I noticed this image on the en:wiki featured article for today. This image seems to have been uploaded on the assumption that the author died 70 years ago, which cannot be proven. Baden-Powell died in 1941, which means if the photographer was born in 1921 (for example), they could still be alive today and the photo copyrighted. There is no indication this is a public domain image; in fact, it was taken from a commercial magazine's website [1]. --Tom (talk - email) 15:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, there's no evidence that this is in the public domain - it doesn't even appear particularly likely. Note that I was notified of this deletion request on my en talk page after I edited the local copy of the image description page. Haukurth20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no proof it's copyrighted either. It's all over the internet on all sorts of pages, free and non-free sites. Can you prove it's copyrighted?68.10.192.19420:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevent. Commons is intended as a repository of free licenced images, not "hell if we know what the proper status is" images. -- Infrogmation20:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the document is published by a short-lived government that was declared illegal and destroyed, it is highly doubtful they can any longer claim use of the copyright. Patstuart17:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 11:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember reporting over a dozen other screenshots to "Editor at Large" here. It looks like I missed some. The photo was taken at the San Diego Comic Con where they have a large screen that broadcasts people live on stage. I uploaded it back when I didn't know that those type of shots are derivative works. So yes, these can be deleted. Spellcast13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember reporting over a dozen other screenshots to "Editor at Large" here. It looks like I missed some. The photo was taken at the San Diego Comic Con where they have a large screen that broadcasts people live on stage. I uploaded it back when I didn't know that those type of shots are derivative works. So yes, these can be deleted. Spellcast13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arrangments of letters, even in common typefaces, and even if they spell out common words, can be artistic because the choice of color and of the background (even if a solid color) requires artistic decisionmaking. Further, this is a commercial product and we have a policy about album covers in general. The argument is without merit that this is not copyrightable. What matters is whether it's possible to take a freely licenseable image of a copyrighted item. For album covers the answer appears to be no, but it may not be so for other things. ++Lar: t/c20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the arguments of why it should be without copyright and I suppose that is what German Wikipedia is doing with their logos. But personally I see it as taking advantage of a loophole in the law, which I am no big fan of.
Also I fear that artists (for albums) or companys (for logos) will not follow the argumentation, but see their items of fully protected, which may result in lawsuits against Wikimedia projects. Not sure if there has been a discussion regarding this topic at the Village Pump, but I think the discussion seems more appropriate there. --|EPO|da:08:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure discussion of album covers is needed, it has been policy for a long time, I believe. I would have speedied this one myself, actually... ++Lar: t/c10:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Artistic decision-making doesn't make anything copyrightable. For example, using a red circle, a black square or the letter "G" as a trademark or insignia is an artistic decision, but that doesn't mean red circles, black squares or the letter would then be copyrighted. There is no policy that all album covers are to be deleted. So far, all have been deleted because they have been copyrightable works, but this cover is very exceptional in that measure (not the only one, see en:The Black Album (Prince album)). --Hautala17:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 16:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 16:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if he took this one from a TV screen, you can see other people in front, it's not a close up like the others Madmax3204:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 16:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 16:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source, no basic information, unsafe PD-old / wersja dla Szumyka - brak źródła, brak podstawowych informacji, PD bardzo niepewne Szwedzki12:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for that claim to be true, the photographer would have to have died before Sevin turned 55 (because Sevin was born in 1882). Given the subject's apparent age in the photo, that seems unlikely. —LX (talk, contribs)19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
License appears to be incorrect - likely was not changed, but incorrectly attributed in the first place. Many substitutes exist: [2]. --Patstuart19:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what happened, but I uploaded a picture of Peter Colman and this picture from the same guy on Flickr. The one of Colman was also found under a nonfree license and was deleted awhile ago (I assumed this one had been tagged too, see User talk:Quadzilla99#Peter Colman). I'm assuming that I made a mistake in uploading the images and that they probably weren't free, so I would agree that deleting it is the right course of action. ShadowHalo00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This collage was created for Portal:Azerbaijan in wikipedia, the author has a permission to use those images. Also, I would like to ask the admins to check the actions of the nominator and his tagging of Azerbaijan related images only. --Grandmaster10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: The source page has a photo of Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh, but it's not the same as the photo that we're talking about here. grendel|khan13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What sort of reason are you looking for? If we don't know who took the picture, then we have no way of knowing if it's in the public domain or not; if we don't have a way of knowing if it's in the public domain or not, it may very well be copyright infringement--the burden of proof is on us to show that it's not. grendel|khan13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 11:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember reporting over a dozen other screenshots to "Editor at Large" here. It looks like I missed some. The photo was taken at the San Diego Comic Con where they have a large screen that broadcasts people live on stage. I uploaded it back when I didn't know that those type of shots are derivative works. So yes, these can be deleted. Spellcast13:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person shown on the photo is not the person how to took the image. So she can not give the permission. --ALE! ¿…?08:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately not really a reason for deletion. Please put your comments on the description page of the wrong image. --ALE! ¿…?08:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taken from [3]; site which says [4] that works can be borrowed and shared as long as they are informative and not used for commercial purposes. Syrcro08:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the original website is lost, I have re-tagged the image as PD-RU exempt, as Saint-Petersburg Metro is a Russian state organisation, and this is an official map that can be used for non-commercial purposes. --Kuban kazak22:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the 2005 map was actually updated by me personally, and improved, besides the 2006 map is of worse quality, and not so favourable dimensions. Besides the map is widely available in the Russian print, and no attribution licenses are ever noted. Self-made maps are crap (the ones we have so far). --Kuban kazak20:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Official site contains near same image and note Петербургский Метрополитен Все права защищены, 2005. Images discussed here are clear derivative works of official map. I think will be good idea to ask metro administration what is copyrights status of their map. --EugeneZelenko14:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No one ever released any rights to this map and it is created by the Metropoliten of St. P – thus by default it retains all rights to it. The fact that it's "widely available" means absolutely nothing. As EugeneZelenko points out, the St. Petersburg Metropoliten website specifically even says that "All rights are reserved, 2005".
Photo of a conference broadcast, in my experience these have been removed from wp:en. 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) 16:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded from Wikipedia at the direction of a "Upload to Commons" template and didn't check image source until now--states non-commercial use and unaltered use only - photo is both altered and its license is incorrect. Rkitko18:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't have any reason to suspect the license unless we see someone else claim copyright of the image. Until then, no need to delete. Althepal20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in doubt delete. Maybe the author could upload a version in a higher resolution as a proof of authorship? --ALE! ¿…?08:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's pd-old. Author is unnecessary. We don't need authors for pd images (otherwise, we'd have deleted half the old images out there). Patstuart17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aslanov died in 1945, so the image is pre-1954. And I have a reason to suspect that the nomination was made by user permanently banned in Wikipedia. --Grandmaster10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {No source, therefore the location and dates of publication are unknown. Unless a special Commons rule about unknown dates of publication, we have no reasons to assume that it is prior to January 1, 1950, assuming that this Russian licence is the correct one.}: this reason will be invalided if a suitable publication date is added to the page. The licence doesn't clearly specify if it suits in the unknown author case. --Juiced lemon19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already checked that. The photograph may even have been taken before the Soviet-German War (1941). However, the licence mentions the date of publication, which is different than the date of the photograph.
It was taken during the Battle of Stalingrad (when Aslanov was awarded Hero of Soviet Union, you can see him wearing the decoration) and was first published in Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper in 1942. --Grandmaster13:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I propose to freeze this deletion request, and any deletion request with this licence:
condition #1: It was published before January 1, 1954 => cannot be established if the source is unknown, or undated.
condition #2: the creator (if known) died before that date => not fulfilled when the author is unknow (either, this is a bad wording)
Kept - old discussion. Likely work of the Soviet government: Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia.Patstuart21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because required attribution is the only way that I can prevent commercial use of my photos I require strict attribution procedures, fail to meet them and you are breaching copyright law.
This user's intentions is to make attribution requirements ("The text of the attribution must be of an area at least 50% that of the reproduction size") so insanely large that no one would ever use his image anywhere but on WMF projects (all of his attribution rules are waived for the WMF). So, technically, commercial use is not restricted but his attribution requirements effectively do restrict any and all commercial use. His intentions are clearly in disagreement with the spirit of commons "freeness" requirements. Waiving these attribution requirements for the WMF effectively limits use to wikimedia, which is also against commons policy.
Furthermore, as pointed out in Commons:Village pump#Are we allowed to do this?? the actual legalese of the CC-BY-2.5 license says that attribution must be "reasonable to the medium" and that the "Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You." Taking up 50% of the photo for attribution is not reasonable. Appending strict provisions to the license is also not allowed.
In short, his attribution requirements void the spirit of commons licensing "freeness" and contradicts the license itself. Cburnett06:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because the user did not really (want to) license images with cc-by-2.5, but with something he thought was cc-by-2.5. Samulili10:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: We should probably get the user's opinion on this; if he understand that he can either license the pictures for use without the sort of restrictions he wants to add, or not to license them at all, he may choose to license them under a Share-Alike license to avoid commercial exploitation rather than take his marbles and go home. (The '-NC licenses considered harmful' essay might be of interest here.) grendel|khan17:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how Share-Alike prevents commercial expliotation. If I feel they are the best option I would be happy to use them. -Fcb98102:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, I would hastily rescind my nomination if the user put the images under a reasonable license that jives with policy. If not, then it's his choice to not "play by the rules" and his only recourse is to "take his marbles and go home". Regardless, the outcome is his choice. Cburnett19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I'd like to prevent the deletion of my pictures, I would also like to prevent the unrestricted commercial use, if the latter is impossible, I will allow the pictures that I think have commercial value to be deleted and upload new files of much lower resolution. If retaining some of my commercial rights is possible under another liscense (I was under the impression that it isn't) then I will gladly relicense. If share-alikes prevent commercial use then I'd be glad to use them. I will do a bit more research tonight and hopefuly come to a decision by tomarow. In any event, this has got to be the golden age for someone wanting stock photos. what used to cost money is now being offered for free. The only losers... me, and photographers like me, who want to donate a bit of knowlage to anyone who needs it. It turns out, the donation is a bit more than a few photos: it is any and all of the compensation that any of us photographers could have hoped to have gotten for any stock photos into the future. -Fcb98102:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really want to give advice that is detrimental to commons, but you might like this The GFDL is not practical for images and short texts, especially for printed media, because it demands that the full text of the license be published they along withCommons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, so I guess licensing images under the GFDL only could make commercial use less likely depending on the way it's used Madmax3214:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fcb981, the only way to definitely stop commercial use is to use a license with a NC condition. But using a license with a sharealike requirement (GFDL, CC-BY-SA) is generally considered to discourage commercial use, especially if you think about e.g. an advertisement. An ad that uses an image would be a derivative work of the image, usually, so it has to have the same copyleft license. The thinking goes along the lines that commercial companies wouldn't be willing to do this, especially because they couldn't put their copyrighted logo on the poster.
You are allowed to use a non-free license as long as dual-license with a free license. So you may for example dual-license GFDL with CC-BY-SA-NC. If people use the GFDL, they have to have a copy of the entire license text next to the image. This is usually too prohibitive for print, especially for a single image. Then you still have the CC-BY-SA-NC option for others. (If you do this, you can't use a template for the non-free license - you have to just manually write in a line about the license.)
Another thought it that you may simply want to upload your work to Flickr under a NC license. Then it is available to 'anyone who needs it'. Not everyone has the same goals as Wikimedia, and that's OK. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 16:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close I have re-licensed all of the photos under GDFL, no crazy terms added. Thanks for being understanding of my position while still in disagreement. This is how wiki should work. If there are any questions. responding here is fine. -Fcb98105:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is an entirly different matter and should be handled seperatly. This nomination, on this topic (breaking the spirit and letter of the creative commons license), has been withdrawn. -Fcb98102:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep speedy keep :-). Completely different images from different satellites of the same object, no reason at all to delete. --Tony Wills12:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is violated? Ah, it seems that you made and uploaded this image. Not sure what you really mean then. --Moonian05:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Comment Deletion request of 9th October 2006 by the uploader. Seems that it has been forgotten to have been put on the respective deletion log page, so I have put it now here. -- JörgM21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with LX -- There is nothing wrong with the image per se were it properly copyright tagged, but as it isn't, delete unless it is promptly retagged with a proper sourced free licence. -- Infrogmation20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly no reason to delete. It has been demonstrated that it has potential use, so even if it goes out of use for a period it would not be sufficient reason to delete. --Tony Wills12:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect description. This is the photo of another South Korean president, en:Kim Dae Jung. 12:25, 30 July 2007 ChongDae
Question: Are you certain? The date on the photo is in January 1998; Kim Dae Jung wasn't President until the end of February (according to en:Kim Dae Jung), and he belonged to the opposition party. The caption on the photo specifies the President of South Korea, which would have been Kim Young Sam at that point. Also, if you want to rename images instead of deleting them, you can use {{rename}} to flag them for renaming. grendel|khan17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The man in the picture is not Kim Young Sam as titled. He is Kim Dae Jung as directed from this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dae-jung
Once you click on the image of Kim Dae Jung on the above link, it shows the name as 'Kim Young Sam" which is incorrect.
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless... --FSHL17:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted statute is a public records law facilitating public access to records. It does not say they are in the "public domain", merely that they are "public", ie a member of the public can get a copy of them. A copy of such a record may still be copyrighted, and unless the state specifically disclaimed the rights, the license would still have reserved rights (most probably commercial use (other than publication) and derivative works would still be outlawed.) -Nard19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately (as discussed at Commons talk:Licensing#Minnesota Public Domain) and to my chagrin, as I set this template up hastily this morning to support Wikinews activity based on the reference the original uploader gave, I think N is correct, and the template (which I created) makes an invalid claim, and needs to go. (at least this opinion which User:Clindberg found shows that the state feels that way)... I was drawing an invalid parallel with {{PD-FLGov}} which makes a similar assertion. As to the images covered by it, the maps would need to be recreated without copying. Map information is not copyrightable, only specific representations. It would be really nifty if someone could do so quickly, as those maps are being used in a breaking story on Wikinews. The seal however may not actually be copyrightable, check out many of the seals in category:State seals of the United States which all seem to assert that seals are PD. ++Lar: t/c20:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the seals come from a US embassy website, and are PD since they are done by the USGov State Department. We could upload the Minnesota seal from this page as an alternative to the one here. There seems to be a special {{US state seal}} template used to source seals from that site. Getting a particular bitmap of a seal from the state's website may not be OK but that one should be. Carl Lindberg00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could replace the image of the seal with the one from the US embassy, and change the license on the seal. The rest have to go though, unfortunately. ++Lar: t/c14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Each state has their own DOT (in this case, Mn/DOT), which is separate from the U.S. Department of Transportation, and thus their works are not necessarily public domain (unless there is a state law about it). Their websites seem to have copyright notices on them. Carl Lindberg00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the media files. This deletion request is incorrect, because the deletion of a licence template don't involve the deletion of any file with this licence template. The licence template have to be deleted in first, and only in that case, deletion templates can be added to the files without proper template. --Juiced lemon11:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The license template is invalid. It's not a valid claim of a license (I realise that now, on further investigation). Therefore the template needs to go, it's not useful and could be confusing or misleading. Also, anything licensed under it does not have a valid license and is also subject to deletion unless a different license can be shown to apply. But these are all works of the MN state government which asserts copyright and does not provide a free license. So they're all deletion bait too. ++Lar: t/c14:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the files have some sort of valid license attached to them, please re-tag them as necessary. If they have no license--as they won't after this deletion request goes through--then they'll be fair game for deletion. Did you see something that's allowable under some other license somewhere? grendel|khan19:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken Carl's suggestion and went to the US embassy to de: site and replaced the state seal with the one from there. Therefore I removed the deletion tagging from Image:Minnesota state seal.png as it no longer is licensed under the license we are discussing. ++Lar: t/c00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I changed the license to {{PD-USGov-DOS}} since that is more accurate (I don't think PD-US applies), and also added the {{US state seal}} template as that seems used for images sourced from that site. We may want to delete the old revision of the seal, the one that came from the Minnesota state website. As to the other images, this template was created to formalize the reasoning used to upload the two images in the first place; if the template is invalid (and without a court decision saying otherwise, I think it is) then the two images aren't valid either, so it seems reasonable to consider them as a group. Carl Lindberg18:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear to me that this material needs to be deleted. It has been over 7 days since the discussion started, and I am the original creator of the template. The two affected maps are no longer used on english Wikinews so are ok to delete without impacting a breaking story... (They are used on other wikis so will need replacing...) Close debate and I will delete all remaining items: {{PD-MNGov}}, Image:Minneapolis I-35W bridge map.svg, Image:Minneapolis I-35W map1.JPG ( Image:Minnesota state seal.png was reuploaded and correctly licensed so is kept) ++Lar: t/c00:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Submitted by James Enloe, Sunnyvale CA" sounds like a copyvio to me. No proof of licensing. The uploader of this file at en.wiki only has 3 edits[6] (one deleted, as the local copy of this image was deleted). Could someone with admin access over there check the original licensing? I suspect it was not "self" as the Commons version has. ---Nard01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have no actual good proves of that, besides just the name. Object to deletion —the preceding unsigned comment was added by200.126.153.25 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 3 August 2007
KeepWhat is it with so many "I'm suspicious, so delete" requests? A users past activity (or lack of activity) may make one suspicious but that's hardly a basis for deletion - just a make work request to get others to prove/disprove. How about a little actual evidence first (assume good faith) ? --Tony Wills12:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one that copied the image over to the Commons, and I have no reason to believe that there was anything unethical being done. AGF. --Elonka07:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with Nard, if the uploader is not the creator of an image there is no proof of permission for the licensing shown, must be forwarded to OTRS, however in this case there isn't any proof either way that the uploader was not James Enloe Madmax3201:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no copyright in a street sign. — EliasAlucard|Talk 07:45 27 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Keep It is never a copyright violation to redraw a map, as the raw information in the map is not copyrighted. -Nard19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because unlike a real map which is representational of ground features, this is stylised/artistic and appears to be an exact copy. See {{NYC_Subway_map}} for rationale about why real maps are not copyrightable, and note that the London Underground (see London Underground geographic maps maps which are similar to this SEPTA map in being stylised, also carry copyright, which is why we do not have them, we have geographically accurate ones instead. Perhaps the process used to create those could be used here as well? ++Lar: t/c20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that the information within a map cannot be copyrighted (rail line, stations, etc.), but a design can be copyrighted. This image is almost an exact copy of the actual map (shown in the linked photo), therefore it violates copyright law. If the map had a different design, but still retained the original stations and rail lines, that would be perfectly acceptable. –Dream out loud20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Exact copy and very unlikely own work. So unless the original image is in the public domain, this is a copyvio. Samulili08:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Info: There are a number of versions of this image, [7], [8][9] . But the size and proportions of this one doesn't correspond to any of them (most of them are larger, higher-res). The Australian War Memorial copy (AWM A05319) has a note 'LENT FOR COPYING BY THE TURKISH EMBASSY' so there are probably other versions direct from the Turkish government. So the AWM copyright assertion is probably not actually valid (asserting they own rights to something that they have simply reproduced). Anyone know what rights the Turkish government grants on such images? --Tony Wills13:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colored version is a new work, a painting, based on PD work. The creator of the image is anonymous - probably a random war photographer. In such cases image is PD 70 years after first publish which expired decades ago. -- Catchi?12:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would anybody be willing to add some information to the page, such as an approximate date? I personally have no idea when it was taken. -- Bryan (talk to me) 21:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is fair use and should rather be located on Wikipedia (here). It is a copyright logo and may be used under fair use. The reason claimed for this being not-copyrighted is that it is text in a general typeface. However, this is not the case, as the text has been greatly modified (repeatedly slashed) and is owned by IBM. Althepal20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some backing for that argument? This is not a standard typeface. It IS a logo and I think we have a more general question about logos looming. ++Lar: t/c17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a cite that this typeface, with stripes, is a standard font. My searches of internal documents reveal that IBM considers it a special typeface (called the "IBM Logo Font") which is seperately protected. Therefore, the argument that it is text in a general or standard typeface is invalid. You need instead to make the argument that corporate logos, in general, are not subject to restriction here and are licenseable under a free license... Disclaimer: this is not an official statement of IBM, it is my personal opinion and if you want an official statement of IBM you will need to seek it through official channels. I am not authorised to provide official statements on this matter. ++Lar: t/c20:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, Lar. This is not a standard typeface. Even if it would be in font Arial, the repeated strips are not standard and would qualify the logo as an independent piece of art. Althepal21:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The typeface is City Medium. Just like it says on the image description page. And trademarking is not a reason to delete anything from Commons. --Hautala17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think. Typefaces are not copyrightable in the U.S, even when custom designed (the standard may well be very different for non-U.S. logos though). The stripes are not enough of a variation either; I think there needs to be a lot of ornamentation separate from the shape of the letters themselves. This link gives many examples of what is copyrightable and what is not. One passage: The copyright claim cannot be based solely upon mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring. Likewise, the arrangement of type on a printed page cannot support a copyright claim.Carl Lindberg06:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What they've done with the word "IBM" is print it in City Medium typeface, divided it in 15 parallel lines and then made every even line invisible. Although simple, this is clever because the horizontal stroke width in City Medium is one fifth of the height of the letters (examine the logo closely). However, this is not unique at all. There are even entire fonts that consist of parallel lines: for example Maximus BT, Synchronous AOE, UNDA Horizontal, Telecast, Rub On Lite and Interlace Single. --Hautala17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This logo is far less than ornamentation. Even if it was a custom typeface, it is not copyrightable in the U.S. And as noted above, it is a standard typeface. The stripes are not a remotely copyrightable change -- that would imply that anyone else using similar stripes on any other background image would be a copyright violation. Obviously the stripes help make it trademarkable, but that is completely different than copyright. Companies normally couldn't care less about the copyright status of a logo; the trademark status is what is important (and indeed, it does limit us to using the logo only on articles directly about the company). I think Wikimedia may need to worry about the copyright status though as a technicality; that is a problem for many logos but not this one. Carl Lindberg18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need wider discussion somewhere about what the implications are of an image we deem OK to have here , but not OK to use 'just anywhere' because it has other restrictions. That seems to contravene the notion that things here are freely usable. ++Lar: t/c01:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed... our use of "free" is related to the copyright status only. This is also noted at Commons:Licensing#_note-0 as a qualifier on the "by anyone, for any purpose" statement... maybe that note should be emphasized more. Many images have other use restrictions, sometimes significant, such as logos, government insignia, and photos of people. To me, it doesn't seem helpful to disallow copyright-free images which are quite usable for Wikimedia projects just because some (or many) usages externally are barred. Carl Lindberg22:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI agree with Carl Lindberg that typefaces like this do indeed exist therefore we can interpret the rulings that typefaces are ineligible for copyright as widely as we want Madmax3203:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coat of arms for families in Brazilian nobility. The titles were not inherited, apart for the imperial ones. This category was created to insert just one image, which is a coat of arms of a principality and may be well placed in the main category (Category:Coats of arms of Brazilian nobility) --Tonyjeff12:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If the imperial family have inherited titles and coats of arms, there are indeed “coats of arms of families of Brazil”. Therefore, since this category is the only one correctly named in its structure, it is obvious that it can be reused later, even by accident. So, as long as it remains empty, this category will be a redirection. --Juiced lemon09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear difference between the coat of arms of a family and the coat of arms of a title, which, indeed, not all the members of the Brazilian imperial family inherited (neither the blasons, nor the titles). Anyway, it may be better as a redirection, since this category might be recreated by mistake. --Tonyjeff12:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me the question is indifferent, but please keep in mind that contrary to what the motivation seems to imply, coats of arms were commonly used by non-nobles families too. Coats of arms were a way to mark and to sign objects in an age when almost everybody was illitterate. --User:G.dallorto10:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any other arguments? If not, I say that empty categories are usually deleted unless there are good reasons to keep them. (E.g. to put a notice to prevent paintings to be uploaded, when the painter did not die more then 70 years ago.) --ALE! ¿…?12:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They were married in 1922, the painting can’t be older. It was done between 1922 and 1941. No artist given, so why PD? --Polarlys 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW: Historical paintings without additional information (technique, artist, date of creation, location of original, …) are useless. Independent from this file: There are a lot of reproductions where we don’t even know if the portrayed person is the person of interest) --Polarlys21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If copyright was originally owned by the old monarchy, copyright would now be owned by the Iranian government I guess (successor in interest). Or if the portrait artist held copyright, then that would still be the case. How long does copyright last in Iran? Carl Lindberg06:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PD-Iran says copyright on photographs and movies lasts 30 years from the date of publication or presentation; and copyright in other images lasts for the life of the creator plus 30 years. Madmax3201:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The stamp is from 1975 or 1976 (50th anniversary), so the copyright on the original photograph has expired then. Only question is if the stamp itself is a new copyright or not... and what would "life of creator" be if the creator is the government. I say Keep since 30 years have passed. Carl Lindberg00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is currently unclear if this image is copyrighted or not, as the original deletion request had an unclear consensus of keeping, plus with an undeletion request when Nard pointed out that one person doesn't overrule consensus. Hence this relisting, though I currently do not have an opinion on this. (→O -RLY?)13:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be no evidence that it is a copyright violation, only an assumption that TV = copyrighted. Does anyone dispute the nature of the broadcast and the validity/applicability of COPYRIGHT ACT B.E. 2537 (1994)? --Tony Wills11:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I raised this issue with the forum at Thai Department of Intelectual Property and finally got an answer [13]. The laws about copyright exemption only applies to word in the announcement. They say video and sound are still subject to copyright by the coup. -- Lerdsuwa09:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that any of the provisions in Chapter 1, Section 1, Article 7 of the Thai Copyright Act of B.E. 2537 (A.D. 1994) apply to this image. Further, our friend Lerdsuwa asked an IP forum about it, and they said, "No." (That said, I cannot read Thai, so I cannot verify his claim.) I think this iamge should be deleted. --Iamunknown21:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rest in peace. O2 (息 • 吹) 07:59, 05 November 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Info: So to be clear, you do not actually want the page nominated for deletion deleted! Just the earlier faulty revisions of the image. --Tony Wills11:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used on many pictures as a possibility to evade copyright laws. (Examples: an Austrian COA; an Luxembourgish COA; Full list: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Coat of Arms) I see no reason why the definition and the representation should be two different things. One covered by copyright law the other not. Copies of the representation of a COA are derivative works and therefore copyvios if the COA is not old enough. --ALE! ¿…?08:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The definition and the representation just happen to be two different things, in heraldry, and that's that, but the reason is a bit technical if you are not familiar with heraldry. (You may want to increase your knowledge by looking at en:Heraldry). The "derivative work" notion simply dosen't apply in that case.
There are various reasons why the description usually can't be copyrighted: it is often a legal definition, most of the time a very old creation, there is little artistic creativity in it, and it is an abstraction, not a definite realisation.
The contested luxembourgish CoA is a good example: for recently created ones, the "blason" (description / composition) is a legal definition (therefore public domain, being a legal production), but the image used in the city's website (artistic representation of the definition) is a separate creation with a separate copyright. When a new CoA picture is made, it is a "derivative" of the (PD) description, not of the website's (copyrighted) image, hence the copyright regime is simply that of a self-made picture.
Some CoA are indeed copyrighted, but this is very rare, and this is a nonexistent situation for city CoA. The main problem with CoA is not to upload private (copyrighted) images "found on the net", but CoA drawn afresh are OK. Michelet-密是力09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the images I listed as examples is however, that they have no license tag and thus have to be deleted. This tag is used as replacement for a proper license. Maybe it has to be reworded to make the point more clear. --ALE! ¿…?10:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... (1) This kind of discussion should be held on Template talk:Coat of Arms or Commons talk:Licensing, a deletion request of the template is at best premature. (2) Where are the examples, anyway? the link is missing ;o) (3) See the template page, that states explicitely "This is not a valid copyright tag as such, it must be completed with the copyright tag associated to the picture creation.". The template itself reads "Please provide licence information for the coat of arm representation". Isn't that point clear enough? (4) If you have problems with specific images, then the discussion has nothing to do with Template:Coat of Arms. What is your point, exactly? Michelet-密是力10:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(2=OK, I've found the link.) Probably all the files linked to {{Coat gaertner}} are problematic, they apparently have been picked from some kind of CoA deposit here but the copyright status of the pictures is unclear. But this has nothing to do with CoA, this is a classical "no source" issue. Michelet-密是力11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fahnen Gärtner is apparently a company selling flags and the like. I'm not quite certain why they have those coats of arms on their website, maybe for special orders. The quality of the images looks good and reading the original version of that template and Fahnen Gärtner's apparent release letter (talk page of the original template) these images are claimed to be copyright Fahnen Gärtner, I'm uncertain what kind of license they intended to grant... In any case this is a separate issue from keeping or deleting the coat of arms template which fullfills a useful role and is not intended as replacement for a valid license.--Caranorn18:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I simply don't see the point of this template, and i do know the diference beetween the non-copyrighted blasoning and the copyrighted interpretation of it. The main reason for why I don't see the point of this template is because it is way to general. "The composition of coats of arms are generally public domain" translates into this is usually the case but it might not be for this image so please ignore it. Also this templates sugests that it's impossible to make derivative works of CoAs which is incorrect.Lokal_Profil18:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's put it the other way 'round, if you understand heraldics: have you ever seen a copyrighted CoA definition? I know one or two examples, made for private personal use, and non having the slightest chance of being found on commons. Maybe I was too honest and detailed in my warning formulation, after all, the big picture is: you have no chance of ever finding a copyrighted blasoning in this encyclopedia. Michelet-密是力20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The approach you suggest has been used on {{PD-Coa}} -Have a look and you'll see that (1) it has a warning "Please note: This is not a copyright tag. A valid license is needed in addition to this tag" (2) It has thoroughly been used as a copyright tag nevertheless, simply because of the "PD" formulation that had been included. It has been a historical error to formulate it that way, and the result is the present mess about CoA copyrights. This is why a change to {{Coat of Arms}} is needed: the template itself states that a separate copyright tag is needed, and the change of template (and the corresponding changes of categories) allows us to check whether this copyright information has been validated or not, in order to clean up the present mess. Michelet-密是力20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is historical: the deletion discussion has been made on an erroneous approach of the {{PD-Coa}} meaning, and to be coherent with the discussion, the conclusion had to be "keep" (the template) though the files themeselves were lacking the requested copyright information. This is why I created the Coat of Arms template, in order to eventually solve that problem. The solution is simple, though, just add a {{copyvio}} template, indeed - my mistake. All these {{Coat gaertner}} files will eventually have to be deleted anyway. But once again, this has nothing to do with the CoA warning itself. Michelet-密是力20:13, 4 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.
The copyright status of these logos is not clear. One of these images was tagged on the English Wikipedia as a fair use logo, following a deletion discussion. The source pages for the button mention various licenses, but they are all derivative works of the logo. The logo seems to have been designed by Dan Cederholm [14][15] who reserves all rights according to the bottom of his page. The microformats community offers the logo on their page http://microformats.org/wiki/logo#Logo with the CC-BY-NC-SA-2.5 license, where it was vectorised from the original by Rémi Prévost [16] after a confused query for the logo's copyright status and a single use permission which nobody appears to have answered. That would make it an unauthorised derivative work with an incompatible license. Can anyone offer more insight? --Para16:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Logo was clearly created by Dan Cederholm. There no statements on his site (http://www.simplebits.com) that specify a license for the logo. There is no evidence that copyright was transferred to a "microformats organisation" since no such formal organisation exists. Rémi Prévost's vectorisation is probably also a copyright violation, unless copyright was transferred or licensed to him. Dan Cederholm does not appear to have licensed the logo to anyone, nor clearly released it to public domain, hence the only option would be fair-use, which would preclude it being used in most of the places it is currently being used on wikipedia. --Ozhiker22:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contacted Dan Cederholm about this as follows:
Hi Evan, Thanks for the note. It's a good question. I have a query into a few of the other microformats folks. And I'll post something definitive asap.
