC) it is not voting Julo 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not orginal... but... i don't see any reason to delete it. it is not voting Julo 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oh, come on, this template makes opportunity to release good photos. Yarl.pl ^talk 20:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason to delete it is the fact that it doesn't specifically allow derivative works, losing good photos isn't a good argument against deletion. Maybe some of you can contact the Polish President's office and get a better permission and send it to OTRS? That'd solve the problem. Yonatan ^talk 08:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understand my mother-language, we can use photographs made by president's personell and published on this website in any way and any purpose, except graphic-design of the website. This discussion here seems to be a copyright-paranoia syndrome. Julo 12:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it says we can use it in any way for any purpose then I don't see a problem with it, but does it literally say that? Yonatan ^talk 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that we couldn't use these pictures legally in principle, but I am saying that they have not been released under a free license compliant to COM:L. Free license means a lot more than merely legality. --Rtc 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it says in any way and for any purpose, that includes commercial use and derivative works so I don't see the problem (that is, IF it says that). Yonatan ^talk 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be skeptical about that. You better do not rely on general statements for which, when written, people often do not even think of that it could include derivative work or commercial use. why doesn't anyone simply ask? --Rtc 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
In Polish we read here: Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie materiałów znajdujących się w serwisie internetowym Prezydenta RP, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia. Zezwolenie nie dotyczy jedynie elementów zastrzeżonych oraz elementów graficznych, które nie mogą być też modyfikowane w jakikolwiek sposób. Literally in first sentence we have permission to use, copy and "utilization" (meanig "using in any way and any purpose") materials from the President's website, if the source (website) is given. Next sentence says about the exceptions ("zezwolenie nie dotyczy jedynie = "permission does not regard [or 'refer', 'concern'] only"): "reserved elements" and "graphic elements" of website. Those "reserved" elements you should understand as - for instance - quotations from encyclopedias; it is mentioned in the sentence above: (...) Encyklopedii PWN w trzech tomach oraz Nowej encyklopedii powszechnej PWN (Copyright(r) by Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN S.A. Warszawa 1999, Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone. Graphic elements you should understand as graphic design, using Mr. President's signature, "BIP" logo, shading white/red flag etc.
Comment The admin closing this discussion should more or less disregard all the keep votes that are not backed by real arguments. It should not be too hard to ask the office of the Polish President if they can clarify the license - see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Solveig Fiske.jpg for a similar discussion. Kjetil r 05:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have striked out unargumented "votes". By the way, IMHO asking any officials for official opinion seems to be like don Kichote's trip... Julo 12:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polish version: Zezwala się na używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie materiałów znajdujących się w serwisie internetowym Prezydenta RP, z zaznaczeniem źródła ich pochodzenia [160]. Używanie: using, kopiowanie: copying, wykorzystywanie: utilizing, exploiting. I cannot see any possibility, that licensor giving such a broad-meaning terms could possibly want to exclude commercial and derivative usage... So Keep. A.J. 11:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ask them. Check whether something for what you cannot see any possibility might nevertheless actually be true.--Rtc 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should I? The above text is clear enough. We don't usually ask our uploaders if they really REALLY with hand on heart want to release their work on GFDL/CC/whatever. However, recent discussion on COM:AN/U shows, that maybe we should... NOTE: If the consensus settles on asking president's office for explanation, the more official way we take (through Wikimedia Poland?), the more chance we actually get any response. A.J. 18:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should because the above text is not clear enough. In contrast, GFDL/CC are explicit; they are explicit about commercial use and they are explicit about deriviative work. I assume you won't get the permission to use these pictures, no matter how 'official' the request is being done. Besides that, the request is not for wikimedia poland to be able to use the picture, but for anyone, which should be reflected in a change of their licensing terms directed at more explicitness and clarity; a request should not be directed at a mere reply by mail. The public is the licensor, not the person mailing them. The best way to do this is to ask them to use a CC license. --Rtc 18:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it is not clear enogh ONLY for persons, who do not speak Polish. For me it is quite clear.
According "ask them": I don't believe in any response from officials. We asked them in November for official definition about shades of red and white in Polish emblems, but no reply.
I really don't understand people, who believe in PD-USGov, but do not accept parallel rules in other countries... Julo 20:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no parallel rules in any country. PD-USGov is unique. --Rtc 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't fight with words. Paralell does not mean identical. Every country is unique, but many rules are paralell. Julo 11:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I do not fight with words. I am not claiming that there are no identical rules in any country, but that there are no parallel rules in any country. In the meaning of the word 'parallel' exactly as you intend to use it here. --Rtc 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "używanie, kopiowanie oraz wykorzystanie" looks clear enough to me - while it doesn't explicitly say that it can be modified, I'd say it is implied by using both "używanie" (using) and "wykorzystywanie" (using, utilizing, exploiting). Ausir 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I claim that it is not implied and that your consequence is not true here. --Rtc 22:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just sent an e-mail asking them whether we can use the pictures on the GNU license. Let us see if they will answer. --Botev 07:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I claim that your claim is bad faithed and disruptive to this project.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an utterly bad faith, transparent claim, Piotrus. I suggest you read w:Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith; hopefully you will then realize how utterly bad faith and disruptive your claim is. --Iamunknown 18:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-reading my comment, I really am ashamed of what I said. Sorry, Iamunknown 05:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Serdelll 11:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC) this is not a voting. --Botev 13:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - rtc, Eugene and Kjetil have got it down, derivative works and commercial reuse are not expressly permitted, thus we don't assume that we have those rights. --Iamunknown 21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am reading the English copy of the copyright notice. There is a statement after what is pasted onto that template that reads: "This permission does not apply only to those elements the rights to which are reserved, and to graphic design elements, which may not be modified in any way whatsoever." I believe that, until clarified, makes the images unfree. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Photographs are not "graphic design elements" and the note explicitly mentions the elements that cannot be modified, which clearly implies that the others can. Therefore no reason to delete the tag. Wojsyl 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Becouse: "The President of the Republic of Poland allows it to be used for any purpose" Krzysiu Jarzyna ☎ 11:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason to delete this template. It is OK. --Ala z 11:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep, keep... Bartekbas 21:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC) this is not a vote! --ALE! ¿…? 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason, "The President of the Republic of Poland allows it to be used for any purpose". Hmmm? M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 20:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Szumyk 09:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told many times on Polish Wiki. This is not a voting! Herr Kriss 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the text of the permission is clear and explicit, there is no doubt as to the intentions of the license giver. // tsca [re] 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The text of permission is clear and explicit.Andros64 07:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright statement is unclear if the works can be commercially distributed and derivative works can be made out of them. Because of this, the template has been deleted. (→O - R L Y?) 19:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have rstored the template and have put a redirect to {{copyvio}} --ALE! ¿…? 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll help deleting them, over 350 files. :-( --Polarlys 21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This request was closed by User:O and all files were deleted. They were restored by User:Tsca. We are waiting for an official response from the Chancellery of the President of Poland right now. … --Polarlys 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress? Do we know which Wikimedian sent the email? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 05:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An email was sent by user:Jeff G..
Also, Wikimedia Polska has sent an official inquiry (traditional mail) to the Chancellery. I'll inform the Commons community as soon as we receive a reply. // tsca [re] 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Ok, thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return fire)} 06:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.prezydent.pl/x.node?id=1011893 See also the template’s talk page. --Polarlys 18:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, the licensing on the official site changed to a GFDL statement. --Polarlys 19:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Sf 72.JPG