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. U.S. Government also used this armament – therefore the given license is valid... --FSHL13:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any source proving that this image was indeed taken by an employee of the US government, we can't assume that this is PD. --91.65.124.7416:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is very obvious that this was not taken by a soldier, the weapon has only been in very limited U.S. service recently. This image was uploaded to WikiCommons before U.S. Delta Force adopted the weapon. It is also clear that this was taken in a studio, and this image was originally on the official Heckler & Koch website. (The quality of this image has been lowered, however.) There is also no source, and I doubt there will be one. 211.28.163.14901:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the foundation doesn't want us to use these pictures, they'll let us know. In the meantime they've been mum about it. -Nard21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just to stay away from trouble, I've updated the image to not use the Wikipedia logo. The new image is a public domain one found also on Wikimedia Commons. I believe now everything is legal, so administrators can close this deletion request. I still of course find the original version more fancy, so if someone believes that it is ok to use it, then feel free to revert to the first version. Otherwise, this is just fine. وسام البهنسي18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear to be in the public domain. --Physchim62 10:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
To expand on that (I'm not used to doing deletion requests on Commons!), the source for the image is the website of the Federation of American Scientists here. The entry page of that site clearly states "All Rights Reserved" in the bottom left-hand corner, and there is no indication that the (many) aircraft images have been released into the public domain (see index page for aircraft images, which has no mention of sources or copyright). Physchim6210:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permision is fair use, so it's unsuitable for commons. Besides, Animal Crackers is not in the public domain yet --Alex:D21:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is official logo of our band. The trademark is owned by me personally (mzupanc). I consider myself a rookie and a beginner on wikimedia so I beg your pardon if I did not set license the way I should. That's because I don't know how. There are so many license types that I'm a little bit lost. All images that I uploaded are my personal work and I just want to share them with the rest of the world. Which type to pick? Beats me. Please help... User:mzupanc 0:14, 28 August 2007 (CET)
BSA holds copyright to all its images, this is not PD, it's a logo --Rlevse 11:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
BSA holds copyright to all its images, this is not PD, it's a logoRlevse00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An email was forwarded from the council to permissions@wikimedia.org. I don't know why the ticket was never posted. Would someone please check the OTRS. Evrik01:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information but it is part of my collection of scout badges when I was a Scoutmaster, should every single badge be deleted? There are a lot of them I and others uploaded. Perhaps I can put the copyright information on the image pages of all my uploads. Keep is my vote. WayneRay22:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
It's not a question of whose collection it is in, it's a question of who owns the copyright and as I understand it all BSA patches are copyrighted by BSA. It doesn't matter that you took the picture. Copyrighted material is not allowed on WikiCommons at all. Rlevse00:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that are BSA on the Merit badge page I tagged, except for one I wasn't sure of. We're trying to find out the copyright status of one from other countries. Which badges are you referring to? Now in the case of you take a pic of some scouts on campout, then that is yours and you can make it PD/GFDL. The difference is that the patches are logos.Rlevse11:47, 9 August 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.” --Polarlys14:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I scanned it personally from newspaper Mladá Fronta Dnes issued on 8 Nov, 2004, where is stated that picture was made by Czechoslovak Press Agency (ČTK). The copyright has expired after 70 years and that is why it was published in the late 2004. When the image was made for the state press agency then the 70 years passed in 2004. On request I can e-mail you the scan of whole newspaper page with copyright specifications. As for the time of creation please take a look for example at the shoes of Beneš on the picture - such specific design was typical for era from 1925-1935, in late 30's it was no longer in the fashion. Also his wife's dress is typical for late 20's and early 30's. His shoes and her dress were no longer worn in late 30's or early 40's. And also Czechoslovak Press Agency no longer exists. Now only Czech Press Agency exists. Former Czechoslovak Press Agency was state owned or national organisation and such organisations do encourage the use of their products in non-profit educational or encyclopedic organisations such as Wikipedia, as it helps to fullfill their mission in publicizing the history and presidents of state or nation that established them and owns them. And Edvard Beneš was the president of state of Czechoslovakia that established and owned the Czechoslovak Press Agency. Beneš was also scholar and teacher who supported encyclopedic works and would agree that his images made by state agency would be publicized in non-profit free worldwide encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. Therefore please reconsider the necessity of deletion of the image and also please take into consideration possible remedial measures other than deletion. Thank you. --Bluewind08:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Compromise proposal : - Just in case that user Polarlys and other respected administrators and editors would not be satisfied by the facts, proofs and evidences that I presented above then I am ready to accept that the current image resolution would be reasonably reduced and as such would be further kept here under same name but with statement that "This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia (Fair use Images). However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Edvard Beneš" to illustrate the subject in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.". Then I politely request experienced user Polarlys to define sufficient reduced resolution of image (in pixels) and advise me what is the most suitable copyright template and I will fully respect that and as fast as possible I will execute smooth conversion of existing image. Thank You for your kind help and advice. --Bluewind10:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Czech copyright law[18] does not specify copyright ownership by someone working for a legal entity. The "author" is always the natural person taking the picture. It also states that for a work to be anonymous (and thus expire 70 years after publication, rather than after the author's death, "the identity of the author whose work has in accordance with the expression of his will been made public without the indication of his name (anonymous work) or under a code name or under an artistic signature (pseudonymous work)" The uploader claims that there is no photographer credited on the original publication (which is MANDATORY under Czech law, otherwise it is treated as an anonymous work). Perhaps we should ask the uploader to verify the original captioning and any previous publication of the image. -Nard22:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the picture I uploaded is not exactly from that photobank, it is scanned from newspaper as I mentioned above. You can clearly see that the picture in photobank is stamped with the logo of ČTK. Rules/retrictions presented by ČTK are very general and are attached to all - both very new and old images, and they are not very detailed and they don´t cope with specific situation when image was made by unknown employee of ČTK more than 70 years ago in 1933. - Their rules/restrictions can't change the fact that ČTK already lost its copyright when the 70 years passed since the first publication. Whatever may they claim in their general rules/restrictions - it can not evade "the 70 years expiration rule". Therefore there is no longer reason for deletion. --Bluewind16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ČTK has many fake copyrights information. For example they declare that they have rights to this picture but it is false. --Dezidor02:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "two in one" licence tag favors a confusion between the CoA drawing (which may or may not be PD) and the CoA composition (which is generally PD indeed, and justifies a legal restriction). The template should be superseded by the {{Coat of Arms}} tag together with the licence tag appliable to the drawing instead.
Please do not hasten to delete the tag, anyway, since the licence status of the corresponding images must be examined on a case-by-case basis anyway (~400 to go). Once this is done, a redirection on {{Coat of Arms}} will probably be needed, waiting for all the commons:copyright tags pages to be corrected... Michelet-密是力13:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that this template mixes up the legal usage limitations on a CoA and the copyright issues. I don't see {{Coat of Arms}} as being a permanent solution either. Instead all the images should have a proper license, a proper source and a {{insignia}} tag (or a similar tag at national level). The previously deletion discussion stoped on the fact that there are to many images using this tag already. For this reason I'd recomment to dissallow new uploads using this license, that way we at least limit the damage. /Lokal_Profil18:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The {{PD-Coa}} should clearly be disallowed, this is why I made this warning about its being redirected to {{Coat of Arms}}+licence tag. The main difference between the two templates is that {{PD-Coa}} has been (erroneously) used as a stand-alone licence tag, whereas {{Coat of Arms}} explicitely requires a complementary licence tag. Given that there has been a long standing misconception about what is PD in CoA, the mess will eventually have to be fixed, so let's get to it. Michelet-密是力19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, you missed the point: the {{Coat of Arms}} is used right now to check which files of {{PD-Coa}} have been examined, to see if a licence tag was needed for the graphical representation (and "copyvio" and "no sources" are flagged accordingly). Basically, they are ment to be used on the same population (ie, CoA), but one means the picture has been through the review process and the other not. The "too many images" is not that much, I've reviewed 25% of {{PD-Coa}} in a couple ouf hours... It's just a matter of having the work be done, that's all. Once the review process has been done, a template modification / substitution is just a matter of programming som bot for the job, that's all. Michelet-密是力19:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a nonsense. There is no difference between CoA drawing and CoA composition cause they have to be the same otherwise they display two different insignia. This is the same as saying that a scanned book is my own copyright. Every 2-dimensional reproduction does not generate own copyright. Please read Commons:Licensing. Arnomane00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works. A CoA is defined by the blasoning (i.e. words) the words leave lots of scope for different interpreatations and realisations of the final image. All different (heraldicly correct) interpretations of the blasoning are also equally valid versions for the CoA. Do not confuse a CoA for a logo (which is defined by how it's realised). /Lokal_Profil01:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, but deprecated. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:12, 24 December 2007 (GMT)
Delete as appears to have improper lic information since the image is from a screenshot and the uploader users newsflash as the source. This source specifically does not claim ownership of the videos, instead stating that "all videos are properties of their respective owner." FloNight19:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is stated in several places on Commons that screenshots containing non-free elements can not be used. Pafcu11:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My contention was that the elements of XP are irrelevant for copyright purposes; however, the program in question is also embedding a non-free web page (verycd.com), which makes it problematic. Therefore, delete it. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no Microsoft logos shown and it's not a copyright violation to show a simple GUI, however it does show copyrighted movie posters Madmax3200:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uploading editor likely doesn't fully understand the purpose of Commons (I'm not assuming bad faith, that's just the impression I get from their userpage). This is well outside scope. EVula// talk //05:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The building ("Chateau Aladin") seems to be located in the town of Tlemcen in Algeria. According to Commons:Freedom of panorama Algerian law allows Freedom of Panorama, so that's no reason to delete it. But the image still lacks information about author, source and license - and that's a reason to delete it if the uploader doesn't provide that information. --91.65.124.7412:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
didn't know that... thank you for the information, although it seems strange for me to allow the publishing of someone's house without asking its owner first... (And this house has nothing to do with Aladdin, it's just an excentric rich man's home !) --Amine Brikci N14:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Siebrand: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 4 August 2007|Unknown as of 4 August 2007]]; no source
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Highly unlikely the uploader took the photo himself. This was previously uploaded as a nonfree image in Wikipedia. This was almost certainly taken from a website. --Spellcast10:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so sure it is a copyvio. It looks like a self-taken image to me, and the uploader has taken the time to cut out separate people from this image. Under what name was it uploaded to Wikipedia? / FredJ00:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. First, the image is larger at http://www.geocities.com/osho1980/osho.jpg, and second, that site displayed the image already in 2004, two years before it was uploaded to the en-WP.[22] Additionally, it looks like a poor scan, so I don't think the external online source owns the copyright. Lupo12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
this is actually his Kuwaiti state ID card or passport photograph, if it is PD it's clearly not a work of the US federal government. Madmax3222:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't even qualify as blocked property then if what you say is true, as the photo on a government ID usually belongs to the government, and Kuwait is friendly with the US. -Nard22:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have I. Although it was notified to the WTO as a TRIPS Article 63.2 notification in document IP/N/1/KWT/C/1 on 2000-11-22 (and some revisions in document IP/N/1/KWT/C/1/Rev.1 on 2004-04-27), the documents available on-line at the TRIPS notifications page have the pages containing the text of the law removed. However, the original Arabic text is available at the U.S. Law Library of Congress as document GLIN ID 78542. Maybe User:Tarawneh could produce a translation? Or someone could ask the LOC. Or the IIPA, they reference the law several times in their Special 301 Report of 2003 on Kuwait. (And here's the 2007 report.) Lupo14:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Background art (in addition to interface design) has also been ripped from a nonfree game. - Chardish02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If necessary, this can be replaced by the StepMania shot on the w:StepMania page.
It's not just about the cross - the whole architecture is protected and was created only after the war in reconstruction. Sorry, but I consider the pictur as such as a derivative work. --h-stt!?05:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a bogus claim - you did create that image, but it's a collage of copyrighted images, so you can't claim the copyright. Nor should my say be invalidated simply because I am anonymous. 64.178.96.16817:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure where this image comes from. It is claimed to have been self-created ("foto mia") but may well be scanned from a magazine. FredJ12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the uploader confirms actual ownership of original image, instead of self-created claim, I think we need to Delete as copyright vio as it appears to be a reproduction. FloNight20:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this statue, designed and built by Michael Condron in 1998, is in the public domain, so a photograph of it cannot be released into the public domain. --TomTheHand17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable copyright violation. Seems to be a standard Petzl photograph of a Petzl Calidris Harness. Some Examples of other locations with an identical image are: [24], [25] and [26]. None of these seem to be copying from Wikimedia. The stated licence for this photo is somewhat suspicious since no source information is given. --Ozhiker00:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary in PD only because it is taken in 1933. Also, there is a statement in the "source". "Note
All of these images are exclusive to this site.
Reproduction without consent is strictly prohibited. ".
To admin: If you are going to delete this file, please delete the derivative work :Image:1984.png. Chanueting04:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply received:"Thank you for your email regarding the photo of George Orwell which I have been asked to reply to.
The card is an NUJ card, but I’m afraid, we do not know who owns the copyright in the actual photograph. George Orwell joined the NUJ in December 1943, and would have provided his own photograph for his membership card.
The actual picture is used on other websites and it is likely that a photograph dated 1943 or before is out of copyright but you should double check this with the George Orwell estate.
We have used the photograph of the NUJ card with the image in our new book and have marked it ‘NUJ collection’, with a note at the beginning of the book stating that photographs marked in this way are in the Union’s possession, but the copyright holders are not know, although every endeavour has been made to identify them. Any inadvertent errors or missing acknowledgements will, if brought to the attention of the publisher and the NUJ, be corrected in subsequent printings.
With best wishes,
Pamela Morton
Assistant Organiser - Freelance
National Union of Journalists"
Wasn't there an old rule for images before 1945 in the UK (but not widely used because of copyright restoration concerns). Would this image fall under any of them? -Nard22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well for Image:Winston Churchill.jpg on commons it is PD because LOC says no copyright renewal for the 1941 image, but I'm pretty sure the photographers were British (J Russel & Son) Madmax3208:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The e-mail from the NUJ confirms that this is an orphan work: a work technically still copyrighted, but where the copyright owner is unknown and cannot be located through even through a diligent search. I trust the NUJ to have indeed tried to find out who owned the copyrights to this image. The big problem is that we have no established rules on such orphan works at all, and virtually all copyright laws I know of ignore this problem. Technically, the image is still copyrighted, though. (See this chart of UK copyright duration.) Lupo12:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright in the commons like in the german wikipedia, which allows to upload a picture (publik domain), that is older then 100 years. --Christoph Leeb11:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know when the author died, so i am also not sure if this license is the right one, so i would prefere to delete this image in the commons. It will be also used just in the german wikipedia, so it is not so necessary to publish it in the commons. --Christoph Leeb22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most federal government images are in the public domain, but this image, as a logo of the Justice Department, is not, as indicated on their own site at [27] and the section directly below it. Chaser 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC) OK. I guess I got this one wrong. Withdrawing. Thanks everybody.--Chaser00:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Department of Justice seals, logos and other official insignia may not be used or reproduced without written permission that sounds like a pretty restrictive restriction Madmax3203:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: Yes, but they're part of the U.S. federal government--by law, no matter how much they may want their official works to be protected by copyright, they're simply not. If there are other protections, they're almost certainly the sort that the Commons doesn't delete pictures over. While it's odd to find a U.S. government site engaging in copyfraud, the fact is that they simply cannot claim copyright over this image. grendel|khan04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think according to their website it's just copyright but the US law restricts the use of the logos of the DOJ 18 U.S.C. sec. 709, which prohibits their unauthorized use in a manner calculated to convey the impression that such use is approved, endorsed, or authorized by that component, unless written permission has been received from the head of the respective componentMadmax3215:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They aren't claiming copyright. There are legal restrictions on the use of U.S. government seals (most of them anyways) similar to trademark; you can't use them to imply a connection between the government department and any other organization without permission. The same is true of many state seals (by law U.S. governments cannot trademark seals, so there are usually specific laws to obtain similar protection). So while the seal is public domain from a copyright status, its use is heavily restricted. Wikimedia just needs to make sure its use does not violate the law. The image itself is as free as it's possible to be under the law. Carl Lindberg14:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong is a separate copyright jurisdiction from the PRC, just as it was a separate copyright jurisdiction from the UK when it was a British colony. Hence, PRC copyright law is of no relevance to the discussion. Physchim6200:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a defunct SVG image for which an excellent alternative exists. bdesham★ 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
*Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use on 4 pages in 2 projects and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not defunctional... --FSHL12:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to grendel|khan - Doesn’t matter – the deletion process for superseded images has been suspended... --FSHL 19:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC) Authors request... --FSHL19:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It wouldn't be; it is a work of the local government who runs the 911 dispatch office. It may be PD-ineligible, however, since it could be argued that it contains materials that are not of original authorship. --Tom (talk - email) 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. What ever is on the tape is lies below the threshold of originality. Recording protected by WPPT. It's a sick world. Samulili08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep. Deletion of empty categories is contrary to Commons policy. More, BMW 318 is a recent and known BMW model. So, this category will be reused. --Juiced lemon14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I have general interest in cars, a long history of repairing, overhauls, welding etc etc (not BMW specifically though), consider myself generally car-savvy, but the categories you suggest to use now just do not really ring a bell. "BMW E36" ... ??? ... yeah right! I don't know about your country, but where I live if you ask the average bloke/dame in the street (s)he will know what a BMW 318, 325, 525 etc etc is but a "BMW E90" ... don't think so. So for both photographers and people searching for pictures it makes way more sense to use those names = the names their sold and advertised by. You say: "No, car models aren't categorized by their engine" - Says who? Where was that decided? ... but that really doesn't matter though. What seems logical to me is that we would use the name known to the general public, the commercial name, the name/modelnr the car was sold under, the name written on the trunk ... but not the BWW-internal technical identification that "normal" people never use. Pudding4brains18:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase that: Of course I have no objection to a category "BMW E36" (and such) as well as the "BMW 318" style categories as they would provide a second and different viewing/searching perspective that has it uses too, but the "BMW 318" (etc) cats should stay as these are the obvious/logical names uploaders and searchers would look for. Pudding4brains22:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even when scaled up to a normal size, it doesn't work right. Replace with a working SVG; if that's not possible, delete. grendel|khan15:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's remade as an SVG and there are differences, I'm not sure if the actual design is complex enough to be copyrighted. Madmax3220:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the restrictions placed on the use of these images are incompatible with commons licensing requirements [28] although commercial use is allowed (with restrictions) Madmax3220:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was addressing the concerns of the nominator. Crown Copyright, generally, isn't accepted on the Commons. The only exceptions is when the copyright has expired. So, if the concern brought up is about copyright, then I presented a solution to solve it. We can explain about how we use images and what our definition is. The only hickup I can see is the images of the Crown "must be free from advertisement." I do not know if Google Ads on the side of websites would count or not, but it doesn't hurt to ask. User:Zscout370(Return fire)15:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see... well it looks like use of that file will cause too much puzzling over copyright... I'm replacing the file with an old Canadian stamp image; postal stamp images from that country are public domain after 50 years. When I get the proper crop done I'll upload the final image. account owner
This image is taken from here according to the uploader but the website says that the content is copyrighted. The uploader did not demonstrate that he has a permission to use images from that website. --Grandmaster06:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20:40, 7 August 2007 Bryan (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Image:Azeriwaffen.jpg" (fair use; author being ok is not enough, please get a suitable free license) --ALE! ¿…?09:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Marked as a copyvio but I disagree, so I changed it from speedy to regular deletion. The BIOS programming is copyrighted, not this screen. This screen shows only a few words in a generic font and any copyrighted use is de minimis to the point where the copyrighted portion is nil ---Nard22:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the uploader is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet (I think the account was hacked though, and the original user is not the same as the troll). -Nard22:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Madmax32 - But is still in use on 11 pages in 10 projects and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless... --FSHL19:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the user that originally tagged for speedy. The image contains two copyrighted logos, which form a prominent part of the screenshot and are displayed as clearly as the rest of the image. If a BIOS screenshot is needed, I'm sure a higher quality public domain version can be created free of trademarks and copyrighted logos, similar to Image:C64_startup_animiert.gif. Alexj200220:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The logos are so blurry that they can hardly be considered a derivative work, by the way Energy Star is a US government program run by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the logo is trademarked but I think it is not copyrighted [29], so what we are left with is the blurry red triangle since the typeface itself cannot be copyrighted either. Madmax3201:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Logo of a city; on their website they mentioned that the use and reproduction of the logo is strictly forbidden. Sonuwe 10:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC) --Sonuwe10:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded from Flickr, but I really doubt that this Flickr user is the author of this image. His other Flickr uploads ([30]) include several other obvious copyright violations, all tagged as cc-by-sa. --91.65.124.7415:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly. The person in the photo, especially around her hair, looks like it's been photoshopped in ... or possibly is a cardboard cutout? Ha. I can't really tell. Rebelguys210:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could also use the PD-Russia tag if the author was anonymous or died before 1954, since Armenia was apart of the soviet union Madmax3218:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Specify which and how, I can't see much of a problem here. Are you sure it is just not the projection being used? It is most certainly not a reason to wipe it, if there is a real problem then update it yes, but it is pointless to wipe it over this. - J Logant: 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the problem get a world map and carefully investigate how Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, North Africa and Middle East looks. Then you should see how it's "UNPROPORTIONAL" Zaparojdik00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you author of this image trying make people to think with using unproportional two maps "Turkey and North Africa not belong to EU or Europe". Yes, this is your real idea. Please update it or it should be speedly deleted. Sincerely. Zaparojdik00:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First. If you look, I am not the author of this map. Secondly, it is being viewed from a southern position so things at the bottom of the map would look larger and I really don't see your problem. And perhaps you could see a conclusion to this discussion before putting incomplete deletion tags on derivative images (and also not informing the author). Third, I actually support Turkey's accession to the EU and you are reading way too much into this - I think it is you who have the political motivation here. - J Logant: 17:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Author) Well, actually I don't even see your problem. Do you think turkey is too big or to small? Do you think this picture is better :Image:BlankMap-Europe-v4.png? If not, do you know any better blank map of Europe including Turkey in the right size? And well: Northern Africa definitely doesn't belong to the continent of Europe ;-) --Bjb-de18:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentImage:BlankMap-Europe-v5.png can't be used as Northern Africa isn't really on that map. Anyway, I don't have that much time at the moment and I don't see any reason to deal with such an unfriendly (and in my eyes unessential) request. I really got better stuff to do... So if you really want to have it changed do it yourself! I don't see a majority for deletion so far... --Bjb-de07:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's simply a map projection issue. --Fritz@ 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC
Comment For the so called Mediterranean Union Image:BlankMap-Europe-v4.png is avaible.Meantime, isn't it valid half of countries are bigger or smaller then their real size? There is no difference to create countries not in the world map. Zaparojdik11:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think this has much to do with fair and unfair, it is just projection. This reminds me of when the BBC changed the map of the UK weather forecast. It has a new stylish projection looking up for a lower position (instead of simple top down). Some people in the north and Scotland were complaining that the map was "biased" against Scotland because it appeared smaller than before. I think here, as there, most people are capable of understanding the projection being used and know what the sizes are. I'd also like to point out that on most maps, the north is made bigger and the south smaller - so a sphere fits in a square - hence why you may see this projection as making the south larger when in fact it would be more accurate. - J Logant: 16:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is ridiculously grainy and dark, and is next to useless as an illustration of the ship. The very objects itillustrates, the upper starboard quarter gallery and side, the stern castle and the painted reproductions, appear in ridiculously low resolution. Its only usage, which must have been because of mere ignorance of better images, is currently at Swedish Navy. PeterIsotalo09:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
image containing copyrighted material, used without permission and licensed with a GFDL tag wchich clearly contradicts the copyright tag of the wikimedia foundation --F3rn4nd013:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image is in use, and it is impossible for information hosted on Wikimedia's servers to violate their own copyright. -Nard20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well maybe we should just upload every image we find copyrighted to the commons.. and use them. and then KEEP them? don't think so.--F3rn4nd016:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a moment to read the tags in the [[Image:Wikifootball-logo.png]] and then give your opinion if you don't have a clear view on policies please refrain from making comments. --F3rn4nd016:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image was created by the uploader, and he released it under the GFDL, which is acceptable, but he also put a notice saying that the logo inside the ball (Wikipedia's) is copyrighted. He doesn't have to ask permission to use the logo inside Wikipedia. It's like taking a photo of a logo; the photo itself may be released under a free license, but the logo is obviously copyrighted. Did you even try to discuss this before requesting its deletion? --Boricuaeddie18:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Releasing this image under the GFDL is not acceptable if the wikimedia tag clearly states that is NOT ALLOWED.. and yes it needs a permission from the wikimedia foundation even if used in its projects. I must remind you that you are not part of the foundation, the foundation just uses you to add info for free... I once created a logo for a wikiproject which had a modified wikimedia logo, (as modified as this one) had the same licenses as this one and it ended up being deleted. --F3rn4nd019:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the deletion discussion for that, please? I am of the opinion this is no violation, and just because you are bitter doesn't mean you should take it out on other images. -Nard04:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common sense should prevail here, the image is being used on Wikimedia servers, so I fail to see how it is breaching copyright. 86.128.202.6117:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Common sense is to read the instructions, period! To modify the logo of wikimedia foundation is prohibited and needs permission, simple!! You are not allowed to modify it without permission! example: If you work for a company are you allowed to use the seat of your boss without permission just because you work in the same company and you are his employee(and there is a sign that says only for the boss)? to breach the copyright all you have to do is not follow the instructions.. and this image clearly does that. Image is not free.--F3rn4nd007:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Ha! I have found proof that the nom is wrong. If you see w:Image:Commons-barnstarW.png, it includes the Commons logo, and a tag that clearly states that the logo is copyrighted. But, the changes made by the author are released under the GFDL. The same applies to this image. It must not be deleted. --Boricuaeddie03:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Licensing: "The following restrictions must not apply to the image or other media file: Use by Wikimedia only (the only non-free-licensed exceptions hosted here as well are Wikimedia logos and other designs copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation that are the trademarks, service marks or other design elements that identify the sites of the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation)". -Nard13:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this logo may not be licensed under the GFDL, this is not a reason to remove it from the commons. As long as all usage is internal to Wikimedia projects and uploader/creator secures permission to use the logo, this image could be kept. See Wikipedia. ˉanetode╦╩22:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. For the benefit of all our projects, Commons hosts some official logos copyrighted by WMF. However, these logos are approved by the WMF while this image isn't. Samulili09:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is very unlikely that this picture is PD. Zara was laid down in 1929 and commissioned in 1931, so about 76 years ago. This picture is copyvio unless author died just few years after taking this photo. Ss18129214:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back and looked. I can't find the page that I originally saw. This image is not used and there are other relevant images, so I'm not going to oppose its deletion. Evrik18:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Elliott appears to have been South African, not Australian. As long as the image was published in his lifetime, it should have become {{PD-South-Africa}} in 1989 or earlier, which would also make it {{PD-1996}} in the US (assuming no US publication). --Davepape00:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"During his lifetime only a portfolio of some of his images was published for the use of schools, but in 1969 a selection of his best images, showing farmsteads and historic buildings, was published by Hans Fransen. Shortly before his death in 1938, Elliott offered his entire collection to the Government for ₤5 000 - an offer which was refused. After his death the entire collection was acquired by the Government for a fraction of Elliott's asking price and presented to the Cape Archives. A further 1 000 photographs from the collection of W.R. Morrison were added later. The Elliott Collection, as his set of images came to be called, has been used extensively by authors writing about all aspects of old Cape architecture. Some of these works appeared during Elliott's lifetime, but most were published after his death."
nonsense. This picture was used by HandigeHarrie on the dutch (nl) wikipedia, for the nonsense article "Bosvarken" (there is no such thing). I see no reason to keep this picture. (Venullian from nl wp) User:Venullian22:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diese Sprachenkarte widerspricht allen gängigen Versionen. Nie war die "Oder-Neiße-Grenze" im 20. Jahrhundert eine Sprachgrenze zwischen Slawisch und Deutsch...das war sie allenfalls einmal im 10. Jahrhundert. Die ehemaligen deutschen Ostprovinzen Pommern, West- und Ostpreußen sowie Schlesien wiesen bei der amtlichen Volkszählung von 1910 eine deutsche Bevölkerungsmehrheit von rund 97 % aus! Südtirol hatte 1918/19 einen deutschsprachigen Bevölkerungsanteil von ebenfalls 97% und Elsaß-Lothringen einen deutschen Bevölkerungsanteil von 80 % (1910). Diese Karte verwirrt mehr als sie erklärt, da sie völlig verfälschende Informationen enthält. Die Oder-Neiße-Linie wurde erst von den Polen 1848/49 als "natürliche Sprachgrenze" erklärt, indem sie slawischstämmige Minderheiten (Prußsaken [Masuren in Ostpreußen], Kaschuben [Wasser-Polen in Westpreußen], Schlonsaken [Wasser-Polen in Oberschlesien]) zu "Polen" erklärte und ethnisch-begründete Ansprüche auf die überwiegend deutsch-besiedelten Provinzen erhob...allein in der Provinz Posen war eine deutliche polnische Mehrheit vorhanden! 195.93.60.3321:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This language map contradicts all common versions. The "Oder-Neisse-border" was never a linguistic boundary between Slavonic and German ... in the 20th century this was if need be she once in the 10th century. The former German east provinces Pomeranians, the west and east Prussians as well as Silesia expelled a German population majority of about 97% at the official national census of 1910! 1918/19 had a German-speaking part of the population South Tyrol of 97% and Alsace-Lorraine also unite a German part of the population of 80% (1910). This card confuses more than her professedly since she contains information distorting completely. The Oder-Neisse line was declared "a natural linguistic boundary" first by the Poles 1848/49 by available the predominating German-she settled Slavonic sturdy claim which is explained to minorities (Prußsaken [Masurians into east Prussians], Kashubes [Water-Polish into west Prussians], Schlonsaken [Water-Polish in Upper Silesian]) to "Polish peoples" and ethnic well-founded lifted up ... alone in the province Posen province was a clear Polish majority! 195.93.60.13618:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This photo comes from a set of 157, all taken at the same event by a flickr user, see [33]. I think the uploader was confused by the image caption "Tara McPherson from www.taramcpherson.com/ ", which meant "This is the same woman who runs taramcpherson.com" not "this is where I stole the image from". ˉanetode╦╩05:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that you can't make a template within a user space. I'v tried and it doesn't behave like a template, it behaves like a article. -Fcb98102:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, his new license says you must reprint the GFDL with the images and add no legal restrictions to them. That is the very spirit of copyleft, what am I missing? -Nard21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess you should nominate all of User:Fir0002's pictures and templates for deletion as well... 1, 2, 3, 4. And, maybe those of Luc Viatour with his template. There are more examples... like Ram-Man who is clealy damaging the commons with his template here. Clearly, my poorly liscensed pictures should be deleted speedily. <rolls eyes> -Fcb98102:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<very heavy sarcasm> Oh, good, I'm glad you'll discuss it with them. I'd hate to think I was the only one getting hosed for this. </very heavy sarcasm> -Fcb98115:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning that has been used in past deletion request discussions is that if personal templates are used but not substed, licensing can change for a file without the change being reflected in the file's history, an unacceptable situation. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reflected the fact that the license changed at User:Fcb981/attribution If people downloaded the file previous to the re-license they are bounded by the rules as they were at that time. Therefor if I see any of these photos outside wiki It had better ether be creative commons or GDFL. I don't intend to re-license again. There are plenty more users doing this and as you havent linked to any official policy stating that this is not OK i wil assume that a policy does not exist. You can see my vote above. Also, this is unrelated to the previous deletion nom, that was a nom to delete my files based on copy-vio, this is to delete a template. I think your justification for your delete vote on that withdrawn nomination is nonsense. -Fcb98115:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just haven't had time to find justifications for my positions above, but they will be found eventually. My previous Keep vote on the other request was based on someone else's examination of your licensing. Once I had the time to look at your licensing for myself, I couldn't agree. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, is it just a page though, but then to substed it in you use " {{ }} "?? Actually, some pointers would be great. That said, can we put it off till like the 20th. I am entering the final phase of moving to Boston, MA (maybe temorparily) and so won't check any wiki until then. Cheers -Fcb98103:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My most recent example without substing is here, which contains {{User:Jeff_G./Massaged_image}}. My most recent example with substing is here, created in this edit including {{subst:user:Jeff G./subst be civil}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'm not sure when did those types of template begin to exist, but if everyone has one of those, the template space would be filled up. Wooyi19:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same problem some of the source images are only under a CC license, but he released this under a GFDL license Madmax3218:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like mental masturbation to me what you are doing here. The more sensible approch seems to be, as suggested on de WP, to ask the users to double license the rest of the pictures. But generally I totally disagree that collages like that made of free images should be subject to deletion. It would make the point of free licenses absolutly useless and we could close down the commons here. greetings --Paddy16:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your suggestion to give it some time to give them a chance to dual license those incompatible images, but the fact remains that the CC-by-SA and GFDL are mutually incompatible Madmax3207:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete it here on Commons! All images, that are used in the new version, are now licensed under GFDL (or GFDL and CC) or just PD. I also arranged a list of the authors for the image description. So this problem should be solved. However I want to move this picture in a different version to German Wikipedia. --Spongo14:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion fix. Request made by uploader. Not sure what user means with the above. I suspect that the license is incorrect. Deadstar10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, if you look at this image you can not see any Ruf parts (e.g. mirros, alloys front or back) on this car. I have worked there so I shouold know. REgards. 16:39, 1 August 2007 User:85.181.58.38
uploader has uploaded several images that were copyrighted. This one is claimed to be self-created, but contains watermark of "luis_msx" FredJ15:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to be on the safe side. If you wanted to be completely certain, someone who can speak Spanish might want to contact this guy who goes by "luis_msx" and comes from where the photo is taken. However, I don't think this is necessary: The image was almost certainly saved from a website somewhere; hence the watermark and the low resolution. Curiously, the size of the image is 500x375, which is exactly the same size that Fotolog (which "luis_msx" uses) resizes pictures to. What's more, the uploader has enough of a history of copyvios that I think it's safe to assume this one is too; all his files but three have been deleted, one of those is extremely suspicious (this one), and another is a blatant copyright violation that is going to end up on DR soon enough. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 15:36, 9 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.
Uploader claims that Cuban photographs before 1997 are public domain since Cuba did not sign the Berne convention until then. Uploader did not leave any sources to substantiate this. Thuresson20:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if the uploader's claim is correct, but even if it is, wouldn't that make the image PD? The GFDL tag seems inappropriate. -- Infrogmation20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are right that it is clearly the violation of copyright laws but this image is needed by the peoples of the worldnot for commercial usage, but just only to tell them what the revolution really is and what are the suffering which che faced in his life time, so this photo best describes it. —the preceding unsigned comment was added by221.135.222.71 (talk • contribs)
That's irrelevent. Wikimedia Commons is for free licenced images only. World revolutionaries or whoever else who wants to use the image could perhaps place the image on Flickr, photobucket, or any of a thousand other places on the web, but if the image is not free licenced nor public domain, not here. -- Infrogmation17:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The person who requested this image be deleted is very foolish. That person does not even know who is in that picture, who the photographer was, and what year the photo was taken. If the person who requested this image be deleted not even know this most basic information, they have no right to claim copyright infringement. This photo shows Fidel Castro, Celia Sánchez , Haydée Santamaría , and José García; Cuban Rebels in the Sierra Maestra Mountains, Cuba during the Cuban Revolution. The exact date of the photo is unknown, but it was probably taken in 1957 or 1958, the years Castro and his guerrillas spent fighting in the Cuban Mountains. The photographer is unknown. There were numerous photojournalists from the United States and many different countries from around the world who took pictures of Castro and his guerrillas in the mountains of Cuba during the revolution. This file is in the public domain, because All cuban images before 1997 are considered in Public Domain as they did not sign the Berne Convention pact until 1997. Also, there can be no claim for copyright infringement because the identity of the photographer is unknown, and there are no known heirs. This image is clearly not a violation of copyright laws of any country, therefore it shall remain posted here. By the way, you can find this exact same same image posted on the U.S. Army Command and and General Staff College website: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/yates/yates.asp and Answers.com List of revolutions and rebellions http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-revolutions-and-rebellions and none of these websites givie any kind of information or credit to the copyright holder. How could they? There isn't any copyright holder! Everybody here has a particular field of intellectual expertise and knowledge they can contribute to Wikipedia. That is my point, to contribute, to write, and produce. Some people here should stop playing lawyer and wasting their time and everybody else's pointing the finger at so called copyright infringement. Instead, spend your energy writing new wikipedia articles or contributing to others, and cease and desist that "copyright infringement" nonsense. --LedAstray04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted, Thuresson, neither you nor anybody else has shown that photographer is not unknown or that Cuban photographs from before 1997 is not public domain. You need to learn to follow the rules here or you will be held accountable. Don't take it upon yourself to delete other people's images without going through proper procedures. That was very rude and obnoxious of you. This isn't the military and we are not under your command.--LedAstray23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to show anything. It is the uploaders' responsibility to show that his or her claims of copyright are correct. I have been here since January 2005, you registered a couple of weeks ago. Thuresson16:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Photo page clearly states "Released to Public", and was uploaded for that reason. Delete it now if you wish, I'm not contensting it, though you should probably inform the DOD they have an illegal pic on their site. - BillCJ01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The credit indicates that Short Brothers gave the DOD permission to use the photograph - it's not illegal for the them to publish it. "Released to public" is not necessarily the same as "released to the public domain"; it's possible that that's the DVIC's intention, but so far I haven't found any statement on the site about non-DOD images that would fit the Commons:Licensing rules. --Davepape02:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because unless it says copyrighted it is public domain, the disclaimer for the images on that collection says are approved for unrestricted use and publication[34] but someone can contact them to clarify Madmax3220:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
actually I'm not sure if it's on those CD collections, but it seems like they bought rights to the image because some images say 'note:copyrighted' but this one doesn't Madmax3221:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a related site (which also provides access to this photo), http://www.defenselink.mil/multimedia/about.html says "public domain unless otherwise indicated", although it doesn't say how precisely it's "otherwise indicated". If, as you say, there are images that clearly state 'note: copyrighted', it starts to sound like a stronger argument for it being free (just annoyingly inexact on the DOD's part). --Davepape04:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Released to Public. The military probably is correct in what they're talking about; if not, the copyvio is on their end, not ours. And it's almost certain not to be a copyvio. Patstuart21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at the two links I provided on the image's page you will see the image is licensed the same as the software (GNU GPL). I asked the developers (many of whom are employed by HP) and they confirmed this. Lucis20:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before, people working at HP have released the image under the GNU GPL. Take a look at the link to the Launchpad.net question. Lucis00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people work at HP. If I asked the HP legal department whether the HP logo can be used under the terms of the GNU GPL, they probably wouldn't even justify me with a response to such a question. See also the very bottom of their terms and conditions: they blatantly say that websites linking to HP "should not use the HP logo without permission from HP". This can probably be speedily deleted. --Tom (talk - email) 01:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the developers overlooked the HP logo in the image. I'm beginning to think that's the case, because someone higher-up at HP would probably indeed laugh at the idea of releasing their logo freely. So I think it'd be better to delete this image and upload it to the English Wikipedia under the rationale of fair use, considering the HP logo is so small. Lucis14:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. "Permission" has been granted by someone called Aaron Albright who seems to be a developer or help desk operator. It certainly cannot be assumed he has the power to speak for HP in legal matters such as this. Tagging the image as a trademark acts as a warning to others; it is not a licence in itself and cannot authorise the retention of an image that is - without a proper release - a copyright infringement. If anyone believes HP is happy to license this, please ask HP's legal department to send the appropriate permission to OTRS so it can be formally noted. -- MichaelMaggs19:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
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 a new diagram has been added (Image:Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-Bremen-Deutschland-1961-1990.png), 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. -- JörgM23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 a new diagram has been added (Image:Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-HamburgFuhlsbuettel-Deutschland-1961-1990.png), 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. -- JörgM23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 a new diagram has been added (Image:Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-BerlinDahlem-Deutschland-1961-1990.png), 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. -- JörgM23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandr Podrabinek allows the free use, but suggests that we indicate the source. He saw the tag about attribution and confirms that it is ok. Please, remove the tag about the deletion. Domitori12:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The secretary and the Editor of "Novaya Gazeta" thinks that we did not violate copyright.
The Editor types:
=====cite begin=======
Непонятно, зачем договор к
совершенно внятной строчке внизу главной
страницы нашего сайта. Там описаны
все условия, вернее, основное - гиперссылка.
Это как раз к вопросу о
<:commercial use:>. Если у ANYONE возникнут вопросы,
уверен, эта строчка
will give them total information о соблюдении вами всех
прав на публикацию.
C уважением
Cергей Асриянц,
редактор сайта <Новой>
======cite end=======
The owner of the photography, and the Editor of "Noaya Gazeta" saw the posting.
They confirm that it is ok.
Please, remove the tag about deletion, but keep the request to cite the original publication in
"Noaya Gazeta" at each use of the image. Domitori20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the subject of this picture has been the target of political persecution by the Russian state, I submit that this attempt to have it removed is politically motivated. The letter cited above from the editor of the Novaya Gazeta web site states plainly that this use is specifically within the terms of use stated in their web site. I request that this request for deletion be closed forthwith. --tlaustin 1:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers
Keep - I noticed on the latter link that the VA omitted two images at the bottom because they are copyrighted. Because of this, I would presume the other images are within the public domain, unless there is some evidence otherwise? --Tom (talk - email) 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I created a number of the svg files on this list and am currently working on some more. They are based on the corresponding jpgs already in the wikimedia commons. These jpgs where uploaded and credited to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs by another user more then two years ago. I kept this credit on my svgs. These svgs and some of the jpgs are in use on the following page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USVA_emblems_for_headstones_and_markers I'm not sure how to do the Keep icon but i do vote for Keep (and not just because i made a bunch of these). < /br>
My rational follows:
The jpgs where already on wikimedia commons for two years with credit to the VA.
Copyright appears to be held by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs unless stated otherwise.
The two images the VA considers to have some type of copyright issues are not reproduced on their site so the copyright to those images are not held by the Department of Veterans Affairs..
That said, I think that all the original jpgs (and some of older svgs) have the outdated url on them and would need to be changed to the current url (http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/hm/hmemb.asp) so yes, that needs to be corrected. This is my first attempt at actively trying to improve an article, please be patient with my response. Take care, Dogsgomoo00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Hmm, as above, I would believe that because of the way the images are shown on the VA website (most shown, 2 not because of copyright) then the images are either Public Domain or copyrighted to the VA. Of course, when I go poking around the VA website, the policy page ( http://www.va.gov/webpolicylinks.asp ) which seems to have information about "Digital Rights, Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Laws" actually links elsewhere. I'll keep digging. — MrDolomite • Talk01:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I saved too soon. This is the correct page link. And of course, none of the images on the VA page have any camera or image properties to help. And since the look like they were scanned off of a fifth-generation Xerox, er photocopy, which doesn't help either.
"Most content on federal public websites* is in the public domain and should not include copyright or other intellectual property notices."[35]
Comment - once better quality images are made, I think they could be deleted as long as the new images references where the orginals came from. Evrik17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---Keep--- I am not an attorney specializing in intellectual property. The emblem per se is the symbol of Religious Science, not exclusively proprietary to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA does not own the right to the RSc. symbol. The question then must be: does the VA exclusively own this particular iteration of the Religious Science symbol? From a practical standpoint, even if everything on the VA's Web site is copyrighted, I do not see how the VA's rights have been violated, or that the VA has in any way been made less whole, by Wikipedia using this iteration of the RSc. symbol in the Wikipedia article, even if it is originally from the VA's Web site. I hold that the burden of proof supporting removal, that the VA exclusively owns this iteration of the RSc. symbol, is incumbent upon those suggesting its removal from the Wikipedia article.
It is not clear what the picture actually shows, therefore unencyclopedic. Absent uploader. Missing source information (we may guess that the uploader made the picture, though). --rimshottalk12:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try this again, as some major arguments were ignored in the previous one. Let's try to proceed in logical steps so that people may oppose the deletion if they wish to by referring to a point in particular:
CA Paris, 27 janvier 2006 SARL Éditions Arfise c/ SARL Descharnes
« L'article L. 112-2 du Code de la propriété intellectuelle précise que les œuvres photographiques et celles réalisées à l'aide de technologies analogues à la photographie sont considérées comme œuvre de l’esprit ; qu’il n’est pas fait d’exception pour des photographies qui sont la reproduction de tableaux ; qu’il suffit que les photographies présentent un caractère d’originalité ; que le seul fait que de multiples reproductions de mêmes tableaux existent ne suffit pas à démontrer que les photographies seraient dénuées d’originalité ; qu’en effet, le photographe conserve le choix de la luminosité, de la distance de prise de vue, de l’objectif, des filtres, des contrastes. »
Also all Louvre copyrights are registered at the BnF, which only accepts legal registrations.
5 What is the relevant policy on the commons?
Commons:Licensing:
The safest way to apply international copyright law is to consider the laws of all the relevant jurisdictions and then use the most restrictive combination of laws to determine whether something is copyrighted or not. The jurisdictions that might need to be considered are:
The place where the work was created;
The place where the work is being uploaded from;
The place that any web server the work has been downloaded from physically is;
The United States.
A work is only allowed on Commons if it is either public domain in all relevant jurisdictions or if there is a free licence which applies to the work in all relevant jurisdictions.
Please if people who disagree reply can you name the particular point you are disagreeing with, for simplicity. Jackaranga14:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also on a side note, what were people thinking in the previous discussion ? What did the people who voted keep believe the disclaimers that come with PD-Art are for ? It clearly says: "'OK' means that under national law such 'faithful reproduction' photographs can have no copyright, regardless of how much skill and effort went into taking the picture." ! France is not 'OK' Did people not read this or what is the whole PD-Art thing for if it is not applied ? Someone just needs to go take a picture of the painting it's no big deal, there must be thousands of free images out there, why choose a copyrighted one ? Jackaranga14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've looked at the google translation of the French page (surprisingly good): [37]. It's abundantly clear that French laws says that some form of creativity must be involved. In this case, there is no creativity whatsoever, not even for lighting, etc. It is simply a picture. In order to show creativity, the following is necessary:
(bad French translation) It is enough that the photographs show a sense of originality; the mere fact that multiple copies of the same tables are not enough to show that the photographs would be lacking in creativity; that Indeed, the photographer retains the choice of brightness, the distance shooting, the objective, filters, contrasts. "
However, further down the page, it is made quite clear that there are photos that miss the criteria for establishing originality:
The choices claimed were primarily designed to reproduce the natural environment and blue original artwork, and do not constitute elements likely to express an original work and staff but with the sole purpose of reproducing the artwork (etc.) with as much precision as possible in order to represent him as the public perceives.... Moreover, the mission entrusted to the photographer was to make a faithful reproduction of works of art to form the fund documentation Gallery (etc.) which excludes a priori any subjectivity or interpretation by the photographer. "
This last statement, in bold, says it all: because the mission is solely to reproduce the photograph, the photo taker can claim no copyright. If any representation follows this last criterion, it is this one. Pd-art, clearly. Keep. Patstuart21:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright is registered at the BnF, they don't accept illegal registrations. Also the source photo includes the frame, so there was some creativity involved. Even in the USA it can't be PD if the frame is in the photo. Simply cropping the frame doesn't make the image become PD, even in the USA, especially as you can't modify a copyrighted work. Jackaranga09:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a frame around a non-copyrighted picture, then claiming the underlying scan of the picture is a sad piece of lawying. I stand by my position: the current photo shows no creativity, and this is a cheap attempt to take the copyright not belonging to them. I truly doubt that this would hold up in court, even in France, which seems to be protective of its copyrights. The point is, the academy may have allowed a copyright of the Mona Lisa with a nice looking border, but I don't think they meant that they could claim the underlying scan is a copyright. Patstuart19:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous! The mona lisa "copyright" (if there was such a thing at the time) has _long_ since expired, and it makes no sense to attribute an additional copyright to a photo of it.. we can't upload the mona lisa itself can we? How would we upload a canvas? --65.161.73.25019:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing the PD status of the Mona Lisa. What is being disputed is the PD status of this particular reproduction by the Louvre. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask a dumb question? What difference does French law make here? This is an American site hosted on servers in Florida. This image is pretty clearly PD in the United States, whatever the rules are in France. I believe there are laws against depicting Muhammad (or Jesus, for that matter) in Saudi Arabia, and restrictions on swastikas in Germany... but we don't worry about those laws here.Chowbok19:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone get (another) reproduction of this paiting? The day this file will be deleted, people will focus on local uploads again (where they often don't care about copyright) and the remaining support for Commons will be gone. --Polarlys19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Louvre photo shows a frame, the version uploaded here, however, has that frame removed. The Louvre photo, which includes the frame, is copyrightable, and of course it can thus be registered at the BnF. However, if you remove the frame, what remains is a reproduction of the painting and no frame anymore. Hence, the cropped version looses copyright status. The argument is based on the incorrect assumption that if a photo is copyrighted as a whole, then any cropped version of it must be so, too. --rtc11:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't just vote ourselves a new legal position. We can disagree with the law but we have no power to change it. The image in question is not the Mona Lisa but the photo; if this had been published in the US it would have been PD; but it was published in France and it's copyright there; the US accepts French copyrights, so the photo is copyright in the US. --Simonxag12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commons is not hurting for disk space, image's prior candidacy for featured picture and GFDL license makes retention mandatory for GFDL compliance. Its presence is not harmful. -Nard19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inscription is very old, perhaps as old as the 4th century (the age of the church). The caption could be cropped out perhaps. -Nard21:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and crop to the upper of the two versions of the picture. The lower one, if I am not mistaken, is a drawing that was made for this paper. It is probably creative enough to be copyrighted. --rimshottalk10:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sounds like a personality rights request, and "should" is permissive, ie it doesn't actually prohibit anything. -Nard21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Nard - I am the original uploader, and uploaded the image with that request. I then changed it, letting it be used as a free image. The uploader to commons did NOT check the update log and used the old image description. The new description allowed the image to be free and used anywhere. Signed by Tommy (Talk/Contribs) 13:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this. I'm still concerned that any possible use of the image is going to conflict with their stated wish not to be depicted - a moral issue more than a legal one. I don't like tempting fate, but images of identifiable members of the furry fandom have been heavily misused in the past, and Commons images both get a lot of exposure and are freely modifiable and redistributable. Legal safeguards are ineffective against this, as it's too expensive and unreliable to sue someone who's not making money off your appearance, just making fun of it. GreenReaper22:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this photo was taken at a parade or party on a public street, I would say keep. However I gather the convention where this photo was taken was some sort of private pay admission event. Private events sometimes place restrictions and require more specific permission for photographs. Do we have any infromation on relevent convention bylaws? I lean towards deletion in any case because 1)deletion has been requested by both subject of the photo and the uploader of the photo 2)photo taken at non-public place evidentally without clear permission/consent for use 3)Image is not historic nor illustrative in any way in which could not be replaced by other free licenced images. -- Infrogmation17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is here. It states specifically that people who say they do not want to be photographed should not be. What went wrong was they didn't like being photographed, but didn't say that at the time - instead, they did it when they found out it was on Wikipedia. If they had said "please don't take/distribute the photograph" at the time, I would not have done so. GreenReaper18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Per the photographer/uploader GreenReaper above, the uploading of this image was a mistake, contrary to the policies of where it was taken and without the permission necessary in that context. -- Infrogmation19:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep bank cards are utilitarian objects. They are a standard shape and size, and include mostly numbers in a generic font. Choice of color is hardly copyrightable, as blanks are made in the millions. The hologram is also standard and used for utilitarian, not art purposes. There is no original art to copyright that is shown in this image. -Nard19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added the "Trademarked" template as the "Visa" and "Mastercard" logos are visible; perhaps that is adiquate to take care of concerns? -- Infrogmation20:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with User:N...the cards in question are simply gold and silver with some logos on them...Nothing original there. I think the trademarked template ought to take care of it. — LastUserNameEver19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to upload several Muggur paintings in preparation for writing an article about the artist. Unfortunately I see that PD-Art now includes the words "This photograph was taken in the U.S. or in another country where a similar rule applies". I believe this photograph was most likely taken in Iceland and I have no reason to think that a Bridgeman-like rule would hold in Iceland. I guess I'll have to upload this to the English Wikipedia instead. Haukurth12:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if Bridgeman did not apply, the reproduction has no new creative content, making it pd-ineligible. -Nard19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true. Even a photograph which does not qualify as artwork gets 50 years of copyright protection in Iceland (like Germany). Haukurth23:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Should a work have been used as a model, or been made use of by other means, in creating another work, which may be regarded as new and independent, the new work shall not be subject to the copyright to the elder work."--What is "new and independent" about an exact duplicate of a two dimensional work? "When a work, or parts of works, by one or more authors, are incorporated into a composite work, which may be in itself considered to be a literary or artistic work, the person creating the composite work shall hold copyright thereto." What literary or artistic achievement exists in an exact copy of a work? "Until proved otherwise, the person whose name is indicated in the usual manner on copies of a work, or is declared to be the author, shall be considered the author of the work when the work is presented." What authorship right does the maker of an exact copy gain? -Nard21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument for photographs of artworks not being considered artworks in themselves. Unfortunately there's still article 49 to worry about. "The reproduction of photographs, which do not enjoy the protection of this Act for works of art ... is prohibited ... The protection of a photograph in accordance with this paragraph shall apply until 25 years have elapsed from the end of the year in which it was taken." And note that the act in other places specifically mentions photographs of artworks: "Photographs of a work of art owned by a gallery may be printed in a gallery catalogue." Clearly, photographs of artworks are photographs. Some photographs enjoy protection as artworks. All other photographs, as far as I can see, enjoy a lesser protection but protection still. Haukurth08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio: The image appears on this page and Dr Macro also has a 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. Rossrs08:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Even if it wasn't in the public domain, 'doctormacro.info' certainly doesn't own the copyright just because they scanned the film, only the photographer or the person who paid for the photographic work would own it, and I agree with you that it is PD if it published in the US before 1923 or the other reasons you mentionedMadmax3219:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that website but I'm not sure are these scans of the movie film or movie posters, most images are corresponding to a movie, so I guess if the movie is in the public domain the image should be too, except this one does not have a movie title next to it Madmax3219:38, 10 August 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 it without the original photograph.--M6220:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright claim by the Doctor Macro site may be bogus, but that neither confirms nor contradicts the PD claim. If some evidence is offered that the image is pre 1923, that its copyright was not renewed, or any other evidence of public domain status is shown, keep. Otherwise, it is an image of unknown source and potential copyright violation, so Delete. -- Infrogmation03:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't look like the website is claiming copyright on the images, there are methods available to check copyright renewal and if the source is known for the still or poster it probably can be determined, but if it can't then it may be of an unknown copyright status if published after 1923. Madmax3212:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Hopefully the uploader can clarify that the lic is correct as I'm uneasy about this image and lic also. I looked on her website and did not see it there. FloNight23:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The selection of colours and placement of the individual elements, including the arc, go beyond "information that is common property," so Delete. —LX (talk, contribs)10:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thick and jagged lines make this graph imprecise. A nicer-looking replacement can be found here. The location of the cusp is different as are the ranges, but the decriptions have been changed where needed in all the usages of the file already, none of which required this particular location. --Inductiveload15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote to Royal-de-Luxe on 31st March 2007 specifically asking about the licence of the photos, and showing that images of their creation were uploaded to Commons under a free licence allowing commercial use. Up to now (August 2007) I didn't receive any answer. I would take that as "do whatever you please". Further more, I know the technical assistant director of Royal-de-Luxe and I asked him what he thinks about this. He said "Royal-de-Luxe doesn't care about rights on the photos. Royal-de-Luxe doesn't answer to requests." For these reasons, I would keep these images. Yann22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a crashed car. There's no frickin way they can claim copyright on that. Especially since no creativity went into the smashing. Was it calculated and controlled smashing? -Nard20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Il faut conserver cette photo, je pense. La mention de la troupe "Royal de Luxe" dans le descriptif de l'image suffit. Cette "oeuvre d'art" (work of art) fut exposée en public, dans la rue, pendant plusieurs jours, avec des variantes selon les villes où Royal de Luxe s'est produit. J'ai assisté à Amiens (Somme, France) à plusieurs spectacles (3 ou 4 je crois) de cette troupe animant les rues lors de la Fête dans la ville (fête annuelle en juin). Une seule fois, lors d'un spectacle dans un lieu fermé (mais en plein air), au nombre de spectateurs limité par les places sur les gradins, les présentateurs ou animateurs ont averti le public que les photos étaient interdites. Cette photo (que j'ai personnellement importée dans Commons depuis Flickr ne concerne pas ce spectacle aux photos interdites. Marc ROUSSEL - Markus318:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rapid translation of Markus3's vote : the art company which was "performing" with this car had clearly stated then that photos were allowed, except for one particular event which is not displayed in Commons. le Korrigan→bla23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just a crashed car, but a work of art containing it. Freedom of panorama does not apply. No evidence of permission to create derivative works. Allowing photography does not imply allowing photography for publication or commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs)10:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a crashed car. There's no frickin way they can claim copyright on that. Especially since no creativity went into the smashing. Was it calculated and controlled smashing? -Nard20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Err, look at the image. It's not just smashed. It is, as the title suggests, "sewn" to the pavement. It looks quite cool, actually. An it's creative artwork. -- Duesentrieb⇌20:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comme pour l'image plus haut, celle-ci est visible sur Flickr depuis des mois. Manifestement, la troupe Royal de Luxe n'a pas encore, à ce jour, exprimé son désaccord ou son interdiction quant à la publication de ce type de photo sur le Web. Je rappelle que pour certains spectacles, en lieu clos, la troupe interdit très strictement toute photo et/ou enregistrement. Pour avoir vu ces "voitures cousues" à Amiens (Somme, France), exposées pendant 2 ou 3 jours, en plusieurs endroits de la ville, je peux certifier qu'il n'a alors jamais été interdit d'en prendre des photos. Il n'en est pas de même pour d'autres "oeuvres d'art" de la troupe, mais, à ma connaissance Commons n'en comportait vraiment aucune à la date à laquelle j'ai importé. - Marc ROUSSEL - Markus318:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rapid translation of Markus3's vote : the art company which was "performing" with this car had clearly stated then that photos were allowed, except for one particular event which is not displayed in Commons. le Korrigan→bla23:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not just a bunch of crashed cars, but a work of art containing them. Freedom of panorama does not apply. No evidence of permission to create derivative works. Allowing photography does not imply allowing photography for publication or commercial purposes. —LX (talk, contribs)10:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is more complexe than that, and I think better to have a global solution before deleting. Beside, there is not a clear majority in favor of deletion. Polarlys, you deleted 2 images, but there are much more than that concerned by this decision. Also, there is no legal risk, so there is no reason to quickly delete images. Yann18:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when do we simply restore files if we don’t like a decision? And since when do we count votes? What will happen the next months? To argue, that no reaction means “do whatever you want” and thus “public domain” is pretty keen. All in all I received in 90 percent of the cases no mail from institutions or individuals. --Polarlys19:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive deletions are not very nice either. I should remind you that the proof is on the accusation, and that I have information from inside the organisation here. Yann10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the nice word “abusive” again. We don’t have to prove that an image is a copyvio, the uploader has to prove that the copyright holder allows usage under a free license! If a permission is needed, it has to be explicitly and has to be sent to OTRS. This: „I didn't receive any answer. I would take that as "do whatever you please". “ is no permission. --Polarlys11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you don't accept the proof. And yes, if I bring a logical argument saying that the image is public domain, you have to prove the opposite. The issue is not about the two images above, it is about all images of Royal-de-Luxe already uploaded, or which would be uploaded in the future. You can't delete two images, and forget the rest. Yann21:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call another administrator's actions abusive and then proceed to tell them to assume good faith. And please use Commons:Undeletion request to contest any deletions with which you disagree instead of resorting to wheel warring. —LX (talk, contribs)10:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture looks like it is a copyvio from some website. The text only states that the uploader "edited" the picture himself, if I read the Spanish correctly. Rosenzweig11:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture looks like it is a copyvio from some website. The text only states that the uploader "edited" the picture himself, if I read the Spanish correctly. Rosenzweig11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This picture looks like it is a copyvio from some website. The text only states that the uploader "edited" the picture himself, if I read the Spanish correctly. Rosenzweig11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per COM:SCOPE..."files uploaded to the Commons have to be useful for some Wikimedia project. Media files that are not useful for any Wikimedia project are beyond the scope of Wikimedia Commons." Unless the user that uploaded the image explains it's not evident usefulness. FloNight18:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Petrovsky has stolen this photo from airliners.net, where the original image can be seen at this link. If you compare the name of the photographer to those of any of Petrovsky's other uploads, you will see they are all different. Also refer to the possibly unfree images discussions on wikipedia in relation to many of these photos, those discussions are here, do a search for 'Cubana' and you will see the excuses this person has used. --Russavia05:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears that Russavia's research is correct and this image is from airliners.net. Unless or until further research shows that this user can properly grant a free lic for this image it needs to be deleted as an copy vio. FloNight18:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, I do not think this is an adequate reason to keep the image. It must fit the scope of the project AND have a proper lic. FloNight11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find hundreds of photos of the Tu-204 taking off, but there is a difference between stealing and infringing on another's copyright, and asking for permission, something which I have done with photos I have uploaded (and permission is on file). The problem is, people think that 'wiki' means they have carte blanche to go and take whatever they feel like without considering others rights. Hence, it should be deleted as per reasons above. --Russavia14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
1) I can too take them photos in Pulkovo airport (at road E95, above which all airpranes take off), but when?
2) If we have a source, what is a problem? Or "airliners.net" do not allows it for publication in another sites?
copyright violation, the image can be found on other places on the internet. [39] and [40] for example. The web resolution makes me believe we are the ones at fault. Lucasbfr15:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every page on Metal Blade's website says "Copyright 2007 Metal Blade Records", and it is more than a safe assumption that the photo is under the same copyright. Besides, the license says that the copyright holder has released all rights to it, which there's absolutely no evidence of. --Fuzzy51005:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image was originally uploaded by Cassio91 to en.wikipdia with the name 549437-9269-ga.jpg and was deleted by Wikipedia admin Quadell as lic for non-commercial use only. Cassio91 reuploaded it with the current lic but no more specific information. We need to verify that the user understands image licensing as it is quite possible be merely chose a new license that he thought best fit the situation not really understanding how to do it. I reviewed Quadell and Cassio91 Wikipedia-en talk pages and did not see any discussion about relic on either talk page. I did a google search under both image names and did not see any thing obvious that would help us determine lic here. FloNight19:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the exif data of this user's images, I see that the user either has a lot of cameras, or does not care too much about copyrights. Can still not find this image at ferrari though. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted The flickr user obviously uploads images from various source, some were done with professional Nikon cameras, others with models from Canon (I don’t know any professional photographer (all in all the guy owns at least a 500 mm lens …) who has not made this decission yet ;-) ). Some have no EXIF informationen, others were done with cheap cameras. This is no reliable source. --Polarlys11:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
'Delete' Appears to be exactly the same image so until and unless uploader can explain how he has ownership of this image we need to delete as copyright vio. FloNight19:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there actually is a family Phalangodidae in Opiliones, but the species that was contained here belonged to Phalangiidae. I don't think family subcats are needed yet, with so few species, and as this one is now empty, delete it. --Sarefo21:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Die Genehmigung wurde durch den Geschäftsführer des Franz-Stock-Komitees für Deutschland e.V., Frank Trompeter (trompeter@franz-stock-komitee.de) erteilt. --trompes18:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about just adding {{PD-because|the copyright holder has released the image to public domain, according to the OTRS ticket provided above.}}? I verified the ticket and it's ok. PatríciaRmsg21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible copyvio - the actual page where this came from reads "All rights reserved, Status: July 2005"[42] so I am not sure the GFDL was ever valid Zzyzx1107:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't pay much attention to deletions here on the Commons (I came here because the article it's featured in is the English Wikipedia's daily featured article), but isn't it true that there are proper procedures for uploading images here that authors were previously retaining full rights on but are now being released into the GFDL through permission granted by, say, an e-mail? It could be so that the uploader asked the original author permission; but without any such proof around, I'd say this is likely due to the GFDL being misunderstood by the uploader. 85.147.58.21209:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC) (User:Msikma)[reply]
Comment Reading the summary, it appears that Imoeng got permission, but perhaps another editor should email Gerard H. Bergman to verify? I'm not sure what the standard practice is. --76.23.1.5622:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the image is not used, it is not completed, it was a mistake made upon upload (wrong filename) by myself, and the completed version is available (Image:Erie seal.svg). --DTR16:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source is here, where the photos are shown to be copyright w:Walter Freeman. These images, while potentially worth a fair use claim on EN, are not Public Domain by any means - Freeman was not a US Government employee, so the images are his own. --Ral31505:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a poor quality scan from a magazine. It also contains the HIM logo, which most probably is not licensed under said terms. Teevee05:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Snaggletooth, the mascot from Motörhead." is copyrighted (or at least this poster is), even if the photo by itself is under a free license FredJ22:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though no explicit source is mentioned, it is stated that this file has been created and/or published in 1955 with license 'This file is in the public domain in Russia. It was published before January 1, 1954, and the creator (if known) died before that date (For veterans of the Great Patriotic War, the critical date is January 1, 1950). Works belonging to the former Soviet government or other Soviet legal entities published before January 1st, 1954, are also public domain in Russia.' This image is not in the public domain according to the license tag text. Siebrand06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed this image is from 1955, then Delete. The file is misnamed anyway, the plane was called "Lisunov Li-2" and was a licensed, Soviet-built DC-3, in production from 1939 to 1952. The uploader claimed at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#image:Lisunov_L2.jpg that the image were from 1939. According to the image description page, he also seems to believe that the cutoff year for Soviet works were 1973... Lupo07:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no licencing option for soviet-era images. The PD-Russia description-tag has been offered in the various discussions, but it could be PD-Soviet Union. No author information is provided in soviet publications. The original deleter Siebrand states that "This image is not in the public domain according to the license tag text." but this is due to the limited choices presented to the uploader in licence tags, and doesn't reflect the actual PD-status. The licence tag selected (and ONE must be selected to proceed) is not accurate, but it's the closest available. I'm hoping WP Commons can fix this shortcoming. There's no reason to delete Public Domain material Hoserjoe08:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no license tag for Soviet images because due to the retroactive nature of the Russian copyright law of 1993, Soviet images nowadays are in general (at least those first published in the RSFSR) governed by the rules of the modern Russian copyright law. Image first published in other SSRs are, as far as we know, subject to the modern copyright laws of the respective successor states of the USSR. Apparently the vast majority of Soviet publications occurred in the RSFSR (Newcity, M.: Copyright Law in the Soviet Union, p. 49; Praeger Publishers, New York 1978. ISBN0-275-56450-9.) Because of the unfortunate interplay of the retroactive nature of the 1993 Copyright law of Russia, Russia's joining the Berne Convention in 1995, and the URAA in the U.S., 1973 is no longer a valid cutoff year to determine PD status of Soviet images. (It has been invalid since 1995/96.) We've been through all that in painstaking detail and have discussed it ad nauseam. So there's no shortcoming to fix: it has been fixed. Lupo10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the fact that this image was publicated in US Army Field Manual 100-2-3 - The Soviet Army; Troops Organisation and Equipment, it's not a original work of American military personel. It's cleary shown, that it was created in USSR Alex Spade
I think that ewen in Moskwa could still be a some American military personel (embassy - something like that). And that is parade - so American CAN do that photo. --Pmgpmg18:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can or did he? This photowork is very disputed. When was it created? Where was it created? In Moscow on Red Square? Probably, but as we can see on next picture [43], there is somewhat another stand arrangement on Red Square. If nevertheless it was created on Red Square, the American military personnel cann't created photowork from such perspective - the foreign military personnels were being stationed on right stand (if we are looking from square to mausoleum) only, the ordinary Soviet people were being stationed on both stand. The other side of Red Square was closed zone. Such perspective was possible only for Soviet commissioner press photographers and special service personnels. Alex Spade10:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – a CIA agent or an undercover member of the U.S. Army Intelligence could have made it too... --FSHL16:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Alex Spade - CIA and U.S. Army Intelligence usually work secretly but they’re definitively members of the U.S. federal government. Aren’t they? --FSHL03:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is special in sush perspective? Such perspective is very dangerous for non-Soviet people. Why did he come on such point for photoshot of this tank with risk for his life? He could freely and safely make photoshot of this tank from right stand.
Plz, take into account, that (for example) the most of terms of use for USGov sites are contained a term, that if you want to use the image without attribution or terms of use for this image exactly, you must contact with copyright department for consultation about its status. Alex Spade10:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comments from FSHL are a red herring. "might have been made by a CIA operative" is not good enough. Absent actual provenance demonstrating that this pic was actually taken by a US employee, and with clearly stated arguments that it is highly unlikely it was, this is an obvious Delete. ++Lar: t/c16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless... --FSHL19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a problem between the person who took the photo and BBC, the actual copyright of the image belongs to the photographer, and he has released it under a free license. Madmax3223:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Madmax32 - It has been a long-standing rule on Commons not to take third party implications into consideration when deciding whether we accept photos or not... --FSHL16:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template suggests: "This file was designed by the author to provoke angry shouts! Please, go shout a little at the ANGRY SHOUTS PAGE!"
The template and all linked images suffer from Commons:Project scope, and w:WP:POINT issues. I am inclined to speedy delete them but felt a consensus gathering would be more productive.
Comment apart from Wikipedianism.png, the others aren't that bad, he should really get permission before using someones image in that manner. Madmax3201:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this image is a copyright vio based on notice on the web site. I see nothing that releases the images as stated in the lic. Hopefully, if the uploader has seen something different he/she will let us know so we can keep it. But as it stands now I feel we need to delete. FloNight12:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is your photograph of an existing poster, it is probably considered a derivative work, and thus an image which is not free. Of course, a more experienced opinion would be best. Tewfik22:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted; it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, FOP only applies for permanently installed objects, permissions have to be sent to OTRS --ALE! ¿…?11:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless... --FSHL16:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by ALE!: duplicate or a scaled down version of [[:Image:Aebp cor.jpg]]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I want to delete several pictures that I uploaded on Commons a "long" time ago because they are non-free (logo), the licence/origine is not know (old black and white pictures but unknown auhor) or were replaced by a better image. Thanks. --Steff11:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User apparently uploading images found on news sites and elsewhere on web with false claim of being the copyright holder. -- Infrogmation02:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Lian Jien (talk • contribs) uploaded several images taken by his friends or relatives. But several of them have EXIF info that says they are from Wireimages.com. So even if the images were taken by his cousin, they would still be under copyright by Wireimages and there is no proof of Wireimages releasing their copyright for the images.