this doesn't sound like the person giving permission knew what he did. He doesn't mention any license explicitly and it is by no means clear whether he really means a GFDL license. It's too much like "you can use it without change in wikipedia" Does the person even have permission from the photographer for a license as wide-ranging as GFDL? I don't think so; it's usually a permission to use the photo on the cover, and that's it. Use de:Benutzer:Rtc/Einverständniserklärung --rtc 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the author said to me in an e-mail it is okay to use it for wikipedia. it also is used in anarchopedia, which has the same license. -- Schwarze feder 00:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wikipedia-only license. Lupo 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:SF O Nummer.JPG

this doesn't sound like the person giving permission knew what he did. He doesn't mention any license explicitly and it is by no means clear whether he really means a GFDL license. It's too much like "you can use it without change in wikipedia" Does the person even have permission from the photographer for a license as wide-ranging as GFDL? I don't think so; it's usually a permission to use the photo on the cover, and that's it. Use de:Benutzer:Rtc/Einverständniserklärung --rtc 21:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it the same like the other permission. -- Schwarze feder 00:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Wikipedia-only license. Lupo 11:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Delmerensmolen.JPG

Content does not matches title and different from nl: reference picture. 30 July 2007 User:Foroa Foroa 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kept, Incorrect assumption. Image had a different name on nl.wp. Currently visible is a Commons image with the same name as the previous name. Checked deletion logs on nl.wp. Everything is all right. --Siebrand 23:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Mankmill in Manchester.jpg

w:User:Crispy_tj is not the author. See also w:User_talk:Crispy_tj --rtc 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Davepape 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Rachida_Dati.jpg

I cannot import it from wikipedia.fr, so I will import it on Commons VIA wikipedia and not via the main page of commons...or tell me how to do it the right way ! 81.252.82.4 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted by User:Siebrand --ALE! ¿…? 12:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:Bloch13.jpg

Permission of the photographer?--rtc 21:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not valid reason for deletion. Permission of the Ernst Bloch Zentrum is sufficiently... --FSHL 17:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (no permission by the author) --ALE! ¿…? 08:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Image:ScenaCultura.jpeg

Permission of the artist, or OTRS permission at all? The way it is, simply claiming permission, is definitely too lax. --rtc 21:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello, I have the permission. The artist is a friend. -- Schwarze feder 00:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that you have it, but de:WP:OTRS needs it. --rtc 03:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted (no permission) --ALE! ¿…? 08:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]