/ FredJ 08:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
*Delete anyway he is lying, the photographer is named in the exif data, for example 'Eric Charbonneau' Madmax32 08:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Some don't have wireimages exif data, maybe they can be kept, but I think releasing some of your rights to a stock photo agency means you can't license the same image under a free license as well, who knows more about this? Madmax3206:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not lying, I and Eric Charbonneau are good friends and are working together since 2000. Some of the are taken by me and my friends. Lee Lian Jien14:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I consider it possible that you got the images from Eric Charbonneau (aka Eric Lee). But can you please reply to my statement above: "So even if the images were taken by his cousin, they would still be under copyright by Wireimages and there is no proof of Wireimages releasing their copyright for the images."? / FredJ19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Charbonneau and Eric Lee are also friends together. I do work with them sometimes. [User:Lee Lian Jien|Lee Lian Jien]] 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you've answered the Wireimages question. Delete if the uploader can't provide any proof of Wireimages releasing their copyright eventually. --Moonian08:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally thought that Eric Lee was the same as Eric Charbonneau. But it appears I was deceived. And Lee Lian Jien changed the author of his images from his cousin Eric Lee to his "good friend" Eric Charbonneau. [46] I think this is decietful... / FredJ16:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The French edition of Dernières pensées appeared in 1913. When did the English translation appear? And anyway, this photo is a French work, and PD-US or the U.S.-centric PD-old-50 are not applicable. When did the photographer die? It's not clear this is PD-Old... Lupo06:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as nsd for now. No source, can't know about original author. Irrelevant if US copyright expired, because it was published in France. Patstuart18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I've deleted this on the basis that it is a "shock" image --Herbytalk thyme07:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for this (graphic) image being PD is incorrect, private photography by US soldiers is not subject to 'official work of US federal government' and thus not PD, also the source url is dead Madmax3213:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) prove the U.S soldier who took this was on duty (2) prove it was not taken with his own camera (3) you can't release something into PD anonymously without the anonymous authors consent, unless this is an official DoD photo is not assumed to be public domain Mattsmillion14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The uploader has been contributing to the commons since Feb. 2006. Source links often go bad. Text he copied said "taken by a US soldier in Iraq,". Any photo by U.S. military in Iraq is public domain. They are always on duty. Does not matter whether it is his own camera. This was settled by the legal wranglings around the photos for the w:My Lai massacre. --Timeshifter17:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image quality not so terrible to be potentially useless were the status otherwise not problematic, but as image has no information on source nor copyright, delete anyway if that is not corrected-- however it is already in the holding cue to be deleted as unsourced, so no special listing for that reason needed. -- Infrogmation02:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image quality neither here nor there, but lacking any source/copyright info. I suggest you tag such images with {{subst:nsd}} in the future; as unsourced/no copyright info images will be deleted anyway, no need to list them here unless there are additional concerns if/after the lack of info is addressed. -- Infrogmation02:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader's request: I uploaded the image back in 2004, and I don't remember the source. I'd tagged that image PD-US, since the source had said the image was created before 1923, but I hadn't understood at the time that this only applies (on the Commons) if the image was created in the U.S. Without a source, and without reasonably good evidence that the image is PD, it should definitely be deleted. 14 August 2007 User:Quadell
Delete. But note that this deletion request is actually superfluous. The image is already NSD'ed and will be deleted in due course. Lupo08:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the fact that the uploader took the time to look at what was asked and decided that the image should be deleted and said so. As for the image Delete. Deadstar09:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Library of Congress has records of an iron maiden of Nuremburg (search for "iron maiden") image produced by a US photographer called "Bell & Bro. (Washington, D.C.) photographer" (no linky for group records) but no digital photo. The image was from 1860-1890 and was donated to the Library. If this is the same photo it should be PD. As widely published as this same image is on the web it wouldn't be a stretch. -Nard20:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image is copyright vioration. The user uploaded this image insisted self-made picture (the user insisted took this picture own, PD-self, Personality_rights). But this image resembles the image (see below external links) captured television NHK news very much. I suspect that this image was retouched, removed the news title from the image below, by the user this image uploaded. The idea of "fair use" is not accepted in the Copyright Act of Japan. The copyright of this photograph belongs to NHK (Nippon Housou Kyoukai, Nihon Housou Kyoukai, Japan Broadcasting Corporation). If NHK sues Wikimedia Foundation at a court for copyright infringement, Wikimedia Foundation lose a case.
see the image below external links, you know this image is much alike below two images:
(comment: Upper right, a watermark "NHK-G" means "Nihon Housou Kyoukai - General broadcasting channel". Lower left, telop superimpose of the NHK news)
The given link doesn't work, and there's no sign of the logo on the main page. Almost certainly copyvio, either by the uploader here or the original uploader at the linked website. If nothing else, this definitely needs to be looked into to make sure that there's actually proper permission here to release Fresno State's logo. --Fuzzy51002:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly copyvio. The web guideline page provided doesn't state anything about releasing images under GFDL so far as I can tell. --Fuzzy51002:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the web site does not seem to give this image a free lic, GFDL or otherwise. Delete as copyright vio unless the uploader can show an appropriate free lic. FloNight21:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The given link doesn't work, and there's no sign of the logo on the main page. Almost certainly copyvio, either by the uploader here or the original uploader at the linked website. If nothing else, this definitely needs to be looked into to make sure that there's actually proper permission here to release Fresno State's logo. --Fuzzy51002:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the uploader and the requester for deletion. Reason: It is the game "Eile mit Weile" and not "Pacheesi". The picture is used here: [47], the game is described here [48]. This file that I'm requesting for deletion has a wrong filename. The "Home" is also unnessecary, because there is a picture of a city in the real board game. delete, thanks. --Socrates7516:37, 17 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 image is probably a copyvio from [1]. It's a thumbnail, without category, without author and everything else. But it is used in the german wikipedia. --Dehio22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lewis Collard! maybe one or two explicit images or drawings of nudity to illustrate for 'educational purposes' but you don't need unlimited galleries of such media, outside of commons scope, I mean this is not censored but neither is this a free webhost for personal pictures Madmax3203:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – is still in use on 6 pages in 6 projects and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless nor out of scope... --FSHL17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review of deletion policy would reveal that "still in use" is not a valid reason to keep. We delete things that are still in use all the time. We have CommonsDelinker and CommonsTicker and lots of other tools to help us achieve with a minimum of disruption to using projects. ++Lar: t/c22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Lar - You’re right »"still in use" is not a valid reason to keep« but it’s definitively a valid proof for useful or not out of scope... --FSHL22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentStill in use is not good reason to keep, but in this deletion request is also any good reason to delete. "Some Wikipedias use this picture" is for me good answer for reasons like "this picture is useless". --Dezidor22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we have an OTRS release for this? Frankly said, this is a poor Photoshop job, and there is no indication whatsoever that the uploader (single-purpose account who uploaded just this one image, maybe a regular contributor who didn't want to be connected with this image) indeed holds the copyright to this image. It may just as well have been taken from elsewhere. Lupo07:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was uploaded by regular contributor who didn't want to be connected with this image, it theoretically might be copyvio, but probably only someone didn´t want to admit, that he upload photo of his penis. --Dezidor13:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crappy photoshopping. I would encourage users not to remove the background of their penisses in such a crappy way. We have better penisses. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All images by User:Vb98 claim "trabajo propio" (own work), yet give a different name for the author. Several have already been deleted as copyvios; those that remain are:
Errors on this picture: see Image:Hexadecimal multiplication table.PNG for corrected version. 14 August 2007 User:에멜무지로
The PNG image looks awful, though. I fixed the SVG image by hand-editing it in a text editor. But how do I upload it? I can't figure out how to update an existing image; do I have to choose a new name? And what should the licensing be? I don't want to say "I, BenRG, the creator of this work, release it into the public domain", because I hardly had anything to do with it. Sorry, I'm a bit new at this. -- BenRG22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The easy way is to click on "Upload a new version of this file", linked below the image (or follow the above link). You don't have to add anything else, just choose the file from a location in your computer and upload. Everything else will remain the same. You may leave a note on the original uploader's talk page as a gesture of courtesy informing what you have done and why. PatríciaRmsg15:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is listed as Public Domain. The image was uploaded to WP-en (en:image:Huncards.jpg) with the comment "I scanned this image from a deck of hungarian cards." The 'court cards' (jack to king) that show quite nice pictures, so my guess is that these are covered by copyright. Therefore I would like to propose to delete this file.
Comment: I left a question on the talk page on en:Wikipedia of the original uploader of the first image, but they seem not to have edited in over a year. I also left notice on the talk page of the uploader of the second image here (which should have been done when listing). The design of the cards in both images looks in the style of cards more than 100 years ago; it may or may not be old enough to be public domain; I don't know. -- Infrogmation16:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe I'm being too simple here, but I think this is a case of {{npd}}. The uploader should have given some more detail about how old this design is. In either way, it is not {{PD-self}}. PatríciaRmsg16:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: image:Schnapskarten_dt-fr.jpg was uploaded by me. These cards show German suited cards on one side (these are the same as on the picture Image:Huncards.jpg, a so-called "doppeldeutsche" or "Tell-Karte" after the Swiss hero Wilhelm Tell) and French suits on the other side, a so called "Wiener Kaffeehaus-Bild", both designs go back to the mid of the 19th century. Roland Scheicher
Is there a way to verifiably show that the copyright for these designs have expired and that these cards do not contain any original authorship in addition to those old designs? —LX (talk, contribs)10:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with Keep on this one. Because the nature of the designs, I don't think most playing cards are copyrighted. The basic designs go way back in history with many many variations. It's hard to show that modern ones (if these are even modern) have any original authorship.
The above's just my educated guess, I do not know the true copyright status. This why I didn't close this myself, but I comment in hopes of helping another admin decide. Rocket00007:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. Copyright was restored. 2. Originality criterion was lowered such that a photo is "to be considered original if it is the author's own intellectual creation reflecting his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account"[49]. 3. Confirmed by [50][51][52][53] That means: Basically only mug shots and reproduction photography, where the outcome is more or less determined by the task, remain as simple photographs. Hence, these photos are all copyrighted until 70 pma. --rtc19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, as per Rtc. The template was already used for average studio portraits, they are protected for 70 pma as well. „Mug shots“ don’t have a comparable meaning in Germany, don’t confuse them with photos used for manhunt by law enforcement agencies (the interwiki links on en.wp did so). We still have enough PD and PD-because photos with invalid claims basing on § 72 UrhG, we don’t need a separate template with such a abusive potential. --Polarlys21:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete as copyright vio as image appears to come from eur-reef.com web site and has an obvious copyright notice. No clarification of lic despite notice on uploader's talk page since 8/9/2007. FloNight21:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by Polarlys: In category [[:category:Unknown as of 9 August 2007|Unknown as of 9 August 2007]]; no license
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The license was removed by User:G.dallorto in an edit 31 minutes before User:G.dallorto suggests that the picture is unlicensed. I suggest that User:G.dallorto reinstates the license he/she removed and removes this deletion request and checks his/her deletion requests a little better in the future. Haros06:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, as it has a valid license. Giovanni: I see that this nomination was an error, but please check the history before nominating an image for deletion. Kjetil r18:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I´ll do better next time, this was my first try. I think it´s better to delete this file and start again from the beginning, rather than to create data rubbish. HoischenC17:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this image contain original authorship? Both SPQR and the laurel wreath are symbols from ancient Rome. Not sure whether they were used together however. -- Bryan (talk to me) 09:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, there was ancient usage of similar symbols. But particular renderings of such are subject to copyright; that wreath was drawn by a member of Nova Roma. The image was taken directly from the NR website - the uploader merely resized it. MattHucke13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All i can say is that despite the fact it was indeed based on the novaroma logo it still isn't a copy of it, but a flag that was inspired by it. I'm sure u can understand the difference between a copy (which is illegal according to wikicommons rules) and a based-upon and inspired-by flag. Oren neu dag21:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was increase the size of the already-present red area around it. That's not "inspired by", it's a copy. We've had flags in standard flag aspect ratios since 1998; there is nothing new in this image. MattHucke00:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's assume that i did only changed the size (which i reject vehemently), that still doesn't imply that i've done something that breaks the rules of copyright, especially since i've sent an email to the webmaster of the Novaroma site inorder to clarify the issue of copyright license of the said image. All i'm asking right now is to be given a 24 hour recess to recieve the reply from the site's webmaster which i hope will help to solve the whole issue. Oren neu dag00:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a valid reason for deletion, typefaces cannot be copyrighted, the laurel leaf is also different than the one from that website in aspect ratio and size, it lacks any new creative content for someone to attempt to assert that level of copyright protection over it, you didn't invent that symbol Madmax3200:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader rejects the claim he resized an existing image above, also that claim cannot be proven and the link you posted (smallLogo.jpg) is very bad quality and couldn't be resized without resizing the jpeg compression artifacts present. Madmax3202:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After recieving the reply (<==link active for only 30 days) from the Novaroma webmaster, I'm hereby to accept the proposal made by the site's webmaster to change the license of the image from Public Domain to Fair Use, and which i hope will help to solve the whole issue. Oren neu dag10:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nova Roma does not have a copyright law. The only things protected by copyright in Nova Roma are "informational and other materials copyrighted by the State, which shall remain the property of the State."[55]. Matt Hucke already admits this image was not produced by the state, but by a Nova Roma member. Futhermore this image is highly derivative of symbols thousands of years old, not original enough to obtain copyright protection under normal copyright law. -Nard20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "Nova Roma does not have a copyright law" , the internal rules of a club are not relevant. The country in which the Wikimedia servers are hosted does have a copyright law, and this is a violation. MattHucke17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying you are not a sovereign nation? You can't stand on the fence. Either you are and this work is not protected by your law, or you aren't and international law applies. I cannot seriously fathom you'd admit your sovereignty claim is a load of crock. -Nard00:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The logo was created by a citizen of the United States (Maine). Its home is a server in the United States (specifically, near 22nd street in Chicago). US Copyright law thus applies. Additionally, the quote about so-called Nova Roma copyright law above is a sentence fragment quoted out of context by "N" - the actual rule is about product vendors who sell their wares on the Nova Roma website being forbidden to sell official logo products without permission - it makes no attempt to be any "copyright law" in general. Thus there is no contradiction between NR "law" and US or international law. MattHucke00:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no progress on determining the status of the flag, and since a majority of 3 user (to 2 who opposed it) voted to keep it, i'm removing the "request for deletion" template from the image. Oren neu dag19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't remove delete templates. This is not a vote, so majority alone doesn't count. Unfortunately there are not enough admins to handle all deletion requests, but I expect this case be closed before the end of October. -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Uploader has agreed above, and the particular drawing of the laurels is IMO clearly copyrightable. The artefacts in the center of our image and which are completely absent on the rest of the flag also indicate that the center part indeed was copied from somewhere (and possibly resized). If you want that flag here on the Commons, re-draw it yourself in SVG with your own laurel design. We do have several quite skilled SVG artists... Lupo09:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
KEEP -- Actually, these seem to rather clearly be late nineteenth century (or pre-1910) depictions of the flag, and Chosun Ilbo's only act of authorship would have been to string them together into a horizontal line so they fit within a rectangular image. Furthermore, your deletion rationale seems to be contradictory, since "uncopyrighted" would mean that there are no problems. Meanwhile, it would be helpful if you could use ordinary capitalization and punctuation conventions, and refrain from introducing bogus and non-existent templates into an image description page as part of the deletion nomination process. AnonMoos06:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, this flag is NOT made by korea. also, is NOT official korea flag. this flag made by Qing Dyanasty. not pemitited by korea. so, this flag can not represt to korea flag. also, above chinese character are not made by korea. and image copyright is unclear. if iran made US flag(at their disposition), is this can be represent to US flag? Leavepower09:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)sa[reply]
Comment: There are two issues here. The first is it a copyright violation? If not, image may be kept on Commons. Second: what is the image of? If it is some type of historical flag used by someone somewhere, it may be useful to have the image for historical reference, and so could be within scope of Commons. If the description of it is inaccurate, the description should be modified for accuracy, but this is not a reason for deletion. -- Infrogmation16:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have been some miss understand. 1. copyright is still unclear. according to chosunilbo copyright policy. newspaper prohibited their image and article use. [56] only permit "non-commerical, private use, limited use(not public)" must satisfy three purpose. 2. chosunilbo newspaper imge taken by some chinese museum. which is can not reprensent to korea's historic data. also, copyright is still unclear,too. is this image copyright from chosunilbo or chinese museum? 3. above chinese character did not permit by korea, ever. anyway, this image lack of public trusted, and hisotric fact. this image must remove category from 'korea flag". Levelhand10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two completely separate issues: 1) If the middle and right sections of the image depict what 19th-century Chinese thought was the Korean flag (rather than what Koreans thought was the Korean flag), then this needs to be addressed by revising the caption appropriately -- but NOT by including one of your garbled ranting tirades which convey very little real meaning to a native English speaker!
2) If Chosun Ilbo's manipulation of the image does not rise to the level of real "authorship" under U.S. copyright law, then Chosun Ilbo's image use policy is really rather irrelevant to whether the image can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (The same is true for many images labeled with the "PD-art" template, whose use on Wikimedia Commons is not in compliance with the terms on the sites they were taken from.) AnonMoos11:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
then, must mention it image page. "chinese thought korea flag". this is only chinese side image. lack of pubic trusted and historic fact. must remove category from korea flagLevelhand11:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your idea of "removing category" seems to be to include an incomprehensible ungrammatical ranting tirade which conveys extremely little meaning to a native English speaker. AnonMoos12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there's no shame in not knowing English well -- the problem comes when you think you know English a lot better than you do. AnonMoos12:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I said above?? If Chosun Ilbo's manipulation of the image does not rise to the level of real "authorship" under U.S. copyright law, then Chosun Ilbo's image use policy is really rather irrelevant to whether the image can be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. (The same is true for many images labeled with the "PD-art" template, whose use on Wikimedia Commons is not in compliance with the terms on the sites they were taken from.) AnonMoos12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. copyright law? this image produced by chosunilbo in korea. also, according to US copyright law, ther is no article violation other country's copyrighted image.Levelhand12:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikimedia's servers are physically located in the United States, so that in most cases U.S. law governs. There are probably thousands of images tagged with the "PD-Art" template on this site which were taken from European websites, and which may have copyright restrictions under European law, but which are hosted here because they don't have copyright restrictions under U.S. law, due to the Bridgeman vs. Corel decision.
It would have been nice if you had learned a little bit more about the way things are done here before launching into your full blown deletion campaign... AnonMoos23:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably most people who left comments here know what year or era of this picture was taken. If this picture(s) was/were taken in the late 19th century, the time is more than 100 years ago, and the copyrights are presumed expired for both picture and book. Whether this is origin of South Korean flag or not doesn't matter. This is one of the important historical material and the evidence in certain era. --Eurodollers05:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear "Leavepower", as far as I can now understand your real objections (which I didn't at all before), it's that at least two out of the three depictions in this image show Chinese ideas of what the Korean flag was, rather than the actual Korean idea of what the Korean flag was. However, the remedy for this inaccuracy (if inaccuracy it is) is to correct the caption, not delete the image. The only contribution that Chosun Ilbo made was to crop the depictions so that they could be juxtaposed side-by-side in a single rectangular image file, and this wouldn't seem to establish much of a copyright claim... AnonMoos18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we finally close out this deletion process? I added comments to the image description page to accommodate the one possibly valid complaint about the image that I was able to understand (but which is not a reason to delete the image). AnonMoos06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I'm sorry, but this request really doesn't make too much sense. User:Eurodollers took one of the 19th-century flag depictions shown in Image:Flag of old Korea.jpg and completely redrew it from scratch using different colors. There is no relevant "Source obscurity" in any sense which would be relevant to a Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion. Furthermore, your deletion rationale seems to be contradictory, since "uncopyrighted" would mean that there are no problems. AnonMoos07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, this flag is NOT made by korea. also, is NOT official korea flag. this flag made by Qing Dyanasty. not pemitited by korea. so, this flag can not represt to korea flag. also, above chinese character are not made by korea. and image copyright is unclear. if iran made US flag(at their disposition), is this can be represent to US flag?Leavepower09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I understand correctly, want this image deleted because it is a flag from a foreign occupation of Korea? I understand it is not an official Korean flag, but that is not a reason for deletion. Commons has many flags of historic foreign occupations, dictatorships, self-proclaimed nations that were never internationally recognized, etc etc-- having such flags on Commons is an historical illustration, not an official endorsement nor any value judgement. Yes, we even have as a sub category of the US flags category flags of a rebellion against the government of the United States that killed hundreds of thousands. -- Infrogmation16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have been some miss understand. 1. copyright is still unclear. he said image made by "Source self-made". self made? which is can not reprensent historic data 2. above chinese character did not permit by korea, ever. anyway, this image lack of public trusted, and hisotric fact. this image must remove category from 'korea flag".Levelhand10:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As was explained above, he took a historic image (though perhaps a Chinese one rather than a real Korean one) and completely redrew it from scratch. That happens all the time on Wikimedia Commons in relation to insignia (coats of arms, flags, seals, etc.), and is not in itself a problem. The copyright is NOT unclear, since a nineteenth-century flag design was redrawn from scratch by a Wikimedia Commons user. That is simply not a problematic way of doing things here. AnonMoos11:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think that you did not recieve well educated person. he said image made by "Source self-made". self made? which is can not reprensent historic data. if i made japanese flag with fabricated explanation word. is it clear? "made by me japanese flag" is it upload good? plz, answer me. and i will upload "japanese flag, made by me" plz, do not delete it, ok?Levelhand11:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lack of pubic trusted and historic fact. most remove category from korea flag. must mention it image page. "chinese thought korea flag". this is only chinese side image.Levelhand11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your idea of "removing category" seems to be to include an incomprehensible ungrammatical ranting tirade which conveys extremely little meaning to a native English speaker. AnonMoos12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said there's no shame in not knowing English well -- the problem comes when you think you know English a lot better than you do. AnonMoos23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and this image contain very inappropriate engish word. (i already metioned. not permit by korea. it's only chinese thought.) and same image with 'Image:Korea_Goryeo_ensign.jpg'. this is dupicated(repeated) image.Levelhand12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea whatsoever concerning the meaning you intended to be conveyed by the first two sentences immediately above. The third sentence is false -- Image:Korea Goryeo flag.jpg and Image:Korea_Goryeo_ensign.jpg are different because one of the images contains an English translation of the Chinese characters, while the other doesn't... AnonMoos23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, there are no mention that this is an image of neither the origin of Korean flag nor an idea of Koreans. But the fact this flags of Image:Flag of old Korea.jpg existed in East Asia is reality. Probably most people who left comments here know what year or era of this picture was taken. If this picture(s) was/were taken in the late 19th century, the time is more than 100 years ago, and the copyrights are presumed expired for both picture and book. Whether this is origin of South Korean flag or not doesn't matter. It is one of the important historical material and the evidence in certain era. This is just an illustration and to make the image clear, not as for historical source. --Eurodollers05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear "Leavepower", as far as I can now understand your objections (which I didn't at all before), it's that this image depicts one Chinese idea of what the Korean flag was, rather than the actual Korean idea of what the Korean flag was. However, the remedy for this inaccuracy (if inaccuracy it is) is to correct the caption, not delete the image. AnonMoos18:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we finally close out this deletion process? I added comments to the image description page to accommodate the one possibly valid complaint about the image that I was able to understand (but which is not a reason to delete the image). AnonMoos06:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I'm sorry, but this request really doesn't make too much sense. User:Eurodollers took one of the 19th-century flag depictions shown in Image:Flag of old Korea.jpg and completely redrew it from scratch using different colors. There is no relevant "Source obscurity" in any sense which would be relevant to a Wikimedia Commons deletion discussion. Furthermore, your deletion rationale seems to be contradictory, since "uncopyrighted" would mean that there are no problems. AnonMoos07:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all, this flag is NOT made by korea. also, is NOT official korea flag. this flag made by Qing Dyanasty. not pemitited by korea. so, this flag can not represt to korea flag. also, above chinese character are not made by korea. and image copyright is unclear. if iran made US flag(at their disposition), is this can be represent to US flag? Leavepower09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See discussion for similar images; your objections to the flag seem political/historical rather than concern of copyright violation or other matters of Commons policy. -- Infrogmation16:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you have been some miss understand. 1. copyright is still unclear. he said image made by "Source self-made". self made? which is can not reprensent historic data 2. above chinese character did not permit by korea, ever. anyway, this image lack of public trusted, and hisotric fact. this image must remove category from 'korea flag". Levelhand10:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As was explained above, he took a historic image (though perhaps a Chinese one rather than a real Korean one) and completely redrew it from scratch. That happens all the time on Wikimedia Commons in relation to insignia (coats of arms, flags, seals, etc.), and is not in itself a problem. The copyright is NOT unclear, since a nineteenth-century flag design was redrawn from scratch by a Wikimedia Commons user. That is simply not a problematic way of doing things here. AnonMoos11:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i think that you did not recieve well educated person. he said image made by "Source self-made". self made? which is can not reprensent historic data. if i made japanese flag with fabricated explanation word. is it clear? "made by me japanese flag" is it upload good? Levelhand11:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lack of pubic trusted and historic fact. must remove category from korea flag. must mention it image page. "chinese thought korea flag". this is only chinese side image.Levelhand11:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your idea of "removing category" seems to be to include an incomprehensible ungrammatical ranting tirade which conveys extremely little meaning to a native English speaker. AnonMoos12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said there's no shame in not knowing English well -- the problem comes when you think you know English a lot better than you do. AnonMoos23:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear "Leavepower", as far as I can now understand your objections (which I didn't at all before), it's that this image depicts one Chinese idea of what the Korean flag was, rather than the actual Korean idea of what the Korean flag was. However, the remedy for this inaccuracy (if inaccuracy it is) is to correct the caption, not delete the image. AnonMoos18:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever dude -- both of you seem to be lacking in the necessary skills to present a reasoned articulate argument in the English language (or even to use ordinary capitalization and punctuation conventions), and I would appreciate it if you would stop including ranting tirades on the image description page which convey very little meaning to native speakers of English. P.S. Please look up the meaning of the word "uncopyrighted". AnonMoos11:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok. my englsih is not good. whatever. i already mentioned. and i'm sending elmail to chosunilbo, some wikipedia user did violation their copyright policy.Levelhand11:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we finally close out this deletion process? I added comments to the image description page to accommodate the one possibly valid complaint about the image that I was able to understand (but which is not a reason to delete the image). AnonMoos06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current sourcing which is from a web site with a copyright notice. Unless the uploader has other information showing US Fish and Wildlife services as the owner, the image needs to be deleted. FloNight20:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why include nonfree media (and Copyright-by-Wikimedia is nonfree) if we can possibly help it? The same screenshot could easily be recreated either with the same page but with the logo adblocked, or with a different window. There's no reason why we need a nonfree image here. grendel|khan14:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is silly, Wikimedia copyright stuff needs to be held on to until the Foundation clarifies policy on this, as they have been for about a year. -Nard19:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains the Firefox logo (non-free), the Wikipedia logo (non-free), and the Wikinews logo (non-free) making it unsuitable for the Commons. Rather easy to replace too. —Remember the dot(talk)19:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all photographs. I was under the impression that there are greater restrictions on software screenshots. In any case, it would be relatively easy to create a new screenshot just like this one but without the assortment of non-free logos, so let's just delete this screenshot. —Remember the dot(talk)03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept - Although if a version without the logos noted by Remember the dot can be brought forward it should be used in favour of this image, and thus this one can be deleted. —Giggy01:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I hate to see this picture go, its improperly tagged. This is not a free image. Check out the provided link: the Brazilian Air Force website says all rights reserved. Dalillama02:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Picture is from another Brazilian Government site, which also states all rights reserved. Other pictures properly sourced of the same subject are already in the commons. Dalillama04:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless... --FSHL17:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; I have looked at the deleted edit history on en-wiki and fixed the botched move to Commons, including copying over the image description page content and attributing appropriately. There is now no reason to delete this image. --Cyde Weys22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep; I have looked at the deleted edit history on en-wiki and fixed the botched move to Commons, including copying over the image description page content and attributing appropriately. There is now no reason to delete this image. --Cyde Weys22:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image seems unobjectionable and potentially of some sort of use. If it had information on source and subject, I would vote to keep. However it is currently lacking any of that, so unless that is soon taken care of, Delete -- Infrogmation18:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not out of scope... --FSHL17:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One subject is not identified as a public figure. The other subject is an obvious minor and also not identified as a public figure. Place is not identified as a public place. Absent a model release, or some other information to indicate that the subject has given consent (and the minor subject has had consent given for him or her in a proper manner), and absent provenance substantiating the authorship claim, this is an obvious Delete. That the image is in use somewhere is irrelevant. We delete images that are in use somewhere all the time. The original uploader needs to correct this, and soon or it should be deleted. ++Lar: t/c17:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above similar opinions, and because the (probably edible) artwork being created has not been shown to be separately released as PD. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – it’s from an engraving of the palace of the Duchy of Sora from the 18th century... --FSHL17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Engraving[reply]
I don't want it to be deleted, I just want the name of the engraver to be added. Otherwise, being "from the 19th century" (not from the 18th century, please have a look at the dresses) is not enough. Author might have drawn it in 1899, whcih makes it "19th century", and have died in 1960. This is why author names or at least a certain date or at least a source are necessary. --User:G.dallorto19:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, the author is apparently a commons user, but not the uploader, if they really own the copyright they could release it under a free license I guess, assuming their contract with the magazine had expired. Madmax3212:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the uploader has just been taking scans of published magazine pages without authorization; however I have left a note on photographer User talk:Nikita page. Professional photographer Nikita has been great giving free licences for some of their photos here, but that certainly doesn't mean that all photos Nikita has taken are free licenced. The uploader User:Seven7 seems to have uploaded scans from copyrighted published magazines. Free licenced photos are great; at present no evidence whatsoever has been offered to show that these are free licenced and a good amount to that they've been published under corporate copyright. -- Infrogmation15:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong license. Probably fair use from the Soviet TV programme from 1982 (according to this image's description written by the uploader in the Polish Wikipedia) --Powerek3815:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the cameraman owns the copyright for the image shown on the screen, and secondly, Uderzo owns the copyright for the Asterix drawing 82.82.77.1721:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fop applies, and it appears to be a live transmission that is not "fixed". If a work is not fixed it is not copyrighted. -Nard19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is nonsense. FOP does not apply as this photo was not taken from a public street or place. And who told you that a work that is not "fixed" is not copyrighted? --82.82.68.21622:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even then somebody placed a camera there. Remember that EU law has set a very low threshold of originality for photographs. According to German law the projected image would then constitute a simple Lichtbild and not a Lichtbildwerk, however both categories are protected by copyright. --88.70.20.2513:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is splitting hairs. I don't see a copyright violation when showing a "work" in a photography. This is not a faithful reproduction of a work. This photography is a work in itself. It combines at least four elements (the projected image, the drawn image, and the artist, and surrounding.) Have you heard that taking a picture of Picasso next to a statue or working on it is a copyright violation? Also, we have no reason to believe that photography was forbidden in that place.--217.91.73.24410:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish. The photography is indeed a work in itself, but this is only an additional copyright to two copyrighted image elements: the projected image and the drawing; it does not invalidate those copyrights. The other elements you're mentioning - the person Uderzo and the surrounding - are not copyrightable. And yes, taking and publishing a picture of Picasso next to a statue or working on it is a copyright violation because Picasso has not been dead for 70 years and his works are still copyrighted. And whether photography was forbidden in that place or not has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Panorama freedom (which does not apply here either) is about a different thing. --82.228.89.18010:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, how much hair splitting is there to be done? Do we really need to be more catholic than the pope here? If photography was allowed within the hall, would anyone complain if the said photographs end up being shown? Is there not some implicit authorization? Phoxtrot
Copyrighted figure. German freedom of panorama ("Panoramafreiheit") does not apply as the photo was taken from within private premises and not from a public street 82.82.77.1721:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found it in Canada so changed the PD to PD-Canada which is 50 years and I guess it has a couple of years to go, however doesn't the fact that is not a photograph but a post card fom a photo (thousands made I am sure) make it in the public domain and available on wikipedia?? Just asking as I am not sure either. WayneRay17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
Postcards are usually copyrighted, the same as most any other mass produced printed media. Being on a postcard is no reason to assume public domain. Unless some good reason to think this image is PD is presented, Delete -- Infrogmation18:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is from about 1951, since it has Princess Anne (b. August 15, 1950) on it, who seems to be about one year old. UK crown copyright for published materials lasts for 50 years from date of publication, so it would have indeed expired by now (assuming it was published in the UK in 1951 or not much later). However: did crown copyright cover such portraits? It's not entirely impossible, I think, but I don't really know. Regards --Rosenzweig16:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present it is labeled as PD-Canada. But why? I don't see any evidence it actually is a Canadian work. Marcus Adams, the photographer, apparently was British. We also do not know for certain if it is/was under crown copyright. So I still do not see a convincing reasoning why this image should be PD. --Rosenzweig18:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er. speedy delete, author requests deletion of duplicate title, slap author around with a trout for confusing us with this nomination. -Nard19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the history of User:HANNAN, It seems to me that his images are derivative works of non-free images created by other people and no assertion of permission is made. Jespinos16:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I´m the uploader myself. After a discussion about the licence I suppose that the image isn´t free. I decided to give up it. But at second I will look for the answer if it nevertheless is usable against my today supposition. Could anybody help me with it? --Uschu07:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The instruction No. 437 was a non secret document of the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The DR was a company leaded by the state resp. gouvernement of the GDR. The "autor" of the instruction itself was a team of DR employees. The producer of the image was me, I scanned and uploaded it myself. I´d be glad to read your vote for keeping, because I´d like to enreach my WP article wikipedia:Vereinfachter Nebenbahnbetrieb with it. Other wikimedians, for instance user:Siebrand, advised me to delete. What shall I do?
Keep The instruction and its orders was accesible to a great number of people - not only employees of the DR, but also to apprentices, trainees, teachers, professors, supervisory boards, lectors a.s.o. out of the railway companies. I mean the copyright refers to the contents, not to the image. --Ex208:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The order N was a part of the instruction No. 437 of the Deutsche Reichsbahn. The DR was a company leaded by the state resp. gouvernement of the GDR. The "autor" of the instruction itself was a team of DR employees. The producer of the image was me, I scanned and uploaded it myself. I´m glad to read your vote for keeping, because I´d like to enreach my WP article wikipedia:Vereinfachter Nebenbahnbetrieb with it. Other wikimedians, for instance user:Siebrand, advised me to delete. What shall I do? --Uschu17:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a work of the literature or other arts. It's an empty official form. I would argue that this fails the threshold of originality (by a wide margin). Lupo21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see a description on the image description page of how the underlying book (probably created and copyrighted between 1945 and 1994, of which this appears to be Page 24) fell out of copyright. And even if the underlying book is shown to have fallen out of copyright or to have been PD from the outset because the DR was a part of the GDR, there is insufficient originality for the uploader to claim {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-2.5|author=I, Uschu}}. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The instruction and its orders was accesible to a great number of people - not only employees of the DR, but also to apprentices, trainees, teachers, professors, supervisory boards, lectors a.s.o. out of the railway companies. I mean the copyright refers to the contents, not to the image. --Ex208:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....well I don't remember ever uploading this, but I agree with the reason for deletion and please speedy it if possible. TeckWiz15:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an attribution note on page vi of the work from which the image was extracted, but "obtained from official government sources" != "created by an employee of the US government". And I don't think raising copyright issues is inconsistent with AGF. It's just like requesting a source for a fact asserted in an encyclopedic article. --Butseriouslyfolks04:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Am really sick and tired of bots screwing with military images. Not everything in (name your branch of service) files is by an employee? Does that include captured enemy images and documents? DOD, if I remember correctly, has a large contingent of photographers, artists, and mapmakers and its publications rely less on civilian input than any others in the U.S. government. I have yet to see any image created by a civilian in any work published by the historical branches of the U.S. military that was not attributed as such, making indentification instantly possible. RM Gillespie 8 September 2007 (UTC)
KeepAm really sick and tired of bots screwing with military images. Me too.
1°) Image's title is not neutral. 2°) Licenses are bizarre: Public domain in the description box, GFDL in the categories box, and we have to think that the author was stille alive in 1941. If this image has to survive, this must be, imho, with another name. Hégésippe | ±Θ±16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC) + 17:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source and licencing problems. The uploader has had problems with inaccurate copyright and source listings which they have not corrected despite requests.-- Infrogmation18:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image does not violate copyright because it cannot be used to violate the original copyright. It is merely an image of a game board, not a reproduction of the game. You couldn't even tell what game it was unless it were labelled. -Nard02:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that any logotypes featured are copyrightable, I believe their inclusion is de minimis. However, the image is completely unsourced. I've tagged it as {{nsd}}. —LX (talk, contribs)11:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent that any logotypes featured are copyrightable, I believe their inclusion is de minimis. However, the image is completely unsourced. I've tagged it as {{nsd}}. —LX (talk, contribs)11:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Work is owned by Josep Pla Foundation. Josep Pla Foundation, as copyright owner, releases this photo under GFDL license. It's all, Polarlys. It doesn't matter who is the author, ok? Where is the problem? Please, remove deletion template. Thanks Yonderboy17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the passage says that "This style was first seen practiced by Chen Fake in his later years (1950s)" not that the image must be from the the 50s. Regardless, the statement in the en-wiki article is both inaccurate and unsourced. Chen Fake came to Beijing and began teaching and demonstrating much earlier than this. VanTucky16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image may very well qualify as {{PD-China}}. What's needed is the real source - not just a website that uses it without decent information on where it came from. (i.e. was it first published in China, and when?) --Davepape01:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image has never been published in the West to my knowledge (and I've read about every in or out of print taijiquan-related book there is in English) so the application of PD-China is probably wise. But I am not conversant in Chinese (I have seen quite a bit of taijiquan literature published under the auspices of the PRC, and the image appeared nowhere I saw) so I have zero way of finding out where it came from. Per its apparent age, I think the chances of it being under copyright anywhere are slim. But sure verification is probably impossible with my resources. I'll try and call in the aid of a en-wiki user who I believe is fluent and interested in taiji. VanTucky04:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just found a book (Chen Style Taijiquan: The Source of Taiji Boxing by Davidine Siaw-Voon Sim and David Gaffney isbn 1-55643-377-8) that features this exact image of Chen Fake on its 204th page. Assuming my understanding of U.S. copyright law is correct, this almost definitely suggests the image is alright for us to use considering it is completely impossible for the book's authors to hold the copyright for the image. VanTucky03:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the user's uploads have the text "Encontrado en Panoramio" in the author field. Google translates this into "Found in Panoramio", which I guess could mean that it was found on http://www.panoramio.com/, which seems to contain mostly or only non-free images.
The user claims to be the copyright holder of some of the images by using {{PD-self}}, but there is no assertion of authorship or account of copyrights for such images as national park emblems and professional-looking maps being transferred to the user. Other images are tagged {{GFDL}} entirely without citing an author.
The uploader seems undeterred by repeated warnings and previous deletions and has not made any attempts to communicate with other users. I'd say Delete the lot (about 80 uploads) and block the user if he continues uploading unsourced or dubiously licensed works, but perhaps a Spanish-speaking experienced user or admin could be of help. —LX (talk, contribs)11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The image of lizard is a possible copyright violation, there is a watermark visible in the bottom right hand corner, and no source is provided for the headshot Madmax3203:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not out of scope... --FSHL03:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These user-specific templates are in template namespace, not in user namespace as user subpages. Per Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Templates, 'Users are welcome to create user-specific templates in order to standardise the information they produce on their image pages. Such templates must exist as user subpages rather than in the template namespace, e.g. "User:Example/Template" or "User:Example/Info".'
Template:Ram-Man Camera 1, while named oddly for a general-use template, nevertheless can be used for general use within its defined parameters (you have to own one of the same cameras Ram-Man owns or expand the template to fit your camera(s)), and it doesn't incorporate a standard license template.
That is pathetic - modifying the criteria to suit your POV. There is no "must" - you created it. All you are doing here is creating hassle for me and other contributors. What am I supposed to do - edit 2000 images just to please you? The templates are safe, they're protected and hence can only be edited by trusted users. I'm not going to suddenly mass relicence my images, I think my years as a contributor testify well enough that I'm dedicated enough to the project. You're treating me as an irresponsible vandal who can't be trusted with his images. But even if I did how easy would it be to revert? What this will mean is that instead of typing in Fir0002_150, I suddenly have to type subst:User:Fir0002/150 and to put it simply that's not something I'm going to do. And I'll tell you what Jeff, I feel so strongly about this that to put things simply - if those templates go I go. And I'm serious - this isn't an idle threat of an emotionally charged fool. Wikipedia is my recreation time. And with precious little time to spare with Year 12 commitments, I'm not going to spend my time here if it's no longer an enjoyable environment. I've got better things to do with my time and my photos. Please have a think about your actions --Fir0002www06:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff on his talk page assures me that the edit to the guideline/policy was intended to reflect discussions that occurred elsewhere and not as a post hoc justification of his deletion nominations. He has copied the discussion to that effect to the guideline/policy talk page.[59] I think that characterizing his work as "pathetic" is unkind. Words like "poorly-timed" or "ill-considered" may be more accurate (and neutral). Thank you, Walter Siegmund(talk)17:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeff, leave others the freedom to design their themplates and stop making good contributors angry. This deletion request has no validity. You want to become an admin once? You can be shure I will oppose then! --Ikiwaner11:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright infringement is not the only reason for deletion. When was the last time you expressed here an opinion that leaned toward deleting a file? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually it is. If you reflexively always post "keep" with little or no substantive thought about the issues, closing admins will be well served to completely discount your views. We need thoughtful consideration and discussion, not reflex comments. Reflex comments, such as many of yours apparently are, can and should be ignored. ++Lar: t/c17:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an attorney and I'm not sure to understand what a big issue can be to have license nested in a template but I'm a photographer and I am sure to understand the great value of Fir0002's work. If the template issue is really so important please modify every Fir's image page by yourself and leave one of our best photographers free to do his work. More likely one of our good programmers can probably handle this little problem. --LucaG14:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why wasting the precious time of a TOP Contributor with this contra-productive procedure ? Why not working hand in hand and handle this on a cooperative and interpersonal manner, instead of putting a moreless anonymous "concrete-gray" deletion request on his userpage, to coerce him for a action. For me it is a behaviour like a bull in a china shop, regardless if Jeff G. hides behind all his rules, sorry. Here you dont handle russian government bonds, here you handle sometimes great pieces of art and for this you will not get around without a human factor --Richard Bartz00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requests are not the place to discuss moving templates to user space. Fir's template may or maybe not correct, but that can be solved in an other way than deleting all his images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Je ne comprend pas bien l'anglais et je ne comprend donc pas ce qui est reproché à mon travail.Je suis désemparé, vous voulez supprimer l'ensemble de mon travail (des années! Si j'ai bien compris vous voulez supprimer la totalité de mon travail à cause d'une image dans mon template? Pourtant, je lui ai attribué toutes les licences libres voulues? Cette photo est ma propriété, je ne comprend pas le problème? Pouvez vous m'aider à corriger le problème sans devoir modifier ou supprimer l'ensemble de mes images? --Luc Viatour09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
English: I does not include/understand well English and I thus does not include/understand what is reproached my work. If I included/understood well you please remove the totality of my work because of an image in my template? However, I allotted all the desired free licences to him? Is this photograph my property, I does not include/understand the problem? --Luc Viatour09:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(answer) Image deletion warning
I English does not include/understand well. And I does not include/understand what does not go in my image.
You want to remove all my work why? --Luc Viatour09:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[60][reply]
Perhaps did not you understand my intention in asking that I be informed when using my pictures. It is no obligation to anyone to inform me on the use of my pictures. However I just mention that I appreciate to know when they are used. Just for my personal satisfaction. Is this the reason why you submit me under deletion?
This user-specific template is in template namespace, not in user namespace as a user subpage. Per Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Templates, 'Users are welcome to create user-specific templates in order to standardise the information they produce on their image pages. Such templates must exist as user subpages rather than in the template namespace, e.g. "User:Example/Template" or "User:Example/Info".'
Would you be able to explain me and help me in changing this specification for the whole lot of my pictures at once? I wish this is possible, isn't it? --Luc Viatour10:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please show some Wikilove ! I guess proposing this template for deletion is not the most appropriate way to request a template change ! Jeff, you have to understand that this procedure is very suprising, in particular for people who do not speak well English. A message on the user talk page is IMHO much more efficient.
Maybe Jeff you did not realise that Luc Viatour has contributed an enormous amount of his work to COmmons, that these are indeed freely licensed, and that many of his images are actually Featured Images ? Is this how you treat our best contributors ? THis RfD is, I think, completely pointless and I would really like to cancel it all. le Korrigan→bla11:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is "the most appropriate way to request a template change"? A bot could theoretically make all the necessary changes for all three "Images of" deletion requests I filed today, plus Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Fcb981c. I see that Luc Viatour has contributed many beautiful images and much time to Commons; the big problem is that at present, he could change his licensing in an instant by making one change to Template:LviatourCreditlike this one, and such a change would not be reflected in the edit histories of his images. That situation must not be allowed to continue. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
StrongKeep Let's assume good faith here. I'll take care of adding license templates to the images carrying this template and keep the wish for the author to be notified of use alive. Cheers! Siebrand11:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Siebrand. I'm sorry about angering and alienating good contributors. I was trying to help clean up the template namespace and at the same time reduce the possibility of mass unlogged license changes. I'm also sorry I didn't start with postings to user talk pages. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeff, leave others the freedom to design their themplates and stop making good contributors angry. This deletion request has no validity. You want to become an admin once? You can be shure I will oppose then! --Ikiwaner11:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about angering and alienating good contributors. I was trying to help clean up the template namespace and at the same time reduce the possibility of mass unlogged license changes. I'm also sorry I didn't start with postings to user talk pages. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 11:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I explained Luc the problem, which should be remedied soon. Jeff, do post to user talk page next time; such massive deletion requests cannot but bewilder or anger contributors. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this template is moved to userspace and substed in all cases, it and all it tags should be deleted. This user-specific template incorporates a standard license template {{GFDL}}. Per Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Regarding licenses, 'if the user-specific template incorporates a standard license template, the user-specific template must be subst:ed in use.' This user-specific template is in template namespace, not in user namespace as a user subpage. Per Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories policy#Templates, 'Users are welcome to create user-specific templates in order to standardise the information they produce on their image pages. Such templates must exist as user subpages rather than in the template namespace, e.g. "User:Example/Template" or "User:Example/Info".' — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 10:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeff, leave others the freedom to design their themplates and stop making good contributors angry. This deletion request has no validity. You want to become an admin once? You can be shure I will oppose then! --Ikiwaner11:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requests are not the place to discuss moving templates to user space. The template may or maybe not correct, but that can be solved in an other way than deleting all his images. -- Bryan (talk to me) 20:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The author claims to have taken the photograph -- which is ok to me, but not to have drawn the drawing. (If he draw or photoshopped the drawing himself, then he should state so, please, currently he only claims to have taken the picture). --User:G.dallorto19:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid license, surely we need proof that this user did in fact invent the flag of Algeria ? It seems very unlikely. There is no proof he represents the Algerian governement. Jackaranga14:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, he claims to be the copyright holder of the flag releasing it into the public domain, but I see no proof he represents the Algerian government, and it seems in fact very unlikely. Jackaranga14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not believe the original uploader claimed he invented the flag of Algeria, rather he/she created the SVG file and released it into the public domain, your deletion request would apply to 90% of the national flags and emblems hosted on commons. I do not see an instance of copy fraud committed in this case.Madmax3214:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not copy fraud, just incorrect license, how can he release the copyright, if he doesn't own it in the first place ? There are only 2 possibilities:
either he meant he owns the copyright to the flag of Algeria (ie he represents the Algerian government)
he was talking about the svg image only, but in this case he can't copyright a copy of an image copyrighted by someone else, or released into the public domain (I don't know which option the government of Algeria chose), so the tag is invalid, he never owned the copyright to the svg image
so why don't you add the {PD-ineligible} template to the file as well? People claim copyright on flags and other apparently public domain images all the time, if you follow the posts here Madmax3215:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, didn't know I could change the license for a file someone else uploaded. It seems a lot less strict here than on wikipedia, sorry for having bothered you. Jackaranga15:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So we all decide on Keep? I personally think it should be kept. The license has been changed. Can we remove that annoying tag?--76.21.32.204:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am closing the deletion request, as the original licence problem on the image has been rectified. I have added a npd (request for OTRS permission) to the image page and the uploader's page; that question can be settled one way or another through that. -- Infrogmation20:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be conditional lic based on the statement of the uploader. Based on his comment there is strong reason to think that the uploader would be unhappy with commerical use or the image being used in some other type of non-educational way. Unless the uploader makes it clear that all these uses are permitted, we need to delete I think. FloNight13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now clearly need to delete based on uploader's clarification that he misunderstood and gave a conditional lic which conflicts with GFDL. FloNight02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I uploaded this image. As I understand the relevant laws and regulations, the subject release that I possess conflicts with the GFDL. At the time I uploaded the image, this was not clear to me. Thanks. Ikkyu201:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is somewhat similar to the {{personality rights}} cases. We treat copyright here and not personality rights. Besides of that the person can not be recongnized at all. So as the license of the images is ok I vote keep and the image should be tagged with {{personality rights}}. --ALE! ¿…?07:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being the original uploader of this image, I am the creator of this photo, which would ordinarily make me the copyright holder. I hold in my hand, as I write this, the subject release I obtained from the depicted subject. This subject release is clearly incompatible with the GFDL, as it closely restricts the uses to which this image can be put in ways which are not compatible with the GFDL license. It therefore must be deleted, as far as I understand the relevant U.S. law and Wikimedia rules. In case that is not enough, as the copyright holder of the image I formally request that it be removed, because I do not have the legal right to release this photograph under the GFDL. By the way, ALE, have you actually looked at the photo? Spend about two more seconds looking at it and thinking about it, and you will immediately understand exactly why this photograph contains personally identifying information, even though it does not depict the subject's face. Ikkyu223:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of course that's a perfectly valid reason. I doesn't matter what is shown in the picture (except reproductions of twodimensional artworks). As long as the author of the picture doesn't give his permission, any use of the picture is a copyright violation. --91.65.124.7412:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, Author: Unknwown Source: Google Images – we can’t expect a permission here, photography of a three-dimensional object (monument/temple). --Polarlys13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The quality of files should be as high as possible.
Specifically, this image is just a user-degraded version of this one, a historical image created under the direction of the famous scholar Rashid al-Din, to which it is otherwise identical. It is certainly not usable on English Wikipedia, and I seriously doubt it would have any value to any Wikimedia project.Proabivouac02:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because an image isn't being used on EN, is no reason to delete it on Commons. Different language projects have different standards for images, and the project scope here at Commons is simply to keep all images in one central repository. As for the image alteration, it's standard practice throughout Islamic art to present Muhammad with his face blanked or veiled. Just take a look at the Muhammad gallery. So it makes sense to me to keep two copies of this image, one unaltered, and one with the face blanked. Then it's up to each Wikimedia project to determine which one best suits their needs. --Elonka06:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"As for the image alteration, it's standard practice throughout Islamic art to present Muhammad with his face blanked or veiled."
That's rather different from crudely painting over the face of an existing image. We wouldn't include a historical image which was veiled until a user painted a face over it. We wouldn't include an image with the face of the Mona Lisa blanked, or one with a moustache drawn onto Botticelli's Venus. By any curational standard, the user alteration manifestly degrades the quality of this image of historical artwork.Proabivouac06:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of different Wikimedia projects, with different standards. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a project with a large Islamic readership, to use this image. They can always link to the unaltered image as well. In that respect, I see this altered image as a kind of "spoiler warning," which we use routinely. It's not censorship, it's giving some of our readers a good-faith heads-up that they may be about to see something that they'd find offensive. This altered image serves a good purpose. It doesn't mean we have to use it, but it makes sense to keep it available for any Wikimedia project that does wish to use it. --Elonka17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of Wikipedia project would have a "large Islamic" readership? Keeping this image available infact is encouraging and tolerating censorship in Wikipedia. This is a serious step in the wrong direction. Good faith doesnt mean you have to compromise on policies (WP:NOTCENSORED). Also you're assuming that all muslims dislike images of Muhammad which is not true. You should read this carefully. --Matt5717:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this picture. I did this. It's to show muslims respect; what does a face matter for people who don't believe. Everybody can find the original picture without any problems. If you know you can offend people by showing a drawn face, why should you force a muslim to look at it? LooiNL18:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka, you're correct that several Wikiprojects exist with (probable) a Muslim majority readership. Were it up to me, I am not certain what I'd do on Turkish, Farsi or Indonesian WPs, but on Arabic the choice would be obvious: don't display the image where it grossly violates community standards (or at least, confine them to one article for the curious.) However, this altered one would also violate those same standards, as well as mocking the curational enterprise, which hiding them does not.Proabivouac
(shrug) That's their choice -- use the original image, use an altered image, or use no image, that's up to them. The issue we're deciding here isn't whether or not the Arabic Wikipedia (or any 'pedia) should use the image, but simply whether or not it's reasonable to maintain the altered form here at Commons. I think it is, and that the (altered) image is useful to maintain, to give people a choice of which type of image they'd like to use. --Elonka23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This specific alteration of the image is censorship (blanking the face out). According to COM:PS, "the Commons may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored.". The image cannot be used in Wikipedia and thus does not qualify inclusion for the commons. --Matt5713:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure it can't be used in ALL Wikipedias? English is not the only one we serve.
I would say it is. I could safely say that all Wikipedia have that same policy against censorship, dont they? Its a strong core policy ("Wikipedia is not censored" [61]). Clearly, blanking the face out was an act of censorship. This is why we have been against the exclusion of the original image on the english wikipedia because of WP:CENSOR. Why have an image, the use of which goes against Wikipedia policies? If the use of the image goes against policies, it follows that the image cannot be used on Wikipedia and thus, it should not be on the Commons. Also, this alteration is giving the false impression that the original image had been censored by the artist, which is not true. The reader will be confused as to whether this image really existed, or if its just a blanking through Photoshop. Therefore I believe its unencyclopedic too, unless we make it clear, e.g. with the caption "Face blanked out by digital image tools". --Matt5715:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so clear to me that all Wikipedias will or do have the same policies as English Wikipedia. When a new one is started up, they are not, AFAIK, handed a set of core policies that they cannot change. There are only the WMF policies, which don't say anything specifically about this kind of censorship. I'm just saying: don't assume the enwp policies hold universally. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point but I really doubt the Dutch Wikipedia would end up with a policy saying "Wikipedia is censored if some people want it to be." Besides, when they say on the English wikipedia that "Wikipedia is not censored", that doesnt mean only the EN wikipedia. It implies Wikipedia as a whole, the whole set of all the wikipedias in the various languages. For example you can see that WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:NOT#BLOG and WP:CENSORED too - all are application to the different wikipedias, not just the English one. On that page, there's a link to the Wikipedia Community which goes to the meta. And you have the links on the left of that page (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not), which are links to about 30 different languages so yes it looks like this is a policy page that applies to all the Wikipedias (for example Dutch) since its a core policy. --Matt5716:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Elonka - Not sufficient reason for deletion – is still in use and as an elementary result of this trivial fact definitively not useless.. --FSHL19:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if a Wikimedia project - for example, a Muslim-majority language Wikipedia - decides it is to be censored in this respect, by far the more principled route would be to not show the image at all - and indeed I imagine that this is what will be done. The only two instances I found of its use, besides Elonka's recent placement in Commons galleries, were in the creator's userspace on Dutch Wikipedia and on an article in which, as the primary contributor, had placed it. The chance that Arabic etc. Wikipedias will say, "finally, a picture of Muhammad we can use!" is zero. It is one thing to decide that something violates local community standards and should not be shown - real museums do this all the time; quite another to crudely deface famous works with splotches of digital paint.Proabivouac19:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proabivouac, I think you may have some misconception about what galleries are for here on the Commons. The best EN analogy is "category," though we have those too. In any case, I'm not trying to promote the image by adding it to galleries, I'm simply sorting, as I've done with many other images here. All images on Commons are required to either be in a gallery or a category, but the entire categorization scheme on Commons is still in relatively early stages, so there are plenty of gaps that we're trying to fill, and a neverending pool of uncategorized images.[62] If you'll check the history at Black Stone, you'll see that I even created that gallery back in May, and I've been working hard to find every relevant image that needs to be in that gallery.[63] I've been doing the same at the Kaaba gallery,[64] and have also helped out categorizing other Mecca-related images.[65] This work was a natural outgrowth of my work as one of the primary editors at the Black Stone article at EN.[66] -- My goal here is not to promote any particular image, altered or not, but simply to collect all image of the Black Stone or Kaaba that I can find, and get them into the appropriate galleries. When I was doing my main work back in May, I remember seeing the altered image on one sweep, but then "lost" it and I couldn't find it again to add it to the gallery. Then, about a week ago, I saw it again, and I grabbed it quick before it scrolled out of my buffer. :) That's the only reason I've added it to the galleries. I'm sorry if you think I'm doing this out of some need to prolong a dispute from EN -- that is absolutely not my intention here. I didn't create the image, and I'm not trying to "promote" it or whatever you think I'm doing. I just like categorizing things. :) --Elonka00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This idea to start allowing degraded picture in commons... is one of the worse idea I have never read on this web site. Kelson21:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, different language Wikipedias appear to be using different standards. This is consistent with the information at w:Depictions of Muhammad. All the more reason that here at Commons we need to provide a variety of images, and then let each Wikimedia project decide for themselves which one works best for them and their particular readership. --Elonka16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making a censored image available is just a step backward. Instead of convincing some people that they should tolerate images, by making a censored conservative image available you're catering to the demands of extremists and fundamentalists and giving them a voice. I've told this to Elonka many times but she fails to understand this. What do we do - wipe out Muhammad's face from all of the 15 or so images of him we have, just to please them? Or do we gently push them to enter the 21st century? We could do this face wiping out for all the other images too people - why just this image? And then would the gallery look encyclopedic? I dont think so. What if another religous group came and said they want Muhammad's clothes to be colored green? Do we make 15 more pictures of him wearing green clothes? --Matt5711:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, I agree with you that we should discourage these kinds of modications and probably, on balance, delete this image. But this kind of straw-man argumentation is not helpful. "Push them to enter the 21st century"? Please leave this kind of moralistic/paternalistic argument out of it. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it should be deleted, then please do a delete vote. It looks unlikely though that this image will be deleted because this is turning out to be a no-consensus. --Matt5716:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Like Wikipedia, the Commons is not censored." So we will refuse to censor this image. We will not permit the POV of Western liberals to dictate what other Wikimedia communities may put on their projects. Yes, the unaltered image is better at showing what the original artwork actually is. However, both images show how people perceive the original artwork. Seektruthfromfacts13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is used for educational purposes and its free. When there are multiple versions of an image, local projects are free to decide which to use. In fact, one of the reasons that we have different versions of the same image is because local projects want to use different images. Furthermore, Commons is not being censored when a link is provided to the original, untouched image. Samulili14:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality is not visually any worse than the original it was derived from and when used in thumbnail form (as is done on articles) it will be virtually impossible to distinguish the differences between the original and the derivative (bar the changes to the image itself). As has been discussed above, it has plenty of potential uses on other wikis which currently do not include the original due to the offensive nature of it to muslims. The availability of this image may not be readily apparent, though, as I only came across it from a post at WP:AN/I. The image is therefore not redundant. → AA(talk • contribs) — 09:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The note above already publishes the fact it's been "advertised" on enWiki. Since the original image is only used on articles tagged with WP:ISLAM, it did not make sense to add it to other projects (including Art, Saudi, etc.) I'm not sure what is implied by this comment but as you know, members of WP:ISLAM are not only muslims. → AA(talk • contribs) — 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that our decisions shouldn't just about or even mainly about the religious sensibilities of contributors to the Commons or to WP, but about how we intend to curate images of historic works of art, a point which seems entirely lost upon some participants to this discussion. What remotely credible museum would display such user-degraded (and crudely) images in its galleries? If we host this kind of material, the joke is on/is us. Let's not play silly buggers with Rashid al-Din.Proabivouac12:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not to use these images is a question for local projects. Their utility is apparent as an option for resolving disputes in this area. In particularly, Islamic projects be more likely to wish to employ this option in their articles and it should be made available to them. Also Commons is a general repository of content, I can imagine someone looking for an image that could be used in a country subject to Islamic law finding these useful. No reason to delete - use of these images can be decided on each individual project adequately. WjBscribe17:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artwork is probably better in the original without the face blanked out but we allow alternative versions of files hence the 'other versions' header in the upload dialog Madmax3202:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Providing an additional version of an image which makes it potentially useful for other wikimedia projects is sufficient reason to keep it. The original version is readily available, the only censorship is self-censorship by those who do not wish to see the original. --Tony Wills23:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can envision a project by and for very observant Muslims opposed to images of Mohammed's face and of women. They could use this image. In a similar vein, I can envision another project by and for (workers and library patrons in societies influenced by Christian mores) who do not want to be seen browsing NSFW images (I could possibly use this one at work). And a third project by and for very observant Jews who do not want to be tempted by images of women's bare torsos, arms, and legs. Such projects could use a category tree not yet present here, perhaps topped by Category:Objectionable media. Of course, filters that could enable such capabilities on existing projects would be welcome. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Commons already has plenty of depictions of Mohammed, both with and without a visible face. There is absolutely no need to start censoring these images. -- Sakurambo09:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
kept
reasons:
Commons:Licensing#Acceptable_licenses: "Publication of derivative work must be allowed" - the original file was altered because the need at some Wikimedia project arrose.
Sir, This Picture do not shows actual Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H but is only a cartoon. and is hurting feelings of Muslims. I know you are doing a good job in encyclopedia and i am fond of ur website. but Please remove all the pictures from your site which contains cartoons of Prophet Muhammad P.B.U.H. I will go on to tel yo further about those pictures. Thanks 202.83.172.24507:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say outside Project scope but it is in use, so if there is proof it was originally licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.0 maybe keep Madmax3211:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to keep an image that is very easy to replace if the owner does not want us to use it. I think it promotes good will for the project by not being pushy here. FloNight13:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can remember that I downloaded it because it was free, and therefore still is. The question is whether we have the proof or not. Régis Lachaume01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First uploader uploaded with CC. Second uploader uploaded the same thing untagged. There are too many encyclopedic msentences. Need review. Jusjih14:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we know who this person is? It looks like a personal shot to me and if this isn't a noted person, it is probably out of scope. Deadstar13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not old enough to assume that the photographer is dead 70 years. The subject of the photograph was 40 in 1918. His photographer would have had to die before 1937 to satisfy {{PD-old}}. Would any DutchDanish-capable writer care to fill in their contact form and ask? — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted for not having a source (it can be restored if it was proven that the image is in fact in the public domain) --ALE! ¿…?08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Appears from the hand-written annotation to be a clipping from National Geographic, rather than a work of Pearson Scott Foresman. The donated images are line art, rather than photographs. William Avery19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crown copyright expires after 50 years, so unless it was taken 1957 or before it wouldn't be PD as a work of the UK government Madmax3207:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Big ventral tanks were introduced around 1965, and a standard camouflage of the second plane - in late 1970s... Pibwl22:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha: The user was attacked without any reason, the request was closed by a user who even participated in the discussion. That’s fun. --Polarlys 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC) BTW: What kind of cooperation is it? The word „permission“ appears only in the deletion requests. --Polarlys17:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They both gave photo accreditation for making photos and gave permission for making them (in some countries you cannot simple make photos and then publish them) --WarX19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I completely agree with WarX. Without this permission there weren't many photos and this template at Wikimedia Commons :P patrol11020:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No freedom of panorama (Museum = private place). It is clearly a derivative work. It is not an utilitarian, non-original, daily object --jynus (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The logo is copyrighted. The glass windows is a copyrighted derivative work of the copyrighted logo. The photo is a derivative work of the copyrighted glass window and the copyrighted logo. --ALE! ¿…?14:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The picture is taken of a public site where the shield is exposed and where thousands of persons pass and take pictures a day. I don't see infranción for any side. Tanooo 5:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Requiring attribution is OK, the deeplink restriction is also OK, but "forbidding to clone the website" sounds like a restriction on distribution to me, which is not OK. -- Prince Kassad20:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not valid reason for deletion – »forbidding to clone the website« sounds IMHO mere like »forbidding to clone the website«... --FSHL20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please add a source backing up your claim. If this would be true, I could just collect some (free) images and put a copyright on the collection (but not the single images), which sounds ridiculous. -- Prince Kassad11:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doubtfoul whether the text of a museum can be reproduced on Commons. As a rule, it is a copyrighted text. And Italy has no freedom of panorama to appeal to. --User:G.dallorto17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images are in very poor quality (in fact, nobody can´t purposeful use them) and what is more, they aren´t the main subject of the photo. When i make photo of street in Prague where is also umberella with logo of Coca-Cola, it isn´t also good reason for deletion. --Dezidor19:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Horizontal image when I is supposed to be a vertical one, vertical image already uploaded at 2.JPG Image:Delun-Boldog 2.JPG --Chinneeb05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted by D-Kuru: speedy - now [[Image:Delun-Boldog 2.JPG]]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
This is a photo from the website of Alþingi (althingi.is), they have not released their pictures under GFDL. Also it says "author unknown" which obviously prevents GFDL. --Biekko21:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This screenshot from the Polish tale "Miś Uszatek" was probably uploaded by the original author. I've sent an email to the TV company SEMAFOR and requested confirmation. Pimke05:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
collision with finnish copyright law about pictures of performances and people. Picture moved to national wikipedia Zache07:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took part in discussion on Commons about still pictures of motion/music performances: conclusion was that they are not derivatives, as long as they do not contain visual elements, such as scene decorations. A.J.09:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected copyvio from From http://www.adevarul.ro/, but uploader removed copyvio template and left message (in Catalan) on my talkpage. The image is also on en: wiki but is marked as copyrighted.
Message left for me regarding this image:
Hola,
No parlo anglès, ni cap altre idioma que tu parlis. Veig que no parles castellà, però no estic d'acord en borrar la imatge: Logo noul adevarul.gif, perquè ha estat agafada de http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logo_noul_adevarul.gif
i no se quina es la llicencia, i posat la de "free" perquè realment feu les coses molt complicades, cony!!!!!
::Hello,
I do not speak English, nor no other language that you speak. I see that you do not speak Castilian, but I do not agree on erasing the image:Logo noul adevarul.gif because it has been taken of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Logo_noul_adevarul.gif
and 'not I have not even he|she|it plans|devises which he|she|it discharges to put ', and I have put that of "free" so that really you make the things very complicated!!!!!
User has left translated messages on my talkpage - he does not understand how it can be used on en-wiki, but not here. I have sent him the link to Commons:Licensing in Catalan. Hopefully that will make things clearer for user. Image still needs deletion in my opinion as it is a copyvio for newspaper logo. Deadstar15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the existance of this image, all of the Nobel Prize winner articles on the English Wikipedia now look like Pokemon trading cards. This is iconcruft at its worst and needs to be nipped at the source. --Kaldari23:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm the author of Nobel prize medal.svg, and I don't understand why you want to delete it. What means iconcruft? --Gusme11:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you just remove it from the infoboxes or whatever and leave it at that? Not to mention the fact that deleting it without removing it from the articels will leave an ugly red link even worse then the perceived faults of the image itself. Finally, who'se to say that other projects can't/wont use it. While I can't vote per se, I do find this deletion request rather poor. 68.39.174.238 01:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Further: CheckUsage shows nearly 2000 uses of it on over 50 projects, not counting uses outside of articels! This image is clearly of use on places besides the English WikipediA, and probably couldn't be easily replaced except by a harder to scale and even worse, probably "Fair Use", photograph of someone's Nobel. 68.39.174.23801:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no copyright issue so the nominator's dislike of the image is irrelevant. If he wishes the removal of icons on the English Wikipedia, take it up using the proper channels, e.g. the talk pages of the relevant infoboxes and the Village Pump. Valentinian(talk)11:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you mean, could you clarify? Also odd, b/c on Wikipedia, the image shows, but it says that the page has already been deleted. Either way, it should not be in use. Sacxpert10:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this image was uploaded without source reference by a user on en-wiki notorious for his uploads of unfree images. The GFDL status of this image needs to be reviewed. Same for Image:Verumkai.jpg. --Dbachmann08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User Wfm says that the rights for the photo are changed and that deletion is not necessary. I don't see the change, and I can't find a notice on the website saying the pictures are free to use etc. Deadstar14:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All remaining 3-view aircraft images of FSHL need to be deleted along with the very similar ones that have already been deleted as a result of this deletion request: Commons:Deletion requests/Aircraft drawings (2007-07-29). I have provided detailed reasons for deletion in my closing remarks.
Sad to see effort wasted but the effort spent on these could perhaps instead have been used more productively. There is no convincing argument put forth that these are not copyviolating conversions/tracings of copyrighted work, and the user, who seems more intent on making points than in working constructively, is not likely to put forth what has repeatedly been asked for, so Delete, with regret. ++Lar: t/c13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of images to deal with. Perhaps keeping things grouped might make things more workable? You could certainly create additional requests for deletion as needed. ++Lar: t/c21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is IMHO not necessary. All in all we have to check 72 remaining files, why additional bureaucracy? The images on anatomy are obvious, Image:Brain-Mapping.svg must have been taken from an human anatomy textbook or any other copyrighted source. No “artist” can do this without any template, in this case the “artist“ who traced it had obviously no knowledge in anatomy at all, since the graphic contains a lot of artifacts of unknown origin and doesn’t represent any structure in an adequate way. For its categories (Brain | Central nervous system | Cerebrum | Medicine | Nervous system | Neuroanatomy | Neuroscience | Physiology | Skeletal system ), it’s useless pseudo content. I’d not know which article to illustrate with. --Polarlys22:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. But I'm inclined to leave the block in place in any case. As you say, the licence change seems to be an act of defiance. --MichaelMaggs07:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all per above arguments. Anyone wanting to nominate FSHL's other uploads should feel free to do so. They all seem suspicious to me --MichaelMaggs07:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
no work of the USGS, explicitly statet on website (Photograph courtesy of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany) --Polarlys11:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination, the uploader wasn't notified and this is a borderline derivative. People aren't gonna upload stuff to commons if it's deleted without them even being given a notice. Yonatantalk15:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Derivative works applies, I can’t see any “borderline character”. See also Image:Star Wars Pez.jpg and Image:A Elvis Presley Pez.jpg. Delete As the deleting administrator (yes, it was me), I don’t have to check if someone notified the uploader. All in all it’s unmanageable and there are enough projects where nobody is notified about an ongoing deletion request (and it works as well). Here on Commons, a lot of people from local projects prefer to contact an administrator they know instead of requesting a deletion or listing a file as a copyvio on their own since the procedure is much to complex für outsiders. --Polarlys11:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Poland or Austria. I'd guess Poland. Either way, life+70, unless there's a special exception, they'll be PD come 2016. WilyD13:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This an image of the former president of Brazil sucking on a dildo. Maybe I'm a prude, but I don't see how that can be used in any Wikimedia project. Dalillama01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You had it on your userpage but you're proposing it for deletion? Are you just trying to make a point about something? --Gmaxwell22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. I just noticed that the message doesn’t matter. Our goal is to provide free content, especially for the use on other Wikimedia projects. We focus on content within our boundaries, we don’t engage in lobbying. And yes, there is a difference between accepting the Definition of Free Cultural Works because of individual reasons and subscribing to “arguments” going along with lobbying in general (e.g. “In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed by the laws commonly named copyright laws. They consider authors as god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture, and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies.”) --Polarlys23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A strong commitment to free content is an integral part of our policy, purpose, and mission. For our community to be healthy and successful at its mission a strong commitment needs to these ideals to be part of our SuperordinateGoal. But putting something in our policy alone isn't enough to make it part of the SuperordinateGoal: We must have many users who support it personally, and not just because it is policy to do so.
I'd agree with ditching a box that was advocating something entirely outside of the scope of our mission, but a box advocating something so deeply part of our mission that it is part of the definition of our deepest underlying rules is something else entirely. --Gmaxwell22:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is „Advocacy and promotion“ a goal of this project? Am I allowed to advocate and promote PETA, my favorite candidate for presidency or Coca Cola? --Polarlys12:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point is usage of loaded language to describe something does not further your case, and now neither do extreme and irrelevant examples!. See Gmaxwell's points :-) --Tony Wills13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an image. It's an old text. 20 August 2007 User:Pnpcoelho
I reinstated the emptied page (including a no source template) and fixed user's deletion request. Reason given (no picture) not valid for deletion. However, I don't know if the pdf text is worth keeping for the content. Deadstar11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an "old text". It's a brief bio of a living person. If that person is worthy of inclusion in the pt-WP or the es-WP, write an article about her there. I would say this is out of project scope. DeleteLupo12:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Externally the electrons go from - to +. The arrows on the figure point the wrong way. Use figure Image:Fuelcell.en.JPG instead. -- 19 August 2007, User:Glenn
There is nothing in this picture that states what it is, where it is or why it has any importance at all. It has no place here. 23 August 2007 User:89.104.33.160
keep the image is the only image we have for the construction of Richmond Medical Center, it should not be removed until a free replacement may be found.CrazyLark 21:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)209.129.168.3121:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has no other pro picture in his contributions. To photograph Gisele Bündchen like this, you have to be a pro. Note that the picture is a thumbnail and has a watermark, that was partially cropped. We have other good pictures of the model here, therefore we don't need to take risks. If we decide to eliminate the picture, please ask CommonsDelinker to universally replace it for Image:GiseleBundchen.jpg. Dantadd✉13:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low resolution, watermarked photo. If the user can upload a higher resolution without any watermarks, I'll believe he's a professional photographer. PatríciaRmsg16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Rafflesia arnoldii is the world's largest flower. Photograph by Harry Wiriadinata and Suwito Alam from article in Voice of Nature, v. 84, August 1990, p. 14.
Jeffdelonge 05:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This image is used elsewhere online and (for as far as I can see) always mentions its creators, and no sign that it is free. Deadstar12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a derivative work of a painting by Otto Fritzsche or Fritsche (1872 - 1948), who died less then 70 years ago. The book that this was taken from was published 1902. Pieter Kuiper20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if it's the same painter, I would gladly agree that this image should be deleted. First you have to prove that this painting is made by the artist who died 1948. /Leos vän22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lord), who wrote the book in which the image is reproduced, died in 1894. He started to publish the 14 volumes of the work in 1883, so volume IV would have been published first time in maybe 1887. So if the artist is the one who was born in 1872, and the painting was included in the first edition, he can't have been more than about 15 years when he made the painting. It doesn't sound convincing considering the quality of the painting. However if the painting was included later, it would sound more possible. /Leos vän19:57, 24 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.
Copyvio. The rights on the film may have expired, but not those on the Donald Duck character. Hence: not free. For the fuller reason, see this:
"In Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123,1128 (9th Cir. 1979), the court held that copyright owners of George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion, which was still covered by copyright, could prevent distribution of the film version of the play, even though the film had fallen into the public domain. Similarly, in Filmvideo Releasing Corp. v. Hastings, 668 F.2d 91,92 (2d Cir. 1981), the court held that even though films based on the Hopalong Cassidy stories had fallen into the public domain, a license for television exhibition had to be obtained from the owners of the copyrights in the underlying books, which were still protected by copyright."
Therefore, I do not believe that this image (and similar stills from old animated movies on which the copyright has expired, but where the underlying characters are still copyrighted) were free. It's hyper-annoying, but that's what we got with the Mickey Mouse Protection Act in the U.S. Note that this may apply to other images in Category:PD Cartoon, in particular the Warner Bros. characters (Daffy Duck)[73]. I suspect it'd also apply to the Betty Boop stills, and to Casper, too :-(. DeleteLupo07:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I would argue that that in Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123,1128 (9th Cir. 1979) it emphasizes that the play was broadcast first and hence the movie was a derivative work (and your other example), Donald Duck first appeared in animated cartoons in 1934 he wasn't a derivative work of an existing story book, on the other hand I couldn't find any evidence that the Donald Duck character was public domain Madmax3207:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this image and other cartoon stills. Thank you Lupo for giving the most reasonable conclusion to the case. / FredJ21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These public domain cartoons appear on bargain-bin videos and DVDs all the time. If we don't allow images from public domain films to be used, we're shooting ourselves in the foot. And, no offense to Lupo, but let's not try to play lawyer. BrianSmithson08:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this interpretation. This does not "happen to include" Donald Duck; it quite purposefully shows Donald Duck, a copyrighted cartoon figure of Walt Disney. I understand Mike's comment to be about incidental inclusion of logos: a photograph of Times Square, incidentally showing copyrighted advertisements for instance. Or a picture of a restaurant table showing a bottle with some copyrighted logo. That's something entirely different. Lupo10:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appearance of Donald Duck in this image is not incidental, thus Mike Godwin's advice is not applicable. Otherwise, Lupo's request and citation is persuasive. --Iamunknown14:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a copyrighted work of a municipality, not a work of the federal government. Note: I've made a copy of this image at w:Image:Seal_of_Aurora,_Colorado.png, with a Fair Use rationale.
According to w:Seal of Colorado the state seal was last modified in 1876, I would say this would be PD, being published before 1923 and the likelihood that it's creators (if known) died more than 70 years ago, not sure about the Aurora seal. Madmax3204:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I found a reference on the city seal. This real estate page says, "In 1907, the town changed its name to Aurora and later adopted a City seal designed by Albert Christen...." If I take them at their word that the seal was always a City seal, not a Town seal, Aurora wasn't a city until 1929. So, now we may be past 1923.
By the way, no, I haven't learned when this Albert Christen died, or anything else about him for that matter. -- Ken g616:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The tagging as PD-USGov is certainly wrong, as it is not a US Federal Government work. No confirmation found of this being old enough to be PD-US by age nor any other reason for it to be public domain. -- Infrogmation23:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image has an uncertain copyright status. It was uploaded to Flickr with a cc-by-2.0 tag, but it looks like a press photo and has been deleted from Flickr. The Flickr uploader has also uploaded a large number of other copyvio images with an erroneous cc tag (e.g., Victoria's Secret scan, image from GettyImages), rendering his/her licensing claim for this image dubious. --Muchness05:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
gregore lemarchale (The previous unsigned comment was made on 20 August 2007 by User:41.251.75.191)
Keep Deletion fix. I have no idea why IP user wants it deleted, putting it here for a swift keep cause I don't see the problem. Deadstar08:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image of a nondescript set of chairs is an image of total pointlessness. There are no qualities in either description or subject matter that qualify it for a place here. There is not even a proper description. --18:17, 23 August 2007, User:89.104.33.160
Delete out of scope as will not be used. Deadstar 10:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Comment Categorisation seems to indicate some type of usage might be possible. Deadstar10:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think one has to differentiate between "might be possible" and "is genuinely useful". I am not a regular "commons" contributor, and thus am not wholly familiar with inclusion or exclusion criteria, but surely one has to have a picture that has a real use and is attributable, rather than any old poor quality snapshot? 89.104.33.16011:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nondescript but potentially useful image. I would vote to keep except for the problems with some of the user's other uploads and descriptions. -- Infrogmation17:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is no description of this nondescript snapshot. There is no way of identifying this picture, which is not of sufficient quality or notability to remain here --89.104.33.16011:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you take a look at the users other uploads many of them are of a similar nature, all apparently taken with a cell phone camera, I don't think many of them are useful for anything Madmax3211:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As is the image is not useful in any way towards the projects mission and scope. Unless the uploader identifies that this image is of remarkable significance, it needs to be deleted for it poor quality and being not useful due to lack of identifying information. FloNight12:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nondescript snapshots can sometimes be of use and within project scope when identified; total lack of information makes this useless. -- Infrogmation17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per below, if image is actually in use, I will change my vote IF information on place and subject of image is added to image page. -- Infrogmation14:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepit is an image of the entrace of Richmond Medical Center (Kaiser Permanente), which is the hospital which replaced the first kaiser hospital (which was in effect the first HMO based hospital in the country) its title Kaiser Entrada means the entrance to Richmond Medical Center in richmond its simply reffered to as Kaiser, and entrada means entrance.71.142.84.16519:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The filename, while poorly chosen, is not really relevant. The picture quality and notability are poor. As a pure photograph it is poorly composed and badly executed. It's just a street scene in "Anystreet, Anytown". As a reference item it has no meaningful description. And the term "Kaiser" can refer to many different things in a large reference work such as this (and is also not associated with the picture in any meaningful or referencable manner). No trouble has been taken so far to make this mediocre snapshot useful to anyone except the originator. 89.104.33.16007:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep image is in use on en.wiki, entrada means entrance in spanish, the image is free and has a good license. It is senseless to delete a perfectly good file because of a slightly odd filename. -Nard04:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Entrance to what? Part of uploading a photograph is correct cataloguing. Commons is not a repository for casual snapshots of "stuff", it is a repository for useful, common, used media. 89.104.33.16007:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption where the file is being used is transient. When a file is used the editor using it creates a caption to suit their needs. This is not the same as cataloging a file correctly on upload. This file "could be anywhere". Without an authoritative description of it at source, here, then it is not properly described. It is thus incomplete and shoddy work. Since such work is unacceptable, and since I cannot determine for myself fromthe file itself what it is of or where it is, I have proposed it for deletion. 89.104.33.16009:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also since this is a lesser quality image, it is more likely to be replaced where it is currently being used with another of higher quality. When that happens, there will be no available information at all about the image. I urge the uploader to edit the image description page with a correct description since the image is in use. If that happens I will change my above remark to keep. (I do not feel comfortable doing it myself as I have no first hand knowledge about the location.) FloNight♥♥♥10:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see the relevancy of the screenshot, but typefaces can't be copyrighted, it's not a copyvio to show the windows GUI Madmax3217:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleted, no appropriate source (found via google’s image search), no author. None of this photos of German war vehicles is in the public domain yet (simply because of the date) --Polarlys16:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
The Filename contains wrong name of church (it's not the "Kilianikirche" on the picture); I already uploaded new Image with correct name ("Muehlhausen_Kornmarktkirche.jpg" because it's this church on the picture) and linked to this Bertfried22:43, 24 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.
Why did you delete "image:European flag.svg"!? That was the original with flag colour datas and everything! Image:Flag of the European Union.svg is the duplicate. This flag represents The Council of Europe (original user), the EU and Europe as a whole. Now delete this. I've uploaded image:Flag of Europe.svg. (the same title as the English wikipedia article about the flag.) --William Avery12:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC) (completing request started by User:Ssolbergj)[reply]
Delete: The point is that this flag has multiple functions for different organisations in addition to its position as a symbol for Europe as a whole. It has never been legally adopted by the EU, it's officially just a 'logo' or an 'insignia' for the Union.
Possible names:
Flag of the European Union = Obviously misleading many people to believe it's THE official flag of the EU, and the EU only.
European flag = a very unnecessary ordering of Flag of Europe.
Flag of Europe = Correct according to the intention of the Council of Europe to create it; It does not rule out the European Union; It's the same words as the title of the flag's article in English Wikipedia; complies with Commons naming scheme
Commons shouldn't have duplicates of important flags like this one, so we should decide what file has the most correct (and in this case, the most including) name. - Ssolbergj15:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, this "delete here, reupload there with a "proper" name" has been causing more disruption than any good. For me, this "convention" has to be very well explained and supported before enforcing it, sorry. It is there from the absolute creation of the page and is apparently just accepted without much ado. Maybe there's a very old discussion about it, I don't know, I couldn' find it. To replace a perfectly usable (=searchable) name for some pseudoconvention is not nice. I sort of agree with the principle that it's easier (?) to find flags if they are named "Flag of xxx", so one should upload usable names, but names such as "European flag" are descriptive enough. Even worse is the situation of substituting flags named in other languages by English names, a situation we had to deal with not long ago with several Brazilian flags, even if complying with the "naming convention". Having Recent Changes in several wikis flooded by CommonsDelinker and/or bots is rather unpleasant, that much I can tell you by own experience. PatríciaRmsg15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've myself experienced editors claiming that this flag cannot possibly represent all of Europe, even if it's placed next to the word 'Europe', because it's named Flag of the European Union. It would be relieving to once an for all have a single filename that clarifies the issue for uninformed people.
I can absolutely understand why some people wanted to upload this flag for the EU alone, but it's inevitable that it 'floats' into Europe-articles not related to the EU, and then unnecessary episodes and debates starts. - Ssolbergj16:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, we ought to have just one image. This image is currently used most often - which is a lot across all the projects. The flag is also most associated with the EU - en. article may be changed to Flag of the European Union. Flag of Europe isn't exactly an official title.
Yet it is not totally the EU, the CoE has just as much right over it and they invented it. So is this point strong enough for us to change the names of every usage of this flag on all Wikipedias? Is the odd debate due to the name of the file a big enough reason? - J Logant: 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Every now and then, some people removes this flag from for instance the European politician-stub-template, claiming "This is about Europe, not the EU". Then of course, I disagree and try to revert. I typically write "It was invented by the Council of Europe and represents Europe as a whole, not just the EU." in my edit summary. Some editors get my point and accepts it, while others sometimes (often eurosceptic editors) starts an edit war. I've done this procedure many times, and I'm very sick of it. If the result of this requests is 'delete', we would of course use bots. - Ssolbergj16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair point, though I am sceptical that the name of the flag file is such a factor. However I trust you, and if it helps at all its a good thing. However the bots should be deployed before it is wiped. - J Logant: 19:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done before the deletion of Image:European flag.svg & Image:Flag of European Union.svg (sorry). I maybe delete the wrong file but there's no need of three exact duplicate files ! Choose one name for the file of this flag, launch bots and then delete. What is the most correct name, Flag of Europe?
J'ai effectué la suppression de Image:European flag.svg & Image:Flag of European Union.svg (désolé). J'ai peut être supprimé le mauvais fichier mais il n'y a pas besoin de trois fichiers identiques. Choisissons un nom pour le fichier de ce drapeau, lançons les robots et ensuite supprimons. Quel est le nom le plus correct, Flag of Europe ? VIGNERON * discut.11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess we now can say that Flag of Europe is the most correct name.
I agree with the delete in principle, however do note that in terms of votes it is only 3-2 and the above comment is now another against. Also, have the bots been deployed? On the above comment, I understand your point which is why I wanted to change it before, but there is no other real appropriate name for the file. - J Logant: 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has used a free licensed for this coat, but has imposed some arbitrary restrictions to its use. IMHO these are unacceptable. Dodo08:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious source and copyright claim. Linked website is not an original source, and in any case has a statement of copyright on the front page linked. PD-Poland claim is dubious (looks like a post-War photo from when she was in France or Hollywood). Original uploader on en:Wikipedia has had a number of their uploads there deleted, and not active since November (I notified them of this discussion on en:Wikipedia anyway.) --Infrogmation16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PD-art does not apply in Denmark but this image shows a Danish book photographed in Denmark. Under Danish law, simple photographs are protected 50 years from the creation of the photograph. Furthermore the website expressly forbids external uploads of any text found on the website with the argument that "it is here, so nobody else has any reason to upload copies again. Doing so merely destroys our indexing work".[74] --Valentinian(talk)09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't follow that debate and I'm no expert on French law. However, as long as images hosted here must be free to use both in the US and in the country of origin, this one doesn't make the cut. Unless a Wikipedian takes the actual photograph or makes the actual scan, we have to find a photo dating no later than 1956. See also Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Nordic_countriesValentinian(talk)18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creativity is not a requirement under Danish law. On the contrary, the Ophavsretslov (which we translate as "copyright law", it literally means "law concerning origins") speaks of both photographic works and photographic images. Only photographic "works" are covered by 70 pma, the rest is 50 years since publication. I agree that this is a crappy situation, but the Danish Wikipedia generally rules this way. One of our Wikipedians tried getting something of a clarification from the Ministry of Culture regarding an equivalent to PD-art photos and got the reply that e.g. a photo of a painting without fancy lighting and similar would be protected for 50 years. This interpretation is also the reason why the Danish wikipedia has extremely few images relating to Danish history, e.g. we don't even have an illustration of the late medieval "Ryd Klosters Årbog" or other medieval and renaissance works. Or to give another example, an archive received several millions of crowns in funding to digitize Flora Danica from the 18th century. After that, a Danish Wikipedian copied many of these illustrations to the Danish Wikipedia after which the archive demanded that we removed them again. It just feels wonderful knowing that your tax money is being spent on something useful, doesn't it? In this case, these images were removed again, since nobody was able to find a relevant legal proceding. Which also means that these Flora Danica images will have to go as well. In all likelihood, these images come from the same problematic website (http://www.pictures.dnlb.dk/) Valentinian(talk)19:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
first of all this is a low quality scan, not a photograph, so we are talking about simple digitization, it's true bridgeman vs corel and related cases don't apply in every country but the general feeling on commons seems to be the spirit of those decisions should be allowed for works from around the world Madmax3219:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Jimbo has said that such images *ought* to be PD, but wishful thinking doesn't make them PD. If the objective is to avoid legal complications for Wikipedia, then we can't allow such images from Denmark, even if the risk of legal complications is slim. Valentinian(talk)20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no copyright protection according international conventions. There is no proof that a mere reproduction is protected in Danish law. If the country of origin rule is evidently absurd we should go after US law and the law of the European Union/international conventions. If a Danish court will clear this - fine! --Historiograf19:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The law isn't expressly clear, and we haven't found any nice verdicts to hang our hats on, but the Danish Wikipedia generally only accepts scans made by Wikipedians themselves either from the original work or from a reproduction that in itself is at least 50 years old, in order be sure to avoid any complications with the 50 year clause for simple photos. If you're interested, here is the official translation of the law [76]. Valentinian(talk)19:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You like broad statements, "not eligible for copyright in any country on earth" is an opinion, not a source from a government website / Copy-dan or similar, and "Your honour, I found the law absurd so I broke it" isn't a defence I'd personally count on in a court of law. This illustration doesn't look like a scan to me, it looks like a photo. IF it indeed is a photo, then Danish law is clear, copyright applies to a photographic image for 50 years, no exceptions. That was the last input we got from the Ministry of Culture da:Wikipedia:Ophavsret/Spørgsmål til kulturministeriet (apparently based on § 70, section 2). Valentinian(talk)11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a completely unneccessary action. Archives and websites don't make laws. Archives all over the world claim they own the copyright or secondary rights or whatever to their materials, WHICH THEY ACTUALLY DO NOT. Don't fall for copyfraud. Can you come up with a court case which proves that pictures like this are ACTUALLY considered protected in Denmark? If not, these pictures can stay. --Fb7808:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@Valentinian: Look, if this is a problem for Danish Wikipedia, but not for everyone else on Commons, please try to solve it in the Danish Wikipedia. On de, we mark some Soviet pictures with a special warning tag because we believe they could be protected under German law and should not be used on de.wikipedia.org (e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Stalin1.jpg). Why don't you try that on da.wikipedia.org? --Fb7808:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because images hosted on Commons have to be considered free under both US laws and the laws of the country of origin. This image was taken from a Danish website and shows a Danish work, hence Danish law applies. It would be similar to uploading images from Russia showing Russian topics and tagging them with "this image is a copyvio in Russia and may not be used there." PD-Russia images or PD-Coa-Germany images are only here because they are free in the country of origin. Valentinian(talk)17:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I really want to solve this problem. German legislation essentially says the same as Danish law; it says that every photography is protected for 50 years; it doesn't have a clause which confirms Bridgeman vs. Corel either. But there are court rulings which essentially confirm that simple reproductions (such as facsimiles or photocopies) aren't protected as such.
What we are talking about here (Stub_1771.jpg) is not a photography in the sense of the law, it's a reproduction (or copy). According to Danish law, only the copyright holder has the right to make copies of his work. As the copyright has expired here, ANYONE can make copies. It doesn't matter how these copies are made.
One question: Are there any rulings on facsimiles or reprints of old works in Denmark? Has any Danish court ever ruled that a photomechanical reprint of an old work can claim protection by its publisher? --Fb7807:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the sense of copyright according all international conventions to give incentives for creativity and originality. A mere reproduction lacks originality, this has been shown very diligently by the bridgeman v. Corel judge. There is no reason to think that EU right protects mere reproductions, the only individuality is that of the creator ... who is long dead. ... Historiograf 19:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[77] — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This voting either way will hopefully soon be irrelevant. I've mailed the Danish Ministry of Culture which is responsible for the Danish copyright law and asked them for clarification regarding a number of issues in Danish law. This is one of them. I'll update when I receive a reply. Valentinian(talk)05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defintely keep: Danish copyright law says: (Kapitel 1: Ophavsrettens genstand og indhold: Beskyttede værker: § 1.) "Den, som frembringer et litterært eller kunstnerisk værk, har ophavsret til værket, ..." what means something like "Somebody, who produces a work of literature or art, has the copyright of this work..." A reproduction is neither a work of literature nor a work of art.
It is a shame you didn't quote the entire section as you left out the interesting bit:
§ 1. "Den, som frembringer et litterært eller kunstnerisk værk, har ophavsret til værket, hvad enten dette fremtræder som en i skrift eller tale udtrykt skønlitterær eller faglitterær fremstilling, som musikværk eller sceneværk, som filmværk eller fotografisk værk, som værk af billedkunst, bygningskunst eller brugskunst, eller det er kommet til udtryk på anden måde."
This is a photographic image, and the photographer has rights to his image for 50 years after its creation. Same deal with Image:Princess Louise Augusta by Anton Graff 1791.jpg, Image:Carolinemathildedenmark.jpg, and Image:Codex Holmiensis CE 1350.jpg . On the other hand, Image:Saxo_kallfrag_1_back_001.jpg is in the public domain since more than 50 years have passed since its publication. The oldest version of Image:Grundlovgivende rigsforsamling - Constantin Hansen.jpg was clearly more than 50 years old, so that one is in the clear. The same thing cannot be said for the never versions uploaded. It is not because User:Nico-da loves old black/white versions that he keeps uploading those, it is because they are the only solid legal ground we have. PD-art is essentially two court rulings in Germany and the U.S. that limits the scope of the relevant laws in these countries. No similar ruling has been passed in Denmark, hence § 70 applies in full. The actual work of art here (the book) is PD. The photo of it isn't. E.g. this inquiry [78] about old photos doesn't mention the option that a photo could be without copyright. Not surprising given that § 70 is phrased very clearly. Danish law doesn't exist in a vacuum but is closely linked to Norwegian and Swedish law, and the debate on Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Country-specific_rules has so far concluded that Norwegian, Swedish and Icelandic photos cannot fall "below" the low threshold for copyright. It would be great if they could, but we have no documentation that they can. I asked for clarification about this issue from the Ministry of Culture but unfortunately, no reply. ValentinianT / C21:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. No consensus to delete. Also, it's entirely unclear whether this is a photo taken by a human photographer (in which case Valentinian's arguments would be true: such a photo would be covered by a special photographer's neighbouring right in Denmark), or a scan or similar photomechanic reproduction (which do not give rise to new copyrights or neighbouring rights). Lupo10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
en:User:Atid (the original uploader) claims to be Maryam Ashoori; offhand I don't see a reason to disbelieve that. The copyright statement in itself doesn't contradict a GFDL license. --Davepape02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you look at [79] the license both the IP and w:user:Atid (apparently the same person) set the licensing for the image. People are allowed to have files on their website and upload here under a free license, I guess maybe the deletion request should be kept open until the uploader has a chance to respond. Madmax3213:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No new news on this in 2 and a half months. en:User:Atid has not been active since May. However note that they were the last editor of the image on en:Wikipedia here, adding a link to the Maryam Ashoori web page. Maryam Ashoori was already credited on the original upload. And en:User:Atid specifically says "Hi, This is Maryam Ashoori". I am therefore assuming that en:user:Atid is Maryam Ashoori and there is no copyright violation. I am therefore closing this as a keep; if there is new information or something I missed, please relist. -- Infrogmation00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copyvio, user has a history of uploading getty images and other images that are under copyright. 22 August 2007 User:83.227.73.84
Delete No source, looks like professional photograph. Uploader seems to have made only one upload under this username. Deadstar08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is in-game ice-level shot. Unless the uploader is a professional employed sports photographer, they would not have taken this image.-Wafulz01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image includes personal information. There's no evidence that the uploder has the right to make public those information. Jespinos05:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user is not the author nor copyright holder of this image. He simply "cleaned it up" in his own words (see descrption). He cut and pasted it onto a white backround. Delete as per false ownership. (The previous unsigned comment was made on 10 August 2007 by User:67.68.52.207)
methinks it's just mislabelled as "self", that's all. As far as we know there are no copyright laws in Afghanistan covering this sort of thing. Easyplex
I owned Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.JPG which was uploaded to commons in 2006, permission is granted to User:Warddr for cleaning-up the image, and am satisfied with the work. The images I own are copies of master paintings at a museum, so I own the copyrights to my own personal pictures that I took with my camera. The artist (Tapand) is the owner of the master paintings, unless the paintings are now sold to someone else. I have no idea how that works.--PRTkand01:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its got to do with the svg support on wikimedia. Yhe fonts gets modified to Arial and te rasterisation is poor. The only way to publish a 1:1 copy of the map is with a png. I will upload a png version shortly after correcting the numerous mistakes --Planemad01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author said he was making it for a client. Some confusion sometimes comes here, did he transfer the copyright to them before posting it here? If so, he had no right to release it under a cc-by-sa-2.5 license, even though he made it, and the image would be a copyvio. Komdori12:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded hundreds of free pics and maps but this one has caught the attention of the transit dept of my city. So i would soon be transferring the rights to them. Are you saying that i am not allowed to do so because ive already uploaded it here and the cc license is irrevokable?--Planemad08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can transfer them the rights you have. But not revoke the Cc-by-sa you already gave. They should be ok with it, as that's how they found you. Platonides09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the CC is irrevocable. It has never been released into the Public Domain, which would also be irrevocable. However, since it's not used and we respect and appreciate artists here I guess we can delete it, even though it seems like it would be beneficial to us to keep. Planemad do you know what the material will be relicensed under? Rocket00000:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know yet, although i'm contemplating a design patent. The map thats currently uploaded is also way inaccurate, since it was my earlier work. The map is currently 4mb big and has undergone major changes since this version which ive uploaded. It doesnt matter to me anymore if this file stayed on the servers, but i wouldnt want people using an incorrect map for reference --Planemad10:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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-FrankfurtMainFlughafen-Deutschland-1961-1990.png and Image:Klimadiagramm-metrisch-deutsch-FrankfurtMain-Deutschland-1961-1990.png), 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. -- JörgM08:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source of this image has a copyright at the bottom of the webpage. Also this is not an old portrait but rather a new drawing from recent times since this figure is from several centuries ago. The previous unsigned comment was made on 10 August 2007 by User:67.68.52.207
Keep - The IP user:67.68.52.207, which is User:Le Behnam, doesn't seem to know about PD-old license. He also made a claim that this is a new painting but did not provide any evidence to support him. The image appears as an old pre-1937 painting, and unless we find evidence showing that it was made after 1937 then we can try to delete it. Le Behnam has a habit of marking images with clean license for deletion.--Executioner21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. It's the other way around. It's the responsibility of the uploader to prove that PD-old claims are right. In this situation, it's not enough locating an old-like picture of a guy dead many time ago and claim PD-old. Right information about source is needed. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 21:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since around 70 of his images have already been deleted as copyvios following Requests for Deletion, I don't think we can trust the integrity of the rest. FSHL is also blocked for 2 weeks (by me) having improperly changed licences on many images after the last Deletion Request. --MichaelMaggs13:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my; you can't create a PD image by lightly mucking with a copyrighted one. 70 previous copyvios and only two weeks block? Sounds quite lenient. -- Infrogmation17:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
The original title of the image was: "Bautasten_tynas_vid_So328.jpg" – I'd guess the stone is from Tynäs in Sweden. Rune X212:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected unfree image. This photo was repeatedly deleted as invalid fair use on the English Wikipedia here. No evidence offerred of either PD or GFDL license as claimed. Videmus Omnia03:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inconsistant conflicting licence/status claims from uploader; unless verified free licence from source is demonstrated, delete. -- Infrogmation09:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is not much point for this deletion request, the uploader asserts he has permission from the copyright holder but there is no OTRS ticket, accordingly I marked it lacking permission, if it is not corrected it will be deleted in seven days. Madmax3209:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I am only 15 years old and I do not much about all this. I took a complete permission from the webmaster at www.amalfans.com to use the picture and he agreed to it. Then what is the problem? I have taken the picture with a completely fair use then why is it being deleted? I don't much about all this stuff but then could you tag it correctly for me, please. I will be very grateful.
Whatever your age, it is your responsibility to determine and accurately list the copyright status of any image you upload on Commons or it can be deleted. If the webmaster at amalfans owns the licence to the photo or knows who does, get them to confirm a free licence which Commons can use. Otherwise the image will be deleted. -- Infrogmation15:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where do you see that it gives permission for commercial use? That I saw, it only mentions non-commercial use and requests that attribution be give for that. FloNight♥♥♥17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) Most of us have done the same thing at one time or another. It takes all of us working together to get this stuff right. FloNight♥♥♥19:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that because I don't know the exact source url of the image. I have, however, uploaded a very similar image named Mount St. Helens 05-18-1980.jpg WolfmanSF00:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a single reason to delete this image. This is my own design, my own draw... my own character... what's going on? --VPP22:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
El url que proporcionas no da ningùn indicio de la imagen relacionada a esta consulta de borrado. Tal como te advertí en el Café, serás bloqueado por retirar la plantilla de deletion request. Saludos Axxgreazz (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yo no quité la etiqueta. Quité tu comentario.
Respecto a la imagen... ¿en qué forma puedo probar que es mi trabajo? Digo, ya que usted es aparentemente tan difícil de complacer. Afortunadamente dispongo de todo el material del mundo para lograrlo. Solo diga y yo muestro...--VPP03:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh por Dios, estaba clarísimo... solo que eso no prueba nada... salvo que yo hice el dibujo desde cero. En ningún momento demuestra que yo creé al personaje, que es lo que he venido probando hace tiempo. Es por ello que pensé que tenía que mostrar algún otro tipo de prueba... y, en fin... acá va --> (http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/6942/explorar002lm6.jpg). Aunque juro que no entiendo qué cosa prueba éste dibujo...--VPP03:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya no es presumible copyvio, ahora lo es. La verdad ya no entiendo nada... ¿no deseaba el dibujo completo? Ahí está... ¿qué falta?--VPP03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Y la imagen versión coloreada? Bueno, además veo que no te leíste: Commons:Alcance del proyecto donde textualmente dice lo siguiente:
Colecciones privadas de imágenes y similares no son deseadas. Wikimedia Commons no es un servidor para almacenar fotos privadas de fiestas, creaciones personales sin propósito educativo y material similar. Existe una gran cantidad de proyectos en Internet que puedes usar para tal fin, tales como Flickr y otros.
:S Que si no son útiles para ilustrar algún artículo wiki o en alguna página del espacio de nombres Principal de algún otro proyecto Wikipedia, las imágenes serán indefectiblemente borradas. Las imágenes que se suben en Commons deben tener algún objetivo, mas allá de ilustrar la página de usuario del subidor. P.D: No te gusta leer no? Te pregunto esto porque se nota que no te tomas el trabajo de leer los enlaces que te dejo y eso está mal sobretodo porque se trata de las páginas que definen los lineamientos y políticas de Commons. Si simplemente decides ignorarlas seguiras teniendo problemas por aquí. Saludos Axxgreazz (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No es que no me guste leer o que esté ignorando algo que me pone. Lo que pasa es que usted editó después de esa respuesta donde pedía más datos. Está clarísimo. Basta ver en el historial. Respecto al uso de las imágenes, parece tener razón. Pequé de "detalloso". Quería darle un toque diferente a mi página de usuario y veo que así no se puede. Listo, las imágenes se van. Respecto a la imagen en cuestión (Image:5.jpg), ya está aclarado que es de mi propiedad. ¿Quién tiene el entintado original si no es el autor? Y si eso no bastara, está el proceso de creación... que fue bastante rápido, pero así es la inspiración... ¿no? Lo de la imagen completa a colores... esa es la imagen completa a colores. Lo que usted pide, supongo, es el PSD. Eso es imposible... un PSD es muy pesado... ¿quién guarda eso? Yo me quedo con los JPG y GIF. Los PDS y BMP solo ocupan espacio. Por ahí queda algún PSD en mi PC, pero uno del 2006 de ninguna manera.
Bueno, dado que no hay copyvio de ningún tipo... ¿por qué etiqueta como "copyvio" y ya no como "posible"? --VPP04:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
La palabra posible la borré accidentalmente cuando añadi la otra razón, pero ya lo recuperé, aunque según tu último comentario estás de acuerdo con que ésta y las demás imágenes listadas aquí sean borradas, no? Saludos Axxgreazz (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Desde luego, pero el copyvio tiene que ser borrado antes. Incluso el "supuesto" es ofensivo. Una vez hecho eso, las imágenes pueden salir sin problema porque no son útiles para Wikipedia.--VPP04:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear, apparently very restricted license to use the picture "for material about Dr. Szasz". It is hence equivalent to {{Promophoto}}. Please ask for explicit statements about the actual license (CC, GFDL) that is given and make clear that this means commercial use, derivative work, unlimited copying by anyone. (but {{Personality rights}} are unaffected) COM:ET --rtc07:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Web page explicitly lays out terms that are incompatible with Commons. I shouldn't have uploaded the cropped version either but I didn't look closely enough at the source. —Chowbok18:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this image a duplicate of Image:Daejeon map.png, since they are pixel-by-pixel equivalent except for the alpha channel (in fact, I believe they were completely identical before I had made the background transparent). However, Juiced lemon disagrees, citing different file sizes as the sole reason. Would like a third-party opinion on how to view the situation. --YooChung14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The {{Duplicate}} template explicitly specifies that the file have to be an exact duplicate. It means that any of the two files can be deleted indifferently. Since you have a clear preference, the duplicate template is irrelevant. My concern is that the files have different lengths and origins, and that we have lost the history from the original drawing. On the other hand, I think that this drawing is hideous, so you can as well delete the two files. --Juiced lemon18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason given why this should be PD is wrong. No author is stated, so we cannot know if he is really dead for at least 70 years. Likely published between 1928 and 1939, not old enough to assume it is PD anyway. Rosenzweig20:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KUG is the old German copyright law. Unfortunately, even if the copyright on the image may have expired under this old law, that's irrelevant since such copyrights were resurrected in 1995 by EU Directive/93/98/EEC throughout the European Union. And then in 1996 by the URAA in the U.S. DeleteLupo20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning (sorry if you don't understand, I don't speak well english):
It has consigned that the images Constitución ciudad Chile.JPG and Conti_Playa_y_Piedra.jpg are for deletion of this site, because there are doubts of the origin and use of them.
I want say that those images have been placed with authorization of its creator, mr. Victor Moya Villablanca, whose mail is victor.tomas.moy@gmail.com.
Good morning (sorry if you don't understand, I don't speak well english):
It has consigned that the images Constitución ciudad Chile.JPG and Conti_Playa_y_Piedra.jpg are for deletion of this site, because there are doubts of the origin and use of them.
I want say that those images have been placed with authorization of its creator, mr. Victor Moya Villablanca, whose mail is victor.tomas.moy@gmail.com.
Warning! : please check before that somebody (I.P. address) changed the Licence of the Picture! The first licence as described on the picture was GFDL 1.2. You can see in the historic of the picture that i downloaded the page not from Flickr website but from http://www.dinosoria.com/moloch.htm with the described licence http://www.dinosoria.com/licence.htm
This picture originally comes from Flickr website and was copied from it to dinoseria.com. As the owner of this picture I changed the url and license before, and changed the license now to GFDL. --Retuow18:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No author is stated, so we cannot know if he is really dead for at least 70 years. Likely published in 1932, not old enough to assume it is PD anyway. Rosenzweig20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture (as well as a few others listed here) was uploaded by me, after I got it from the author. He told me I could release it under public domain, but I guess he changed the license later on. As he's active in en-wikipedia I told him to have a look at the discussion. --Carstor20:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's something I don't get in this discussion. The file was licensed as GFDL and cc-by-nc-sa-2.0. So anyone can at any time distribute this under GFDL (which in my eyes is sufficient for commons) even for commercial uses. The addition of the cc-by-nc-sa is only a help for people who want to distribute it in a non-commercial context so they don't have to include the GFDL terms. Where exactly is the problem with this licence-combination? --Carstor17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reopened this as it may be a valid licence. I think more discussion is needed before closing. It requires commercial use to abide by GFDL, while non-commercial use does not require GDFL but something more like {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}. --Digon3talk17:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I still think it's a valid licence (why shouldn't it? It's no constriction to the GFDL) - please also have a look at the (unfortunately distributed) discussions here and here. Maybe uploading smaller versions of the pictures that aren't useable for printed matters and a GFDL licences might be ok with the author. --Carstor23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment & possible resolution I suggest, with the author's permission, that the copy here on commons be tagged as "GFDL", as that is a licence permissible for images on Commons. The text may be added to the image description that the image may also be reused elsewhere under CC-by-nc-sa-2.0. Is that satisfactory? -- Infrogmation00:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the appropriate template, {{badname|:Category:Sunsets of Croatia}} and deleted the ordinary deletion request you had placed. In the future, you may use yourself this method, which is more appropriate in any case of a misprint in the name of a category. --User:G.dallorto10:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Deleted by Mormegil: content was: '{{badname|:Category:Sunsets of Croatia}}
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Redirect will not automatically move images to a correct category. Maybe something like {{categoryredirect}} from Wikipedia should be implemented. - Darwinek12:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One user claims "external link site does not state when this image was published. Or any other info." Another user reverts these claims. Obviously, simply tagging with {{subst:nsd}} will not be enough in this case, and a discussion needs to take place. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there is sufficient evidence that the subject of the drawing existed, that this is a drawing of him, and that the artist is dead more than 100 years. I just nominated this image to resolve the revert war. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No one ultimately knows how old the picture is without verifying the original source. Just because it looks old doesn't mean it's more than 100 years old. The random website it came from does not provide a date for when it was created or who the artist was. The website states all material therein is copyrighted. Because the uploader did not gain permission to use the content, it is a copyright violation.--Ghostexorcist23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, this was uploaded by someone else, sorry about that. I informed the uploader. Btw: someone living in the Middle Ages does not mean that any picture of him is automatically from that time, too. --Rosenzweig08:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"external link site does not state when this image was published. Or any other info." Of course they don't say; because they don't know. Nobody seems to know just how old this is. It's unlikely to have been drawn from life in the 11th century, but it's certainly pre-20th. And the artist's name has been completely lost. The notion that anyone is ever going to challenge WP for using this image is ludicrous. Zsero14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, give me a source which states it is pre 20th centuty. I searched but couldn't find it at all. Even in my library I couldn't find it. Garion9615:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If no one knows who the original artist was or when it was made, it is copyright infringment. The original uploader didn't know any of the background info and just asumed it was old. Then they slapped a free content license on it. I searched google images and found other pics of Rashi that could be used. You would just have to ask permission from the website that has the pic. But if they don't own the pic, they can't in all honesty give you permission to use it. The picture guidelines state you can't just upload a a picture from a random website. --Ghostexorcist20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is already on wikipedia. Giving it a fair use tag is not going to solve the problem. A fair use tag is only used when no free equivalent can be found or manufactured. As I previously suggested on the Rashi talk page, some one from the the Graphics Lab could create a vector drawing of Rashi. An honest effort needs to be made to find a free content picture or to just draw one. Plain and simple. --Ghostexorcist11:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on en.wikipedia. I deleted it a month or so ago. Even under fair use it wouldn't work since we need to know the copyright holder (if existing) for that. But on the deletion debate page it looks like someone saw the image in a pre 1923 book. If confirmed that would solve the issue immediately. Garion9615:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's a problem that many old paintings/drawings on Commons have: they seem to be old enough to be PD, but nobody really seems to know their source or author. And that's what makes them pretty worthless for us and for encyclopedic articles: not being able to verify that these artworks are indeed old renditions of the historic person/event, and not just some painting of a random old guy/battle/whatever. So we need at least some kind of reliable source about the origin of the artwork. --91.65.124.7401:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is to verify that it is indeed a likeness of Rashi, you can be pretty sure that it isn't. It's extremely unlikely to be that old. But it is the iconic image of Rashi, that everybody knows (just like everybody knows the image of Jesus even though in fact nobody has a clue what he looked like).
And the fact that everybody does associate this picture with Rashi seems a reasonably good (though not perfect) indication that it is indeed old, at least old enough to be PD.
Ghostexorcist claims that "If no one knows who the original artist was or when it was made, it is copyright infringment". That is rubbish. I don't know what GE was thinking when s/he wrote that, it's obviously not true. If it's old then it's PD, whether we know the artist's name or not.
Let's get real: what is the purpose of the WP policy to obtain copyright information? It's to prevent anyone from coming along later and claiming a violation. In this case, it is very obvious that even if the image only dates from, say, the 1920s, nobody is ever going to challenge its use. The artist is unknown, its use is ubiquitous, nobody has ever been sued for it and nobody is ever going to sue for it, so what are we worried about. Rules on WP don't exist for their own sake - we're meant to use WP:Common Sense. And common sense says that we're safe assuming this is PD-old and therefore free content even if it turns out not to be.
It's the same as with trad songs. Nobody knows who wrote them, but that doesn't mean they're copyright! And nobody would suggest that their lyrics can't be posted to WP.
It would be nice to have solid evidence placing this image before the 20th century; I've asked several people who might know, and requests have been posted at blogs that are frequented by people who might know. But in the meantime I say that we should go with common sense and keep it. If we do find out that it's more recent we can always delete it then.
Keep I am still searching for a source to date this, but as far as I know there are a selection of drawings of Jewish sages which I am almost positive are PD. They are all of the same nature as the famous Maimonides one which was (first?) issued on a seal in Italy in the 1700’s. I’m not sure how accurate depictions they are – I think they are all imaginary, but they have become concrete depictions of whom they are supposed to represent within the Jewish psyche. (I have been told by a scholar that even the famous one of the Maimonides is unreliable). They have evolved from this one from an antique website: [81] to more modern versions like this: [82]. Chesdovi12:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Maimonides image is definitely old - it appears in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, so there can't be any question of its age. The only grounds for suspecting that the Rashi image may not be that old is that it's not in the JE. -- Zsero14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone that says they saw the picture in some old dictionary or a PD book, please give the name and publishing year of the source. Just saying you've seen it is NOT proof enough. --Ghostexorcist21:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't said why it matters. Even if the image is post-1923, and so may be technically copyright to somebody, somewhere, there's zero chance that whoever that is will ever sue WP. The image is ubiquitous, everyone else uses it with no concern over being sued, and nobody's ever been sued for it. If there really is a copyright holder somewhere, they probably don't know it themselves, or else consider suing not to be worth the effort and expense. So it may as well be PD even if it technically isn't; there's no practical difference. -- Zsero14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted - no satisfactory source. To meet the intent of of providing images we need to be satisfied that the image is copyright free, no satisfactory evidence provided that the image is copyright free or what the source was.--Golden Wattle00:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Toriyama_03.jpg is a free image and can be found not only on Square Haven which is a reputable site, but also on other Akira Toriyama related sites along with many other free or fair use images of him. A simple google image search will also turn up many photographs of Toriyama including the one in question on page 6 linking to the site: http://black-pandora.blog.jeuxvideo.com/22. Also the way it is being used on wikipedia is not harmful to the person's image or financial livelyhood. Also please sign your comments with a registered name whenever possible. --Blue sky 4
Delete That site is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa, which doesn't allow commercial use and thus isn't allowed in commons. --Igno219:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this design was first published in 1959 in the first edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Canada. ([83] gives the 1959 date for the MUTCDC; [84]/[85] shows that it was introduced at that time.) Canada has a 50-year term for crown copyright, so the copyright will not expire for at least two years. NE215:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other variants that I hope can be speedied once this is done. I figured I wouldn't clutter this request. --NE218:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Axed. Others will be deleted soon (once I find them). —O (说 • 喝) 22:34, 02 October 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Interesting point; although I wouldn't call it the central subject of the photo, it's true that the doll isn't entirely incidental (as uploader but not creator, I'm neutral). --Davepape03:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incidental inclusion, IMO. I don't know about the significance of Snoopy in the NASA, but methinks it might just as well have been a Mickey Mouse doll (or some other doll). Not every image that happens to include a copyrighted object is a derivative work of that object. If it were a portrait of the doll, then yes. But this image is more about astronauts on the way to their vehicle awaiting them on the launch pad than about the doll. The usage of the image confirms this: it's used on en:Thomas Patton Stafford and sv:Thomas P. Stafford (plus on a user page and a list of images), but not in, e.g., en:Snoopy. Lupo07:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a puppet, but a plush toy. Snoopy is supposedly a beagle. All of the Snoopy plush toys, stuffed animals, and drawings I've ever seen have had such larger jowls and such different coloring (mostly white with a little black vs. mostly brown with a little white and black - see Category:Beagle (dog) and Beagle for some examples) that it is very easy to recognize Snoopy as one of the Peanuts gang. Also, please note the following:
"Read in over 2400 newspapers in 75 countries and 25 languages, Peanuts is truly a global presence. As you can imagine, United Media must fight copyright infringements on an on-going basis in almost every territory worldwide; a constant challenge, and an issue we take very seriously. United Media's legal team, assisted by vigilant Peanuts fans around the globe, is constantly learning of and reviewing various unauthorized content and, within the bounds of the copyright law, takes action where appropriate."[86]
Comment NASA would have expected people to recognize the doll as Snoopy, since he was the mascot of Apollo 10 and the LEM was named after him. As added info, I've found this article that indicates that United Features did officially approve of NASA's use of Snoopy. --Davepape14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion fix. Reason above not valid as it is not the flag of Spain, but "Flag with the cross of Burgundy. It was used in the Spanish Empire and its viceroyalties such as New Spain." The name of the image is irrelevant. The image is already tagged with a "superseded" tag. However, the quality of the image is quite bad. Deadstar09:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it's my family photos. There are on my site. Many users of commons have own photo. Szymon and Krystian isn't my children - but they are my kinds! Remember that and don't forget abaut mammys anoid: says go and play, don't show your face, stay away all days! I love this children, and I love my wife. We are family-in-step for Szymon and Krystian. Please don't delete this photo it is very independent for us! Joymaster20:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add categories to them. Sourced free licenced images, harmless at worse, of possible use to doccument toys, children's clothing of the era, possibly other points. -- Infrogmation01:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe 26 year old User Battroid desinged the sign logos for the Mexico City subway system The previous unsigned comment was left on 24 August 2007 by User:Infrogmation
Delete - insufficient source, improbable license. World War II aircrafts' photographers are unlikely to have survived long enough to agree to the GFDL, Version 1.2. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay i will try to explain it to you: Karl Kössler isn´t the fotographer, he is the heir of a employee from Arado, who took the photos. So no problem, right? If you want a proof you, just need to use google (Karl Kössler + Alte Adler for example)...--D.W.14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fixed it so now it has a barely sufficient source. The employee's name would be very helpful; so would an actual date for the photograph. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as stated on the image talk page, this eagle is a basic and secular heraldic symbol, used in several coats of arms that are centuries old. There's no chance to protect copyright in a work like that. I'm also curious to know why Lericommons did not continue to discuss on the image talk page about this matter and preferred to harass the uploader. Dantadd✉15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is absolutely no evidence that this specific drawing of an eagle is not copyrighted. Actually even drawings of eagles can be copyrighted. The eagle in the flag is exactly the same eagle depicted in Benfica's badge. The eagle in the flag is not a generic eagle. It is an exactly copy (probably cut and pasted from Benfica's badge) of the Benfica's eagle. --Carioca20:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDerivative off Benifica flag. There are lots of different ways of drawing an eagle, this particular verison happens to be copyrighted by Benfica. Upload localy to it.wiki under a fair use rationale and delete here. /Lokal_Profil02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I almost deleted this because it is exactly the same as the eagle in the Benifica flag. You can even see that it was copy 'n' pasted (with a little altercation). However, two things stopped me.
Who knows that the eagle is copyrighted? Copyrighted flags/heraldry contain tons of Public Domain images. It's the other parts of the image and how it's composed that gives them copyright holder status. Yet this doesn't mean the original image is no longer PD. I think this is a common example of copyrighted works that incorporate PD material.
Don't know how it.wiki is about Fair Use but looking at most of the uses of this flag I'm guessing that it could be replaced by a white and read flag (such as Image:600px Rosso e Bianco.png) without the eagle. Similar to other "fantasy fotball flags" used on it.wiki. /Lokal_Profil14:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:09, 24 December 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It is made to induce a confusion with a protected trademark, hence it is infringing trademark laws the same way as the original logo, but one cannot say "fair use" any more. By the way the association of colours might be protected as well (if I were working for Microsoft, I would just file it for protection). It is used in w:en:Template:User Offices and w:fr:Modèle:Utilisateur Windows (user boxes, about 150 users included these templates) and w:en:Template:Windows-game-stub (main domain, grand total 1 page). --Jérôme06:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
copyright: the Windows logo design is copyrighted as any other original piece of art. It is not legal to publish such a derivative work or plagiarism without the consent of the copyright holder.
usefullness for the project: We already have all necessary official logos on local Wikipedias and trademark regulations allow us to use them. Why use a questionable image on Commons in these conditions? See en:Image:Microsoft Windows.svg
Legally, there is no "copyright" any more in the US - if you want to discuss of legal situations, this term has no legal content. The "right to copy" is involved in several legal fields, not limited to the artistic domain, and with possible different solutions. The correct designation is "author's right" for artistic creations, and "trade marks" for trade marks. Ubi lex distinguit, distinguere debemus.
Since it's only used on en: and fr:, where logos are admitted, there is indeed no mandatory need for it on commons at present (well - so what?).
Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses indeed states that "Copyrighted symbols, logos, etc" are not allowed, which is ambiguous. Of course, if something is copyrighted, it may not be reproduced, this is always true. But on the other hand, the author's right protection generally does not apply on symbols, so it is in fact meaningless at least for that part. This shows that the sentence has been written without paying attention to the real content, and that content is discussed below. Michelet-密是力08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most distinctive difference is that the 'window' in the Windows logo is curved in a 'flag' shape; this is not. Also:
The colours are different -
these are just the standard HTML colors - lightskyblue, green, yellow and a modified version of red to look more orange.
The colors since Windows 95 have various gradients on them in the original; these don't, they are just the solid color.
The 'window' in the Windows logo's corners are at right-angles; these are curved.
The 'window' in some Windows logos since Windows 95 is rotated about 20 degrees; this is straight.
The 'window' in the Windows logo since Windows XP has no border.
The Windows Logo includes text, this doesn't. Actually, the logo is used for various other purposes including Windows Media Center, in addition to the fact that there are two trademark signs in the image... one for the logo and one for the name Windows.
Commons policy: Commons is for free (speech) content. This image is not free because the underlying design is protected by laws. Like if you wanted to draw an alternative picture of Mickey Mouse (or some other cartoon of your choice). Although you may do it yourself with your own software, the result is not "free" and can only be used in cases specified by law (e.g. for parody)Careful however, this example is for copyright, not for trademark. If it's not free, it's not for Commons.
Legal problem: If you want to use a logo, you can use the original one, in the conditions of the laws of your country, if there is some form of "fair use" allowed for trademarks. But this one illegally plagiates a design intended to identify a protected trademark, using a (probably) protected association of colours. It may confuse their clients with other things... They can complain, at least in some countries. This is why it should go, if anywhere, on local wikipedia projects, not on Commons.
KeepJérôme's arguments are beside the point. (1)=this is the same problem as for seals, flags, or any official sign, for instance. Commons policy is to accept free licences. When a restriction is imposed by law or international conventions, this is as free as we can get, and that's accepted. (2)=the "kind of fair use" is the Paris international convention on trade marks, which is not coutry-dependent. ♦ Indeed, usages of trademark in such conditions as to induce a confusion with the real thing is illegal everywhere, but then, the usage is made under the user's responsability - this is not the case here. As for wikipedia, there is no legal problem, as long as the usage is encyclopedical and respects the NPOV rule. And if some usage of a logo may create a problem on WP, then it is the usage that should be condemned, not the logo which is neutral by itself. ♦ Indeed, the real logo would have been a better solution, but then, it does not exist in .svg format. As long as the differences are non noticeable, it is as good as the real thing. Michelet-密是力14:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure enough, but where is it said that a trademark has the same legal regime as an artistic creation? The protection of trademarks is not that of copyrights. They belong to two different domains, the Paris convention (trademarks) and the Berne convention (artistic property right). There is no reproduction restriction on trademarks as such, only usage restrictions (see esp. Paris convention, art. 10bis) - which a contrario implies that reproduction of trademarks is generally allowed, if not for unfair competition. Michelet-密是力15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trademark and copyright are indeed different, and this logo is protected by both.
As of copyright, this is a derivative work or a plagiarism of an artistic work. It cannot be published without the agreement of the original authors.
As of trademark, this logo prejudicates Microsoft's image because it may confuse their clients with different products, or have them think that the official logo has changed, etc. IANAL, but I think this is arguable enough in front of a Court.
The argument that "it [the original logo] does not exist in .svg" is not relevant on a wiki, and is false in this case—the image exists (on local Wikipedias according to their policies on the subject), see en:Image:Microsoft_Windows.svg. If you check for the same image on fr:, you will read a message that says that states that one should NOT transfer it to Commons because it would be deleted.
So you are not a lawer, OK - then stop publishing uneducated opinions, and respect legal facts. Have a look at this document (issued by the Belgian prime minister...) that says that such logo reproduction may be legal for international laws and conventions. I assume at gouvernemental level they do have competent lawers, and this may be convincing enough for you? ♦ The reproduction by itself is not illegal, but being a logo, some usages are restricted by law - Indeed, see above. ♦ The warning in fr: reflects what fr: thinks. The policy on Commons is not decided on fr:, this is not a relevant argument. ♦ BTW, there is no definite Commons policy on logo... The one you describe has been in fact imported from en:, without being examined, and is not relevant as such (The policy on Commons is not decided on en: as well...). It is largely due to the misconception described on en:template:logo that logo reproduction = fair use exception : this is clearly nonsense as far as the real legal situation is concerned (but understandable, because fair use is an accepted exception on en:, that's why...).
I perfectly understood that one can use trademark-protected logos, that's why I suggest to use the original one, which you already pointed above as a "better solution". You can have a look at the "updated" version of my arguments above, which try to take into account your preceding remarks, and reply on them directly.
My proposal was made by good faith after reading the policies of the projects I participate in, in the languages I understand. All the policies written down at the moment point in the same way. You negates the validity of both local wikipedias' policies and existing Commons' policy... because you don't agree with them and with the way they were discussed. In other words, you would like Wikipedia and Commons to be something different than what they are. Luckily enough, we are on a wiki, so changing this is possible as soon as a consensus is reached. So I urge you to discuss new rules with the community on the appropriate page for each one of those projects.
I had a look at document you mention, unfortunately I still don't understand your argument. Could you point out the sentence that you are referring at? §188, p. 64, states that the Windows logo is original enough to be protected by copyright. This is the first and most important of my arguments: one cannot publish a derivative work or a plagiarism of this design without consent of the original author. The protection by trademark does not cancel this one (as stated at the last sentence of the same §188).
Quite right. Michelet, at least in the U.S. it is possible that something is both copyrighted and trademarked. It's not an exclusive-or. Lupo20:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an intersting case study, and arguments on logos are too often made of "fear and confusion" which I don't like. So, sorry if I'm agressive :( it's nothing personnal, of course!
The document discusses the case of trademarks at §192 p. 64; the intersting sentence is "On admet également qu'il peut y avoir “juste motif” justifiant l'utilisation de la marque d'un tiers lorsque celui qui utilise ce signe peut se prévaloir d'un droit propre qui prévaut sur le droit à la marque, tel que par exemple le droit à la liberté d'expression" (=A reckognised "just motive" justifying the use of a mark by a third party is when the one who uses this sign can back on a specific right which prevails over the law on trademark, such as for example the right to freedom of expression).
It is indeed possible that the same logo be protected both by artistic property, and by trademark regulations - clear enough. But the point is, for logos, these protections are never inforced in the same contexts. Artistic property will be considered if there is a conflict between the artist and the compagny that uses the logo as its ows, and only in that case; whereas trademark regulation is considered if there is a conflict between the company and a third party. Artistic property right is never considered in this latter case, so for "the rest of the world", it can be considered as nonexistent in effect - OK, this is a de facto argument, but this seems to be the international and constant jurisprudence.
You can't speak of a "licence" (or "fair use" legal regime) for the artistic work in that case, but only mention usages permissions (as long as it is not an "unfair practice") and legal restrictions of use of a logo. And of course, this only holds for the logo as defined by the compagny to be a logo, used as such and unmodified (which is why the real thing is imho mutch better than a reproduction). Michelet-密是力06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Artistic property will be considered if there is a conflict between the artist and the compagny that uses the logo as its ows, and only in that case; whereas trademark regulation is considered if there is a conflict between the company and a third party. Artistic property right is never considered in this latter case,..." Can you provide a source for this broad claim?
Lupo, you are really gifted to find relevant and interesting materials, this article is indeed passionating (as usual, & thanks). But I'd say it backs my point of view (as usual...;o): the "chanelling rule" is to keep things separate, the supreme court tends to reject protection overlaps between the three protection fields (artistic rights, patents, and trade marks) meaning in our case (assuming it can be applied) that a logo is essentially a logo and the artistic part of it can be forgotten. And, quote, "the distinctive Coca-Cola script is protectable as trade dress but it would not be considered original for purposes of copyright law" opens new perspectives as to the level of tolerance we may have.
Actually, the discussion of the article is mostly the other way round: Mickey mouse being protected as a trademark, not the Disney logo being protected as an artistic creation. But this does comforts me in my analysis: if permitted by a local commons policy, logos must be restricted to a logo usage (representation of an entity), otherwise we would fall outside the trademark reproduction permissions. Furthermore, only logos (the specific design as officially adopted by the rightholder to represent an entity or a product) can be admitted, not trademarks in the general meaning (which encompasses the "Mickey" or "McDonald-look-and-feel" kind of protection - clearly out of this discussion). Michelet-密是力09:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Hi, Lupo - let's argue, as usual ;o)) No synthetic source (so far...), sorry, but the result of all jurisprudential data I could find on logo usages. Most of the legal cases are about "unfair usage" with respect to trademark regulations (I'd say - 98%?). You can (painfully) find some cases of artistical property evaluated of logos - always between the artist and the company. Still looking for a counter-example, but ... see below (= hoffnungslos, that is the word my german teacher kept telling me... wonder what it means ;o).
As far as doctrine is concerned, this makes sense, because of legal security concerns: the decision of a company to use a given picture as a logo should enable everybody to use it as such, with full-fledged logo attributes, whatever the artistic originality may have been - meaning that the "logo status" should ipso facto hide (encapsulate?) any other intellectual property rights in the relationships of the company with respect to third parties, making artistic property right a legal problem strictly confined to the relationships between the artist and the company.
In practice, there is very little chance such a legal case may ever arise, that would permit to check theory against practice: Owners of logo are very happy to use the regulations on trademarks, which fits their needs, and don't care about usages permitted by trademarks regulations - these are "none of their business", that's why they are permitted in this context. Designers of logos are very happy to be paid by a commercial company (that is where the money is!), to sue them if there is the slightest misunderstanding, and they don't care about third-parties usages of their works that are de facto non-commercial. Furthermore, once "unfair commercial competition" or "depreciative usage" is excluded (and I'm OK to exclude that, of course!), all third-party usages of logos taken as logos (not work of arts) will fall into the "freedom to inform" kind of publication, that is legal anyway. So imho there is not the slightest chance of ever finding a third-party usage of a logo, that would be legitimate as a logo usage, but condemned because of author's property rights. Maybe a blind spot of mine, I just can't imagine how such a trial would be possible (that is, of course, with a chance of success).
Now, does that mean that a logo reproduction (even if an artistic creativity may be identified) in wikipedia (assuming logo restrictions are respected) is acceptable (and of course, not legally dangerous)? IMHO yes, although the (inter-)national legal context may be practically undefined in that case. Once a "logo warning" has been made (to remind the user of internationally accepted restrictions on logo usages), as long as the usage on wikipedia conforms to these restrictions, any usage on WMF will fall under the "right to inform" exception, so there is no basis for a trial against WMF. Any similar encyclopedic usage (even commercial) will benefit from the same exception. And badly transformed derivative works made using WP will be made under their author's responsibility: you are free to use it, but you are responsible for your deeds, a free license is not an excuse for irresponsibility.
Maybe that we, in accordance with that Belgian document (very useful, too, thank you), consider the Windows logo to be copyrighted and this redrawn version a derivative work of the real thing? Not to speak of the fact that it's stupid to test the edges for something as insignificant as this image, which appears to be used only in a user box at the English and French Wikipedia? (checkusage doesn't work for me right now: "User 'daniel_www' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource". I manually checked en, fr, de, ru, es, and it.) DeleteLupo20:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have now modified it so that it is even less copyright inflicting and included a 'rationale' of why it is free (i have also updated again the stats on usage, due to it's recent inclusion in one userbox that had lost it's images to deleetion it is now used on 998 pages (you can check, the pages it is used on are here) )
The most distinctive difference is that the 'window' in the Windows logo is curved in a 'flag' shape; this is not. Also:
The colours are different -
these are just the standard HTML colors - lightskyblue, green, yellow and a modified version of red to look more orange.
The colors since Windows 95 have various gradients on them in the original; these don't, they are just the solid color.
The 'window' in the Windows logo's corners are at right-angles; these are curved.
The 'window' in some Windows logos since Windows 95 is rotated about 20 degrees; this is straight.
The 'window' in the Windows logo since Windows XP has no border.
The Windows Logo includes text, this doesn't. Actually, the logo is used for various other purposes including Windows Media Center, in addition to the fact that there are two trademark signs in the image... one for the logo and one for the name Windows.
Keep See Image:Crystal Clear app kllckety.png and similar cases. If someone was genuinely using this on a commercial product, given past trademark actions by MS I'm sure they would have a case. It is indeed derivative, but not in such a way as to merit deletion. Further, the likelihood of MS caring is nil. Paliku21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great example of another image similar to the various Windows logos used: [87]. I don't see Microsoft chasing them down, this should be fine. Akoi Meexx18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a copyrighted work and thus unsuitable for Commons; date of creation unknown. The previous unsigned comment was added on 27 August 2007 by User:BrokenSphere
Photo with such exposure time can't be made in this light conditions. The picture may be not under PD. Photo ist from [88] (background) --Conny07:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Stéphane Bertrand himself and this photo was taken by my friend Eric Soulier. The person who send the photo on Wikipedia ask me before sending it!
Eric soulier and i agree with the fact to leave up the copyright. For more questions : http://www.ericsoulierphoto.com/
Please stop deleting photos from this user who just help me and my work on Wikipedia, i totally agree with someone who want to speak about my music.
Best regards,
Stéphane bertrand
In that case, send a release per e-mail to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org, explaining to which images it applies (give the URLs) and clearly stating that Eric Soulier and you place these images in the public domain. Thank you. (Malheureusement, cette excercise est nécessaire. Nous recevons trop d'images tirées de n'importe où du web, avec des licenses n'importe quoi.) Lupo20:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merci mais je n'arrive pas à accéder à ce service. je crois que je vais jetter l'éponge, votre procédure est bien trop complexe!
Encore une fois cette image à toute ma permission ainsi que celle de Eric Soulier (qui je vous le signale encore une fois est mon photographe EXCLUSIF).
Stéphane Bertrand
P.S Aucun copyright n'est violé donc je n'ai pas à vous prouver quoi que ce soit, cette image est libre de droit à ce que je sache...
Trop de parano engendre des cas étrange. C'est bien dommage.
Qu'un pro nous accuse d'être "parano" n'est pas vraiment professionel. L'adresse e-mail ci-dessus devrait vraiment fonctionner, faudrait bien sûr remplacer " AT " par "@" et " DOT " par "." Quoi qu'il en soit, j'ai envoyé un mél à Eric Soulier. (E-mail to Eric Soulier sent.) Lupo08:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Superseded' is not a sufficient reason for deletion. If you are sure the name is wrong add {{Bad name|suggested_filename (without Image: prefix)|reason}}, and also add PR118 to the image description. --Tony Wills21:29, 28 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.
Sculptor Ville Vallgren died in 1940, less than 70 years ago. Licensing Finland: "Photos of works of art exhibited in public spaces can only be used for non-commercial purposes, unless it is clear that the work is not the main subject in the photo (freedom of panorama)." --131.177.136.83 07:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC) (forgot to log in.) --Ekeb07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd seem you're right. And there seems to be other similar problematic photos of statues as well. Though, since the GFDL requires that modification to the original img be permitted, is all we need a larger image where the statue is not the main subject? --Lumijaguaari(моє обговорення)19:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use image from the English Wikipedia. Old German postcard from 1933-1943, so no reason to assume that it is in the public domain. --91.65.124.7402:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm - The source website specifically says "This work is licensed under cc-by-sa-2.5" - but the context is very unclear on what "This work" means. It's hard to tell if it's the text, or includes the images or what. WilyD14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a blog. There are many blogs out there that have a CC-license, but that usually only refers to the author's posts and it shouldn't be assumed that each and every image used on such a blog was released by its copyright holder under this license too. --91.65.124.7414:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehttp://ca.encarta.msn.com/media_701508969/Arthur_Miller.html - Encarta uses the image, says it's from Bernard Gotfryd/Archive Photos/Getty Images - given that Gotfryd was a news photographer [89] it seems likely he or newsweek owns the copyright to the photo. He was alive in '83 at least. Seems very unlikely to be cc-by-sa-2.5, but an understandable mistake. WilyD17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph does not appear to be the work of the uploader here or at en.WP. It was deleted there due to this discussion. (Disclaimer: I initiated the original discussion!) I recommend it be deleted here. Iamunknown19:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even photos taken in Germany pre-1940 are still copyrighted if the author didn't die more than 70 years ago. And without any source or author that's hard to verify. --91.65.124.7402:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the source website: "I found this JPEG years ago on the website of Forest J. Ackerman's publishing company, Sense of Wonder Press." Doesn't sound like "Copyrighted free use". --91.65.124.7403:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whats wrong with the CC-BY-SA license? I don't think that licence should be any reason for removal from Wikimedia commons!--Trounce17:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. This image is a clear violation of the copyright in both the wording and the images shown on the hoardings. The photo was taken in the US, which has no Freedom of panorama exception that would allow this image to remain here. As the FOP page says, "For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork". Other images mentioned above may be objectionable for the same reason, but that will depend on the country, as local laws differ. In any event, the fact that The Commons has images that should never have been uploaded does not require the closing admin to justify keeping each one. Bear in mind, also, that this is not a vote: images are kept or deleted based upon legal arguments so far as possible, not on the number of people who turn up to express a personal opinion. MichaelMaggs 20:18, 30 November 2007
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep This is part of the featured picture candidate discussion, and as such should be retained for the archive. Bad edits are just a much part of the image history as good ones. The only reason to delete it would be to save space, and I don't think we're into that :-). --Tony Wills21:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case of no deletion, could I change the caption in "Something that don't look like Salar De Uyuni" and the author name in "Absolutely not Luca Galuzzi"? Sorry but I'm embarrassed to show that thing with my name on. --LucaG21:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did some editing on the image page saying that the image does not accurately show the colors of salt plains and made it plain that it was a edit by Wj32. --Digon3talk15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, author information removed (see also section 4a of the license: If You create a Derivative Work, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Derivative Work any credit as required by clause 4(c), as requested.) -- Bryan (talk to me) 12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
It looks like an audio sample of a copyrighted material. It should be sent to English Wikipedia or a similar site allowing fair use. (The description is in French.) Jusjih16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reason for deletion) --Anonymous Powered11:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I misunderstand its name. This flower is not Lycoris squamigera.
I studying this true name now. I find it, and re-upload it again.[reply]
Keep When you find the correct name re-upload it and add {{Bad name|correctly named image}} template to this one. Meanwhile edit the description to point out that it is misnamed. --Tony Wills22:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used on any project and is the only contribution of the uploader. Since these are obviously young-ish people, I think we need to be extra cautious about using this image without sure permission. So delete unless uploader can clarify the situation. FloNight♥♥♥00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In June, I requested more info from user regarding deletion requests for this and the below files (same reason was given for all), and it has not been forthcoming. So I vote to keep as there is no valid reason given for deletion.
Keep I can't see any problem with the image. Just because an improved version of an image exists doesn't mean the previous version should be deleted--Trounce13:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it were published first in the USA. As this is apparently Austria, no. So what is the relevent law for anon photos from 1915 by Austrian law? -- Infrogmation20:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Przemyśl is located in modern Poland, so Austro-Hungarian/Austrian law can no longer hold any jurisdiction there. The relevant law must be the Polish one. ValentinianT / C13:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out two years ago there is no indication that the artist (someone called Arnþór if I'm reading right) ever had any intention of allowing derivative works of his artwork to be released under a free licence. The permission of the tavern owner is not relevant unless he held the rights to the artwork and there is no indication of that. Even if he held the rights giving a permission to take a photograph is not the same as giving a permission for that photograph to be distributed under a free licence. --Haukurth09:39, 28 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.
User:D-slay believes this is a derivative work. The face of Donald Duck could possibly be copyrighted. But if this was cut away in whole or part would it then still be deriavtive? --|EPO|da:15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm minded to close this discussion as delete given that the image would be substantially different were it not for the inclusion of the Donald Duck image and that the image is comprised of video comic book covers which will also be copyrighted by their respective owners, including The Disney Company, which makes this image a derivative work, and the same would apply even without the Donald Duck face.Nick13:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument. But a minor detail: It is not video covers, but comic books covers. Though these are just as copyrighted. --|EPO|da:11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I thought it was an image of a video collection. I'll amend my comment above, just to clarify, but as you say, it makes no difference to the copyright nature of the material or the image. Nick13:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is my picture and is no longer used, it can be deleted. 11:33, 9 August 2007 User:Notwist (Originally this request wasn't started by Notwist but by Deadstar)
(Originally, the request was started on the image page by Notwist, but not completed. It was then finished by creating the subpage and entry on the deletion log by me - Deadstar. Just for the record. Deadstar07:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This signature needs deleting, or relicensing, because the license, CC by-NC-ND, is not compatible with Commons ++Lar: t/c14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User uploaded the wrong picture in the first instance, then uploaded the correct one over the top. Now there is also the wrongly spelled duplicate Image:Caesalpinia ferrea-thrunk.JPG which the user would like to keep. I vote to delete "thrunk" as a duplicate and leave the nominated image as the correct image. Deadstar07:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : it seems obvious to me, as a commons picture doesn't have to be ethicaly or estheticaly correct, but is interesting as soon as it can illustrate an article. Sorry for my approximative english. Jean-no08:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
clearly a derivative image --146.186.44.146 22:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Proceed with deletion from commons. Tagged properly in Wikipedia with copyright, copyright holder and sources. - Dragonbite23:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as copyright violation. Version on :en:Wikipedia tagged as fair use. (Note, just be sure to have correct and honest information in your uploads.) -- Infrogmation20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
image is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Noncommetrial No Derivative Works 2.5, and is not dual licensed with a free license compatible with commons guidelines Madmax3223:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claimed license includes a requirement ("provided that it is used to make people think about the dangers of heroin abuse") that does not fit the definition of a free license ("can be used by anyone, for any purpose" COM:L). Furthermore, the BBC article only indicates that the parents gave permission for the photos to be used in one Department of Health video, not that they released them for everyone to re-use. Davepape00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be used as a varient of an attribution license? Attribution licenses basically require the media to be accompanied by some text, so you could be required to accompany it with the phrase "Think about the dangers of heroin abuse" or such? Compare it to this license, which I sometimes use:
The author of this image permits anyone to use it for any purpose, except where limited by law, provided that it is accompanied by the text "Drink beer!"
I would say licenses that make such extra requirements are not free. Delete the image, and to WilyD: I think you should remove that provided that it is accompanied by the text "Drink beer!" wherever you used it. Otherwise these images might end up here at COM:DEL, too. Lupo19:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lupo - my "Drink beer!" license is definitely free enough for commons, its freeness is the same as an attribution license. In any event, there seems to be no particular reason to believe that this image was actually released under this license, so it probably can't be kept anyhow. The source does not indicate such a release. So, DeleteWilyD20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, we should accept claims that some photo were an "anonymous work" only if someone presents at least one external, verifiable, and reliable source that say so, and no sources identifying an author can be found. In this case, such a source could maybe be found by looking through biographies of Mondriaan or Höch. The image was probably published somewhere (it exists in at least two variations on the web, and they must have gotten the image from somewhere, too.) Check the books for whom they credit for this image. Another route would be to ask a professor in art history of the 20th century. Such a person should know more about this image, or know where to look to find out more about it. It is possible to find out whether a work is likely "anonymous" or not.
"Anonymous work" does not mean "I don't know who took that image, and I'm too lazy to find out". And given the somewhat problematic history of Edgar Allan Poe, especially as far as copyrights are concerned, I'm not ready to believe his claim without verifiable sources.
Furthermore, the image was created in 1924. But when was it published? Even if it were "anonymous", it'd be copyrighted until 70 years after the publication in Europe, if it was published before 1995! (See e.g. articles 37 - 39 of the Dutch copyright law.)
Furthermore, we still have this rule that a work that is claimed to be PD must be PD in both its source country and in the U.S. Why should it be PD in the U.S.? If the image was copyrighted in Europe in 1996, its copyright in the U.S. was restored.
If you know the name of the author (every anonymous work has an author), write it and there will be no problem. In my opinion in cases of very old photos like than one we should use common sense rather than delete all photos from commons. --Dezidor13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is your opinion. You have proved elsewhere that's your copyright paranoïa is not justified. I agree with Dezidor here. Use common sense. Yann09:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stated various times before that you don’t discuss in an issue-related way. You never dealt with the arguments others provided in similar cases, same here, you just allege that someone has dishonest motives and that’s the basis for further postings (“copyright paranoia”, “use common sense”). People who argue with “common sense” mostly mean “my opinion” and use it as a possibility to vilify their opponent, since this person has no “common sence” following their “argumentation”. Phrases like “you have proved elsewhere” are just offending. I am a very active contributor and admin and I don’t have to blame myself for anything. There were some mistakes in the past, wrong decisions, but I tried my best to fix it. Your statement implies continuing misbehaviour.
Wikimedia Commons is a repository build on free content. There is no end in itself, it’s purpose is to serve our projects. A file without any source information has no encyclopaedic value. Any serious reuse is impossible, it’s also impossible to deal with its content (Where? Who? When? Why?). „Very old photo“ (= taken before 1937) is also no solid basis for a public domain claim, it’s just another boring argument to justify the upload of most likely copyrighted content as public domain. We need a reliable source to check a file’s origin, the circumstances of its creation and publication and its legal status. Nothing is provided here and that’s why this picture has to be deleted. --Polarlys11:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No proof was provided to back up the claim that this image was originally released lawfully without naming the creator and that the creator hasn't later been named. Samulili12:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Freedom of panorama does not apply. This is a fair use representation under US copyright law, which is where the image is hosted and the the wikimedia foundation is based. The image is legitimate and the deletion tag should be removed.
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Request made by uploader. Guidelines posted at YUAG indicate that Yale University Art Gallery would have reason to object to this image being posted at wikimedia. In particular, there is reason to believe, based upon the above-cited document, that the staff member who gave me verbal permission to photograph was probably not authorized to do so. --Karl Hahn17:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request made by uploader. Guidelines posted at YUAG indicate that Yale University Art Gallery would have reason to object to this image being posted at wikimedia. In particular, there is reason to believe, based upon the above-cited document, that the staff member who gave me verbal permission to photograph was probably not authorized to do so. --Karl Hahn17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request made by uploader. Guidelines posted at YUAG indicate that Yale University Art Gallery would have reason to object to this image being posted at wikimedia. In particular, there is reason to believe, based upon the above-cited document, that the staff member who gave me verbal permission to photograph was probably not authorized to do so. --Karl Hahn17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request made by uploader. Guidelines posted at YUAG indicate that Yale University Art Gallery would have reason to object to this image being posted at wikimedia. In particular, there is reason to believe, based upon the above-cited document, that the staff member who gave me verbal permission to photograph was probably not authorized to do so. --Karl Hahn17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guidelines can change over time, after all you took the photograph in 2003, I wouldn't worry considering they allowed you to photograph these old busts, besides this is not a copyright issue Madmax3223:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Free licenced photo by uploader of artwork in public domain due to age. You took the photo with good faith permission at the time. Official authorization of photography by Yale is not relevent to copyright status in this case. -- Infrogmation21:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request made by uploader. Guidelines posted at YUAG indicate that Yale University Art Gallery would have reason to object to this image being posted at wikimedia. In particular, there is reason to believe, based upon the above-cited document, that the staff member who gave me verbal permission to photograph was probably not authorized to do so. --Karl Hahn17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the above images, this is a view rather than an isolated image of an ancient work. It is not clear if everything visible in image is PD, so I am following your request for deletion in this case. -- Infrogmation22:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what shall I say? When I translated the english article into german and in order to have the pictures as well - which were marked with a GNU license I uploaded those here. Somebody put the {{NowCommon}}-template, en-WP deleted the pictures, and now they are going to end up somewhere in /dev/null ... somehow it's a shame. Regards, --Lofor22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is a something from a German film tagged "PD-US"? Don't we go by country of origin on Commons? What is the German copyright status? -- Infrogmation14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: I'd assume that a work published in any country may enter the public domain in that country. I'm no expert on the commons though.
2:According to the commons faq and everything else I've read, yes. Creativity is applied in the restoration and remastering processes. And Atlantic-Film S.A. and The Criterion Collection hold the copyright on the resulting work. Doctor Sunshinetalk07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "PD-US" should not be applied to a German work on Commons. Unless some evidence that the film is PD in country of origin is offered, delete as copyviol. -- Infrogmation20:57, 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.
„The Ronald Reagan Library states that this photo is in the public domain.“ – can’t find such a permission. There are 183 images from this source, all with a PD claim. Did they change their policy or do I just have a blind spot?
well it is administered by the National archives and records administration, and the official photographers are federal employees so it should be exempt from copyright considering the other presidential photographs are Madmax3223:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They changed the site - see archive.org's copy [91], where it says in boldface "All the photographs are in the public domain.". That statement has since been removed - whether because they realized it was wrong, or because they've since added non-PD images, I don't know. --Davepape02:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find any statemnt at the source that these images are in fact public domain. Some of these images might be in the PD because an US official has taken them. But as long as there is no proof for that I would say, that we have to delete all these images. --ALE! ¿…?07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - There are hundereds of images from that site currently uploaded onto Wiki Commons. While it is true that the website formerly read that all images were in the PD, it does currently read: "Please credit 'Courtesy Ronald Reagan Library' " and expresses this in its audiovisual records disclaimer. However, seeing that all the images of Reagan's presidency (which are 90% of the images displayed in this catalog) were taken while he was president, they were taken by official White House photographer, making them pass on {{PD-USGov}} and {{PD-USGov-POTUS}} (not to mention that all are available from the National Archives Online Photo Collection). There is absolutely no legitimate reason to delete this image, nor any others from the Reagan Library. Happyme2223:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Both U.S. law and a previous version of the website claim these to be PD. There's no evidence to say they're not. It seems they removed the PD notice because "The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation has expressed concern regarding the misuse of photographs of the former President." Having just a simple PD statement was probably not ideal because it didn't mention personality/moral rights. (Even if they removed this because they did add non-PD photos, it's still cool, because we got this way before that archive.org snapshot was taken.) In addition, requesting (not requiring) attribution is always allowed even if it's PD (NASA does this). I would have closed this myself but had too much to say. :) Rocket00017:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Public domain. 哦，是吗？(O-person) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (GMT)
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Kept / Deleted. T-shirts with KIA logo are deleted since the KIA logo is obviously copyrighted. However, the ones with the Toyota logo are not since such kind of logos, just a word with a standard typographical font, are ineligible for copyright. Ecemaml (talk to me/habla conmigo) 22:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a crop from Nikolai Dimitriyevich Kuznetsov's (1850 - 1929) portrait done in 1893.[92] The original is at the Granger Collection, New York,[93], and a copy is at the Tretyakov State Gallery, Moscow.[94] As a Russian work done by someone who died long before 1954 (and even long before the stricter 1943/1941 dates that are valid from January 1, 2008 on), this is PD in Russia. It's also PD in the U.S. (cut-off year for Russian works to be PD in the U.S. is 1946/1942). Lupo20:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This mug shot is a photo taken in 1999 by the Michigan Department of Corrections. But the Michigan Dep of Corrections is not a US federal government. FredJ07:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the notification. Be advised that the image 'Press Conference on Hatlestad Slide.jpg', uploaded to English Wikipedia, is from the same source and should thus also very likely be deleted. I apologize for the inconvenience. --Safe-Keeper02:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has three licenses. GFDL-en is clearly incorrect - the photo is too old for that. Ineligible is questionable - saying that just because an image is popular, it's uncopyrightable is questionable. And PD-art needs to have some explanation - the photo does not appear to be much before the man's death, easily placing it within the 70 year range of the author of the photograph --146.186.44.14600:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly doubt that the uploader is also the creator. If he was the creator why did he not upload a high res version? ALE! ¿…?08:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All four images are from armytimes.com, which does, despite the name, not seem to be an official U.S. Army publication.[95][96] The Army Times is published by Army Times Publication Company, which appears to be a division of Gannett, Inc.[97] The first three images are attributed at the source to "Rob Curtis/Staff". I think all this makes the US military tags inapplicable. DeleteLupo12:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With this image I uploaded them from es:Wikipedia, both was part of a great group of images that we had to upload here. I'll warn the user that originally upload this images at es: to defend them against deleting, but this user doesn't edit since 03-01-2007, so... Kordas09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With this image I uploaded them from es:Wikipedia, both was part of a great group of images that we had to upload here. I'll warn the user that originally upload this images at es: to defend them against deleting, but this user doesn't edit since 03-01-2007, so... Kordas09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, it is a copy of the fundraising bar that was at the top of the Wikimedia sites. What's the point of this? Delete because it's cluttering up the "Unknown Subjects" category. Vladsinger00:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete; looks like promotional commerical image, all other uploads by user were obvious copyviols with similar bogus "self-made" false licence. -- Infrogmation14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the other opinions. I deleted several CD covers taken from web pages with the claim of self-made license. Anna23:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did searched but couldn't find it, thanks for the link. Nevertheless, I still don't think it is free enough. It talks about usage for these photo's, but that does not imply that derivative works are possible. Garion9621:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this is PD. The little logos, specifically the Windows one, are likely copyrighted logos, making this a derivative work, something that's likely prohibited by the copyright on the logo. --Deskana00:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still say that it's a problem. You may have created it, but it's still virtually indistinguishable from the actual logo. --Deskana17:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prime example of "Fair use for edudcational purposes" The trademarks are not attached to any products for sale and the Academic who created this illuminating graph has expressed no such itent.
Two problems with that: images that are only free for educational purposes are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and I'm sure commons, and fair use images aren't acceptable on commons. In addition, if you got the image from a commercial software's clipart library or something to that effect, it's likely copyrighted by whomever makes the software. -Lucid09:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, withouttalking legal, politically correct mumbo jumbo, I have this opinion. These logogs are not being used for any monetary gains. I myself am looking at this picture for educational purposes and whosoever is arguing about copyright infringement need to talk to MS and let them handle it. I think it is fine and others have nothing better to do. -mkrind
I agree with mkrind. If Bill has a problem with it then fine. However the chanches are very slim that this will not be noticed. -- —the preceding unsigned comment was added by65.78.64.27 (talk • contribs)
Delete then. It is not Commons policy to maintain copyright violations on grounds of slim chance it will be noticed. Fair use, and educational use only, are also specificially not allowed on Commons. -- Infrogmation22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the diagram is incorrect. It shows several devices, 4 I believe, connected to a single port on the hub/switch. It is my understanding that each device must be connected to a separate port.
It doesn't really matter if Commons deletes Robert Hunter at Johnathan Swifts in Cambridge, Massachusetts because I have uploaded two pics with one being identical to Robert Hunter at Johnathan Swifts in Cambridge, Massachusetts so no worries mate and the other pics are at: Image:Robert_Hunter2_at_Johnathan_Swifts_in_Cambridge,_Massachusetts.jpg and this time got it on GFDL instead of my problem with the deletion where I used "copyright" though from your input both will work since it has memory size too small, 72KB Grateful Dead11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image being listed for deletion appears to arise from confusion over releasing the work to the Public Domain or licensing it under the GFDL licence. I've relicenced the image to a GFDL licence as this appears to be the wish of the copyright holder and I'm now closing the discussion as there's no reason to delete the image nor any request by the author to do so. Nick00:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
I am not sure, but this image does not look more than 70 years old. Besides of that I am tagging a lot of images of this uploader as missing the source. As it seems, most of his uploaded painting can go. ALE! ¿…?13:32, 30 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.
That's because there are stupid people who insert it into those articles. #1 no evidence the mouse it is dead or it is engaging in sexual contact (for all we know this was staged) #2 necrophilia refers to a human sexual fascination with corpses, mice are not people. This is okay on a joke website but not on an encyclopedia Madmax3203:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please: we are not the moral guide of Wikipedia, we are their image provider. The image has been there since 2005 and has been discussed (en:Talk:Necrophilia#Mouse_Photograph) with consensus for it to stay. It makes no sense to delete it from here. / FredJ16:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the necrophilia page it would have told you that necrophilia was the "love of corpses". It does not refer to singularly human behavior, we are just egotistic and assume that it can only refer to people in the act. However this picture does at least prove a point; that animals are culprits of the act of necrophilia as well. Staged or not this picture should not be removed just because someone doubts its athenticity.
OK, other animals have sometimes exhibited necrophilia. Noted. That discussion is not particularly relevent to this deletion requests-- it is an image of dubious source at dreadful low resolution that we don't know if it depicts what it claims. I disagree that there is any "consensus" about use of the image on en:Wikipedia, but in any case source and licencing requirements are somewhat looser there then here. Lousy low res possibly faked dubiously sourced image? Not for Commons. -- Infrogmation20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing seems to be going on here. This image is unencyclopedic, awful quality and adds nothing to the project. It isn't even verifiable that these mice are real or they're engaging in the "activity" they're supposedly engaging in. Night Ranger19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its only awful quality because someone came in and compressed the ever living shit out of it. I've reverted back to the original which is MUCH clearer. Alkivar23:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not that anyone will give any weight to my !vote as i'm not a regular commons contributor. However it should be obvious 1) I dont falsely claim copyright 2) I have contributed many images in public domain or had friends release images GFDL/CC-by-SA. 3) If someone wishes to remain anonymous and still contribute text its allowed... why not an image? Alkivar00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic and unverifiable. It is impossible to determine what the two mice are doing here or even that they're actual mice and not fake. Furthermore, the uploader does not have rights to the image (according to his own comments on the image page) and therefore licensing and copyright are impossible to verify. Night Ranger19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person "Alkivar" says "I did not take the photo, my friend did, he authorized its release via GFDL but stated he did not want his name associated with it." If this logic is okay, then I could just as easily take a picture of Madonna from the internet, claim "my friend" took it and released it as GFDL but they don't want their name associated with it. Real copyright licensing can't be done by "a friend of a friend" it needs to be done by the copyright holder. Delete this thing. Night Ranger19:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person "Alkivar" is me, an admin on EN Wikipedia. I have credibility, and do not upload copyvio. My friend who took the photo is a professional journalist who didnt want his name attached to the photo but didnt mind it being released. We allow anonymous text contributions, why not image contributions? I can certainly give people who are required evidence that it is in fact GFDL released. Alkivar23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dreadful quality is because someone came in and jpeg compressed the ever living shit out of it for no apparent reason. I have since reverted to the original version which is clear. Alkivar23:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closed as Keep Due to apparent bad faith actions by some of the people opposed to keeping it. (The quality of the image was destroyed, then people voted against it on that basis). If someone wants to make an argument to delete this purely on the grounds of non-usefulness they can open a new deletion request, but this one is too tainted by incorrect information. --Gmaxwell00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) This image is still of poor quality, even though a new version has been uploaded. It cannot be ascertained what these 2 "mice" are doing, whether they are real mice (they look like rubber toys to me), or if they are, indeed engaging in the claimed activity. As such, image has no value to the article on the behavior for which it has been uploaded and is unencyclopedic due to poor quality. (2) I don't know anything about these claims of bad-faith that were brought up in the last IFD, but admin status should not make one exempt from the rules. Everyone who uploads an image must either state that they own the rights to the image and release them into GFDL, or else provide evidence that the copyright owner released the image under GFDL. Saying "my friend released it" isn't good enough. If evidence can be obtained then, please provide it via the correct channels. Night Ranger17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This image, after ages and ages, still has copyright problems. License shows that Alkivar is the copyright holder, but in the Summary, he says he did not take the picture, his "friend" did. He was asked in February to provide pertinent info to OTRS for verification and there is no evidence of him doing so. He has since been desysopped and has retired. Night Ranger00:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this image was pre-existing on the web the source would have been found by now. So it is reasonable to believe it is an original image. -Nard02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kept. Commons:Scope says that private images in small quantity are allowed as long they are useful for some Wikimedia project. That includes the user page. In this case the uploader has more than 2000 edits at spanish WP and uses this picture (10 KB) for his presentation. -- Cecil12:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Delete speedy... This, and the other images just requested for deletion by Michele Bassi should have been tagged {{bad name}} Finn Rindahl 18:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Sorry, moved to fast on that one, at first glance it seemed all pictures and galleries where created/uploaded by the user requesting deletion. Now I see there is at least one other user involved, I have no opinion so as to what would be the best name for these files. Finn Rindahl18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm following the problem here... these titles are now redirects, are the new titles the good ones and these redirects can be deleted, is that it? PatríciaRmsg15:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted as duplicate. There is a speedy approach for this by using {{duplicate|other picture}} instead of a deletion request. -- Cecil11:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
Keep I dont realy understand the problem and the motivation of OsamaK, but it's okay :) The illustration with all images are under ALL images under under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License --Numidix17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If any of those GFDL images are not by Numidix, they are without attribution and are hence this is a copyright violation that needs to be deleted. The images in this collection are unsourced; I am putting a nsd tag on it. -- Infrogmation22:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Antonio Gaudí comes from English Wikipedia, and that from Spanish one. I do not understand what is the problem with that images. Do you want to delete all Wikipedia in Whole? Did someone ask to delete all that images due to a problem (real problem, not imaginary) with copyright? Pérez16:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I can see; the individual images used seem to all be public domain for one reason or another, so I presume the collected image is not a violation. Note however that the Dalí photo by Van Vechten says "the Carl Van Vechten estate has asked that use of Van Vechten’s photographs “preserve the integrity” of his work, i.e, that photographs not be colorized or cropped, and that proper credit is given to the photographer." I am not sure if this has any force of copyright law, it seems more of a request. Does linking to the images used fullfill attribution? It has been cropped. I lean towards keeping as there seems no copyright violation, but more feedback would be good. -- Infrogmation19:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader promised to upload the image without labels but never did it. Other his image was already deleted because it seemed to be stolen. Please, see his talk page. Miraceti13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Check Usage says "736 wikis searched. Cleft.jpg is used on 22 pages in 12 projects." (most of them non-talk). -- Ddxc10:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is not a copyright violation. Delete unless we get an OTRS confirmation that accounts for all the inconsistencies mentioned on the uploader's talk page and on the links Jeff posted there back in March. I should add that the uploader made different claims on different images: "my wife (aged 29)", "my girlfirend (22)", "my girlfriend (19)", and somewhere "girlfriend (my wife knows about her)". All possible, but unlikely. Lupo09:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some clear evidence of the source is found; the inconsistencies are disconcerting and replacing this image would not be difficult. Shellbabelfish17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's absolutely no proof of copyright violation. So what's the problem. The fact that the author has no other version is no reason to delete this one as long as there is proof that the image is stolen.--Lamilli20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ITYM "as long as there not is proof that the image is stolen".
Comment: I couldn't find a copy of the (now-deleted) "sarahvulva" image on the pornsite linked. Are we sure it was ever there to begin with? Powers13:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader seems to be lying about his authorship as he did most probably before. The image does not show so much and its quality is very poor - no harm will happen if it will be gone. Providing a full-res image would prove his authorship. Miraceti13:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is not a copyright violation. Delete unless we get an OTRS confirmation that accounts for all the inconsistencies mentioned on the uploader's talk page and on the links Jeff posted there back in March. I should add that the uploader made different claims on different images: "my wife (aged 29)", "my girlfirend (22)", "my girlfriend (19)", and somewhere "girlfriend (my wife knows about her)". All possible, but unlikely. Lupo09:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let's be logical here- if it's self-authored, there is no way to prove it is not a copyvio. It should only be deleted if it's proven that it is a copyvio. 72.52.156.9203:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not corrupted, but its not displaying properly because it not very well put together. Try opening it in Inkscape to see what I mean. --Digon3talk15:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The file still needs to be fixed, as it includes a PNG file, which is supposed to be from "D:\WIKI\1corona.png" (and, of course, could not be loaded). --Moonian11:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some pictures uploaded by User:Haeel who thought that pictures published by the French Governmant were in the public domaine. Indeed, they are not and are all copyrighted. --Steff17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French Prime Minister website: the licence clearly says that Toute diffusion ou utilisation à des fins commerciales ou publicitaires sont exclues (no commercial use) or la reproduction n’est pas autorisée (reproduction is not allowed). --Steff16:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
French Foreign Affaire Minister website: the licence says Les reproductions à but commercial ou publicitaires ne seront, sauf exceptions, pas autorisées. (commercial use will not be allowed).
That doesn't seem to be the case with all of them. For example the source at the last picture only asks for contribution. The parent page there says:
Les photos constituant cette photothèque ont deux origines :
l'Agence France Presse. Ces photos ne sont pas libres de droits. Elles ne peuvent donc pas être reproduites. Pour toute demande de reproduction, s'adresser au service photo de l'AFP (fax : 01 40 41 49 32).
le service photographique du ministère cité. Pour celles-ci, la reproduction est libre de droits sous réserve de la mention "Service photographique du ministère [nom du ministère]."
which means that the pictures there (archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr) are from two different sources. Some of them are only attribution, but some are not allowed for commercial use. Those last ones are not for use to use. -- Cecil09:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you mentionned, pictures from AFP are copyrighted and thus not allowed on Commons. Other pictures comme from the page called Photothèque du gouvernement on archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr. and this website precises that pictures were provided by the Service photographique du Premier ministre and the reproductions for commercial use of pictures from this service is not allowed. There are two inconsistent licences but the service which created the work (Service photographique du Premier ministre NOT archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr) does not allow a commercial use. Moreover, contrary to the US government for exemple, most of the pictures produced by the French governement are usually not uploadable on Commonds because a reproduction with a commercial use is not allowed.
To sum-up, all the pictures come from archives.premier-ministre.gouv.fr (source of the work = Service photographique du Premier ministre), diplomatie.gouv.fr [100], premier-ministre.gouv.fr [101] or agriculture.gouv.fr [102] and none of them can be accepted here. --Steff17:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These images are not free as far as we know. We already had to mass-delete images from the French Foreign ministry, the Prime Minister's office and the Presidency. I don't see any reason for accepting these images. le Korrigan→bla10:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - thanks to Garion96 for nominating this pic after deleting the one on en-wikipedia. This pic looks like a crop of the Getty image, though as there were many photographers at the event it is just possible that a photographer standing next to that photographer took a picture at the same time, but unlikely. Image:MunichAgreement .jpg was taken from a different angle and different moment by a government photographer, hence the Crown Copyright stuff and pre-1957 public domain stuff over there. What I want to ask people here, as the en-wikipedia debate didn't fully come to a conclusion on this, is when this image is likely to become public domain in the US (or indeed anywhere). Getty provide the date of the photograph (30 September 1938), and credit "Central Press/Stringer", though elsewhere they only credit "Central Press", leading me to think that this is an unnamed photographer working for an organisation called Central Press. Given that information, and that Getty are claiming copyright on it in the year 2007, can we work out when it will become public domain? Is this one of those that won't become public domain until 2019 at the earliest? Oh, and if anyone knows anything more about what "Central Press" were, I'd be grateful. Thanks. Carcharoth (Commons)10:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Central Press" would have been "Central Press Photo Ltd.", a UK-based photo agency. It appears that they still exist: although I have been unable to find any website of theirs, there are some journalists affiliated with "Central Press" listed here at the UK parliament. Lupo11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to your question about the copyright: according to this UK copyright chart and assuming this press photo is a British work and was indeed published in 1938, it would be copyrighted until the end of 2008 in the UK (unknown author, photo created before 1 June 1957). If it was published first in 2007 by Getty, as their copyright notice seems to imply, it would even be copyrighted in the UK until the end of 2077! Anyway, since it was copyrighted in the UK in 1996, its copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA unless we can show that the photo was also published in the U.S. within 30 days of its UK publication. If the copyright in the U.S. was restored, it runs until 95 years after the publication, i.e. until the end of 2033. If the U.S. copyright was not restored (for instance, because the photo was published within those 30 days in the U.S.), its copyright status in the U.S. would depend upon whether it was published with copyright notice and whether the copyright was registered and renewed. Both criteria are very hard to prove or disprove for photos. But in any case, it appears that this photo is still copyrighted in its source country. DeleteLupo14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there is a more specified page with the name of the architect
and the palace is named after this architect Palazzo Zanca(Antonio Zanca) because the Palace Municipale the old one was built by Giacomo Minutolì. Also the images of this side have name more specified. --Michele Bassi17:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This file has an incorrect name. A correctly named duplicate exists at:
Keep - Not sufficient reason for deletion. --FSHL 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Note that it is the uploader themselves who is requesting deletion. -- Infrogmation 15:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete Source clearly says "Commercial use of any reproduction of any portion of this website is strictly prohibited." -- Infrogmation 15:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Info: The source page has a photo of Mohammad Amin Rasulzadeh, but it's not the same as the photo that we're talking about here. grendel|khan 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Question: What sort of reason are you looking for? If we don't know who took the picture, then we have no way of knowing if it's in the public domain or not; if we don't have a way of knowing if it's in the public domain or not, it may very well be copyright infringement--the burden of proof is on us to show that it's not. grendel|khan 13:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - the original size shows no artifacts.
Comment The links provided lead to a parking domain. --Tom (talk - email) 15:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Deletion request of 9th October 2006 by the uploader. Seems that it has been forgotten to have been put on the respective deletion log page, so I have put it now here. -- JörgM 21:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. If the imperial family have inherited titles and coats of arms, there are indeed “coats of arms of families of Brazil”. Therefore, since this category is the only one correctly named in its structure, it is obvious that it can be reused later, even by accident. So, as long as it remains empty, this category will be a redirection. --Juiced lemon 09:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep No valid reason to delete template --Tony Wills 11:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Done Okey dokey, we should be good to go now. It still counts as an official image because it was a government-commissioned engraving. account owner
Neutral: After the deletion of Image:Flag of European Union.svg and Image:European flag.svg we just have replace on fr a huge part of thoses images by Image:Flag of the European Union.svg (delete has been made when lot of page are linked (!?!)) ! Do we have to replace again ??? Can you stop playing and choose the good one ? Educa33e 12:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
-Deutschland-metrisch-deutsch.png){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_map.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
SMALL.JPG){kind=link}
5.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-Deutschland-metrisch-deutsch.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Deutschland-metrisch-deutsch.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
-Deutschl--metrisch-deutsch.png){kind=link}
-Deutschland-metrisch-deutsch.png){kind=link}
-Deutschland-metrisch-deutsch.png){kind=link}
![[10]](http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/5758/10046123sv3.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://www.turkishpilots.org.tr/DOCUMENTS/IMAGES/turkbogazlariyazisi10.jpg){kind=link}
_with_Great_White_Fleet_Officers.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www.konami.jp/am/qma/qma4/image/howto/howto5_1a.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[23]](http://img.verycd.com/gallery/1128668605/gallery_251374_2302_26815.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](http://www.nnbh.com/base/70/LBcover/9020968270.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg){kind=link}
_map.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_map.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_map.png){kind=link}
_map.png){kind=link}
![[43]](http://76-82.ru/userdata/1128422013_1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AGore_Verbinski.jpg&diff=7058812&oldid=7054203){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[65]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=5523405){kind=link}
![[69]](http://www.citroen.dk/data/attachments/11264.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
.gif){kind=link}
![[72]](http://www.methon.nl/producten/roadblockers/foto/Steenokkerzeel.jpg){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[77]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Mona_Lisa.jpg&diff=7003549&oldid=6997038){kind=link}
![[79]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Grand_Palace_Panorama.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
SMALL.JPG){kind=link}
SMALL.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
SMALL.JPG){kind=link}
5.JPG){kind=link}
5.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
5.JPG){kind=link}
![[80]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ABarrellwarehouseSMALL.JPG&diff=7267479&oldid=7239048){kind=link}
![[81]](http://emil.alarmix.org/judaica/148.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
5.jpg){kind=link}
4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
7.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![[99]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PabloCasals22.jpg){kind=link}
